
Antietum is the only carrier I can think off that was named after a Civil War battle.
Franklin was actually a minor Civil War battle, all things considered, so it makes sence the ship would be named after Ben.
Originally posted by Snigbert
? Heck, let's just name the next Nimitz class carrier the USS Roe v. Wade. No, better to name ships after things that supposedly unified us than divided us.
Some people feel that naming the last one USS Ronald Reagan was just as bad...
A rearguard action. Hood stupidly sent in his men in a staight frontal attack and lost six generals when all he had to do was wait 24 hours. I guess I can't blame him for wanting to attack a wing of the Union army but it was'nt a very smart attack. The total sum value of the battle was minor -- just enough to ensure Thomas would havea easier time destroying Hood's army when he attacked himself in a month.
I understand there was an infantry charge at Franklin that dwarfed Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. Does anyone know the details on that?
Originally posted by Snigbert
Some people feel that naming the last one USS Ronald Reagan was just as bad...
Originally posted by Snigbert
I say we go back to famous historical names like Wasp and Ranger.
That is exactly what I think should be done, and for the same reason. Carl Stennis was a known racist and war monger but did a lot for the navy so he has a carrier named for him. Reagan had many political opponents...the next CVN has already been named George HW Bush, so it seems like they are isolating democrats. Although I fully agree that Bush Sr is a war hero and deserves the ship name. You want to have names that will unite, not divide. Especially as you have higher and higher rates of minorities and women in the military who might be offended by someone like Reagan.
What is wrong with Enterprise, Yorktown or Hornet?
Well let's hope there is never a USS William Jefferson Clinton! But he did act like a typical Navy puke, so many navy enlisted men would love so serve on it. However, I do not think a President who cut the military and detested it so much would ever get a ship named after him. However in his three photo ops on Carriers he sure acted like he love the navy!!!
Dubya Bush is making large cuts to the military too, I dont think taking advantage of the peace dividend warrants his not having a ship named after him. I think he shouldn't have a ship named after him because of the security damage he did to our country by selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese.
Originally posted by Snigbert
I say we go back to famous historical names like Wasp and Ranger.
That is exactly what I think should be done, and for the same reason. Carl Stennis was a known racist and war monger but did a lot for the navy so he has a carrier named for him. Reagan had many political opponents...the next CVN has already been named George HW Bush, so it seems like they are isolating democrats. Although I fully agree that Bush Sr is a war hero and deserves the ship name. You want to have names that will unite, not divide. Especially as you have higher and higher rates of minorities and women in the military who might be offended by someone like Reagan.
What is wrong with Enterprise, Yorktown or Hornet?
Well let's hope there is never a USS William Jefferson Clinton! But he did act like a typical Navy puke, so many navy enlisted men would love so serve on it. However, I do not think a President who cut the military and detested it so much would ever get a ship named after him. However in his three photo ops on Carriers he sure acted like he love the navy!!!
Dubya Bush is making large cuts to the military too, I dont think taking advantage of the peace dividend warrants his not having a ship named after him. I think he shouldn't have a ship named after him because of the security damage he did to our country by selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese.
Well let's hope there is never a USS William Jefferson Clinton! But he did act like a typical Navy puke, so many navy enlisted men would love so serve on it.