The USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) is being renamed USS Robert Smalls (CG-62)
Let the reboxing begin!
Stop the insanity [bnghead]
I know the mods don’t want us talking about such stuff so I’ve refraimed from comments in the past:
But seriously could someone stop the world? I really want to get off…
3 points…
1, isn’t it considered bad luck to rename a ship after it’s been commissioned?
2, the Ticonderoga Class ships are getting old, and their remaining service lives corrispondingly short… why not just let that happen and let the name end there and then.
3, USN cruisers are not tradionally named after naval heroes- that is a category used by destroyers & frigates. USN cruisers are traditionally named after locales or battles. Is the ship going to be reclassified?
-
Superstition. If I bought another boat I’d be inclined to rename her.
-
Good point. She’s scheduled for decommissioning in 2026. My late godfather served on the USS John C. Calhoun.
-
Setting aside why the ship is being renamed, Robert Smalls was an interesting story.
His escapade with Planter occurred while he was enslaved, so hero yes but naval hero not as a rank holder. He was later commissioned a 2nd Leutenant.
He served in the House of Representatives, the last Republican in his district to do so until Mick Mulvaney. Got that from Wiki.
Bill
Take me with you Gamera…I promise I won’t say a word and will bring my own food.
The Gov’t couldn’t commission a new ship to be named?
The Battle of Chanscellorsville was a Confederate victory, hence the renaming.
And yes, I’d have preferred that they stuck with the old ‘naming convention’ too. Cruisers were named for cities or battles. But hey, we didn’t win the Battle of Bunker Hill, so why not change that one too. And you can’t call Hue a victory either . . . I’m sure there are more.
I found this thread quite interesting as it contained several facts that I was unaware of, but seriously, renaming at that point in its life???
They are doing it to museum ships as well… no bit of history is safe.
I am quite sure that this will put me in the unloved minority…
…but since I’d guess that something like 95% of Americans couldn’t even identify what, when or – scarily – where Chancellorsville is, was, or what it represents (including, perhaps, some percentage of those who serve/served aboard her?), the renaming will be of little or no consequence to most. Clausewitz is said to have written “Tradition is a sword that cuts both ways…”; but – to kick that metaphor in the cajones – in the modern world, that sword is too short-range and underpowered to be effective in most big fights.
Let the hurling of rotten vegetables (or worse) commence… [whstl]
No tomatoes from me Greg, you may well have a valid point. To me though, all this PC bull is reminiscent of Nazi book burning. As has been said before, he that forgets history is doomed to repeat it and if they keep removing all the statues and names, well I guess that people will definitely forget.
Very true. But erasing the name is also erasing the recognition of those who served aboard and is somewhat insulting and dismissive of their service. Its like someone arbitrarily changing the name of one of your parents after they are dead. I served at several of the Army posts that will be renamed. In my own mind, they will forever be the names that I knew them under. Not because I identify with the Confederate ideology, but because those are the places where I sweated, and bled, and experienced emotions from triumph to deep sadness. The new names mean nothing to me and evoke no memories or feelings.
I give this thread 24 hrs max.
Y’all hadda go there…
Bill
And here are the supposed root origins of the superstition as to why ships names should not be changed.
Don’t change a ship’s name
What’s in a name? The question can go a lot of ways, but when it comes to ships, it seems that names mean a whole lot. In fact, they’re so important that changing a ship’s name isn’t something to be taken lightly.
Generally speaking, Jonathan Eyers explains in “Don’t Shoot the Albatross!” that renaming a ship is just a way to start courting misfortune — a piece of advice passed down and known by all sailors. The reason for that? Well, legend says that the names of all ships are kept in a “Ledger of the Deep,” managed by the ancient Greek god of the sea himself, Poseidon — or Neptune, if you’re a Roman mythology buff (via Boat Names Australia). Changing the name of a ship was tantamount to trying to deceive the mighty sea god, and annoying that particular god really wasn’t in the best interest of sailors for obvious reasons. That said, if a name change couldn’t be avoided, then truly extensive (and occasionally disgusting) ceremonies had to be carried out first.
Oh man, don’t stop there. What were the ceremonies? [:^)]
I can only guess that it would be something akin to a Pollywog to Shellback ceremony when crossing the equator. But seeing how unless a ship changes names when transferred to another nation’s navy, it would not be something done regularly in the USN. Unlike the Shellback rituals. Perhaps one of our naval vets can expand on this.
This thread will get locked up if I say what I wanna say so I will just [:@] shut up. This PC BS has to stop!!
The battlefield is in a National Park. Surely that would be adequate recognition.