What do an unindicted conspirator in the Abscam scandal, an unrepentant segregationist, and the United States’ only unelected President have in common? Respectively, Congressman John P. Murtha, Senator John C. Stennis, and President Gerald Ford all have a major combatant named for them. Conversely, what similarity do the officer who destroyed the Japanese carrier Akagi at Midway, the captain of the USS Johnston (DD-557) at Samar, and the U.S. Navy’s first African American aviator all share? Neither Lieutenant Commander Richard Best nor Commander Ernest Evans nor Ensign Jesse L. Brown currently has a warship named for him. The Navy recognized the heroism of Brown in 1994 and Evans in 1968 with eponymous combatants, but Lieutenant Commander Best, despite his pivotal role in the Pacific Theater’s decisive battle, has never been so honored.
These examples merely scratch the surface of a major issue confronting the Navy: the method by which it names vessels. First, this has become an increasingly partisan exercise for whatever political party holds the White House and thus nominates the Secretary of the Navy. In addition, by selecting members of Congress for ship naming, the Navy brings into question whether it is trying to circumvent oversight through implicit bribery. Finally, in several cases recent ship names have honored individuals who acted contrary to the service’s values. Taken altogether, these factors indicate it is time for Congress, using the oversight powers granted it by the Constitution, to compel the Navy to adopt a transparent system that both reflects the service’s values and restores the public’s trust in an apolitical force.
A Short History of Naming
A cursory review of the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships demonstrates that the Navy’s naming convention is full of illustrious monikers with rich histories. Names such as Constitution, Enterprise, Ranger, Bonhomme Richard, Wasp, and Hornet echo from the age of sail through the modern nuclear era, each with extensive battle honors in the republic’s service. Similarly, Navy warriors from John Paul Jones to Michael P. Murphy have had their courage, resolve, and in many cases ultimate sacrifice recognized by having their names inscribed on Navy hulls. While not quite the immortality and renown promised to Achilles by the Greek gods before Troy, this honor was reasonably close, given the Navy’s prominent role in U.S. military history.
Authority for making this distinction has rested with the Secretary of the Navy since 1819. From that date through the end of World War II, ship names were usually assigned with a few unofficial rules. First, the tribute was almost always posthumous. Indeed, from 1814 through 1973, the only vessel named for a still-living person was the Navy’s first submarine, the USS Holland (SS-1).1 The service’s belief in this tradition was so strong that it was actually codified in Navy Regulations on multiple occasions over the next century and a half. The most stringent were written during World War II and applied primarily to destroyers and destroyer escorts.2 In stating that these small combatants would only be named for “deceased American Naval, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers and enlisted men who have rendered distinguished service to the country above and beyond the call of duty,” the Office of the Secretary of the Navy explicitly communicated that tribute would be reserved for those who had earned a Medal of Honor or Navy Cross.3
Such a regulation was only needed for destroyers because the Navy was based on warship class. Cruisers were generally named for cities and towns.4 Battleships carried states’ names, and the Navy generally eschewed reuse until each member of the Union had been recognized at least once. Carriers commemorated battles (Lexington and Yorktown) or famous fighting vessels (Enterprise, Bonhomme Richard), sometimes in recognition of early war crews’ sacrifices. For example, when the USS Wasp (CV-7) was torpedoed in 1942, 193 men lost their lives and 366 were wounded, all of them honored in the naming of the subsequent Wasp (CV-18).5 Submarines, in homage to their expected roles of lurking in the depths, evoked sea creatures from predators (Shark) to cephalopods (Octopus).
This process was followed almost without fail through 1945, with exceptions such as the USS Langley (CV-1), USS Shangri-la (CV-38), and USS Canberra (CA-70) reflecting unique circumstances at the time of their commissionings. It was only in 1945, with the sudden death of President Franklin Roosevelt, that Secretary James Forrestal broke from custom to name a carrier after a former politician. This was shortly followed by honoring the Wright Brothers, Forrestal himself, and the birthplace of modern flight, Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.6 Even with these decisions, through the 1960s the Navy’s process generally followed those established during World War II.7
Paying to Sail and Living Legacies
All this changed with Admiral Hyman G. Rickover’s famous admonition “Fish don’t vote.”8 Beginning with the attack submarine USS William H. Bates (SSN-680), Rickover convinced Secretary of the Navy John H. Chafee that attack submarines should be named after prominent, recently deceased members of Congress, than cities in critical congressional districts. Shortly thereafter, President Richard Nixon decided that the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) would commemorate the recently retired Georgia congressman, with the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) following shortly thereafter. With the traditional conventions well and truly broken, from 1970 to 2016 the Navy has had 18 ships named for persons still alive at the time of the Secretary of the Navy’s announcement. Of these, seven have been announced since 2012.9 Fifteen have honored members of Congress, living Presidents, retired admirals, Secretaries of the Navy, or an entertainer (Bob Hope). Only one, the Thomas Hudner (DDG-116), christened 1 April 2017, has been named for a still-living recipient of the Medal of Honor or Navy Cross.
The problems with this trend are numerous. As the service itself stated in its 2012 Report to Congress, “the U.S. Navy is first and foremost America’s Navy.”10 Among the U.S. military’s core values are the principles of egalitarianism, apolitical execution of duties, and civilian control and oversight. The recent practice of naming ships after living persons flies in the face of these ideals. Although several of the 18 individuals served their nation during World War II, Korea, or Vietnam, only the aforementioned Hudner and Admiral Arleigh Burke were recipients of the Medal of Honor or Navy Cross. With the exception of the USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10) and USNS John Lewis (T-AO-205), most warships named for living congressional members reflected that individual’s service and championing of the Navy’s interest on either the House or Senate Armed Services Committee. In Congresswoman Giffords’ case, part of the explanation given for LCS-10’s moniker was then-Secretary Mabus’s “conviction that her story and spirit would inspire all those who sailed on LCS 10” and her status as a Navy spouse. For Congressman Lewis, the reasons cited were his sacrifices during the Civil Rights era and continued leadership in Congress. In both cases, Secretary Mabus’s interpersonal relationship was also an implied factor.11
Collectively, these factors suggest three sure ways to have a vessel named after oneself while still alive. First, be of sufficient political acumen to be elected President or gain enough seniority in Congress to attain a key position on the House or Senate Armed Services Committee, and once there, be a strong advocate of the Navy and its interests. Second, be of sufficient rank and seniority in the Navy to have overseen a major program (remember the USS Hyman G. Rickover [SSN-709]) or weapon system (USS Wayne E. Meyer [DDG-108]). Finally, if you cannot achieve numbers one or two, have a striking story and be of the same political party as the Secretary of the Navy.
In addition to contradicting the Navy’s ideals, this appearance of biased treatment is unhealthy for the republic and the Navy’s relationship with the citizenry it serves. Moreover, it is unnecessary, given the numerous living Medal of Honor and Navy Cross awardees from World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Marine Arthur J. Jackson earned the Medal of Honor on Peleliu; Duane Dewey, also a Marine, smothered a grenade to save his comrades during Korea and survived grievous wounds. During Vietnam, Thomas G. Kelly purposefully maneuvered his Navy vessel in the face of enemy fire to save his subordinates’ lives. All three of these men are not only living but of noncontroversial valor. While weighing respective bravery is fraught with peril, it would be hard to argue that this trio is undeserving. On the other hand, in the United States’ current partisan political environment and with tough fiscal decisions ahead, the choices made in the past 46 years are sure to draw increasing ire.
Partisan Ships
It is not only living namesakes that are likely to cause issues. As noted in Ronald O’Rourke’s Congressional Research Service report “Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress,” the Navy’s modern carrier fleet has seen 10 of the last 14 vessels named for Presidents.12 Even counting John F. Kennedy twice and George Washington as “other,” 6 of these 10 choices have been named for Republican Presidents. Indeed, Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter were conspicuously skipped in successive order, in favor of Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, while there are no indications that any other Democratic Presidents (including Franklin D. Roosevelt) were considered before the ceremony for the second John F. Kennedy.13
It is not surprising, given the dates of the announcements, that CVN-67 through CVN-80 have their eponymous choices. What should be concerning, however, are the problems that naming carriers after politicians will surely continue to cause. It is not presentism to note that social media and 24-hour news coverage have made elections increasingly vitriolic and partisan. Carriers, as the modern U.S. capital ships, should represent the entire citizenry, not just those whose candidates won. Moreover, as evidenced by the recent addition of the destroyer Lyndon Baines Johnson (DDG-1002), the submarine USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), and the relegation of Franklin D. Roosevelt to shared status with First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt (USS Roosevelt [DDG-80]), there is ample evidence for someone to assume that Secretaries of the Navy feel some Presidents are more deserving than others.
A Question of Values
In some cases, it is hard to disagree with Secretaries’ choices. For example, it is highly unlikely that a future carrier will be named the Richard M. Nixon, Andrew Johnson, or William Jefferson Clinton. Similarly, given recent scholarship and changing cultural views, several of the “41 for Freedom” Polaris/Poseidon missile submarines may be the last vessels named for their respective Presidents. But if we follow this logic that changing morals and views require different approaches to ship naming, the decision to name vessels after former members of Congress becomes even more problematic. Senator Stennis and Congressman Vinson were both ardent opponents of various Civil Rights Acts and signatories of the infamous “Southern Manifesto.” In addition, as noted in Time magazine’s article regarding the Gabrielle Giffords controversy, Congressman Vinson was the driving force behind legislation that limited female sailors’ and officers’ career opportunities through the 1990s.14 Winston Churchill, despite his sterling record as Great Britain’s prime minister in World War II, willfully allowed more than 2 million Indians to perish during the Bengal Famine of 1943. Senator Henry M. Jackson supported the internment of Japanese Americans after the Pearl Harbor attack and never publicly reversed this position throughout his life. There are numerous other examples, from President Kennedy’s alleged treatment of his female staff to Cesar Chavez’s hatred of his time in the U.S. Navy.
These are all pertinent because of their implicit undermining of Navy and Department of Defense initiatives on race, sexual harassment, and service values. It is difficult to tell a sailor or Marine that the Navy and Marine Corps believe in equal opportunity when two capital ships are named for men who opposed desegregation. A female aviation officer considering separation would be justified in looking askance at a service that honors someone who introduced legislation to explicitly keep her from serving in combat. Such skepticism is further buttressed by the fact that relatively few ships have been named for minorities or women. Finally, it is difficult to argue that a service believes in honor, courage, and commitment when it ignores people who have not only lived those values but also given the last full measure for the nation while doing so.
Proposed Naming Rules
This is not a call to immediately rename the vessels listed but merely to point out some of the unintentional mistakes that have been made. Given that the phenomenon is recent and could affect national security by undermining public confidence, Congress would be well within its oversight purview to gently guide future Secretaries away from these shoal waters. U.S. history is rich with illustrious names not only for warships—including Hornet, Lexington, Ranger, Saratoga—but also for individuals who have demonstrated the Navy’s values. Similarly, national ideals (for example, Union or Emancipation) or regions (Chesapeake, Everglades, Denali) would be unlikely to prove controversial. All that remains is to develop a methodology to compel future Secretaries of the Navy to adhere to an established standard while not being overly restrictive.
The first step is for Congress to pass legislation—a “Vessel Naming Reform Act or Amendment”—that limits the Secretary of the Navy’s power to name ships as of November 2018. In the name of bipartisan reform and to prevent the appearance of impropriety or possible bribery, Congress should require that no further vessels be named for any congressperson, senator, or President still living or who has died in the past 75 years. Even in cases where that criterion is met, individuals should not have Navy vessels named for them unless they earned the Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, or Distinguished Service Cross. Finally, Congress should require adherence to the conventions proposed in the table on page 58 to curtail further corrosive “evolutions” in Navy custom.
To aid the Secretary of the Navy with selecting, the Vessel Naming Reform Act/Amendment should stipulate that the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) prepare a list at the start of each fiscal year. This document should provide a list of 30 possibilities for each of the categories in the table to the left. When the names of people are used, those honored should have lived in ways that reflect the Navy’s values. States should be selected in order of their entry into the Union and the time the name was last used. Where possible, attempts should be made to recognize minorities and women who were either pioneers or rendered distinguished service. Finally, when ideals are selected, they should be apolitical and referenced in historically important documents (the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc.).
After the NHHC compiles the list as directed by this future law, it should be forwarded to the Chief of Naval Operations. The CNO, in conjunction with the senior admiral of each major combatant command, Superintendent of the Naval Academy, and their enlisted counterparts, should then conduct anonymous elections until such time as they reduce the list to five names per ship type. At the conclusion of this process, the NHHC should prepare a historical briefing on each name (including prior use if applicable) and present this to the Secretary of the Navy. Subsequently, after careful reflection, the Secretary would make his or her final selection, prepare the naming announcements, and prepare a short report for Congress. This last act both serves as a historical record and provides further transparency.
The Need to Act
Although the Department of the Navy has repeatedly and explicitly stated that it did not feel congressional legislation was necessary, the past 40 years seemingly indicate otherwise. The American public needs to be confident that its legislative oversight of the Sea Services is free of even implicit quid pro quo. Sailors and Marines, after 15 years of war and coming from a citizenry that grows increasingly partisan, need to receive clear signs that their service continues to adhere to its values. Finally, pioneers such as Jesse L. Brown; civilians such as Agnes Meyer Driscoll, who contributed to victory; and officers such as Richard H. Best, whose actions swung the hinge of fate in the Navy’s favor, deserve to be recognized. By acting now, Congress will help to maintain the public trust and thus ensure that the Navy remains the dominant guardian of the seaways it has been since 1945.
1. Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy, dated 13 July 2012, 8. Given that said vessel was purchased from its inventor, John Philip Holland, and had already been named Holland VI, this exception’s logic is relatively easy to follow.
2. With the Navy commissioning more than 700 DDs/DEs across multiple yards and often several in a single day, it was understandable that these received the most attention.
3. Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices, 8.
4. The exceptions to this rule were the “large cruisers” of the Alaska class. Arguably battlecruisers because of to their 12-inch guns, the Alaskas protection and propulsion arrangements precluded them being considered such by the Navy.
5. “A Brief History of U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers: Loss of USS Wasp (CV-7),” America’s Navy, www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=8.
6. Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices, 35; and Naval History and Heritage Command, “Ship Naming in the United States Navy,” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions/ship-naming.html.
7. Ronald O’ Rourke, “Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, 16 June 2016, 11–13.
8. James F. Clarity and Warren Waver Jr., “Briefing; Navy Reverts to Fish,” The New York Times, 22 April1985, http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/22/us/briefing-navy-reverts-to-fish.html.
9. O’Rourke, “Navy Ship Names,” Summary, ii–iii
10. Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices, 2.
11. Ibid., 33–34.
12. O’Rourke, “Navy Ship Names,” 5.
13. The last USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Midway-class carrier, was stricken on 1 October 1977.
14. Darlene M. Iskra, “More on Ship Naming Controversies: About the USS Gabrielle Giffords,” Time, 27 February 2012, http://nation.time.com/2012/02/27/more-on-ship-naming-controversies-about-the-uss-gabrielle-giffords/.
Mr. Young is a DOD civilian stationed in Kansas. After graduating from the U.S. Military Academy, he served as an Armor officer in Korea, Germany, and the United States. In addition to his B.A. in military history, Mr. Young also holds a master’s in history from Kansas State University and is working toward a doctorate in U.S. history.
Name Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutters for Officers
By Captain Patrick Flynn, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired)
The time has passed for naming major Coast Guard cutters after Treasury or Service Secretaries. The new national security cutters will bear a hodgepodge of names, some officers, some enlisted, and the first Treasury Secretary. The fast response cutters are being named for enlisted heroes, a well-deserved honor. Offshore patrol cutters should be named for officer heroes.
There are plenty of candidates who exemplify the Coast Guard’s history, serve as role models, and whose lead we should try to follow. They include then–First Lieutenant Frank Newcomb, U.S. Revenue Cutter Service, who became Commodore of the U.S. Coast Guard. While in command of the revenue cutter Hudson, his leadership during the Spanish American War saved the USS Winslow. Congress awarded him a gold medal, the Cardenas Medal of Honor, which is on display at the Coast Guard Academy Museum in New London, Connecticut. The resolution tells what happened:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in recognition of the gallantry of First Lieutenant Frank H. Newcomb, of the Revenue-Cutter Service, commanding the revenue cutter Hudson, his officers and the men of his command, for their intrepid and heroic gallantry in the action at Cardenas, Cuba, on the eleventh day of May, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, when the Hudson rescued the United States naval torpedo boat Winslow in the face of a most galling fire from the enemy’s guns, the Winslow being disabled, her captain wounded, her only other officer and half her crew killed. The commander of the Hudson kept his vessel in the very center of the hottest fire of the action, until finally he got a line made fast to the Winslow and towed that vessel out of range of the enemy’s guns.
The Navy, acting on the recommendation of Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Russell Waesche, named a ship for him in World War II. The Coast Guard has never so honored him.
Captain Quentin R. Walsh is another officer whose name should be commemorated. For his actions in and around Cherbourg beginning 9 June 1944, he received the Navy Cross. The citation reads:
Heroism as Commanding Officer of a U.S. Naval party reconnoitering the naval facilities and naval arsenal at Cherbourg June 26 and 27, 1944. While in command of a reconnaissance party, Commander Walsh entered the port of Cherbourg and penetrated the eastern half of the city, engaging in street fighting with the enemy. He accepted the surrender and disarmed 400 of the enemy force at the naval arsenal and later received unconditional surrender of 350 enemy troops and, at the same time, released 52 captured U.S. Army paratroopers. His determination and devotion to duty were instrumental in the surrender of the last inner fortress of the Arsenal.
Among many others, these two officers deserve recognition for behavior that exemplifies the Coast Guard at its finest. Let’s name the future workhorses of the fleet for the likes of them, so that they may inspire future generations.