Keep the name for now, but dig even deeper into region’s slavery ties

While I agree that a public building should not be named after a slave trader, I think that Faneuil Hall should not be renamed at this time, though not for the reasons set forth by Kevin M. Levin. I fear the unintended consequence of removing Peter Faneuil’s name from the public eye would be to further erase memories of just how much New England wealth was derived from slavery.

New Englanders are generally aware of the abolitionist movement in the North but forget about the profits derived from slavery, which I believe to be a much more serious problem than a name on a building. Not so many years ago, I was at a party here in Lexington where it was mentioned that Amos Bronson Alcott was such a strict vegetarian that he made his family wear linen clothing instead of wool. I was stunned when someone asked, “Why not cotton?” I was appalled when no one else seemed to know or be able to guess the answer, which I thought was obvious: slavery.

Then I reflected that I had been to both the Charles River Museum of Industry and Innovation in Waltham and the American Textile History Museum in Lowell (since closed), both housed in old textile mills. Neither museum made much mention of slavery in spite of the fact that both mills were built before the Civil War.

Our time would be better spent documenting the history of New England’s indirect connections with slavery and demanding that those stories be told, not swept under the rug so that they may be more easily forgotten.

JAMES W. SLACK

Lexington