What’s in a Name: The Debate over Faneuil Hall
The names we give our streets and squares, civic and institutional buildings, are a direct reflection of our culture. Not as it is, so much as what we aspire it to be. Names bestowed memorialize for generations, sometimes even centuries, what we consider our best selves at the time they’re named. Thus, virtually every main street in New England was renamed Washington Street after the Revolutionary War, and most Washington Streets retain that name 250 years later. Thus, we name schools after statesmen, though not often enough after notable women. This being the United States, where money’s what we value most, the naming process is seriously skewed toward wealth. Thus, we name building after collegiate building after guys who dipped into very deep pockets and sprinkled a bit of their loot in an act of cleansing. Thus, at a more rudimentary level, we suffer suburban subdivision streets named after the developer’s kids, wives, even dogs. I always wonder whether people mind living on streets with inane monikers, such as Jennifer Lane or Skipper Circle.
There’s a major naming controversy around Boston these days: whether to rename Faneuil Hall. Peter Faneuil was a wealthy merchant. Much of his wealth was derived from goods produced by slaves and funding voyages of the slave trade. In 1740, Peter Faneuil proposed to Town Meeting that he build a public market place and donate it to the city. He added a public meeting space on the second floor, which was used as the town hall, as well as a gathering place for concerts, banquets, and ceremonies.
Leading up to and during the Revolution, Faneuil Hall was the site of rousing community debate, and became known as “The Cradle of Liberty.” In the 1800’s it offered a local and national stage for the abolition movement. Frederick Douglass, Wendell Phillips, Lucy Stone, and William Lloyd Garrison all spoke there. Then again, so did Jefferson Davis. In the twentieth century, Faneuil Hall became the site of Naturalization Ceremonies for new citizens. Today, Faneuil Hall is still owned by the City of Boston, but the National Parks Services operates tours and other services.
Recently, The Boston Globe published a pair of editorials presenting opposing perspectives on the predicament of Faneuil Hall’s name.
Kevin C. Peterson, founder of the New Democracy Coalition, a non-profit focused on civic literacy, civic policy, and electoral justice, wrote that, “For Black residents across the city and the nation, the name expresses the unforgiving heart of a man who considered Black human beings no part of a civil society, and who denigrated and regarded them solely as a commodity to be sold or traded.”
Meanwhile, historian Kevin M. Levin argued that much would be lost if Faneuil Hall is renamed: the courageous history of Black advocacy and activism that dates back to denouncing the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850’s right up recent calls for voting rights. “Rather than place our focus and direct our resources solely on changing the name of Faneuil Hall, tour guides, educators, and historians need to recommit themselves to telling these stories inside and around the building with the name that generations of Black activists and reformers recognized.”
Of these two perspectives, I align with Mr. Levin. The fact that Peter Faneuil was a slave trader is an important consideration in evaluating the man and his legacy. Yet we should evaluate him in the context of his times, not ours. Today, anyone who traffics slaves is a criminal, who deserves to be brought to justice. In Faneuil’s time, it was accepted manner of business. Yes, he might have been a nobler man had he denounced slavery, as a few—but not most—of his Boston brethren did in the 1740’s. Cruel as it seems to today’s ears, Mr. Peterson’s point, that Peter Faneuil possessed the “unforgiving heart of a man who considered Black human beings no part of a civil society” is actually incorrect. Peter Faneuil did have an understanding of the role of Blacks in civil society. They were slaves. A perspective we now condemn, but one which Peter Faneuil shared with most of his fellow townspeople.
There are arenas in which I support renaming our civic spaces. There’s no reason, anywhere, to ennoble anyone associated with the successionist side of our Civil War. What other nation allows the names of vanquished rebels to be so glorified? That there is artwork and statuary honoring members of the Confederate States of America in our nation’s Capital is absolutely wrong. Take it all out.
Similarly, although I dislike the incessant naming of stuff after rich dudes (like Peter Faneuil) who obtained their fortunes within the context of the society they inhabited, I believe we need to erase the names of so-called benefactors when their fortunes were ill-gained even by the mores of their era. So good-bye Carl Shapiro, made wealthy through Ponzi-schemes, and adios anything named after the Sacklers, drug dealers in slick suits.
Peter Faneuil was not a perfect human being. None of us are. He made good—very good—operating within the social and economic constructs of his time. He rubbed some of his wealth off on a town that was happy to get a free marketplace and town hall. And he unwittingly built a Cradle of Liberty that became influential in overturning the very economic basis of his own wealth. That is the story that the name “Faneuil Hall” needs to tell.
