A few more thoughts on renaming the Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement
With the terrible death of the six men who worked to maintain the old Key Bridge, there is all the more reason to pay homage to all those lost to this state while contributing much to its welfare (“Advocates, historians urge rethinking Key Bridge name ‘for generations yet unborn,’” May 7). We can best do this by naming the new bridge the”Maryland Memorial Bridge” for all who lived, worked and died in Maryland. All those memorialized under its new name will be even more likely to be remembered through the years ahead.
— Barbara Holdridge, Baltimore
Now that we’ve arrived at the point of considering plan proposals for the new Patapsco River bridge, it’s apparent that some of us feel that using Francis Scott Key’s name is no longer appropriate, and I sympathize with this opinion. My suggestion for the new name is The William Donald Schaefer Memorial Bridge.
Mr. Schaefer has arguably done more for the Baltimore area than anyone in the last century. Without him, there might not be a Camden Yards or an M&T Bank stadium. His efforts are responsible for increasing the level of civic pride and fostering the positive attitude maintained by our residents up to the present day. The new bridge could serve as a beautiful gateway to Baltimore. Why not name it for someone who exemplifies the pride that we take in Baltimore?
— Daniel Bell Jr., Catonsville
The replacement for the Francis Scott Key bridge is going to look nothing like the old one, so this is a perfect opportunity for a new name. It should be called the Patapsco River Bridge.
What better way to honor our non-white ancestors than to choose something from the Algonquin language? And people often misidentify this body of water as the Potomac or the Patuxent. It was explored by Captain John Smith in 1608 and is nicknamed the “River of History,” standing at the center of Maryland’s Industrial Revolution.
So give a nod to geography and avoid all the quibbling over our famous citizens. Let’s stand Patapsco Proud!
— Eric Greene, Annapolis
Since the destruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge requires a replacement, should we replace the name of the bridge — and replace Francis’ Star Spangled Banner as well?
Many historians agree that the author of our Star Spangled Banner was:
In the third verse of his Star Spangled Banner, he even advocated for the death and terror of enslaved people who fought for their freedom. What if he advocated the same type of terror and death to Jews or Asians; would we tolerate it as part of our National Anthem?
And when he wrote the words: ‘O’er the land of the free,” millions of Black people weren’t free; they were still enslaved on over 45,000 plantations. When we sing the words “O’er the land of the free” it only pertains to white people, the land was not free for Black individuals.
If we changed the name of the bridge, it wouldn’t be the first time we changed the name of something associated with Key. The original name of the song we call our national anthem was “The Defense of Fort McHenry,” before the poem was put to music. Key wrote it during the War of 1812 (the same war in which the White House was burned to the ground — and rebuilt with the labor of enslaved people).
America is beautiful. America is diverse, inclusive and good, and God crowned our good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea. This should be the theme of our national anthem — not a song about bombs, terror and the deaths of enslaved people written by a pro-slavery prosecutor.
— Wayne Perryman, Mercer Island, Washington
