The ugly reason ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ didn’t become our national anthem for a century

[BornInMarch]

It’s unfortunate, but no reason to throw out the whole song. Just don’t sing that verse.

In Germany their national anthem “Detschlandlied” was associated with the Nazi regime, so they decided to only sing the inoffensive third stanza and to omit the first two. They didn’t throw out the whole song.

 

[OddBird]

Just don’t sing that verse.

It’s the only one which is ever sung.

France doesn’t have the same relationship with its past as Germany does. We still are a country which worships the French Revolution and its heroes, and that’s exactly the context in which the Marseillaise was written – the “impure blood” being that of French anti-revolutionaries and their European allies.

I admittedly do not have much sympathy for the French Revolution, which was vehemently anti-Catholic, but I also don’t think that a war song from the victors of our bloodiest and most horrific civil war is a good choice for fostering national unity.

And now I’m closing the French parenthesis

 

[Maximian]

Americans often seem puzzled that it was the wicked British monarchy which opposed slavery while the wonderful American democracy continued to favour it.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Well, you know, freedom. It was more important to have the freedom to own slaves, than it was to have the freedom from being enslaved. See, FREEDOM!

 

[WingedHussar]

One feeds into the other.

 

[otjm]

One feeds into the other.

Certainly the call of those rioting includes “white supremacist” which appears to be effectively a label of all whites as racist - not that I am trying tp parse their words.

It also appears to be part of the current cancel culture; if I can throw a big enough ad hominem at someone, they are thereby dismissed.

Considering that the Washington Post seems to have dragged this issue up out of the mists of time, it has the appearance of one more attempt to flame the nation’s past and imply that somehow, if one sings the Star-Spangled Banner, even though one is totally unaware of the third stanza, never heard it or of it, and is proud of this nation, that one is a racist - which seems to be the narrative currently.

I reject that, just as I reject the Marxist rhetoric and tactics I am watching.

 

[Maximian]

Oh yeah absolutely. Life under the British was such slavery that when the US won the war of independence there was a mass flight of refugees to Canada.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Yup, and those loyalists then fought in the War of 1812, because the US had so much freedom.

 

[Maximian]

… thus inflicting upon the US its first military defeat

 

[Inquisitor85]

You’d think they’d realise at that point that ‘regime change’ doesn’t end well for them.

 

[Maximian]

It ends with the Capitol going up in smoke…

BTW Im on holiday in San Sebastián, Spain, where Sir George de Lacy Evans, who burned the Capitol, later conducted his campaign against the Carlists (unfortunately).

 

[BornInMarch]

If you’re referring to the war itself, the US actually didn’t lose. Officially the war ended in a white peace with neither side losing territory, paying reparations, or having to admit to defeat. In practical terms the US benefitted more from this war than the British or Canadians did.

After the war of 1812 Britain stopped supporting Native American tribes in the Ohio region, allowing the United States to continue westward expansion nearly unimpeded. This was also the last real war between American and British forces and that peace allowed them to avoid war in later points (like the American Civil War and the Oregon boundary dispute) and to even become allies at a later date.

 

[Ender]

Here’s something that should have occurred to all of us as soon as we saw the source of the article: The Washington Post. Like the NY Times 1619 Project, this article is built on total and complete fabrication. To start with, here is the third verse in its entirety (if someone already posted this I apologize; I didn’t feel like slogging through this entire thread).

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, shall leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their their foul footsteps pollution;
No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave;
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

This entire passage is about the British army; they are “the hireling and slave” the line refers to. I wonder if people can appreciate the extent of this deception. The Post attempted to cast the national anthem as merely an extension of the basic racism that infests our country, and undoubtedly a lot of people will accept it because it reinforces a perception they already hold, one doubtlessly manufactured just like this one.

This is truly contemptible, and demonstrates just how mendacious the media have become.

 

[Nepperhan]

This entire passage is about the British army; they are “the hireling and slave” the line refers to.

No, you are wrong.It states that there is no refuge for the hireling or slave from ‘the terror of flight’. This clearly does not relate to the British army. Plus, it is a historical fact that the British used runaway slaves and granted them land in a free setting after the war.

Don’t try to remake what is evident.

 

[Ender]

No, you are wrong.It states that there is no refuge for the hireling or slave from ‘the terror of flight’. This clearly does not relate to the British army. Plus, it is a historical fact that the British used runaway slaves and granted them land in a free setting after the war.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore… (Line 1)

That “band” would obviously be the British army.

Their blood has wash’d out their their foul footsteps pollution (Line 4)

Again: “their” refers back to line 1, aka the British army.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave, (Line 5)
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave; (Line 6)

It is “their blood” - the lives of the soldiers - they are the “hireling and slave” that cannot be saved.

Don’t try to remake what is evident.

I think what this illustrates is the extent to which people can be led to believe almost anything if they want to believe it. Your interpretation would have the first four lines be about the British army (about which I doubt even you could conjure an alternative understanding), and then suddenly switch to referring to slaves in lines 5 & 6. And who would the “hirelings” be? It can’t be the slaves, and you’ve already discarded the British, so who’s left?

One thing that is surely true: this stanza, like all the others, is directed to the country’s enemies, whether they be regular British soldiers, mercenaries, or free slaves. Whoever had a hand in burning DC, and in attacking Baltimore (et al) was the target of this poem. So where’s the issue? This passage has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with those trying to overthrow the country. We were at war. This is about those we were at war with.

 

[Nepperhan]

I think what this illustrates is the extent to which people can be led to believe almost anything if they want to believe it.

I think you ignore historical fact for the purpose of assuaging a version of a song.

Check the entire article in the Post.

 

[Ender]

I think you ignore historical fact for the purpose of assuaging a version of a song.

The question is not the historical facts, but the meaning of the passage, and that entire section addresses the defeat of the British. It does not address slavery. It addresses the enemy with whom we were at war, and those who fought for them. As I said before, the interpretation that this was about the inability of the British to free the slaves is not just pure invention, it is a calumny invented solely to keep tensions stirred up and reinforce the outrageous perception that bigotry and racial hatred are an inescapable part of our nature. It is contemptible. The only thing missing is the claim that Trump was somehow involved.

 

[Nepperhan]

The question is not the historical facts, but the meaning of the passage, and that entire section addresses the defeat of the British. It does not address slavery.

That’s where you ignore the history of Key’s position on slavery and the British attempt to free slaves and gain a military advantage.

You state flatly: “It does not address slavery.” Others, including academics, disagree.
"Essentially,” says writer and academic Jason Johnson, “Francis Scott Key was happy to see former slaves, who had joined the British as part of their Colonial Marines, getting slaughtered and killed as they attempted to take Baltimore.”

Johnson is an associate professor at Morgan State University in Baltimore, and has a piece in online magazine The Root on this issue.

“The entire song sort of leads up to this point,” Johnson adds, “where he’s essentially saying to these terrible, ungrateful, black people, this is the consequence of standing up against the United States.”

“So it’s clearly racist; it’s clearly pro-slavery, but it’s pretty much in line with the kind of man that Francis Scott Key was.”

Key was a typical white Marylander of his time, and he favored slavery.

About 6,000 African Americans fled to the British during the War of 1812, on the promise of freedom. Most of the men were recruited into the Royal Navy or into the Colonial Marines, a mostly black unit, which fought with distinction.

“It was an amazing opportunity for African Americans to fight for their freedom,” says Johnson.

Many historians agree with Johnson, but some disagree. They point out that Key never told anyone what he actually meant, and some historians interpret his mention of hirelings and slaves to reference all of the invading British forces.

They say it echoes similar rhetoric used since the Revolutionary War to describe the forces of the king of England, especially those units purchased from German princes. American writers contrasted these miserable hirelings and slaves with the virtuous all-volunteer citizen armies of America.

However, Johnson counters that argument. He points out that Key himself faced the black Colonial Marines in battle. His unit was beaten and humiliated by them. “His troops were slaughtered so aggressively,” Johnson says, “that he had to run home and hide in Washington DC. … So this was personal for him."

Historians disagree on whether 'The Star-Spangled Banner' is racist | The World from PRX

 

[anna]

So there now ,are you done ?? I am sure that you had this ready and set to go as we ready to go with electing a President of the United States… Tis Bear is correct in stating you purposely put this i " pot stirring ’ article… I will only respond this way…Our country is in need of healing…We, whether we are Republican, Democrat, Black, White, Red, Spanish, people who came here for a better way of life. We must stop the division between us…We must pull ourselves together, unite as brothers and sisters…We must not be pulled back in a time of confusion and hate. We are proud to be called an American…God bless all of us, God watch and protect what we have come to call the United States of America anna

 

[Ender]

That’s where you ignore the history of Key’s position on slavery and the British attempt to free slaves and gain a military advantage.

Whatever these two point are they are irrelevant. We have the text, that is all that matters, and the text in no way supports the Post’s claim.

“The entire song sort of leads up to this point,” Johnson adds, “where he’s essentially saying to these terrible, ungrateful, black people, this is the consequence of standing up against the United States.”

Johnson’s credentials notwithstanding, his analysis is nonsense. The third stanza is about sending the enemy, whoever they were - the British, the mercenaries, the slaves - down to defeat. It was the “hireling and slave” who would not be saved from “the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave.”

Even assuming Key supported slavery, that doesn’t show up in the verse. That accusation is formed out of thin air. Where is the indication of racism in a passage that condemns everyone who had taken up arms against us? Johnson’s argument is speculation based on his interpretation of Key’s motivation. It is not based on the actual words, which is no way support his contention.