Authoritative information about the hymn text O Say, Can You See (The Star-Spangled Banner), with lyrics, MIDI files, PDF files, printable scores, piano resources, and products for worship planners.
B.) either partially or totally about the US slaves that fought and died on the side of the british.
It’s been argued that the phrase “hirelings and slaves” was in use at the time to describe any soldiers fighting under the king (especially those borrowed from other countries), which is true. All the same, Francis Scott Key was a Maryland slave owner whose unit was very thoroughly humiliated in battle by the Colonial Marines, which was composed of runaway slaves.
I imagine the defeat didn’t do a whole bunch for his lifelong frothing anti-abolitionist views. While it could be and probably really IS a bit of both, I’m erring on the side of the jab in this stanza being at least partly a spiteful personal grievance.
When the US entered WWI as allies to the british, the 3rd stanza was dropped in order to make friends with them and the majority of people aren’t even aware that it exists.
Ahh, yes, that makes sense that it would have been the country sort of discretely shoving the dirty laundry into the closet when company is coming over. Then, once LDS leadership threw in with being “properly” American around the turn of the 20th century, they went HAM on the baseball and apple pie.
Also, I agree that if American slave holders talk about slaves, they probably mean slaves. Antebellum southerners tended not to be shy or subtle. At an absolute minimum the term would have evoked Key’s own attitudes about the slaves he knew.
Growing up Mormon (I got better!), all four verses (or maybe just 1, 2, and 4 for some reason) were in the hymnal.
That would be because the third stanza is
A.) not very nice
B.) either partially or totally about the US slaves that fought and died on the side of the british.
It’s been argued that the phrase “hirelings and slaves” was in use at the time to describe any soldiers fighting under the king (especially those borrowed from other countries), which is true. All the same, Francis Scott Key was a Maryland slave owner whose unit was very thoroughly humiliated in battle by the Colonial Marines, which was composed of runaway slaves.
I imagine the defeat didn’t do a whole bunch for his lifelong frothing anti-abolitionist views. While it could be and probably really IS a bit of both, I’m erring on the side of the jab in this stanza being at least partly a spiteful personal grievance.
When the US entered WWI as allies to the british, the 3rd stanza was dropped in order to make friends with them and the majority of people aren’t even aware that it exists.
Ahh, yes, that makes sense that it would have been the country sort of discretely shoving the dirty laundry into the closet when company is coming over. Then, once LDS leadership threw in with being “properly” American around the turn of the 20th century, they went HAM on the baseball and apple pie.
Also, I agree that if American slave holders talk about slaves, they probably mean slaves. Antebellum southerners tended not to be shy or subtle. At an absolute minimum the term would have evoked Key’s own attitudes about the slaves he knew.