Racist Roots in American Thinking? The National Anthem

Is the National Anthem a symbol we (all of us as a nation)can rally around, or is it rooted in segregationist racism and hate?

Recently someone challenged me on this. I hadn't heard this mysterious missing 3rd verse, or the controversy that surrounds it and Francis Scott Key, its author. I decided I would spend a few hours researching it (and him) for myself. What I found was interesting...

Let me start with the missing verse that references "hirelings and slaves" that so many are up in arms about: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave". But is this really about slaves? I think in order to understand that, you have to read the whole verse in its context and examine what the author was saying, in the language of the day. Why is that important? Because Key was a lawyer. He used very precise language in the writing of our national anthem, and unlike today, words had meaning back then.

"And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s 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."

Firstly, Key was speaking not of slaves in general, but of a particular group of slaves, who on promise of freedom would fight alongside the hireling (basically a paid soldier). The verse, while referencing slaves, is speaking to the British military when it opens by saying "where is the band that will save you (the British soldiers) after having made such big boasts about beating the colonials in the war of 1812.

Ironically, Key himself sought to honor both blacks and whites who fought alongside each other and for America. One CNN reported wrote ""The Star-Spangled Banner" celebrates the heroes who defended Fort McHenry in the face of almost certain defeat against the most powerful gunships of the era. America's soldiers included mainly whites, but also free and escaped blacks."

How do we know this? Because as the CNN writer stated "Escaped slave William Williams served in the US infantry at Fort McHenry and was killed by a fragment of a British bomb. Another escaped slave, Charles Ball, writes in his memoirs of being among the American soldiers of the Chesapeake Bay Flotilla who courageously repelled a night attack and saved the city. "The Star-Spangled Banner" thus honors American military heroes, black and white, without regard to race. In this respect, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not racist.

Secondly, there is this: "But Key owned slaves" you might say... "doesn't that make him racist?" No. not necessarily. You have to understand that life is not just black and white. There are shades of gray all over the place. Can someone hold a slave and not be racist? Sure. For hundreds of years it happened in the Roman empire, Greece, and other places. People were made slaves for all kinds of reasons. Now, I am not saying that there were no racist slave owners. Far from it. What i am saying is that life is often more complicated than we think and we are foolish if we try and read our understanding of things back into history rather than draw the meaning of what was being said out of what we see and read. In theology this is called eisegesis (reading meaning into something, a big no-no) and exegesis (drawing the meaning out of it. Sometimes by understanding the historical context). Back to Key... He owned 7 slaves during his lifetime. He inherited them in fact. Did you know that he freed 4 of them? Yep. He even offered one of his slaves, Clem Johnson a home for life. He defended many black slaves and escaped slaves as well, fighting for their freedom. Most often for free. Let's not forget the American Colonization Society where he used the group to purchase slaves and free them and offer them passage back to Africa (what is now I believe Liberia).

Thirdly, things are not always black and white... Key did have issues with his belief that blacks were a "distinct and inferior race, and that they were "an evil which afflicts a community". This is a quote from one of his publications in 1839. Yet in 1840 he appears to have had a change of heart, and 2 years later he began freeing his slaves. What this tells me is that people change. Men are flawed. All men, be they white, black or whatever. Key is guilty to the extent that he was extremely pragmatic,and who, like many (not all) of America's founders and early leaders, put the social order ahead of human freedom. In the context of his era, however, Francis Scott Key was surprisingly progressive. Key helped establish the Georgetown Lancaster School for freed people of color and even taught there. Over 1,000 black children were students, and most attended tuition-free. What does this tell us? That Key was a complex man. That we cannot paint him with too wide a brush. His words about blacks are sobering, but his defense of them are equally vindicating. Did you know that Key won the freedom of Harry Quando in 1830 and Joseph Crawford in 1834? He took other cases as well. though he lost some.

Finally, what does this tell us? It tells us that men, all men, are to some extent a product of their time. It tells us that maybe, just maybe, he grew and changed. Maybe because of the very words he penned. People change. I remember reading St Augustine where he said something to the effect of "It is better to do the right thing for the wrong reason, than to do the wrong thing for the right reason. " I Suspect that what Augustine is saying is that no matter what reason Key had in writing the national anthem, the principles are good and true that stand behind them: Freedom from tyranny and injustice, the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. These are certain inalienable rights, because we are all created equal (regardless of race creed or color). I believe that if you fail to understand or see this, then you have totally missed the point. It is for this reason I stand by my original belief that it is disrespectful to turn your back on the very principles that eventually led to freedoms we all (together) now posses, and to do the opposite in fact segregates, it diminishes us as Americans and leaves us separated and weak as a country.