The star-spangled banner

Myth vs Reality I recently read one of those “inspirational” nationalist anecdotes that make the rounds in the USA. And at the occasion of the Iraq war, this type of thing is typically combined with a vitriolic hate of France, anything vaguely French or, by now, even anything European. And as the insults fly against Europe ... we look with mild amusement at things like this:

Isaac Asimov speaking:

“I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem. The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.

I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas. This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting.

"Thanks, Herb," I said.

"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."

I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas. Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.

So now let me tell you how it came to be written.

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country.

Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.

At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England. The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.

The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.

On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.

As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.

As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"

After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.

Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key:

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light ...”

http://www.purewatergazette.net/asimov.htm


What a wonderful story!

Too bad it doesn’t quite give the flavour of the real story.

What actually actually happened is that, on a fine day in 1812, the USA tried to invade Canada!

Huh?

That's right!

US "War Hawks" wanted Canada added to the USA, imagined that they could easily invade, and tried to do just that.

The escuse for their disastrous attempt at invasion was that British ships had been stopping and searching American ships in order to recover the seamen who were deserting the British navy. They might press-gang the odd American while they were at it. And your typical US history book is thus chock-full of pompous declarations about ... "British violations of American neutral rights"! :) But "in truth (...) the core of the War Hawk agenda was expansion". It was that simple!
us-history.com

"As the record reveals, the Americans wanted more than just maritime rights. What they also wanted was the other half of the North American continent still in the hands of the King of England. In 1778, during the American Revolution, the Yankees had tried to seize Canada, and actually captured Montreal. The expedition however, under Generals Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold, perished in the sub-zero cold beneath the towering walls of the fortress at Quebec. In 1812, Americans were determined to make another attempt at eradicating the British presence in North America, and settle "the Indian question" once and for all. Such a campaign, promised Thomas Jefferson, would be a matter of mere marching. In Congress, the War Hawks took up this position and demanded the United States finalize the independence from Britain they had fought so hard to win".
The war of 1812

With the vast majority of British forces desperately fighting Napoleon Bonaparte in Europe ... the "War-Hawks" figured they would get away with this. Henry Clay was actually so confident of an easy victory that he said at some point: "I trust I shall not be presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky alone are competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet."
War Hawks on Wikipedia

The reason for this "presumption" was simply this:

"From the Detroit River to Halifax there were spread along a thousand miles of border-line less than 5,000 British troops. The population of the whole vast region was only 300,000, men, women and children as against an American population of 8,000,000. The people of Upper Canada, where the bulk of the fighting was to take place, were only 77,000 in number. Eustis, the Secretary of War, declared that "we can take the Canadas without soldiers."
War of 1812 from Quebec-History

Hostilities began in good order. And was indeed with a carefully planned three-pronged offensive. But, though most in the usoA seem to be ignorant of this, it was the U.S. that tried to invade Canada. And it was certainly NOT, as Asimov tries to tell us, the other way around!!!

And so ... the invasion of Canada by the United States of America went ahead:
www.u-s-history.com

1:from Lake Champlain to Montreal;

2:across the Niagara frontier;

3: into Upper Canada from Detroit.

This is what then happened:

1: Along Lake Champlain the forces of the usoA were stopped and forced to retreat by an outnumbered Canadian force.
LacolleMills
Charles de Salaberry
Annals of Congress

2: On the Niagara front U.S. troops were stopped, retreated and lost Queenston Heights.
Queenston Heights

3: As for invading from Detroit ... well let’s just say that Detroit ended up surrendering!
Detroit

Needless to say that the US offensive failed to "place Montreal and Upper Canada at (their) feet". Their attack was so thoroughly beaten that U.S. troops kept falling back ... further and further away from anywhere near Canada. By August of 1814, the US capital city itself, Washington D.C., fell to Canadian forces. Washington D.C was occupied, sacked and most government buildings, including the white house, were burned to the ground. The U.S. president (Madison) had to flee. He hid in Virginia!

All that Canada needed to do is to repel the invasion. The counter-offensive into US territory had to finally stop at some point. And when it did ... in Baltimore ... they just couldn't contain their excitement in the usoA . They just had to burst into song! :)

Oooh say can you seeee ... !

Now, I doubt that the real story of the star-spangled banner would get many standing ovations in the usofA!

Incidentally, another interesting titbit is that "The star-spangled banner" music was "borrowed" from a hymn called "The Anacreontic Song", the real lyrics to which are as follows:

"To Anacreon in Heav'n, where he sat in full glee,
A few Sons of Harmony sent a petition;
That he their Inspirer and Patron wou'd be;
When this answer arrived from the Jolly Old Grecian;
"Voice, Fiddle, and Flute,
No longer be mute,
I'll lend you my name and inspire you to boot,
And besides I'll instruct you like me, to intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


The news through Olympus immediately flew;
When Old Thunder pretended to give himself airs.
If these Mortals are suffered their scheme to pursue,
The Devil, a Goddess, will stay above stairs.
"Hark", Already they cry,
"In transports of joy,
Away to the Sons of Anacreon we'll fly.
And besides I'll instruct you like me, to intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


The Yellow-Haired God and his nine lusty Maids,
From Helion's banks will incontinent flee,
Idalia will boast but of tenantless Shades,
And the bi-forked hill a mere desert will be.
My Thunder no fear on't,
Shall soon do it's errand,
And damme I'll swing the Ringleaders I warrant,
I'll trim the young dogs, for thus daring to twine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


Apollo rose up and said, "Pry'thee ne'er quarrel,
Good sing of the Gods with my Vot'ries below:
Your Thunder is useless"--then showing his laurel,
Cry'd "Sic evitable fulmen' you know!
Then over each head
My laurels I'll spread
So my sons from your Crackers no mischief shall dread,
While snug in their clubroom, they jovially twine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


Next Momus got up with his risible Phiz
And swore with Apollo he'd cheerfully join-
"The full tide of Harmony still shall be his,
But the Song, and the Catch, and the Laugh, shall be mine.
Then Jove be not jealous
Of these honest fellows,"
Cry'd Jove, "We relent since the truth you now tell us;
And swear by Old Styx, that they long shall intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."


Ye Sons of Anacreon then join hand in hand;
Preserve Unanimity, Friendship, and Love!
'Tis yours to support what's so happily plann'd;
You've the sanction of Gods, and the Fiat of Jove.
While thus we agree,
Our toast let it be:
"May our Club flourish Happy, United, and Free!
And long may the Sons of Anacreon intwine,
The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine."
http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anacreon.html>



PS)
After conquering Moscow … Napoleon suffered great loses … to the Russian winter. Moscow was a hollow victory for the French forces. When at “The Battle of Nations” in Leipzig, soldiers from Russia, Prussia, Austria and Sweden, with financial backing from the British, went against French troops, the latter could not longer prevail. In the past, Napoleonic France had many victories against similar odds but after the invasion of Russia, they could not hold against a well-equipped alliance of four hostile powers. A third of Napoleon's men died fighting.

Attack on Iraq debates: France

I happened upon one of my bookmarks of a fascinating 2003 debate on the Ryze's "500 Citizens of the World" Forum:

On the subject of whether attacking Iraq was justified, some person living the USA had writen:
"With friends like the French, who needs enemies?"

A Italian man (Fabrizio Lanata) responded:
"yes, they should have thought twice before making you a gift of your independence from the uk..."

Some woman( Lorian Weston)  from the USA then wrote:
"A gift??"

I responded:
"I think that what Fabrizio is referring to ... is this:
The campaign and the victory [Yorktown] that led to the creation of a country called the United States of America was accomplished by the following:

Troops outside New York City under George Washington … and … an army in Virginia under the French General Marquis de Lafayette … French forces in Rhode Island under the French General Comte de Rochambeau … a French fleet at Newport under the French Comte de Barras … and a French fleet in the West Indies under the French Comte de Grasse.

George Woodbridge summed up that victory thus:
" The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory. " And, by the way, the British actually surrendered to the French. But Rochambeau … refused the sword presented to him and directed that it be given to General Washington.

Freedom means liberty and your statue of liberty is also French ... you could rename it the Statue of France ... no meaning would be lost ... for in the US ... freedom and France must necessarily mean the same thing. Calling "French fries" ... “Freedom fries” was absolutely correct.

So, as you enjoy your freedom fries ... compare the venom aimed at France ... coming from the country that France helped create ... to the following passage"

“Nothing better puts in its true light the dominant characteristic of the French sentiment throughout the war than what happened on this solemn occasion (the surrender of the British), and more shows how, with their new-born enthusiasm for philanthropy and liberty, the French were pro-Americans much more than anti-English. No trace of a triumphant attitude toward a vanquished enemy appeared in anything they did or said. Even in the surrendering, the fact remained apparent that this was not a war of hatred. (…) Cornwallis realized quite well that the French had fought for a cause dear to their hearts more than from any desire to humble him or his nation. He publicly rendered full justice to the enemy, acknowledging that the fairest treatment had been awarded him by them. In the final report in which he gives his own account of the catastrophe,’ and which he caused to be printed when he reached England, he said: “The kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers … their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offers of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe …”
http://www.bartleby.com/238/107.html

Some guy (Neil Basso) from the USA then wrote:
 "Yes while most of this may be true...And since this is a "well look what the french did for you" This cannot be used as a summery of the Revolution. In my opinion I think the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans.

We, at least I do, know that the French helped us, and I am grateful...I still don't see how this relates to now, even if the French did not want to help us in Iraq, that is fine, it is their perogative.

The war has not played out to be 100% convincing, maybe time will tell...Afghanistan on the other hand, thats was a no brainer."

I responded:
"Neil, you wrote:
“In my opinion I think the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans.”

I realise that this is how it has often been presented … for whatever reason … but that is clearly a total reversal of how the people involved felt. And this is exactly why in my previous post, I though it important to bring these:

About General Lord Cornwallis, commander of the British forces:
“Cornwallis realized quite well that the French had fought for a cause dear to their hearts more than from any desire to humble him or his nation. He publicly rendered full justice to the enemy, acknowledging that the fairest treatment had been awarded him by them.”

And this part … the general’s own words:
“The kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers … their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offers of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe …”

And, now, this part: 
“Rochambeau, learning that he (Cornwallis) was without money, lent him all he wanted. He invited him to dine with him and his officers on the 2d of November. ‘Lord Cornwallis,’ writes (Baron von) Closen, ‘especially distinguished himself by his reflective turn of mind, his noble and gentle manners. He spoke freely of his campaigns in the Carolinas, and, though he had won several victories, he acknowledged, nevertheless, that they were the cause of the present misfortunes. All, with the exception of Tarleton, spoke French, O’Hara in particular to perfection, but he seemed to us something of a brag.’ A friendly correspondence began between the English general and some of the French officers, Viscount de Noailles, the one who had walked all the way, lending him, the week after the capitulation, his copy of the beforementioned famous work of Count de Guibert on Tactics, which was at that time the talk of Europe, and of which Napoleon said later that ‘it was such as to form great men’ …”

To me the above indicates that the promoted impression that “the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans” is anything but correct. To me, none of what happened seems especially vindictive toward the British. It, instead, shows an uncommon kinship in the French stance towards the Britons: “No trace of a triumphant attitude toward a vanquished enemy appeared in anything they did or said. Even in the surrendering, the fact remained apparent that this was not a war of hatred.”

In any case, Neil, you also wrote:
“I still don't see how this relates to now, even if the French did not want to help us in Iraq, that is fine, it is their prerogative.”

This does relate … but not in a “Remember how the United States of America were created … how dare you disagree with France!” kind of way. This is, instead, simply to respond to the type of thing that the neo-cons did by saying “Just remember what the US did for France in WW2 …how dares France not go along with Bush!”

As they were preparing the public for the armed invasion and occupation of a semi-destroyed country by a very powerful one, neo-cons had some quick patching up to do about real, valid and serious questions coming from the government of France (among other places). They thus chose the true-and-tried method of … “character assassination”, launching an unprecedented campaign against France … calling for boycotts, renaming food (!), distorting historical facts (trying, even, to turn history completely on its head) … and generally looking for any way to discredit that source of objections.

And many people in the US started helping these guys by trying to come up with any anti-French stuff possible. On this very forum, whatshisname still tries to discredit France. He is using that an Iraqi rebel strike was witnessed by journalists, who happened to be French, and somehow concludes that … “With friends like the French who needs enemies?” Is it just me or is this truly ... as idiotic as it can get!

And all of that simply because, in France, Bush’s claims about Iraqi WMDs were understood to be bullshit well before it became obvious everywhere else. At the time, Bush’s spin-doctors had to somehow explain why in France they would not believe their claims … that the United Nations inspections were not working …that Iraq was actually teeming with WMDs … that the clear danger that those weapons presented required an armed invasion without actual provocation! (This was before the rest of the world figured out that these guys were simply lying).

Neo-cons even tried to cultivate the impression these objections arose because France was devoid of any martial courage. There is something to reproach in French history, but it is the tendency to try and resolve differences through war ... not the opposite! Thankfully, even a basic knowledge of history could show that the neo-con spin was about as opposite to the truth as one can get. This sobering realisation then turned right back on them and they lost even more credibility.

They were, after all, not talking about a country fairly safe on some island somewhere … but about a country standing right in the middle of probably the most violent place on earth (Europe where, historically, we have this nasty habit of fighting each other all the time) … smack in the middle of all the action … fighting war after war against and enemy after enemy … since before the Franks were called Franks (frankly!) … to become one of the largest countries in Europe … This was the country not just of Rochambeau … but of the "Warrior Knights", of William the Conqueror, of Napoleon and of scenes which have become legendary in military history:

"Messieurs les Anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Gentlemen Englishmen, shoot first!) That phrase of the Battle of Fontenoy (11th May 1745) bespeaks the chivalry with which foemen worthy of each other's steel treated one another … And though this “geste” was expensive (nineteen officers and many men of the French Guards are said to have fallen at that first discharge, Fontenoy was nonetheless a French victory against combined forces of British, Dutch and Germans.

Anyway, a typical anti-French assault seemed to be based on WW2. In pre-war France, though German power was recognised, Hitler and his generals’ aptitude was not. Major mistake! And the French are the first to recognise that mistake … for France paid dearly for it. But it was, thus, as easy as it was disgraceful for Bushist neo-cons to spin this for their purposes. You see, in France those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the common struggle against the Nazis are honoured … be they from France, the United States, Russia, England or elsewhere. And one could not respond in kind to neo-con insults for this would mean disrespecting those brave men.

Thankfully, some of the Americans who actually participated in WW2 … were bothered by what was being said about France and rose to defend it: Men like John Warner, of the 90th Infantry division (of the June 1944 D-Day invasion of Normandy) who wrote:
“It bothers me today when I hear people say the French are cowards. I know firsthand they are not":

"… We equipped a few French outfits, one was the French 2nd Armoured Division. The Division spearheaded for us in a number of battles. That means they took the brunt of the punishment from the Germans. I'll tell you this -- they were soldiers ... They were men and they fought like men ...

The average French soldier didn't like to take orders too well. They’d do their job and do it well, as long as no one tried to push them. But they liked to party. More than once, they liberate a village, and we'd roll in several hours later and find them drinking wine and dancing with the women, celebrating their victory. They'd just get drunk and didn't care. But the next day, they’d be ready to fight.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_127695.html

So much damage was done by Bush and his attempts to bullshit his way through this Iraq thing, that thought the French cannot quite lose esteem for the US ... one can imagine that Bush will forever be referred to in French history books as that country's "la president a-hole". :-)

Finally, Neil, you wrote:
“The (Iraq) war has not played out to be 100% convincing, maybe time will tell.”

Here I am at a lost for words! :-) This recognition, as reticent as it may be, is basically what I have been looking for in all my lengthy arguments. And the reason I don’t know what to say is that I had made up my mind that you, Neil, of all people, were the among the most extreme fanatics of this invasion.

It just goes to show you … :-)

Anyway, as you say Neil: “Time will tell!”

Time did tell!