Star-spangled Banner and the War of 1812 – The original Star-Spangled Banner, the flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the song that would become our national anthem, is among the most treasured artifacts in the collections of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C.
(Hey, Dear Reader; this post got an update many months later — you may want to check it out for better links and more information.)
Every school kid learns the story of the “Star-Spangled Banner,” or should.
During the War of 1812, Georgetown lawyer Francis Scott Key, stood aboard a British ship in Baltimore Harbor to negotiate the release of his friend, Dr. William Beanes, who had been taken prisoner while the British stormed through Bladensburg, Maryland, after burning Washington, D.C. Key witnessed the British shelling of Fort McHenry, the guardian of Baltimore’s harbor. Inspired when he saw the U.S. flag still waving at dawn after a night of constant shelling, Key wrote a poem.
Key published the poem, suggested it might be put to the tune of “Anachreon in Heaven” (a tavern tune popular at the time) — and the popularity of the song grew until Congress designated it the national anthem in 1931. In telling the story of the latest restoration of that garrison flag now housed at the Smithsonian Museum of American History, Smithsonian Magazine repeated the story in the July 2000 issue: “Our Flag Was Still There.”
It’s a wonderful history with lots of splendid, interesting details (Dolley Madison fleeing the Executive Mansion clutching the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington, the guy who had introduced Dolley to James Madison and then snubbed them after they were married; the British troops eating the White House dinner the Madisons left in their haste; the gigantic, 42 by 30 foot flag sewn by Mary Pickersgill, a Baltimore widow trying to support her family; the rag-tag Baltimore militia stopping cold “Wellington’s Invicibles;” the British massing of 50 boats and gunships; and much more).
It’s a grand and glorious history that stirs the patriotic embers of the most cynical Americans.
And it’s all true.
So it doesn’t deserve the voodoo history version, the bogus history created by some person preaching in a church (I gather from the “amens”) that is making the rounds of the internet, stripped of attribution so we cannot hunt down the fool who is at fault.
We got this in an e-mail yesterday; patriots save us, there must be a hundred repetitions that turn up on Google, not one correcting this horrible distortion of American history.
Horrible distortion of American history
(The full version is a mind-numbing 11 minutes plus. Some people have put it on other sites.)
Why do I complain?
- It was the War of 1812, not the Revolutionary War — there were 15 states, not 13 colonies.
- There was no ultimatum to to Baltimore, nor to the U.S., as this fellow describes it.
- Key negotiated for the release of one man, Dr. Beanes. There was no brig full of U.S. prisoners.
- It’s Fort McHenry, not “Henry.” The fort was named after James McHenry, a physician who was one of the foreign-born signers of the Constitution, who had assisted Generals Washington and Lafayette during the American Revolution, and who had served as Secretary of War to Presidents Washington and Adams.
- Fort McHenry was a military institution, a fort defending Baltimore Harbor. It was not a refuge for women and children.
- The nation would not have reverted to British rule had Fort McHenry fallen.
- There were 50 ships, not hundreds. Most of them were rafts with guns on them. Baltimore Harbor is an arm of Chesapeake Bay; Fort McHenry is not on the ocean.
- The battle started in daylight.
- Bogus quote: George Washington never said “What sets the American Christian apart from all other people in this world is he will die on his feet before he will live on his knees.” Tough words. Spanish Civil War. Not George Washington. I particularly hate it when people make up stuff to put in the mouths of great men. Washington left his diaries and considerably more — we don’t have to make up inspiring stuff, and when we do, we get it wrong.
- The battle was not over the flag; the British were trying to take Baltimore, one of America’s great ports. At this point, they rather needed to since the Baltimore militia had stunned and stopped the ground troops east of the city. There’s enough American bravery and pluck in this part of the story to merit no exaggerations.
- To the best of our knowledge, the British did not specifically target the flag.
- There were about 25 American casualties. Bodies of the dead were not used to hold up the flag pole — a 42 by 30 foot flag has to be on a well-anchored pole, not held up by a few dead bodies stacked around it.
You can probably find even more inaccuracies (please note them in comments if you do).
The entire enterprise is voodoo history. The name of Key is right; the flag is right; almost everything else is wrong.
Please help: Can you find who wrote this piece of crap? Can you learn who the narrator is, and where it was recorded?
I keep finding troubling notes with this on the internet: ‘My school kids are going to see this to get the real story.’ ‘Why are the libs suppressing the truth?’ ‘I didn’t know this true story before, and now I wonder why my teachers wouldn’t tell it.’
It’s voodoo history, folks. It’s a hoax. The real story is much better.
If Peter Marshall and David Barton gave a gosh darn about American history, they would muster their mighty “ministries” to correct the inaccuracies in this piece. But they are silent.
Clearly, it’s not the glorious history of this nation they love.
More:
- Star-spangled Banner feature from the Museum of American History, Smithsonian — this is the real flag from Fort McHenry
- Star-spangled Banner, at American Treasures, Library of Congress
- Star-spangled Banner National Historic Trail, National Park Service
Please share that voodoo, as you do so well:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Not assuming anything, John.
Did the British target the flag? Waste of ammunition if they did.
But searching records of the battle, there is not one mention that the British gunners targeted the flag. History revisionists claim the British did, which makes for a better story for them, they think.
There is not one iota of evidence supporting the claim. They have made a false assumption. I note that there is no evidence known that their assumption is correct.
LikeLike
“To the best of our knowledge” So you are assuming too. Maybe then British were targeting the flag and the flag may be held up by bodies.
LikeLike
Hahaha. I truely love the oh so intelligent ignorance of the modern hypocrites who think they know history better than anyone else. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Fool.
1) No this was not the revolutionary war. But it was called the second war of independence by many of centuries past.
2) You state there was not 13 colonies but 15 states. Well your both wrong. The guy who reposted the video simply erred. You speak in utter ignorance, pretending to know the facts. Dipwit, tis you who proves to be the truely ignorant one.
Well fact is our Mary placed 15 stars on the flag because that was the legally listed number. Not factual number. It was not updated or ratified for several more years however. Took time back then. Much as today though. Lol. Is there truely 50 states now or …
The actual listed number of states that there was? Try looking it up some day. Lol like just a few years later. :) Yet she did the correct thing. She made the legal flag of that time. But no it was not 15 states either. Just look it up. Your wrong as well.
So the next time you condemn another. Get your facts straight as well. He merely reposted anothers work. Big whoop.
3) There was actually not even 50 Flag ships either. The actual facts differ from 1x up to 2x in number and then the list goes upwards of up to a 1000 total ships and if yes many were mere rafts, troop carriers and such. Not even ships.
If even i perfer to say 50 myself. It was likely 2x ships of the line as these fleets were listed under. Never by the total numbers envolved in fact. There was as many more lesser ships which no doupt comprised most of this number of 50.
Then one must add in the number of
transports, cannon ships or in fact rafts, etc… But again both of you are wrong actually as to flag ships. If again he but reposts. You present falsehoods as fact. Well that shall never really be known. Duh.
4) Have to put this here now as your comment irritates me so…
Most accurate assessments say 29 causalities not 25 and hey lets play modern history and amuse ourselves. WW2 lets say not even nail you with the gulf war, afganistan or …
Lets see how many Jews were in fact killed? How many Polish, how many Russians? WW2 now not Vietnam as we know those commies loved to slaughter jews! Billions of em! Lol. But not even joking here i do avoid the killing fields of that period. Numbers greatly doffer so.
Jews the stated factual numbers go from slightly over a million upwards to over 6 million. Russians goes up to 2x (20 X) some million even. Polish from half a mill to several million. Thats modern history we cannot even agree on.
However where your factually wrong. There is a factual quote of a known number of ground battles and skirmishes both prior to and after joining the fort.
Numbers from 1000 up to in fact 10000 American troops against 5000 British forces. 2 to 1. Engaged in both minor and major battles and it is even known fact. Recorded fact the British forces backed off over their casualties both from the American forces and primary from the American cannons. They had to silence the fort to win the ground battle. It wss not the 10k vs 5k that did hurt them.
For you had seasoned veterans named as unstoppable against irregulars, militia as well as sailors and regular army. Most not even veterans. If surmised by statements here. Not fact. Their statements however so …
This just the accepted numbers.
So in multiple engagements, factually stated and listed you … lol gotta love this, claim that only 23 causalities were total. Hahaha! Well in one known recorded battle and in another recorded skirmish in which a said general dies we know for a fact the numbers exceeded even 50. It states as fact the british harrassed the American forces till forced to disengage by either a general as in their ground forces leader or others died. If here only the General is listed. We know this is incorrect.
In one known battle said killed general rode to. We know for fact the Brits were being shot to toot by snipers and these snioer6 in fact shot the general. Not not even modern snipers I agree. However these bad boys could shoot and do considerable damage. Lol i am quite sure more than the general died as it stated they were stopped by the sniper fire here not the forts cannons. Multiple engagements ceased by both troops as well as cannon fire.
But hey only 23 died! First casualty does in fact not only mean death. It also means wounded, sick, missing and or deserters…
So we being so ‘factual’ in our recording of history back then. Hey or even today. More than 23 died or were casualties in almost every major skirmish and or engagement.
So why can we only state 29 likely died or were casualties? Remember now casualty means both the total number of missing, dead as well as wounded. They also included deserters here. Btw.
So duh get your erroneous facts straight.
We state even 29 because that is is all that is ever mentioned. This on both sides as ie in their general …. So ….
All we may legally say is teens to 2x in number. Even if we know that is wrong. But hey facts or proof well its now 29 not 23. Your still wrong! Dip.
X) I could condemn so very.much more of your … oh so perfect list, but i already take allot of of room.
One more comment. You state they did not go after the flag. Well your wrong once again. Did their ships target the flag and pound it hundreds of times? No they were not even that accurate back then. Were 1000s of rounds fired? Yes by stated fact at bbn least a 1000 plus rounds of cannot, shot and ir missile were fored and mlm likely at that flag. Well at the flown storm flag anyways.
However stop and lets go by known facts of that time or to even this day. Strike colors on a ship or lower a flsg on ground as in a ie fort and it was seen as a surrender.
But point here is it was often the targeted asset or an accepted condition of surrender … Lower or drop your flag.
Also again in many periods during the naval battles much less ground engagements the flag was targeted by the cannons. By both sides as this was the ship’s or area’s central point or headquarters. Duh. Even today we target a locales flagged command center and for a reason.
Thus yes it was common for both sides to target the others flag.
Y) Much less women, children and duh civilians were on and are on bases today as well as then. Married troops wifes, families, simple cooks, workers as well as duh guess whom!
Two certain named individuals as in a certain lawyer and another named individual were in fact in said fort and duh these are or were civilians!
Z) Much less you state as fact the battle started in the daytime. Well we know it started before said named battle even began actually as the two forces we stated to have engaged one another prior to reaching the fort as well as after reinforcing it!
Thus no one actually knows when the actual battle even began. If again your wrong as it states one bombard as starting in daytime … another after a guessed period of cease fire of time of or for setting conditions. For we do know said lawyer was told to give fort said conditions, whatever those were.
So did the battle start during the day. Unknown. If it is stated that the actual battle began on a certain day beginning with a time starting with a time (unlisted) of initial bombardment. Then it states day.
So many facts you are wrong yet condemn another on? Why?
You make more errors than he does. 1 – Z!
:)
This by an admiited lack wit btw. I never profess myself superior to any as I do know I am as they say punch drunk from damages received from injuries, accidents, parachute jumps to … even a prior military injury around 11.
So… if some dumb little lack wit can chew your argument to bits … Please do refrain from such innuendoes or think your immature attempt at subtle mockery does anything more than prove your as much a lack wit as I.
Least i may claim brain damage and being a disabled vet as excuse. You? How about just ask if he realizes certain errors may occur as … Respecting another.
LikeLike
Amuses me the modern attempt to invalidate American legends. Is this factual historical fact? No no one in fact can either prove it false or true.
Fact even today go to any friggin fort :) shall we say or base or port or … and you shall find both women and children. Dipwit. Did you ever serve? Had you, you would know this fact.
Fact it was not an expected atfack nor would have commanded immediate withdrawal of the civilians as negotiations were ongoing. See proven historical negotiators and lets simply accept it. There has always been women, children and duh children at bases. See the negitiators as duh, duh, ahh duh. They both were civilians!
Even during Vietnam or the cold war with Russia we sadly only negotiated for specific captives if we fought for all.
Fact did we ever negotiate with Vietnam or Russia for only a few prisoners of war? Look it up dip we did multiple times with both. Besides it is in many recollections. Both of Vietnam, Russia or duh Fort McHenry.
No not in one historical document of or from eyewitnesses of the actual battle. Sadly that has in fact never been truely kept. A few recollections, historical annedotes, including in fact tge two women even today our moddern detractors do wish to immortalize.
Baring its ‘myths’ and/or legends. If your voodoo history and a more fitting placement of said word belongs besides a heathen as those attempting to demonize simple American history rather than a christian should be aptly named. :)
Fact was this even the stupid flag used during the bombast? Not likely but it was the falg lifted the next morning. Where is the storn flag that likely was used? Unknown.
But, but it said ‘still there not lifted’ Duh each dawn weither or not a flag was raised during an onslaught it is often again raised each and every day. Our
Marines were notorious for this years ago and so were many forts. So duh why even then use this one flag? Because it is and was the one seen the following morning.
Fact look up said defenders it was never 29 dead. Dip as you modern hypocrites so claim.
Why, proof? What? There was in fact multiple deaths never in fact recorded if and from the land battles that occured during the seige.
Please read the provel ingagements that are recorded and proven history. Then ask yourself why are these not ever listed? Both those prior yo joining the fort and after joining.
It is in fact estimated there were over 10,000 American forces vs 5000 British troops. Known fact these were the best troops and veterans all from Britain in fact. Called the inmortals and … geese even by their two shoes known primarily names given to them we in fact know these troops were Britain’s finest. Duh.
These against both American veterans and a hodgepodge of regulars, militias, troops and sailors from America.
2 to 1 yes but we were seriously outgunned both in firepower and in the troops skills.
The main and primary advantage was simply the ultra modern fort they had to engage. Thus it was in fact the naval battle that became so vital. If again ffg ind one simple record that ever lists all those ground engagements that are recorded to have a occured. There is nibe. Dip. But does that ever mean no one died? Oh all you can do is laugh at the modern liberalists utter ignorance. No there in fact is not one record that survives regarding true casualties in the actual and total engagement! Duh! We kniw the British had in fact skirmished with and flat engaged multiple times with the american forces and… did, did duh! No casualties! Yeah uh, right! 5000 engaged 10000 troops and not kne died! Yet the British ran away! Give me a break.
The only known list in fact does simply lust 20 to 50 casualties as it does in fact refer to wounded as well as dead in that one reference. So what there is simply no surviving revords today of those battles ir engagements. Me being prior military know how well we do keep records and know for a fact there was likely a given battle that did in fact likely have just 29 or so casualties. Whoop, whoop.
Fact look at ww2, Polish as well as russian and Jewish casualties. Known fact more Russians were killed yhan anyone else. Lists of 10s of millions are stated there.
Poland lusts from a million to 6 million even if today some even declare it a hoax.
We kniw for fact tgere was several.million to 6 + millions Jews slaughtered. But even in ww2 we have not one real concencious we agree on. Yet you state its imperial fact only 29 died at said battle! Hahaha what a fool!
Fact. It was also called the second revolutionary war by any historical redention oassed down to us.
But no in your oh so perfect opinion, there was no danger of losing this war and duh reverting back to British rule! No that was just the Christian Right. Be factual you hate mongering heather naysayer! Lose any friggin war with anyone back then, dip wit and you became part if their nation or under their ‘rule’! Look at thier history! No look at where in fact this army did march from! Our capital! But that local was in fact a soft target unlike said Fort. To destroy the American resistance they needed a major victory.
Fact, this is and always has been, not just a religious nation but as Judeo Christian religion based upon the bible!
Oh me god, who says that! Well any ancient buildings, court or government building in America!
But even a proper rebutal would take pages and M pages. Mot my simple comments. I am in fact a dosabled vet and my speech is impated so M please do not attempt to mock my simple sppech or errors. I care less. But i do laugh at such utter ignorance presented as fact today.
First and foremost the story is not made up today nor even this century. He but records a story recited to him from another. Who also gathered this not from proven records but from known historical renditions if no it is still myth or legend. Duh. But a redition or legend repeated bbn over hundreds of years. By survivors.
LikeLike
I spend a portion of the day every time this load of malarkey hits the net. While Patriotic and stirring, it is filled with more errors than anyone could conceivably add. From the beginning of the narrative to the end, there are more fabrications presented as facts. The War of 1812 was not about bringing the wayward colonials back to the bosom of mother England. It was a war fought due to the continued impressment of American citizens into the Royal Navy and America’s attempts at annexing the Canadian Maritime Provinces. From that declaration on down, the story devolves into a mishmash of false statements with no historical backing whatsoever. I’ve listened to people saying they’ve seen the picture of bodies piled around the flagpole. To this day, I’ve never found a painting depicting this erroneous moment. It obviously wasn’t a daguerreotype or early photograph as that technology didn’t exist yet. So if there’s a painting out there, it’s not in the national archives. Despite my requests to see the image, it’s yet to have been presented by anyone. I should note, that using any artists interpretation of an event is a mistake, as they are known to not be factual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The true story is better. Did you read the article?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wait a minute………….you’re calling this a “piece of crap”???? I wish I could tell a story about myself to make me look half as good as this horse sh– makes our country look……………..lmao
LikeLiked by 1 person
The video is dead wrong, voodoo history on almost all counts. Surgenor owes you and everyone else an apology.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cynthia Van Arsdale
You are incorrect. So now you are giving out false information.
The man you mentioned, Robert Surgenor, did NOT claim he made the video. He merely shared the video. The writing you see is not from him, it’s what the person who did make the video wrote!
When you share a video the whole thing, including what was originally written goes with it. If I were to share it, it would look as if I made it!
LikeLike
Thank you for writing this article. I’m careful what I post to FB and listened to the “incorrect” story and wanted to find out if it was true, enticing as it was, some things didn’t jive from what I remember from my history classes.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What controversy in September 2017 is sending thousands of people to see this post?
Who mentioned it, and what are y’all looking for?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This man, Robert Surgenor, claims that he made the video.
LikeLike
Thanks for the plug, Mr. Peterson at Sic et Non:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/07/someone-shares-tale-please-dont-pass.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a video from Robert Surgenor. It circulates around Facebook every Independence Day. Makes me crazy because of the heavy emphasis on its “christian” mythology which serves only to perpetuate the myth that our founding fathers were all Christians and we need to return to a one faith nation. Kind of counterproductive to their ideals.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for pointing out the numerous falsehoods in this piece. I’ll add another correction. The flag and pole did not suffer repetitious direct hits as the video states. The pole was never hit by the British but was destroyed by lightning long after the famous bombardment. Neither was the flag itself hit and shredded. For those who have not seen the flag on display at the Smithsonian, the pictures are numerous. The only parts of the flag that are missing are those that were cut off as souvenirs after the fact. Also, the pole had not been knocked over at a “crazy angle.” The actual foundation that held the pole is on display at Fort McHenry. Two wooden crosses were buried in the ground. One cross was buried several feet deeper than the other. The pole passed through the middle of the two buried crosses which kept the base of the pole from shifting in the ground and kept the nearly 90-foot tall flag pole perfectly upright.
I appreciate the sentiments of this video, but as you noted, there are enough true elements in the story to have conveyed the same sentiments in a powerful way without trying to pass off a wildly fictional embellishment as true.
I am actually a David Barton fan and am not sure how this video relates at all to him. A man named Robert Surgenor claims to have made it. I am not aware of any connection between the two men. People may disagree with Barton’s emphasis or conclusions about American history, but I don’t think he can be blamed for this video.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we knew how to kill belief in hoaxes, we could save half the annual federal budget, have a lot more free time, and cut all of our high blood pressure medication.
I suspect it has something to do with Dunning Kruger effect — a lack of critical education.
Thanks for dropping by!
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/dunning-kruger-effect/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I became a bit of a Fort McHenry and the Battle of Baltimore buff after hearing the nearly 12 minute propagandized version on the Herman Cain radio show. Someone had linked it to a website message board I was on praising what a wonderful telling it was. I listened and said to myself “what the heck was that clap trap”. I knew it was bogus, what I was hearing. it got my dander up and I went through every point it made and extensive research to find what was likely the truth. I admit my history knowledge was rather dusty but I just kept finding out more and more how much I really didn’t know about the whole affair.
Every time this video comes up and I see it or hear of it I do my best to let people know just what a bunch of garbage it is.
Why do such things never die?
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s 2 sides to every story, but one is always wrong. Both Patriots and Protesters change history to meet their agendas. America doesn’t need to enhance their History, it remains fascinating on its own.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Four soldiers died at the battle for Fort McHenry. Not enough bodies to hold up even a tiny flagpole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_McHenry
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. Impossible to hold up a flag that big in such a fashion. Plus, there weren’t many (any?) fallen soldiers.
The flag was on a pole about two feet in diameter. The pole, if it was hit, was not broken. The flag flew from that standard.
As a pragmatic matter, the only way the pole would have been hit was accidentally — no reason to waste shells on a flagpole.
Check out the history of the battle at Fort McHenry’s website. https://www.nps.gov/fomc/learn/historyculture/francis-scott-key.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
So the American Flag was held up by the bodies of fallen soldiers?
LikeLike
One funny inaccuracy
is that Francis Scott Key, born in 1779, was supposedly negotiating the release of prisoners before the age of 4. Or since the video is very vague about timing, before he was even born.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well! A click-bait site picked up this post a few months ago. Is this the source of all the clicks over here?
http://guyana.leadstories.com/1215725-star-spangled-voodoo-history.html
Wish they’d picked up this post instead: https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/dont-fall-for-the-star-spangled-voodoo-history/
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you got sent here from another site, would you mind telling us in comments who linked here? A few hundred lookers in past couple of weeks — but from where?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt it, Myrna — but could be. Got a link to the work of this guy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is the gentleman that wrote that voodoo that you call it named Robert Surgenor? I just watched a video he produced saying that Francis Scott Key wrote the Star-Spangled Banner after being sent to negotiate to get prisoners released from boats 1000 yards offshore from Ft “Henry”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The treaty was signed, IIRC, at the end of November. War was not over — but the Battle of New Orleans, in early January 1815, WAS fought after the war was officially concluded.
I trust some historians and some others to get history right, mostly. I’ve never found an error in David McCullough’s work (I’m sure there are some), nor in the work of Joseph Ellis — perhaps ironic in the latter case.
But, you’re right about being skeptical of history. Too much of what we “know” is not factual, and our knowledge of things that are not, harms our ability to make decisions in the here and now.
See Will Rogers and Kin Hubbard: https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/quote-of-the-moment-trouble-from-what-we-know-that-aint-so/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is a post I wrote about this historian skirmish, about the story of a battle. I have a few more comments.
1- How can you tell if someone is telling you false history? His lips are moving.
2- Mr. Key was not a nice person. He was an attorney. He was involved in pro slavery litigation.
3- The British and Americans knew, when this battle was fought, that the war was a folly. They were negotiating the treaty to end the war, with the zesty conclusion “status quo ante bellum.” Since it took the boats a couple of weeks to bring any news to the new republic, there is a good chance that the war was already over when this battle was fought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] This is an encore post. […]
LikeLike
Barton tells a true story? Since when? Barton is a sociopathic liar and a right wing extremeist charlatan. He wouldn’t know how to tell the truth if his soul depended on it.
Oh wait…he claims to be Christian. His soul DOES depend on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please reread. I didn’t say Barton got this story wrong — though he makes a few minor errors along the way (the British were not taking hostages; Beanes was accused of actions against the British; Key was from Georgetown, and was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, not Baltimore; etc.).
At the time I wrote this, Barton was engaged in his attack on U.S. history standards in Texas, arguing to take Thomas Jefferson out, arguing for an expanded focus, falsely, on John Calvin instead, and other atrocities. What I criticized Barton and Marshall for was not speaking to correct the errors in this piece. That criticism still stands.
David Barton tells such fantastic, hateful lies about America and American heroes that it would be impossible to take a cheap shot at him.
A man who would lie about what James Madison said, the Father of the Constitution, is not to be trusted in anything else he claims. A man who denies the Constitution is to be pitied, perhaps. But a “cheap shot” would be absolutely impossible in his case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for clarifying the inaccuracies of the story presented in the video. However, it was a cheap shot against David Barton. If you took the time to go to his Website, he does tell the true story.
LikeLike
Dolley Madison did not carry the 97.5″ x 62.5″ painted canvas of George Washington under her arm and out the door. She did, though, supervise its being removed from the White House.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for setting the story straight! Someone played it in church today. My “crap detector” went off when it was clear that he thought the event was the revolutionary war. People need to be more discerning. Why do people want to propagate lies when the truth is so much better? (As you pointed out.) Blatant falsehoods feed cynicism.
Another lie in the false history.
1. That the same flag was there the whole time. The flag was switched between night and morning. It went from the “storm flag” to the 30 by 42 foot one after the bombardment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner
Wikipedia articles also discuss the small number of casualties.
I would like to see bad stuff like this story ashcanned, but the web keeps it alive. Someone needs to send an alert to snopes.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] are too many myths about the Star Spangled Banner (which are in good company with the scores of other myths and distortions about the birth of the […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Point #9 – that quote is from a prominent Communist labor organizer, agitator, and outspoken woman, Dolores Ibárruri Gómez.
She makes Cesar Chavez look moderate.
LikeLike
AHAH! By David C. Gibbs Jr.
He is a lawyer, prominent in defending homeschooling, was on the Terry Schiavo case working to prolong her death …
No wonder he’s lying about the song’s composition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A really long version (~20 Min) uploaded by BereanBeacon May 25, 2008:
Elaboration of the shorter version?
Wonder if they’ve ever read Keyes’ diary. Or a history book.
LikeLike
Closer to the source: October 23, 2007
***********
And the real thing – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2WQy3mYDDA
LikeLike
This one uploaded August 04, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3i2ZrpRBM by user http://www.youtube.com/user/WeretFilms
LikeLike
WTF? Where did he larn his history? The same place he larned his biology, chemistry and geology?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barton’s version?:
LikeLike
Sorry–I got lost.
Maryland State workers used to get the day off to celebrate “Defenders Day,” September 12th. I guess the holiday actually celebrated the larger actions in the vicinity of Baltimore, including the Battle of North Point.
LikeLike
shoot… logged in under the wrong account. It’s me, Dorid
LikeLike
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” ~George Orwell, 1984
I hate to say it, but the home topic this week has been “rewriting history to shape political and religious agendas. I dare say this situation is not unique.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for setting the story straight!
LikeLiked by 1 person