In Defense of the National Anthem

I've read probably a dozen articles justifying Colin Kaepernick's decision to sit during the National Anthem. In each one, the authors demonstrate that the author of the Star-Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key, was a racist and wrote racially charged lyrics into the song. For example, the third stanza reads:

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.

Among these articles, people are making bold statements such as 1) Kaepernick did what was right because of these racist lyrics; 2) the anthem is racist; 3) Francis Scott Key was racist. 

Take for instance what Shaun King says:

Like Kaepernick, I've had enough of injustice in America and I've had enough of anthems written by bigots. Colin Kaepernick has provided a spark."The Star-Spangled Banner" should've never been made into our national anthem. That President Woodrow Wilson, widely thought to be one of the most bigoted presidents ever elected, chose it as our national anthem, is painfully telling as well.

 Several things are wrong with this analysis and, as an introduction, I want to demonstrate how ridiculous this mistaken fervor over the anthem has perpetuated these absolutely crazy theories from a historical perspective. First, King gets wrong that Woodrow Wilson "chose it as our national anthem." Even a cursory look over wikipedia will reveal that while Wilson did have the anthem played at military ceremonies, it wasn't actually initiated as the national anthem until Herbert Hoover signed it into law in 1931. Which is interesting because King says, "First off, the song, which was originally written as a poem, didn't become our national anthem until 1931," which was well after Wilson got out of office. So here is my first point:

This is a controversial issue that is being argued for by historical inaccuracy.

The writing of the Star-Spangled Banner, as many know, was during the War of 1812. One article I read about this issue is by Jon Swartz where he says of the war:

“The Star-Spangled Banner,” Americans hazily remember, was written by Francis Scott Key about the Battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the War of 1812. But we don’t ever talk about how the War of 1812 was a war of aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the British Empire.

This is an oversimplification that isn't even close to being correct. To suggest that a whole war was fought because the budding country was attempting to exercise imperialistic domination over the British is absurd and dishonest. Very briefly, and more accurately, the war was fought over two primary issues (and there are more, but for time's sake...): 1) the British were sponsoring Native American raids from Canada into what is today Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. By initiating skirmishes around the Canadian-American border, the United States attempted to usurp some territory from the British to be used as a bargaining chip. 2) During the Napoleonic Wars, the British found their recruitment stretched. For this reason, they started capturing American Merchant Marines and forcing them into service for the British. This was called impressment.

So no, it was not "an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the British Empire." The real reasons were much more complicated than Swartz makes them out to be.

When the British attacked Fort McHenry, Francis Scott Key was present and penned the famous poem that became the national anthem. The controversial third stanza speaks of "hireling and slave" that "no refuge could save." These progressives have interpreted this as a racially charged statement claiming that Key and the anthem is racist and represents bigotry (to support their argument that Colin Kaepernick was justified to sit during the anthem). But the truth of these claims are suspect.

The British utilized escaped slaves from the United States and incorporated them into the "Colonial Marines." They were a Corps of slaves who made up this new unit. This gave the British a tactical advantage: the slaves knew the geography better and were brave warriors. It is well known that the British throughout their Imperialistic history have used colonies to fight their wars (take for example the Indian Regiments in World War I who fought for the British), but it is interesting to see almost universal praise for the British in this undertaking. King says, "These black men were called the Corps of Colonial Marines and they served valiantly for the British military. Key despised them." Swartz says, "The reality is that there were human beings fighting for freedom with incredible bravery during the War of 1812. However, 'The Star-Spangled Banner' glorifies America’s 'triumph' over them — and then turns that reality completely upside down, transforming their killers into the courageous freedom fighters."

It is interesting to see this kind of backwards logic. It is ok for the British to subjugate former slaves to military service (and that isn't racist?) but for Key to support the defeat of this Corps is racist? But that doesn't make for a good story: what is hot right now is Kaepernick not standing for the anthem. It is with the support of their fabricated historical metanarrative that they can make such claims while leaving issues such as this out of the picture. Not to mention that the British were still fighting with Napoleon in Europe, so utilizing former slaves provided them with bodies who would take bullets and not have a huge effect on the mainstays of the British forces when they returned, intact, to Britain to continue the fight.

Then we have Francis Scott Key himself, a controversial figure (or that's how he is portrayed at least). He was a lawyer and spent time defending slaves in court. In Marc Leepson's "Francis Scott Key, A Life," he says, "Soon after he set up legal shop in Georgetown, Francis Scott Key began representing slaves and freed African Americans in legal disputes, including civil actions in which slaves petitioned for their freedom" (Leepson, 25). Leepson goes on to say, "... Francis Scott Key had a deserved reputation as someone who spoke out against the evils of slavery and offered his legal services gratis to slaves and former slaves" (Leepson, 26). You would never know such things from King's article, where he says, "Key, as District Attorney of Washington, fought for slavery and against abolitionists every chance he got."In an article by Jason Johnson entitled "Star Spangled Bigotry: The Hidden Racist History of the National Anthem," Johnson states, "[Key] was, like most enlightened men at the time, not against slavery; he just thought that since blacks were mentally inferior, masters should treat them with more Christian kindness." Which is interesting: the historian would suggest that Key was someone who "spoke out against the evils of slavery" and yet the two journalists would suggest that Key was a racist.

To further the claim that Key was a racist, several commentators have pointed to his involvement in the "American Colonization Society." The organization believed that if all the slaves could be transported back to Africa, the slavery issue would be settled. Key helped organize the first meeting of the society in 1817. Johnson states, "[Key] supported sending free blacks (not slaves) back to Africa and, with a few exceptions, was about as pro-slavery, anti-black and anti-abolitionist as you could get at the time." This however, isn't exactly true. Let me introduce you to a well-known fellow in American history: Abraham Lincoln. Steven Woodworth says,

Lincoln sought by means of suggesting programs of gradual, compensated emancipation, along with the deportation of the freed slaves to Africa or Central America, to persuade border-state Unionists to give up slavery voluntarily, starting a process he hoped would spread to the rebellious states as well (Woodworth, 58).

All of this evidence presents me with my second point:

History is much more complicated than you think, and utilizing history for the purpose of defending a thesis that is built upon fragile ground is dishonest.

King has the audacity, at the end of his article, to state, "I will never stand for "The Star-Spangled Banner" another day in my damn life." But let's be honest: if the poor history he used to support his position is any indication of what he believes, is this even necessary? I fully agree that there are injustices in this country and we need to work towards fixing this. But what is frustrating is these progressives are using history to support their strange ideologies. History requires one to, as the old adage says, "walk a mile in someone else's shoes." Yes, slavery IS and WAS wrong. But if you lived in this time period, would you have thought so? Attempting to look at these issues from a 21st century moralistic perspective is asking for bad history. History is a series of facts that are interpreted to create a story. We all have biases, and these biases impact our interpretation of history. So the true aim of the historian is not to look at history and say "what can I use to support my worldview?" but rather "what happened and how can I synthesize that information to create a coherent story?"

I don't particularly care about Colin Kaepernick and his refusal to stand for the national anthem. I do take offense that the journalists who wrote about the anthem refused to get history correct and used to it further a political agenda. And what is further, they got so many facts wrong that they should be ashamed for trying to purport a legitimate history from their shoddy research.

Which leads me to my final point:

If you can find a country without a dark past, you should live there.

Every country has some semblance of a past or a present that is littered with tragedy. Every country has made mistakes in its infancy or even in the present. If we were to proverbially "sit down" during a national anthem for whatever country we lived in because of injustice, we would be standing for literally no anthem. Herbert Butterfield said,

"It has been said that the historian is the avenger, and that standing as a judge between the parties and rivalries and causes of bygone generations he can lift up the fallen and beat down the proud, and by his exposures and his verdicts, his satire and his moral indignation, can punish unrighteousness, avenge the injured or reward the innocent."

Our purpose for utilizing history should not be to justify political agendas; as demonstrated, this inevitably leads us to error. If we were to place a 21st century moral expectation on early America, we would have to condemn George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and most of the founders and signers of the Constitution. I love what John Fea says in his book, "Why Study History": "People in the past cannot defend themselves. They are at the mercy of the historian." Yes this country has made mistakes, but are we to condemn them? This may sound cliche, but if the answer is yes, you should probably understand the art of historical knowledge better.

The Christian Historian

Francis Schaeffer says in his book, "How Should We Then Live,"

 People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at his life, his basic world view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People's presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions (Schaeffer, 1)

This is possibly one of the most concise and important statements on worldview this writer has ever read. Reading into the world the truth of "what exists" is one of the most profound exercises we as humans can dwell on. This affects every part of our being, whether we realize it or not. Our own particular worldview touches every facet of our lives, shapes us as individuals and people, and impacts those things in which we chose to pursue, whether it be in law, science, or history.

Of particular concern is the role of worldview in the life of the historian. The worldview of the historian that is Christian is not simply an over spiritualization of events to demonstrate that God works behind and beneath all events in human history. It isn't simply pointing the finger saying "God did this"; that perhaps is self-explanatory. Rather it is, as Schaeffer says, "a grid for all they bring forth into the external world." Worldview itself tells us that there are biases that every person brings to the table in interpretation. What exactly those biases are are largely determined by your particular worldview.

The Christian historian gains the unique perspective of seeing the world through the lens of scripture. It is the presuppositions of an infinite God outside of time and space who not only created the universe, but intimately knows and loves His creation that gives the Christian historian the "grid" for how the world functions. From this, we can understand that God is the author a creator of history and that the Bible is the authentic and historically accurate word of God. Through it, we can not only know who God is, but we can learn how to be righteous in His eyes.

And this perspective vastly influences the interpretation a historian utilizes. It helps us recognize that God is sovereign without over spiritualizing events; it helps us understand that God is the author of history; it demonstrates that man is sinful and prone to wrong doings; and it shows how fallible and small man is and how awesome, great, and infinite God is.

History is a great teacher. It can guide us and teach us about ourselves. From the Christian worldview, history is also redemptive in that it calls attention to great events. And there is no greater event in the history of the world that the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who paid the penalty for sin on the cross so that we can become justified in the sight of God.


Bibliography

Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live? the Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.