FIRST TIME REACTION | Star Spangled Banner As You've Never Heard It 

You're absolutely correct

You weren't taught this in any school because this is full of lies. It is a tale told by a right-wing religious zealot.

Thank you for sharing this with us.

Sorry to hear that this video made you feel ashamed, as it is largely false. If you read the description of the original video, you will see that they admit it is *NOT* an accurate account of what happened, and suggest that people "look up the accurate story if want the precise info". This is not a history lesson, but a rabble-rousing sermon by a preacher named David C Gibbs jr (hence the 'Amens' in the background) who, shall we say, 'never lets the truth get in the way of a good story'. He tells a great tale, but very little of it actually happened: the only things he gets correct are Francis Scott Key's name and profession, that the British attacked a fort outside Baltimore (though he never actually gets the name right), and that a flag was flying the next morning. Everything else is a product of Pastor Gibb's vivid imagination. This occurred in 1814, almost 40 years after the revolution. In 1812, *the United States declared war on Britain* (not the other way round), with the aim of annexing Canada while Britain was engaged in Europe fighting the dictatorship of Napoleon, and also to recapture thousands of slaves who were escaping to freedom in Canada every year. It wasn't until after the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 that Britain and Canada mounted a concerted counterattack, with the aim of bringing the US to the negotiating table, not for acquisition of territory. During the intervening time, US forces had made *ten* attempted invasions of Canada (including the burning of York, the capital of Upper Canada). The battle of Baltimore occurred three weeks after the White House had been burned down by escaped slaves who had joined the British forces to fight against their former masters. There were no "thousands of prisoners in cages" on board the ship, there was a single man (Dr William Beanes) who was billeted in an officer's cabin aboard the flagship (contrary to popular belief, warships of this period did not have cells or prisoner facilities). Key didn't go because he had been asked by the government, he went because he was a personal friend of Dr Beanes. It was Colonel John Skinner, the official exchange negotiator (not mentioned in this story), who arranged the release; Key was just along for the ride. There were no "women and children" in the fort: it was a heavily-armed military installation with twenty-three heavy cannons, and over a thousand fighting men, both artillerymen and militia. Together with the infantry and militia at North Point and Hampstead Hill, the defending Americans *outnumbered* the attacking British troops by 5 to 1. There were no "hundreds of ships" firing at the fort, but five gunboats with long-range mortars. It was not a "constant barrage of guns": a total of about 1500 rounds were fired, which is an average of just a single shot each minute over 25 hours. Key did not visit the fort afterwards (indeed they didn't get back to Baltimore until two days after the battle) and so could not have witnessed "bodies propping up the flagpole". The fort had 13-foot thick walls and had suffered very little damage and minimal casualties: out of over 1000 personnel, there were only 4 dead. *No-one died holding up the flag* : two died manning a cannon, one carrying water to the perimeter and one died later from shrapnel. The flagpole was untouched. It was actually a 75-foot tall, repurposed ship's mast, weighing nearly two tons, so the idea of anybody being able to hold it up is pure fantasy.

"I can't rewrite history, I also won't shy away from it." Unfortunately, that's exactly what this story tries to do: if you look at the description of the original source video, you will see they admit it is *NOT* historically accurate. The only things that are correct are Francis Scott Key's name and profession, that a fort outside Baltimore (the name of which he consistently gets wrong) was attacked by British forces and that the flag was flying the next morning. Everything else is a figment of the narrator's fertile imagination. No ship full of prisoners, no women or children in the fort, no bodies holding up the flag (which in fact was entirely untouched). "Many countries have made huge mistakes, going to war unnecessarily and for what? Sometimes..... another's wish to land grab.." In which case, don't feel guilty about being British. This was the War of 1812, when *the United States declared war on Britain* (not the other way round), aiming to annex Canada while Britain was engaged fighting the dictatorship of Napoleon in Europe. The US made *ten* separate invasion attempts in two years, until 1814, when a small combined British and Canadian amphibious force made a series of hit-and-run raids down the east coast, with the aim of bringing the US to the negotiating table. Baltimore was attacked three weeks after the raid on Washington DC, after which peace negotiations were opened, when the US agreed to respect the pre-war border and recognise Canada as a separate nation.

This narrative is full of lies.

It's a lot of lies and a very little truth in this story. It is the fake news of a right-wing religious zealot. Ignore this foolishness, go to the library and get a book and read the real story.

It's not Paul Harvey. It's a recording of a sermon by a lay pastor named Peter C Gibbs Jr (hence the 'Amens' you can hear in the background) who is a moderately good orator but - how can I put it - never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

Yes , I loved Paul Harvey I totally agree

Also Francis Scott Key's written poem of what he watched! Is in the Smithsonian museum!

It's not the Revolutionary War, but the War of 1812. Fort McHenry wasn't even built until a quarter of a century after the Revolution. The War started when the United States declared war on Britain (not the other way around), aiming to annex Canada while Britain was engaged fighting the dictatorship of Napoleon in Europe. The US made *ten* separate invasion attempts in two years, until 1814, when a combined British and Canadian amphibious force made a series of hit-and-run raids down the east coast, with the aim of bringing the US to the negotiating table. Baltimore was attacked three weeks after the raid on Washington DC, after which peace negotiations were opened. The fixation on not letting the flag touch the ground actually dates from the Civil War, and wasn't formally codified until 1923.

Sad, as an American, that the narrator doesnt know the difference between 2 wars 36 years apart. What "colonies" was he talking about??? The War of 1812, which the USA started, was between the fully sovereign USA and Great Britain when USA tried to annex territories north of the St Lawrence River (in what is now Canada) and nearly resulted in Britain achieving what they failed to do 36 years prior. One of the paintings shown was of the USS Constitution, an ironsided super frigate. It was prominent during the War of 1812. You can take tours on it now. The only colonies involved were ones the USA was trying to take away from Britain... and those colonies certainly weren't fighting against Britain.

It's not just the Marines who thinks that way, we all have had many brothers whose coffins were draped with our flag!!

My b rother was on hill 55 in 1968 with the corps, I still have his flag @@clydea.murphy2219

The civi war between the north and south not the Brits

@@donnak7974 "On September 14, 1814, Francis Scott Key pens a poem which is later set to music and in 1931 becomes America’s national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner.” The poem, originally titled “The Defence of Fort M'Henry,” was written after Key witnessed the Maryland fort being bombarded by the British during the War of 1812."

So, you know nothing of music structure.. shhh.. quiet now..

@@MBrown201175 Maybe this will help you understand better, even with your limited music knowledge. This comes from a site called American Songwriter. Please do your best to follow along. It doesn’t have a memorable ‘chorus’ or ‘hook’. It isn’t written in what we would call colloquial speech, so it is awkward to speak the lyric and to memorize it. The structure of the song causes an aural disconnect for the listener. The lyric appears as if it is an A A B A structure. The first A section (lines 1 and 2) parallels the second A section (lines 3 and 4). The B section (lines 5 and 6) is a different section entirely. But, the last A section (lines 7 and 8), looks similar to the first and second A sections, is set to totally different music. This makes it sound as if it is an entirely different section, Section C. The structure of the Star-Spangled Banner reads like an A A B A, but it sounds like an A A B C. We don’t really hear the rhymes as much as we normally would if it was a pop song that has a repeated rhyme scheme from verse to verse. The Star Spangled Banner has an irregular rhyme scheme. It is AB AB CC DD. So the rhymes do not lead the ear in a natural way. It has too many s’s (esses) in the first three lines causing some annoying problems with sibilance. As an example: The second line "Twilight’s Last"… followed by "Stripes… Starts"… and "Perilous"…. In line four, there is a pronunciation problem caused by the sequence of words that begin with ‘w’, "We… Watched… Were"… The mouth muscles do not like the repetition of the ‘w’ sound. In line 5, "Rockets’ Red Glare"… is yet another small tongue twister. The worst annoyance in the lyric is: "Yet Wave… with Wave"… set as a melisma (one syllable stretching over two notes). And these two notes are descending. The melodic setting of the word "Wave" never seems positive or inspirational as indicated by Francis Scott Key’s lyric intention. Because of this melodic setting, it seems to be giving off another less hopeful message. If you are still not able to understand why the structure of the song is so convoluted, there is simply nothing else that can be done for you.

Dude, that song is our history, I would never give up that song for any other song, a true American would agree, ARE YOU?

@@mr.snifty Well, if you had read my original comment, you would already know that I am a "true American." Never lived anywhere else, never desired to. Like many other true Americans, I never cared for the song, though, for the very reasons that are detailed in my follow-up comment. That's probably because I care about the quality of the music. Not everyone does. The song is structured so haphazardly that it is not only difficult to sing, it is often painful to listen to. There would have been better choices as our national anthem. Hell, "Yankee Doodle Dandy" would have made a better anthem than this one!

@@GaryDouglas-lj5bz how is it difficult the sing, you say your American but I think your a scum trying to be American, get away from our song you Alien

Interestingly, the states of New England, who stood most to gain from complete control of the St Lawrence, voted *against* going to war. It was the slave-owning states of the south and west, who had been losing thousands of slaves escaping to freedom in Canada each year, who voted in favor of going to war. Again, at the end of the war, the primary US demand was for the return of all escaped slaves. This part of history was very much 'revised' in the popular consciousness of the US after the Civil War. As for Britain 'reclaiming its lost colonies': the attacks on Washington and Baltimore were just a series of hit and run raids by a small amphibious force of about 5000 men, with no cavalry or artillery, and no supplies beyond those carried in the ships. Hardly enough to make an invasion of a country of 7.5 milion (in fact they were outnumbered 5 to 1 just by the troops defending Baltimore), but sufficient to bring the US into peace negotiations