Capitol police shut down Christian children's choir singing national anthem. "Too offensive".

A199B545-1DD8-B71B-0BDBAA2390772818.jpg

[MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION]

Note the make up of the crew, who are about to be "pressed" by the British in this 1810 sketch.

I clearly see at least one, maybe two, free black sailors in that crew.

“Without a press, I have no idea how our Fleet can be manned.” —British Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson
 
Last edited:
Would it change your perception if I told you that many, not all or a majority of but many, of the seamen that were enslaved on the high seas by the British were free black whalermen or fishermen sailing out of places like Boston and New Bedford and Nantucket?



OK, so I had that right, that is the verse that has everybody upset?

So then, is it racist?

And why did the cops stop the choir on the second verse then?

Just to be clear, the cops suck. The first amendment should protect people in Confederate uniforms singing Dixie if that's what they want to do. And who the hell traumatizes kids like that? That said, I still think it was a douche move on the part of Francis Scott Key to threaten people for wanting freedom. The British impressing black seaman (and paying them) into temporary service sounds like the Union impressing black freeman to build Ft. Negley in Nashville. (I've walked around that fort a few times. Interesting experience.) And before someone says "See! Lincoln was a tyrant!" the south was FAR worse not just to black people but to poor whites. The rich Southern planters forced poor whites to fight for them while exempting themselves from service based on how many slaves they owned.

Still waiting for an answer as to why invading Canada was justified. Funny enough the U.S. best success was fighting at sea. Which...goes back to my earlier point. The U.S. could have simply better equipped U.S. vessels to be able to defend themselves from whoever was attacking them. Would have had the same result. But then we wouldn't have gotten a national song I suppose. Kind of the Ron Paul "letters of marque and reprisal" proposition that he offered as opposed to a land war in Afghanistan. And we see how that ended up.

 
Last edited:
Congress had lawfully declared war against the British.

Canada was a possession of the British and right on the border, undefended.

Sucks, but, "war is all hell" after all.

Kind of sounds like how we ended up in Afghanistan for 20 years. Please explain why I'm wrong for thinking that.
 
True.



War with England was declared, as AF said. To this very day, the King of England is also the King of Canada.

And...that's the "justification" for the 20 year Afghanistan fiasco. Ron Paul warned against that and nobody listened. Letters of marque and reprisal would have been the correct response, not a land war which we basically lost.
 
The US attacking canada was folly and of course would never meet great success.Should have stuck to the high seas where the odds were better.
 
I turned back to the Capitol Police and I said that I understand authority, and I obey authority. And I said, in fact, we try to teach these young children to respect and obey authority. So we’ve stopped singing because you said to stop. But I said, “This is wrong.”

There’s your problem right there.

SMGDH

Problem? What problem?

SWLODs will be submitted. What more could you want?

I said this is not over. We’re going to leave peacefully, but this isn’t over. We’re going to write to our congressman and see if we can get this changed.
Some hotheads might suggest voting hard - but I don't think a relatively minor incident like this really warrants such extreme measures.

(We should keep that as a "nuclear option" for when we really need it as a last resort.)
 
Problem? What problem?

SWLODs will be submitted. What more could you want?


Some hotheads might suggest voting hard - but I don't think a relatively minor incident like this really warrants such extreme measures.

(We should keep that as a "nuclear option" for when we really need it as a last resort.)


Of course you’re right. What WAS I thinking?

Perhaps we could even add personal phone calls to the ffices of senators and representatives as a just beyond nuclear option?
 
Just to be clear, the cops suck. The first amendment should protect people in Confederate uniforms singing Dixie if that's what they want to do. And who the hell traumatizes kids like that?

Cops do. And we've both seen it.

That said, I still think it was a douche move on the part of Francis Scott Key to threaten people for wanting freedom.

Possibly. But is that "douchiness" rooted in racism or making an overtly racist remark?

No, not at all.

The British impressing black seaman (and paying them) into temporary service sounds like the Union impressing black freeman to build Ft. Negley in Nashville.

The "pay" was next to nothing, worse than prison pay. Prize money was often never paid out. And most of the press ganged men, died, long before being discharged or released.

Still waiting for an answer as to why invading Canada was justified. Funny enough the U.S. best success was fighting at sea. Which...goes back to my earlier point. The U.S. could have simply better equipped U.S. vessels to be able to defend themselves from whoever was attacking them. Would have had the same result. But then we wouldn't have gotten a national song I suppose.

Because a formal declaration of war was passed, legally and constitutionally.

Not a weak sauce "AUMF".

Now, that does not mean it was strategically smart, nor morally justified.

I never made those points, just that it was constitutionally justified.

Monroe could have handled things better.

The U.S. could have simply better equipped U.S. vessels to be able to defend themselves from whoever was attacking them. Kind of the Ron Paul "letters of marque and reprisal" proposition that he offered as opposed to a land war in Afghanistan. And we see how that ended up.

These were British ships-of-line, the best, most heavily armed, fastest and heavily crewed vessels on the sea.

There is not the room, the crew or the supplies that would fit on a merchant vessel or whaling vessel of the time that could defend against a British warship of the day.

At the turn of the 19th century for example, a typical long range whaling vessel was only 100 to 120 feet long with a crew of thirty or so and every square inch was taken with supplies, casks, tools, men and longboats for the purpose of hunting whales. Many vessels already carried a swivel gun, small arms and maybe a "Long Nine" but these were more for use against pirates and hostile natives.

Letters of Marque were not a sure thing either.

 
Kind of sounds like how we ended up in Afghanistan for 20 years. Please explain why I'm wrong for thinking that.

I don't think you are.

It should have stayed a maritime issue and a maritime fight, over the rights of sailors not to be enslaved by a hostile foreign power on the high seas.

That phrase was the rallying cry for the war as a matter of fact:

Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights

The nation was still angry at the British over the 1807 USS Chesapeake - HMS Leopard incident as well.

The slow communications of the day, led to the Canadian invasion after the treaty was agreed to.

That was also the reason for Andrew Jackson's attack and brilliant, but utterly meaningless victory in the Battle of New Orleans.

 
Cops do. And we've both seen it.

True.

Possibly. But is that "douchiness" rooted in racism or making an overtly racist remark?

No, not at all.

You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

The "pay" was next to nothing, worse than prison pay. Prize money was often never paid out. And most of the press ganged men, died, long before being discharged or released.

They got paid more than the people F.S. Key threatened in his song.

Because a formal declaration of war was passed, legally and constitutionally.

Not a weak sauce "AUMF".

Now, that does not mean it was strategically smart, nor morally justified.

I never made those points, just that it was constitutionally justified.

LOL. I'm going to channel my inner [MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] here. Somehow the fact that a stupid and immoral decision was constitutional made it not as bad? Ummm...nope. Alcohol prohibition was 100% constitutional.

Monroe could have handled things better.

Agreed.

These were British ships-of-line, the best, most heavily armed, fastest and heavily crewed vessels on the sea.

There is not the room, the crew or the supplies that would fit on a merchant vessel or whaling vessel of the time that could defend against a British warship of the day.

And yet...the U.S. won its most significant battles at sea. Not on land.

At the turn of the 19th century for example, a typical long range whaling vessel was only 100 to 120 feet long with a crew of thirty or so and every square inch was taken with supplies, casks, tools, men and longboats for the purpose of hunting whales. Many vessels already carried a swivel gun, small arms and maybe a "Long Nine" but these were more for use against pirates and hostile natives.

Letters of Marque were not a sure thing either.

Better than what we actually did. And again, the sea is where the U.S. actually stood toe to toe with Britain. Okay, send some Navy vessels to escort the merchant marine ships until the Brits decided it wasn't worth it and go get their sailors elsewhere and/or tell the Brits they could buy all the southern slaves they wanted and teach them to be sailors. Problem solved without a stupid war trying to take Canada from Canadians that didn't want anything to do with us just because we were mad at there overlords in Britain. And the biggest gripe we had against Britain, which was the trade restrictions and not the sailor impress issue you're trying to make the main issue, was solved before the fighting started.



Nice song! Always love acapella music. Was this a sea chanty?
 
I don't think you are.

It should have stayed a maritime issue and a maritime fight, over the rights of sailors not to be enslaved by a hostile foreign power on the high seas.

That phrase was the rallying cry for the war as a matter of fact:

Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights

The nation was still angry at the British over the 1807 USS Chesapeake - HMS Leopard incident as well.

The slow communications of the day, led to the Canadian invasion after the treaty was agreed to.

That was also the reason for Andrew Jackson's attack and brilliant, but utterly meaningless victory in the Battle of New Orleans.



Okay. I SMILE every time I hear that song. Just can't help it.

Love the Lego version.

 
Nice song! Always love acapella music. Was this a sea chanty?

Yes it's in the "style" of a shanty, written in the modern era by the late, great Stan Rogers.



Take a listen to these guys: The Longest Johns.

I am prepared to fly to England to see them, they are that good.

An a capella musical rendition of Robert Louis Stevenson's poem "Christmas At Sea".

Having just had my mother and father both die fairly recently, the last line hits home hard now.



If you like this, search on YouTube "The Longest Johns - Made of Ale" sessions.

My top five personal recommendations for the group, excluding the song listed above:

1 - Bones in the Ocean

2 - Hog Eye Man

3 - Hard Times Come Again No More

4 - The Mary Ellen Carter

5 - Four Hours (my entire life was spent in four hour blocks at sea, until it broke me)
 
Last edited:
And the biggest gripe we had against Britain, which was the trade restrictions and not the sailor impress issue you're trying to make the main issue, was solved before the fighting started.

1 - The sailor impressment was a major issue at the time, and the historical record shows that. Granted, I'm biased, considering my background.

2 - Nobody knew that, due to the slow communications.

3 - I still maintain that nothing Key wrote, in the third verse or anywhere, could be construed in any way as "racist". No race was mentioned at all. I've gone to great lengths to show that an impressed sailor in the British fleet was, for all intents and purposes, a slave. Since impressed seamen were actively involved in the battle of Fort McHenry, how do you know Key was not referring to them? Or to both?
 
1 - The sailor impressment was a major issue at the time, and the historical record shows that. Granted, I'm biased, considering my background.

2 - Nobody knew that, due to the slow communications.

3 - I still maintain that nothing Key wrote, in the third verse or anywhere, could be construed in any way as "racist". No race was mentioned at all. I've gone to great lengths to show that an impressed sailor in the British fleet was, for all intents and purposes, a slave. Since impressed seamen were actively involved in the battle of Fort McHenry, how do you know Key was not referring to them? Or to both?

Oh I'm sure sailor impressment carried great emotional weight but it had far less effect on the entire country. It's like how the for African Americans who got kidnapped by the Mexican drug cartel was a bigger story than all of the people dying every day from fentanyl. You had Republicans threatening to invade Mexico. And I'm sure the families of the two survivors were appreciative of the pressure because the cartel returned the captives pretty quickly after the public pressure and even turned over some patsies...I mean "kidnappers."

As for the verse not mentioning a race....ummm....seriously that's your argument? By that time white slavery had been abolished in the U.S. I even remember reading about a southern town that almost rioted because they thought a very light skinned black slave was actually white.

As for the slow communication part, it came after the war was declared but before the invasion of Canada. This would be like the U.S. declaring war on Mexico, not knowing the kidnapped victims were freed, and then finding out they were freed and going along with the invasion anyway. A SEAL Team Six extraction of the kidnapped victims would have been justified. A full on invasion, not so much.

Look at this from the point of view of the individual Canadian frontiersman who's now defending his home from U.S. invaders over something he had nothing to do with. I can see killing British sailors trying to board U.S. ships. But killing Canadian frontiersman over British sailors boarding U.S. ships? Yeah...not buying that.
 
Yes it's in the "style" of a shanty, written in the modern era by the late, great Stan Rogers.



Take a listen to these guys: The Longest Johns.

I am prepared to fly to England to see them, they are that good.

An a capella musical rendition of Robert Louis Stevenson's poem "Christmas At Sea".

Having just had my mother and father both die fairly recently, the last line hits home hard now.



If you like this, search on YouTube "The Longest Johns - Made of Ale" sessions.

My top five personal recommendations for the group, excluding the song listed above:

1 - Bones in the Ocean

2 - Hog Eye Man

3 - Hard Times Come Again No More

4 - The Mary Ellen Carter

5 - Four Hours (my entire life was spent in four hour blocks at sea, until it broke me)


Thanks for sharing! My first (and only really) exposure to the merchant marines was that episode of Taxi where one of the cabbies temporarily joined them. This was their "sea chanty."

 
As for the slow communication part, it came after the war was declared but before the invasion of Canada. This would be like the U.S. declaring war on Mexico, not knowing the kidnapped victims were freed, and then finding out they were freed and going along with the invasion anyway. A SEAL Team Six extraction of the kidnapped victims would have been justified. A full on invasion, not so much.

Look at this from the point of view of the individual Canadian frontiersman who's now defending his home from U.S. invaders over something he had nothing to do with. I can see killing British sailors trying to board U.S. ships. But killing Canadian frontiersman over British sailors boarding U.S. ships? Yeah...not buying that.

Well, all we're arguing about here is war strategy.

Was it handled wrong by Madison and his generals, yes, I acknowledged that already.

I'm not anti war so much as I am anti arbitrary force with no proper legal oversight and no end in sight.

I would have no problem with a Congressional declaration of war against Mexico for the invasion on our border.

Nor would I against Communist China for the millions dead from the China Virus.

The armed enslavement of thousands of US citizens on the high seas by the British is an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

As for the verse not mentioning a race....ummm....seriously that's your argument? By that time white slavery had been abolished in the U.S. I even remember reading about a southern town that almost rioted because they thought a very light skinned black slave was actually white.

I'm not following you here...

Look, even if Key meant by "slave" specifically African slaves, I still do not find the line inherently racist in any way.

He not singling out any particular group, he is wishing defeat on the enemies of his country, including those assisting them.
 
Back
Top