A Great History Lesson

[rebelsfan]

This video  is worth your time to watch.

As we gather for sporting events and we endure and enjoy many different renditions of our national anthem,perhaps a history lesson will make it more meaningful fo all of us.

 

YouTube - The story behind the "Star Spangled Banner" our National Anthem

 

 

 

[rebels4life]

Everyone that lives in this great country, should be required to watch that video. Thanks for sharing..

[MattM]

Sorry if what I may say will ruin some of the nostalgia the video presents about the event that led to our national anthem being written.  However, to ensure taking creative liberties with the story doesn?t hurt the integrity of its true (the brave soldiers who fought to protect America) I feel I should make some small corrections about what just occurred.  I just covered this war right before break with my history class so its fresh on my mind.

 

The video mentions this was a battle between the colonies and mother country Britain. Giving the indication we are still colonies of Britain.

This battle occurred during the War of 1812, so at that point we were actually the US States fighting against Britain over trade issues.

 

The video tries to present the attack as a surprise British move.

There had already been other battles in the Baltimore area, so Ft. McHenry was aware of British movements.  Though they did not know Britain would launch a full on attack on that fort.  British hoped this attack would draw US troops away from other battles in the area allowing the British forces to gain an advantage in those other areas.

 

The video mentioned the entire British navy was planning to attack.

Britain had used around 20 ships in the actual attack though thousands of cannanballs had been launched at the fort making it a major bombardment.

 

The video mentioned it was a fort of mostly women and children.

However, all indications say more than 1,000 soldiers in the fort (a decent number).  It probably held a decent number of civilians as well who were trying to take shelter from British attacks in the area.

 

The video mentions Ft. Henry.

It is actually Ft. McHenry.

 

The video points that all the British guns for several hours were focused on taking down the flag that stood.  While I have not historical evidence against this I would find it odd they would waste all of their limited ammunition (they only had what was carried on the ships) on taking out a flag stand instead of focusing on the fort which because of good fortifications had sustained little damage thus far form the hours of cannon fire.  Grant it some of the guns may have been focused on the general area of the flag, but doubtful that was the entire focus of the British attack.   The attack was called off after the British was unable to get passed the fort defenses and thus the flag remained a reminder of the US defending the fort as Key the other men were allowed to return ashore that morning.

 

Yes, it is good to remember the general story of our national anthem.  And also the courage of those to fought to defend our nation against an opposition.  However, it is also good keep things somewhat historically accurate so that the embellishments don?t hurt the point of the story when people find out more accurate facts.

 

By the way Key wrote the ?Defense of Ft. McHenry? as a poem about what he watched on the back of the envelop that contained the prisoner exchange information.  It was later set to an old British drinking song and eventually named the tar Spangled Banner.  This was made into the the official national anthem around the 1930s.

 

[pin2win1]

The video tries to present the attack as a surprise British move.

There had already been other battles in the Baltimore area, so Ft. McHenry was aware of British movements.  Though they did not know Britain would launch a full on attack on that fort.  British hoped this attack would draw US troops aware from other battles in the area allowing their forces to win those battles.

 

Yes MattM, the whole area had been under threat of the British, in fact just days before DC had been ravaged and burned by the British. Then as the British headed north, they had decided to go through Fort McHenry and were unable to conquer it and ended up moving back.

 

Quite frankly, the war of 1812 was a disaster for the US. The northern campaign was horrendous at first and the US lost territory in the old NW (including chicago and detroit). The US had tried to take canada, but did so trying to us militia from New England states (who were against the war) and once outside of their state refused to fight. Really out only success was the battle of lake erie later on, with a corresponding land battle that immediately followed, and then the Battle of New Orleans which actually took place after the ending of the war. For some reason through, the British were nice and gave us back the land they had taken control of.

[m25443]

Great to reflect on our flag and country.

 

Thanks for those historical clarifications.  One of my pet peeves is embellishing the truth to make a point.  Especially when there is so much more to how amazing our ability to fly this flag really is.  Another pet peeve is the poor flag etiquette we practice (or fail to practice) these days.  Like Standing at attention (not Parade Rest, like most athletes seem to do) and putting your hand over your heart.  Our wrestlers don't usually know better because they have not been taught by their parents, coaches, etc.   I hope all the coaches and parents out their will give their children some training in etiquette to the flag.  I guess that's my Christmas wish for this year!

 

Here's where you can learn more about flag etiquette:  http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html  

 

 

 

 

[rebelsfan]

Sorry if what I may say will ruin some of the nostalgia the video presents about the event that led to our national anthem being written.  However, to ensure taking creative liberties with the story doesn?t hurt the integrity of its true (the brave soldiers who fought to protect America) I feel I should make some small corrections about what just occurred.  I just covered this war right before break with my history class so its fresh on my mind.

 

The video mentions this was a battle between the colonies and mother country Britain. Giving the indication we are still colonies of Britain.

This battle occurred during the War of 1812, so at that point we were actually the US States fighting against Britain over trade issues.

 

The video tries to present the attack as a surprise British move.

There had already been other battles in the Baltimore area, so Ft. McHenry was aware of British movements.  Though they did not know Britain would launch a full on attack on that fort.  British hoped this attack would draw US troops away from other battles in the area allowing the British forces to gain an advantage in those other areas.

 

The video mentioned the entire British navy was planning to attack.

Britain had used around 20 ships in the actual attack though thousands of cannanballs had been launched at the fort making it a major bombardment.

 

The video mentioned it was a fort of mostly women and children.

However, all indications say more than 1,000 soldiers in the fort (a decent number).  It probably held a decent number of civilians as well who were trying to take shelter from British attacks in the area.

 

The video mentions Ft. Henry.

It is actually Ft. McHenry.

 

The video points that all the British guns for several hours were focused on taking down the flag that stood.  While I have not historical evidence against this I would find it odd they would waste all of their limited ammunition (they only had what was carried on the ships) on taking out a flag stand instead of focusing on the fort which because of good fortifications had sustained little damage thus far form the hours of cannon fire.  Grant it some of the guns may have been focused on the general area of the flag, but doubtful that was the entire focus of the British attack.   The attack was called off after the British was unable to get passed the fort defenses and thus the flag remained a reminder of the US defending the fort as Key the other men were allowed to return ashore that morning.

 

Yes, it is good to remember the general story of our national anthem.  And also the courage of those to fought to defend our nation against an opposition.  However, it is also good keep things somewhat historically accurate so that the embellishments don?t hurt the point of the story when people find out more accurate facts.

 

By the way Key wrote the ?Defense of Ft. McHenry? as a poem about what he watched on the back of the envelop that contained the prisoner exchange information.  It was later set to an old British drinking song and eventually named the tar Spangled Banner.  This was made into the the official national anthem around the 1930s.

 

Yes MattM, the whole area had been under threat of the British, in fact just days before DC had been ravaged and burned by the British. Then as the British headed north, they had decided to go through Fort McHenry and were unable to conquer it and ended up moving back.

 

Quite frankly, the war of 1812 was a disaster for the US. The northern campaign was horrendous at first and the US lost territory in the old NW (including chicago and detroit). The US had tried to take canada, but did so trying to us militia from New England states (who were against the war) and once outside of their state refused to fight. Really out only success was the battle of lake erie later on, with a corresponding land battle that immediately followed, and then the Battle of New Orleans which actually took place after the ending of the war. For some reason through, the British were nice and gave us back the land they had taken control of.

You guys are something!You know, I thought I  thought at the time that I  should  research this video a little further, but i didnt because I really thought it representd our forefathers and their patriotism.Sorry if I misrepresented your view of hstory. But the sentiment is the same---we need to respect our flag and grant  it more respect!! I really doubt this story is far from the truth!!

[pin2win1]

MattM,

 

I think the fact that the men at Ft McHenry stood up to a superior force, and stopped them from going any further along the Atlantic coast is pretty darn amazing enough and needs no embelishment. I mean think about it, the nations capital was ravaged, and the english ate a dinner that was prepared for the occupants of the white house in the white house. The english general also took love letters from President Madison to his wife Dolly. And these men rather than wallow in the fact that the US was getting whooped, stood their ground and won a tactical victory.

[MattM]

MattM,

 

I think the fact that the men at Ft McHenry stood up to a superior force, and stopped them from going any further along the Atlantic coast is pretty darn amazing enough and needs no embelishment. I mean think about it, the nations capital was ravaged, and the english ate a dinner that was prepared for the occupants of the white house in the white house. The english general also took love letters from President Madison to his wife Dolly. And these men rather than wallow in the fact that the US was getting whooped, stood their ground and won a tactical victory.

 

Agreed.  Sometimes the guts and the struggle of the actual events in history can stand well on their own.  In fact, their have been many geat moments in American history at many unlikely moment or by many unlikely people that people should be made aware of.  Unfortunatly, many times parts of historic events get "inflated" to the point of over doing it to the point of hurting their credibility.  Obviously, it would be impossible to get all of the conversations and speeches accurate in these big moments and some "liberties" may need to take there to convy the message.  But, it should worth it to keep the facts involved in the events as clear and accurate as is possible.  If the obvious facts are skewed to enhance a story this tend to draws questions about the accurace of the entire event.  Just telling the story of how F. S. Key was witness to 24 hours of British bombardment (1000 of cannonball rounds) of a fort being protected by young US soldiers who showed their pride by ensuring the flag remain flying the next morning is uplifting enough.  The information and fact available make for one heck of a inspiring moment without trying to bolster the sense of patriotism by misrepresenting the moment.  It the same issue I have when some people use  historical Hollywood films as the basis for a factual understanding of history.  The point of the movie, the feeling of the time, and the inspirational moments may be based on some truth, but details of it should not be the basis for understanding of historical events without further researching the topic.  There is a great point to the story, no doubt, but I would hate for it to be tainted because someone didn't know how to seperate the inspiring fact from what major story telling liberties were taken when it was not needed to get a deer emotional rection.

 

After doing some research I found the Pastor involved took this story from an earlier work on the  subject to use in a 4th of July serman.  While it works for inspiration I'm guessing he wasn't worried to much about keeping it accurate as he was drawing emotion.

 

This version may not be quite as inspirationalhere is a good base for the actual story.  

 

So I don'tbring down a few of your patriotic feelings here is a great Red Skelton monolog about the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance American Pledge of Allegiance by Red Skelton

 

And a celebrity Declaration of Independence reading as well. Declaration of Independence

[m25443]

Can someone tell me about those "bombs" and the "rockets red glare?"  Were they shooting non-explosive cannonballs, or some type of munition that exploded after it hit the ground (or ater some period of time, like a bottle rocket does)?  I'm not up on my 1812 artillery.

[MattM]

Can someone tell me about those "bombs" and the "rockets red glare?"  Were they shooting non-explosive cannonballs, or some type of munition that exploded after it hit the ground (or ater some period of time, like a bottle rocket does)?  I'm not up on my 1812 artillery.

 

I believe the  "rockets red glare" and "bombs bursting in air" would be from a primative form of a rocket that was very inaccurate (I would imagine a large exploding bottle rocket basically).  Other than that the noises would be a results of morter blast cannonballs hitting against the fort.

 

I just looked further into the idea of exploding cannonballs.  It seems they where in used during this time though I would have to read much more to find out if the British used them during the War of 1812.  I would suspect amount that could be aquired was limited and the accuracy of the explosion probably was very sketchy.

[pin2win1]

After doing some research I found the Pastor involved took this story from an earlier work on the  subject to use in a 4th of July serman.  While it works for inspiration I'm guessing he wasn't worried to much about keeping it accurate as he was drawing emotion.

 

wow didn't realize this was a pastor telling lies.... this sickens me. I have degrees in Christian Ministry and Divinity, and one of the first lessons in homiletics is that if it isn't true, don't attempt to portray it as true. What do you think the people of his congregation would think if they knew he created this and presented it as being true when in fact it is false? HE would lose a ton of respect and credibility. I mean this is bearing false witness.

[Trinedad]

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20483/20483-h/20483-h.htm#page071

 

EXPLOSIVE SHELLS

The word "bomb" comes to us from the French, who derived it from the Latin. But the Romans got it originally from the Greek bombos, meaning a deep, hollow sound. "Bombard" is a derivation. Today bomb is pronounced "balm," but in the early days it was commonly pronounced "bum." The modern equivalent of the "bum" is an HE shell.

 

The first recorded use of explosive shells was by the Venetians in 1376. Their bombs were hemispheres of stone or bronze, joined together with hoops and exploded by means of a primitive powder fuze. Shells filled with explosive or incendiary mixtures were standard for mortars, after 1550, but they did not come into general use for flat-trajectory weapons until early in the nineteenth century, whereafter the term "shell" gradually won out over "bomb."

 

In any event, this projectile was one of the most effective ever used in the smoothbore against earthworks, buildings, and for general bombardment. A (p. 066) delayed action shell, diabolically timed to roll amongst the ranks with its fuze burning, was calculated to "disorder the stoutest men," since they could not know at what awful instant the bomb would burst.

 

A bombshell was simply a hollow, cast-iron sphere. It had a single hole where the powder was funneled in?full, but not enough to pack too tightly when the fuze was driven in. Until the 1800's, the larger bombs were not always smooth spheres, but had either a projecting neck, or collar, for the fuze hole or a pair of rings at each side of the hole for easier handling (fig. 41). In later years, however, such projections were replaced by two "ears," little recesses beside the fuze hole. A pair of tongs (something like ice tongs) seized the shell by the ears and lifted it up to the gun bore.

 

During most of the eighteenth century, shells were cast thicker at the base than at the fuze hole on the theory that they were (1) better able to resist the shock of firing from the cannon and (2) more likely to fall with the heavy part underneath, leaving the fuze uppermost and less liable to extinguishment. Müller scoffed at the idea of "choaking" a fuze, which, he said, burnt as well in water as in any other element. Furthermore, he preferred to use shells "everywhere equally thick, because they would then burst into a greater number of pieces." In later years, the shells were scored on the interior to ensure their breaking into many fragments.

 

 

 

ROCKETS

Today's rocket projectiles are not exactly new inventions. About the time of artillery's beginning, the military fireworker came into the business of providing pyrotechnic engines of war; later, his job included the spectacular fireworks that were set off in celebration of victory or peace.

 

Artillery manuals of very early date include chapters on the manufacture and use of fireworks. But in making war rockets there was no marked progress until the late eighteenth century. About 1780, the British Army in India watched the Orientals use them; and within the next quarter century William Congreve, who set about the task of producing a rocket that would carry an incendiary or explosive charge as far as 2 miles, had achieved such promising results that English boats fired rocket salvos against Boulogne in 1806, The British Field Rocket Brigade used rockets effectively at Leipsic in 1812?the first time they appeared in European land warfare. They were used again 2 years later at Waterloo. The warheads of such rockets were cast iron, filled with black powder and fitted with percussion fuzes. They were fired from trough-like launching stands, which were adjustable for elevation.

 

Rockets seem to have had a demoralizing effect upon untrained troops, and perhaps their use by the English against raw American levies at Bladenburg, in 1814, contributed to the rout of the United States forces and the capture of Washington. They also helped to inspire Francis Scott Key. Whether or not he understands the technical characteristics of the rocket, every schoolboy remembers the "rocket's red glare" of the National Anthem, wherein Key recorded his eyewitness account of the bombardment of Fort McHenry. The U. S. Army in Mexico (1847) included a rocket battery, and, indeed, war rockets were an important part of artillery resources until the rapid progress of gunnery in the latter 1800's made them obsolescent.

 

Tools

 

 

[pin2win1]

great info trinedad... big wahoo for you.

[MattM]

 

 

wow didn't realize this was a pastor telling lies.... this sickens me. I have degrees in Christian Ministry and Divinity, and one of the first lessons in homiletics is that if it isn't true, don't attempt to portray it as true. What do you think the people of his congregation would think if they knew he created this and presented it as being true when in fact it is false? HE would lose a ton of respect and credibility. I mean this is bearing false witness.

 

 

The guy in the video took it from a previous recording that is basically identical (also found on youtube).  Not sure who made that video, but based on the words used I'd say it was church based in some way.  I'm guessing this guy just took that inspiring reading and retold it believing since the base of the story is basic history then the details must be more or less accurate.  I wouldn't go as far as saying he was trying to telling lies.  I'd credit it more to lack of fact finding and trying to sensationalize the main point more than probably outright knowing he was lie about the information.  Though it would be nice if he spoike with an specialist in that area to clear up some of the embellishments so he coul tell the same inspiring story without them.

[DemOGuy]

Great video!!