Hung my American flag in front of my house in Boulder today and it felt like an act of civil disobedience. Seems the only flags permitted in this woke enclave are for LGBTQ pride or Ukraine. Thank you for this reminder of what it cost for us to win this country. I grieve to see how cheaply many of my countrymen now hold it.
Thank you, Celia. How wonderful to see this tiny, upstart nation take on the greatest naval military force in the world, and line up with their lives, man after man to hold up the flag. They would not surrender physically to the Powers that Be....and they would not surrender spiritually to the Dominion also firing at them in the Dark......Sovereignity.
That 3rd verse is the one where the other lines about "the land of the free" take-on a bit of poignancy, as it mentioned the (en)slave(d) - then being extra-abused and reviled, because the Brits had just used some American-owned slaves that they'd gained control over, as soldiers against the colonists.
The " slavery line" refers to the men impressed into service on British ships. The American navy was made up of proud volunteers while the British had to pay or enslave their sailors. For example, the American sailors captured by the British and forced to man their ships or die. This slavery had nothing to do with race.
Your story contradicts writing from the time about Key. If he so reviled blacks,
1) Why would he be the only white mourner in 1842 for the funeral of William Costin, the widely respected leader of the free African-American community in the nation’s capital?
"It “must be admitted,” an abolitionist newspaper commented, “that for a distinguished white citizen of Washington to ride alone among a larger number of colored men in doing honor to the memory of a deceased citizen of color evinces an elevation of soul above the meanness of popular prejudice, highly honorable to Mr. Key’s profession as a friend of men of color. He rode alone.”
2) "He had a deserved reputation for providing free legal advice to impoverished free blacks and slaves in Washington."
3) “If ever man was a true friend to the African race, that man was Francis Scott Key,” his friend, the Rev. John T. Brooke, one wrote. “Throughout his own region of the country, he was proverbially the colored man’s friend. He was their standing gratuitous advocate in courts of justice, pressing their rights to the extent of the law, and ready to brave odium or even personal danger in their behalf.”
Their rights under the law, at that time were negligible. See Plessy vs Ferguson, et al. A free black man couldn't even be a witness against his attacker, if he happened to be white.
How would enslaved British Sailors get their blood on our soil? Their ships were British territory.
Another version says that the "slaves" were actually the Hessians, who the colonists knew had no choice in the matter since they were rounded up like slaves and forced to come here as soldiers for King George, the cousin of their tyrant ruler. I am aware of all the Supreme Court rulings which were flawed. Puzzle me this and I have to figure it out as well. Let's make this interesting. Apparently, slaves had no rights. You are aware that free blacks owned slaves in ALL 13 colonies? That's going to make this reparations thing REALLY interesting! Where am I getting that? From historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. in an article he wrote in " The Root, Black news and Black views"
"The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life."
Look at the percentages. You'll see the bigger picture.
But yes, free men were allowed to own enslaved people. So that would be the ultimate status symbol, that one has 'arrived' in polite society. As exceptional black people became freed men - they then had that option. However, in at least some of the Confederate States, it wasn't lawful for any black man to become a Citizen - one of the people. That's at least one reason why the 14th Amendment was passed - to give some kind of (second class) legal status to black men. Later that was extended to white women, and eventually black women. Now even white people are largely burdened with that second class status and citizenship - despite their rights to be Citizens of their state.
This was probably the last July 4th of the old USA. The Dark State is in a panic and will pull out all the stops to hide the collapsing financial system and cover their ego bloated butts in the fall-out from the event they will pull off , even if that event means destroying one of our cities. It will not get them what they want... they will be fleshed out and destroyed but since the Deep State is the USA government, a new government will need to be formed and the USA will not look like it once did... this will all be for the good even tho many will have paid the ultimate price.
I just cannot get or be patriotic anymore. Our history was written by bloodline members of all the kings of england who wished to dominate the entire world. Please do not take this as disrespect to you or your SS. I am just not buying songs, the american revolution or civil war deceptions. If we can collectively stop these murderous scumbag maggot filth Schwabians, then and only then will new revolutionary songs mean something to me. To me today is the Farce of July as I hear explosions after dark and the strong feeling that our so called history is not going to save us from the future that they have planned for humanity.
We are on the same page today! I just wrote about this video too, I did not understand about the significance of the Star-Spangled Banner until a few months ago when a friend sent this explanation to me. Happy July the 4th, there is some great news to celebrate too: https://sanefrancisco.substack.com/p/a-huge-win-for-freedom-of-speech
Doug, I have you in mind as I publish some Rich Kotlarz tonight. I am only just beginning to grasp what he was saying. I am SO happy you are here. I hope you had a great 4th of July. I sat around trying to figure out the Hamilton Psy-Op. Made some headway...
"Officers like the Comte de Rochambeau and the Comte de Grasse led the French land and sea forces that made possible Washington’s victory at Yorktown in 1781. Frenchman Pierre Charles L’Enfant, who would go on to design Washington, DC, joined the Revolutionary forces in 1777."
Ummm. The third verse has nothing to do with murdering run away slaves. The hirelings were the Hessian mercenaries forced by their German leader to support King George his cousin.
The " slavery line" refers to the men impressed into service on British ships. The American navy was made up of proud volunteers while the British had to pay or enslave their sailors. For example, the American sailors captured by the British and forced to man their ships or die. This slavery had nothing to do with race.
So where exactly are you getting your "garbage"? No sources yet. Let's make this interesting. You are aware that free blacks owned slaves? That's going to make this reparations thing REALLY interesting! Where am I getting that? From historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. in an article he wrote in " The Root, Black news and Black views"
"The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life."
it is a terrible song. The poem written by a vicious pro slavery racist who believed that run away slaves should be murdered and he says as much in the third verse.
And the melody is an old drinking song, not worthy of a proud nation. It is also unsingable for most of us. Unmusical and trivial in comparison to so many other National anthems in the world.
I hate it. I will never sing it again or stand for it.
This criticism is not new. It has been around for a very long time but it falls on deaf ears like everything else in this country.
In that sense, maybe the Star Spangled Banner with all its faults, is the best this country deserves because, I say again, it is not worthy of a proud nation.
Joan: I read up on FSK and I see your points. I was not making a case for the life of Francis Scott Key so much as a) taking note of the poem itself and b) taking note of what the words mean. I am not taking responsibility for the life or ethics of Francis Scott Key and that wasn't what the post was about. It's a "terrible song?" Really? Well, that's subjective. I think poetry is important and this was a poem originally.
Ummm. The third verse has nothing to do with murdering run away slaves. The hirelings were the Hessian mercenaries forced by their German leader to support King George his cousin.
The " slavery line" refers to the men impressed into service on British ships. The American navy was made up of proud volunteers while the British had to pay or enslave their sailors. For example, the American sailors captured by the British and forced to man their ships or die. This slavery had nothing to do with race.
We have a monument to Francis Scott Keyes in Golden Gate park that has been there for over 100 years. It shows all the verses of his song and the third verse keeps being painted over by angry people.
A new art installation was installed some months ago depicting the first black slaves transported to the New world in 1619 and of the 348 human beings bound for the colonies, only 4 survived. The installation depicts those who did not and explains why the new work surrounds the monument to Keyes.
He did indeed mean slaves should be killed, and he was an avid anti-abolitionist. So much so, in fact, that the government used him to put down resistance.
Maybe your interpretation is what you learned in school, but it really white washes this despicable man and tries to make him heroic by misdirecting the real meaning of the lines in the third verse.
You can have an opinion on the song. History, not so much.
If he so reviled blacks,
1) Why would he be the only white mourner in 1842 for the funeral of William Costin, the widely respected leader of the free African-American community in the nation’s capital?
"It “must be admitted,” an abolitionist newspaper commented, “that for a distinguished white citizen of Washington to ride alone among a larger number of colored men in doing honor to the memory of a deceased citizen of color evinces an elevation of soul above the meanness of popular prejudice, highly honorable to Mr. Key’s profession as a friend of men of color. He rode alone.”
2) "He had a deserved reputation for providing free legal advice to impoverished free blacks and slaves in Washington."
3) “If ever man was a true friend to the African race, that man was Francis Scott Key,” his friend, the Rev. John T. Brooke, one wrote. “Throughout his own region of the country, he was proverbially the colored man’s friend. He was their standing gratuitous advocate in courts of justice, pressing their rights to the extent of the law, and ready to brave odium or even personal danger in their behalf.”
As a young lawyer, Francis Scott Key had relished defending individual colored people in court. Some even called him “the Blacks’ lawyer.” But he was a defender of Chattel slavery and it was this that caused Andrew Jackson to appoint him to the office of Attorney General in 1833 during a time when small groups of whites and blacks were calling for the abolition of slavery. This was threatening to some Americans, like Jackson and Keys.
Keys was a loyal lieutenant of President Jackson, whose supporters had famously taken over Washington from day one, and who himself was an unapologetic supporter of slavery.
No. Keys was not 'the colored man's friend' and he did not support freedom of speech. He brought charges against an abolitionist for the sole crime of bringing pamphlets to Washington in the US Vs Rueban Crandall Trial. But Key lost his bid to discredit the antislavery movement in the court of public opinion. The jury acquitted Crandall of all charges.
That was a tumultuous time in the abolitionist movement, and it grew exponentially over the years.
Efforts to save the reputation of Key notwithstanding, the man was no pillar of virtue, and he was a tool of a truly racist administration and served as its henchman against the abolitionist movement.
Where did you get all this from? Curious. You can have your opinion of the song. Let's make this interesting. You are aware that free blacks owned slaves? That's going to make this reparations thing REALLY interesting! Where am I getting that? From historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. in an article he wrote in " The Root, Black news and Black views"
"The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life."
But I am familiar with Gates and nothing you have written is unfamiliar to me.
I have stated my opinion and I know my history. I am not interested in continuing this dialog with you.
I think it is you who should do some more research on Key, but if he is one of your heroes, so be it. It says more about you than it does about my comment.
Hung my American flag in front of my house in Boulder today and it felt like an act of civil disobedience. Seems the only flags permitted in this woke enclave are for LGBTQ pride or Ukraine. Thank you for this reminder of what it cost for us to win this country. I grieve to see how cheaply many of my countrymen now hold it.
Thank you, Celia. How wonderful to see this tiny, upstart nation take on the greatest naval military force in the world, and line up with their lives, man after man to hold up the flag. They would not surrender physically to the Powers that Be....and they would not surrender spiritually to the Dominion also firing at them in the Dark......Sovereignity.
Thank you and happy independence day to one of the most insightful and sincere independent voices keeping the light for all of us.
That 3rd verse is the one where the other lines about "the land of the free" take-on a bit of poignancy, as it mentioned the (en)slave(d) - then being extra-abused and reviled, because the Brits had just used some American-owned slaves that they'd gained control over, as soldiers against the colonists.
The " slavery line" refers to the men impressed into service on British ships. The American navy was made up of proud volunteers while the British had to pay or enslave their sailors. For example, the American sailors captured by the British and forced to man their ships or die. This slavery had nothing to do with race.
That not the story I've heard. Hence the talk about the blood, in the pervious lines.
Your story contradicts writing from the time about Key. If he so reviled blacks,
1) Why would he be the only white mourner in 1842 for the funeral of William Costin, the widely respected leader of the free African-American community in the nation’s capital?
"It “must be admitted,” an abolitionist newspaper commented, “that for a distinguished white citizen of Washington to ride alone among a larger number of colored men in doing honor to the memory of a deceased citizen of color evinces an elevation of soul above the meanness of popular prejudice, highly honorable to Mr. Key’s profession as a friend of men of color. He rode alone.”
2) "He had a deserved reputation for providing free legal advice to impoverished free blacks and slaves in Washington."
3) “If ever man was a true friend to the African race, that man was Francis Scott Key,” his friend, the Rev. John T. Brooke, one wrote. “Throughout his own region of the country, he was proverbially the colored man’s friend. He was their standing gratuitous advocate in courts of justice, pressing their rights to the extent of the law, and ready to brave odium or even personal danger in their behalf.”
https://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2014/07/a-friend-of-men-of-color-francis-scott-key-slavery.html
Their rights under the law, at that time were negligible. See Plessy vs Ferguson, et al. A free black man couldn't even be a witness against his attacker, if he happened to be white.
How would enslaved British Sailors get their blood on our soil? Their ships were British territory.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/10/18/star-spangled-banner-racist-national-anthem/
Another version says that the "slaves" were actually the Hessians, who the colonists knew had no choice in the matter since they were rounded up like slaves and forced to come here as soldiers for King George, the cousin of their tyrant ruler. I am aware of all the Supreme Court rulings which were flawed. Puzzle me this and I have to figure it out as well. Let's make this interesting. Apparently, slaves had no rights. You are aware that free blacks owned slaves in ALL 13 colonies? That's going to make this reparations thing REALLY interesting! Where am I getting that? From historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. in an article he wrote in " The Root, Black news and Black views"
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
"The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life."
Look at the percentages. You'll see the bigger picture.
But yes, free men were allowed to own enslaved people. So that would be the ultimate status symbol, that one has 'arrived' in polite society. As exceptional black people became freed men - they then had that option. However, in at least some of the Confederate States, it wasn't lawful for any black man to become a Citizen - one of the people. That's at least one reason why the 14th Amendment was passed - to give some kind of (second class) legal status to black men. Later that was extended to white women, and eventually black women. Now even white people are largely burdened with that second class status and citizenship - despite their rights to be Citizens of their state.
I like this a lot better than the pledge. The pledge was written by a socialist and isn't as motivational as The Star-Spangled Banner.
Thank you Celia. That they died rather than let the flag fall. Happy Independence Day to you.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful story!
AMAZING. Thank you I have never seen this.
This was probably the last July 4th of the old USA. The Dark State is in a panic and will pull out all the stops to hide the collapsing financial system and cover their ego bloated butts in the fall-out from the event they will pull off , even if that event means destroying one of our cities. It will not get them what they want... they will be fleshed out and destroyed but since the Deep State is the USA government, a new government will need to be formed and the USA will not look like it once did... this will all be for the good even tho many will have paid the ultimate price.
I just cannot get or be patriotic anymore. Our history was written by bloodline members of all the kings of england who wished to dominate the entire world. Please do not take this as disrespect to you or your SS. I am just not buying songs, the american revolution or civil war deceptions. If we can collectively stop these murderous scumbag maggot filth Schwabians, then and only then will new revolutionary songs mean something to me. To me today is the Farce of July as I hear explosions after dark and the strong feeling that our so called history is not going to save us from the future that they have planned for humanity.
We are on the same page today! I just wrote about this video too, I did not understand about the significance of the Star-Spangled Banner until a few months ago when a friend sent this explanation to me. Happy July the 4th, there is some great news to celebrate too: https://sanefrancisco.substack.com/p/a-huge-win-for-freedom-of-speech
I’m a 55 year old American. I’ve never heard or read a story like this about our song in my life, I’m embarrassed to state.
Thank you Celia for sharing this stack. God Bless You.
Thanks, Celia. I didn't know this. (You come up with great things I didn't know... :) )
Doug, I have you in mind as I publish some Rich Kotlarz tonight. I am only just beginning to grasp what he was saying. I am SO happy you are here. I hope you had a great 4th of July. I sat around trying to figure out the Hamilton Psy-Op. Made some headway...
FB warned me not to post it. (Right over the target once again)
"Officers like the Comte de Rochambeau and the Comte de Grasse led the French land and sea forces that made possible Washington’s victory at Yorktown in 1781. Frenchman Pierre Charles L’Enfant, who would go on to design Washington, DC, joined the Revolutionary forces in 1777."
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/france-and-the-american-revolution#:~:text=
It would make more sense to listen to "La Marseillaise".
French Officers like Rochambeau, Lafeyette, de Grasse, the French navy and the French army won the Revolutionary War.
And "La Marsellaise" is a better song. It doesn't have any verses lauding slavery.
https://andscape.com/features/the-star-spangled-banners-racist-lyrics-reflect-its-slaveowner-author-francis-scott-key/
Read this instead of that trash!
https://www.independentsentinel.com/a-short-history-of-the-star-spangled-banner-and-british-slaves/
Ummm. The third verse has nothing to do with murdering run away slaves. The hirelings were the Hessian mercenaries forced by their German leader to support King George his cousin.
The " slavery line" refers to the men impressed into service on British ships. The American navy was made up of proud volunteers while the British had to pay or enslave their sailors. For example, the American sailors captured by the British and forced to man their ships or die. This slavery had nothing to do with race.
That's the garbage one is taught in American schools.
We're also taught that we won Madison's war against Canada which we did not.
You need to check out other sources besides "My First Golden Book of American History".
So where exactly are you getting your "garbage"? No sources yet. Let's make this interesting. You are aware that free blacks owned slaves? That's going to make this reparations thing REALLY interesting! Where am I getting that? From historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. in an article he wrote in " The Root, Black news and Black views"
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
"The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life."
"The Star Spangled Banner" is an abomination.
The tune is stolen from a British drinking song.
And Francis Scott Keys is a horrible poet. He's Joyce Kilmer horrible.
It's a disgrace that it should be our national anthem.
I'd prefer Paul Simon's "American Tune" or Bob Dylan's "Idiot Wind".
Almost all scholars agree that the third verse is about slavery.
In any event, the song is a piece of garbage.
The pledge is also a piece of garbage.
If a decent socialist poet had penned it, it would be better.
Curious statement socialist poet.
it is a terrible song. The poem written by a vicious pro slavery racist who believed that run away slaves should be murdered and he says as much in the third verse.
And the melody is an old drinking song, not worthy of a proud nation. It is also unsingable for most of us. Unmusical and trivial in comparison to so many other National anthems in the world.
I hate it. I will never sing it again or stand for it.
This criticism is not new. It has been around for a very long time but it falls on deaf ears like everything else in this country.
In that sense, maybe the Star Spangled Banner with all its faults, is the best this country deserves because, I say again, it is not worthy of a proud nation.
Joan: I read up on FSK and I see your points. I was not making a case for the life of Francis Scott Key so much as a) taking note of the poem itself and b) taking note of what the words mean. I am not taking responsibility for the life or ethics of Francis Scott Key and that wasn't what the post was about. It's a "terrible song?" Really? Well, that's subjective. I think poetry is important and this was a poem originally.
The poem, and its bombs bursting in air, is the very thing I object to the most.
And as a singer and a musician who has performed it countless times, it is unsingable for most people.
We have other better songs with much better poetry that values our strength as people, not as a military force.
America the Beautiful is favored by most. Or, This Land is Your Land. Or even, God Bless America.
None of those songs are about flags or battles or bombs or slavery.
Ummm. The third verse has nothing to do with murdering run away slaves. The hirelings were the Hessian mercenaries forced by their German leader to support King George his cousin.
The " slavery line" refers to the men impressed into service on British ships. The American navy was made up of proud volunteers while the British had to pay or enslave their sailors. For example, the American sailors captured by the British and forced to man their ships or die. This slavery had nothing to do with race.
I think you are wrong about that.
We have a monument to Francis Scott Keyes in Golden Gate park that has been there for over 100 years. It shows all the verses of his song and the third verse keeps being painted over by angry people.
A new art installation was installed some months ago depicting the first black slaves transported to the New world in 1619 and of the 348 human beings bound for the colonies, only 4 survived. The installation depicts those who did not and explains why the new work surrounds the monument to Keyes.
He did indeed mean slaves should be killed, and he was an avid anti-abolitionist. So much so, in fact, that the government used him to put down resistance.
Maybe your interpretation is what you learned in school, but it really white washes this despicable man and tries to make him heroic by misdirecting the real meaning of the lines in the third verse.
It is still a bad song in every other way too.
You can have an opinion on the song. History, not so much.
If he so reviled blacks,
1) Why would he be the only white mourner in 1842 for the funeral of William Costin, the widely respected leader of the free African-American community in the nation’s capital?
"It “must be admitted,” an abolitionist newspaper commented, “that for a distinguished white citizen of Washington to ride alone among a larger number of colored men in doing honor to the memory of a deceased citizen of color evinces an elevation of soul above the meanness of popular prejudice, highly honorable to Mr. Key’s profession as a friend of men of color. He rode alone.”
2) "He had a deserved reputation for providing free legal advice to impoverished free blacks and slaves in Washington."
3) “If ever man was a true friend to the African race, that man was Francis Scott Key,” his friend, the Rev. John T. Brooke, one wrote. “Throughout his own region of the country, he was proverbially the colored man’s friend. He was their standing gratuitous advocate in courts of justice, pressing their rights to the extent of the law, and ready to brave odium or even personal danger in their behalf.”
https://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2014/07/a-friend-of-men-of-color-francis-scott-key-slavery.html
As a young lawyer, Francis Scott Key had relished defending individual colored people in court. Some even called him “the Blacks’ lawyer.” But he was a defender of Chattel slavery and it was this that caused Andrew Jackson to appoint him to the office of Attorney General in 1833 during a time when small groups of whites and blacks were calling for the abolition of slavery. This was threatening to some Americans, like Jackson and Keys.
Keys was a loyal lieutenant of President Jackson, whose supporters had famously taken over Washington from day one, and who himself was an unapologetic supporter of slavery.
No. Keys was not 'the colored man's friend' and he did not support freedom of speech. He brought charges against an abolitionist for the sole crime of bringing pamphlets to Washington in the US Vs Rueban Crandall Trial. But Key lost his bid to discredit the antislavery movement in the court of public opinion. The jury acquitted Crandall of all charges.
That was a tumultuous time in the abolitionist movement, and it grew exponentially over the years.
Efforts to save the reputation of Key notwithstanding, the man was no pillar of virtue, and he was a tool of a truly racist administration and served as its henchman against the abolitionist movement.
We need a new national anthem.
Where did you get all this from? Curious. You can have your opinion of the song. Let's make this interesting. You are aware that free blacks owned slaves? That's going to make this reparations thing REALLY interesting! Where am I getting that? From historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. in an article he wrote in " The Root, Black news and Black views"
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
"The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life."
your reply is not responsive to my comment.
But I am familiar with Gates and nothing you have written is unfamiliar to me.
I have stated my opinion and I know my history. I am not interested in continuing this dialog with you.
I think it is you who should do some more research on Key, but if he is one of your heroes, so be it. It says more about you than it does about my comment.
Let this be the end of it now. Good bye.