Talk:Francis Scott Key

message: I have returned Pauline de Rothschild to the listing of Key's descendants, per the citations noted:
Pauline de Rothschild was Francis Scott Key's great-great-granddaughter. Her paternal grandmother, Alice Lloyd Key (b. 1855, Mrs Francis Hunter Potter Sr), was the youngest child of Ellen Swann and Key's son Philip Barton Key (1818-1859).
This descent is established through genealogical records provided to me by Pauline de Rothschild's family (I am writing a biography of her), as well by other genealogical sources, including the Daughters of the American Revolution, Maryland Historical Society, newspaper and magazines clippings from the late 1800s and early 1900s,  et cetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowens35 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendants of Key/Pauline de Rothschild 

message: A story I have heard since childhood is that the Key mansion was dismantled by the US federal government and subsequently lost in the maze of red tape. The structure is supposed to be in a government warehouse. This story in our family predates the "loss" of the Arc of the Covenant in the Indiana Jones film.--wloveral 3 Nov. 09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.82.199.52 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Francis Scott Key mansion 

message: NPR did a story on this on July 5, 2012. It seems Francis Scott Key was D.C.'s top law enforcement official at the time.
*August 'Snow-Storm' Brought Devastation To D.C.. NPR. July 5, 2012.
*Amazon.com: Snow-Storm in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835. By Jefferson Morley. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race riot of 1835 in Washington DC 

message: The given source does not contain the information (i.e., quantification by type of case) added in a recent edit.  The source given is simply a list, from which an editor can synthesize a variety of stories. TEDickey (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  source - earlywashingtondc.org 

message: This Source says he had eleven children.  This one lists seven of them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.249.107 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now listed all 11 of Key's children in the infobox, with a footnote citing Leepson's biography of Key. Thank you, 67.213.249.107, for raising this matter. -- WikiPedant (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.249.107 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of Francis Scott Key 

message: A recent edit introduced recentism into the lede by referring to Key's use of Stafford's contemporary melody as an old English tune.  That gives the unwary reader the sense that the melody dates back, say, to the 15th-16th centuries. Incidentally, the edit overlinks common terms TEDickey (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  old-tune 

message: Interestingly enough, there's a quote out of context which has been disputed.  This is the place to discuss, rather than by misleading change-comments in a revert. TEDickey (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Key's letter 

message: The text as it stands says the American Colonization Society was in favor of sending blacks "back to Africa".
This is a prejudiced, non-neutral way to state the ACS goals. Many blacks had been in the US for generations, had no interest in going to Africa, and frequently said they were no more African than the Americans were British. Sending blacks "back to Africa" — not to their ancestral homelands, but to an undeveloped, disease-infested area — was a primarily a way to get rid of them. For a reason the ACS was primarily a slaveowner's society - they wanted free blacks gone. There was a huge opposition to "colonization" proposals.  
I changed "back to Africa" to "to Africa". This was immediately reverted by , without a word of justification. I'd like to hear some other views. For an introduction, see the American Colonization Society article. deisenbe (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit was overly wordy, did not provide clarification to the reader.  By the way, your comment here is hostile, keep in mind WP:CIVIL TEDickey (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Re-reading it again, I don't see any other way to interpret the remarks. TEDickey (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea ~ sorry I kinda skipped over "immediately reverted by" ~ sorry my bad ); ~ Nice to meet you! ~regards ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral POV — sending blacks "back to" Africa  

message: To be exceedingly generous, this is speculation at best. The "hireling and slave" mentioned in the third stanza obviously refer to the British forces, who were subjects of the British crown, as opposed to the Americans who were free from monarchy. This interpretation fits well with the opening of the 4th stanza:
Moreover, despite Key's personal views on slavery, none of the sources cited contain any evidence that he meant to refer specifically to slaves fighting for the British in this instance. The British did not promise American slaves freedom in exchange for service in the War of 1812, this only occurred in the Revolutionary War. This is obviously the case because any slaves in America at the time would not have been owned by British subjects, therefore the British were in no position to offer them anything. It is true that the British formed an infantry unit out of former slaves, the Corps of Colonial Marines, but these were slaves who had escaped on their own, and were certainly not involved in the attack on Fort McHenry since the British landed no ground troops. It could be that Key, despite titling his poem "Defence of Fort M'Henry", actually meant to refer to the broader Battle of Baltimore in which the Colonial Marines did fight, but in this case there is no reason to assume Key meant to take a break in his description of the battle to single out a particular unit who numbered a few hundred at most out of the thousands of British troops involved. It is much more logical to assume that by describing the British altogether as hirelings and slaves, Key meant to imply that the British troops were soldiers of fortune motivated by greed or subjects of a cruel regime being forced to fight against their will. Goldstaupe (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be original research. Do you have any content published by reliable sources to support this? The info needs to be verifiable to be included on Wikipedia. —ADavidB 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I believe the passage quoted above should be removed, as it itself is unverifiable. I believe all of the information I provided to support my reasoning which goes beyond common knowledge is already available on the pages Battle of Baltimore and Corps of Colonial Marines. Goldstaupe (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious reference to slavery 

message: Why does it describe him as an amateur Poet?  Were there any other kinds back then? Dstokar (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, there were. Some were poet by profession (Wordsworth, Burns, Sir Walter Scott, and then some more). https://archive.org/details/poetryasoccupati0000murp/ But it still seems irrelevant to list Key as an amateur poet, and someone has already removed the phrase. MichielN (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur Poet?  Were there any other kinds back then?