pageok
pageok
pageok
Star Spangled Banner Lyrics

In light of the current controversy over the revision of The Star Spangled Banner into an anthem for illegal aliens, I thought it would be useful for readers to see more lyrics to the song. First of all, there are verses 2 through 4 to the official national anthem, all of which come directly from Francis Scott Key's 1814 poem The Defense of Fort McHenry. For a nation at war with totalitarians who are vastly more wicked than were our British opponents of 1814, the lyrics seem especially apt:

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


Later, the free people of Texas took the same tune to which The Star Spangled Banner had been set (more on that below), and created The Texan War Cry, celebrating the victory of the free Texans in their war of independence against the standing army of Santa Ana's tyranny:

Oh Texans rouse hill and dale with your cry.
No longer delay, for the bold foe advances.
The banners of Mexico tauntingly fly,
And the valleys are lit with the gleam of their lances.
With justice our shield, rush forth to the field.
And stand with your posts, till our foes fly or yield.
For the bright star of Texas shall never grow dim,
While her soil boasts a son to raise rifle or limb.

Rush forth to the lines, these hirelings to meet.
Our lives and our homes, we will yield unto no man.
But death on our free soil we'll willingly meet,
Ere our free Temple soiled, by the feet of the foe men.
Grasp rifle and blade with hearts undismayed,
And swear by the Temple brave Houston has made,
That the bright star of Texas shall never be dim
While her soil boasts a son to raise rifle or limb.

I wrote about the significance of these lyrics, and other aspects of the Texan war of independence, in my article Don't Mess with (Armed) Texans.

As many people know, The Star Spangled Banner and The Texan War Cry were both set to the tune of an older British song, To Anacreon in Heaven, which celebrates the entwining of the fruit of the vine with romantic love.

To Anacreon in Heaven, where he sat in full glee,
A few sons of Harmony sent a petition,
That He their Inspirer and Patron would be;
When this answer arrived from the Jolly Old Grecian
"Voice, Fiddle, and Flute,
"no longer be mute,
"I'll lend you my Name and inspire you to boot,
"And, besides, I'll instruct you like me to entwine
"The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine.

II
The news through OLYMPUS immediately flew;
When OLD THUNDER pretended to give himself Airs
"If these mortals are suffer'd their Scheme to persue,
"The Devil a Goddess will stay above the Stairs.
"Hark, already they cry,
"In transports of Joy,
"Away to the Sons of ANACREON we'll fly,
"And there, with good Fellows, we'll learn to entwine
"The Myrtle of VENUS with BUCCUS'S Vine.

III
"The YELLOW-HAIRED GOD and his nine fusty Maids
"From Helicon's Banks will incontinent flee,
"IDALIA will boast but of tenantless Shades,
"And the bi-forked Hill a mere Desart will be
"My Thunder, no fear on't,
"Shall foon do it's Errand,
" and, dam'me! I'll swinge the Ringleaders, I warrant,
"I'll trim the young Dogs, for thus daring to twine
"The Myrtle of VENUS with BACCUS'S Vine.

IV
APOLLO rose up; and faid, "Pr'ythee ne'er quarrel,
"Good King of the Gods, with my Vot'ries below:
"Your Thunder is useless." - then, fhewing his Laurel,
Cry'd, "Sic evitabile fulmen, you know! ["This repels thunder"]
"then over each Head
"My Laurels I'll spread;
"So my Sons from your Crackers no Mischief shall dread,
"Whilst snug in their Club-Room, they jovially twine
"The Myrtle of VENUS with BACCUS'S Vine.

V
Next MOMUS got up, with his risible Phiz,
And swore with APOLLO he'd cheerfully join
"The full Tide of Harmony still shall be his,
"But the Song, and the Catch, & the Laugh shall be mine
"Then, JOVE, be not jealous
Of these honest Fellows.
Cry'd JOVE, "We relent, since the Truth you now tell us;
"And swear, by OLD STYX, that they long shall entwine
"The Myrtle of VENUS with BACCUS'S Vine.

VI
Ye sons of ANACREON, then, join Hand in Hand;
Preserve Unanimity, Friendship, and Love!
'Tis your's to support what's so happily plann'd;
You've the Sanction of Gods, and the FIAT of Jove.
While thus we agree
Our Toast let it be.
May our club flourish happy, united and free!
And long may the Sons of ANACREON intwine
The Myrtle of VENUS with BACCUS'S Vine.

Personally, I like all three sets of lyrics, and I also like other versions of The Star Spangled Banner which, in previous decades, have attempted to make our national anthem immediately accessible to new immigrants who are just beginning their journey towards citizenship and learning English. For these immigrants, a native-language version of The Star Spangled Banner was a step along the path to the day when they could renounce their allegiance to their native land, and take the American Oath of Citizenship:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.
It seems to me that the real cause for controversy about Nuestro Himno is not that it's in Spanish, or that it revises Francis Scott Key's lyrics in ways that, within the four corners of the lyrics, are not objectionable. My objection is that the song is currently used on behalf of a movement of people who--while demanding U.S. citizenship as a "right" despite their flagrant violations of U.S. immigration laws--are too often not willing to assume the duties of U.S. citizenship, which begin when the citizen affirms: "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any...state...of...which I have heretofore been a subject..."

U.Va. 1L (mail):
are too often not willing to assume the duties of U.S. citizenship, which begin when the citizen affirms: "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any...state...of...which I have heretofore been a subject..."

They're only behaving the same as all those sixth-generation Irish-Americans who march in St. Patrick's Day parades.
5.9.2006 2:22am
NDLS 2L:
Thanks for the posting the lyrics. I wasn't familiar with the different versions.
5.9.2006 2:40am
Ross Levatter (mail):
DB's complaint about the Mexicans: are too often not willing to assume the duties of U.S. citizenship, which begin when the citizen affirms: "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any...state...of...which I have heretofore been a subject..."

Gee, David, all of our anarcho-capitalist friends would be happy to make THAT pledge...
5.9.2006 3:04am
SLS 1L:
My objection is that the song is currently used on behalf of a movement of people who . . . are too often not willing to assume the duties of U.S. citizenship, which begin when the citizen affirms: "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any...state...of...which I have heretofore been a subject..."
What is your evidence for this extraordinary claim?
5.9.2006 3:07am
Ross Levatter (mail):
Correction: DK's complaint...
5.9.2006 3:14am
Ross Levatter (mail):
Correction: DK's complaint...
5.9.2006 3:15am
Bob Woolley:
There is a slight but significant variation between sources about the 4th stanza. You quote "for our cause it is just." But I believe the original was "when our cause it is just." The Smithsonian, at any rate, claims that its version of the lyrics

http://americanhistory.si.edu/ssb/ 6_thestory/6b_osay/fs6b.html

is taken directly from the Key manuscript.

I trust that all—or at least most—would agree that our "cause" in war has not always been just.


[DK: Nice catch. I like the Smithsonian version better, for the reason you state.[
5.9.2006 3:19am
Bob Woolley:
That URL didn't quite paste correctly. Try this, though you'll have to close the space manually.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/ssb/
6_thestory/6b_osay/fs6b.html
5.9.2006 3:22am
Bob Woolley:
Oh, hell. Still not working right.

This will:

http://tinyurl.com/zbjjn
5.9.2006 3:38am
logicnazi (mail) (www):

while demanding U.S. citizenship as a "right" despite their flagrant violations of U.S. immigration laws--are too often not willing to assume the duties of U.S. citizenship, which begin when the citizen affirms: "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any...state...of...which I have heretofore been a subject..."


I think we need to seperate allegiance to a state with affection for their homeland. I mean it is far different to feel still duty bound to serve the government of your homeland say if it entered into a conflict with the US and feeling pride or warmth toward the land of your birth.

Also it seems this sort of objection is applied inconsistantly. We are perfectly happy to tolerate a great deal of public support and identification with say ireland, even (up until recently) with the cause of the IRA. Even more obviously is our tolerance of very open and strong feelings and support for Israel.

Now I don't think anything is wrong with this (modulo issues about IRA). It is perfectly reasonable for jews to feel a very strong identification with the jewish homeland and support that country and even critisize the US when they feel we don't support it enough (all residents get to have views on our foreign policy). However, if we are going to accept this why shouldn't we be equally sympathetic when other groups feel an affection for the land of their birth? I mean while it may not be totally analagous to the situation with israel these individuals probably view the residents of their home country as a 'people' with a shared cultural heritage.

I just have a sucpiscion that groups are being evaluated differently based on what country it is they have feelings about and whether we view that country as 'like us'.


[DK: This post raises some very important points. I agree that naturalized citizens, or descendants thereof, can be perfectly patriotic Americans and still feel lots of affection for the old homeland and its culture. Cinco de Mayo is clearly following in the footsteps of St. Patrick's Day, by turning into an ethnic (and, eventually, all-American) holiday that is a much bigger deal in the U.S. than it is in the original homeland. And that's fine with me.


For any American with strong affections for a foreign country, there's a fine line between supporting the foreign country because of sincere belief that such support is in American interests (e.g., supporting Israel because you think that the existence of a pro-American democracy in the middle east will help American interests), versus supporting the foreign interest even when that support significantly harms American interests (as, I would argue, support for the IRA did from the 1960s onward).


But I think there is a crucial distinction related to Mexico: people who march in ethnic pride parades waving Israeli, Irish, Italian, or most other flags are not part of a movement which includes many leaders, as well as rank and file, who claim that part of U.S. territory actually does/should belong to Israel, Ireland, or Italy. The claim of a great many of the current illegal alien demonstrators--who receive significant support from the Mexican government--is that the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo shouldn't really count any more, at least not to the extent of preventing Mexicans from entering former Mexican territory at will. It seems to me that someone who thinks so could not sincerely take the American Oath of Citizenship.


And, BTW, all those protest signs which say "I didn't move; the border moved" (or words to that effect), not only show that the sign carrier is a Mexican irredentist, rather than a candidate for loyal American citizenship--they are also stupid. The few Mexicans who were actually affected by the border moving as a result of Mexico starting a war (look it up) with the United States (e.g., someone who lived in Arizona in 1846) were granted American citizenship long ago. The 19th-century border changes didn't change the nationality of people living in Michoacán or the other non-ceded Mexican states.]
5.9.2006 4:43am
logicnazi (mail) (www):
Also in regards recent protests it seems to me that waving flags from other countries is more a sign of limited political savy than any indication there is any more allegiance to a foreign power that with other groups.
5.9.2006 4:45am
SLS 1L:
logicnazi - also, insofar as the Mexican flag-wavers in those protests were noncitizens, they're people who aren't bound by the Oath of Allegiance. You're supposed to "renounce and abjure" foreign allegiances when you take the Oath, not before.
5.9.2006 5:39am
Simon (391563) (mail) (www):
One wonders what Mr. Kopel thinks of dual citizenship.

One also wonders what empirical support exists for the claim that "a great many demonstrators" give a damn about the Treaty of G-H.
5.9.2006 7:51am
Arthur S (mail):
DK,

Yes, on May 1st, ("Un dia sin immigrante" "A day without an immigrant") I not only stayed home, but I flew the Mexican flag.

Yes, my paternal grandfather is a combat veteran of the Mexican Revolution during the 1910s.

Yes, my father is a combat veteran of the Pacific Theater during World War II.

Yes, my older brother is a combat disabled veteran of two tours during the Vietnam War.

Yes, I am a Vietnam War Veteran (and can still fire five rounds within 1 centimeter).

Yes, my son, who just turned 17, will serve in the military.

. . . and You?
5.9.2006 8:41am
Mongoose388:
DK,
As the son of LEGAL immigrants, husband of a LEGAL immigrant and an American veteran, and I say BOO to you for siding with ILLEGAL immigrants. If you had had to go through the struggles of immigration to the US and also the LEGAL process of immigration you would be less sympathetic to the illegals. No one claims that all the illegal immigrants are terrorists, but the fact is that the mass illegal immigration to the US signifies no control of our borders. Without control of the borders there is no security for anyone. Also, immigrants that go through the legal system of immigration go through health checks as part of it. How many of these illegals now mowing lawns and working in Kitchens have undetected TB and other contagious diseases? Why the healthcare crisises in the border states over run by illegals?
5.9.2006 9:01am
Ron Hardin (mail) (www):
If you choose anapest verse for lyrics, you wind up with three-quarter time music, meaning a marching band has a problem with it.

Then you can make the tune unsingable. It sticks in nobody's head, and nobody hums it.

In the end you wind up with a song good for making the crowd shut up at the start of ballgames, its normal application.
5.9.2006 9:36am
Mongoose388:
You mean the Star Spangled Banner using an English drinking song's melody is a myth?
5.9.2006 9:40am
CharleyCarp (mail):
America the Beautiful is a better choice for an anthem. In any language.
5.9.2006 9:50am
Aeon J. Skoble (mail):
I've noticed that the haters invoke two incompatible memes when the anthem-bashing gets thick. 1, "after all, it's sung to the tune of an old British drinking song" -- subtext being a Nelson-ish "ha-ha!" that patriotic Americans are ignorantly doing something that is somehow perverse. 2, "it's too hard to sing!" Well, wait a sec, this seems like wanting to have it both ways -- it's an old British drinking song, _and_ it's too hard to sing? That doesn't make any sense. Fact is, it's not that hard to sing. "Nessun Dorma" is hard to sing. "The Star Spangled Banner" is only hard to sing if you're trying to be Placido Domingo. It's not hard to belt out a passable version, esp. when you're joined by 30,000 of your friends. Like other old drinking songs, it's the sort of thing that's easier with a crowd, and do-able even for amateurs, even if you're not likely to get a recording contract based on your performance.
5.9.2006 9:50am
Aeon J. Skoble (mail):
Both "America the Beautiful" and "God Bless America," two frequently-suggested replacements, are unacceptably theistic and sectarian. Those won't do at all. The Star Spangled Banner properly invokes themes such as resistance to tyranny, and perseverance in doing so. It explicitly refers to America as the land of the free, which neither of the other two do. The Star Spangled Banner places it on US to maintain our liberty - America the Beautiful effectively abdicates personal responsibility, and asks God to mend our flaws. Give me a break. (And don't get me started on the commies' favorite "This Land is Your Land"!)
5.9.2006 9:58am
bearing (mail) (www):
Thanks for posting. I agree that the verses are still apt today.

I think you must be thinking especially of the third verse, but an image in the second struck me. The idea that the blowing of a wind "now conceals, now discloses" the flag, or what it stands for, or what the country's values are (pick your meaning), seems pretty appropriate in the age of spin.

Nevertheless, we've all gotta keep our eyes peeled for it!

Whattaya think?
5.9.2006 10:05am
singin' it:
One Capitol Hill publication just did interviews with several member of Congress, asking them to sing the national anthem. A suprising number could not finish the song. I just found that a bit funny. After all the pandering (especially the "bipartisan" rendition of God Bless America in the hours after 9/11) it always amuses me to see Congress fall short of tasks that 10 year olds can do.
5.9.2006 10:35am
TechieLaw (mail):
Just a quick question --

Putting aside for the moment the actual requirements of becoming a naturalized US citizen, why should one be required to renounce another citizenship in order to become a US citizen? What goal does that serve, especially as an absolute requirement? (and I have no idea whether it is an absolute legal requirement of becoming a US citizen or not)

I know a number of people with dual citizenships, who either have them through birth or by living in other countries for sufficient time to be granted citizenship. They generally view them as a "good" thing. For anybody working in businesses that have an international side, a dual citizenship may also be seen as a benefit by an employer.
5.9.2006 10:53am
johnt (mail):
Whatever they sing and however they sing it I don't think it's asking too much to renounce aspirations of nationalist partition or reconquest. The consequences or possibilities of such though are worth considering.
Would the newly reclaimed land emulate or take the appearance of beloved Mexico? If so would a ruling,rich, contemptuous political class, unmindful of poverty, gradually or quickly take power and do for the new territory what they've done for Mexico and the Mexicans?
If so would the immigrants begin to realize, or think, that perhaps Illinois or Kansas are also theirs? That is, would we have a travelling road show of sorts?
Just wondering.
5.9.2006 11:27am
Justin (mail):
"For a nation at war with totalitarians who are vastly more wicked than were our British opponents of 1814"

Really? We're at war with George Bush? Hooray. ::end snark:: You do realize that the comparison is at best rhetorical amateurism, at worst, a gross misunderstanding of global politics, right?

On the other hand, the irony of the whole fasci-nationalist tone has clearly gone right over DK's head, so I'm not sure he's going to learn a lesson other than the lessons "learned" by past of fasci-nationalists, which is that it's easy to make absurd arguments if you use whatever power you have (whether private, political, or police) to suppress the counteargument.

But yes, David, there's of course nothing wicked about requiring, with force if neccesary, unquestioned loyalty to the state, the lives of anyone else be damned.
5.9.2006 11:31am
Seamus (mail):
The lyrics to To Anacreon in Heaven incorrectly represents all the long "S"s as "F"s. You can tell "F"s apart from long "S"s by looking at the crossbars. They either aren't there or they don't actually cross the letter. It isn't particularly obvious in the copy to which Mr. Kopel linked, but you can see the difference pretty clearly in this version of the Declaration of Independence.
5.9.2006 12:13pm
Mr. Mandias (mail) (www):
"Both "America the Beautiful" and "God Bless America," two frequently-suggested replacements, are unacceptably theistic and sectarian."

They have a quintessentially American theism, the kind that is part and parcel of the American idea unless you think the founding happened in the 1960s and the Founders were university professors. The real problem with both tunes is that the lyrics and the tunes are blander than the Star-Spangled Banner. And why monkey with tradition?
5.9.2006 12:20pm
Gordo:
The Aztlan-Reconquista bunch are a red herring - they are brought up as a straw man to justify anti-Mexican immigrant rhetoric. They've been around since at least the 1960's, but now that we have a much more dangerous example of Islamic radicals potentially infiltrating our society, the anti-Mexicans have decided to dredge up this old canard.

Despite all the hysteria, Mexican-Americans are in fact assimilating just as all the other ethnic groups who have come to this great land in centuries past have done. Why? Because, like all those other imimgrants, they want to get ahead, prosper, assimilate. And you can't get ahead, prosper, or assimilate into American society if you don't speak English.

By the third generation, 3/4 of all descendants of Mexican immigrants don't even speak Spanish. Does this sound like a reconquista?

The 1850's version of today's anit-immigration crowd were popularly known as the "Know-Nothing" party. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
5.9.2006 12:29pm
Apodaca:
Video (from Nightline) of assorted members of Congress muffing the anthem or refusing when asked to recite the lyrics: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Nightline-SSB.wmv

John McCain knows the words, and proves it.
5.9.2006 12:30pm
gr (www):

My objection is that the song is currently used on behalf of a movement of people who--while demanding U.S. citizenship as a "right" despite their flagrant violations of U.S. immigration laws--are too often not willing to assume the duties of U.S. citizenship


Who is doing this? Someone like the first US soldier to die in the Iraq war? He was an illegal immigrant.
5.9.2006 12:37pm
EricK:

Who is doing this? Someone like the first US soldier to die in the Iraq war? He was an illegal immigrant.


You can't join the Military without a green card.
5.9.2006 12:43pm
gr (www):

You can't join the Military without a green card.

He was undocumented when he came to the US.
5.9.2006 12:53pm
Justin (mail):
Gordo's correct. David Kopel doens't sound like a name that came off the Mayflower, but Slavs, Irish, Italian, and (omg) African immigrants to this country have all had much more tense, and generally more violent, struggles to assimilate.
5.9.2006 1:06pm
Justin (mail):
And that doesn't even bring up the tangential fact that America's first set of European "illegal immigrants" massacred America's original population.
5.9.2006 1:06pm
Perry:
Justin, they weren't illegal immigrants. Hard to break a law that didn't exist.

Postscript--your last name isn't "Zinn," is it?
5.9.2006 1:31pm
SLS 1L:
Let's assume, arguendo, that a substantial percentage of Mexican immigrants sincerely believe that a large chunk of the southwestern U.S. should be given back to Mexico. Why does this qualify as per se disloyalty to the U.S.? There's nothing un-American about believing (even wrongly believing) that a current American policy, in this case the location of our borders, is unjust or unfair. It would only qualify as disloyalty if done solely or principally out of a desire to aggrandize Mexico, rather than to correct a perceived injustice.

If Kopel is prepared to show both that a substantial number of first-generation Mexican-American citizen immigrants (the only ones who are bound by the Oath of Allegiance) believe this AND that they're doing it out of loyalty to Mexico rather than a belief that the original treaty was unjust or unfair, then his claim might stand. But otherwise it is a canard and smacks of racism. Note that arguments that the treaty was just and fair don't count as evidence for this purpose.



[DK: Elementary rule of national survival, #5: If your country is going to take in millions and millions and millions of immigrants, try to choose immigrants who aren't in favor of giving a big chunk of your country to some other country, and who don't see their immigration as part of territorial redress for their true homeland.]
5.9.2006 2:13pm
Jam (mail):
All those illegal immigrants, breaking our laws and demanding rights and taking up arms against the government. How dare they?

Oops, we are not talking about about the illegals who entered the "Estado de Coahuila y Tejas?"
5.9.2006 2:15pm
logicnazi (mail) (www):
DK, I think you make a good point that there is a significant difference between demanding that large parts of the US be given back to mexico and supporting israel. However, as many others on this thread, I would dispute the percent of mexican migrants who really believe this.

I don't think merely using this buisness about some historical event to justify free immigration into this country is quite the same as supporting mexico over the land that was seized. This seems far more like a desperate grab for a justification of an act (illegal immigration) that they emotionally feel is justified. I mean I see little difference between this and all the liberals who jump to say that the iraq war is illegal under international law (I think the war is problematic as well but not liking something and it being formally illegal are different things and the later isn't well supported).

Nor is it true that in order to be a good american one needs to always support what is best (in the normal sense) for america. For instance my family has lived in the states for a long time but I think that the US has a moral responsibility to let in more immigrants even if this costs us money or resources. You might disagree with this belief but thinking that certain causes are right and that the US should do what is right even if it isn't in our own self-interest is surely not unamerican. Or to give another example one doesn't become unamerican if you say, 'The US should support israel because it is the right thing to do even though there is no benefit to the US for helping.'

I agree there is a line out there somewhere (though I don't necessarily think it should be governmentally enforced) but it is more subtle than always supporting US interests. It is more like the difference between advocating the US pull out of iraq and cheering on the insurgents who are killing soldiers but it is hard to pin it down.
5.9.2006 2:29pm
Justin (mail):
Perry, your narrow concept of "law" is different than mine, and runs contrary to the majority political philosophy on the topic (Hart, Raz, etc.)
5.9.2006 3:27pm
SLS 1L:
DK: a fair point, perhaps, but it misses the point. Your original contention was that Mexican immigrants who have taken the Oath of Allegiance are disloyal. This is an extraordinary claim that was offered without evidence. Someone offered an argument in its favor, and I rebutted it. You further counter that admitting such immigrants in large numbers would be bad for "national survival." But that is not the proposition I was challenging. You are attempting to prove one proposition (former Mexicans who have taken the Oath of Allegiance are disloyal and in violation of their oaths) by proving a completely different proposition (admitting large numbers of Mexican immigrants is, in fact, bad for "national survival.") That is a classic fallacy.

You are free to argue that admitting large numbers of Mexican immigrants engangers "national survival" if you wish. But your contention is that former Mexicans who have taken the Oath of Allegiance are disloyal. Demonstrate that, if you can.

For what it's worth, I don't agree that admitting large numbers of Mexicans is bad for national survival either, even if they do think large chunks of the Southwest should be returned to Mexico. But asuming that ex-Mexicans do believe that in large numbers, and that you are right that this would enganger national survival, you still haven't made any demonstration of disloyalty, because the ex-Mexicans may well believe that returning the Southwest to Mexico would not endanger American national survival. What you must show, if you are to show violation of the Oath of Allegiance, is:

1) Large numbers of ex-Mexicans believe that large chunks of the Southwest should be remitted to Mexico.
2) These ex-Mexicans support such remittance principally because it would support Mexico's interests against those of the U.S., not because it would remedy what they believe to be a historical injustice.

Note that (1) does not entail (2).
5.9.2006 4:12pm
Houston Lawyer:
I would venture that the vast majority of those who fought Santa Anna in Texas were legally residing there. Stephen F. Austin and others like him were bringing in colonists with the express written permission of the Mexican Government. A fair number of the Texans who fought for independence were of Mexican descent.

Mexico was surely within its rights in attempting to put down the armed rebellion. However, they lost that war.
5.9.2006 4:12pm
Sparky:
Man, they just don't make drinking songs like they used to . . .

"Idalia will boast but of tenantless shades?" Try stirring up a chorus of THAT down at your local.
5.9.2006 4:19pm
Jam (mail):
Houston Lawyer: According to historians/reenactors that I have talked with about 25% of the people fighting with the Texians were illegally in Mexico.
5.9.2006 5:04pm
Houston Lawyer:
Jam

That sounds like the population of Houston now.
5.9.2006 6:02pm
M:
I've very rarely run into people who think the US should 'give back' the border states but all the people I've met who said this were white people who seemed upset at the number of non-white people who lived in those areas.
5.9.2006 8:53pm
Lev:

"I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any...state...of...which I have heretofore been a subject..."


And such as Peter Jennings, after making that statement, claims he has dual US/Canadian citizenship.
5.10.2006 12:35am
IllegalImmigrationIntroduction (mail) (www):
SLS 1L: I haven't checked with them all, but I would tend to think that the very vast majority of non-Chicano U.S. citizens who live in the southwest, including yours truly - as well as the majority of Chicano U.S. citizens who live there - would not support the southwest becoming a Mexican state or even a separate territory.

Maybe such a deal would be great, and maybe those who support it aren't simply traitors. But, it doesn't really matter since almost everyone would be against it. That's why we have a country and all.

Certainly, the majority of Mexican-Americans are patriotic U.S. citizens. However, many are not. And, many Mexican-American leaders are former members of racial separatist blood-and-soil organizations such as MEChA and have expressed anti-white and anti-American sentiments. For examples, see this or search for the names of CA legislators at my site.

TechieLaw wants to know why should one be required to renounce another citizenship in order to become a US citizen?

Are you sure that's a current requirement? If it isn't, it should, as a simple example shows: how would that person vote on something that would help the U.S. but hurt his "other" country? To which side would he throw his allegiance? And, what if we went to war with his "other" country? And, having "another" country also gives that person an "out" in case things get rough for him in the U.S. He's not "in for a penny, in for a pound", he's got an option. That might lead him to making a bad choice somewhere down the line.

Regarding the "first US soldier to die in the Iraq war" mentioned by "gr", IIRC it's a bit more complicated than that. He crossed the border illegally and then claimed to be a minor and from El Salvador. Because of that he wasn't deported but was given a residence permit. Thus, he joined not as an illegal alien but as a legal resident. I suggest looking at the news reports so you aren't spreading false information.
5.10.2006 3:13am
Jam (mail):
Some of us just want Texas to become fully independent again ... to heck with Mexico and these uS.

Let the Lone Star be truly again a Lone Star.
5.10.2006 10:37am