William Gilmore Simms
I.
Ye batter down the lion’s den,
But yet the lordly beast g’oes free;
And ye shall hear his roar again,
From mountain height, from lowland glen,
From sandy shore and reedy fen–
Where’er a band of freeborn men
Rears sacred shrines to liberty.
II.
The serpent scales the eagle’s nest,
And yet the royal bird, in air,
Triumphant wins the mountain’s crest,
And sworn for strife, yet takes his rest,
And plumes, to calm, his ruffled breast,
Till, like a storm-bolt from the west,
He strikes the invader in his lair.
III.
What’s loss of den, or nest, or home,
If, like the lion, free to go;–
If, like the eagle, wing’d to roam,
We span the rock and breast the foam,
Still watchful for the hour of doom,
When, with the knell of thunder-boom,
We bound upon the serpent foe!
IV.
Oh! noble sons of lion heart!
Oh! gallant hearts of eagle wing!
What though your batter’d bulwarks part,
Your nest be spoiled by reptile art–
Your souls, on wings of hate, shall start
For vengeance, and with lightning-dart,
Rend the foul serpent ere he sting!
V.
Your battered den, your shattered nest,
Was but the lion’s crouching-place;–
It heard his roar, and bore his crest,
His, or the eagle’s place of rest;–
But not the soul in either breast!
This arms the twain, by freedom bless’d,
To save and to avenge their race!
© by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes
You may find this and other poems here.
Analysis (AI Assisted)
This poem is built around a set of animal symbols that were easy to recognize in its time. The lion and the eagle stand in for strength, courage, and the idea of a free people who can’t be contained by the destruction of their homes. The serpent stands for the invading force. The whole point of the poem is to show that losing ground does not mean losing the ability to strike back. The imagery is simple and direct, designed to lift morale rather than analyze the situation.
The poem argues that physical places don’t define the people who lived in them. When the “den” or the “nest” is destroyed, the lion and the eagle aren’t defeated; they simply move. That idea becomes a way of saying that the community under attack is still capable of fighting. In this sense, the poem works as reassurance. It tries to take fear and turn it into a message about survival and future retaliation. It doesn’t hide the damage or pretend the loss isn’t real. Instead, it claims that the loss is temporary because the spirit of the people is unchanged.
The animals chosen are important for how the poet wants the conflict to feel. The lion suggests raw power and a readiness to fight. The eagle suggests height, vision, and striking from above. Together they create an emotional story about dignity and strength. The serpent is used in the opposite way. It represents secrecy, invasion, and treachery. That contrast is intentional. It divides the conflict into two clear sides without nuance and makes the reader feel that one side is inherently noble and the other inherently corrupt.
The poem repeats the idea that the attackers can damage buildings but cannot reach the “soul.” This is a common move in wartime poetry, especially when the writer is trying to steady morale during a setback. It places value on identity and character instead of physical circumstances. The destruction becomes something that will eventually justify revenge rather than something that ends the struggle. When the poet describes the future attack—“the storm-bolt” or the “lightning-dart”—it is less about real tactics and more about giving the audience a picture of confidence.
Another feature of the poem is the way it speaks directly to the “sons” of the community. It treats them as heirs of courage, expected to rise to the moment. The poem encourages them to see themselves as the lion and the eagle, with natural rights and natural strength. That framing matters. It shifts the poem from a description of danger to a call for renewed commitment. The writer wants the reader to feel steadiness, not despair.
As a piece of writing from a wartime perspective, the poem is not interested in debating the politics that led to the attack. It cares only about emotional position: we have been struck, but we still have the power to strike back. The poem uses familiar symbols, predictable oppositions, and bold statements because it is trying to reinforce identity. It is not meant to surprise. It is meant to confirm what its audience already believes about themselves.
The poem ends by saying clearly that the true strength of a people is not tied to the walls around them. That idea holds the whole poem together. Even as homes and defenses are lost, the poet insists that the core of the community remains intact, restless, and ready to act. The imagery of animals, the focus on inner strength, and the direct language all work to push the reader toward that conclusion.