computer's audio broke so i'm going off title.

as always in these sorts of things: yes and no. the no part is boring (overheated rhetoric. the publication history makes clear the "core" is a celebration of the patriotic defense of baltimore/fort mchenry not "angry man ranting at disloyal blacks"). Lets rephrase the question to get a perfectly defensible position: National Anthem includes lines showing resentment towards slaves escaping bondage via the British.

This all concerns the third stanza of the song

• 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 washed out their foul footsteps’ 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!

there exists legitimate debate over

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

line. one reading says mercenaries and the impressment of individuals onto British ships the other says no the second half is about slaves. Either of these fit into pre existing ideological frameworks that questions ability of despotic government to truly attract citizen soldiers.

It's very likely he's referencing slaves who escaped to the British in this line but one could coherently contest this point.

The biggest truth here isn't the debate over the moral significance of the line in the national anthem it's that whole interesting "forgotten" history of British recruitment of slaves in am rev war (Dunmore proclamation, book of Negros) and 1812 and the American/colonial response to that.

I could sketch that out in broad terms but I'm no expert so hopeful someone will.