"The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"

Ramone45

Literotica Guru
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Posts
5,544
While not glorifying the Confederacy, this song acknowledges the tragedy of the Civil War. It essentially says what Donald Trump said. There were good people on both sides. Conversely, there were awful people on both sides.It was a favorite song of liberal icons such as Joan Baez and Levon Helm. These artists were intelligent and they respected the intelligence of other people.They knew that merely acknowledging the obvious about the Civil War would not be "offensive" to other people.
However, I understand the cuck liberals of today have banned this song for school performances. Ironically, they're trying to commission a bust of Levon Helm. I wonder if that will stand. I think it's hilarious how the modern libs believe they are more "enlightened" than true liberal giants of the past.
 
While not glorifying the Confederacy, this song acknowledges the tragedy of the Civil War. It essentially says what Donald Trump said. There were good people on both sides. Conversely, there were awful people on both sides.It was a favorite song of liberal icons such as Joan Baez and Levon Helm. These artists were intelligent and they respected the intelligence of other people.They knew that merely acknowledging the obvious about the Civil War would not be "offensive" to other people.
However, I understand the cuck liberals of today have banned this song for school performances. Ironically, they're trying to commission a bust of Levon Helm. I wonder if that will stand. I think it's hilarious how the modern libs believe they are more "enlightened" than true liberal giants of the past.

You're stupid.
 
While not glorifying the Confederacy, this song acknowledges the tragedy of the Civil War. It essentially says what Donald Trump said. There were good people on both sides. Conversely, there were awful people on both sides.It was a favorite song of liberal icons such as Joan Baez and Levon Helm. These artists were intelligent and they respected the intelligence of other people.They knew that merely acknowledging the obvious about the Civil War would not be "offensive" to other people.
However, I understand the cuck liberals of today have banned this song for school performances. Ironically, they're trying to commission a bust of Levon Helm. I wonder if that will stand. I think it's hilarious how the modern libs believe they are more "enlightened" than true liberal giants of the past.

Treason is never good, no matter how well-intentioned.
 
You're stupid.

I'm cherishing the charitable image that Joan Baez recorded the song as 'cultural bridge' to a past noble ideal, when in her own words:

Joan, however, told a Rolling Stone Magazine reporter that she learned the song by listening to the Band’s recording. When she recorded it she’d never actually seen a printed version of the words and so sang the lyrics as she’d (mis)heard them. In her recent concerts, Joan has sung the original words.

https://seventiesmusic.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/the-night-they-drove-old-dixie-down-joan-baez-1971/

:D:D
 
I'm cherishing the charitable image that Joan Baez recorded the song as 'cultural bridge' to a past noble ideal, when in her own words:



:D:D

"till so much cavalry came" Goddamn that was annoying.

Also, written by Robbie Robertson, a Canadian.
 
These song lyrics keep ringing in my mind: "Look away, look away, look away, Dixie land."
 
"till so much cavalry came" Goddamn that was annoying.

Also, written by Robbie Robertson, a Canadian.

Huh, I'd never heard the "original" words, just the Baez version.

Shouldn't that have been "Stonewall's Cavalry" instead of "Stoneman's Cavalry"?

In any event, I always thought that song was more anti-war than pro-South.
 
Huh, I'd never heard the "original" words, just the Baez version.

Shouldn't that have been "Stonewall's Cavalry" instead of "Stoneman's Cavalry"?

In any event, I always thought that song was more anti-war than pro-South.

General George Stoneman led Union cavalry raids into North Carolina and Virginia, pillaging the countryside and destroying the railroad lines. After the war, he was elected governor of California.
 
Old Dixie got itself driven down because slaving traitors led Old Dixie to fucking illegally secede from the nation they had sworn to protect and defend. Treasonous rebels fired on Federal troops. Treasonous rebels killed hundreds of thousands in their defense of slavery and feudalism. Treasonous rebels got their asses handed to them by a better-organized, freer society.

Did "good people" fight for the Confederacy? Yes, but the leaders were traitors. And they lost. Fighting for the losing side is never a good move. Treasonous leaders would normally be exiled or executed. Old Dixie got off easy.
 
Lest we forget, the following historical perspective of Northern slavery, and the re-characterization of the south by Northern interests bears hearing...

Early 19th century New Englanders had real motives for forgetting their slave history, or, if they recalled it at all, for characterizing it as a brief period of mild servitude. This was partly a Puritan effort to absolve New England's ancestors of their guilt. The cleansing of history had a racist motive as well, denying blacks -- slave or free -- a legitimate place in New England history. But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a "mythology of a free New England" was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America. The North, and New England in particular, sought to demonize the South through its institution of slavery; they did this in part by burying their own histories as slave-owners and slave-importers. At the same time, behind the potent rhetoric of Daniel Webster and others, they enshrined New England values as the essential ones of the Revolution, and the new nation. In so doing, they characterized Southern interests as purely sectional and selfish. In the rhetorical battle, New England backed the South right out of the American mainstream.
The attempt to force blame for all America's ills onto the South led the Northern leadership to extreme twists of logic. Abolitionist leaders in New England noted the "degraded" condition of the local black communities. Yet the common abolitionist explanation of this had nothing to do with northerners, black or white. Instead, they blamed it on the continuance of slavery in the South. "The toleration of slavery in the South," Garrison editorialized, "is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North."[1]
"This argument, embraced almost universally by New England abolitionists, made good sense as part of a strategy to heap blame for everything wrong with American society on southern slavery, but it also had the advantage, to northern ears, of conveniently shifting accountability for a locally specific situation away from the indigenous institution from which it had evolved."[2]
Melish's perceptive book, "Disowning Slavery," argues that the North didn't simply forget that it ever had slaves. She makes a forceful case for a deliberate re-writing of the region's past, in the early 1800s. By the 1850s, Melish writes, "New England had become a region whose history had been re-visioned by whites as a triumphant narrative of free, white labor." And she adds that this "narrative of a historically free, white New England also advanced antebellum New England nationalism by supporting the region's claims to a superior moral identity that could be contrasted effectively with the 'Jacobinism' of a slave-holding, 'negroized' South." The demonizing adjective is one she borrows from Daniel Webster, who used it in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830.

http://slavenorth.com/denial.htm
 
General George Stoneman led Union cavalry raids into North Carolina and Virginia, pillaging the countryside and destroying the railroad lines. After the war, he was elected governor of California.

Used my Google Fu just to make sure you weren't pulling my leg. You are correct sir. George Stoneman lived a very interesting life, full of ups and downs.

I'd never heard of him before.
 
Old Dixie got itself driven down because slaving traitors led Old Dixie to fucking illegally secede from the nation they had sworn to protect and defend. Treasonous rebels fired on Federal troops. Treasonous rebels killed hundreds of thousands in their defense of slavery and feudalism. Treasonous rebels got their asses handed to them by a better-organized, freer society.

Did "good people" fight for the Confederacy? Yes, but the leaders were traitors. And they lost. Fighting for the losing side is never a good move. Treasonous leaders would normally be exiled or executed. Old Dixie got off easy.

Show me the law at that time that made secession illegal. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, when people emigrate and become citizens of other countries does that make them criminally traitorous to their birth nations by virtue of their voluntary renunciation of citizenship?

Time for a reset, Hypox.
 
Lest we forget, the following historical perspective of Northern slavery, and the re-characterization of the south by Northern interests bears hearing...

Early 19th century New Englanders had real motives for forgetting their slave history, or, if they recalled it at all, for characterizing it as a brief period of mild servitude. This was partly a Puritan effort to absolve New England's ancestors of their guilt. The cleansing of history had a racist motive as well, denying blacks -- slave or free -- a legitimate place in New England history. But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a "mythology of a free New England" was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America. The North, and New England in particular, sought to demonize the South through its institution of slavery; they did this in part by burying their own histories as slave-owners and slave-importers. At the same time, behind the potent rhetoric of Daniel Webster and others, they enshrined New England values as the essential ones of the Revolution, and the new nation. In so doing, they characterized Southern interests as purely sectional and selfish. In the rhetorical battle, New England backed the South right out of the American mainstream.
The attempt to force blame for all America's ills onto the South led the Northern leadership to extreme twists of logic. Abolitionist leaders in New England noted the "degraded" condition of the local black communities. Yet the common abolitionist explanation of this had nothing to do with northerners, black or white. Instead, they blamed it on the continuance of slavery in the South. "The toleration of slavery in the South," Garrison editorialized, "is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North."[1]
"This argument, embraced almost universally by New England abolitionists, made good sense as part of a strategy to heap blame for everything wrong with American society on southern slavery, but it also had the advantage, to northern ears, of conveniently shifting accountability for a locally specific situation away from the indigenous institution from which it had evolved."[2]
Melish's perceptive book, "Disowning Slavery," argues that the North didn't simply forget that it ever had slaves. She makes a forceful case for a deliberate re-writing of the region's past, in the early 1800s. By the 1850s, Melish writes, "New England had become a region whose history had been re-visioned by whites as a triumphant narrative of free, white labor." And she adds that this "narrative of a historically free, white New England also advanced antebellum New England nationalism by supporting the region's claims to a superior moral identity that could be contrasted effectively with the 'Jacobinism' of a slave-holding, 'negroized' South." The demonizing adjective is one she borrows from Daniel Webster, who used it in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830.

http://slavenorth.com/denial.htm

Joanne Melish is not an apologist for the South. Unfortunately, some neo-Confederates have tried to twist her work for their own purposes.
 
Joanne Melish is not an apologist for the South. Unfortunately, some neo-Confederates have tried to twist her work for their own purposes.

Northern states profited from slavery.... right up to the war and beyond

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.
Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.

http://slavenorth.com/profits.htm
 
Last edited:
Used my Google Fu just to make sure you weren't pulling my leg. You are correct sir. George Stoneman lived a very interesting life, full of ups and downs.

I'd never heard of him before.

Sadly, while the "Lost Cause" advocates have lionized the Confederates, little attention is paid to the Union leaders who fought to save the nation.

You want to read up on an interesting character? Google Franz Sigel.
 
Northern states profited from slavery.... right up to the war and beyond

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.
Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.

http://slavenorth.com/profits.htm

Of course. And thousands of southerners supported the Union. Do you have a point to make?
 
Show me the law at that time that made secession illegal. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, when people emigrate and become citizens of other countries does that make them criminally traitorous to their birth nations by virtue of their voluntary renunciation of citizenship?

Time for a reset, Hypox.

The confederates did not become citizens of another nation, so your analogy doesn't work.
 
Obviously, it was fought "for economics", the basis of the southern economy was slavery.

You opted not to the previous posting, which stated quite clearly:

The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.​

The basis of the southern economy was agriculture...
 
Back
Top