Talk:The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down/Archive 1

Archive 1

Caine/Kane?

I believe the character Virgil's last name should be spelled "Caine" as per this source [1](seems to be the best Band fan site), though I have also seen it spelled "Kane" in reviews. Does anyone have a copy of the sheet music to check for sure? Katr67 02:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is another great resource about the song.Katr67 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats with the first section?

But if you consider the story within the song? that section needs a conclusion, or elimination. I agree its curious that robertson would write that, and that it merits pointing out, but lets work on some better writing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechosenone021 (talk • contribs) 01:20, June 10, 2006

You're right. Go for it!Katr67 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

question: what does "drive old Dixie Down" mean?

Does it refer to the flag? And in that case, what does "drive it down" mean?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.225.237 (talk • contribs) 18:32, February 20, 2007

A guess would be that it means the same as 'driving' one to drink and putting someone 'down'--the South was driven down around May 10: the day Confederate President Jefferson Davis was captured, and shortly after its capitol, Richmond, VA, had fallen to Union troops; without its leader and capitol, the South was finished.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyvarsity (talk • contribs) 17:57, May 1, 2007 (UTC)

It's just using a "power verb" to describe how the South, which is said to have "risen against" the North by fighting for secession, was finally defeated. These were people who would have continued fighting--even as guerillas--had Robert E. Lee not signed the peace and ordered his men to surrender their weapons, sign their pardons not to bear arms against the Union again, and to go back to what remained of their homes and families. Robbie Robertson has been quoted saying how, as a Canadian who went South and found an instant connection with the region as the rightful birthplace of rock-and-roll, many Southerners assured him that "The South will rise again." I know a woman who went to Birmingham for a job interview and sat there as, all through a business lunch, her two female interviewers (by way of "small talk") bashed the "Yankees" constantly for every injury and indignity--real or imagined--that they believe the South is enduring at the hands of the North to this very day. There are still Southerners who will not forgive the North for freeing the slaves, backng the civil rights movement and racial equality. THIS is what is meant by to "drive down."

I would think "Old Dixie" means the South as it existed before the war. "Dixie" alone would convey this. "Old" is for emphasis and/or for matching the lyric to the melody.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerocnn (talk • contribs) 122:03, May 10, 2007

Robertson vs Helm writing credits

I removed the section that claimed Helm fans believe Robertson was "pig headed" and claimed all the writing credits for himself. First, there was no citation, and second, I don't think this belongs in an article about a song. Perhaps, with a reference cited, it could be added to the Robbie Robertson or Levon Helm article(s) Mr. Wood 14:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sophie B. Hawkins version

I was kind of surprised to not see Sophie B. Hawkins version listed. It was her version that got me interested in the song again after not hearing it since childhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnbuck (talk • contribs) 16:04, December 11, 2006

Misinterpretation

You may very well be right about what you have stated. But do consider, the policies and/or practices of the Confederates were not being evaluated. This is not a song about the rights, wrongs, injustices, etc. of war; it is a song about the fall of the South. Robertson is neither critical of the Confederates nor complimentary of the Union (hence his pro [or at least not anti]-Lincoln proposed lyric being shot down by Helm). The line I put in about the Union living off the land was taken out and I didn't try to reinsert it because it was my interpretation and probably didn't belong in the first place--except for the fact that I'm right. The military policy of living off the land was one thing, the Union used that policy as a means of raping the South economically: Atlanta wasn't burned because Sherman was cold. Anyway, you were right to take that out, but I think you're wrong in your reasons for doing it.

I think you've misinterpreted the song and its historical context. There is an incredibly detailed, revelatory, and thought-provoking analysis of this song, virtually line-by-line, revealing multiples meanings and nuances (that will not be readily apparent even after repeated listenings)at: http://theband.hiof.no/articles/dixie_viney.html. This article is said to have originally appeared in The Band's "fanzine," Jawbone, and it has been elaborated upon and further improved.

You make the statement that "but they should never have taken the very best" is an "apparent" commentary on the Union Army's policy of living off the land during campaigns," etc. I've read my fair share of Civil War books. This was the Union Army's policy, period. It was also the "policy" (not really the appropriate word--"practice," maybe?--these were soldiers, not politicians or corporate execs) of the Confederate Army, too. Soldiers, especially on campaign, would "bivouac" in the field. Where else would the troops pitch their tents? Both armies lived off the land and looted and pillaged. The Union Army had no monopoly on this. And there were no Holiday Inns back then or take-out. The British did as much during the Revolutionary War, as did the Continental Army. So there is nothing unique about this Union "policy."

You present a somewhat one-sided picture when you come close to vilifying the Union Army (to my thinking, anyway) with this talk of rape, pillage, and total war, as though they were the bad guys. Yes, these things happened. It's why Shermon made his famous "War Is Hell" statement. War can bring out the hero in some, the beast in others. But once a war has begun, it must be ended, lest it go on forever. Let's keep in mind that the Confederates were fighting to "preserve their way of life" against "Northern aggression." Translation: They were fighting to keep an entire race enslaved. Without slavery, this country would not have had the Civil War. The Union Army was fighting to emancipate black slaves. Let's not lose perspective here.

It was only when the Union Army began using the historically time-tested practice of "total war" that the Confederacy was forced to surrender. Had this not been done, I think it's safe to say that the war would have dragged on indefinitely longer and many more lives would have been lost. If Robert E. Lee had not ordered all his troops to lay down their arms, they could and would have fled to the mountains and waged a guerilla war that could have gone on for years. Such warfare was already ravaging Missouri (from whence the James/Youngers learned their bloody trade) and "Bloody" Kansas, Tennessee, and elsewhere, by the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest, John Singleton Mosby, and the infamous Quantrill. The North had already shown how little it could do to catch, let alone stop, their hit-and-run attacks.

But what I take issue with is your assertin that "they never should have taken the very best" is a direct reference to this Union "policy." This is taken out of context. It's the Confederates that Virgil Caine (in the linked article, you will find many variations on this name, which may be a Biblical reference to Cain and the Civil War as a "war between brothers."

This is the context:

I don't mind them chopping wood And I don't care if the money's no good Just take what you need and leave the rest

The money reference is obviously to Confederate money, which wasn't worth the match to burn it. (Anyone who needs a citation for this really should at least one good book about about one of this country's most transformative wars--but the linked article above should cover it.) The Confederates paid loyal Confederate citizens for the goods they confiscated. But it was with money that had no economic clout because the fate of the Confederacy was not considered a good bet by other nations, with the exception, to some extent, of England. Unlike precious metals, currency has no intrinsic value. "But they should never have taken the very best," follows right on the heels of this verse.

This could refer to the fact that, hey, guess what, Confederates were rapacious, too. Or it could refer, as the cited article would have it, to the loss of life, specifically Caine's brother. (This article also questions various versions of the song, some done live and what the words to the song really are, according to what one thinks he hears.) I've just listened to The Band's studio version and several times in one sitting and I can swear Levon Helm sings "but they should never have taken the very BEDS." Listen very closely. If this is so--and Helms, for all his formidable ability and unique sound does tend to garble his lyrics, unlike, say the Baez version--then Virgil Caine could be, in one stanza, decrying the degradation and depradations visited upon him and his family from BOTH sides of the conflict. This would make sense. One reason why the memory of the Civil War is still alive and the North resented by many Southerners (I have friends down South--I worked with a fellow from Savannah--nice guy, but he once told me, very matter-of-factly, we hate you and we always will) is because this conflict was fought on their land. We can only speculate how many farmers had there lands turned into battlefields. There was no "homefront" to speak of down South, unlike most of the North.

I think this is a significant point and what the song is truly about.

I also take issue with "just take what you need and leave the rest, etc." being the "central lament" of the song.

Why is this more central than "but a Yankee laid him in his grave / I swear by the blood/mud [NB: there is much debate on the words used in various renditions of this song and possible errors in the transcription of the lyrics) below my feet / You can't raise a Caine back up when it's in defeat"?

How is the loss of Virgil's "like my young brother above me" any less central a lament? The entire song is a lament and that line is by no means central unless you mean that it's more or less in the middle of the song. In terms of meaning, I don't believe that it's central. You may feel that it's the most powerful single part of the song but I think it's no more "central" than his lament of his lost brother "above me." What would this man lament more? The loss of some goods or his brother?

This is a song about ALL the ways in which a proud and valiant people were beaten down (the war did not go on for four bloody years because the Rebels were pushovers--quite the contrary).

"In the winter of '65, we were hungry, just barely alive." That pretty much sets the stage and it precedes the verse you quote. I'm one of the relatively few Americans who possibly knows what Levon Helm meant when he sang the obscure reference "but Stoneman's cavalry came and tore up the tracks again." How many people could even guess, outside of the context of this song, who "Stoneman" might have been? About as many who have heard of Fighting Phil Sheridan. (The Joan Baez version changes this to "till so much cavalry came," as though not wishing to tax her listeners minds over "what's a Stone Man's cavalry?")

The central theme of the song is a lament on the defeat of the Confederacy as told by one who has lived through ALL its horrors, as in the chorus "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" ("na, na-na, na-na-na, etc.)

But, really, anyone who wants to be enlightened by some truly compelling analysis of this song's deeper meaning should do themselves a favor and access the link above. There are also numerous quotes from Robbie Robertson and Levon Helm that flesh out the song and the story behind it considerably. Anyone who is intrigued by this song will be astounded by the shades of meaning that the article link above provides, as well as how Helm and Robertson may have interacted in the evolution of the song. It all began when Robertson only had the melody and no clue what the words would be. So he bided his time. Good things do take time to create. But this song is exceptional.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerocnn (talk • contribs) 07:01, May 10, 2007

Addendum

I'm adding this as an addendum. I'm watching Hardball with Chris Matthews and a guest caught my attention by mentioning the "Feed and Forage Act of 1861," that allowed Union troops to camp in the field and "forage" without having to pay landowners for whatever goods they took. Without having looked this up, my guess is that this bill was NOT directed at loyal Unionists. No did it authorize atrocities. Unfortunately, soldiers have committed atrocities since the days of The Illiad, at least. I still feel that your take verges on Yankee-bashing and hints at the "noble" Southern "gentleman" and those damned Yankees (who, common rumor held, actually had tails and were devils). To me, it's the "and I don't care if the money's no good" that suggests Virgil Caine is speaking about how the Rebels treated their own supporters. Remember, this was very late in the war, and people were literally starving and freezing. Southern troops were tattered, malnourished, barefoot, freezing, and on their last legs. There wasn't much left to forage in the South--all the more reason why the Rebel forces would take whatever they needed from wherever they found it. After Lee's second and last invasion of the North was repulsed at Gettysburg (1863), the opportunity to forage off the plentiful abundance of crops and manufactured goods to be found in the North was no longer a possibility. So the Rebels had to take from their own citizens--and had nothing to give by way of compensation but worthless Confederate currency.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerocnn (talk • contribs) 14:42, May 10, 2007