As is so often in the case when there are heated arguments, some definitions (or attempts thereat) are in order. I'm not going to try to create the definitions, because I'm not that brave, but here are some remarks that may help for the ideas that go into the definitions:

WRITE, WROTE, WRITTEN
When I "write" a song, what does that mean (other than the physical act of putting the dots down on paper, if that ever happens)? Does it necessarily mean that every single phrase of the music has sprung full-grown from my forehead, like Venus from the head of Zeus? Does it necessarily mean that both the "story line" of the song and all of the words and phrases necessarily found their first earthly existence in my mind?

I say no, to both propositions. Many, many excellent songs (and not only in the folk tradition, either!) are based on pre-existing ideas or stories.

How much change, in either/or words or tune, is necessary to call a song that is presented a different song from the song somebody else used to sing?

Going further, especially in past times, but even up to current memory, it has been pretty common for a collector (and some big names, too) to publish a song he found as his work, and in some cases with NO significant change. Think Lomax, John Jacob Niles, Bob Dylan, and McPeake.

So, if indeed Dan Emmett learned "a song" about Dixie from the folks discussed in this thread, how close was his Dixie to what he heard from them? Was it directly quoted? Slightly adapted? A thoroughgoing recast of words and/or music?   

And even if it was a direct repeat, I ask you to reread the paragraph before last. It won't change the facts, but in the context of his times it may affect the attitude we take toward him and the song.

I started out with two areas to discuss, and I got so windy in the above that I've forgotten what my second subject was. I may actually have covered it in the course of what I've already said.

So I'll stop.

Dave Oesterreich