Morgan Turner

Feuding has many stereotypes associated with it in regards to Appalachia. During the
time of intense feuding, the peak of industrialization or 1885 to 1895, these stereotypes were
formed. People believed that Appalachians were completely violent all the time. There was an
idea that these hillbillies were bloodthirsty and that feuding violence was a constant problem.
In reality, this violence was more episodic and way less dramatic than it was portrayed. It didnt
happen to the extent that was depicted. In fact, even during the height of feuding in Clay county
where feuding was a large problem, for the most part, it was similar to most other rural
communities. From the Blee and Billings piece Where Bloodshed Is a Pastime Mountain
Feuds and Appalachian Stereotyping, But most of the timethere was little to distinguish Clay
County from other rural communities of the period. Property was bought and sold, lawsuits
adjudicated, children sent to school, and elections held. Basically, violence was not to the extent
as depicted.
Another stereotype is that these feuds were rooted in poverty, ignorance, and isolation.
This idea is completely false. As for poverty and ignorance, feuding was the result of local elites
fighting local elites. During this time of industrialization, opportunities for profit increased.
Some locals wanted to partner with outsiders to increase profits in the local industry. Others
wanted to keep industries local. It was the educated, wealthier elites that started the feuding, such
as magistrates, judges, sheriffs, legislators, state officials (like a secretary of state), and even
members of Congress. These people were often were wealthy, owning a lot of land, and took
great effort in educating their family. Elite family feuding was quite common too. Others in the
area would support the elite families either because they worked for them or because they would
maybe be paid off for their support. Also, these people were far from isolated. Those in Congress
couldnt have possibly been isolated. The feuding started over these industries and whether
power should be kept local or there should be a partnership with the outside world. So the
argument was basically, keep our industry in the hands of locals or outside developers. These
places where feuding happened were also not isolated as their products such as salt or timber
were shipped to other areas, meaning there was some form of connection to the outside world.
The idea that these people were poor, ignorant, and isolated holds no truth.
Some people believed that this violence was casual and the need for fighting came from
their ancestors. People argued Appalachians were tainted because of their Anglo-Saxon roots
were the men were pioneers who enjoyed the savage wilderness and criminals driven out of
settlements and jails. They thought that since their ancestors were this way, they too were the
same. Reality is inconsistent with this belief. In fact, instead of Appalachians taking matters into
their own hands, they often took their problems to the courts. Courts during the time were
swamped down with grievances and disputes. Sometimes the courts even broke down because
too many conflicts happened that turned to the local court systems for resolution. On top of that,
often the people fighting were litigators, such as judges who got involved in these feuds. Feuding
was not casual and savage, rather it was often fought in the court rooms rather than people wildly
killing others.
Finally, another false belief is that women were uninvolved in this conflict. In writing
during the time, females were rarely mentioned, and only in the context of widows whose
husbands were killed during this feuding. Women from these elite families often pursued
education. There were some instances where women totally owned their own property and were
involved in these financial opportunities of trying to make a profit. So some women were

actually involved in the fight for profit while others helped provoke these fights through gossip
and insult. Either way, women were not quiet ladies in the background of these upheavals.
These many stereotypes became so widespread from authors. During the time of this
intense feuding, lynching was going on in the background. People often wrote about feuding far
more than they did of the lynchings that were happening during the time to take the focus off of
the spike in lynching. So there was a focus on this feuding in the newspapers. However, as gore
often sells, authors created these stereotypes about feuds to sell money. Those who hold the
power are often those who narrate. These authors had an agenda (wanted money), so they made
these stereotypes. Also, depicting the area as violent and lawless helped rationalize outsiders
desires to exploit the area through wanting to imperialize them (civilize them and take over their
industries and further industrialize them to calm the people down from their violent streak). In
a process called intertextual reality, other writings were based on these newspapers, from local
color writings up to academic writing. So these lies build and build off of each other in the
literary world all because authors wanted to write something that would sell. Even now,
academic writing is based off of these papers (like the Courrier-Journal or the New York Times)
like it is truth.
Feuding is not what it was depicted as in writing during the time. There are many
stereotypes surrounding it, such as women were behind the scenes or it was this big argument
outside of courts by uneducated people. In reality it was done by elites who often fought in
courts over wanting political and economic control of the local area and industry. These
stereotypes have been perpetuated through the literary world, where more credible writing is
built upon these newspapers who started these stereotypes because they wanted to make a buck
and write something the readers wanted to read to soothe their conscience of exploiting the areas
resources. Even today these stereotypes are perpetuated, but as with the Billings and Blee piece,
some truth to this Appalachian feuding is starting to crop up.
Sources from class handouts and Blee and Billings, Where Bloodshed Is a Pastime Mountain
Feuds and Appalachian Stereotyping