Feud

764 Words2 Pages

In West Virginia, the names of Hatfields and McCoys are the well known families involved in one of the most famous feuds. The biggest misconception of this famous feud is that the factor of why these two families do not get along, it is not family rivalry but instead social and economic factors. In reality, many McCoys were on Hatfield’s side and vice versa or some family members did not even participate in the events concerning the feud. “Apparently, family solidarity is not a sufficient explanation for feud alliances.” For example, “Although less than half of an identifiable thirty-one supporters were related to Devil Anse, twenty six---or a striking 84 percent--- were tied to our dependent upon him through land purchases or timbering.” These points tie in to the question on what determined what side of the feud someone would be on. As it is known, the Feud started ten years after the Civil War was over, stopped and then was ignited again with the death count of twelve. From the first part of the Feud to the second part, changes were happening in the Tug Valley, socially and economically. In terms of socially, the society went from a local community to having social elite and in terms of economically, it went from small businessmen such as Devil Anse to big time companies wanting to build railroads to dive into the coal and timber business. With these changes, also came the transformation of the legal system, state politics, and industrialization fueled the frustration of the families and heightened the violence of the Feud ultimately. In the Tug Valley, the social and economic aspects changed from the first part and the second part in the circumstances of the families running the local government and the economy also going... ... middle of paper ... ...ints of views in the first part, “what was being challenged by the McCoys was a set of competitive economic activities carried out by one particular group of people centered on Devil Anse Hatfield. Yet, despite the evidence the Hatfield group was defending rational economic interests.” As the second part of the Feud began, it was revived by Perry Cline under the terms of his resentment towards Devil for the taking of his land in the earlier years of the Feud. As it came to be known that West Virginia and back country of Kentucky were filled with profitable resources, state governors were now a part of the Feud. Hatfield in the second half of the Feud were only trying to protect themselves and economic status. Works Cited Atlina Waller, Feud Hatfields, McCoys, and Social Change in Appalachia, 1860-1900, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, 1988), 78.

Open Document