Reviewed by: Bloody Breathitt: Politics and Violence in the Appalachian South by T.R.C. Hutton Andrea S. Watkins Bloody Breathitt: Politics and Violence in the Appalachian South. By T.R.C. Hutton. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2013. Pp. xii, 430.) Feud violence in Appalachia, and more specifically in Kentucky, has been a staple of popular culture for the past one hundred and fifty years. Hot-headed, quick-to-draw, tribal mountaineers who appeared in newspapers, cartoons, novels, movies, and television programs shaped Americans perceptions of eastern Kentucky, and the area with one of the most violent reputations was “Bloody Breathitt” County. T.R.C. Hutton’s thorough examination of Breathitt County violence reveals a citizenry caught in an intense political struggle for control rather than in long-simmering familial hatred. Beginning with the political reasons for the founding of Breathitt County, Hutton lays the foundation for the intense political rivalries and questions of legitimacy that emerged in later years. A Democrat county carved from three Whig counties, from its earliest days Breathitt County was ruled by one-party politics. During the Civil War the county was pro-Confederate, an interesting fact that challenges the narrative that eastern Kentucky, and Appalachia in general, was a Union stronghold. Residents, white and black, who had struggled economically in the years leading up to the war opposed the Confederacy and its citizen supporters, and a brutal personal civil war played out within the county. Hutton explores the motivations and actions of both sides and argues that after the war’s end “political rupture remained, as did the blurred lines between soldier and civilian” (4). After the war, violence in the county mirrored that of Southern states; a biracial Unionist/Republican minority fought a county government controlled by Confederate veterans. In an effort to unite the country and to portray Kentucky as the loyal Union state, Bluegrass leaders and newspapers assigned the violent public actions a private meaning that served to hide the political dissonance of the period. Hutton details the nineteenth-century meaning of the word feud, which suggested violence among equals, and how it was used to describe the intraracial violence as something held over from an earlier era in an attempt to depict Breathitt County violence as a world apart from the current political and social climate of the state. The discovery of the wealth of natural resources available in the county led Kentuckians and other outsiders to the conclusion that the isolated, ignorant, poor, revenge-obsessed residents [End Page 105] would find redemption in economic progress and religious conversion. This idea fueled missionary work in the 1880s, and the various reports from the mission field increased the national notoriety of Breathitt County. Hutton provides an in-depth look at several key figures throughout the county’s history, including William Strong and Edward Callahan, and he links many of the noted “feuds” to struggles for political control within the county, not to personal vendettas. He argues that the assassination of political agitator William Goebel in 1900, combined with the dangerous reputation of mountaineers, provided “a means for Kentuckians and other Americans to reconcile (or confuse) political and communal uses of violence and draw boundaries between the two Kentuckys” (162). Obscuring the political reasons and assigning the term feud to such actions as the murders of men like James Marcum allowed elites within and without Breathitt County to benefit from violence “even as they distanced themselves from it” (205). The final chapter of the book traces the history of written accounts about Breathitt County violence through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, carefully examining not only how outsiders portrayed the county’s violence but also how the residents’ interpretations of events changed over time. There is also a valuable explanation of how the term feud was used in popular, nineteenth-century fiction. The research and insights Hutton presents provide a fresh look at a topic of renewed interest for historians and general audiences alike. By highlighting the real motivations for violence in Breathitt County, Hutton links the county to the larger themes of racial and political violence in the United States. This work gives evidence that the residents of Breathitt County were...
Read full abstract