Kentucky
This looks interesting … might review this book next month. Kentucky seceded from the Union after the War Between the States.
“Marshall traces the development of a Confederate identity in Kentucky between 1865 and 1925 that belied the fact that Kentucky never left the Union and that more Kentuckians fought for the North than for the South. Following the Civil War, the people of Kentucky appeared to forget their Union loyalties, embracing the Democratic politics, racial violence, and Jim Crow laws associated with formerly Confederate states.”
Note: The ultimate counterfactual historical scenario would be what would have happened on the battlefield if the full power of the South (anti-Confederate strongholds like East Tennessee and North Alabama, Union-controlled areas like West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland) had been harnessed and mobilized by the Confederacy in defense of white supremacy.
The basis of the famous Hatfield-McCoy fued was a post war arguement between the Confederate Hatfields in West Virginia, and the Union McCoys across the Tug River in Kentucky.
The Hatfield-McCoy feud wasn’t the only post Civil War feud. There were numerous post Civil War feuds. Most feuds & disputes had to do with Northern economic interests i.e. coal, railroads, etc. bullying the folks in WV. Which my ancestors had anticipated happening if the North won.
There was another ancient Civil War feud along the Mason-Dixon line that was still causing shootings in the 1950’s.
I personally know a number of the Hatfields, and I don’t know any McCoys, but, let me say this, there must have been more than a sufficent provocation to start the famous feud, and the big city newspapers of the North jumped all over the story.
“Focusing on the career of Colonel Andrew Jackson May, for whom the defense of the region was a personal crusade, it reveals that the victories which the Confederates won in this theater, allowing them to retain control of Preston’s Saltworks and the Virginia-Tennessee railroad, preserved the integrity of the Confederacy and thereby prolonged the war.”
My grrreat uncle, by marriage, no blood relation:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Jack_Mays_War.html?id=7fVrWvOcldwC
It’s striking … My uncle and cousins are a damn near spitting image, bald head and all:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mayhouse/mayhouse/col__andrew_jackson_may.htm
Earlmundo Armand Pitts III You from Mingo County?
No.
The reason the South lost is because its secessionists were assholes.
Really, that’s what it boils down to. During the end of Buchanan’s Presidency, the Democrats had the opportunity to stick together and to expose the Republicans as a regional party of Yankee Cromwellites and German commies. Instead, the Deep South split the Democratic Party and campaigned on an explicitly losing platform.
A lot of what drove the Deep South was base greed. They could have kept slavery in their states by promising not to expand slavery elsewhere – that is, not to send blacks elsewhere. States like Kentucky and regions like West Virginia, having sold their worst negroes down river, were not going to vote for a regime which promised (via Dred Scott) to send them right back UP river.
Breckenridge had no road toward the Presidency; all he wanted was to send a message. The message Kentucky and West Virginia got was, to keep our children safe, stay with the Union.
Moldbug is right: there really was no good side in the Civil War, at least as it started out.
I think, had either side realized how worthless most of the rest of the country still unsettled was for negro slavery, the whole damn thing might have been avoided.
No…wait…fucking abolitionists would stir up trouble, negro insurrections, underground buttfucking railroads, and all sorts of other typical SWPL faggotry until someone finally blow Fort Sumpter into smithereens.
Puritans can get bent, and if anyone is in hell, it is them. All of them. Every single one of them.
Jesus’ “plank/speck” lesson just never, ever soaked in.
Here’s an incident that happened in north central West Virginia toward the end of the Civil War. The Ice family are an ancient family in that area. There is a Confederate monument somewhere around Barrackville. I saw it maybe 40 years ago. I would like to know, if anyone knows if it is still standing, and if you can still read the names on it?
“It happened on March 30, 1865 when the horrible conflict between the states was coming to a close. A small band of Union soldiers marched along Buffalo Creek to the current town of Barrackville. They stopped everyone they encountered along the route and questioned them profusely about the actions of certain of their neighbors. The answers they received were always negative, but officers in the group would not be deterred. They had received word that one of the locals had harbored a Confederate soldier the previous night, and they were set on apprehending the culprit and administering proper punishment.
When they reached the home of forty-three year old, John D. Ice, they found him at home along with his wife, Rebecca Snodgrass and other family members. Their loud rapping at the door startled the family. Soldiers began at once searching the house, barn and surrounding areas while Ice was interrogated by the officers. He was accused of having sheltered for the night one Peter Righter, a well known Confederate.
Ice denied that he had harbored any soldier. The women and children were questioned separatly and they told the same story; there had been no Confederate soldier in the house last night or any night. The majority of the invading party seemed convinced that the family had nothing to hide and that John Ice was telling the truth. The officers, however, insisted that they had been correct in their accusations, and informed Ice that he must pay for his treasonous act.
They proceeded to blindfold the unfortunate man and, with his family looking on, marched him to the stone abutment of the bridge that crossed Buffalo Creek at Barrackville. The officers then shot him until he fell dead, his body tumbling from the bridge and into the creek bed. They left him lying in the stream!
When news of this bizarre act reached President Lincoln, who would, himself, shortly become the victim of a murderer’s bullet, he reportedly said that the man, Ice, had not been tried and that he, as Commander-In-Chief, had signed no death warrant, or taken any action to cause Ice to be put to death. He labled it a plain case of low-down murder, and said that those who did the disgraceful deed should be arrested, tried for deliberate murder, and receive full punishment.
John D. Ice is buried in the Snoderly Cemetery near Barrackville.”
It was a long term suicidal action.
@Eric Hale
Or the South might have just turned into another Haiti.
@ Zimriel
Breckenridge did better in the northern counties near the Mason-Dixon Line of what would become West Virginia, than he did in other parts of Virginia. Breckenridge carried some of these counties with as much as 80% of the vote!
The one time during the Civil War that the Union Generals moved fast was to seize the mountain passes and turnpikes connecting west Virginia with eastern Virginia in 1861.
Unlikely. Orc genocide by hillbillies would be much, much, much more likely.
Here’s a lil sumpin fo you Crackas: http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/cartoons/takeover.htm
“John D. Ice is buried in the Snoderly Cemetery near Barrackville.”
Didn’t grow up in that area. Wasn’t aware there was a Confederate Monument.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=761
About halfway down.
“Dr. Strong evidently forgets that the principle of race is one of the most persistent of all things in the constitution of man. It is one of those structural facts in our nature which abide with a fixed, vital, and reproductive power. Races, like families, are the organisms and the ordinance of God; and race feeling, like the family feeling, is of divine origin. The extinction of race feeling is just as possible as the extinction of family feeling. Indeed, a race is a family. The principle of continuity is as masterful in races as it is in families–as it is in nations.”
The rest of the link is utopian drivel, but even a Yankee from the 1880s *got it*.
A great place to visit in Kentucky is the Jefferson Davis Monument. It’s a giant concrete obelisk built on his birthplace. The Jefferson Davis and Lincoln birthplaces are about a hundred miles apart in Kentucky, interestingly enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis_State_Historic_Site
After the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it gradually became clear in Kentucky that South Carolina had been right about the trajectory of the Union. By Reconstruction, it was undeniable.
Gen. Morgan tested this notion that there could be confederate sympathies in the Midwest and found it to be…counterfactual. My hometown of Paoli has the honor of both chasing off a band of Confederate raiders and lynching a Union soldier patrolling for deserters. We had nothing to gain from the war, either morally or tangibly.
There’s enough hatred in the Copperhead heart to despise Yankee industrialists, Puritan fanatics, and Southern slave-driving “aristocrats” at the same time. If you wish to admire the antebellum elites and the society they created, then I’ll respect that. But if you try to imply that my Midwestern forefathers also admired them…then I’ll correct that.
As for “defending white supremacy”…In the great American argument between the South and the North over whether the Blacks should be treated as farm animals or as household pets, I will continue to insist on a third position.
The South was turned into another Haiti in 1865. We are living with Haiti in our midst right now. Of course thanks to abolition now Detroit now harbors its own fair share of Haiti.
Matt,
I didn’t reference Indiana in the post above. Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky were Jim Crow states.
“In the great American argument between the South and the North over whether the Blacks should be treated as farm animals or as household pets, I will continue to insist on a third position.”
Here, here.
Negros are about as relevant and useful to modern society as smallpox.
Hunter,
My paternal grandfather was born and raised in Salyersville, Kentucky (his maiden name being Salyer). The same template applies equally well there, and played out similarly in the Battle of Salyersville.
I don’t mean to quibble, and will digress.
Here’s an excerpt from the Civil War Monitor article:
“Thus as emancipation became an increasingly important war aim, many white Kentuckians felt as though they had been betrayed by the federal government, victims of a sort of bait and switch. Indeed by the end of the war, the commonwealth’s white residents seemed to be more united by their anger at the Republicans in Washington than divided by their wartime allegiances.
This local white reunification only increased during the years of Reconstruction. Because it had not seceded, Kentucky was not subject to the Reconstruction Acts, including the temporary disfranchisement of ex-Confederates. That did not, however translate into support for the federal government. Rather, the Democratic Party served as an agent of reunion, a place where wartime allegiances mattered less than resentment of black freedom and enfranchisement. Too, as the Republican Party became increasingly identified with African Americans, whites deserted it in droves By the late 1860s, men who had worn Confederate gray were more likely to be elected to local and statewide offices than former Union soldiers.”
Well, I certainly didn’t mean to imply any positive regard for the Yankee industrialists or the carpetbagging scoundrels and fanatical fools who enabled them.
All I’m saying is that it’s not either/or. There was indeed a lack of support for the federal government. But that did not necessarily entail support of the confederate government.
A fatal mistake … as it turned out.
If states like Kentucky hadn’t been so ambivalent, the slide toward racial equality and liberal democracy in the Yankee-dominated USA could have been arrested. The Confederacy was trending in the opposite direction.
The Confederacy was heading in the same direction as San Domingo, Rhodesia, Brazil, and South Africa. There’s not really any sober reason to conclude that Dixie would have followed any direction other than that of greed, procrastination, and creeping egalitarianism. We’ll never know, of course, and maybe the South would have had the foresight to send every last one of them back to Africa or the Caribbean. Perhaps it all would have went as you say it would have.
In my mind, the Midwest’s ideal “counterfactual” would have been the South seceding with it remaining behind in a White Union with a weakened and humiliated federal government and discredited Republican Party. It didn’t go down like that, and the decline and ruination of Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis are a constant reminder that all of the tens of thousands of Hoosiers and Kentuckians who died in that war died for a bad cause. As most were volunteers (financial incentives being an explanation, not an excuse), they don’t really deserve being memorialized.
The more I study history, the more I’m forced to the inescapable conclusion that our people have been the most blessed in all of human history in terms of innate capacity and abundant opportunities…and yet the most foolish, selfish, ignorant, and misguided. We’re proof that even the most innately talented people in the world who’ve been granted the most fertile and fair land in the world can still manage to f*** it all up for themselves and future generations if they’re sufficiently decadent, modern, and ignorant enough.
(1) In San Domingo, the slave insurrection that started there was merely an ember from the conflagration of the French Revolution, and the Jacobins were instrumental in abolishing slavery there.
As in Dixie, slavery was abolished in San Domingo in the context of an international war between France, Britain, and Spain, in which blacks took advantage of the situation by supporting the Republic against its enemies.
(2) Rhodesia declared independence after Britain attempted to force black majority rule on the country as it had already done with the White colonists in Kenya. Britain also led the U.N. in imposing economic sanctions on Rhodesia. Ian Smith’s government collapsed after Marxists took power in Mozambique following the collapse of the Portuguese government.
(3) In the case of Brazil, British interference was also instrumental in the abolition of slavery there.
(4) South Africa was similarly blackballed by its Western allies after the dissolution of the Soviet Union into dismantling apartheid.
(5) The only sense in which these analogies are valid is that outside intervention was the decisive factor in bringing about black majority rule.
(1) The only constituency for “creeping egalitarianism” in the United States was the Yankee population in the Northern states. The South had been retreating from egalitarianism ever since the American Revolution. The Confederacy was a culmination of the final rejection of the egalitarian ideology of the American Revolution.
(2) As it happens, it was Southerners (mostly Virginians and Marylanders) who led the original colonization effort in Liberia, and after the demise of slavery in 1865, it was Southerners again who supported deporting blacks to Africa.
I have already written posts on Theodore Bilbo, John Tyler Morgan, and Robert E. Lee who advocated the removal of blacks from Virginia. Once again, it was Yankees who wanted to abolish slavery and make blacks into citizens. There was zero support for that in the South.
The Radical Republicans went so far as to impeach the arch scalawag Andrew Johnson for opposing the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
(3) That’s not a counterfactual.
The Midwest remained within the Union … and the Republican Party was imposed on all the border states, West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri … and the result was the triumph of Radicalism in the North after the Southern opposition departed from Congress.
The secession of the South changed the structure of political power in the North. It made Yankees the dominant majority in the North. That’s exactly what the Confederate commissioners said would happen too.
This is an excerpt from Stephen F. Hale’s letter to Kentucky:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/04/04/confederate-history-month-2012-stephen-f-hales-letter-to-kentucky/
“If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate — all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country. . .
Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed? . . . .
But, it is said, there are many Constitutional, conservative men at the North, who sympathize with and battle for us. That is true; but they are utterly powerless, as the late Presidential election unequivocally shows, to breast the tide of fanaticism that threatens to roll over and crush us.
Morality aside (…as if it were ever a factor), don’t you see that it’s perhaps problematic to have a political order which is vulnerable to being subverted and destroyed by the first opponent to come along and pull the lever on the farm equipment from [Enrich the Elites] mode into [Kill Whitey] mode?
Of course.
That’s why it was necessary to secede … as has been explained a thousand times, the future direction of Yankeeland was already unmistakably clear by 1861, and remaining within the Union (now reduced to the minority section) meant “submission” to that future course of events.
John C. Calhoun saw the future clearly in his Southern Address in 1849:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/11/25/calhouns-prophecy/
“But when once raised to an equality, they would become the fast political associates of the North, and acting and voting with them on all questions, and by this political union between them, holding the white race at the south in complete subjection. The blacks, and the profligate whites that might unite with them, would become the principal recipients of federal offices and patronage, and would, in consequence, be raised above the whites of the South in the political and social scale. We would, in a word, change conditions with them – a degradation greater than has ever yet fallen to the lot of a free and enlightened people, and one from which we could not escape, should emancipation take place, (which it certainly will if not prevented), but by fleeing the homes of ourselves and our ancestors, and by abandoning our country to our former slaves, to become the permanent abode of disorder, anarchy, poverty, misery and wretchedness.
With such a prospect before us, the gravest and most solemn question that ever claimed the attention of a people is presented for your consideration: what is to be done to prevent it? It is a question belonging to you to decide.”
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on how things would have worked out in the South had they gained independence. I lack your impressive immersion in the subject and have no choice but to forfeit, though I’ll retain my suspicion that they would not have dealt with it as decisively as the cherry-picked speeches by cherry-picked luminaries from the period would suggest.
We’re both in agreement that the South should have been allowed to secede.
Could it not be argued that Calhoun’s Prophecy is a call for Southerners to embrace a Pacific Northwest strategy of abandoning the region and starting anew elsewhere?
Is he not arguing there that the political and demographic circumstances would be so dire for White Southerners that it’s folly to do anything other than retreat and regroup? If your ancestors were among you today, would they encourage you to stick around in the Deep South and shake your fists at the tsunami of color? Would they encourage you to stop venerating dirt and memories over blood and victory?
(1) I’m not cherry picking speeches. Feel free to read through ALL the speeches and letters by the secession commissioners. Read through ALL the secession convention debates. Read through ALL the secession documents.
(2) That’s not the sense in which Calhoun was speaking at all. He is saying that the prospect of “fleeing the homes of ourselves and our ancestors” would be the ultimate disgrace. He is using the language of Southern honor to make a case for resistance.
(3) I’m sure the first observation they would make is that their worst fears about the future of the Union have now been realized.
(4) I’m also positive (given everything that I have read) that moving to the Pacific Northwest to make a stand there with various strangers who happen to be White who have similarly abandoned their homes would be dismissed as ridiculous.
Their first reaction would be: if you are not willing to fight for your own home, why would you fight for your adopted one?
Their second reaction would be: it is shameful and cowardly to choose submission over resistance.
Their third reaction would be: if you can’t count on your own kin and your own neighbors, you certainly can’t count on random anonymous people in cyberspace.
And the discussion shifts inexorably from an attempt to discern what the best way forward is for White Southerners to an assertion that White Nationalists on the Internet suck.
The record of the Puritans, Oranians, Mormons, and Israeli Jews suggest to me that relocating and regrouping is a credible option.
I don’t see how the North West thing will ever work. that place is infested with DWL’s. You know, the folks that really hate White people
@Matt Parrot
Puritans, Mormons, Oranians, and (yes, even) Israeli Jews all settled in virtually uninhibited surroundings. They were of something along the lines of a pioneer movement. Pioneer settlers are essentially on there own — outside of the protective umbrella of their places of origin, but also beyond it’s oppressive reach. How does moving to Washington state, place you out of the reach of Washington DC?
Moving to the PNW is not a pioneer movement, no matter how HAC tries to spin it into one. It’s just an elaborate act of retreat, as doomed to futility as moving out to a further suburb.
The best way forward for White Southerners is to build on the cultural and ideological foundation of our separate nationality that has already been established by our ancestors who were moved to secede for pretty much the same reasons.
The difference between White Nationalism and White Southern Nationalism is that the latter is significantly more advanced. The former exists purely at the abstract level. The latter exists at the abstract and the concrete level.
(1) We have identified the territory that is to be claimed.
(2) We have given it a name.
(3) We have identified the ethnicity that is to be the basis of ethnostate.
(4) We have a preexisting separate and autonomous sense of identity.
(5) We have historical and racial grievances against the federal government that can be easily exploited.
(6) We can easily claim the Confederate mantle to wrap our secessionist cause in the legitimacy of tradition.
(7) We can present our revolutionary cause to ordinary conservatives as something that is not radical, but instead a reassertion of true and familiar Southern principles.
(8) The vast majority of racially conscious Whites are concentrated in Dixie and the Lower South.
(9) Finally, this has been all been tried before, so the past is like an orchard of ideas where solutions can be plucked that are responsive to contemporary problems.
My principle is “stay where you will fight.” If you will fight in the Northwest, then move to the Northwest. If you will fight in the South, stay in the South. But please, stay where you will fight, otherwise you are useless.
good, strong words there Hunter
Here’s the opinion of a damned yankee whose ancestors fought on the Union side of this conflict.
Hunter, Negro emancipation and ultimately Negro enfranchisement was inevitable and the only think secession would have achieved is delaying it rather than stopping it altogether. The problem would have been deferred another generation or two as the can was kicked down the road, but it’s a nasty can of worms that you’d be dealing with especially after enough innovation had been made in agricultural technology.
Introducing Negroes into this country at all should have been nipped in the bud. Individually, they were little poison pills that might be contained or worse yet, assimilated into the gene pool, but the South insisted on keeping and maintaining large populations of them.
IMO, the Founding Fathers of these United States should have had a clear plan on the books to phase out Negro slaves and then get them the hell out of our country ASAP. There was neither any reason nor any excuse not to do so when they had to be well aware that Europe would have provided an endless sense of poor, unskilled labor to work in agriculture in the United States.
The biggest tragedy of this country was that there was not a strong contingent of people who would end the debate between those who, to paraphrase Matt, wanted to treat the Negros as livestock versus house pets by pointing out that they were a hostile alien race of sub-Saharan Africans who are incapable of ever assimilating into a European culture.
There was no need to devastate Southern economies by eradicating it overnight, but the country should have had a plan in place to do so for the preservation of its own people lest the nightmare that was Haiti, is now South Africa and will be the United States end up coming to fruition.
Long before the War Between The States, White leaders were aware that there were large populations of White European peasants who had lost their farms due to some scheme or another by their elite who were crowding into tenements or starving to death in workhouses all over countries in Europe, like England, for example. There was the Irish potato famine.
These were prime candidates to work in the Southern agriculture system. As “free” sharecroppers, Southern planters would not be responsible for the care or feeding of them like they were their Negro livestock. Because they could easily be replaced with immigrants who were even more desperate than them, European immigrants would have provided the South with a malleable workforce.
The Southern planters themselves were well aware of this. What does this tell you about how little they gave a damn about White people in general when they would love to brag to the entire country that they fed, clothed, housed and medicated their Negro livestock, treating them ever so much better than the industrialists of the North treated their poor White immigrants?
My maternal line were peasants from Eastern Europe. They ended up slaving in factories under extremely dangerous conditions for coolie wages only to subside in crowded, unsanitary tenements. Don’t you think they would have jumped at the chance to labor in Southern fields in the fresh air and get even one-tenth of the care that Southerners so lavished on their Negro livestock?!
Sorry, Hunter, I cannot take such a rosy view of these characters as you can and it only pisses me off further that the whole damn country has embraced their paternalistic plantation mentality where free White labor can go fuck themselves while Negros must be cared for. I blame our Negro problem AND our Mestizo problem as well as our Turd World invasion on the selfish, rich White pricks that comprised the Southern planter class.
Other than an in-your-face, “you won’t tell us what to do” up yours to the Damn Yankees, what long-term benefit to the country as a whole, much less the South, was there in keeping Negro labor? None! There was only a short-term benefit to a handful of rich, selfish Southern planters. Moreover, there was absolutely no benefit at all to the North and before you point out that it was none of the North’s business, because it wouldn’t have ultimately affected the North, well … Detroit, MI and Camden, NJ show how wrong that position is.
The entire country should have had slavery eradicated by 1835, with all of the Negro livestock repatriated back to Africa starting 1820 and the Southern planters fnancially compensated for the livestock so that they could then hire European immigrant agricultural labor.
The Southern elites should have been the ones who implemented repatriation, because it’s not like what happened in Haiti wasn’t their wake-up call. But make no mistake about it; high-flown, flowery, fiery, noble-sounding Pro-White rhetoric aside, they didn’t give a damn about White people in general anymore than the American globalist elite do today.
Otherwise the increasing reliance on Non-White labor would have never been allowed.
The rich are different. That has always been true; it was true then and it is true now.
Earlmundo Armand Pitts III stated that he did not know any McCoys. I was born and raised here in the heart of the feuding sites. I am a direct descendant of Asa Harmon and Martha F. Cline McCoy. Bad Frank Phillip’s was my Great Uncle which was a deputy sherriff and employeed by Pike Co. KY. Frank wa the turning point of the feud and without him I honestly beleive that the Hatfields would have killed all McCoy’s and there would be no McCoys from the first incidents to tell the truth about the feud and therefore the world would be deceived. Most locals evidently do not know the truth about the civil war or feud in this Hatfield McCoy feud area where they actually fought which was within a 6-7 mile radius only. I cannot imagine how people that are not from this area could figure the feud and civil war out in this area if all they know about the feud is that it was simply McCoys against Hatfields. Approxiamate 95% of Hatfields and McCoys fought for the Union. Therefore the family betrayers were Ole Randolf McCoy and Devil Anse Hatfield which left there forefathers and sided with the confederates on the WV side of the Tug River. They were the only 2 groups that sided with the confederates. Preacher Anderson, George, Jerimiah, Ransom and more Hatfield’s fought for the 39th and 45th Kentucky Union Infantry Devil Anses father Big Eaphriam Hatfield was born on Blackberry Ky in the area of his Grandfather and Union cousins and virtually all of them sided with the 39th and 45th with Asa Harmon McCoy. App. 150 years later and I figure it is time for the truth to be known of these two families and there allies. In my book soon to be completed will explain the details including documents such as the testimony of Cotton Top/Ellison Hatfield which is a very professional testimony from a man that has been portrayed as a dim wit.
The Real McCoy
http://www.therealmccoytrails.com http://www.hatfieldmccoyresort.com