Days of Darkness: The Feuds of Eastern Kentucky

by John Ed Pearce

" Among the darkest corners of Kentucky's past are the grisly feuds that tore apart the hills of Eastern Kentucky from the late nineteenth century until well into the twentieth. Now, from the tangled threads of conflicting testimony, John Ed Pearce, Kentucky's best known journalist, weaves engrossing accounts of six of the most notorior accounts to uncover what really happened and why. His story of those days of darkness brings to light new evidence, questions commonly held beliefs about the feuds, and us and long-running feuds―those in Breathitt, Clay Harlan, Perry, Pike, and Rowan counties. What caused the feuds that left Kentucky with its lingering reputation for violence? Who were the feudists, and what forces―social, political, financial―hurled them at each other? Did Big Jim Howard really kill Governor William Goebel? Did Joe Eversole die trying to protect small mountain landowners from ruthless Eastern mineral exploiters? Did the Hatfield-McCoy fight start over a hog? For years, Pearce has interviewed descendants of feuding families and examined skimpy court records and often fictional newspapeputs to rest some of the more popular legends.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, True Crime, American History

252 pages, Hardcover

First published November 15, 1994

Reviews

[Teresa Brewen-White · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, hard to follow at times

[Andrea · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was a little disappointed by the book. It looked so promising, but the way the feuds were described was too confusing and erratic, with a plethora of "minor players" so I got completely lost on who was who. Totally discombobulated ...
Nevertheless 3 stars because Pearce did provide an interesting and rare glimpse into a long-forgotten chapter of American social history.

[Andy Allord · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book fascinating yet at times quite confusing.

John Pearce does a good job giving a very broad overview of the feuds in Eastern Kentucky. A time where history is often forgotten and one with many confused stories spread across generations.

I commend him in taking on such a broad approach to the histories. Histories where even today the truth will never be known. Really, who is going to walk up and blame their ancestor for causing so much death and pain.

Pearce does cover many people who aren't directly connected to the feud. I understand the need for some of the information he provides but also felt it was organized in a way it confuses some readers.

Overall the book is a great general history of the feuds, in depth and shows he spent some time researching information. I rate 4 stars only on I found Pearce to be too judgmental in placing blame on those he felt were accountable. He put a very little information about the most famous feud, Hatfields and McCoys, concluding clearly he feels the McCoys were the big reason for the feud. Having read my share of that history, I still cannot find "blame" or "innocence" in either side.

[Paul Lunger · Rating 5 out of 5]

First published in 1994, John Ed Pearce's "Days of Darkness: The Feuds of Eastern Kentucky" is one of the most fascinating books one will ever read as well as at times one of the most disturbing. Pearce does his research in separating fact from fiction as he navigates, we the reader though the causes of these feuds as well as their consequences. Each of the 6 counties in Eastern Kentucky that are involved (including one that spilled into Southwestern West Virginia) all bear the scars and legacies of these acts of terror at times which would rival the Old West with their violence and savagery in a period that was essentially from the 1870s-1910s. Most of the origins of these feuds are relatively simple & over a simple dispute that usually got dealt with across a few years and on occasion barring request from local officials was ignored by Frankfort (save the dispute that led to a governor being assassinated on the steps of the capital). No matter the cause or ultimate death toll or legacy, this book is one that is important to understand because of the fact that they affected parts of the development of Kentucky and did have on occasion some good out them. Very well done.

[Dan Pepper · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short overview of what Mr. Pearce says are major mountain feuds, mainly in the second half of the 19th Century. Headline might be that the Hatfields and McCoys weren't in any way outstanding, just got famous for no particular reason but the vagaries of media. The trouble in Clay County was apparently the biggest, as the Bakers and Howards mainly fought it out as part of a bigger political struggle between the Whites and Garrards. The French/Eversole war was also a more interesting story than Hatfield/McCoy.

Pearce refreshingly doesn't try to offer any sweeping reasons for the feuds. And he clears up some misconceptions that the people involved weren't even necessarily poor and uneducated, though of course some were. Feudists apparently included doctors and lawyers and the biggest battles involved all the supposed finest people of the upper classes drawing up sides.

Seemed like a good, honest book about a part of history I know little about.

[Brandi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read half of this book. Picked it up for the chapter on Harlan County (since Bobby is over that way now) and the parts on the Hatfield and McCoys.

[Bobby Daugherty · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book on the violence that helped the press pigeonhole Kentucky into the negative stereotype that would be used to justify it's denigration and exploitation for years to come. As much as the feuds have been burden on the people of Kentucky there is still something to be said for the preservation of family honor. When the thought that you may have to go to war with a person's family and friends if you dishonor them is a topic of serious consideration people tend to be more friendly. Some of the civil war era feuds tend to add a different dilemma as the political hostility would draw in people who would normally abstain from joining in a family dispute that did not involve them.

[Bev · Rating 1 out of 5]

Being from an Eastern Kentucky family, I grew up hearing snip-its of conversations about the many of the feuds mentioned in this book. I purchased this book thinking that I would gain some in-depth knowledge past the gossip, etc. that I heard growing up. I was very disappointed. This book seems to be nothing more than a re-hashing of information passed down thru the generations. And there seemed to be way too many families (& family members) included in the tales. Maybe if the author had included a lineage of the families involved at the beginning of each chapter, it might have been easier to follow.

[Gwyndyllyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to know about the feuds of Eastern Kentucky...this is the best book out there. It is an interesting read and the literary style is engaging and very "Kentucky." My family was involved in the Baker/Howard feud and I can vouch that at least that part was quite well researched.

[Marilyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is good especially for anyone with a family history from southeastern Kentucky. It gives an insight to how people reacted to different situations and gives names of ancestors maybe long forgotten.

[Mona · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of his 'facts' are not quite factual.

[JD Carruthers]

I probably would not recommend this book; not particularly well done.

[Morgan Mccord · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gets a little hard to follow sometimes, but very informative would recommend to anyone interested in the wild wild east.

[Judith Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book brought me closer to realizing what my family tree left out. I appreciated the details and the work involved in making this possible.

[Jenny Shears · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great idea, confusing execution. Couldn't follow all the storylines.

[Maria Denney]

This is not the book to read if you want to begin learning of the feuds of Eastern Kentucky. For one, it's jumbled and hard to keep up with who is who in the telling of each feud. Also, it's very inaccurate. I couldn't finish this one.