MovieChat Forums > Hatfields & McCoys Discussion > Poll: Did you side with the Hatfields or...

Poll: Did you side with the Hatfields or the McCoys?


I believe after watching all the series of events that took place I'd have to say I'd side with the McCoys, although in real life I'd want to be Johnse to be able to hook up with Nancy McCoy. ;)

Which side did you feel was in the right?



Hatfields or McCoys?



What is it about being dead that makes me so horny?

reply

I side with the McCoys-- But I would so marry Johnse

reply

Haha! So you're like Rosanna and Nancy! Nice! A rebel. ;)

What is it about being dead that makes me so horny?

reply

I didn't side with either family... they were all being ignorant hillbillies.

------------
Hey Jin! You better not be cheating on me!!

reply

No, you'd marry the actor who played the part of Johnse. :-)

Have you seen pics of the real Johnse Hatfield? Google him....he aint purty!

reply

I side with the McCoys-- But I would so marry Johnse

This Johnse?

http://appalachianlady.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/johnse-hatfield.jpg



cinefreak

reply

Definitely The McCoys. Anse was a coward who deserted Randall and the Army and Anse's family started the feud all because a McCoy was wearing a union coat. They insulted him and Jim tried to shoot him all because he stood up for himself and insulted Jims dog. Hatfields(can't remember which ones) shot him when he was trying to hide unsuccessfully I think.

reply

I side with the Hatfields because Anse saw the wisdom in leaving a war he knew was not to be won, going home to provide for his family again. He tried to be a good friend to Randall but in vain. Jim Vance is the one that Anse should've shot dead instead of the poor Union soldier and maybe more bloodshed would have been spared. Jim Vance should have hung for killing Harmon McCoy. But then look what the McCoys did to that guy in the woods--shooting him and stabbing him in his manhood trophy over and over. Was that right? Both families were in the wrong. Maybe not equally but nobody was right where any of that was concerned. They should've made Johnse marry Roseanna to make it right. Either way, old Randall wasn't about to budge any. It's a true American tragedy.

reply

I felt more sided with the Hatfields during the whole series. Granted, I don't know much more about their feud than what the show taught me.

reply

Even after they set fire to the McCoy's home and killed two children? I'd have to say that was the last straw for me. That scene was when I decided for sure I was with the McCoys. That was unforgivable. I'd have went to war against them too for that heinous action.


What is it about being dead that makes me so horny?

reply

Even after they set fire to the McCoy's home and killed two children? I'd have to say that was the last straw for me. That scene was when I decided for sure I was with the McCoys. That was unforgivable. I'd have went to war against them too for that heinous action.






I agree In the beginning I sided with both Patriarcs. The feued really was not either's fault untill the raid on the McCoy's home. Then i just thought all the Hatfield's were evil. I also did not like how the 3 Mccoy boys were ececuted. That was not justice at all. I t made me sick to my stomache. The only Hatfields i felt sympathy for after that were Cotton Top, Johnse and the Hatfield mother.

reply

Johnse was an awesome character. I can see why you liked him. He just wanted to live a good life. A happy life and have someone to love and share it with...

What is it about being dead that makes me so horny?

reply

I agree that the fire and attack were terrible, but in real life, Alifair was 30 when she was killed.

reply

As far as it all goes it would be impossible to make that determination. Its really hard for one side to take the moral high ground over the other when both of them were standing in the mud.

It doesn't make any sense to say one family was better or worse then another both families were in the position of having to present a united front to the world even though in private they might have disagreed with one another and both tried to use the appearance of the law for their own benefit.

reply

Both. Neither. There isn't a "good" side or a "bad" side. Both sides deserved what they got. The characters were sympathetic, and their actions escalated and escalated until it got bigger than the original two men. There was a touch of realism there that has been missing in ALL entertainment lately.

reply

I think the two people most responsible for the feud were Jim Vance on the Hatfield side and Perry Cline on the McCoy side. The murder of Asa Harmon McCoy did not really start the feud, because there were no attempts at retaliation by the McCoys and no further conflict between the families for over a decade. Also, there was speculation that Vance killed Harmon, but no proof. While there were probably still bad feelings between the families, the feud really started when Perry Cline tried to swindle Anse Hatfield out of his land. Unlike this show, the case went to court and Anse was awarded the 5000 acres from Cline. A few months later, the pig incident happened and then things snowballed.

reply

They DID include Perry/Anse's court case in the miniseries. They just had someone mention it in one sentence after it happened and moved on.

reply

That's what ppl like Cline/Kline do. He was not white , neither was he a Christian.

"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."

reply

I'd have to say that in this version more blame for the feud accrues to the McCoys, specifically Randall, than the Hatfields.

As portrayed in this version, Randall McCoy seems to be a self righteous prick with a major stick up his butt over Anse quitting the fight to go home more than a year before Lee surrendered. It is Randall’s unwillingness to put this behind him that seems to have led Randall to reject any overtures to bury the hatchet and caused the feud to fester for some 13 years after Harmon's murder. Is there any historical evidence that Anse did in fact go home in late 1863, that Randall spent more than a year as a POW and that Bill Paxton’s portrayal of him is reasonably accurate?

reply

[deleted]

Team McCoy. Based on what the mini-series portrayed, although both are to blame for the escalation and violence, Hatfield drew first blood.

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

Mccoy mainly because of the attack on the cabin but in response to the posting above the mini series did the lawyer wrong. The feud did start with him in the timber dispute but it was not a swindle as the series made it out to be. He, either intentionally or unintentionally harvested timber from Hatfields land that was adjacent to his own land. When they went to court in West Virginia, Hatfield country, he lost a judgement which he probably deserved to lose however rather then pay damages as would be usual he had to turn over the deed to all of his 5000 acres. This is not the oily swindler that the series made it out to be

reply

Lol, he was not a swindler ? His name was Kline. LOL!

"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."

reply

Yep. Agreed. Devil Anse deserted his company. Uncle Jim killed Randall's brother. They both killed two prisoners of war for no reason. They stole the McCoy pig. They cheated Perry out of lumber rights. Devil sent Jim to assassinate Randall and they killed two of his children and burned his house down and beat his wife half to death, and Johnse porked two of McCoy's women.The McCoys were using the law to settle things, the only two things they did wrong was let that fight with Devil's brother get out of hand and stalk down that other Hatfield that was running his mouth about killing McCoys. Everything else was using the law. The Hatfields then tied up the three boys and shot them dead without a trial. Everything the Hatfields did was dead wrong.

^5, Mia!

What is it about being dead that makes me so horny?

reply

[deleted]

Thanks, Wrongview! :-)

@JoshLL, were you there? If not, how is it that you can declare the point of the story?

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

[deleted]

I tended to side with one or the other at different times and admired both patriarchs. Jim Vance was a singularly despicable villain but was very much equalled by Bad Frank who was enlisted by the McCoys. However, I noted that in the lead-up to the killing of the McCoy brothers, the show really went out of its way to make them 'deserving' of their fate.

reply

If the filmmakers intended point was for us to equally abhor and empathize with both sides then they have failed. They made the McCoys more sympathetic and the Hatfields more villainous. JoshLL, it is not appropriate for you to declare the intended point as if all others are ignorant.

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

[deleted]

I am not new at all; however I believe in civility and manners and standing up for oneself.

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

[deleted]

I did not accuse him of being uncivil. Why are you taking it upon yourself to defend him? I don't feel it is appropriate for anyone to make blanket statements regarding the point of the film. It is for all of us to bring to it our personal experiences and take from it our own interpretations.

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

[deleted]

I said that I believe in civility and manners because I was challenging his statement. I was doing so civilly and mannerly. I was not personally attacking or becoming combative. I'm all for divergent opinions and agreeing to disagree. I don't happen to think either of you are "right." However, I support your right to express your opinion so long as it is presented as an opinion and not a statement of fact thereby creating the illusion that all others are wrong.

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

[deleted]

Just because it has been accepted does not make it right. It is inappropriate to present one's opinion as fact and I will point it out when I see it.

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

[deleted]

I'm not losing sleep over it, but all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. When I see something wrong, I make an attempt to right it. It's really just that simple.

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

[deleted]

Don't be ridiculous. This message board is not the end all be all; but why should I stand idly by when I feel I've been wronged?

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

[deleted]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I do not agree.

_________________
That's just silly, why would fish be in a barrel?

reply

I think the fact that the two of you are arguing over the point of a movie about a feud is hilarious.



reply

[deleted]

It's funny that you say this, because there are plenty of posts that say they made the McCoys worse and the Hatfields emerged as the "better" side in the feud.

reply

#TeamMcCoy

reply

HATFIELD...and Johnse should have married the bar whore.

reply

Hatfields, of course.

Even though it appears to me the Hatfields started the feud, they actually turned to be protagonists according this film, although I was glad when Jim Vance finally got his.

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ-Gandhi

reply

There were atrocities committed on both sides. Should they have lynched the 3 McCoy brothers? No. But that was no less unjustified than the killing of Anse's brother in cold blood. If anything it can be argued that the McCoy brothers deserved what they got. It was mob justice but they were far from innocent. The movie didn't depict either Anse or Randall ever extending an olive branch. If that reflects reality, if neither one ever at least made an effort to end the violence by meeting with the other side and talking it out, then they're both to blame.

reply

Randall's jailhouse whining about how his boys deserved justice when they stabbed a man 29 times and then shot him in public at an election day function with witnesses, and Anse's outlook of needing to possibly kill Jim Vance one day himself, and knowing that Cottontop being publicly killed would give the feud a chance to end made me side with the Hatfields. Anse seemed to operate with a bit more logic

reply

I don't think that being logical automatically gave Anse the moral high ground. Besides, I think his logic was inconsistent. The logical thing to have done would have been to put the McCoy sons on trial. Even if it were held in WV, there would have still been a semblance of justice as opposed to a lynch mob. Tying them to trees and pumping them full of holes is what caused the violence to escalate. Even if the end result was the same, the execution of the three sons, there would have been no reason for warrants to be issued for the arrest of the men that killed them.

reply