Terra Incognita
In the first chapter, “Something
Hidden,” Kephart describes the Southern
Appalachians as terra incognita and comments,
Quaintly there came to mind those lines
familiar to my boyhood: “Get you
up this way southward, and go up into
the mountain; and see the land, what it
is; and the people that dwelleth therein,
whether they be strong or weak, few or
many; and what the land is that they dwell
in, whether it be good or bad; and what
cities they be that they dwell in, whether
in tents, or in strongholds; and what
the land is, whether it be fat or lean,
whether there be wood therein or not.”(p.
14)
These lines which he quotes are Numbers
13: 17-20, but it is necessary to read the
whole of Kephart’s chapter to understand
the story involved.
Why would this bit of Scripture come to
mind as Kephart studied a map which includes
the Southern Appalachian region? What analogies
could be drawn? Where do analogies fail?
Isolation
Isolation is a central theme in Our Southern
Highlanders. For instance, in Chapter I
Kephart provides a description of the geography
of the region; implicit is the suggestion
that the mountain people suffer from such
severe isolation from mainstream trends
in the rest of the United States that their
way of life remains eighteenth century.
Does Kephart overstate their isolation
in the early 1900s and the ignorance of
the rest of the United States about them?
He himself refers to well-known authors
of the time who wrote of the mountain region.
President Frost of Berea College, Kentucky,
and John Fox, Jr., are two whom he quotes.
He writes of the wide-spread tourist trade
but discounts that natives would ever have
come in contact with these outsiders. He
speaks of the botanists – Asa Gray,
John Muir, William Bartram, Andre Michaux
– who visited the region and wrote
of their findings.
Do you agree with his estimate of the degree
of isolation, or do you think he is overstating
to make a point?
The “Real Mountaineers”
In Chapter II, “The Back of Beyond,”
the picture of Southern Appalachian life
is particularly compelling. Kephart is careful
to specify his subject, for he indicates
he is not talking about the people in towns
and prosperous valleys nor in areas frequented
by tourists but those of the back country
where “dwell a majority of the native
people” (pp. 28-29). In fact, throughout
the book Kephart reiterates that he is writing
about what he calls the “real mountaineers”:
I have been describing an average mountain
home. In valleys and coves there are better
ones, of course. Along the railroads,
and on fertile plateaus between the Blue
Ridge and the Unakas, are hundreds of
fine farms, cultivated by machinery, and
here dwell a class of farmers that are
scarcely to be distinguished from people
of similar station in the West. But a
prosperous and educated few are not the
people. When speaking of southern mountaineers
I mean the mass, or the average, and the
pictures here given are typical of the
mass. It is not the well-to-do valley
people, but the real mountaineers, who
are especially interesting to the reading
public; and they are interesting chiefly
because they preserve traits and manners
that have been transmitted almost unchanged
from ancient times . . . . (p. 321-22)
What is Kephart’s definition of “real”
mountain people? Do you agree that the mountain
people he describes are the “average”?
If there are people in your group who are
natives of western North Carolina, ask them
to play the “devil’s advocate”
should they believe Kephart has painted
to dire a picture of their relatives.
Kephart
In Chapter II Kephart also discusses his
reasons for coming to western North Carolina:
When I went south into the mountains
I was seeking a Back of Beyond. This for
more reasons than one. With an inborn
taste for the wild and romantic, I yearned
for a strange land and a people that had
the charm of originality. Again, I had
a passion for early American history;
and, in Far Appalachia, it seemed that
I might realize the past in the present,
seeing with my own eyes what life must
have been to my pioneer ancestors of a
century or two ago. Besides, I wanted
to enjoy a free life in the open air,
the thrill of exploring new ground, the
joys of the chase, and the man’s
game of matching my woodcraft against
the forces of nature, with no help from
servants or hired guides. (pp. 29-30)
How honest is Kephart when detailing his
reasons? What does he emphasize? What does
he omit?
Mountain Life and Culture
In Chapters XII – XV and XVII --
(“The Outlander and the Native,”
“”The People of the Hills,”
“The Land of Do Without,” “Home
Folks,” and “The Law of the
Wilderness”) -- which deal with mountain
life, customs, and manners, Kephart is particularly
interested in attitudes of the mountain
people toward such things as these listed
below:
|
Personal property
Hospitality
Strangers
Display of emotion
Pain and death
Luxury |
Religion
Home
Government and the courts
Murder
Feuds
Social status |
According to Kephart, what are the attitudes
the mountain people demonstrate in these
areas? How are these different from or similar
to those of mainstream America of Kephart’s
time? For instance, consider accounts concerning
the mountaineer’s reaction to any
sense or suggestion of social inferiority:
And any assumption of superiority he
will resent with blow or sarcasm. A ragged
hobbledehoy stood on the Vanderbilt grounds
at Biltmore, mouth open but silent, watching
a gardener at work. The latter, annoyed
by the boy’s vacuous stare, spoke
up sharply: “What do you want?”
Like a flash the lad retorted: “Oh,
dad sent me down hyur to look at the place
-- said if I liked it, he mought buy it
for me.”
Once, as an experiment, I took a backwoodsman
from the Smokies to Knoxville, and put
him up at a good hotel. Was he self-conscious,
bashful? Not a bit of it. When the waiter
brought him a juicy tenderloin, he snapped:
“I don’t eat my meat raw!”
It was hard to find anything on the long
menu that he would eat. On the street
he held his head proudly erect, and regarded
the crowd with an expression of “Tetch
me gin ye dar!” Although the surroundings
were as strange to him as a city of Mars
would be to us, he showed neither concern
nor approval, but rather a fine disdain,
like that of Diogenes at the country fair:
“Lord, how many things there be
in this world of which Diogenes hath no
need!” (pp. 328-29)
The Sexes
The mountain society Kephart describes
is patriarchal:
The man of the house is lord. He takes
no orders from anybody at home or abroad
. . . . About family matters he consults
with his wife, but in the end his word
is law. (p. 330)
In contrast, the mountain woman is “not
only a household drudge, but a field hand
as well” (p. 331). To the man “she
is little more than a sort of superior domestic
animal” (p. 332). Yet, Kephart continues,
seldom does she complain and there is little
bickering in mountain homes (p. 332). Reread
this complete passage on pp. 330-333.
Think also of other places all through
the book when the relationship between men
and women becomes a topic: Bill and Marg
(p. 33); Tom Kirby and his wife (p. 113);
Fenn and his wife (p. 226); Uncle Mark and
Aunt Nance (p. 272). Also reread another
description of women on pp. 288-289.
What is the role of a woman in mountain
society? Kephart offers plenty of proof
that she is recognized as much more than
a “domestic animal,” but is
her life harder than that of her mate? Why
does she accept her role?
Would you agree with his assessment that
“the average mountain home is a happy
one, as homes go” (p. 330)?
The Mountaineer and Motion Pictures
In the mid-1920s, a motion picture director
consulted Kephart for advice as he planned
to film the picture Stark Love (released
1927) in western North Carolina. Consider
motion pictures you have seen with a Southern
Appalachian setting, such as Sergeant York,
Thunder Road, Nell, and Cold Mountain. How
would you rate history (Our Southern Highlanders)
in comparison with Hollywood (the movies)?
Dialect
Throughout the book Kephart uses mountain
dialect, as well as devoting Chapter XVI
(“The Mountain Dialect”) to
a more detailed examination.
Is the dialect he employs accurate? Is
his use of it effective? Consider his neighbor’s
reaction to John Fox’s use of dialect:
One day I handed a volume of John Fox’s
stories to a neighbor and asked him to
read it, being curious to learn how those
vivid pictures of mountain life would
impress one who was born and bred in the
same atmosphere. He scanned a few lines
of the dialogue, then suddenly stared
at me in amazement.
“What’s the matter with it?”
I asked, wondering what he could have
found to startle him at the very beginning
of a story.
“Why, that feller don’t know
how to spell!”
Gravely I explained that dialect must
be spelled as it is pronounced, so far
as possible, or the life and savor of
it would be lost. But it was of no use.
My friend was outraged. “That tale-teller
then is jest makin’ fun of the mountain
people by misspellin’ our talk.
You educated folks don’t spell your
own words the way you say them.”
A most palpable hit; and it gave me a
new point of view. (p. 350)
(If you are especially interested in this
topic, you might like to read the book by
Karl Nicholas and Harold Farwell, Smoky
Mountain Voices, which is based on the research
of Kephart.)
The Environment and Regional Geography
Kephart interweaves a description of the
physical environment and geography of the
region with a description of mountain life
and culture.
Do you find one of these descriptions more
compelling than the other? Are they complementary?
Is it vital to understand the physical
environment in order to understand the culture
and, as Kephart describes it, the “character”
of the mountain people?
Personalities
One of Kephart’s great strengths
as a writer is to make a character come
alive in just a few lines: consider how
he succeeds in portraying the McGill University
man (Chapter III, pp. 62-66); the bear hunters
– Little John Cable, Bill Cope, Granville
Calhoun, “Doc” Jones, Matt Hyde,
and Quill Rose – (Chapter IV); the
Snake-Stick Man (Chapter IX); Finn (Chapter
X, pp. 234-36).
How is Kephart able to capture a person’s
character in so few lines? Do you have a
favorite character that Kephart describes
and, if so, why?
Moonshine
Three new chapters (IX, X, XI) in the revised
edition of Our Southern Highlanders, published
in 1922, make one-third of the book devoted
to moonshining activities.
What reasons might have prompted him to
include these new chapters on moonshining?
Do his accounts of moonshining provide the
dynamics of a good story? How valid are
the reasons Kephart gives for moonshining,
such as the economics of the activity?
How might mountain moonshine operations
be compared to those in an urban setting,
such as 1920s Chicago with its American
folk mythology about Al Capone and other
gangsters?
In talking to mountain men about the manufacture
of illegal liquor, Kephart indicates considerable
interest, if not fascination, for the overall
enterprise. He describes the activities
in depth, the friction that at times arose
among neighbors, as well as the encounters
between blockaders and law-enforcement agents.
How appropriate is the amount of space
he gives to moonshining activities in a
book about “our southern highlanders”?
In Chapter IX, “The Snake-Stick Man,”
Kephart introduces us to Mr. Quick and tells
how he and Mr. Quick, who share several
common interests, become acquainted. Later
it is revealed that Mr. Quick is a secret
agent of the Indian Bureau sent to investigate
blockading activities. Kephart says this:
I have a pent-up thought or two that
I will get off my system. For the average
run of detectives and their business,
I have little respect. There may be a
larger proportion of decent fellows among
them than I know of; but I have met some
sorry specimens.
I cordially detest the public policy
that has quartered an army of Federal
spies upon the American people and that
was at this time authorizing them to invade
homes and to search individuals on mere
suspicion. I believe such a policy to
be wholly and thoroughly bad.
But here was a different case, and a
different sort of man. No common spy,
no bluffing rough-neck, no graduate of
the penitentiary turned renegade to his
own people, could have done what he did.
No plausible rogue playing the part of
a gentleman could have done it, either.
. . .
Think back a bit. He had been posted
about me, as one who had written a good
deal about the mountain moonshiners and
who evidently knew what he was talking
about. He wanted to make my acquaintance
at the start and yet circumstances did
not permit him to tell me frankly who
and what he was. How did he go about it?
. . . .
Here was a detective who actually used
brains in his business. Here was a detective
who had the instincts of a gentleman,
instead of those of a sneak. (pp. 203-04)
Do you agree that Mr. Quick’s actions
are not like those who “spy”
but rather constitute a “different
case”? Is this an accurate assessment?
Does Kephart rationalize Mr. Quick’s
actions? If so, how can you explain Kephart’s
loss of objectivity?
The “Character” of the Mountain
People
In considering the whole book, what characteristics
of mountain people as Kephart knew them
does he most admire? What are his criticisms,
or critiques, of their character?
The Future of the Mountain People
In the book Kephart offers conflicting
statements as to what he would like the
future of Southern Appalachian mountaineers
to be. He notes that changes are coming
to the region:
Away down in the rear I heard the snort
of a locomotive, one of those cog-wheel
affairs that are specially built for mountain
climbing. With a steam-loader and three
camps of a hundred men each, it was despoiling
the Tennessee forest. Slowly, but inexorably,
a leviathan was crawling into the wilderness
and was soon to consume it.
“All this,” I apostrophized,
“shall be swept away, tree and plant,
beast and fish. Fire will blacken the
earth; flood will swallow and spew forth
the soil. The simple-hearted native men
and women will scatter and disappear.
In their stead will come slaves speaking
strange tongues, to toil in the darkness
under the rocks. Soot will arise, and
foul gases; the streams will run murky
death. Let me not see it! (p. 104)
However, in speaking of mountain feuds,
he has this to say:
This isolated and belated people who
still carry on the blood-feud are not
half so much to blame for such a savage
survival as the rich, powerful, educated,
twentieth-century nation that abandons
them as if they were hopelessly derelict
or wrecked. It took but a few decades
to civilize Scotland. How much swifter
and surer and easier are our means of
enlightenment to-day! Let us not forget
that these highlanders are blood of our
blood and bone of our bone; for they are
old-time Americans to a man, proud of
their nationality, and passionately loyal
to the flag that they, more than any other
of us, according to their strength, have
fought and suffered for. (p. 426-27)
He seems to want the mountain people to
change, but then again he does not want
to see them change. He reaches the conclusion
that perhaps limited change for people with
limits is the answer:
The great need of our mountaineers to-day
is trained leaders of their own. The future
of Appalachia lies mostly in the hands
of those resolute native boys and girls
who win the education fitting them for
such leadership. Here is where the nation
at large is summoned by a solemn duty.
And it should act quickly, because commercialism
exploits and debauches quickly. But the
schools needed here are not ordinary graded
schools. They should be vocational schools
that will turn out good farmers, good
mechanics, good housewives. Meantime let
a model farm be established in every mountain
county showing how to get the most out
of mountain land. Such object lessons
would speedily work an economic revolution.
It is an economic problem, fundamentally,
that the mountaineer has to face. (p.
468-69)
What do you think of Kephart’s solution?
Was it reasonable at the time? Looking back,
we might say he made an error in judgment.
Why?
Does the first excerpt quoted above (from
p. 104) perhaps explain his passion for
establishing the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park?
Text
In 1906 Kephart published a series of articles
in the magazine Forest and Stream entitled
“The Mountain Moonshiner.” The
second installment of that series, “Ways
that are Dark,” formed the basis of
Chapter VI by the same title in Our Southern
Highlanders. However, Kephart made some
changes in the text. Compare these two excerpts:
1906 Forest and Stream article
The terms moonshining and moonshine are
seldom used in the Carolina mountains.
Here, an illicit distiller is called a
“blockader,” his business
is “blockading,” and the product
is blockade whiskey, or simply plain “blockade.”
There are, or used to be, two kinds
of blockaders, big and little. The
big blockader makes unlicensed whiskey
on a fairly large scale. He may have several
stills, operating alternately in different
places, so as to avert suspicion. In any
case, the still is large and the output
is quite profitable. The owner himself
may not actively engage in the work but
merely furnish the capital and hire confederates
to do the distilling for him, so that
personally he may shun the appearance
of evil. These big fellows are rare,
if, indeed, they be not quite extinct.
In past times they were the ones who sought
collusion with the small-fry of Government
officialdom, or, failing in that, instructed
their minions to “kill on sight.”
Our Southern Highlanders (1922 edition,
pp. 126-127)
Our terms moonshiner and moonshining
are not used in the mountains.
Here an illicit distiller is called a
blockader, his business is blockading,
and the product is blockade liquor. .
. .
There are two kinds of blockaders,
big and little. The big blockader
makes unlicensed whiskey on a fairly large
scale. He may have several stills, operating
alternately in different places, so as
to avert suspicion. In any case, the still
is large and the output is quite profitable.
The owner himself may not actively engage
in the work but may furnish the capital
and hire confederates to do the distilling
for him, so that personally he shuns the
appearance of evil. These big fellows
are rare. They are the ones who seek collusion
with the small-fry of Government officialdom,
or, failing in that, instruct their minions
to “kill on sight.”
Portions of the two excerpts have been underlined
to highlight differences. Compare changes
in the two texts, paying particular attention
to verb tense and deletions. Are these significant
or merely editorial changes? Why might have
Kephart have made these changes? What changes
in the situation might have been brought
about by national prohibition, which began
in January 1920, as authorized by the Eighteenth
Amendment to the Constitution?
Enduring Value
In the Wilmington Star-News (March 19,
2000), there appeared an article by Ben
Steelman entitled “The Essential N.C.
Reading List,” an attempt to compile
the best of North Carolina literary works.
Speaking of the difficulty of the effort,
he chose a western North Carolina writer
as an example:
For one thing, many books and authors
are out of print and hard to find. For
example, Frances Christine Tiernan, who
wrote under the pen name “Christian
Reid,” earned best-seller status
in the Victorian era for her romances
set in the North Carolina mountains. “Land
of the Sky,” the title of one of
her novels, became a tourist slogan for
the whole Asheville area. Yet few people
read her today, and her books are hard
to find.
John Fox, Jr. (1863? - 1919), one we know
Kephart read, and Sarah Barnwell Elliott
(1848-1928) are two others who wrote of
the mountain people and had great popularity
in their time but have simply passed from
the scene.
How is it, then, that Kephart endures?
Why has Our Southern Highlanders remained
available in print? Why are we sitting here
discussing it? How do you account for the
continuing popularity of the book?
| 
