Posted on 10/26/2007 11:40:54 AM PDT by blam
A Brief History of the Salem Witch Trials
One town's strange journey from paranoia to pardon
By Jess Blumberg
Smithsonian.com, October 24, 2007
The Salem witch trials occurred in colonial Massachusetts between 1692 and 1693. More than 200 people were accused of practicing witchcraft—the Devil's magic—and 20 were executed. Eventually, the colony admitted the trials were a mistake and compensated the families of those convicted. Since then, the story of the trials has become synonymous with paranoia and injustice, and it continues to beguile the popular imagination more than 300 years later.
Salem Struggling
Several centuries ago, many practicing Christians, and those of other religions, had a strong belief that the Devil could give certain people known as witches the power to harm others in return for their loyalty. A "witchcraft craze" rippled through Europe from the 1300s to the end of the 1600s. Hundreds of thousands of supposed witches—mostly women—were executed. Though the Salem trials came on just as the European craze was winding down, local circumstances explain their onset.
In 1689, English rulers William and Mary started a war with France in the American colonies. Known as King William's War to colonists, it ravaged regions of upstate New York, Nova Scotia and Quebec, sending refugees into the county of Essex and, specifically, Salem Village in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. (Salem Village is present-day Danvers, Massachusetts; colonial Salem Town became what's now Salem.)
The displaced people created a strain on Salem's resources. This aggravated the existing rivalry between families with ties to the wealth of the port of Salem and those who still depended on agriculture. Controversy also brewed over Reverend Samuel Parris, who became Salem Village's first ordained minister in 1698, and was disliked because of his rigid ways and greedy nature. The Puritan villagers believed all the quarreling was the work of the Devil.
In January of 1692, Reverend Parris' daughter Elizabeth, age 9, and niece Abigail Williams, age 11, started having "fits." They screamed, threw things, uttered peculiar sounds and contorted themselves into strange positions, and a local doctor blamed the supernatural. Another girl, Ann Putnam, age 11, experienced similar episodes. On February 29, under pressure from magistrates Jonathan Corwin and John Hathorne, the girls blamed three women for afflicting them: Tituba, the Parris' Caribbean slave; Sarah Good, a homeless beggar; and Sarah Osborne, an elderly impoverished woman.
Witch Hunt
All three women were brought before the local magistrates and interrogated for several days, starting on March 1, 1692. Osborne claimed innocence, as did Good. But Tituba confessed, "The Devil came to me and bid me serve him." She described elaborate images of black dogs, red cats, yellow birds and a "black man" who wanted her to sign his book. She admitted that she signed the book and said there were several other witches looking to destroy the Puritans. All three women were put in jail.
With the seed of paranoia planted, a stream of accusations followed for the next few months. Charges against Martha Corey, a loyal member of the Church in Salem Village, greatly concerned the community; if she could be a witch, then anyone could. Magistrates even questioned Sarah Good's 4-year-old daughter, Dorothy, and her timid answers were construed as a confession. The questioning got more serious in April when Deputy Governor Thomas Danforth and his assistants attended the hearings. Dozens of people from Salem and other Massachusetts villages were brought in for questioning.
On May 27, 1692, Governor William Phipps ordered the establishment of a Special Court of Oyer (to hear) and Terminer (to decide) for Suffolk, Essex and Middlesex counties. By the time the court convened in June, the total number of people in custody was 62. Earlier that month, Sarah Osborne The first case brought to the special court was Bridget Bishop, an older woman known for her gossipy habits and promiscuity. When asked if she committed witchcraft, Bishop responded, "I am as innocent as the child unborn." The defense must not have been convincing, because she was found guilty and, on June 10, became the first person hanged on what was later called Gallows Hill.
Five days later, respected minister Cotton Mather wrote a letter imploring the court not to allow spectral evidence—testimony about dreams and visions. The court largely ignored this request and five people were sentenced and hanged in July, five more in August and eight in September. On October 3, following in his son's footsteps, Increase Mather, then president of Harvard, denounced the use of spectral evidence: "It were better that ten suspected witches should escape than one innocent person be condemned."
Governor Phipps, in response to Mather's plea and his own wife being questioned for witchcraft, prohibited further arrests, released many accused witches and dissolved the Court of Oyer and Terminer on October 29. Phipps replaced it with a Superior Court of Judicature, which disallowed spectral evidence and only condemned 3 out of 56 defendants. Phipps eventually pardoned all who were in prison on witchcraft charges by May 1693. But the damage had been done: 19 were hanged on Gallows Hill, a 71-year-old man was pressed to death with heavy stones, several people died in jail and nearly 200 people, overall, had been accused of practicing "the Devil's magic."
Restoring Good Names
Following the trials and executions, many involved, like judge Samuel Sewall, publicly confessed error and guilt. On January 14, 1697, the General Court ordered a day of fasting and soul-searching for the tragedy of Salem. In 1702, the court declared the trials unlawful. And in 1711, the colony passed a bill restoring the rights and good names of those accused and granted £600 restitution to their heirs. However, it was not until 1957—more than 250 years later—that Massachusetts formally apologized for the events of 1692.
In the 20th century, artists and scientists alike continued to be fascinated by the Salem witch trials. Playwright Arthur Miller resurrected the tale with his 1953 play The Crucible, using the trials as an allegory for the McCarthyism paranoia in the 1950s. Additionally, numerous hypotheses have been devised to explain the strange behavior that occurred in Salem in 1692. One of the most concrete studies, published in Science in 1976 by psychologist Linnda Caporael, blamed the abnormal habits of the accused on the fungus ergot, which can be found in rye, wheat and other cereal grasses. Toxicologists say that eating ergot-contaminated foods can lead to muscle spasms, vomiting, delusions and hallucinations. Also, the fungus thrives in warm and damp climates—not too unlike the swampy meadows in Salem Village, where rye was the staple grain during the spring and summer months.
In August 1992, to mark the 300th anniversary of the trials, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel dedicated the Witch Trials Memorial in Salem. Also in Salem, the Peabody Essex Museum houses the original court documents, and the town's most-visited attraction, the Salem Witch Museum, attests to the public's enthrallment with the 1692 hysteria.
You've come a long way, baby.
That's true. I didn't even consider that.
And now you're a freeper causing trouble. Must run in the family :-)
It does. Lost one in the Alamo, too.
If you put yourself in that era...with no TV, radio or news...then a witch trial is about the only entertainment you might get for the whole year.
The point he was making is that human nature hasn’t changed, it has just been kept in check (at times).
I haven’t seen any mention of drowning “witches.” I thought that was a sure test and that many were drowned to prove their innocence. Of course those who survived the water test would be dealt with in some other manner.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Blam, and a ping to, uh-oh, I've got to recover those hard drive files. What a year this has been... and I've been ailing with brain fever or somethin', and can't remember names and stuff, or rather, it's been worse than usual. I can't remember who does the Early America list. Aiiee. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Every single person executed by the Spanish Inquisition (and there were actually far fewer than is commonly thought) were executed by the Spanish throne.
Had the Papacy taken it upon itself to execute a single Spanish subject - on Spanish territory no less - it would have been a cause for war between the Kingdom of Spain and the Papal States.
A war that the Papal States would have assuredly lost - badly.
In discussions like this, apologists like you hold the Vatican blameless, when in fact, it was pulling all the strings.
This answers some questions: you are unaware that there is a difference between a theocracy and an absolute monarchy.
In a theocracy, clergymen rule the state and make and enforce the laws. In a theocracy, lay people have no authority or power.
In an absolute monarchy, a secular ruler is sovereign and makes and enforces the laws.
Early Modern Spain became an absolute monarchy, medieval Spain was not, and Spain has never been a theocracy.
The same goes for France.
The Sovereign was the titular head of the Church in his realm,
This is a complete and utter falsehood. Henry VIII's claim that he was the head of the Church in his possessions is what created the break from the Papacy. No one can be a believing Catholic and imagine that anyone other than Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and that anyone other than the Popes are its earthly caretakers.
was crowned by the Pope,
No one was ever crowned King of Spain (technically King of both Aragon and Castile) by the Pope. Ever.
and risked war or damnation if he refused to do the bidding of Rome.
The Papacy has no power to damn anyone. It only has the power to interdict or excommunicate. The Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that the fate of souls is in the hands of God.
The Kings of England and France never had any problem opposing the papacy in any particular. The King of France and the Holy Roman Emperor took turns allying with or fighting against the Papacy and occupying its territory from 1100-1500.
In discussions like this, apologists like you hold the Vatican blameless, when in fact, it was pulling all the strings.
The reality is that the Papacy did many bad and stupid things during the medieval period, and the Papacy was never pulling many strings at all.
If it had, do you really think the Papacy could have been held captive by the King of France for 68 years in the fourteenth century?
If it had, could the German and English princes who made the Protestant Reformation happen have triumphed against the combined military might of Spain, France, Venice and the Holy Roman Empire?
Think before you make wild assertions that are completely disconnected from historical reality.
Pre-WWII and it is still George Bush’s fault?
Your arguments are not very plausible.
Yet you cannot explain why. That's interesting.
The Church used the inquisition as it's tool
The facts show that the Spanish throne used the Papacy as its tool.
you are trying to provide plausible deniability.
There is nothing to deny. People on this forum seem obsessed with defending the Spanish crown and minimizing its role, while magnifying the role of the Papacy.
Why this bizarre partiality for the Spanish monarchy?
Your arguments are not very plausible.
My arguments are checkable facts. Reality does not need to be plausible.
Ergot Poisoning - the cause of the Salem Witch Trials
PBS “Secrets of the Dead II” - Witches Curse
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/ergot.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.