A Brief History Of The Salem Witch Trials

Smitsonian ^ | 10-24-2007 | Jess Blumberg

[colorado tanker]

Tribune, I was also thinking about the Amirault case. The main difference I can see is that the Massachusetts authorities quickly went about trying to make right their mistake in Salem, but stubbornly insisted on punishing the Amiraults even when it became painfully apparent they were innocent.

You've come a long way, baby.

[Tribune7]

The main difference I can see is that the Massachusetts authorities quickly went about trying to make right their mistake in Salem, but stubbornly insisted on punishing the Amiraults even when it became painfully apparent they were innocent.

That's true. I didn't even consider that.

[Tribune7]

but I am descended from a man who was burned at the stake during the Mexican Inquisition

And now you're a freeper causing trouble. Must run in the family :-)

[MeanWestTexan]

It does. Lost one in the Alamo, too.

[pepsionice]

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.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

You’re agreeing with what he said.

The point he was making is that human nature hasn’t changed, it has just been kept in check (at times).

[FreePaul]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	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. The Salem Witch Trials are somewhat of family interest, because a relative in one of my lines was accused of witchcraft by her grandson, but a wily investigator proved them false, then probably blistered the ass of the little accuser. Another relative in a great-great-grandfather's surname line wound up executed during that craze. If I weren't in a big rush to do the Digest and go to bed, I'd probably link to a search for "ergot". I wonder if my memory is failing due to exposure to ergot? Okay, I've done a search and found the answer, it's Pharmboy! To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[wideawake]

How many were executed during the Spanish Inquisition? The Inquisitors had a Papal commission.

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.

[CholeraJoe]

In Theocracies such as Medieval Spain and France, the Throne was the Church. The Sovereign was the titular head of the Church in his realm, was crowned by the Pope, and risked war or damnation if he refused to do the bidding of Rome.

In discussions like this, apologists like you hold the Vatican blameless, when in fact, it was pulling all the strings.

[wideawake]

In Theocracies such as Medieval Spain and France, the Throne was the Church.

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.

[Redleg Duke]

Pre-WWII and it is still George Bush’s fault?

[Redleg Duke]

A very weak rebuttal, my friend. Very weak. The Church used the inquisition as it's tool and you are trying to provide plausible deniability.

Your arguments are not very plausible.

[wideawake]

A very weak rebuttal, my friend. Very weak.

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.

[SunkenCiv]

ergot:

Google

[SunkenCiv]

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