Why are the Salem Witch Trials so well known when compared to events like King Philip’s War they were a minor event? Reply

A picture of one of the notorious Salem Witch Trials in Massachusetts in 1692.
“Trial of George Jacobs, Sr. for Witchcraft” in 1692, painting by Tompkins Harrison Matteson in 1855. Photo by the Peabody Essex Museum. The unfortunate Mr. Jacobs was executed.

King Philip’s War and the Salem Witch Trials were only about twenty-five years apart, and the war inflicted more damage than the trials on the physical existence of New England. Yet the trials are much more famous today. I suggest there are two main reasons for the difference in historical remembrance.

First, Indian wars were not uncommon in colonial America, and indeed Indian wars continued well into the national period; the last were fought late in the nineteenth century. There is nothing unique about a war between the whites and the Indians.

On the other hand, the Salem witch trials were by far the largest proceeding of their type in American history. Nineteen totally innocent people were hanged and five others died in custody before the hysteria subsided. The episode was unique, and quite different in that respect from Indian wars.

Furthermore, the episode was recognized very quickly as a miscarriage of justice, and greatly strengthened the support for improvements in the legal system. The court in Salem Village allowed “spectral evidence,” or claims by witnesses that the accused had appeared to them in dreams or visions and done them harm. A new court was established which did not allow spectral evidence, and the the cases began to collapse.

Perhaps the worst abuse was that the accused were not allowed counsel. They could call witnesses, but had no legal guidance, while the judges were advised by ministers and aided by books from England. It may well be that the Salem tragedies served as proof that defendants should be allowed counsel. In another famous colonial incident about eighty years later, a British officer and his soldiers had very capable counsel in the Boston Massacre trials. (Although the right to have counsel, even if the defendant can’t pay for it, was not definitely established for another two hundred years.)

It also seems that King Philip’s War had significant impact on the development of a colonial identity for the white inhabitants, separate from that of Englishmen actually living in England, especially since they fought the war without any help from the faraway mother country. It should also be noted that while King Philip’s War is nearly forgotten today, it was quite well known to previous generations of Americans. But the witch trials have a far more lurid reputation now and thus stand out in American historical memory.

Constitutional wampum? Reply

How much did the Iroquois Great Law of Peace influence the constitution of the United States?

Picture of James Madison, who was very influential in writing the U.S. Constitution.
James Madison: Not a wampum guy

It’s a charming story, that the Iroquois confederacy’s constitution may have influenced that of the United States. Trouble is, the Iroquois had no written language, and there is no evidence that it was written down, and translated into English, in time to influence the James Madison and the other Framers of the Constitution.

At the time, the Great Law of Peace existed mainly as a wampum belt, and as far as I know, James Madison had no knack for interpreting wampum.

In fact, it’s quite possible that it worked the other way around: that when English versions were developed, the developers and translators were influenced by the U.S. Constitution. Lacking an early, written version, we don’t know.

Right to bear arms Reply

Given that the Constitution has no civil power to grant rights, what exactly is the common-law right of the people (predating the Constitution) referenced in the 2nd Amendment that cannot be “infringed”?

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 gave Protestants the right to have arms for their own defense.
Thanks, England!

The right of the people to keep and bear arms — that is, to form a militia, as opposed to a standing army — goes back at least to the English Bill of Rights in 1689. That document lists this among the rights of Englishmen, or at least some of them:

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”

The English Bill of Rights was drawn up by Parliament and agreed to by the new monarchs, William and Mary. They replaced James II, who had made the mistake of being both Catholic and rather authoritarian.

The Bill of Rights made it clear that the monarch could not have a standing army without the consent of Parliament. Furthermore, it made it clear that the people (Protestants, at least) could have arms for self-defense. In context, this was obviously not meant for shooting burglars, but rather for resisting attempts at tyranny by the Crown.

The right to keep and bear arms was one of several rights the Framers carried over from the English Bill of Rights into the Bill of Rights added to the U.S. Constitution to ensure its passage. The early Americans were much attached to the “rights of Englishmen” and insisted that these had to be codified in the new Constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms was one of several rights the Framers carried over from the English Bill of Rights into the Bill of Rights added to the U.S. Constitution to ensure its passage. The early Americans were much attached to the “rights of Englishmen” and insisted that these had to be codified in the new Constitution.

Boston massacre trial Reply

Under what authority were the British soldiers accused in the Boston massacre tried by a court of law? I thought British soldiers were not held accountable because they represented the Crown.

Old woodcut of Boston Massacre trial.
Boston Massacre Trial

I don’t believe British law had any such loophole for soldiers. British troops were expected to obey civil law as well as military regulations. In fact, the mob that was harassing the soldiers was emboldened by the fact that no one had read them the Riot Act, and without that, the soldiers were not permitted to fire their weapons.

Unfortunately the shooting occurred anyway, and the situation could have turned into a full-scale riot. Thomas Hutchinson, a loyalist who was lieutenant governor and acting governor of the province, rushed to the State House to try to calm things down. He promised the local council that justice would be done, and then went out onto the balcony to make the same promise to the angry crowd, which soon dispersed.

More…

Timing Reply

Why did the United States achieve independence in 1776 and not in 1676?

King Philip’s War between Native American tribes and the English settlers and their native allies convulsed New England in 1676–77. This engraving is believed to show an attack on Sudbury, Massachusetts, on April 21, 1676 — almost exactly 100 years before the outbreak of the American War of Independence.

The colonies were kind of busy in 1676:

More…