[lbo-talk] communist witches were not spectral

Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com
Thu Jan 12 09:15:09 PST 2006


On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:35:18 -0800 (PST) Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> --- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
>
> > I'd say those nine witches were probably
> > progressives for their time and
> > place. I'm pro-witch in general ,myself. I favor the
> > witches over the
> > powers-that-be in Salem. Weren't those witches
> > feminists, women's
> > liberationists ?
>
> No, they weren't. They weren't witches at all (in any
> sense). Moreover, a quarter of those killed were men,
> including Salem's ex-minister, who was believed to be
> the leader of the coven.

I think its more accurate to characterize them as having been victims. They were people who were either on the wrong end of political or economic disputes (i.e. over land ownership) or were otherwise unpopular people (i.e. some of the victims were old spinsters who were regarded as eccentrics). The fact that an ex-minister was convicted and executed as a witch suggests that a lot of this was politics carried out by other means (in colonial Massachusetts, the Puritan ministers were important political figures).


>
> I was under the impression that the girls who started
> the whole thing were doing it for the attention.
> That's the impression I get from reading their
> depositions against Sarah Goods, which I paste their
> below (God how I wish they had spell-checkers in the
> 17th century -- I know spelling has changed but this
> is internally inconsistent). Evil semi-literate
> scumbags.

That seems to be how it started, then various unscrupulous people began to manipulate those girls for their own ends. A totally unedifying spectacle. And as the title of this thread suggests, the whole basis of these prosecutions depended upon the legal admissibility of spectral evidence in the witch trials. As long as such evidence was accepted, the prosecutions were able to go forward. When the judges decided that such evidence would no longer be admissible, then the remaining cases collapsed.


>
> (Elizabeth Hubbard v. Sarah Good)
>
> The Deposistion of Elizabeth Hubbard agged about
> 17
> years who testifieth and saith that on the 28 February
>
> 1691/92 I saw the Apperishtion of Sarah good who did
> most
> greviously afflect me by pinching and pricking me and
> so
> she continewed hurting of me tell the first day of
> March
> being the day of her examination then she did also
> most
> greviously afflect and tortor me also dureing the time
> of
> her examination and also severall times sence she hath
>
> afflected me and urged me to writ in her book: also on
> the
> day of hir examination I saw the Apperishtion of Sarah
>
> good goe and hurt and afflect the bodyes of Elizabeth
> parish Abigail williams and Ann putnam jun'g and also
> I
> have seen the Apperishtion of Sarah Good afflecting
> the
> body of Sarah vibber also in the Night after Sarah
> goods Examination. Sarah Good came to me barefoot and
> bareledged and did most greviously torment me by
> pricking and pinching me and I
> veryly beleve that Sarah good hath bewicked me also
> that
> night Samuell Sibley that was then attending me strok
> Sarah good on hir Arme
>
> (Ann Putnam, Jr. v. Sarah Good)
>
> The Deposition of Ann putnam Ju'r who testifieth
> and
> saith, that on the 25th of February 1691/92 I saw the
> apperishtion of Sarah good which did tortor me most
> greviously but I did not know hir name tell the 27th
> of
> February and then she tould me hir name was Sarah good
> and
> then she did prick me and pinch me most greviously:
> and
> also sense severall times urging me vehemently to writ
> in
> hir book and also on the first day of march being the
> day
> of hir Examination Sarah good did most grevioulsy
> tortor
> me and also severall times sence: and also on the
> first
> day of march 1692 I saw the Apperishtion of sarah good
> goe
> and afflect and tortor the bodys of Elizabeth parish
> Abigail williams and Elisabeth Hubburd also I have
> seen
> the Appershtion of Sarah good afflecting the body of
> Sarah vibber
> Anne putnam
>
> ann putnam owned this har testimony to be the
> trugh
> one har oath, before the Juriars of Inqwest this 28:
> of
> June 1692
>
> And further says that shee verily beleives that
> Sarah Good doth betwitch & afflicte her
>
> Sworn before the Court
>
>
> (Susannah Sheldon v. Sarah Good)
>
> The Deposistion of Susannah Shelden agged about
> 18
> years who testifieth and saith that sense I have ben
> afflected I have very often ben most greviously
> tortured
> by Apperistion of Sarah Good who has most dredfully
> afflected me by bitting pricking and pinching me and
> almost choaking me to death but on the 26. June 1692
> Sarah
> good most violently pulled down my head behind a
> Cheast
> and tyed my hands together with a whele band & allmost
>
> Choaked me to death and also severall times sence the
> Apperistion of Sarah good has most greviously tortored
> me
> by biting pinching and almost Chaoking me to death:
> also
> william Battin and Thomas Buffincgont Juner ware
> forced to
> cutt the whele band from afe my hands for they could
> not
> unty it.
>
> And farther s'd Sheldon upon giving in this
> testimony
> to the grand jury was sezxed with sundry fits w'ch.
> when
> she came to her self she told the s'd jury being aske
> that
> it was s'd. Good that afflicted her & a little after
> Mary
> Warren falling into a fit s'd. Sheldon affirmed to the
>
> Grand jury that she saw s'd Good upon her, & also a
> sauser
> being by invisible hands taken of from a Talbe &
> carried
> our of doors s'd. Sheldon affirmed she saw said Sarah
> Good
> carry it away & put it where it was found abroad.
>
> Susanah Shelden oned this har testimony to be
> the
> trugh efore the juriars of Inquest on the oath which
> she
> had daken this 28 of June 1692.
>
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/ASA_GOOD.HTM
>
>
>
> Nu, zayats, pogodi!
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list