Today's reading was quite interesting. The Salem Witch Trials are usually something Americans try to forget happened. In school it is barely mentioned. I have never actually read any literature on it until now.
I found it quite interesting that in the beginning Cotton Mather said he was going to "report matters not as an advocate, but as an historian." His intention was to write an UN-biased account of the trials but I don't know if he stuck to his plan.
First of all, all of the evidence at the trial was here say. It was only "eyewitness" testimony, and it wasn't even like they actually saw her do any physical harm to anyone. They talked about how she would say something bad about them and then one of their cows, of they themselves got some kind of physical ailment. In the court system today, these witnesses would not "hold water". Now days, eyewitness testimony is not going to win you a case. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable in today's court. People forget things, or think they saw or heard something they didn't. Also just because something bad happens to an animal or person, doesn't mean that someone is responsible for that. Maybe it was just that cow's time to die.
Another thing that makes me think that Mr. Mather was not UN-biased was at the end. He called Martha carrier, a "rampant hag". If a person was truly sticking to the facts and not letting their emotions get into the way they would have just stated the person's name and that they were guilty and not slander them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good points, Trista. I think I need to read his account again as I didn't catch those inconsistencies! I imagined, as I was reading your post, what I would think if I picked up a newspaper and saw that someone was accused of practicing witchcraft on another person. I'd be shocked, so I can't imagine how Mather and his neighbors felt. As you mentioned, eyewitness testimonies probably wouldn't hold up in court today, and that's definitely a good thing.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Trista! Every school is different, and I did have the opportunity to discuss the Salem Witch Trials a few times through middle and high school. Reading Mather's account--while keeping in mind that he is merely reporting what he's been told--opened a new way to think about the trials for me. I agree that Mather was biased; as a Puritan preacher he was concerned about the possibility of the secular world and evil corrupting the puritan settlements of New England. He saw the witchcraft accusations as attacks from the devil. In his eagerness to find and destroy evil I don't believe he was terribly concerned about being fair and un-biased, which as you pointed out shows when he calls Martha Carrier a "rampant hag". Those are strong words, and as you note, thank goodness court cases today take more evidence before conviction. Beyond the times, the puritans' religious beliefs probably had a lot to do with their fear of witchcraft and what they accepted for evidence. Like Rachael, I wonder what I'd think if I saw my neighbors being charged with witchcraft today.
ReplyDelete