Susanna Martin Accused of Witchcraft in Salem May 2, 1692

Jan 21, 2011 Michael Streich

Salem Witch Trials of 1692 - Wikimedia Commons Image: Public Domain

The examination of Susanna Martin demonstrates the folly of spectral evidence as the only legal tool used by magistrates to condemn innocent women to hang.

In 1692 Salem Village in Massachusetts saw itself as the battleground between the forces of the devil and God’s people. In that same year, Puritan theological leader Cotton Mather had written The Wonders of the Invisible World, noting that “…The New Englanders are a people of God settled in those which were once the devil’s territories…”

Historian Perry Miller refers to the “afflicted” Puritans that gave “spectral evidence” in the examinations and trials as “emotionally unstable” and lays the blame, in part, on “neurotic women and hysterical children.” This was the dilemma for Susanna Martin on May 2, 1692, in which she told her accusers, “I have no hand in witchcraft.”

The Examination of Accused Witch Susanna Martin

Susanna Martin refused to confess. As she was brought to the examination, her accusers reacted physically: “as soon as she came in many had fits.” This set the tone for the hearing. The reaction of the accusing members of the community predisposed the examiners. Martin was guilty and her sole recourse to avoid hanging was sincere confession. But a true witch could never confess, having made a pact or covenant with the devil, according to Puritan belief.

Before any questions were put to her, several of her accusers blamed her for their fits. Some were pinched. All were tormented physically. Martin’s response was to laugh. She was seventy years old and had been accused of witchcraft years earlier. As an old, impoverished widow, she fit the profile of women convicted and sentenced to death for witchcraft.

Martin’s Knowledge of the Bible and the Whispering Black Man

Her examiners asked how her appearance at the hearing could cause hurt to those in attendance. Martin’s response was from I Samuel 28: 14-15, casting the accusation of evil onto her accusers: “he that appeared in Samuel in the shape of a glorified saint can appear in anyone’s shape.”

If the devil could masquerade as the prophet Samuel, he could certainly do so as Massachusetts' farmers and their wives. Martin referred to Samuel as a “glorified saint,” indicating that the prophet was in heaven and that the apparition summoned by King Saul was a demon or perhaps the devil himself. Martin knew, from hearing countless sermons, that the devil could appear as an angel of God, intent on deceiving the faithful.

Susanna Martin’s accusers claimed that “…there was a black man with her…” The examiners asked Martin, “…who is the black man whispering to you?” The term “black” was often employed to refer to the “black arts” in the Colonial period. In Old English, the term is frequently associated with “black moor,” referring to Muslims that were considered infidels. Martin’s “black man” was an obvious reference to the devil. 18th Century Protestant broadsheets and woodcuts depicted demons as small black imps. Throughout Europe, the devil was often portrayed as a large, black tomcat.

Martin Defies the Salem Court and is Executed for Witchcraft

Spectral evidence sent Martin to the scaffold. Martin, however, proclaimed her innocence until the end and mocked the hysteria of her accusers. Spectral evidence encouraged the “wiles and subtlety” of her accusers, a phrase used by another accused witch Mary Easty. It was enough for Increase Mather to write in 1693, “It were better that ten suspected witches should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned.”

Salem Witch Trials Shame the Puritans

Historian Perry Miller notes that once Massachusetts Governor Sir William Phips ended the trials, the entire episode was forgotten: “after 1692…the very word witchcraft almost vanishes from public discourse.” Miller notes that not until 1721 were the incidents openly discussed.

The Puritans were trapped by their own closed society – a society built upon a covenant relationship with God that, like the Old Testament Israelites, was constantly tested by heathen influences. Hence, the wiles of the “evil one” were long anticipated. Puritan history in New England has a long legacy of spiritual conflict between the righteous and those sowing the seed of discord, including witches and heretics like Ann Hutchinson.

Spectral evidence had already been discounted in Europe where the witch craze had run its course. But New England Puritan society was closed and paranoid. It was the special covenantal relationship, built upon Old Testament concepts, which perceived a literal devil doing everything in his power to destroy community solidarity.

Susanna Martin was a heroic martyr who refused to succumb to what Miller refers to as “abnormal states of mind.” Her confession might have spared her, but she would not perjure herself. Her death was a righteous act of principle.

Sources:

• Alison Games, Witchcraft in Early North America (Rowman & Littlefield, 2010)
• Alan Heimert and Andrew Delbanco, editors, The Puritans in America: A Narrative Anthology (Harvard University Press, 1985)
• Perry Miller, The New England Mind From Colony to Province (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1983)
• Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson, The Puritans (American Book Company, 1938)
• Richard Weisman, Witchcraft, Magic, and Religion in 17th-Century Massachusetts (The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1984)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Collective Bargaining and Unionization in America

Feb 20, 2011 Michael Streich

Senator Robert Wagner Speaks About the NLRA - Library of Congress/U.S. Gov't Photo Image

The National Labor Relations Act allowed for collective bargaining in union disputes between workers and employers, ensuring fair negotiations.

1877 was a difficult year for American labor and capitalism. Over the next twenty years, industrialization widened the gulf between rich and poor. In 1886 alone, there were over 1,400 strikes across the nation. Often turning violent, as with the 1892 Homestead steel plant strike in Pennsylvania or Chicago’s Haymarket strike in 1886, the goals of labor were equated with socialism and anarchism. Not until 1935 was collective bargaining legalized under the National Labor Relations Act. Today collective bargaining is again under attack.

Collective Bargaining and the NLRA

The National Labor Relations Act guarantees private sector workers the right to organize unions and bargain collectively through union representatives with employers. Public sector employers like teachers are excluded, although many public sector employees are represented by unions. Both state and past judicial decisions have broadened collective bargaining to include almost all employees, even if publicly employed.

Individual states can regulate collective bargaining and arbitration or outlaw union activity by public sector employees altogether, as many Southern states have done. Collective bargaining, as part of the NLRA, was a means toward good faith negotiation between employees and employers. Eliminating collective bargaining would deprive employees of a way to protect benefits like health care and pensions.

The Continued Need for Unions in America

The economic downturn that began in 2008 continues with unemployment rates at or over 9%. Many states are facing budget “shortfalls” in the billions of dollars, necessitating the elimination of public sector jobs and the curtailment of vital social services. Caught in between are millions of workers that will lose health and pension benefits.

Unions in America were originally formed to organize workers against the excesses of labor practices such as 12-14 hour work days. Industrial workers lived in “factory towns” like Pullman town near Chicago, subsisting at the mercy of employers. In the South, factory towns sprang up around large textile enterprises like Fieldcrest Mills in Reidsville, NC or Cannon Mills in Salisbury, NC.

Originally, unions like the 1869 Knight of Labor combined temperance with worker agendas. Craft unions like Samuel Gompers’ American Federation of Labor catered to skilled workers, fighting for an eight-hour workday and higher wages. Not until the Progressive Era were many of these complaints addressed.

Unemployment and the Great Depression

Senator Robert Wagner’s National Labor Relations Act was designed to establish rights for workers through union representation. Collective bargaining was one important tool in reestablishing equilibrium between labor and capital, although critics deemed it socialism.

The NLRA became a hallmark of New Deal legislation. At the same time, unionization was viewed as a form of monopoly that could restrict the number of workers employed. Despite this, however, collective bargaining continues to ensure an open dialogue between employer and worker. It continues to serve as a form of protection against arbitrary actions designed to strip workers of key benefits.

Sources:

Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

J. Joseph Huthmacher, Senator Robert Wagner And The Rise of Urban Liberalism (Atheneum, 1968)

Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era (Penguin Books, 1984)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication

 

The Greensboro NC Woolworth and Sit-In Movement

Mar 2, 2011 Michael Streich

The Sit-In Movement at the Woolworth Lunch Counter - Courtesy of International Civil Rights Museum/photo images

In February 1960 four black freshmen at NC A & T University in Greensboro made history by opposing segregation at the F.W. Woolworth store lunch counter.

What was the price of a cup of coffee in the South in 1960? For some African Americans, it was intimidation, violence, and even death. But on a Monday afternoon on February 1, 1960, four black college students attending North Carolina A and T State University defied the segregationist policies at the Greensboro, North Carolina F.W. Woolworth lunch counter and made history. Their courage and humanity contributed to the sit-in movement that involved 70,000 people over the next year.

The Face of Segregation in the American South

The sit-in movement was non-violent protest. The students were told, “We don’t serve colored here.” Ezell A. Blair, Jr., Franklin E. McCain, Joseph A. McNeil, and David L. Richmond refused to leave. Within a week, the four were joined by four hundred, both black and white, and their protest became a nationwide story. This was the story of “Whites’ only” water fountains and restaurants that refused to serve African Americans. At Southern state capitals whites with placards proclaimed “Race Mixing is Communism.”

By the time A & T students sat down at the Woolworth lunch counter, Rosa Parks had refused to move to the back of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama (1955) and Alabama Governor George Wallace stood at the door of the University of Alabama refusing to admit black students. In Prince Edward County, Virginia, all public schools were closed.

Undoing Almost One Hundred Years of Separate but Equal

Segregation in the South began in the waning years of Reconstruction. The erroneous and immoral notion of “separate but equal” was affirmed in 1896 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Plessy v Ferguson. Not until the Warren Court issued its ruling in Brown v Board of Education would separate but equal be declared inherently unequal.

Although the courts in various cases issued rulings designed to end segregation and guarantee full social and political equality, the four A & T University freshmen added a new dimension to the Civil Rights Movement: anyone could participate. Segregation would not change solely through judicial action. It would require the efforts of men, women, and children of all races.

Fifty Years after the Woolworth Sit-In of 1960

Woolworth closed early that 1960 Monday afternoon. But the sit-in movement spread throughout the South, in some cases leading to arrests for trespass. In 1960, over three thousand protesters were arrested as part of the South’s response to the movement. Today, Woolworth has closed its doors (as of 1993) and the building at 134 Elm Street in Greensboro, North Carolina houses the International Civil Rights Center & Museum.

NC A & T University students are still actively involved in bringing solutions not just to the local community but to the world. A vibrant international studies program sends students for long and short-term educational experiences to some of the poorest countries in Africa, South America, and Asia. The university offers a Global Studies certificate to qualifying graduates.

In February 2010 three surviving members of the 1960 sit-in group were honored during the dedication of the museum in Greensboro. Part of that lunch counter including four seats had already been displayed at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC. The Greensboro museum functions as a chronicle of the boldness and determination of four college freshmen whose actions in February 1960 helped to change a social system that was un-American and immoral.

Sources:

• Owen Edwards, “Courage at the Greensboro Lunch Counter,” Smithsonian, February 2010
• International Civil Rights Center & Museum, Greensboro, North Carolina
• Smithsonian Museum
• Lucas A. Powe, Jr., The Warren Court and American Politics (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000)
• Note: this writer taught Global Studies at NC A & T State University

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

The SEATO Treaty Confronts Communism in Asia

Mar 4, 2011 Michael Streich

The 1954 SEATO treaty was a response to Communist aggression in Asia and later used to justify U.S. involvement in South Vietnam.

The early years of the Cold War were defined by the formation of alliances designed to contain Communism and promote prosperity and peace. In his memoirs, President Eisenhower wrote that, “Squalor and starvation worked to the advantage of Communist ambitions.” As leader of the “free world,” the United States forged alliances like NATO that would, in future decades, justify global policing. The 1954 South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) was one such alliance.

The Presence of Communism in Asia after World War II

Just as Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” had divided Europe, so also a “bamboo curtain” in Asia separated vulnerable “free nations” from those under Communist control such as mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam. In other nations, like the Philippines, insurgent groups, supplied by Communist powers, sought to ferment revolution.

Most every former colonial possession in Asia faced an internal threat from pro-Communist elements. Immediately after World War II, Josef Stalin, the Soviet leader, even demanded a partition of Japan similar to the one in Korea. The expansion of Communism in Asia was viewed as a voracious attempt to control a number of struggling nations.

Although Eisenhower ended the Korean War, he agreed with his predecessor Harry Truman about the role the U.S. should play in world affairs, specifically in confronting Communism. To the extent that the American public also agreed is evident by Eisenhower’s victory in 1952.

As the commander of U.S. forces in Europe during World War II and the supreme commander of NATO forces, Eisenhower exuded confidence and leadership. The Communist threat in Asia impacted U.S. commercial interests while subverting legitimate governments struggling to develop into free societies.

Collective Security and Assurance of Sovereign Integrity

The pivotal clause of the SEATO treaty was found in Article IV, Section 1. Although a military response is not mentioned, the clause refers to “aggression” committed against “any of the Parties” in the treaty area. The presumption was that each member, after unanimous consent, would collectively respond to the aggression “in accordance with…constitutional processes.”

Neither Vietnam nor South Korea was a full partner in SEATO which was dominated by the former Asian colonial powers Britain, France, and the U.S. In many ways SEATO was an extension of both NATO and the Truman Doctrine. The U.S. Senate ratified the SEATO treaty with only one dissenting vote after being guaranteed by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that treaty obligations would not lead to a ground war involving American soldiers. Vietnam disproved that guarantee.

SEATO and the Coming of the Vietnam War

In terms of Southeast Asia, Dulles had not only opened a Pandora ’s Box, but was responsible for its construction. The Johnson administration, for example, not only acted on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but used the SEATO protocols for authority to wage war in South Vietnam.

In response, Senator J. William Fulbright told Secretary Dean Rusk that, “I do not believe the SEATO treaty ever contemplated such action.” Rusk reminded Fulbright that it was the Senate that passed the measure.

In his memoirs, Undersecretary of State under Johnson, George W. Ball, quotes a memorandum by Rusk and Secretary of Defense McNamara in which they point out that, “We now take the decision to commit ourselves to the objective of preventing the fall of South Vietnam to Communism…we recognize that the introduction of United States and other SEATO forces may be necessary to achieve this objective.”

Appraisal of SEATO and the Impact of the Treaty on U.S. Foreign Policy

After the war, Senator Fulbright concluded that the world and specifically the U.S. might have been a different place had Dulles been encouraged to support the Geneva Accords of 1954 regarding Vietnam and never introduced the SEATO treaty. Although South Vietnam was not an initial partner to SEATO, a separate protocol tied it to SEATO objectives.

A noticeable absence in the organization was the inclusion of Asian nations other than the Philippines and Pakistan. It was, as one scholar noted, a “white man’s” attempt to preserve former colonial possessions from Communist influences. This paralleled the prevailing belief regarding Communism versus the free world in the early years of the Cold War.

Sources:

• Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1997)
• George W, Ball, The Past Has Another Pattern: Memoirs (W. W. Norton & Company, 1983)
• Dwight D. Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change 1953-1956 (Doubleday, 1963)
• J. William Fulbright, The Price of Empire (Pantheon Books, 1989)
• Text of the SEATO treaty (Department of State Bulletin, September 20, 1954)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 Harvey Milk's Legacy

Michael Streich October 25, 2011

Shortly before he was assassinated on November 27, 1978, San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk stated that, “If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.” Harvey Milk was the first openly gay political candidate to win an election at a time homosexuality was misunderstood by the general public and fear still kept many gays and lesbians in the closet. Writing in Time magazine over a decade later, John Cloud observed that, “…he had to adjust to a new reality he embodied: that a gay person could live an honest life and succeed.”

 

Harvey Milk’s Early Life and Influence

 

There was no “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when Milk served in the navy. Being gay in the 1950’s simply meant that you didn’t tell. In high school, Harvey Milk was on the junior varsity basketball team. He worked as a Math and history teacher and campaigned for Senator Barry Goldwater. But Milk didn’t hide from being gay, championing gay rights as he became politically involved after moving to San Francisco with his lover.

 

Harvey Milk built a political club that enabled his election victory but also demonstrated that the gay vote was important. After his death, politicians took a more proactive stance in courting this voting group. Normalization in terms of heterosexual perceptions years after Milk’s assassination played a large part in the legalization of same-sex marriages and the general acceptance of so-called civil unions. Milk’s election as an openly-gay man and his subsequent murder forced observers to react, and in doing so brought issues into the public sphere that had never been openly discussed.

 

After his death, San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein observed that, “The fact of his homosexuality gave Harvey an insight into the scars which all oppressed people wear…He believed that no sacrifice was too great a price to pay for the cause of human rights.” (Quoted in New York Times, December 3, 1978) Over three decades after Milk and Mayor George Moscone were shot by Dan White, same-sex marriages are allowed in several states and homosexuality is no longer viewed as a mental disorder or perversion.

 

The Fight for Civil Rights

 

Although there were many heroes within the gay community in the latter decades of the twentieth-century, especially during the first years of the AIDS crisis, Harvey Milk established a precedent and became a political role model. In his biographical account, The Mayor of Castro Street, Randy Shilts observes that Harvey Milk “…remains frozen in time, a symbol of what gays can accomplish and the dangers they face in doing so.”

 

During his brief tenure as a Supervisor, Milk shepherded a Gay Rights ordinance toward passage that protected gays from being fired from their jobs because of sexual orientation. Had his life not ended prematurely, Milk might have brought the leadership and energy needed in the early years of the AIDS epidemic to confront the disease much sooner than it was, saving lives and promoting awareness. Milk fought for civil rights for all groups, including senior citizens.

 

Harvey Milk’s Battle Continues

 

Harvey Milk has been referred to as an “unlikely populist.” KQED/PBS correctly assessed that, “…If a gay man can win, it proves that there is hope for all minorities who are willing to fight.” Thirty years after Milk was gunned down in his office, homosexuality is still a moral issue and part of political debate. GOP candidate Herman Cain believes that homosexuality is a sin (Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post, October 20, 2011). Michele Bachmann, during a Meet the Press interview with David Gregory (August 14, 2011) dodged any direct questions put to her about homosexuality, although her husband runs a clinic that “cures” gays.

 

Harvey Milk directed critics to see gays as people that deserve full equality with every other American. Keeping differences a secret, as Shilts notes in his biography of Milk, was learned early in life as a survival mechanism. Harvey Milk, however, soon determined that the fullness of acknowledging one’s humanity is determined by self-honesty. For Milk, that meant embracing who he was.

 

References:

 

John Cloud, “The Pioneer HARVEY MILK,” Time, June 14, 1999

John M. Crewdson, “Harvey Milk, Led Coast Homosexual-Rights Fight,” New York Times, November 28, 1978

Larry Kramer, “Gay ‘Power’ Here,” New York Times, December 3, 1978

Randy Shilts, And The Band Played On: Politics, People, And The AIDS Epidemic (St. Martin’s Press, 1987)

*Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republishing in any form requires written permission from author.

 

Matthew Shepard Tragedy Remembered

• Oct 31, 2011
• Michael Streich

Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten and left to die in October 1998, but his story continues to challenge men and women battling against homophobia.

Somewhere in the clear evening sky there is a star, flickering from a far off universe that knows no hate and feels no pain. Matthew Shepard’s light continues to illuminate a sullen world enmeshed in ignorance and intolerance. Martyrs represent many walks of life and many veins of thought. These are the chosen in history to give their lives in the cause of hope and goodness of human spirit, though they may never live to see an ultimate good rise from the spilling of their innocent blood.

“What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?” Wilfred Owen asked in 1917 as the flower of a generation died in the horrors of war. Doomed youth, however, exist at all times and in all places. Matthew Shepard would have celebrated his thirty-fifth birthday on December 1, 2011, but his young life was cut short one horrific night in October 1998.

Homophobia and Murder in Laramie, Wyoming

Matthew wasn’t perfect. His mother, Judy Shepard, wrote that, “He wasn’t a saint, as the press was trying to make him out to be, but a twenty-one year old with more troubles than anyone his age should ever have to deal with.” Matthew’s life was cut short when two men succumbed to the darkest side of humanity and brutally beat him, leaving him in a remote field, tied to a fence. Matthew was targeted because he was gay, as court transcripts later demonstrated.

Matt was a college student interested in politics and international affairs. Spending his high school senior year at a boarding school in Switzerland, Matthew had the opportunity to travel, meet people that valued diversity, and experience different cultures and traditions. He became comfortable with his sexuality, beginning college in North Carolina before transferring to Wyoming. “He was just like everybody else,” his mother told Neal Conan in 2009, “Same issues, same problems, depression.”

He was lured into a pickup by two young men that had planned to find and rob a gay man. Driving him out of town, one man tied him to a fence while the other repeatedly beat him on the head with a revolver before robbing him. Matthew Shepard died in a hospital intensive care unit several days later.

Hate Crimes and Sexual Orientation

In the months after his death, his life became symbolic of a creeping terror that stalks men and women whose sexual orientations are viewed as suspect and threatening to the ignorant and simple-minded. The FBI’s crime statistics for 2009 (published in late 2010) revealed that sexual orientation hate crime victims ranked third after race and religion. The federal law that includes sexual orientation as a hate crime was signed into law October 28, 2009 and is called the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Sexual orientation was front page news after the murder of Matthew Shepard. In recent years, however, gay rights and questions of equality have again brought to the forefront long-held prejudices and irrational fears. In May 2012, North Carolina citizens will vote on an amendment to their state constitution banning same-sex marriages. The debates over the issue are predicted to be heated and contentious. Homophobia was a motive in October 1998; it is still the silent enemy of equality, roused into action by paranoia and misunderstanding.

The Impact of Matthew Shepard

Every movement has heroes and martyrs. Matthew Shepard, who believed in social justice, never knew that his death would awaken the reservoir of deep emotions felt not only in the United States but around the world. His memory is kept alive, in part, by the Matthew Shepard Foundation as well as scholarship competitions for openly gay and lesbian students. There are Facebook pages dedicated to his life containing messages of transformations in the lives of young and old. But the most profound transformations continue to involve the mood of ordinary Americans willing to embrace unconditional openness and equality that blankets all citizens, including gay and lesbian men and women.

On the day Matthew died, his mother was quoted in a hospital statement: “Go home, give your kids a hug, and don’t let a day go by without telling them that you love them.” Matthew’s death impacted those closest to him, those involved in the prosecution of his murderers, and journalists covering the story. One of those reporters, Heather Feeney, told Peter O’Dowd during an NPR interview that, “…the experience is probably the underlying reason why I’m not a reporter anymore.”

Matthew Shepard’s star is a reminder that imperfect humanity will always be overpowered by unconditional love and that such love is the reconciliation made possible when all men and women are not just tolerated for who they are, but accepted as equals in every aspect of community life.

References:

• John Cloud, “The New Face of Gay Power,” Time, Volume 162, Issue 15, October 13, 2003
• Neal Conan, Talk of the Nation (NPR), September 8, 2009 (interview with Mrs. Judy Shepard, discussing her book)
• James C. Hurst, “The Matthew Shepard Tragedy: Management of a Crisis,” About Campus, July/August 1999
• Michael Martin, “Remembering Matthew,” Advocate, Issue 1017, October 21, 2008
• Nicholas J. Pace, “I’ve Completely Changed: The Transforming Impact of the Matthew Shepard Scholarship,” Journal of Advanced Academics, Volume 18, Number 3, Spring 2007
• Judy Shepard, The Meaning of Matthew: My Son’s Murder in Laramie, and a World Transformed (Hudson Street Press, 2009)
• “The Case of Matthew Shepard,” The Atlantic, May 2009
• Weekend Edition Sunday (NPR), October 12, 2008

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.