Witchcraft in America--In Illinois: Moreau and Emmanuel--In Virginia:
Case of Grace Sherwood--In Pennsylvania: Two Swedish Women--In South
Carolina--In Connecticut: Many Cases--In Massachusetts: Margaret
Jones; Mary Parsons; Ann Hibbins; Other Cases.
North America has been colonized by the British long enough to have
enjoyed the visitations of the Devil. And the present Americans, judging
by the amount of literature written thereon,[121] seem rather proud of his
having dwelt among them; it gives an air of antiquity, and an old-world
tone, to the favoured States, which is sadly lacking, and not otherwise
procurable, in those unvisited by his Satanic Majesty. As far as I know,
there have been but six or seven States troubled with witchcraft:
Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and
Illinois.
The latter is somewhat remarkable, as it was only received into the Union,
as a State, in 1818; yet I read, in ‘The Pioneer History of Illinois,’ by
ex-Governor John Reynolds (Bellville, Ill., 1852), pp. 142, 143, the
following:
‘In early times the inhabitants of Illinois were in a small degree
tinctured with the absurdity and nonsense of witchcraft and
fortune-telling; but in after-days this ignorant superstition has entirely
disappeared.... It was the belief of some people, and families, that an
old woman living on Silver Creek, Illinois, had the power of witchcraft,
to take milk from her neighbours’ cows, without seeing or touching
them....
‘In Cahokia, about the year 1790, this superstition [witchcraft] got the
upper hand of reason, and several poor African slaves were immolated at
the shrine of ignorance for this imaginary offence. An African negro,
named Moreau, was hung for this crime on a tree not far south-east of
Cahokia. It is stated that he had said, “he poisoned his master, but his
mistress was too strong for his necromancy.” Another slave, Emmanuel, was
shot, in Cahokia, for this crime, and an old woman, Janette, was supposed
to have the power to destroy persons and property by her incantations.
Many grown people, and all the children, were terrified at her approach.’
These two cases are verified by extracts from the ‘Record Book’ of Colonel
John Todd, Lieutenant-Commandant of the County of Illinois, under Governor
Patrick Henry, of the Commonwealth of Virginia:
‘Illinois to wit.
‘_To Richard Winston, Esq{re}, Sheriff in chief of the District of
Kaskaskia._
‘Negro Manuel, a Slave, in your custody, is condemned by the Court of
Kaskaskia, after having made honorable fine at the door of the church, to
be chained to a post at the water side, and then to be burnt alive, and
his ashes scattered, as appears to me by record. This sentence you are
hereby required to put in execution, on tuesday next at 9 o’clock in the
morning, and this shall be your warrant.
‘Given under my hand and seal at Kaskaskia, the 13{th} day of June, in
the 3{rd} year of the Commonwealth.’
‘_To Cap{t}. Nicolas Janis._
‘You are hereby required to call upon a party of your militia to guard
Moreau, a slave condemned to execution, up to the town of Kohos. Put
them under an officer. They shall be entitled to pay, rashions and
refreshment during the time they shall be upon duty, to be certifyed
hereafter by you.
‘I am, Sir, your hble servant,
‘JOHN TODD.
‘15{th} June 1779.’
Virginia, I believe, can only boast of one witch, and her case is not very
widely known. Princess Anne is the southernmost county of Virginia,
bounded on the north by Chesapeake Bay, and on the east by the Atlantic.
Lynhaven Bay is on the Chesapeake River; and there lived, in the days of
‘good Queen Anne,’ a young woman named Grace Sherwood, who was somewhat
shy in her dealings with her neighbours, probably because they invested
her with uncanny powers, and even said that she had voyaged across the
Atlantic, as far as the Mediterranean, in an eggshell; that on her
arrival, at the end of her journey, she had been so pleased with the smell
of the rosemary she had found growing there, that she brought back some of
the plants with her, and set them about her cottage. These evil rumours
were brought to the ears of the authorities, and Grace Sherwood was haled
before the justices assembled at Princess Anne Court House; and the entry
of her examination, etc., in the court record is as follows:
‘Princess Annes.
‘At a Court held y{e} 10th July 1706.
{ Col{o} Moseley Capt. Moseley }
Present { Cap{t} Woodhouse Jno. Cormick } Justices.
{ Capt. Chapman Capt. W{m} Smyth }
Richason--come late.
[Sidenote: Grace Sherwood to be Ducked.]
‘Whereas Grace Sherwood being Suspected of Witchcraft--have a long
time waited for a fit opportunity for a further Examination--and by
her Consent, & Approbation of y{e} Court, it is ordered y{t} y{e}
Sherr take all such Convenient assistance of boats and men, as shall
be by him thought fit to meet & at John Harper’s plantation, in order
to take y{e} said Grace Sherwood forthwith, & put her into water above
man’s Debth & try her how she swims. Therein always having Care of her
life to preserve her from Drowning & as soon as she comes Out y{t} he
request as many Ancient and Knowing women as possible to come to Serch
her Carefully for teat spotts and marks about her body not usual on
Others & y{t} as they find y{e} same to make report on Oath To y{e}
truth ther of to the Court; and, further, it is ordered y{t} Four
women be requested to Shift and Serch her before she goo into y{e}
water y{t} she carry nothing about her to cause any further Suspicion.
[Sidenote: Order XX.]
[Sidenote: Grace Sherwood Ducked, etc.]
‘Whereas on Complaint of Luke Hill in behalf of her Majesty y{t} now
is ag{t} Grace Sherwood for a person Suspected of Witch craft & having
had Sundry Evidences sworn ag{t} her, proving many Circumstances to
which She could not make any Excuse, Little or Nothing to say in her
own behalf, only Seamed to Rely on w{t} y{e} Court should doo, and
there upon Consented to be tryed in y{e} Water, & Like-wise to be
Serched again Bodily. Experiment being tried, She swiming w{en}
therein, and bound Contrary to Custom & y{e} judg{t} of all y{e}
Spectators, & afterward, being Serched, & five Ancient weomen who have
all Declared on Oath y{t} she is not like y{em} nor noo Other women
y{t} they know of ... all w{ch} Circumstances y{e} Court weighing in
their Consideration, Doo there fore ord{r} y{t} y{e} Sherr take y{e}
s{d} Grace Into his custody, and to comm{t} her body to ye Common Gaol
of this County, there to secure her by irons or other Wise, there to
Remain till Such time as shall be otherwise Directed in order for her
comming to y{e} Common Gaol of y{e} County, to be brought to a future
tryall there.
‘Edw{d} Moseley &
‘Jno Richason.’
As nothing more can be found respecting her, she was probably let go.
As a justice of the peace, William Penn had to sit in judgment upon two
Swedish women who were indicted as witches, and true bills were found
against them; but they got off, owing to some flaw in the indictment. And
this, as far as I know, is the sole instance of a trial for witchcraft in
Pennsylvania.
Drake, in ‘Annals of Witchcraft,’ p. 215, says: ‘About this period [1712],
in the Colony of South Carolina, some suspected of witchcraft were seized
upon by a sort of ruffianly Vigilance Committee, and condemned to be
burnt, and were actually roasted by fire, although we do not learn that
the injuries thus inflicted proved fatal. The parties so tortured, or
their friends, brought action in the regular courts, for the recovery of
damages; but the jury gave them nothing.’
In the early days of Connecticut there were twelve crimes punishable by
death, according to the ‘Capitall Lawes, established by the General Court
the First of December 1642,’ the second of which is: ‘Yf any man or woman
be a witch (that is) hath, or consulteth w{th} a familliar spirit, they
shall be put to death. Ex. xxii. 18. Lev. xx. 27. Deu. xxvij. 10,
11.’[122] And they had not to wait long for a victim, for the last entry
in John Winthrop’s Journal for 1646 is, ‘One ... of Windsor arraigned and
executed at Hartford for a witch,’ Nothing more is _certainly_ known of
this case, which is memorable as being the first execution for witchcraft
in New England.
The Connecticut Legislature also applied the same law, somewhat modified,
to the Pequot Indians, on May 31, 1675:[123] ‘(2) That whosoever shall
_powau_, or use witchcraft, or any worship to the divill, or any fals god,
shall be convented and punished.’
The following are the known cases of witchcraft in Connecticut; but, as
far as I can see, none present any particular features of interest for the
reader.[124]
1646. Winthrop’s ‘One ... of Windsor’ executed.
1648. Mary Jonson, of Hartford or Wethersfield do.
1651. Mr. and Mrs. Carrington, of Wethersfield do.
" Goody Bassett, of Stratford do.
1653. Goody Knapp, of Fairfield do.
1658. Goody Garlick, of Easthampton, L.I. acquitted.
1661. Mr. and Mrs. Jennings, of Laybrook freed by
disagreement
of jury.
1662. Mr. and Mrs. Greensmith, of Hartford executed.
1663. Mary Barnes, of Farmington do.
" Mrs. Elizabeth Seager, of Hartford (?) acquitted.
" Mrs. Elizabeth Seager, of Hartford (2nd trial) do.
1665. Mrs. Elizabeth Seager, of Hartford (3rd trial) convicted, but
freed by the
court.
1670. Katharine Harrison, of Wethersfield convicted; the
court refused to
sentence, and
dismissed the
accused.
1692. Mrs. Staples, of Fairfield acquitted.
" Goody Miller, of Fairfield do.
" Elizabeth Clawson, of Fairfield do.
" Mercy Disborough, of Fairfield convicted, but
probably pardoned
by the general
court.
1697. Mrs. Denham and daughter acquitted, perhaps
accused only
before the
grand jury.
But it was in Massachusetts that witchcraft was rampant. The Pilgrim
Fathers when they landed at Plymouth, on December 22, 1620, brought with
them from England the belief in witchcraft and the personality of the
Devil, which was then the creed of the majority of those living in the
mother country, and therefore they were no worse than their brethren or
parents. So that we must not blame them if we find among their early
records, dated New Plymouth, November 15, 1636, that they considered
witchcraft a capital crime, and enumerated as such directly after treason
and murder; and they defined the crime so punishable as ‘Solemne
compaction, or conversing with the divell, by way of witchcraft,
conjuration, or the like.’
The Devil, however, had got somehow into Massachusetts, for we read in
Governor Winthrop’s Journal that in 1639 ‘The Indians near Aquiday being
pawwawing in this tempest, the Devil came and fetched away five of them.
Query.’
The first instance of witchcraft in this Colony is recorded in Winthrop’s
Journal in 1648, but he gives no specific date of the court being held,
but most likely it was that of May 13, 1648, of which a record remains:
‘That This Court, being desirous that the same Course which hath been
taken in England for the discovery of witches, by watching, may also be
taken here, with the witch now in question, and therefore do order that a
strict watch be set about her, every night, and that her husband be
confined in a private room, and watched also.’
The entry in the Journal is as follows: ‘At this Court, one Margaret Jones
of Charlestown was indicted and found guilty of witchcraft, and hanged
for it. The evidence against her was: 1. that she was found to have such a
malignant touch, as many persons (men, women and children), whom she
stroaked or touched with any affection or displeasure, or etc., were taken
with deafness, or vomiting, or other violent pains or sickness. 2. The
practising physic, and her medicines being such things as (by her own
confession) were harmless, as aniseed, liquors, &c., yet had extraordinary
violent effects. 3. She would use to tell such as would not make use of
her physic, that they would never be healed, and, accordingly, their
diseases and hurts continued, with relapse against the ordinary course,
and beyond the apprehension of all physicians and surgeons. 4. Some things
which she foretold, came to pass accordingly; other things she could tell
of (as secret speeches, etc.) which she had no ordinary means to come to
the knowledge of. 5. She had, upon search, an apparent teat, as fresh as
if it had been newly sucked, and, after it had been scanned; upon a forced
search, that was withered, and another began on the opposite side. 6. In
the prison, in the clear daylight, there was seen, in her arms, she,
sitting on the floor, and her clothes up, etc., a little child, which ran
from her into another room, and the officer following it, it was vanished.
The like child was seen in two other places, to which she had relation;
and one maid that saw it, fell sick upon it, and was cured by the said
Margaret, who used means to be employed to that end. Her behaviour at her
trial was very intemperate, lying notoriously, and railing upon the jury
and witnesses, etc., and in the like distemper she died. The same day and
hour she was executed, there was a very great tempest in Connecticut,
which blew down many trees, etc.’
The next authentic instance is that of Mary Parsons, whose case seems to
have been somewhat urgent, as on May 8, 1651, there is a minute on the
court records:[125] ‘The Court, understanding that Mary Parsons, now in
prison, accused for a witch, is likely, through weakness to die before
trial, if it be deferred, do order, that on the morrow, by eight o’clock
in the morning, she be brought before and tried by the General Court, the
rather that Mr. Pynchon may be present to give his testimony in the Case.’
This ‘Mr. Pynchon’ came from England with Governor Winthrop in 1630, and
was named in the charter granted by Charles II. to Massachusetts, as one
of the Governor’s eighteen assistants. He returned to England in 1652,
settled at Wraysbury, Bucks, where he died October 29, 1662. Hutchinson
says of him: ‘Mr. Pynchon was a gentleman of learning, as well as
religion. He laid the foundation of Roxbury, but soon removed to
Connecticut River; was the father of the town of Springfield, where his
family hath flourished ever since.’
For some reason, she was not brought before the court till May 13, when
the following is recorded: ‘Mary Parsons, wife of Hugh Parsons of
Springfield, being committed to prison for suspicion of witchcraft, as
also for murdering her own child, was, this day, called forth, and
indicted for Witchcraft. “By the name of Mary Parsons, you are here,
before the General Court, charged, in the name of this Commonwealth, that,
not having the fear of God before your eyes, nor in your heart, being
seduced by the Devil, and yielding to his malicious motion, about the end
of February last at Springfield, to have familiarity, or consulted with, a
familiar spirit, making a covenant with him; and have used divers devilish
practices by witchcraft, to the hurt of the persons of Martha and Rebecca
Moxon, against the Word of God, and the laws of this jurisdiction, long
since made and published.” To which indictment she pleaded “Not guilty.”
All evidences brought in against her being heard and examined, the Court
found the evidences were not sufficient to prove her a witch, and
therefore she was cleared in that respect.’
But she was indicted for the murder of her child, found guilty, and
sentenced to be hanged; it is doubtful, however, whether the sentence was
ever carried out. Her husband, ‘One Hugh Parsons of Springfield, was tried
in 1652 for witchcraft, and found guilty by the jury. The Magistrate
refused to consent to the verdict, and the case, as the law provided, came
to the General Court, who determined that he was not legally guilty of
witchcraft.’[126]
‘The most remarkable occurrence in the Colony in the year 1655 was the
trial and condemnation of Mrs. Ann Hibbins for witchcraft. Her husband,
who died in the year 1654, was an agent for the Colony in England, several
years one of the assistants, and a merchant of note in the town of Boston;
but losses in the latter part of his life had reduced his estate and
increased the natural crabbedness of his wife’s temper, which made her
turbulent and quarrelsome, and brought her under church censures; and, at
length, rendered her so odious to her neighbours, as to cause some of them
to accuse her of witchcraft. The Jury brought her in guilty, but the
magistrates refused to accept the verdict, so the cause came to the
General Court, where the popular clamour prevailed against her, and the
miserable old woman was condemned and executed. Search was made upon her
body for tetts, and in her chests for puppets, images, etc., but there is
no record of anything of that sort being found. Mr. Beach, a minister in
Jamaica, in a letter to Doctor Increase Mather in the year 1684, says,
“You may remember what I have sometimes told you your famous Mr. Norton
once said at his own table, before Mr. Wilson the pastor, elder Penn and
myself and wife, etc., who had the honour to be his guests. That one of
your magistrate’s wives, as I remember, was hanged for a witch, only for
having more wit than her neighbours. It was his very expression, she
having, as he explained it, unhappily guessed that two of her persecutors,
whom she saw talking in the street, were talking of her; which, proving
true, cost her her life, notwithstanding all he could do to the contrary,
as he, himself, told us.”[127]
‘It fared with her as it did with Joan of Arc in France; some counted her
a saint, and some a witch, and some observed solemn marks of Providence
set upon those who were very forward to condemn her, and to brand others
upon the like ground, with the like reproach. This was the second instance
upon record of any persons being executed for witchcraft in New England.
She was not executed until June, 1656. She disposed of her estate by will
executed May 27, 1656, and a codicil June 16. She appointed several of the
principal gentlemen overseers, and hoped they would show her so much
respect, as to see her decently interred. There was no forfeiture of goods
for felony.’
There was a case of witchcraft in Hartford in 1662, when three women were
condemned, and one, at least, executed. In 1669 Susanna Martin, of
Salisbury, was tried on this charge, ‘but escaped at that time.’ Another
case at Groton in 1671, and yet another at Hampton in 1673. In 1658, in
Essex County, an attempt was made to convict one John Godfrey, of Andover,
as a witch, and at the County Court of Salem, June 29, 1659, he was bound
in one hundred pounds to appear when called upon. But he turned the tables
against his accusers, bringing actions against them for slander. In one
case he got twopence damages and twenty-nine shillings costs, in another
ten shillings damages and costs fifty shillings.
In November, 1669, Goody Burt, a widow, was prosecuted, but acquitted. In
1673 Eunice Cole, of Hampton, was tried, but her sentence was ‘to depart
from, and abide out of, this jurisdiction.’ On November 24, 1674, at
Salem, which even then was coming to the fore with its witches,
Christopher Browne was had up before the County Court, for ‘having
reported that he had been treating or discoursing with one whom he
apprehended to be the Devil, which came like a gentleman, in order to his
binding himself to be a servant to him. Upon his examination, his
discourse seeming inconsistent with truth, etc., the Court giving him good
counsel and caution, for the present dismiss him.’
On March 30, 1680, Caleb Powell was brought before the court at Ipswich,
under an indictment of witchcraft, in molesting one William Morse, of
Newbury, stones being thrown, furniture behaving abnormally, bedclothes
snatched off, and many other inconveniences; but it could not be proved,
and the wind-up of the affair was: ‘Though this court cannot find any
evident ground of proceeding against the said Caleb Powell, yet we
determine that he hath given such ground of suspicion of his so dealing,
that we cannot so acquit him, but that he justly deserves to bear his own
share, and the costs of the prosecution of the complaint.’ Elizabeth
Morse, wife of the above, was next, on May 20, 1680, tried and convicted
of witchcraft. On May 27 she was sentenced to death, was twice reprieved,
and ultimately allowed to return home.