Salem in 1692: The Accused Weren’t Chosen at Random

One of the most well-known aspects of the Salem Witch Trials is the seemingly random accusations of witchcraft and the supposed readiness of neighbours to turn against each other. However, these accusations were more than mere acts of finger-pointing. They arose from fears that one group in Salem Village had turned against the other. This article examines the patterns within these accusations and the divisions that caused them, using evidence from historians Boyer, Nissenbaum, and Ray.

The Salem Witch Trials lasted for a year and were marked by the imprisonment and execution of those found guilty of witchcraft—using powers allegedly granted by the devil to harm others. As a close-knit Puritan community, the possibility of witches stirred up suspicion and chaos. Many people, often accused by young girls in the village, were hanged as a result. These accusations are believed to have stemmed from various factors, leading to divisions within the community.

This article focuses on divisions within Salem Village, particularly between the East and West sides, both geographically and economically. The East favoured the commercial structure of nearby Salem Town, while the West was more agricultural and content with the status quo. A second division arose from support for or opposition to the appointed church minister, which Boyer and Nissenbaum argue is linked to geographical and economic factors.

Boyer and Nissenbaum suggest that the East and West were assigned roles in the trials. Using a map with a vertical dividing line, they show the East as the wealthier accused group who opposed the minister, while the West, being poorer and supportive of the minister, were the accusers. They argue that geography, economics, and religion were interconnected. However, this portrayal has faced criticism, particularly from Ray, who identifies flaws in their argument.

Ray points out inconsistencies in Boyer and Nissenbaum’s maps. They created a second map with a diagonal dividing line, which was unpublished. Ray argues that the diagonal line leaves more accusers in the East, challenging the validity of the vertical division. He claims that the vertical line was intended to emphasise a geographical split. Additionally, key accusers, such as the young girls, were omitted from the maps because Boyer and Nissenbaum believed they did not decisively shape the witchcraft outbreak. When these girls are included, the East-West pattern is disrupted. Ray also refutes the economic divide with a tax map showing a more homogeneous distribution of wealth across Salem, except for the lowest classes. Ray’s emphasis on religious divisions, rather than geographical ones, offers a more compelling explanation.

Ray argues that religious patterns were more significant than geographical or economic ones. While Boyer and Nissenbaum recognised the role of religion, Ray puts it at the forefront, viewing geography as a correlation rather than a cause. The appointment of Samuel Parris as minister deeply divided the community, with many refusing to join the church or pay taxes. Parris even remarked in a sermon that "the devil was bent on destroying the church." Ray highlights that a large majority of those accused did not belong to the covenant, suggesting that religious opposition was a key factor in the accusations. I agree with Ray’s assessment that religious opposition, fuelled by the hysteria from the afflicted girls and Parris' sermons, played a central role in the divisions.

While various factors contributed to the Salem Witch Trials, religious alliances and divisions were crucial. Ray’s argument refines our understanding of how Salem was divided, focusing on religious differences rather than geographical placement. Boyer and Nissenbaum’s maps fail to fully capture the complexity of these divisions, and the exclusion of key accusers weakens their case. A more nuanced understanding of the trials emerges by examining the religious landscape of Salem.

Bibliography

Boyer, P., & Nissenbaum, S. Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft. Harvard University Press, 1974.

Ray, Benjamin C. “Satan’s War against the Covenant in Salem Village, 1692.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 80, no. 1, 2007, pp. 69–95. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20474511. Accessed 30 Aug. 2024.

Ray, Benjamin C. “The Geography of Witchcraft Accusations in 1692 Salem Village.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 3, 2008, pp. 449–78. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25096807. Accessed 30 Aug. 2024.

The Sermon Notebook of Samuel Parris, 1689-1694, ed. James F. Cooper Jr. and Kenneth P. Minkema. Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1993. Cited in Ray, Benjamin C. "Satan’s War against the Covenant in Salem Village, 1692." The New England Quarterly, vol. 80, no. 1, 2007, pp. 69–95. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20474511. Accessed 30 Aug. 2024.