eXPLAIN HOW THE WITCH-HUNT YEARS WRE A TIME OF "general revenge"?

Answer 1

There's a minor problem with this question -- the assertion itself is debatable.

In fact, "history" is not quite the correct category for this question, because the assertion is NOT even that of an historian or history text book. It comes from the closing paragraphs of Arthur Miller's introduction to his play "The Crucible".

Please note again the this play is NOT a careful explication of what happened in Salem in 1692 (though it uses those events, as Miller interprets them). It is much more Miller's way of expressing his OWN view of what he saw in the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s.

Clearly, the point of the question you were given is NOT to explain history, but to explain MILLER'S viewpoint in his play

So I have TWO answers for you:

1) For CLASS (English class rather than history I hope!) simply read the part of Miller's introduction in which he explains what he means and gives examples.

Here, in fact, is a page that begins with that very section:
http://www.bookhooks.com/resources/avocabo_crucible.pdf


Then
2) If you would like to try to figure out what REALLY happened in Salem (or at least what the best scholarship thinks about it), check some good books and articles by experts who have studied it and are attempting to understand it.

Here are a few places you might go for that:

An excellent one-page overview of events and the main suggestions to explain them:
"The Witchcraft Trials in Salem: A Commentary" by Douglas Linders
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM

A very readable book that tries to take a sympathetic look at the various people involved --that is, to UNDERSTAND them (not simply attack them, as Miller does), and unlike many studies, looks at what people did to correct, forgive and heal afterwards. Yes, it's dated (more recent research can counterbalance that), but it tells the basic story well and gives you a sense of the people.
-- The Devil in Massachusetts by Marion L. Starkey, 1949.

There are also collections of materials, including court documents.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/salem.htm **
http://www.salemwitchtrials.org/home.html

see also "Teaching the Salem Witch Trials -
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/~bcr/maps_esri/Ray_ch02.pdf

And if you get REALLY serious, here is perhaps THE current scholarly 'classic' on the subject
*In the Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692* by Mary Beth Norton (2002)
_______________

By the way, several other answers are based on mistakes about how witchcraft trials worked in New England. USUALLY (Salem of 1692 was an aberration, not the norm, which is precisely why it is so confusing and interesting) the burden of proof was squarely on the ACCUSERS, and false accusations were harshly dealt with.

Another little mistake -- witch "floating" was NEVER practiced in New England and frowned on in England by that time. But for those who DID use it -- they did NOT let someone just drown (that is, knowingly let an innocent person die). As soon as it was clear they were in danger they would be fished out. (And, for that matter, the way they tied you up, it was VERY difficult to swim... so rather unlikely you would manage it and so be deemed a witch.)

Answer 2

I don't know about general revenge but it was included as a death penalty. In Salem if they were thought to be a witch then they were tied to a chair and thrown in the river if they sank then they were not a witch which they died from if they didn't sink then they were a witch and they were taken and burned at the stake. I had to do a paper on it for a criminal justice class fun fun fun. Google it you will be amazed at what you find out.
Salem witch trials

Answer 3

basically if you hated somebody or ahd a grudge and wanted revenge you just accused them or being a witch! ... it was the age of bitchy women getting eachother kolled. the people were so paranoid that anybody accused of witch carft was killed ... proving you were innocent was nearly absolutely impossible.... so that girl who wore the same dress as you, flirted with your husband or the guys wife who stole your land.... quick and no questions asked way 4 revenge.....WITCH! WITCH! WITCH!....

Answer 4

Because if anyone had a grudge against someone else, they could denounce that person as a witch.
Same with the 50s - same now - it's just the labels that have changed.

Answer 5

All you had to do was accuse someone of witchcraft. Proving you weren't was difficult at best.