said to be part of the foundation of solomon's temple. since the middle ages, they have come from all over the world to the wailing place. they have stood before the stones to pray and lament the downfall of jerusalem. the capital of the israelite empire. >> up next, west virginia university professor kevin

gooding talks about puritans and early colonial america, and the idea of religious freedom. in particular, he looks at how. tins dissented from -- at how puritans dissented from other beliefs and codes. this focuses on the salem witch trials. , where wery so far left off on monday, we dealt how. tins approached people who pretense --- puritans approached people who engaged in peculiar behaviors, how they approached them, how they dealt with them, and why, why it was so important for them to bring those people back into the fold, if possible. if not possible, thank you, go

away. are going to deal with that are larger problems are not necessarily behaviors, but people espousing ideas that are not just misbehaviors, but really question and shake the foundation of peer at 10 -- society. what happens when people start to a spouse believes that beliefs thatpouse run entirely counter? we talked about, remember, how to them to make sure they were doing it right. according to their understanding of their christian faith. it happened in this particular way, if they did not do it this particular way then they ran a chance of being abandoned by god.

which was a horrible thing, one of the most horrible things they could imagine. so questioning that is questioning the entire basis of the whole thing and you cannot do that in their society. we will talk about that. and particularly we will look at it from the standpoint of religious freedom, religious liberty. did they have it, as we understood it? or was it something different? religion liberty with a great big asterisk. ok? so, what we find is that the idea of freedom of expression, conscience, freedom of religion was a contested idea as soon as people started to get off the boat in the 16 30's. the colony is established. within a few years people started saying odd things, things that friend society and

-- threatened society and the experiment. it was contested almost in the beginning. you have people engaging in dissent. saying something is wrong here. this approach we are taking to the christian faith and the way that we order society and the basis of this understanding, something is wrong. we will look at a couple of people. as people started to say something is wrong it did not take leaders long to deal with them. because as one puritan minister said, god does not tolerate christian states to give toleration to adversaries of his truth, if they have the power in their hands to suppress them.

this is not from our standpoint on religious liberty, our perspective, at that point in time. this was not freedom of conscience. they had a very different understanding of religious freedom. you were free to believe what they believed. or you were free to leave. or to be punished if you refused, or encouraged to leave in some very intriguing and painful ways. or in some cases, if you were particularly persistent in your refusal to go along you might be punished by death. let's talk about a couple of people.

three people two in-depth and , one we will touch on in transition. people who very early started questioning this experiment and what happened to them, what were they saying? what were the criticisms? how did the hierarchy deal with them? ok? we have to understand what they are doing with people who do not go along to understand how they deal with problems. because that will help us understand what happened in 1692 with the witch trials. how does that make sense from their perspective? even if it seems insane from ours. let's talk about a couple of people. some you have heard about, some you may not have. we will talk about roger williams, you should have heard about him at some point in history classes, high school or

here at the university. he was a charismatic young minister my cambridge university educated. he arrived in massachusetts in the early 16 30's and became a minister in salem. salem town, not village. we are learning quickly that these are two different places very close by. he was really one of our first champions in what became the united states of true religious freedom and what we would understand as separation of church and state. and we will look at ideas about that and how he articulated it. and why. and how he got into trouble because of it. very soon he arrives in salem, 1633. by 1634 he is already annoying people.

he did not take long to do so. he had a number of ideas that annoyed leadership in the colony. we will talk about those. first of all, he was settled among a people called puritans. and he did not think that they pure enough. people used to call you -- you have claimed this name, puritans, that people used to call you derisively, as your own, but i do not think that you are pure enough. he reminded them, remember how we left england because we thought there were problems in the church of england, that it was not pure enough. that there was corruption in it, that it participated in our persecution.

if that thing you use to say was so corrupt and foul enough that you left to get away from it, why are you still attached to it? why haven't you said we are no longer a part of the church of england? why haven't you done that? if you really want to be pure what you will need to do is repent of that connection. ok? remember in the words that john winthrop said, we want to avoid the shipwreck we used to know, that shipwreck of the church in england. if you really want to be pure, repent of that connection and sever it. well, that is not what the leaders wanted to hear.

being what they called a was not a good thing. ok? separatist was not a good thing. pilgrims were separatists. not something you wanted to be. not a good name to have. problem number one, you need to repent of your connection to the church of england. next thing he thought -- let me say something, people are fond of quoting founding fathers, whoever they are. one of the most quotable founding fathers we have is roger williams. i will share some of those. fantastic. you do not have to guess where the man stands. remember, i believe we talked about worship being mandatory, legally. he had strong issues with that.

he denounced mandatory worship attendance, saying, "forced worship stinks in gods tell us what you think. you are holding back. he denounced enforced religious conformity, believe what we believe or go away. coerced religion, he said, on good days produces hypocrites. on bad days, rivers of blood. ok? we are going to see in a moment why he says such extreme things, why he is so passionate about it.

he said, "enforced conformity -- no man shall be required to worship or maintain worship against their will." maintain a worship, that means pay with tax dollars, basically. for a church or religious organization to which you do not adhere, ok? coerced religion confounds civil and religious liberties and denies principles of christianity and stability. -- civility. he had, as he began spouting beliefs, he had exchanges with the leaders of the community. one of which was an early

minister in massachusetts bay colony. john cotton. it is spelled as it sounds. the good reverend was on the left and mr. williams on the right. i will read this to you and then translate. even though it is in english. hunt anyliams, if thou for the cause of conscience, how can now say they'll are in the land of god for such a deplorable practice? peopleare going after who are holding to their own religious beliefs for their own conscience's sake, how can you say that you are a follower of the lamb of god?" who himself had problems with people going after authorities, authorities going after people

for different beliefs. in his interpretation. which the good reverend john cotton says, people are free, their consciences are free as long as, and i quote, "their minds are rightly informed." ok? as long as they have learned this appropriate set of beliefs or behaviors or religious understandings, within that, they are perfectly free. it is like rightly informed, these proper practices, beliefs, are like a fence. you are as free as a bird within

these, ok? just don't try to jump the fence. do what you wish, but just stay within this area. right understanding, right beliefs, ok? that is a more positive statement of their understanding of religious liberty than you are free to believe or get out, which is an oversimplification, but it does make a point. ok, another thing. government officials had no

business getting involved in religious affairs, keep your hands off. that cannot be a true religion which means carnal weapons to -- needs carnal weapons to uphold it. anybody want to translate that? that cannot be a true religion which needs carnal weapons to uphold it. >> is it like, carnal weapons, flesh weapons -- to think that we humans are not spiritual. professor gooding: can you be more specific? >> carnal weapons forced course and that coercion. professor gooding: by whom? >> the government. professor gooding: if you need government help to prop up your religion, then it is not a true religion. each religion does not need that.

now we are getting out why he is so passionate about this. he is not objecting to this in enforced religious conformity on civil and religious leadership, on some sort of philosophical principle or constitutional grounds that we would operate out of. he has such a high view of the spiritual life that if -- that if, for it to be its best in a person's heart and life, it needs to be untouched by anything outside of it. any sort of governmental authority, any sort of law forcing you to behave spiritually in one way or

another, is just going to dirty your religious faith. ok? he holds it so high that he thinks that that sort of interference in someone's spirit is harming. does that make sense? ok, very good. he said, god requires not a uniformity of religion to be enforced by any state. such enforced uniformity is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing conscience, persecution of christ and his conscience, and hypocrisy of millions of souls. when government bodies get involved in religious faith, from his perspective, people only get hurt.

from his perspective, millions of people throughout time. ravishing their conscience, making them do something they do not believe in. this is an understanding of religious liberty that makes sense to our minds. that we understand at this point in time. that is not with the people in massachusetts bay colony thought. he was dangerous. quite dangerous. he had one more thing. if religious ideas were not bad enough, he had one other idea he put out there which suggests that was too much. and it was this -- the

massachusetts bay colony that we got from the king, and we brought with us on the ships and we built homes and churches and farms, making little puritans over here, right? that charter is not valid. because the king did not own this land. if we really wanted to own this land, we need to get it from the people who owned it, not the king, the native people who lived here. he thought it was null and void. again, that goes to the heart of everything we are doing. legally and financially, ok, you have no title on your land, because that title was granted

-- it is not valid, the ownership of this land is not valid. go home. wherever that is. so he was spiritually troubling, religiously troubling, legally troubling. they do not take kindly to his words. [laughter] professor gooding: the general court of massachusetts decided in 1635, he had been in salem for two years, ok? that he would be placed either voluntarily or involuntarily on the next ship from boston back to england in 1636. as soon as it was safe to travel, he was gone. but it turns out he had one friend in a high place, because he did not wait until that ship was taken back to england in

1636. somebody said, roger, here is what is up. they will put you on a ship and get you out of here. he said ok, fine. in 1635, he fled to massachusetts bay colony and went south, purchase property from the native peoples around what became providence, rhode island. 1644, he gets a charter from the crown for his new colony. he establishes what we know as rhode island. it was the first colony to grant true religious freedom as we would understand it, freedom of conscience, you can believe whatever your conscience leads you to believe.

because of that it became a haven for dissenters, such as a woman by the name of anne hutchinson. we will talk more about anne hutchinson and mary. by creating a haven for dissenters, by granting everybody true religious freedom, that does not believe necessarily mean that roger williams believed all of that was true. he thought you should be free to believe as you wish, but you should try to convince someone else of the truth of your religion, rather than forcing them into the practice of your particular religion. he is passionately behind his own beliefs, and would try to convince you, but would not try to throw you in jail if you did not believe them. major threat, very early. could the entire.

in experiment here -- and higher entire puritans experiment here. he chose the option of leaving before he was forced to leave. any questions? is the story clear? very briefly, we will talk about a woman by the name of anne hutchinson. ok? anne came to massachusetts bay colony in the early 16 30's, joined later by followers. ok, mary is the bridge between rogers and hutchinson. we need to talk about mary a little bit. she was another remarkable individual. she also began to state some

rather unorthodox religious beliefs very soon after her arrival. after listening to the ministers in massachusetts bay, she decided a couple of things. one, that they were preaching a gospel of works. meaning you are going to earn god's favor by what you do. by engaging in a certain set of behaviors. in her case, she described things such as civil obedience, public loyalty, you had to profess loyalty to the crown, to the colony and so on. instead of a gospel of grace,

free grace, meaning that love and forgiveness and salvation of god is available to all, regardless. there is nothing you can do to earn it, it is a gift. she had this idea and she did not keep it to herself. we talked about on monday, that was the problem with women spoke out loud things they should not be speaking out loud, according to the time. one of the things she did is she spoke it out loud in meetings at

her house. people recognize she had a spiritual authority and women and children would gather weekly and hear her teach. that is ok, because remember in the hierarchy, women were fine teaching other women and children and household servants. even if your ideas are a little wonky. just do not get too wonky. keep it there. very soon she was accused of and put on trial for having, remember the word, promiscuous gatherings in her house. now, by your reaction i believe you probably have a different view of what promiscuous means they and what they did back

then. all this meant was that in her house there were both men and women while she was teaching. horrible, right? how could she do that? she was fine at one point teaching religiously until that first man stepped across the threshold of her house, at which point she was claiming religious authority that was not hers. which from what we learned on monday, she would have been guilty of what? what? when was -- one more time. >> disorderly speech. professor gooding: correct, saying something foul that was -- that was not yours to say. it was not appropriate.

disorderly speech is what she would have been doing. she was having promiscuous gatherings at her house. claiming a religious authority that was not hers. she was tried both civilly and religiously. this is a two-pronged thing that we would see in salem as well. in civil courts, he was tried -- she was tried for disturbing the peace, social disruption. in the church, for blasphemy. he was convicted on both counts. and, banished from the colony in 1638, going south to the rhode island. where she lived the rest of her life. until she was killed in an indian raid some years later, unfortunately. ok? one of the followers was a woman by the name of mary dyer.

taking a step back, one more thing about and -- anne. if you have the opportunity to do any reading about her, do so. particularly if you read about her trial, and the way she stood up and defended herself. she was brilliant. he was confident, her words were powerful. she was an amazing person. take the opportunity, if you can, to read about her and her words, the defense of herself, her right to believe as she saw fit is very powerful. a remarkable person. anyway, back to the story. that went followers south with her to rhode island was a woman by the name of mary dyerer. we think we know approximately when she was born, we know exactly when she wa died.

back to -- down to a couple of minutes. you will find out why. she was born around 1511. -- 1611. 1635 or so, she married her husband, william. with him, she emigrated to massachusetts bay colony. she became a follower of aanne hutchinson. when she moved out, mary and her husband went with her. she gave birth to a child who was stillborn and had not fully developed. they buried the child in massachusetts bay colony.

remember that whole thing we talked about, interpreting signs? they talked about that. they remembered this. after her religious views went south as far as they were concerned. , they said, see? god was already unhappy with her in 1637. not a pretty picture. she lived in rhode island for 14 years. in 1652, she and william took a trip to england, where they stayed for five years. on the trip there, she joined a new religious group that had just started in the 1640's, called the quakers.

they were founded by george fox, -- john fox who in the midst of , the horrors of the english civil war -- we will go back, thats mr. fox on the right. mr. fox came to the understanding that religious religious belief, that regular people, you and me, could have a direct experience of god without the help of any clergy, any ordained, professional clergy. which, as you can understand, might make the ordained professional clergy a little uneasy. they were not popular, from the beginning. mr. fox was not shy about his beliefs.

not only did he believe that everybody could have a direct experience of god, but that everybody had the divine light within them. he rejected the theological idea of predestination, the idea that god selected the elect, those who will experience salvation, those who will go to heaven. that was the centerpiece of reformed thought. that was important piece of

their theology. they rejected the idea that christ's physical body was in heaven. that did not happen. instead, the physical body was the church, as the people gather. by the early 1650's, he was only dragged in front of magistrates and charged with blasphemy in england. it is in front of the magistrates that they got the name, quakers. it was a derisive term. instructed his followers to be so in awe of the word of god that they should tremble. "quakers." i know a number of folks who are quakers.

they are fabulous people, peaceful, pacifism is a key part of the religious belief system. they do a huge amount of outreach both inside and outside the united states, they are just fantastic and fabulous, peaceful people. great folks. they were not exactly peaceful in these days. they had a reputation, depending on who you ask, for being of obnoxious or forthright, depending on your perspective. they were given to breaking up church meetings, and explaining to those gathered how everything was wrong. a story i have heard sometimes, and i need to back up and get the truth, is that sometimes, to

make their point, as they burst into the church meeting, the only thing that would bring with them was their voice and their ideas, because they left their clothing outside. ok? [laughter] disruptive. they were still very disruptive in the time. by 1700, the witch trials take place. they move on to more peaceful development. more peaceful. but in the 1600s, they were boisterous and louder. they had no problems with raking up other meetings, and explaining to everybody why things were wrong. nobody liked the quakers. "the doctrine of this sect of people intends to overthrow the

whole gospel and the vitals of christianity." they are a threat to everybody, the church, society, they are horrible. this is the group to which mary converted in england, with william. they stayed until 1657. while she is gone, quaker missionaries arrive in massachusetts bay in new england. once the leadership of the colony recognizes that they have quakers, they start passing laws. to deal with them, to try to discourage them from arriving in the first place.

these laws have in them a variety of possibilities, should a quaker decide to arrive in the massachusetts bay colony. 1656, and 57, these were written. you had a variety of things. depending on the severity, the number of times the quaker has done this, coming to massachusetts bay, whipping, putting your head in a stock. what are stocks? [laughter] the scarecrow thing. and where is that thing? [laughter] kevin: very good. [laughter] kevin: all right.

where would stocks be in the town? >> town square. kevin: why? >> so everyone would know. kevin: right. they would see you. first of all it would have hurt. ,either you're standing like this, horrible on your back. people could throw stuff value. you would be exposed in the sun for a period of time. it was embarrassing as well. it is not just physical, it is emotional punishment, shame, embarrassment. you are nailed to a board. the otherd not work, one could be dealt with in that way. your tongue could be seared or pierced. h.nded with an for heretic.

imprisonment, banishment. if nothing else worked, death. these laws did not extend to the quakers themselves, but also the people who got them there. ship captains. if you pull into marblehead or boston any other port and you , have quakers on board, and you want to offload them into the massachusetts bay colony, you can be fined to the tune of 100 pounds. right? that is in 1656. i did a little rough conversion on a currency converter online and converted that hundred in into u.s. dollars

1652 now. this is just to give you a sense. in a rough sense, that would be equal to about $22,000. they were not playing softball. ok? this is not pitch and catch, this is hardball. you show up to her, you are a quaker, you are in trouble. if you bring a quaker, you are in trouble to the point of maybe financial ruin. ok? there are serious about this, serious about the religious purity of their colony. we have got to do it the way we understand it needs to be done, "the way god sent us here to do it. if we don't, then we are done."

all that stuff that winthrop talked about. so, the year after that first law was passed, the anti-quaker laws, mary and william returned to rhode island. she lives there in peace and quiet, because of religious toleration within the colony. then, 1659, two gentlemen step off the boat in the port of boston. william robinson and marmaduke stephenson are both quakers. they are arrested. mary hears of their incarceration from her home in

rhode island and travels to boston to visit them. she is immediately arrested herself. they are put on trial, and they are, "permanently banished." apparently, the judge's definition of "permanent" and mary's definition were not the same. within a few weeks, they are back in boston. not surprisingly, they are arrested again and thrown into jail. they are put on trial.

they are arrested for this, two things: for their "rebellion, sedition, and presumptious obtruding themselves upon us." that is a great phrase. rebellion, sedition, and presumptuous intruding themselves upon us. for not having the good sense to stay away. or the decency or politeness to stay away. they are "presumptuous." and we so graciously asked them to leave and go away. they are also put on trial for being underminers of the government. one of things the quakers would do was refuse to swear under an oath. they would undermine the government structure.

they acknowledged, "yes, we are quakers." mary defends herself. she says this. speaking about the laws, she came to boston to protest and be in support of william and marmaduke in their protest. she said, "was ever the like laws heard of among a people that profess christ come in the flesh?"

"search with the light of christ in you, and it will show you of whom, as it hath done me and many more." ouch. [laughter] kevin: search of whom do you take counsel. what is she asking? >> who do you serve? are you really looking at the government, or god? which one is this? kevin: whose advice are you taking, basically. "earch your heart, you will know

that's search with the light of christ in you, and it will show you of whom. search your heart, you will know as i have come to know. what that means is, "you don't know." what a person! of course this does not sway the , court. governor endicott says, "we have made many laws and endeavored in several ways to keep you from among us." we don't know exactly, other than the imprisonment, of how mary and marmaduke and william were treated. you get a little hint here in what the governor says.

which of the options of punishment they make use of. we know imprisonment. "we have made many laws and endeavored in several ways to keep you from us, but neither whipping nor imprisonment nor cutting off years nor banishment -- cutting off ears nor banishment upon pain of death will keep you from us. we do not wish your death, but what more can we do to get our point across to you that you are not to be here? we have thrown you in jail, we have with you, we have mutilated you, we have mutilated you. what is it going to take? you leave us no alternative, according to our laws. you shall go to the place from whence you came, jail, and then be hanged until you be dead."

so mary, william, and marmaduke are led to a place of execution. william and marmaduke are executed in october 1659. mary is on the scaffold, she is ready. she is ready to give her life. her husband says, "no, please?" he intervenes with the governor. against her will, she is given a reprieve. as long as within the next eight hours, you get out of the colony, and you stay gone.

if you are not on in eight hours, we carry out the sentence. she goes, permanently banished again. again, we run into a confusion of the meaning of the word, "permanent." seven months later, she is back, may of 1660. she is arrested. she is put on trial on may 31, 1660. would you please come forward? >> "are you the same mary dyer that was here before?" >> "i am the same mary dyer that was here the last general court."

>> "you own yourself a quaker, will you not?" >> "i own myself to be reproachfully so-called." >> "sentence was passed upon you the last general court, and now, likewise. you must return to prison, and there remain till tomorrow at 9:00. then thence you must go to the gallows and there be hanged till you are dead." >> "this is no more than thou saidst before." >> "but now it is to be executed. therefore prepare yourself tomorrow at 9:00." >> "i came in obedience to the will of god the last general court, desiring you to repeal your unrighteous laws of banishment on pain of death; and that same is my work now, and earnest request, although i told you that if you refused to repeal them, the lord would send others of his servants to witness against them." kevin: the next morning.

9:00 the next morning. captain webb, please. >> "it is my duty to carry out your execution on order of the court. justice however, is not without mercy. in their wisdom, the court has instructed me to inform you that even now, we may give you assurance of your repentance. and intention to leave and remain outside this jurisdiction. upon such assurance, you will be permitted to dispense from where you are now and save your life." >> "i am not now repentant." kevin: a few minutes after 9:00 on june 1, 1660, mary dyer is executed. listen to what she said from the scaffold. she was given one last chance.

right? repent and you will live. repent and go away, and you will live. right? stay away. what does she say? do you want to read it, hannah? go for it. >> the whole thing? "nay, i came to keep bloodguiltiness from you, desiring you to repeal the unrighteous and unjust law of banishment upon pain of death, made against the innocent servants of the lord." kevin: the court is saying i have done all these things for your good. she says no, i'm here for your good. these are horrible loss, i came to convince you to repeal them, because there will be blood on your hands because of them.

i came to save you from blood guiltiness, that is what she is saying. and that last line, i'm sorry, it is amazing. she stands on the scaffold, about to be executed. she could live and she says, "nay, i will not now repent." they built a statue to her years later. on boston commons, it says, "mary dyer, quaker, witness for religious freedom, hanged on boston commons 1660."

i can read a little bit more. "my life not availith may in in comparison to the liberty of the truth." they note her passing in rhode island this way. mary dyer, wife of william dyer, was put to death in the town of boston with the cruel hand as the martyrs were in queen mary's time. i have two pictures. later artists have painted these of mary on her way to execution. tell me which one is more accurate. >> the one where [indiscernible]

kevin: the one on the right? why not this one? [laughter] kevin: why is that not in keeping with what you just read or heard? why is this one more accurate? >> the one on the left looks defeated. she is dying for a cause. she would not look defeated doing the right thing. kevin: i agree. i think this is a much more accurate description of what we understand of her character, from her behavior, from the things she said herself. ok. i told you about roger williams. i told you about anne hutchinson. i told you about mary dyer. all 3 ran afoul of how things were supposed to be in massachusetts bay.

they disagreed over the issue of religious freedom, religious liberty. what am i free to believe, to espouse? it is not because they are being arbitrary. is not because they are being cruel for cruelty's sake. because we don't like quakers. we don't like people who disagree. remember, we have to take this piece and put this within the context of why they understood they were here. what the stakes were. the stakes were huge. if they did not deal with any sort of wrongdoing, like my personal wrongdoing, getting out and fighting in the street when i should be at home teaching my

children the catechism, whether it is that sort of behavior or a larger issue, a theological issue, a heresy issue, they had to deal with it. to maintain the purity of their society, their church. also, to help themselves understand and help to guide -- god to understand that when things go awry, we deal with it. we do things the way we understand you want to do with god. problems, deal with and in some cases, very harshly. ok? that is a piece we have to keep in mind as we jump forward 30 years. that is what we will do on monday. we will finally get to salem, massachusetts. yay! and we will see what is going

on. but you have to keep that understanding of how passionately they were devoted and how inssion, later years, by the time the trials rolled around, how many of the leaders felt that was slipping away. that they had to deal with problems in their midst, and deal with its weekly, and in some cases harshly. because -- not because they were mean or cruel. because it was vital to deal with it, so it does not spread and cause bigger problems. ok? any questions? all right. very good. you will have a fantastic weekend, and i will see you monday morning and 11, massachusetts. -- in salem, massachusetts. thank you to mary and governor

endicott, and captain webb. >> you're watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. to join the conversation like us , on facebook at c-span history. members of the congress, i , thethe great pleasure high privilege and a great honor, of presenting to you the president of the united states. [applause] >> i'm don ritchie. i am the senate historian. state of the union message is mandated by the constitution, in the words that from time to time, the president of the united states should give a message to congress on the state of the union and recommendations of programs that should be followed.