university talks about in he looks he they -- this class is on hour. >> okay. the stories so far -- not the entire story but this is where we left off on monday. all right. monday we dealt with how the purr tans approached people that engaged in belaif -- belief. how they approached them, how they dealt with people who engaged in those behaviors and why, why it was so important if possible. if not possible then to thank you, would you please go away,

okay? so what we are going to deal with today are larger problems that are not necessarily individual belaif yohaviors but who were actually practicing and acting upon them and not just misbehaifr yors. that whole experiment, what happens when somebody starts so question that. what happens when they are entirely countered of that. we talked about how important it was to them to make sure they were doing it right according to their understanding of their christian faith. they had to do it this particular way. if they didn't do it this

particular -- it is one of the most terrible things i could imagine. so questioning that is questioning, you know, different religious ideas or the basis for that and you can't do that in their society. okay. we'll talk about that, and particularly we'll look at it from the standpoint of religious freedom, he like yus -- okay. so what we find is that the idea of freedom of expression, freedom of religion was a contested idea almost as soon as people started to get off of the boat. 1630 the colony was established.

within a few things people start saying things that threaten the society and threaten the experiment. so contested almost in the beginning. as people started to say something is wrong here, it did not take long for the leaders begin to deal with them. as one puritan minister said, go doth nowhere in his world tolerate christian states to gir toleration to adversaries of his

truth if they have the power in his hands to suppress them. that's not exactly what we would understand as religious liberty from our standpoint from our perspective in this particular year and 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. some very intriguing and sometimes painful ways. or in some cases, if you were particularly persistent in your refusal to go along, you might be punished by death. so let's talk about a couple of people.

i want to talk about three people. two in depth. and one we're going to kind of touch on briefly. in transition. but people who very early started questioning the entire experiment. and what happened to them. what were they saying, what were the criticisms. and how did the puritans hierarchy, society deal with them. because we have to understand what their doing with people who don't go along to understand how they deal with problems. because then that will help us understand what happens in 1692. with the witch trials. how does that make sense from their perspective. all right even if it seems insane from ours. all right. let's talk about a couple people. some you have heard about before. some you may not have. let's talk about a gentleman by the name of roger williams.

you should have heard about him at some point in your history class. high school or here. the university. he was a charismatic young professor. cambridge university educated. arrived in massachusetts bay colony in 1630s and became the minister out of a town northeast of boston called salem. salem town not village. remember we learn quickly they were two different places. very close by. he was really one of our first true champions in what became the united states of true religious freedom. what we would understand of separation of church and state. we'll look at his ideas about that. and how he articulated it. and why he articulated it. and how he got into trouble. because of it. very soon he arrives in salem, 1633.

by 1634 he's already annoying people. he did not take very long at all to do so. he had a number of ideas that annoyed the leadership. in the colony. let's talk about those. first of all, he was among people called puritans. and he didn't think they were pure enough. you claimed this name puritans that people used to call you as your own. i don't think you're pure enough. he reminded them, remember how we left england, because we thought there were problems in the church of england. it was not pure enough. there was corruption in it. it participated in our

persecution. well, if that thing that you used to say was so corrupt and foul enough that you left to get away from it, sort of, why are you still attached to it? why haven't you said we are no longer a part of church of england? why haven't you done that yet? if you really want to be pure, what you're going to need to do is repent of that connection. all right. remembering the words that he -- that john winter said beforehand. we want to avoid that ship wreck that we used to know. that ship wreck of the church and society is in england. if you really want to be pure, repent of the connection and sever it. well, that's not what leaders wanted to hear. being what they call a

separatist. was not a good thing. okay? it was not a good thing. the pilgrims were separatist. it's not a good thing to have. he didn't want that. problem number one, you need to repent of your connection to the church of england. next thing he thought. now what i find -- let me say something here. people today are fond of quoting founding fathers whoever they are exactly. i think one of the most quotable founding fathers that we have, whatever that is, is roger williams. i'll share those with you. they are fantastic. you do not have to guess where the man stands. all right, now remember i believe that we talked about and worship attendance being mandatory legally.

he had strong issues with that. he denounced mandatory worship attendance. saying forced worship stinks. in god's nostrils. come on roger tell us what you think. you're holding back, man. forced worship stinks in gods nostrils. 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. we'll see in a moment why he says such extreme things about this. why he is so passionate about it.

he said enforced uniformity confound and denies the principles of christianity and civility. no man shall be required to worship or maintain a worship against his will. okay maintain a worship that's a particular term. that means pay with your tax dollars. basically. for a church or religious organization to which you do not adhere. okay? coerced religion confounds civil and religious liberty and denies the principles of christianity and civility. he had as he began spouting his

beliefs, he had exchanges, as you might imagine, with leaders of the community. one of which was john cotton. who is one of the early ministers in massachusetts bay colony. name spelled just as it sounds. the good reverend cotton on the left. williams on the right. all right. i'll read it to you in the language it was written and i'll translate. roger williams, if thou huntest any for the cause of conscience how can thousand say followest the lamb of god who so abhorred the practice? if you are going after people who are holding to their own religious believes for conscience sake, how in the world can you say you are a follower of the lamb of god? who himself had problems with people going after authorities

going after people for different religious believes. beli beliefs. in his interpretation. to which the good reverend john cotton says well people are free, their consciences are free. as long as and i quote their minds are rightly informed. okay? as long as they have learned this appropriate set of beliefs or behaviors or religious understandings within that, they are perfectly free. it's like these rightly informed. this proper belief. this proper practices.

are like a fence. you are as free as a bird. within these. okay? just don't try to jump the fence. do what you wish, but just, you know, stay within this area. of right belief. right understanding. okay? that's a more positive statement of their understanding of religious liberty than you're free to belief what they believe or get out. over simplification. but it makes a point. okay, another thing.

religious government officials had no business getting involved in religious affairs. keep your hands off. that cannot be a true religion which needs carnal weapons to uphold it. anybody want to translate that one for me? that cannot be a true religion which needs carnal weapons to uphold it. okay. yeah, go ahead. >> is it like the you saying carnal weapons. so flesh weapons. the things that we as humans have made up. not spiritual. >> what sort of can you be more specific? >> carnal weapons. force, coercion. >> specifically wielded by whom? >> the government officials. >> there you go. if you need government help to prop your religion up, then it's really not a true religion. is what he's saying here.

a true religion doesn't need that. and that's what you're getting at why he's so passionate about this. he's not objecting to this enforced religious conformity. from 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 -- for it to be its best in a person's heart in life, it needs to be untouched by anything outside. any sort of governmental authority, any sort of law which is forcing you to behave

spiritually in one way or another. is just going to dirty your religious faith. okay. he holds it up so high, ta he thinks that that sort of interference with someone's spirit is harming them. okay? does that make sense? okay. very good. you said god require not a uniformity of religion to be enacted or enforced by any religious state. sooner or later is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing conscience. persecution of christ and servant ands the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. when government bodies get involved in religious faith from

his perspective, people only get hurt. from his perspective millions of peoples. throughout time. ravishing their conscience. making them do something they do not believe in. all right. this is an understanding of religious liberty that make sense to our minds. that we understand at this point in time. okay? that's not what the people in massachusetts bay colony thought. he was dangerous. quite dangerous. he had one more thing. if the religious ideas weren't bad enough, then he had one another idea that he put out there which just -- that was no. too much. all right? it was this. the massachusetts bay colony that we got from the king?

all right? and we brought over with us on the ships to massachusetts bay and we settled our town and built our homes and churches and businesses and farms. started 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 needed to get it from the people who did own it. which was not the king. it was a native people who lived here. so he thought it was null and void. which again goes to the heart of everything they were doing. but particularly legally and

financially it's okay you have now no title to your land because the charter under which the title to your farm was granted to you is not valid therefore your owner ship of the land is not valid. go home. where ever that is. so he was spiritually troubling. religiously troubling. legally troubling. they did not take kindly to his words. the general court of massachusetts decided in 1635 he had been in salem as minister for two years. lasted two years. that he would be placed either voluntarily or involuntarily on the next ship from boston back to england in 1636. as soon as it set out to go, it was safe to travel, he was going. what turns out he did have one

friend in a high place. because he didn't wait until that ship to take him back to england. in 1636. somebody said roger, here's what's up. they're going to put you on the ship and get you out of here. he said okay, bye. in 1635 he fled to the massachusetts bay colony and went south. purchased some property from the native peoples around what became providence, rhode island. 1644, he gets a charter a royal charter from the crown. for his new colony. and establishes what we know as rhode island. it was the first colony to grant true religious freedom as we would understand it. you can believe whatever your conscience leads you to believe.

and because of that it became a haven for dissenters, such as a woman by the name of ann hutchinson, mary dyer. we'll talk about ann and mary. here presently. by creating a haven for dissenters, by granting everybody true religious freedom doesn't necessarily mean he believed all of them were true. he thought you should be free to believe whatever you wish. but you recollected -- 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 was passionately devoted to his own beliefs and would try to convince you of their truth.

but not threaten to throw you in jail if you dissented from his religious belief. major threat, very very early. okay? to the entire puritan experiment. and he chose the option of leaving. before he was forced to leave. any questions? his story clear? all right. very briefly. let's talk about a woman by the ann -- name of ann hutchinson. ann came to the massachusetts bay colony in early 1630s. this is roger going south ward. joined later by followers. lots of them. mary is kind of the bridge between roger williams and mary. we need to talk about mary. another remarkable individual. she also began to state some

rather unorthodox religious beliefs. very soon after her arrival. after listening to the ministers there in massachusetts bay, she decided a couple different 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 describes such things as civil obedience. public loyalty oaths. you had to profess your loyalty to the crown, to the colony and

so on. instead of a gospel of grace, free grace. meaning that the love and forgiveness of salvation of of god is open to available to all. regardless. there's nothing you can do to earn it. it's a gift. from their perspective. she had this idea, and she didn't keep it to herself. dh which as we talked about on monday was a problem when women spoke things out loud that they should not be speaking out loud according to to the time. all right?

and one of the things she did is spoke it out loud in meetings at her house. people recognized that she had a certain spiritual authority. and women and children would gather to her house weekly. and hear her teach. that's okay. because remember in hierarchy, women you were fine teaching other women. and the children in the household servants. even if your ideas are a little wonky. don't get too wonky and keep it there. very soon she was accused of and put on trial for having, remember the word, a promiscuous gatherings in her house.

now, by your reaction, i believe that you probably have a different view of what promitha means. you probably have a different view of what they meant back then. all this meant was that in her house there were both men and women. while she's teaching. horrible, right? how could show 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 a religious authority that was not hers. which from what we said on monday, she would have been guilty of what? >> disorderly speech. >> that's correct. saying something that was not yours to say. or saying something foul about

judge so and so. it wasn't appropriate. so yes, disorderly speech is what she would have been doing. having promiscuous gathering at her house. she was tried for it civilly and religiously. a two prong thing we'll see in salem as well. in civil court she was tried for disturbing the peace, social disruption. in the church she was tried for blasphemy and convicted on both counts. and banished from the colony. 1638. she went south to rhode island. where she lived the rest of her life. until she was killed in an indian raid some years later, unfortunate end. one of the followers who went with her when she left the massachusetts bay colony in 1638 was a woman by the name of mary

dyer. now taking a step back. one more thing about ann. if you have the opportunity to read about her, do so. particularly if you read about her trial. and the way she stood up and defended herself. she was brilliant. she was confident. her words were powerful. she was an amazing person. so take the opportunity if you have it sometime it read about her and read her words. her defense of herself and her right to believe. as she saw fit is very powerful. remarkable person. so anyways back to the story. one of her followers that went south with her to rhode island was a woman by the name of mary direr.

we think we know approximately when mary was born. we know exactly when she died. down to a couple minutes. okay? and you'll find out why. all right. she was born as i said somewhere around 1611. and 1635 or so she married her husband. william. with him she immigrated to the massachusetts bay colony. she became a follower as i said of ann hutchenson. when she moved to rhode island, mary and her family followed her. out of the massachusetts bay colony. shortly before she left, she gave birth to a child who was stillborn. and had had not fully developed. and they buried her child there

in massachusetts bay colony. and remember that whole thing we talked about a couple weeks ago about looking for signs. interpreting things. everything that happened. they remembered this. and 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. fortunately. she lived in rhode island for 14 years. and in 1652 she and william took a trip to england. where they stayed for about five years. and while on her trip there she joined a new religious group. that had just started in the 1640s.

called the quakers. they were founded by a young man by the name of john fox. who in the midst of the horrors of the english civil war -- we'll go back. it was mr. fox on the right. came to the understanding or the religious belief that regular people, you and me, could have a direct experience of god without the help of any clergy. and the ordained professional clergy. which as you can understand might make the ordained professional clergy a little uneasy. they were not very popular from

the beginning. because mr. fox was not shy about his belief. he believed anybody could have a direct experience with god. that everybody had a define light within them. he rejected the idea, the theological idea of predestination. and the idea that god has selected the elect. those who will experience salvation. those who will go to heaven however you want to term it. that was a center piece of particularly puritan thought. reformed thought. they kind of important piece of their theology.

rejected the idea that christ physical body was in heaven. that that didn't happen. instead christ physical body existed as the church. as the people gathered. by the early 1650s he's already being dragged in front of magistrates and charged with blasphemy. in england. it's there in front of one of the magistrates that he and his followers earn the name quakers. it was a derisive term because he instructed his followers that they should be so in awe at the word of god that they should tremble. so the judge referred to them as quakers. so john fox said sure. that's exactly who we are. we're the quakers.

i know quite a number of folks who are quakers today. still around. they are fabulous people. they are peaceful. passivism is a key part of their religious belief system. they do a huge amount of out reach in the united states and outside the united states. just a fantastic, fabulous, peaceful people. great folks. they weren't exactly peaceful in these days. they had a reputation for being kind of, depending on who you asked, obnoxious or forthright, depending on your perspective of them. they were given to breaking up church meetings. all right. and explaining to those who are gathered here how everything that was going on was wrong. and sometimes as a story that i have heard -- i need to back up

and really get the truth. but this is an example. is that sometimes to make their point, as they burst into the church meeting and worship, that what the only thing they would bring with them was their voice and ideas because they left their clothing outside. okay? disruptive to make their point. they're disruptive in this time. by around 1700. they begin to move into a quieter phase. of their religious development. more peaceful so on and so forth. in 1600s they were loud and they had no problems of breaking up other meetings and explaining to everybody why things were wrong. so nobody really liked the quakers.

in the the doctrine of this sect of people tends to over throw the whole gospel. well, a loft which i have said, yeah. and the very vitals of christianity. they are threat to everything. the church, society. they are horrible. horrible, horrible people. this is a group to which mary dire converted. this is a group she joined in 1652 when she was in england with william. and they stayed there for five more years. until 1657. while she's gone, quaker missionaries begin to arrive in massachusetts bay and new england. and once the leadership of the colony recognizes oh dear we have quakers, they start passing laws. to deal with them. to try to discourage them from arriving in the first place.

and these laws have in them a variety of possibilities should a quaker decide to arrive in massachusetts bay colony. 1656. 1657 these were written. you had a variety of things and depending on severity on the number of times the quaker has done this, come into massachusetts bay colony. whipping. put your head in the stock. you know what we're talking about. the stocks, what are they? >> zombie thing. scare crow thing. and where is that thing? >> very good. yeah. all right.

other than cedar point. where are the stocks where would they be in the town. >> right in the middle of the town square. >> why? >> so everybody would know. >> so everyone can see you. first of all it would have hurt. you're sitting there all day. standing like this horrible on your back. the stories people could throw stuff at you. out in the sun or in the cold or whatever. for the period of time. it's embarrassing as well. it's just not a physical punishment. it's also emotional punishment as well. shame. embarrassment. you're nailed to a board. and cut off. if that didn't work, the next time the other one could be dealt with the in that way. your tongue seared or pierced.

branded with an h. you have read the scarlet a. this is h for heretic. imprisonment, banishment. and if nothing else worked, death. now the laws just did not extend to the quakers themselves, but also tried to deal with the people who got them there. okay. ship captains. if you pull into port in boston or in marble head or any other port and you have quakers on board, and you want to off load them into the massachusetts bay colony. you could be fined. to the tune of 100 pounds. that's in 1656. i did a little rough conversion. on a currency converter online.

i converted that hundred pounds in 1652 to u.s. dollars now. this is just to give you a sense. this is not actually what it would be. rough sense. that would be equal to $22,000. they were not playing softball. this was not pitch and catch. this was hardball. you show up here, you're a quaker, you're in trouble. you bring a quaker here, you're in trouble. to the point of maybe financial ruin. okay? they are serious about this. they are serious about the religious purity of their colony. we have 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're done.

all that stuff that win tlop -- winthrop talked about, that will be us. so, the year after those first batch of laws was passed, anti-quaker laws, mary and her husband william returned to rhode island. and she lives there in peace and quiet. because had religious toleration in the colony. until 1659. when two gentlemen stepped off the boat, in the port of boston. william robinson and marmaduke

stevenson. they are both quakers. they are arrested. mary hears about their incarceration from rhode island. she travels to boston to visit them. she is immediately arrested. herself and put in jail. they are put on trial, and they are quote permanently banished. apparently the judge's definition of permanent and mary's definition of permanent were not the same. mary's definition and william and marmaduke's definition. within a few weeks they are back in boston. where not surprisingly they are

arrested again and thrown in jail. and put on trial. they are arrested for this. two things. for their rebellion, sedition and presumptuous obtruding themselves upon us, for not having the good sense to stay away, or the decency or politeness to stay away. they were also put on trial for being underminers of the government. they swore to disloyalty oaths. that was kind of important. loyalty to the king, loyalty to the colony, loyalty to the church.

under mining the religious structure. so, october 19. 1659. we have general court massachusetts bay colony the robynson, stevenson and dire. all three acknowledged yes we are quakers. we are the ones you threw out last time. a few weeks ago. during their trial, mary stand up to defend herself. she says this, speaking about the laws that she came to boston to protest and be in support of william and marmaduke in their protest against these laws. she said "was there ever like

laws heard of among a people who profess christ come in the flesh? . of whom do you take counsel? search with the light of christ in you. and it will show you of whom. as it hath me and many more." ouch. search of whom do you take sounl counsel. what's she asking? of whom do you take counsel. >> is it who do you serve, kind of? like are you really take -- are you really looking at the government or god. which one is it? >> okay. whose advice are you taking? >> yeah.

>> basically, who are your counselors, who are your advisors? search with the light of christ in you. it will show you of whom. search your heart you will know. you will know as i have come to know. and the unspoken part of that is, it's not who you think it is. okay. wow. amazing person. well, of course this does not sway the court. right? because governor says this. we have made many laws and endeavored in several ways to keep you from among us. okay we don't know exactly other than the imprisonments of how mary and marmaduke and william

were treated. but you get a little hint here. in what the governor says. which of the options of punishment they made use of. we know imprisonment. we have made many laws and endeavored in several ways to keep you from us. neither whipping, nor imprisonment, nor cutting off ears, nor banishment upon pain of death will keep you from among us. we do not wish your death. it's like 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 whipped you, we have mutilated you. we have kicked you out. what's it going to take? you leave us no alternative according to to laws. you shall go from hence to the place from when you came. the jail. and from then to the place of execution.

and there hang until you be dead. so mary, william, marmaduke are led to the place of execution. william and marmaduke are indeed executed, october 1659. mary as the story goes and nobody having been there. she is already mounting the scaffold. and she's getting up there and she's ready. she's ready to give her life for this cause. and her husband says, no, please. and he intervenes with the governor. and against her will she is given a reprieve. as long as within the next eight

hours you get out of this colony and you stay gone. eight hours. if you're not gone in eight hours we'll carry out the sentence. she goes. permanently banished again. again we run into this confusion of the means of the world permanent. seven months later she's back. may of 1660. and she's arrested. and she's put on trial. on may 31, 1660, and would governor and mary would you please come forward. are you the same mary dire that

was here before? >> i am the same mary dire that was here the last general court. >> you will own yourself a quaker, will you not. >> i own myself reproachfully so-called. >> sentence was passed on you the last general court. now likewise, you must return to the prison and there remain until tomorrow at 9:00. then, thence you must go to the gallows and there be hanged until you are dead. >> this is more than what said before. >> 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 unrishs -- unrighteousness laws. that's the same as me work now. earnest request. i told you if you refuse to appeal them the lord would send others of his servants to witness against them. >> okay. she's taken back to jail.

and at 9:00 the next morning -- 9:00 the next morning. captain webb, please. >> mary dire you're here under sentence pronounced upon you. it is my duty to carry out your execution upon order of the court. justice is not without mercy. the court instructed me to inform you that even now you may give assurance of your repentance. upon such assurance you shall be permitted to descend and save your life. >> i came to keep blood guiltiness from you. desiring you to repeal the unrighteous and unjustice. nay, man. i am not now to repent. >> okay, thank you. a few minutes after 9:00 on june 1, 1660. mary was executed.

listen to what she said from the scaffold. she was given one last chance. right? repent, and you'll live. repent and go away more likely and you'll live. stay away. but what does she say? repeat it again. >> the whole thing. just that last part. i came to keep blood guiltiness from you. desiring you it repeal the unrighteous and unjust law made against the servants of the lord. i am not now to repent. >> i came here for a purpose. for your good. you know the court is said we have cone all these things for your good. she said no, i came here for your good. these are horrible laws.

i came here to try to convince you to repeal them because there will be and there already is blood on your hand because of them. i came to save you from blood guiltiness. that's what she's saying. and then the last line is i'm sorry just amazing. she's standing on the scaffold about to be executed. she could live. and she says nay man i will not now repent. they built a statue to her. years later. on boston common. it says you can't see it below. mary direr, quaker. witness for religious freedom. hanged on boston commons. 1660.

my life not availeth me in comparison to the liberty of the truth. the quaker records in providence, rhode island, note her passing in this way. mary direr the wife of william direr of newport in rhode island. she was put to death in the town of boston with the cruel hand as the martyr were. in queen's mary's time. i have two pictures. that later artists have painted of mary on her way to her execution. tell me which one is more accurate.

the one where she's like holding her head up high. >> okay. the one on the right. not this one. why not this one? >> she looks. she looks like she's going to the gallows. >> 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. and she's going to die for a cause she wouldn't look defeated she would hold her head up high like she's doing the right thing. >> i think this, i agree. this is a much more accurate depiction of what we understand of mary's character. from her behavior. from the things she said herself. okay. told you about roger williams. i have told you about ann hutchenson. about mary direr.

all three of whom ran a foul. of the way things were supposed to be in the massachusetts bay colony. they argued with the leadership of the colony over the issue of religious freedom. religious liberty. what am i free to believe, what am i free to espouse? the leadership clearly said this. and it's not because they're being arbitrary. it's not because they're 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 it within the context of why they understood they were here. what the stakes were. remember the stakes were huge. if they didn't deal with any sort of wrong doing it being my personal wrong doing, getting drunk and get in a fight on the street when i should be at home

teaching my children the catechism. the religious lesson for the week. whether it's that personal behavior or whether it's a larger issue of theological issue. in their midst. they had to deal with it. to maintain the purity of their society of their church, but also to help themselves understand and they hope god to understand that when things go awry we deal with it. we're going things the way we understand you want us to do them, god. so we have to deal with problems. in some cases very very harshly. okay? that's the peace we have to keep in mind now. as we jump forward 30 years. that's what we'll do on monday. we're finally going to get to salem. how many weeks into the semester.

and see what's going on. but you have to keep that understanding of how passionately they were devoted to their mission. and how in 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 had to deal with them swiftly. and some cases harshly. not because they were mean or cruel. because it was vital. to deal with it. so it doesn't spread. and cause bigger problems. okay? any questions? all right. very good. you all have a fantastic weekend and i will see you monday morning in salesalem, massachus.

thank you to mary and governor endicott and captain webb. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. coming up, we'll take you to the global taiwan understainsti. they'll take an in-depth look at party state relations in the role of the chinese communest party. also at noon, a discussion on iran's nuclear program and their expansion into iraq, syria and yemen.

sunday night on q & a we take a look at anthony clark's book "the last campaign." >> every single comment i've received has been one of either two topics, how angry people are to learn what's happening or how flabbergasted they are. >> why are they angry? >> i think they're angry about the fact that we have these presidential libraries that are created to house records. and especially for the most recent ones, the records won't be open for a hundred years. instead we're paying for celebration and legacy building. today on american history tv, we'll take you into college classrooms across the country with our original series, lectures in history. up next, it's a look at religion

and its influence on the american revolution. we'll start with jeffrey mod3;ájááz the james madison memorial fellowship foundation. good morning, everyone. aren't you a smart looking set this morning? the topic today is religion and the american revolution. and you recall from our last session together i laid out what i think are some head waters of early american constitutionalism. we looked at classical republicanism, primarily greco-roman. we looked at enlightenment imperialism. then i mentioned protestant christianity. and we deferred that to today.