he's basically the an tag onnist for the national park system. >> on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, american history tv features the story of expo '74, one of the first environmentally themed world's fares. >> spokane was at the time the smallest city in the world environmenter to host a world's fair. but it was the first environmental world fair, the first fair to use the environment as a theme. and it followed close on, i believe it's 1972 was earth day, the very first earth day. and there was a great consciousness around the world about environmentalism and it became the theme and arguably the obsession of expo 74. >> also visit the childhood home of spokane native bing crosby. c-span cities tour in spokane sh washington, saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern and sunday at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable

affiliates and visiting cities across the country. next we'll go to west virginia university where professor kevin gooding teaches a class on puritans and early colonial america. and what religious freedom meant to them. this class is about an hour. okay the story so far, not the entire story from the whole semester. where we left off on monday. monday we dealt with how the puritans approached people who engaged in misbehaviors and talked about those and how familiar they were. to anybody walking up and down high street on a friday or saturday night. okay. and how they approach them, how they dealt with people, who engaged in those behaviors, and why. why it was so important for them to bring those people back into forward if you will. if possible.

if not possible, then to thank you would you please go away. okay? so, what we're going deal with today are larger problems. that are not necessarily individual behaviors, but people who are spousing ideas, and belief systems. and practice them and acting upon them. that are not just misbehaviors. but really question and shake the foundation of puritan society. that whole experiment. what happens when somebody starts to question that. what happens when people start believes and express believes. that run entirely counter to that. because we talked about remember how important it was to them to make sure they were doing it right. okay, according to to their understanding of their christian faith. they had to do it this particular way. if they didn't do this

particular way, then they were going to run the chance of being abandoned by god, right? which was a horrible thing. one of the most terrifying things they could imagine. so questioning that, is questioning different religious ideas and questioning the entire basis for the thing. and you can't do that in their society. we'll talk about that. and particularly we're going to look at it from the standpoint of religious freedom. religious liberty. did they have it? as we understood it. or was it something different. religious liberty with a great big ast risk. except for xyz. what we find is that the idea of freedom of expression, freedom of conscious freedom of religion was a contested idea as soon as

people started getting off the boat. 1630s. within a few years people start saying odd things. different things. things that threaten the society. threaten the experiment. contested almost in the beginning. you have people engaging in decent. saying something is wrong here. this approach that we're taking to the christian faith and the way we order our society and the basis of understanding something is wrong. we'll look at a couple people. as people started to say something is wrong here, it didn't take the leaders long to begin to deal with them. because as one puritan minister said, god nowhere in his world tolerate christian states to give toleration to adversaries of his truth.

if they had the power in their 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 different unts r understanding. 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. cam bridge 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 separatetist. 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 rely jos con found civil and religious liberty and denies the principles of christianity and civility. he had as he began spouting his believes he had exchanges as you

might imagine, with the leaders of 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 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. 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 believes, or behaviors, or under religious understanding 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? 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, that he thinks that that sort of interference with someone's spirit is harming, okay? does that make sense? okay, very good. he said, god require not a uniformity of religion to be enacted or enforced by any religion of state. such enforced unity is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing conscience, persecution of christ and his

servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. when government bodies get involved in religious faith, from his sprefperspective, peop only get hurt. from his perspective, millions of people throughout time. ravishing their conscience, making them do something they do not believe in. all right. this is an understanding of religious liberty that makes 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. but he had one other thing. if the religious ideas weren't bad enough then he had one other idea that he put out there which just -- that was -- no, that's just too much. all right?

and it was this. yeah. 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 towns and built our homes and our churches and our businesses and our farms, started, you know, 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 actually did own it, which was not the king, it was the 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 ownership of this land is not valid. go home. wherever that is. okay? so she was spiritually troubling, he was religiously troubling, he was 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, he lasted two years, all right -- that he would be placed either voluntarily or involuntarily on the next ship from boston back to england in 1636. as soon as he was set out to go, it was safe to travel, he was

gone. well, it turns out he did have at least 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 is what's up. they're going to put you on a ship and get you out of here. so he said, okay, bye. so in 1635 he fled the massachusetts bay colony and went south, purchased some -- purchased some property from the native people's around what became providence, rhode island. 1644 he gets a charter, 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, freedom of conscience, 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 and mary diver. we will talk briefly about ann and more so about mary here presently. okay? now, by creating a haven for dissenters, by granting everybody true religious freedom does not necessarily mean that roger williams believed all of them were 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 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 beliefs. all right. so major threat, very, very early. okay? to the entire puritan experiment. he chose the option of leaving before he was forced to leave. okay. any questions? history clear? all right. very briefly, let's talk about a woman by the name of ann hutchinson. okay. ann came to the massachusetts bay colony in the early 1630s, this is roger going southward, joined later, 1638, by followers, lots of them. okay. mary presently. mary is the bridge between roger

williams and mary dyer. 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 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. okay? in her case she describes such things as civil obedience,

public loyalty oaths, okay, 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 and salvation of god is open and available to all regardless. that there's nothing you can do to earn it, it is a gift. okay, from their perspective. she had this idea and she didn't keep it to herself. okay. 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 the time. all right. and one of the things she did is she spoke it out loud in meetings at her house. people recognized that she had a certain spiritual authority and women and children would gather at her house weekly and hear her teach. and that's okay, you know, because, remember, in a hierarchy, all right, women, you were fine teaching other women and the children and the household servants. okay. even if your ideas are a little wonky. okay. just don't get too wonky and just keep it there. okay. but very soon she was accused of and put on trial for having -- i

have to remember the word -- promiscuous gatherings in her house. now, by your reaction i believe that you probably have a different view of what promiscuous would mean and what they meant back then. okay. all this meant was that in her house there were both men and women while she is teaching. isn't that 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 a religious authority that was not hers, which from what we said on monday she would have been guilty of what? >> one more time. >> disorderly speech. >> disorderly speech. that's correct. saying something that was not

yours to say or saying something foul about judge so-and-so that wasn't appropriate for you to say. yes, disorderly speech is what she would have been doing. having promiscuous gatherings at her house, claiming religious authority that was not hers. she was tried for both civilly and religiously. it's a two prong thing we will see in salem as well. in civil court she was tried for disturbing the peace, social disruption, okay? in the church she was tried for blasphemy. and convicted on both counts. and banished from the colony 1638. and 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. okay.

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 do -- if you have it sometime to read about her and read her words, her defense of herself and her right to believe as she saw fit is very, very, 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

dyer. we think we know approximately when mary was born, we know exactly when mary died. down to a couple minutes. okay. and you will 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 emigrated to massachusetts bay colony. she became a follower as i said of ann hutchinson and when ann moved to rhode island mary and william and their family went with her, followed her out of the massachusetts bay colony. shortly before she left she gave birth to a child who was stillborn and had not fully developed.

okay. and they buried her child there in the massachusetts bay colony. and remember that whole thing we talked about a couple weeks ago about looking for signs, interpreting things, everything that happened. well, 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 unfortunately. well, 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 will go back. there's mr. fox there 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, any ordained professional clergy, which, as you can understand, might make the ordained professional clergy a little uneasy.

okay? they were not very popular from the beginning because mr. fox was not shy about his beliefs. not only did he believe that anybody could have a direct experience of god, that everybody had a divine light within them. okay? that he rejected the idea, the theological idea, pre destination and the idea that god had selected the elect. those who will experience salvation, those who will go to heaven however you want to term it, that was a centerpiece of particularly puritan thought,

reformed thought. now, an important piece of their theology, rejected the idea that christ's physical body was in heaven. that that did not happen, instead christ's 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 there in england. and it's there in front of one of the magistrates that he and his followers earned the name quakers. it was a derisive term, because he instructed his followers that they should be so in awe at the world of god that they should

tremble. 33 so the judge referred to them as quakers, so john fox said, sure, that's exactly who we are. we are the quakers. now, i know quite a number of folks who are quakers today and still around. they are fabulous people, they are peaceful, you know, pacifism is a key part of their religious belief system and they do a huge amount of outreach both in the united states and outside the united states, they are just a fantastic -- just fabulous peaceful people. great folks. they weren't exactly peaceful in these days. they had a reputation for being kind of -- well, 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 were gathered here how everything

that was going on was wrong. and sometimes as a story that i have heard, okay -- i need to back up and really get the truth, but this is just an example, is that sometimes to make their point as they burst into this church meeting, into worship, that the only thing they would bring with them was their voice and their ideas because they left their clothing outside. okay? disruptive to make their point. they are still very, very disruptive in this time. by around 1700, shortly after the witch trials take place, they begin to move into a quieter phase of their religious development, more peaceful, so on and so forth, but in 1600s they were boisterous and they were loud and they had no problems with breaking up other meetings and explaining to everybody why things were wrong. so nobody really liked the

quakers. in fact, records of the governor said the doctrine of this sect of people tends to overflow the whole gospel. a lot of what i've said, yeah. and the very vitals of christianity. they are a threat to everything, the church, society, they are horrible. horrible, horrible people. this is a group to which mary dyer converted. notice 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 in 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 the massachusetts bay colony. 1656 and 1657 these were written. you had a variety of things and depending on severity, on the number of times the quaker had done this, come into massachusetts bay colony whipping, put your head in the stock, you know, what we're talking about there. do you know what the stocks are? what are they? >> that. >> zombie thing, scarecrow thing. all right. and where is that thing? [ inaudible ] [ laughter ] >> 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 everyone would know. >> everybody would see you. >> yeah. >> okay. first of all, it would have hurt. you're sitting there all day, either you're standing, you know, like this horrible on your back, that sort of thing. the story is people could throw stuff at you. out in the sun or in the cold or whatever for the period of time. but it's embarrassing as well. it's just not a physical punishment, it's also an emotional punishment as well. shame, embarrassment. okay. you are nailed to a board and cut off. if that didn't work the next time the other one could be dealt with this that way, your tongue seared or pierced,

branded with an h. you read the scarlet a, this is the scarlet h. imprisonment, banishment and if nothing else worked, death. now, these 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 gloucester or myrtle head or any other port and you have quakers on board and you want to off-load them in the massachusetts bay colony, you could be fined to the tune of 100 pounds. all right. that's in 1656.

i did a little rough conversion on a currency converter online and converted that 100 pounds in 1652 to u.s. dollars now -- and this is just to give you a sense, okay, this is not actually what the conversion would be, but just rough sense, that would be equal to about $22,000. they were not playing softball. okay? this was not pitch and catch. this was hard ball. you show up here, you are a quaker, you are in trouble. you bring a quaker here, you are 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've 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 thing -- all that stuff that winthrop talked about, that will be us. okay? so the year after that 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 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 were both quakers. they are arrested. mary hears of their incarceration from her home in rhode island, she travels to boston to visit them. she is immediately arrested herself and put in jail. they were 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. because 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, okay, two things, for their rebellion, sedition and presumptuous on trued be themselves upon us. i thought that was a great phrase. their rebellion, edition 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 presumptuous to are your honor to this colony after we asked them to stay away. they were also put on trial for being underminers of the government. one of the things the quakers refused to do was to swear loyalty oaths as i already mentioned. okay?

that was kind of important. loyalty to the king, loyalty to the colony, loyalty to the church. all right? undermining the government structure, the religious structure. so october 19th, 1659. we have general court the massachusetts bay colony the robinson, steven and dyer. all three acknowledge, yes, we are quakers, yes, we are the ones you threw out last time a few weeks ago. but they -- during their trial mary stands up to defend herself. she says this, speaking about the laws, that she came to boston to protest and to be in

support of william and marmaduke in their protest against these laws. she said, was there ever the like laws heard of among a people who profess christ to 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 counsel. what's she asking? of whom do you take counsel? yeah. >> is it who do you serve kind of? like are you really -- take counsel -- are you really looking at the government or god, which one is it? like your own ways or -- >> okay. whose advice are you taking?

>> yeah. >> yes, basically. >> yeah. >> who are your advisers, who are your counselors? she says, you know, search -- you know, search with the light of christ in you and 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 -- and it's not who you think it is. okay? wow. amazing person. well, of course, this does not sway the courts, right? because governor endicott says this. "we have made many laws and endeavored in several ways to keep you from among us."

we don't know exactly how are than imprisonments of how mary and marmaduke and william were treated, but you get a little hint here in what the governor says. all right? 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 but 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 our laws. you should go from hence to the place from when you came, the jail, and from thens 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 harm duke are indeed executed october 1659. mary and the story goes, she is also mounting the scaffold -- not the scalpel, 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 are not gone in eight hours, we're going to carry out the sentence. she goes, permanently banished again, again we run into this confusion of the meaning of the word permanent. seven months later she's back. may of 1660 and she is arrested and she is put on trial on may 31st, 1660 and governor endicott and mary, 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 will own yourself a quaker, will you not? >> i own myself to what he reproachfully so called. >> sentence was passed upon you the last general court and now, like wise, you must return to the prison and there remain until tomorrow at 9:00, then you must go to the gallows and there be hanged until you are dead. >> this is more than what though set before. >> but though 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 unrighteousness laws of banishment on pain of death and that same is my work now. an 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. >> she's taken back to jail and at 9:00 the next morning -- don't go anywhere, mary -- okay. 9:00 the next morning captain webb, please. >> mary dyer, you are here under sentence pronounced upon you by the general court. it is my duty to carry out your execution upon order of the court. justice, however, is not without mercy. in their wisdom the court has instructed me to inform them that even though you may give assurance of your repentance and intention to leave and remain outside this jurisdiction. upon such assurance you should be permitted to descend from where you now have and save your life. >> i came to keep blood guiltiness from you, desiring you to repeal the unjust law made against the servants of the lord. nay, man, i am not now to repent.

>> okay. thank you. a few minutes after 9:00 on june 1st, 1660 mary dyer was 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 more likely and you will live and stay away. but what does she say? you repeat it again. do you want to read t dana. >> did you want me to? >> go for it. go. >> the whole thing just -- >> yes, please do. >> i came to keep blood guiltiness from you, desiring you to repeal the unrighteous an unjust law made against the servants of the lord. nay, man, i am not now to repent. >> i came here for a purpose, for your good. you know, court has said we've

done all these things for your god. she says, 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 that last line is -- i'm sorry, just amazing. she's standing on its scaffold about to be executed, she could live and she says, nay, man, i will not now repent. >> they build a statue to her years later. on boston common. it says you can't see it below

let me read it to you, mary dyer, quaker, witness for religious freedom. hanged on boston commons, 1660. >> let me get my glasses and i can read a little bit on the statue to you. 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 dyer the wife of william dyer of newport and rhode island, she 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 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's going to the gallows. >> why is that not in keeping with what you've just read or heard. why is this one more accurate. >> the one on the left looks defeated and she is going to die for a cause she didn't look defeated, she would hold her head up high and look like she's doing the right thing. >> i agree, i think this was a much more accurate depiction of what we understand of mary dyer's character from her behavior, from the things she said herself. okay.

told you about roger williams. i've told you about ann hutchinson. i've told you about mary dyer. all three of whom ran afoul 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 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. that if they didn't deal with any sort of wrongdoing, being my personal wrongdoing, i'm getting drunk and getting in a fight out on the street when i should be at home teaching my children the catechism, their religious lessons for the week, whether it's that sort of personal behavior or whether it's a larger issue, a theological issue, a heresy issue in their midst, they had to deal with it to maintain the purity of their society, 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 doing 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 a piece we have to keep in mind now as we jump forward

30 years because that's what we're going to do on monday is we're finally going to get to salem, yay, how many weeks in the semester, we're finally going to get to salem, massachusetts, and she 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 trial has rolled around how many of the leaders felt that was slipping away. that they had to deal with problems in their midst and they had to deal with them swiftly and in 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. well, you all have a fantastic weekend and i will see you

monday morning in salem, massachusetts. okay? thank you to mary and governor endicott and captain webb. all week, while congress is out for their august recess, american history tv is in prime-time with our original series, lectures in history. tonight, we take you into classrooms across the country for a look at the american west. join us at 8:00 p.m. eastern, right here on c-span3. >> sunday night on q&a, we take a look at anthony clark's book "the last campaign ". how presidents rewrite history, run for posterity, and enshrine their legacies. >> every single comment i've received has been one of either two topics. how angry people are to learn about what's happening or how flabbergasted they are to learn

what's happening. it's not, i haven't received any kind of mild, oh, i've read it and it's okay. >> 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. and instead we're paying for celebration and legacy building. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> now, lectures in history continues on american history tv. stanford university clayborn carson talks about martin luther king jr. professor carson's class took place at ebenezer baptist church in atlanta where plaumartin lut king jr. and his father were both pastors. >> who is martin luther king? when you look at martin luther king there's onee