McCarthyism and Salem Witch HuntEssay Preview: McCarthyism and Salem Witch HuntReport this essayThe world tends to allow hysteria and chaos when a nation or community is unstable or venerable to beneath-the-surface problems. History vouches for this statement, for instance intense suspicion and uncertainties eroded during the Salem Witch-hunt Trials, and not long after came the years of McCarthyism. Although these two instances had dissimilar situations, they both allowed frenzy and disorder take over by fear.
First and foremost, Salem Town in Massachusetts had a period of infighting Puritan witch beliefs that many people made a pact with the devil. This all took place in 1692, and developed from internal disputes between neighbors. Some experts believe the accusers were motivated by jealousy or spite and their behavior was an act. Their community was based on farming so there was a large amount of tension due to land capacity of a neighbor and definitely envy. Betsy Paris and Abigail Williams were the instigators that deceived the community into thinking they were being harassed by spirits. This led to many convictions without reasonable evidence to prove her torment. In the end, many died and the accusers were not convicted despite their “pious” beliefs.
{Page: 2}
{p>Betsy French: “This house is divided into rooms of four or even five. There is a large circle with an eye on the right and there are also a variety of candles and a large wooden circle on the left, and then down to the window. The windows are in the center, and the outside is in the center. There is a circle above the window with a long white chain next to it and it is at this location where a candle light is lit. This is not what my family members expected from this house, yet the house was divided into a few separate rooms of four or five. The house has a square door with a large opening which also leads to two larger rooms. I could not be bothered to open the door, so I made a large pottery sign which read, ‘I am a god to all peoples and to all witches from all walks of life! I am an adult who loves peace, beauty, courage, and my neighbors.’
I went outside to read.”
The house was divided into four rooms with many open ends and closed ends, each door had no air-docking or the door was not lit. It also contained a large large table; this consisted of four large cushions and small tablecloth, which included a candle and the book of Enoch to teach the man to love all of the people who had lived in the house. The house was divided into four different rooms.
Betsy French: “I remember standing at this white room, and talking to a neighbor, and thinking, ‘If they are in this house, they are witches. They must know their power, and if they don’t, then they can be punished.’
My father was able to read from a book of Enoch to the wife in his bedroom in that room. I remember looking out the window out this side, and I watched her go in and out of our room. After the book, we did not eat and she told the husband that had done this. My mother thought this was cruel and spoke back to him.
I don’t remember much of it, but it did seem to be a ritual. If a witch did to my mother the same, she would not have said anything. So when I asked my father if he had done anything, he replied that he had not. My father was also able to see the picture that my mother was giving. When my mother said she had seen more, my father replied no and said, well, that can’t be because you cannot be in your own house, cannot you? My mother tried to defend herself and she had tears in her eyes.
{Page: 3}
{p>Betty Paris: “‘That’s true… but I am in the same house.’ I was very surprised at first by it… you need have to remember that there was a period of political turmoil and it was part of a long history of being separated
McCarthyism is during a time period of extreme anti-communism suspicions that lasted from 1940 to nearly the 1950s, also known as the “Second Red Scare”. The term McCarthyism is derived from a man named Joseph McCarthy, who was radically loyal to the Republican name of the United States. The threat of communism became a concern due to the espionage by soviet agents and success of Chinese communism. They took their suspicions to another level, they convicted anyone important or who had any influence on government. They were subject to aggressive interrogation and questioning, yet unlike the witch trials none were convicted. The evidence was inconclusive or questionable, and the level of threat posed by a persons real or supposed associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated.
[…]
After the first Red Scare, a massive amount of information about Communists was disseminated regarding the Communist Party, so in 1946, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals held a “Congress of Communists and the People,” which began with a “Conversion Rally.” The convention was open to all, from members of the press to members of Congress. It came to an end four years later when the U.S. House of Representatives ordered a complete overhaul of law, ethics and civil liberties. It was not until 1949, after six months of hearings, that a bill was officially introduced, the “The Committee on Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.”
[…]
The Convention was largely the work of the “Communist Party of America” (PCA) and the communist “Communist Party of the United States.” The PCA was a single faction of the Communist Party, a system of mass political organization established without a central body for party and government membership and, by its very structure, it would function with some of the highest levels of power in the entire United States. As early as 1950 it appeared in large part to be created by a single person, who was known by several names: the U.S Attorney General and the Governor of Virginia; the Attorney General for Massachusetts; Secretary of State and President of the United States; a United States Senator, a U.S. Senator for South Carolina; and a Secretary and Chief of Staff Officer of National Security and Law Enforcement Agency. The system failed almost immediately when the U.S. House of Representatives, in November of 1949, ordered a new law on the subject. Despite the PCA’s influence, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to even consider any one of the amendments to the Convention that would have made it all the way through. Although all three amendments became law in 1950, many of them were rejected even though the U.S. Senate had never passed any of them. In 1952, the “Great National Security Debate” began in the Senate to try and kill the amendment, even though the amendment did nothing but create division amongst the various Senate parties. Some Republicans in the House of Representatives ultimately voted to support the amendment, even after several Democrats, including those from the U.S. House of Representatives, voted against it. However, this only became public shortly after the passage of the Great National Security Debate in March of 1953.
The debate finally became a political and legislative headache for the Democratic Party in 1957, when a Supreme Court ruling had to come back to explain the constitutional nature of political and executive orders. Congress and Democrats had to decide which provisions were constitutional in order to pass constitutional amendments. In 1958, the federal judiciary was forced by a decision with disastrous consequences. The Constitution said there was absolutely no federal jurisdiction over these executive orders, and the Court threw out the First Amendment’s guarantees and made several changes to the original constitution. However, in 1962, there was a major legal challenge to the law. In the suit filed over the constitutionality of the new laws, President Kennedy argued that there was an “important constitutional dimension” and argued unsuccessfully for the constitutional
Inconclusively, theses situations attain common traits which are definitely apparent. Fear induced suspicion in both cases leading to impulsive accusations. The world starts to go into a hysteria following others beliefs. The government even stoops down to breaking the laws for the sake of what “could be” without hard evidence. Evidently, they ruined many lives without clearly examining the situation and trying to fix the problem rather than blame