Hey, there! Log in / Register
The English capital crime that's still on the books here, even though it's a remnant of our slave days and nobody's been tried for it since 1782
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Where is the body now? Can
Where is the body now? Can we get ot back?
1775
Paul Revere rode in 1775, not 1755
The copy editor needs to be cashiered
Yep, 20 years after the executions. Mistake fixed.
"Humane" burning
Thanks for including the detail that women were strangled before the flames became unbearable. That slightly mitigates the horror I experienced when I read about Phillis's execution (having found this account out of curiosity about petit treason mentioned in your previous post). This is the first time that I've read about execution by burning in the colonies.
A second woman was burned at the stake
In 1681, a woman named Mariah who was enslaved in Roxbury was convicted of arson. While petit treason isn't mentioned in the court records, it probably explains why she was burned to death. When she was killed, an enslaved man named Jack was hanged for an unrelated arson. His body was cut down and burned in the fire with Mariah. It's a truly horrifying case.
More on Mariah and Jack, as well as Phillis and Mark, in episode 27 (starts at 11:30) of the HUB History podcast.
Hub History
The Hub History episode is amazing. The story is heartbreaking. I wish that history was different.
I think she was convicted of arson, though, not petit treason
Not that that matters in terms of the punishment, of course, but this account by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts (which I found after running across a reference to Maria and did a search for more info on her) makes it sound like she pleaded guilty to arson for burning down the house belonging to her master, Joshua Lambe of Roxbury, not for killing anybody.
She was charged around the same time as Jack, who pleaded not guilty to burning down a house in Northampton, but who was then found guilty by a jury.
History Camp March 14
Have you signed up to give a presentation? This would be great with some gruesome slides.
Total Confusion between the punishment & crime
You wrote:
Turns out there are also "low crimes," one of which used to carry a particularly gruesome penalty in New England - and which is still listed as a capital offense in Massachusetts lawbooks even though it was used primarily as a way to punish slaves,
You are mixing the particularly gruesome method of punishment with the crime.
The crime was "petit treason" -- which was the killing of a master by a person under the master's authority. You associated it with Slavery because that is a popular topic these days although it could apply equally well to the murder of a Master by an "Indentured Servant" or even an Apprentice. That's the crime and as you pointed out that on March 16, 1785 the Great & General Court [aka the Legislature] essentially repealed the specific crime by including such actions under the more general crime of murder. So as of that day the specific charge of petit treason has no longer existed.
The punishment meted out to men*1 convicted of petit treason was to be dragged to the gallows and hanged and then "gibbetted" - their bodies put on public display. This punishment was also applied to men accused and convicted of Piracy.
In the case of Piracy the place where your body would be displayed was upon Nix Mate in the middle of Boston Harbor. This process would of course be consistent with the Puritan view that punishment was not just for the guilty -- but also a deterrent to others. Thus for far less serious crimes the guilty party might be publicly exhibited for ridicule in the Stocks or Pillory for some part of a day [typically a few hours].
The Pirate William Fly and two others were convicted hung and gibbetted on Nix Mate in 1726.
So to sum it up --- since petit treason became just murder -- the only way that gibbetting could still be on the books would be if Piracy was still punished in the manner of the 18th C.
*1
You wrote
Thanks for the extra info, but ...
No, the different punishment WAS part of the point of petit treason. Petit treason was, at least in the colonies (as opposed to England) the same as murder, but common murderers didn't have to worry about being dragged in public to the gallows or burned at the stake (ditto for people convicted of other capital offenses, such as Mary Dyer, who was walked to the gallows for the crime of being a Quaker). Nor were the bodies of people convicted of murder then put on public display as a warning.
Not sure why you're so insistent that this was not a slave issue, but it was. In the New England colonies (I don't know what goes on past the Berkshires or south of Long Island Sound), it was used almost entirely to discipline slaves.
ARGH!!! -- You forgot Piracy
The point I was making was that Gibbetting the extreme punishment was reserved for a special extreme crime -- not just "ordinary murder."
The perp would not be gibbetted if say Paul Revere poured hot silver into John Hancock's mouth converting him instantly into a life-sculpture. That would have been murder most foul and Paul would have hung. However, his body would have been released for a Christian Burial. Paul and John being essentially equals and the act of murder being foul but not beyond the bounds.
But I as Pirate seizing Mr. Hancock's ship even as it might be smuggling some untaxed Madeira Wine and in the process killing Mr. Hancock's ship's master --Well I would hang until dead and then my body would be left to rot or be eaten by Seagulls while hanging from a pole on Nix Mate to warn others approaching Boston of the impertinence of the Act of Piracy.
This was done several times in Boston when Pirates were seized by the authorities [such as 1726] -- Piracy being perceived as a threat to the normal order. In a couple of cases, the Pirate was bound-up and shipped to London for trial, and eventual punishment, or tried in Boston, and then shipped to London for the sentence.
Similarly, if Paul had an apprentice who did the "silver soda" trick on Paul -- that would have been in the same category as Piracy. It didn't matter whether the doer of the the Thermal Deed was a Slave, an Indentured Servant or an Apprentice -- killing your master was not permitted in a Civil Society [Boston or London] and your rotting corpse would be displayed as a warning. Think Kirk Douglas in Spartacus and the long line of Crucifixions on the Appian Way after the revolt of the Slaves was put down by the Roman Legions.
Note that in some jurisdictions such as Texas there still is an aggravation factor which can be applied -- if for instance in the commission of an armed robbery -- while escaping you kill a Police Officer. The act of murder of a Police Officer thereby upping the crime to Capital Murder and making you eligible for the Death Penalty.
I don't think we're really disagreeing
Yes, gibbetting was reserved for a special sort of crime. Piracy was an example. A slave killing a master was another.
But a slave killing a master was still a type of murder. Why would it be considered different from, say, a man killing his business partner? That gets us to a consideration of the position of slaves in colonial Massachusetts.
You yourself noted that the Puritans put emphasis on certain punishments as warnings. Look at public stocks - or how children were supposed to be brought to hangings. Who, exactly, would the province be trying to warn by gibbetting Mark the slave? And why wouldn't they feel the need to do so in other cases of people convicted of killing somebody?