Internal Conflicts In The Crucible

1878 Words 8 Pages
In the town of Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, fear and hysteria overpowered all reason and logic and led to the massacre of nineteen people. Already filled with fear and instinctual need to survive in an unknown world, and with fear of Native Americans and the Devil circling in their heads; this town was destroyed by the introduction of the idea of witchcraft. Accusation after accusation, false confession after false confession, the town authorities who delivered the scourge of God in the fight between Lucifer and the Lord as they made their way through the town members. The citizens who were determined to get revenge started accusing town outsiders, and soon moved on to upright and respected members of the town; and the town authorities, unable …show more content…
They were an isolated community surrounded by what citizens saw as savages and barbarians. The town had seen Native Americans attack; for example, Abigail Williams “saw Indians smash my dear parents’ heads on the pillow next to mine,” (6). Despite having such knowledge, the town knew nothing about the world outside of their community; all they knew is that their survival depended solely on the survival of this community, and without it, they would surely die. The authorities in Salem were afraid of internal conflict, and therefore dividing the town and leaving the citizens to fend for themselves. As said by Reverend Hale, “theology… is a fortress; no crack in a fortress may be accounted small” (64). Internal conflict would fracture the community, which was the only thing strong enough to keep the town afloat. The fear is valid; the unknown, the Devil, and their potential deaths were very real threats to the people of Salem, and therefore the fear of internal conflict fracturing the society is a valid concern. Additionally, the citizens and town authorities feared originality. To be original and to differ from the town’s idea of societal norms …show more content…
In the town of Salem, justice was an empty justice, not based on the correct punishment for a moral sin but more focused on equality. This justice was based around a belief that if one was executed for a crime, those accused of the same crime ought to be executed too, even if that crime were proven nonexistent. This held to be true in the witch trials; when Judge Thomas Danforth, despite believing in the innocence of the accused, refused to pardon them, because he believed that, “I cannot pardon these when twelve are already hanged for the same crime. It is not just,” (119). While this may have fit the court’s idea of just, it did not the idea of righteousness. It would be fair to execute them as well, but they are not morally justified in doing so. The authorities believed, “while I speak God’s law, I will not crack its voice with whimpering… I should hang ten thousand that are dared to ruse against the law”

Related Documents