Witches in Colonial America  

by Kory L. Meyerink, MLS, AG^®, FUGA

This list attempts to identify, as fully as possible, those persons formally accused as witches in Colonial America, or those who suffered (usually as little children) with accused witches. Generally this means that there was some formal action taken, usually in court, or that early writers (leaders, memorial writers, historians) discussed the accusation. Court action is not limited to trials, for some cases never came to trial, being dismissed for insufficient evidence (usually after an arrest and/or evidentiary hearing), or the flight of the accused. It also includes cases of slander by an accused witch against the accuser(s), even if no other court record exists.

This list is alphabetical by the last name (using the most common or accepted spelling) of the accused witch, at the time of accusation, followed by the first name, when known. Most witches were married women, so maiden names are given, when known, after the first name, but in parenthesis. The object is to help family historians clearly identify each accused witch to determine if he or she fits on a family tree. Earlier married names follow any maiden name. If the maiden name is unknown, it is represented by (___) to indicate the surname given is a married name. Unmarried women are identified with (unmd.), (child), or (infant) after the given name. In the absence of a given name, the title Mr., Mrs., or Ms. (marital status unknown) is used to indicate gender. Where a woman’s given name is unknown, but her husband’s is, she is referred to as Mrs. [his name], such as Mrs. Nicholas Bailey.

To aid in identification, birth and death years follow the name, where known. Approximations are indicated with “c.” and a date (believed to be within five years), or a decade (e.g. 1610s). Where dates are not known, a relationship, such as [Mrs. John] (meaning her husband was John) may be given to aid in identification. Location indicates the town (or county in the South) where the accused was living when action was taken, even if the action was taken elsewhere (the Salem trials reached out to many nearby towns). The year indicates the year (or years, with repeated accusations) action was begun. Outcome provides, by abbreviations, the primary result(s) of the action. Entries for those who died, either by execution or in prison, are in italics.

Abbreviations for outcome:

• A = accused (or complaint filed), but apparently not brought to court
• C = cleared of charges, dismissed (usually at a later date, often by higher court or governor)
• DP= died in prison
• E = escaped from prison
• F = fled to another jurisdiction (colony), or in hiding (presumes an accusation, but not an arrest)
• H = hung (after imprisonment and trial)
• I = imprisoned (sometimes indicted, which usually meant some imprisonment)
• NG = found not guilty (acquitted), implies some time in prison, and usually a trial
• R = released from prison (usually on bail), not necessarily cleared
• SS = accused sued accuser for slander
• V = convicted (but not executed, usually cleared)
• X = executed, method not given
• nfr = no further record

Sources

Hundreds of books and articles have been written about witchcraft in early America, but a few have been particularly helpful in compiling this list, as they provide summary biographical information and/or reasonably thorough lists of the accused witches covered. Treatment of witches in the literature tends to divide into two parts:The Salem era (1692) is the most popular in literature and has the most accusations. Witchcraft prior to Salem is generally covered separately, and occurred throughout southern New England, with a couple of cases in what is now New York (but then in towns under Connecticut’s influence). Limited court action was taken in states further south.

Salem Era

Among the most useful are two primarily biographical books that help connect the various family members involved in what the author sees as a conspiracy against certain elements in the towns. Enders A. Robinson’s The Devil Discovered: Salem Witchcraft 1692 (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1991) treats what he considers the first, or Salem, phase of the conspiracy, covering about half the accused witches. The same author’s Salem Witchcraft and Hawthorne’s House of Seven Gables (Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1992) covers the second, or Andover phase, when accusations moved out of Salem.

The social aspects of the Salem era are well treated by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum in Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). The actual papers of the trials were edited, introduced, and indexed by the same authors in The Salem Witchcraft Papers, 3 vols. (New York: Da Capo Press, 1977) Before Salem Despite its age, the best treatment of the Connecticut side of witchcraft still seems to be John M. Taylor’s the Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut, 1647-1697 (1908 reprint, Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1989). A more comprehensive treatment of this era is the classic work by John Putnam Demos, Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). A slightly more recent volume is David D. Hall’s Witch-Hunting in Seventeenth-Century New England (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1991).

Outside of New England and New York

About 30 cases of witchcraft were prosecuted, to some extent, in the colonies south of New York. One lady was hung in Maryland, while three perished on ships en route to Virginia or Maryland. Much less research has been done of these various cases, and the accused are generally less well identified. Journal articles seem to be the best source, including: Davis, Richard Beale “The Devil in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 65 (1957) 131-49. and Parke, Frances Neal “Witchcraft in Maryland” Maryland Historical Magazine 31:4 (Dec. 1936) p. 271-298. Additional documentation on the Maryland cases can be found in the various volumes of the published Maryland Archives.

Additional useful information is in Drake, Frederick C. “Witchcraft in the American Colonies” American Quarterly 20 (1968) 694-725, as well as “How North Carolina Juries Dealt with Charges of Witchcraft.” North Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register 2 (April 1901): 56-59, 68-69 and Schaeffer, Paul N. “Pennsylvania’s Witchcraft Trial” Historical Review of Berks County 29 (Autumn 1964): 125-128.

There are a few web sites on the Internet with information on witches, but they are incomplete and/or often derived from these and older works. Many include persons who appear on older lists now understood to be erroneous. However, much information about some individuals on this list can be found on the web, with the help of the more complete identification given here. People who actually died as a result of their accusation typically have more biographical information, as they have been the subjects of more research.

Misidentified, Unconfirmed, and “Phantom” Witches

The following people appear on various lists of Colonial American witches, but a closer review of current literature suggests that there is no proof that formal charges were ever filed against them. Some were involved in the Salem witchcraft delusion as afflicted girls, spouses, or even among the leadership, but their names have ended up on some lists as witches. Others are clearly mistaken versions of the names of persons who were accused and tried as witches. A few can simply not be confirmed in any documented list.

About 30 of these names trace back to an undocumented list in the 1959 Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (Rossell Hope Robbins, New York: Bonanza Books, reprinted 1981), which clearly shows very poor scholarship and uncritical evaluation of names (and spellings). Many do not appear in any of the more recent, scholarly and well-sourced references, and the others appear under a more accepted spelling, as noted above.

At the end of the Salem/Andover delusion, some of the “afflicted girls” began naming large numbers of prominent persons, including the wife of one of the ministers leading the trials against the “witches.” Another was a close relative of the colonial governor. This left the girls with no credibility, and such persons, although named by the girls, were never formally accused and should never appear on a list of witches.