FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Nicola Sacco, Bartolomeo Vanzetti, and Mary Dyer

Today, August 23, marks the 90th anniversary of the deaths by execution of Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italian immigrants and self-avowed anarchists who were convicted of robbery and first-degree murder in Massachusetts, and who, after numerous appeals and protests, died in the electric chair on August 23, 1927.

Because the case occurred during the near-hysterical height of anti-immigration fervor in the U.S. (particularly in New England), and because so many aspects of the arrests, forensics, trial, and prosecution were seen to be egregiously flawed if not outright “rigged,” the Sacco and Vanzetti case became a “cause celebre” not only in America but around the world. The day they were executed, riots broke out in Paris, France.

Nearly 270 years earlier, in June of 1660, also in Massachusetts, Mary Dyer and three men were hanged. This sobering event put Mary Dyer in the history books as the first woman ever to be executed in the American colonies. [Fun fact: the first woman to be executed by the federal government was also a “Mary”—Mary Surratt, hanged for her alleged part in the Lincoln assassination conspiracy.]

The Sacco and Vanzetti case is still a sensitive issue among leftist radicals and civil libertarians, and rightly so. Witnesses recanted their testimony, physical evidence was contradictory, another person actually confessed to the crime, the anti-immigrant media had never been more lurid, and the judge and prosecutors were deemed almost criminally incompetent if not deliberately vindictive.

On the other side of the issue you had people noting that Sacco and Vanzetti were admitted anarchists, committed to the violent overthrow and ultimate destruction of the U.S. government. Both men were believed to be followers of Luigi Galleani, a notorious anarchist who was already on the FBI’s list of “known subversives,” and who publicly advocated the use of murder and bombings in achieving their goals. Still, it was more or less a classic example of “guilt by association.”

One is reminded of Angela Davis’ observation after being acquitted by an all-white jury for her part in the Soledad prison incident. Trying to explain why she had been arrested on trumped up charges, she said (I’m paraphrasing), “The way the authorities saw it, any woman who was black, an intellectual, a lesbian, and an admitted Communist, had to be guilty of something.”

The same reasoning likely applied to Sacco and Vanzetti. They were “swarthy” immigrants, they were self-avowed anarchists committed to the overthrow of the government, they were draft-dodgers, and they had both been caught in lies. Ergo, they had to be guilty of something.

As for Mary Dyer and her three companions, their only crime was being Quakers. In those days, being a Quaker in the rigidly puritanical Massachusetts Bay Colony was not only a crime, it was a capital offense. Although these four people had been previously banished from Massachusetts and warned never to return, they chose to come back. That act of defiance cost them their lives.

Mary Dyer’s death led to some notable changes. In 1661, a year after her hanging, King Charles II made it illegal for the Massachusetts colony to execute anyone for practicing or advocating Quakerism, and in 1684, the English throne went ahead and revoked the Massachusetts Bay charter, eventually (two years later) installing its own governor.

Arguably, one can almost understand the hysteria that led to the railroading of Sacco and Vanzetti. They were seen as a threat. They were foreigners who intentionally came to this country with the express purpose of destroying our way of life. Granted, that view was largely fueled by primitive fear and reflexive emotionalism, but it wasn’t totally nutty.

And one could argue the same for Mary Dyer. She and her fellow Quakers were also seen as a threat. Clearly, primitive fear and reflexive emotionalism were what drove the good people of Massachusetts to execute her. The impetus may not have been rational, but it wasn’t totally nutty.

But there was a crucial distinction between the two executions. Rightly or wrongly, Sacco and Vanzetti were seen to represent a threat to our government—a threat to our civil and secular way of life. Accordingly, it was the government itself who killed them.

Mary Dyer was different. Her only crime was belonging to the most tranquil, anti-violence, peace-loving religious order ever invented. While Sacco and Vanzetti were executed for crimes against the state, Mary Dyer was put to death in the name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Son of God. The Prince of Peace. How nutty is that?

More articles by:

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows.  He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

June 18, 2018
Paul Street
Denuclearize the United States? An Unthinkable Thought
John Pilger
Bring Julian Assange Home
Conn Hallinan
The Spanish Labyrinth
Patrick Cockburn
Attacking Hodeidah is a Deliberate Act of Cruelty by the Trump Administration
Gary Leupp
Trump Gives Bibi Whatever He Wants
Thomas Knapp
Child Abductions: A Conversation It’s Hard to Believe We’re Even Having
Robert Fisk
I Spoke to Palestinians Who Still Hold the Keys to Homes They Fled Decades Ago – Many are Still Determined to Return
Steve Early
Requiem for a Steelworker: Mon Valley Memories of Oil Can Eddie
Jim Scheff
Protect Our National Forests From an Increase in Logging
Adam Parsons
Reclaiming the UN’s Radical Vision of Global Economic Justice
Dean Baker
Manufacturing Production Falls in May and No One Notices
Laura Flanders
Bottom-Up Wins in Virginia’s Primaries
Binoy Kampmark
The Anguish for Lost Buildings: Embers and Death at the Victoria Park Hotel
Weekend Edition
June 15, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Dan Kovalik
The US & Nicaragua: a Case Study in Historical Amnesia & Blindness
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Yellow Journalism and the New Cold War
Charles Pierson
The Day the US Became an Empire
Jonathan Cook
How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions
Ajamu Baraka
North Korea Issue is Not De-nuclearization But De-Colonization
Andrew Levine
Midterms Coming: Antinomy Ahead
Louisa Willcox
New Information on 2017 Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Deaths Should Nix Trophy Hunting in Core Habitat
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Singapore Fling
Ron Jacobs
What’s So Bad About Peace, Man?
Robert Hunziker
State of the Climate – It’s Alarming!
L. Michael Hager
Acts and Omissions: The NYT’s Flawed Coverage of the Gaza Protest
Dave Lindorff
However Tenuous and Whatever His Motives, Trump’s Summit Agreement with Kim is Praiseworthy
Robert Fantina
Palestine, the United Nations and the Right of Return
Brian Cloughley
Sabre-Rattling With Russia
Chris Wright
To Be or Not to Be? That’s the Question
David Rosen
Why Do Establishment Feminists Hate Sex Workers?
Victor Grossman
A Key Congress in Leipzig
John Eskow
“It’s All Kinderspiel!” Trump, MSNBC, and the 24/7 Horseshit Roundelay
Paul Buhle
The Russians are Coming!
Joyce Nelson
The NED’s Useful Idiots
Lindsay Koshgarian
Trump’s Giving Diplomacy a Chance. His Critics Should, Too
Louis Proyect
American Nativism: From the Chinese Exclusion Act to Trump
Stan Malinowitz
On the Elections in Colombia
Camilo Mejia
Open Letter to Amnesty International on Nicaragua From a Former Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience
David Krieger
An Assessment of the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit
Jonah Raskin
Cannabis in California: a Report From Sacramento
Josh Hoxie
Just How Rich Are the Ultra Rich?
CJ Hopkins
Awaiting the Putin-Nazi Apocalypse
Mona Younis
We’re the Wealthiest Country on Earth, But Over 40 Percent of Us Live in or Near Poverty
Dean Baker
Not Everything Trump Says on Trade is Wrong
James Munson
Trading Places: the Other 1% and the .001% Who Won’t Save Them
Rivera Sun
Stop Crony Capitalism: Protect the Net!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail