With Halloween upon us, I thought I would offer something relevant. I have been aware of Grace Sherwood, the Witch of Pungo, for as long as I can remember, even when I did not know who she was. As a child, my family frequently vacationed in Virginia Beach and passed highway signs for Witchduck Road driving down from Richmond. I knew what a wood duck looked like but wondered what distinctive markings might inspire naming a duck after a witch. Years later I learned that Witchduck Road got its name for its proximity to something more sinister. In 1706, Grace Sherwood stood accused of witchcraft and in the course of investigation was “ducked” or submerged in the Lynnhaven River to see if she would drown or float. The story has now become well known with Sherwood often cited as the “only person convicted of witchcraft” in Virginia. She has become a heroine of sorts and in 2006, on the 300th anniversary of the infamous ducking, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine exonerated Sherwood of the witchcraft charge.

So this was the story I wanted to tell in celebration of Halloween. In the holiday’s parlance: “trick or treat,” I believe Governor Kaine and many of us may have been tricked by a wealth of unreliable folklore and bad history. Reviewing the historical documents, Sherwood was definitely charged with witchcraft and ducked. However, there is no record of an actual trial and probably no conviction.

Lost records and unverifiable folktales prevent us from knowing the full story, but the good news here is that even though early Virginians widely believed in witchcraft, they never succumbed to hysterical witch hunts that cropped up in New England and Europe. Prosecutions in Virginia were exceedingly rare with only two proven convictions. Torture was mild to non-existent: Sherwood was the only accused to be ducked; there were never any confessions, voluntary or otherwise; and no one was executed for witchcraft. Nonetheless, witchcraft and the story of Grace Sherwood make for an interesting Halloween tale.

Witchcraft’s Origins in Europe and England

Witchcraft prosecutions began in Medieval Europe based on superstitions and beliefs in the dark arts. Those times were very different from those of today. Scientific disciplines had not taken root making the world a dark, mysterious place. Weather, plagues, famines, illness and death came with no warning and little explanation. Evil spirits lurked in dark, wild places waiting to pounce on anyone who strayed too far from civilization. Superstition served as the only plausible explanation for the causes of unexpected death and disaster.

Fear was a guiding principle which in times of crisis could escalate into hysteria. Many accepted as fact that the Devil was the root of all evil working tirelessly to recruit followers to spread mayhem. His minions took the form of witches (females) and wizards (the male counterpart). The Church and local communities made efforts to ferret out satanic members in their communities with increasing zeal as the Middle Ages progressed through witchcraft trials.

In the US we have a common perception that these prosecutions were mostly against women and with good reason. In England, witch hunters singled out women far more often than men. However, Continental Europeans did not universally share English prejudices. In some nations, males were the preferred targets. Overall, it is believed that over 100,000 witchcraft executions took place over the course of 400 years. Men made up about one third of the total, but in some countries they were the majority.

On the continent, witchcraft persecutions became the stuff of horror films. In 1486, a group of monks produced Malleus Malficarium (Hammer of the Witches) which offered a guide to identify and punish practitioners of black magic. Suspects were arrested and cruelly tortured into coerced confessions. Witchcraft was a form of heresy, one of the highest crimes in Medieval Europe, which drew the harshest sanction, burning at the stake.

Separated by the Channel, the English approach to witchcraft was more benign. Henry VIII enacted the first witchcraft law in 1542. Only one prosecution took place before the statute was overturned in 1547. Queen Elizabeth I held certain superstitions especially when it came to prophesy and astrology and her government passed a witchcraft act in 1563. However, the law reflected Elizabeth’s tendency towards moderation. Unlike other European statutes, English law identified a limited list of illegal activities constituting witchcraft, imposing imprisonment as punishment instead of death.

Things began to change with Elizabeth’s nephew James IV of Scotland. The Scots held stronger beliefs in the occult than their English neighbors and James adopted his native land’s superstitions. He was the target of several real and imagined assassination conspiracies, some of which he believed originated in witchcraft. In 1597 James wrote Daemonologie, a book like Malleus Malficarium that described methods of singling out and capturing witches. In essence, James imported theories and harsher methods already employed in Continental Europe.

Witch Panics in England

When James took the throne after Elizabeth’s death becoming King James I, he brought his superstitions with him. A law passed in 1604 broadened the definition of witchcraft and enhanced penalties. James’ new legal direction was not enough to spur widespread witchcraft persecutions though. The 1600s saw increasing instability with James’ successor Charles I and his long running conflict with Parliament. Panics and witch prosecutions followed periodic breakdowns in civil authority.

The outbreak a civil war in 1631 caused especially severe interruptions in English society. In 1644 at the height of the chaos, a witch hunter named Matthew Hopkins prosecuted hundreds and executed over 300 accused witches, most of whom were female. The son of a minister who trained as a lawyer, Hopkins had the perfect mix of knowledge of religion and law to launch a lucrative venture identifying and prosecuting witches.

Witch marks had long been a critical test. It was believed that when a witch made a pact with the Devil, he or she received a mark or witches’ teat which was an extra nipple or dark spot from which the witch could suckle “familiars.” These familiars were evil spirits who took the animal form and assisted the witch in carrying out Satan’s nefarious plans.

The English witch hunters used blades to test witch marks. Spots did not bleed amounted to evidence of a witch mark. The accused were also forced to march or run for hours on end, not allowed to sleep, and/or tied to chairs in uncomfortable positions to tempt their familiars to appear to aid them. Not surprisingly, these interrogation methods induced many confessions.

Hopkins also frequently utilized a swimming trial. He bound defendants’ arms and legs to a chair and ducked them into deep water. Drowning was proof of innocence and the accused would be received into Heaven. If they lived, they went to trial on a charge of witchcraft. The civil war ended in 1645 and within two years Parliament re-asserted regular law and order forcing Hopkins into retirement. Witch trials began declining significantly in England, largely due to the perceived excesses of recent witch hunts.

American Witchcraft

Early colonists arrived in America with the same superstitions as their European brethren. They also endured breakdowns in society and civil authority and a few small-scale witch scares cropped up in New England. However, witch hunting never took hold in Virginia. Some speculate that the economic nature of the colony prevented a turn to hysteria. Virginians were less zealous, too focused on growing tobacco, fighting Indians, and trying to establish a society to waste time and effort on extraneous matters.

Virginians were more religious than is generally acknowledged but they were not Puritans which I think makes a difference. The worst witch hunts in Britain took place at the height of Puritan influence and the Puritans in New England had their own witch panics and overly aggressive prosecutions particularly in Connecticut in 1662 and at Salem in 1692.

Few witch prosecutions appear in Virginia’s county and General Court records. In fact, defamation lawsuits brought by women claiming they were slandered by neighbors’ false allegations of witchcraft were far more common. For reasons unknown, a majority of these cases arose in the Lower Norfolk region, south of the James River. They became so frequent, the county court issued a judicial order to quash groundless charges:

“Whereas . . . dangerous & scandalous speeches have beene raised by some persons concerning several women in this Countie termeing them Witches, whereby their reputations have become impaired, and their lives brought in question . . . It is by this Court ordered that what person soer shall hereafter raise any such like scandall concerninge any partie whatsoever and shall not be able to prove the same, both upon oath, and by sufficient witnes, such person soe offending shall . . [pay] A thousand pounds of tobacco; and likewyse be lyeable to further Censure of the Court.” [1]

Virginians took a much more enlightened course than the English and New Englanders. English and New England courts accepted spectral testimony (testifying about dreams or visions or involving spirits only the bewitched could see and hear) and other dubious forms of evidence rejected in Virginia. Though King James I’s witchcraft statute bound colonists in this era, the House of Burgesses never passed a single law on witchcraft.

In researching for this post, I found only two convictions. Readers may be surprised to learn the first person convicted of witchcraft in Virginia was a man. In 1656, a Northumberland County jury found William Harding guilty of “witchcraft, sorcery, etc.” sentencing him to ten stripes on his bare back, permanent banishment from Northumberland within two months, and court costs. A Reverend David Lindsaye made the initial charge which several witness supported in depositions.

The second conviction came in 1730 against a hapless female servant named Mary in Richmond County whom several witnesses recounted that she prophesied about the locations of lost items and secret treasures [hereinafter the “servant Mary” case]. English law classified this sort of activity as fortune telling, considered petit witchcraft, not a felony. The fact that both courts relied on depositions or independent witness testimony in convicting Harding and Mary will be significant in Sherwood’s case as seen below.

By 1730, belief in witches was on the decline, especially amongst the educated who were beginning to set aside superstition in favor of science and reason. Those claiming to practice black magic were considered more of a nuisance than a threat. Just six years after Mary’s cnviction, England repealed the 1604 Act replacing it with one that punished only those who attempted to frighten or deceive others with claims of having dark powers. The underlying assumption by 1736 was that witchcraft was not real, only something to scare the gullible or uneducated.

Grace Sherwood, Fact and Fiction

So how was Grace Sherwood convicted of witchcraft decades after the panics of England and New England had passed? The answer may be because she was never actually convicted. Reviewing the history briefly, Sherwood appears in Princess Anne County records a few times. She was born to a carpenter named John White and married a farmer named James Sherwood circa 1680. The Sherwoods received 50 acres of land from John White in 1680 and inherited his estate when he died minus a few specific bequests in 1581.

Sherwood and her husband filed a defamation lawsuit against Richard Capps in 1697 or 1698 but the entry does not provide the basis of the suit. In March of 1697/8, a follow up notation dismissed the suit stating the parties settled their differences. Frequently, this record is presented as the first witchcraft accusation against Grace Sherwood. However, there is no evidence to prove the assertion. Defamation suits were not uncommon in Virginia and most did not involve witchcraft.

The Sherwoods did file two defamation suits heard simultaneously on September 6-10, 1698. The first against John and Jane Gisburne claimed that Mrs. Gilburne falsely accused Sherwood of being a witch and cursing their cotton crop. The second against Anthony and Elizabeth Barnes alleged Mrs. Barnes falsely asserted that Sherwood rode her like a horse and then escaped through a keyhole or crack in the door in the form of a black cat. After hearing testimony from multiple witnesses, a jury returned a verdict for both pairs of defendants and the court ordered James Sherwood to pay the costs of trial.

A record from 1701 notes the death of James Sherwood with Grace as his sole heir. As a widow, Sherwood became a freeholder (sole property owner) capable of bringing suits herself.* The last entry of note occurred on October 7, 1705. Sherwood filed a lawsuit against Luke Hill and his wife alleging Mrs. Hill came on Sherwood’s property and assaulted her. Sherwood sought £50 in damages and a jury awarded 20 shillings.

Three months later, Luke Hill brought a complaint alleging Sherwood bewitched his wife. What follows are facts taken from Princess Anne County records. Sherwood failed to appear at the first hearing dated February 6, 1706. The court ordered her to attend the next hearing. On March 7, 1706, the court impaneled a jury of women who found evidence of two witch marks. Interestingly, the forewoman Elizabeth Barnes was the same defendant in Sherwood’s 1698 defamation suit.

After the jury found witch marks, the court adjourned without making any disposition. Luke Hill petitioned the General Court seeking a trial. Virginia’s Attorney General Stevens Thomson, responsible for prosecuting trials before the General Court reviewed the matter. He wrote a letter dated April 16, 1706 opining that the charges were” too general” returning the matter to the county court to make more specific accusations. Stevens also did not seem convinced by the supporting evidence either for he suggested the court gather more evidence.

Court re-convened on May 2, 1706 ordering Sherwood’s home be searched for evidence of witchcraft and seeking a new jury of women to search Sherwood’s body for witch marks. A month later, on June 6-7, 1706, the court noted that the jury called to examine Sherwood’s body refused to appear. The court held this jury in contempt and ordered a new jury of different women. There is no further mention of the home search which would seem to indicate the searchers found nothing suspicious or that the search was never conducted. Given the difficulty in obtaining a jury to examine Sherwood’s body, it seems likely a search was never conducted.

By the next hearing on July 5, 1706 the court had failed to find a jury of women to examine Sherwood’s body. The court indicated Sherwood agreed: “by her owne Consent to be tryed in ye water by Ducking.” [2] The Court delayed the ducking because the “weather being very Rainy & Bad Soe yet possibly it might endanger her health.” [3]

On July 10, 1706, the ducking occurred at Harper’s Plantation on the Lynnhaven River. Sherwood was taken “into above mans Depth and try her how She Swims Therein always having Care for her to preserve her from Drowning.” [4] In addition to delaying the ducking for fear bad weather might harm Sherwood’s health, the court took special pains to ensure Sherwood did not drown if she could not swim. The court’s concern for the defendant’s life is a marked departure from European practices.

Witnessing the ducking, the court concluded Sherwood was “Swiming therein bound & contrary To custom” which meant she floated “unnaturally” or at least did not sink. [5] The court also apparently gathered five women who came to witness the ducking to serve as a jury. They “All Declared on Oath . . . She is like . . . noe other woman they knew of having two Things like titts on her private parts of a Black [color] being Blacker [than] the rest of her Body” [6] Based on this evidence the court found there was enough evidence to forward the matter to the General Court for trial.

It is important to note here, the county court’s findings did not amount to a conviction, only a finding of sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal trial. Witchcraft qualified as a major felony under Virginia law. The trial fell under the exclusive purview of the General Court in Williamsburg.

The paper trail ends after the July 10th hearing. There is no record of a trial in the General Court. Unfortunately, the state government retained records of the General Court in Williamsburg. When Governor Thomas Jefferson moved the state capital from Williamsburg to Richmond in 1780, the court’s records followed. By 1865, Richmond was the capital of a collapsing Confederacy. With Union troops at the gates of Richmond, city officials set fire to warehouses containing military supplies to prevent their capture. The conflagration soon spread destroying much of Richmond’s downtown including the General Court’s records.

Consequently, if a trial took place, the 1865 fire destroyed the records. However, I do not believe the General Court ever conducted a trial and thus Grace Sherwood was never convicted of witchcraft. The Princes Anne court initially stated that Sherwood bewitched Mrs. Hill. Attorney General Thomson found that charge “too general.” On remand, the court did little to adduce more specific assertions. This alone would be enough for the General Court to dismiss the case or for the attorney general to decline to prosecute.

The court also ignored Thomson’s call for more evidentiary proof. A good example of what the General Court required was presented in a 1626 case against Joan Wright. In that trial, the county court took the depositions (sworn testimony) of several witnesses who claimed Wright was angry that a Sergeant Booth’s wife wanted a midwife other than Wright. The Booths asserted that Wright caused their infant child to suffer illnesses for two months before dying. They also claimed that Mrs. Booth developed a sore on her breast that lasted five months.

Other witnesses testified that Wright prophesied the deaths of several people and threatened to make a servant girl she suspected of stealing firewood dance naked before a tree unless she returned the kindling. A final witness stated that she heard that Wright had engaged in witchcraft while still living in England and in another Virginia county. As an aside, even with all this “evidence,” no verdict was rendered which probably means Wright was not convicted.

The Wright and Harding (1656 conviction) courts both took witness depositions finding a General Court trial was warranted. The servant Mary’s case (1730 c0nviction) would not have required depositions as the county court had authority to try petit criminal charges. The Richmond County Court still cited testimony from several witnesses in reaching a verdict. The Princess Anne Court never undertook such an investigation. There were no depositions and no indication of supporting testimony against Sherwood. In the court’s final holding, Princess Anne’s magistrates relied solely on the ducking and witch marks in finding a trial should proceed. When compared to the Wright, Harding and servant Mary trials, the Sherwood court’s findings are clearly insufficient.

Further, Thomson admonished the Princess Anne Court to follow regular procedures in prosecuting Sherwood’s case. The court did not seem aware that ducking was no longer practiced in Europe or America. Negative reaction to Hopkins’ tortuous methods had eliminated ducking in the few witch trials that occurred after 1647 in England. In New England, a few defendants were ducked in Connecticut in the 1660s. The Salem trials included many questionable methods, but by 1692, New Englanders had discontinued use of ducking—none of the Salem defendants were ducked. Virginia never utilized ducking in any witch trial.

Attorney General Thomson’s letter indicates a clear reluctance to prosecute the case which was in keeping with the overall approach in Virginia towards witchcraft. Thomson would have been aware that ducking was no longer considered evidence. He also undoubtedly knew well that events in Salem had thoroughly discredited witchcraft trials across the American colonies. In short, the Princess Anne Court failed to produce any new admissible evidence which would have been more than enough for an unwilling attorney general to dismiss the case.

Even though sparse, the available court records provide other clues that no trial and/or conviction occurred. Part of the folklore attached to Sherwood includes a claim her property was confiscated as a result of the conviction. Had the state confiscated Sherwood’s property, it would have been necessary to record a deed transferring ownership. No such notation exists.

Further, on September 1, 1708 Sherwood is ordered to pay 600 lbs. of tobacco for unpaid taxes in the same court. Had a court taken her property in 1706, Sherwood would have no taxes to pay in 1708. Also worthy of note, in the other witchcraft convictions in Virginia, neither court ordered confiscation of property. The English law governing this case did not include property confiscation as a sanction. Thus, taking Sherwood’s property would not have been a legal consequence of conviction.

Often a 1714 record signed by Lieutenant Governor Alexander Spottswood granting Sherwood the right to purchase 145 acres is cited as further evidence her property was confiscated. Spottswood’s letter though indicates the property escheated from Sherwood’s father John White, not Sherwood. Property escheats to the government when it is left unclaimed or taxes are unpaid. Spottswood states that the county tax agent took possession of the land in 1702, probably for failure to pay taxes. Apparently when White died, the Sherwoods either did not know of White’s ownership of the land or failed to transfer title into their names. They also probably did not pay taxes on the land and since the property was not in their names did not receive notice of the delinquency. In any event, the county’s assumption of ownership took place four years before the witchcraft proceedings began so it could not possibly relate to Sherwood’s trial.

In summary, the records do not support the contention that Sherwood was convicted of witchcraft or had her property confiscated. In fact they imply no trial in General Court ever occurred.

Conclusion

Nothing in this article is intended to malign Grace Sherwood. She was wrongly accused of a baseless criminal charge that undoubtedly caused great stress, humiliation and put her life and liberty at risk. We celebrate the right to live as we please without being subjected to groundless harassment and/or repression, and Sherwood unnecessarily suffered on both points. Clearly, the Hills’ witchcraft charge was little more than retaliation for Sherwood’s successful assault claim and whatever conflict arose therefrom. The whole process was tainted from start to finish. As a former lawyer I hate to see the legal process manipulated and perverted for illegitimate purposes as it was here.

That said, one of the major focuses of this blog is to present history in an accurate and neutral light. Based on the available evidence, I do not believe Grace Sherwood was ever convicted of witchcraft. Folklore stories, particularly those centered on Halloween are fun and one expects exaggeration or outright fabrication in the interest of making the story enthralling, thrilling, chilling, etc. Sometimes our only historical source is folklore. Where we utilize such tales, higher scrutiny is necessary and we should endeavor to separate legend from fact. What is written above is merely an attempt to remove unsubstantiated folk tales from analytical history.

Happy Halloween!





* In this time, the law recognized wives as part of the husband’s estate. Therefore suits brought for married women or against married women had to include the husband. In fact, when making a finding of damages against a married woman, it was the husband who was required to pay the judgment.

For more on ancient Samhain practices, their evolution to modern Halloween, and influence on modern culture such as the popular song John Barleycorn Must Die, click: http://historyarch.com/2017/10/31/halloween-melding-the-ancient-and-the-modern/

Footnotes

[1] James, Edward W. (Ed.), The Lower Norfolk county Virginia antiquary. V. 1-5; 1895-1906, V.1: p. 152. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101061729628&view=1up&seq=283.

The following quotes appear both in the Lower Norfolk County Court Antiquary and in the source below. Because the latter is easier to access, I have used Edward James’ reports. The content is identical in both sources.

[2] James, Edward W. “Grace Sherwood, the Virginia Witch.” The William and Mary Quarterly 3, no. 4 (1895), p. 244. doi:10.2307/1915288

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] James, Edward W. “Grace Sherwood, the Virginia Witch.” The William and Mary Quarterly 4, no. 1 (1895), p.18. doi:10.2307/1916177.

[6] Ibid.

Sources

Anonymous, Witchcraft in Colonial Virginia. Encyclopedia Virginia, Library of Virginia, https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/witchcraft_in_colonial_virginia#start_entry

Barden, Thomas E. Ed., Virginia Folk Legends. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 1991.

Blumberg, Jess, A Brief History of the Salem Witch Trials. Smithsonian.com, October 23, 2007. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-the-salem-witch-trials-175162489/

Davis, Richard Beale. “The Devil in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 65, no. 2 (1957): 131-49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4246295.

Drake, Frederick C. “Witchcraft in the American Colonies, 1647-62.” American Quarterly 20, no. 4 (1968): 694-725. doi:10.2307/2711403.

Gibson, Marion, Witchcraft Myths in American Culture. New York: Routledge Publishers, 2007.

Hay, Shana, “The Historical Significance of Matthew Hopkins: England’s ‘Witchfinder General.’” Impetus, Spring 2011, Luther College, University of Regina, https://www.luthercollege.edu/university/academics/impetus/spring-2011/the-historical-significance-of-matthew-hopkins-englands-witchfinder-general/

James, Edward W. “Grace Sherwood, the Virginia Witch.” The William and Mary Quarterly 3, no. 2 (1894): 96-101. doi:10.2307/1914583.

James, Edward W. “Grace Sherwood, the Virginia Witch.” The William and Mary Quarterly 3, no. 3 (1895): 190-92. doi:10.2307/1914774.

“Grace Sherwood, the Virginia Witch.” The William and Mary Quarterly 4, no. 1 (1895): 18-22. doi:10.2307/1916177.

James, Edward W. “Grace Sherwood, the Virginia Witch.” The William and Mary Quarterly 3, no. 4 (1895): 242-45. doi:10.2307/1915288.

James, Edward W. (Ed.), The Lower Norfolk county Virginia antiquary. V. 1-5; 1895-1906. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101061729628&view=1up&seq=283

Klein, Christopher, Before Salem, the First American Witch Hunt. History.com October 31, 2012, updated September 1, 2018. https://www.history.com/news/before-salem-the-first-american-witch-hunt

https://time.com/4543405/connecticut-witch-trials/

McIlwane, H. R. (ed.), Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia 1622–1632, 1670–1676. P. 110- . https://archive.org/details/minutesofcouncil00virg/page/110

Rosen, Barbara (ed.) English Witchcraft Statutes of 1542, 1563, and 1604. http://courses.washington.edu/hsteu305/English%20WC%20statutes.PDF

All images are in the public domain and are thus subject to Fair Use Laws.

5 1 vote Article Rating

Share this: Print

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Reddit

