Petition Prepared draft for F. Kaye by Margaret Cotton May 27, 2026, for MWHC

​

We respectfully request a Historical Post-Conviction Proclamation recognizing that Mary Dyer was unjustly hanged in Boston in 1660. She intentionally challenged Puritan theocratic law that restricted any other forms of Christian or personal conscience or faith. Her commitment until her last breath accelerated a chain of events crucial to our nation, directly resulting in unique foundational documents for the First Amendment's liberty of religion, conscience, and speech. Her conviction and execution have unfairly damaged her character and achievements, intentionally diminishing the perception of women’s contributions to the finest values of our developing nation. 

 

Contemporary Rationale 

Enduring, steadfast foundations of our liberties and gained by supporters following Mary Dyer’s execution are three documents: The Royal Mandate to Boston of 1661, Royal Command to Boston in 1662, and the Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663. 

 

Lost today is the acknowledgement that on June 1, 1660, a lone colonial woman stood unwavering on the gallows. Not against faith, but because of her deep Christian faith, Mary spoke truth to powerful men who did not respect the right God gives all individuals to choose how to respond. 

In 2026, when Mary is remembered at all, the words most often used evoke shame: heretic, troublesome, unintelligent, rebel, mother of a monster, dangerous, and banished. These remnants of her prosecutors’ accusations and other errors are repeated on tours, in books, pamphlets, and online accounts. More appropriate words should include courageous, loyal, generous, resilient, confident, persistent, Christian, compassionate, brilliant, martyr, and visionary leader. 

 

The requested Historical Post Conviction Proclamation would affirm the profound early contributions of Mary Dyer and other women to our country’s formative values and principles. It would also serve as an example of the courage and strength needed by patriots to continue to protect our country’s freedoms. 

 

Historic Background

Harsh theocratic Puritan laws were passed in 1659, resulting in the execution of several English Quakers in Boston. The next year Mary Dyer also was hanged. She, however, was a colonial woman well-known in both Boston and Newport and to London society, where she was influential at the Royal Court. The Puritans and the Friends Society published vivid accounts of the hangings in all the colonies and in London. Immediately, King Charles ll issued a Royal Mandate, explicitly prohibiting harm to Massachusetts’ professing Quakers. These royal actions signaled the King’s disapproval and represented a powerful shift in oversight by the newly installed monarch. Non-compliance threatened the Massachusetts Royal Charter. Immediately, Governor Endicott released numerous Quakers and other Christians imprisoned and awaiting the same fate. A Royal Command in1662 re-enforced the mandate.

​

  The original 1638 convicted and banished families who followed Anne Hutchinson to Newport and Providence immediately renewed their decade-long efforts for a Rhode Island Royal Charter to provide unprecedented security for their religious freedom. Outraged supporters of Mary Dyer had personal incentives for this charter that would honor Hutchinson’s and Dyer’s goals. Their large committee was led by John Clarke and included Roger Williams and Mary’s husband, William Dyer. King Charles ll met them with a sympathetic and benevolent attitude, and he issued the remarkable Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663. As a Royal Charter and not a colonial or provincial proclamation, it is rightly considered the first permanent legal protection and provision for human religious rights in the modern world. (docs.sos.ri.gov).  

 

    However, charters and proclamations do not create legacies; relationships do. Mary’s extraordinary dedication and sacrifice would be remembered for generations within the humility of American Quaker tradition. The religious freedom won by this "lively experiment of 1663" was, for over one hundred years, a beacon of light for immigration and was woven into the fabric of the American experience. Unfortunately, both Anne Hutchinson’s and Mary Dyer’s contributions and achievements were overwhelmingly denigrated by continued false publications, sermons, and harassment by Boston civic and religious leaders. Those who wrote our history chose to overlook the original Massachusetts ladies’ righteous revolution.

 

     Surprisingly, following the American Revolution, specific liberties were not enumerated in the Constitution. Several states were reluctant, yet they ratified. Rhode Islanders refused. The success of the “lively experiment” of religious freedom for over a hundred years was still prominent, and Mary Dyer and Anne Hutchinson remained a significant part of their heritage and self-identity. Many differences were resolved by adding the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. The First Amendment acknowledged the essential priority of freedom of religion, conscience, and speech. Only on May 29, 1790, becoming the 13th and final state of the original colonies, Rhode Island agreed to ratify, truly creating the unity of the states. 

​

 

A collection of documents that influenced the formation and later interpretation of the First Amendment, concerning freedom of religion/speech, in the Bill of Rights. 

Texas A&M University School of Law, Kelly Law Library- the First Amendment: History & Development of the First Amendment   law.tamu.libguides.com 

            Edited by date to only include those before or current to the religious activist in Boston1659-60.

 

General Rights:
Magna Carta, 1215 English

            https://www.archives.gov/files/press/press-kits/magna-carta/magna-carta-translation.pdf
 

Petition of Right, 1628- English due process

            https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/2_The_Petition_of_Right.pdf
 

Freedom of Religion:

The following transcripts and records of events that occurred in Boston were generously shared by Gov. Winthrop and Gov. Endicott to all other colonies and England. Bias by Puritans.

 The Quakers published and distributed them to multiple colonies, England, and other nations.  These public and unique documents were available and stood as the only legal precedents to all that followed. Bias Quakers.

 

Anne Hutchinson’s civil and church trial records and banishment 1637

            https://www.famous-trials.com/hutchinson/2397-the-examination-of-anne-hutchinson-november-1637

            https://www.evanfriss.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Anne-Hutchinson.pdf

 

Maryland Toleration Act (1649):    

            Forasmuch as in a well governed and Christian Common Weath matters concerning Religion and the honor of God ….by the Right Honourable Cecilius Lord Baron of Baltemore absolute           Lord and Proprietary of this Province with the advice and consent of this Generall Assembly:        An Act by Baltimore colonial government that protected Christians and tolerated without equal      protection other matters of conscience.

            https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/maryland_toleration.asp

 

Mary Dyer and other Quaker civil trial transcripts Boston 1659-1660

            https://famous-trials.com/dyer/2486-mary-dyer-before-the-general-court-may-1660

            Edward Burrough, Society of Friends- Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution and     Martyrdom of Quakers 1661             https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=etas

            Winsser, Johan. Mary and William Dyer: Quaker Light and Puritan Ambition in      New England

 

Mandate to Boston from King Charles ll 1661

              https://famous-trials.com/dyer/2477-royal-mandate-for-the-release-of-the-quakers-1661
 

The Royal Charter of Rhode Island, 1663

            https://docs.sos.ri.gov/documents/civicsandeducation/teacherresources/RI-Charter-annotated.pdf
 

 

The First Amendment

 

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/17th.asp

 

The interpretation of the First Amendment’s religious clauses has shifted from strictly limiting federal power to actively balancing individual rights against state interests. [1, 2]

The Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause prevents the government from sanctioning an official state religion. [1]

·       Original Intent: It initially stopped the federal government from interfering with existing state-established churches [1].

·       The Lemon Test (1971): Lemon v. Kurtzman required laws to have a secular purpose, not advance or inhibit religion, and avoid "excessive entanglement."

·       The Shift to Coercion and History (Recent): The Supreme Court has largely abandoned the Lemon Test. Modern rulings focus on whether the government is actively coercing religious participation and whether the practice aligns with historical traditions. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' rights to practice their religion as they please. [1]

·       The Sherbert Test (1963): Laws burdening religious practices required a "compelling government interest" and the "least restrictive means."

·       The Smith Decision (1990): Employment Division v. Smith changed the standard. It ruled that neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate free exercise, even if they burden religious practices.

·       Modern Robust Protection (Recent): The Court has increasingly carved out religious exemptions to neutral laws. It expanded the "ministerial exception" to shield religious employers from discrimination lawsuits and protected religious businesses from public accommodations laws. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]