Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti -- were they guilty or just
victims of circumstance? You decide. This case was one of the most
controversial court cases in America's history and soon you will know
why.
Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants who emigrated to America
in 1908. At the time, Sacco was seventeen, and Vanzetti was 20. In
April 1920, Sacco was working in a shoe factory, and Vanzetti was
selling fish on the streets. Of the two immigrants, only Sacco had a
family in the United States. His wife, Rosina, was expecting her
second child. Their first son, Dante, was two years old. Both men
were aliens, non-citizens, but Vanzetti had begun the process of
citizenship. However, he did not speak English.
Sacco and Vanzetti were accused of murdering the paymaster and a
guard at the Slater and Morrill shoe factory in South Braintree,
Massachusetts, on April 15, 1920. They were also accused of taking
two payroll boxes which contained $15,776.51.
Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested on May 5, 1920, when they went with
two other men, Orciani and Boda, to pick up Boda's car from a garage.
The car was not ready, so they left the garage and hopped a street
car. The police stopped the street car and arrested them. Orciani was
arrested the next day, but let go when his alibi checked out. Sacco
was only charged with the Braintree murders. Vanzetti, however, was
charged with both the Braintree murders, and another robbery, the
Bridgewater crime.
They were indicted on September 14, 1920, and put on trial on May 31,
1921. Their trial lasted almost seven weeks, and on July 14, 1921,
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were found guilty of murder in
the first degree. They would be executed for this crime.
During the trial, there were many conflicting facts. For example, a
hat found at the scene of the crime was assumed to be Sacco's.
However, when Sacco tried it on, it did not fit his head. Sacco told
the court he wore a size 7 1/8, and this hat was size 6 7/8. How
could that have been Sacco's hat if it wasn't even his size? Sacco
was also asked why he was carrying a gun on May 5. He replied, "My
wife cleaned the house because we are to go Saturday to New York to
get the boat to Italy. She found the pistol then. I was afraid that
sometime my boy could go after it. So I put the bullets and the gun
in my pocket. I planned to go shooting in the woods with Vanzetti.
But Vanzetti and I started to argue that afternoon, and I forgot
about shooting, so it was still in my pocket." (Rappaport,
116)
In addition to this information, it was also known that the two men
were avowed anarchists. These radical political ideas were considered
unacceptable in a society that was currently experiencing a deep
hatred of undemocratic ideas. Coupled with their radical views, both
Sacco and Vanzetti had to face the nativist ideas that permeated
American society. Their political beliefs and ethnic backgrounds
worked to their disadvantage. In fact, the judge made plain his
hositlity toward the defendants whom he refered to as "those
anarchist bastards." (Boyer, 827)
The case of Sacco and Vanzetti represented a deep division in
American society. We will never know for sure whether Sacco and
Vanzetti actually committed the murders. However, the evidence
against them was circumstantial and far from airtight.
Now that you know the facts, what would you decide? Were they guilty
or innocent?
*****
Boyer, Paul S. The Enduring Vision. D.C. Heath and Company,
Lexington, Massachusetts. 1993.
Rappaport, Doreen. The Sacco-Vanzetti Trial. NY:
Harper-Collins, Inc., 1992.
