I enjoyed and am impressed with Davies collection of information about witchcraft belief in the US; and it is a book about belief- he makes no statements about the reality of any of the witchcraft he mentions, nor is the evidence aimed at substantiating or disproving the beliefs. (It is also not a book about the development of neo-paganism.) This book records how people from America's diverse cultural backgrounds shared beliefs that there were witches: people with the ability and predisposition to harm others using supernatural means. What bothered me most in this book was the organization: it is divided into chapters on what was in laws, dealing with witches, dealing with witch believers, mental illness (as a defense having murdered a suspected witch, as well as as a way to challenge whether the maker of a disappointing will was "of sound mind"), and finishes with the changing face of witchcraft (the last 50 years), but, perhaps because of my historical background, I'd prefer a sequential presentation, although I recognize that the phenomenon change at different rates in different places.
He's collected information from newspaper accounts, laws, and folklore collections, and presents a huge number of reported incidents. What he seems to lack is a coherent thesis, to suggest what conclusions may be drawn from this collection. It's possible that it is simply that American belief in witchcraft never really went away even after Salem. On the other hand he was consistently careful to point out reporting bias of his sources. On page 162 (in the chapter on mental illness) he says: "Retrospective diagnosis can be of value. They remind us to take seriously beliefs and experiences that have been denounced as the excrescences of racial and cultural backwardness." This may be his point. While the dominant paradigm, at this point in our history, denies the reality of witchcraft, that position is a mere blip on the radar of the whole of history. Witchcraft accusations may well arise from insoluble social stresses, economic competition, religious prejudice, explanations including misunderstood diseases, mental illness, and psychological effects such as suggestion. These factors may have been misused as evidence to support belief in witchcraft, but those who believed were not necessarily uneducated nor unintelligent. While deploring trickery and use of violence (and especially spectral evidence), we should not dismiss those who believed in witchcraft- either as fools, or as statistical outliers.
Our forefathers believed in magick as a source of otherwise inexplicable problems in their lives. Culturally the users (generally claiming to use their abilities to combat witches and other malign forces)called themselves herb doctors, hex doctors, root gatherers/workers, conjurers or conjure doctors, medicine men, hexwomen/doctor, root workers, hoodoo doctor/ess,wangateur, pow wow, witch doctor, witch/hexmaster, curandero/s, wise woman, cunningfolk, and sometimes fortune tellers. Closely associated were the hypnotists, mesmerists, magnitizers, psychomotrists, spiritualists, and mediums that proliferated before laws restricting healing excluded patent medicine makers and quack doctors (and let's not forget gypsies, nor that many churches performed healing ceremonies). (Oddly, he doesn't seem to have mentioned dowsers or water witches.) Every culture, indigenous or immigrant, seems to have brought it's own witchcraft beliefs which sometimes stayed within the subculture, and sometimes mixed in the "melting pot".
I was a bit disappointed in his final chapter on modern developments, (he probably considered it well covered in other books). While he covers the media from Bewitched, to Harry Potter, he doesn't punctuate it with the same sort of news stories that fill the rest of the book. It's not like witches of various sorts aren't still around and people aren't still worried about them. It's just been complicated.
All in all, this is well worth reading, and it may be a asset not a liability that he leaves us to draw our on conclusions. I took it from the library, and am buying a copy to have as a reference on the laws and other content, and I will be seeking out other books of his, so I guess the organizational flaws don't bother me too much.