There鈥檚 not a lot of disagreement over the facts surrounding the Westminster Massacre.
On March 13, 1775, a group of Westminster farmers took over the county courthouse, and were met by an armed posse led by the local sheriff.
About a dozen people were shot, and two men died.
It was an important event in our state鈥檚, and country鈥檚, history, and the Westminster Historical Society this month held a three-day event commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Westminster Massacre.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not a Vermont story. It鈥檚 a colonial story,鈥� said Jessie Haas, the Westminster Historical Society president. 鈥淎nd this was a revolutionary event and the first bloodshed of the American Revolution.鈥�
Haas is a well-known children鈥檚 book author who鈥檚 published more than 40 books. She had an American Girl doll created after a character in one of her stories.
About 15 years ago, the Westminster Historical Society asked her to write a history book about the town 鈥� and the research she did around the massacre was so complex and compelling that she ended up writing a second book, just on the events leading up to March of 1775.
She pored through firsthand accounts of the massacre, and she says, according to the words of the men who took part in the courthouse occupation, it is clear they were protesting British rule in America.
鈥淲hen I started writing about it and go back to the original sources, it was like, oh, these documents are very similar to documents that were being written by towns all over Massachusetts, you know, just laying down their principles, and, you know, why they were standing up to the Parliament and the King,鈥� Haas said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 just so explicit.鈥�
It鈥檚 not a Vermont story. It鈥檚 a colonial story. And this was a revolutionary event and the first bloodshed of the American Revolution.Jessie Haas, Westminster Historical Society
The region that we now know as Vermont was controlled by New Hampshire and New York, and there was a dispute between the two colonial states.
The courthouse in Westminster was under New York rule, which was aligned with Great Britain, so Haas says the action in 1775 was a direct challenge to British rule.
After the violent night of March 13, more than 400 people from around the region traveled to Westminster to support the farmers. They freed the people who were being held in prison, and took the judge and other staff from the courthouse.
Haas says the Westminster Massacre led to the end of colonial rule in Vermont.
A month later, the Battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts started the Revolutionary War, and Haas says the two deaths in Westminster turned out to be the first casualties of the war for independence.
鈥淭he Westminster Massacre started out as a peaceful protest, a nonviolent protest,鈥� she says. 鈥淎nd it was the last one of those, and the first one that was met by violence, and the first fatality, in that whole kind of march of events from the Boston Tea Party.鈥�
Some historians don鈥檛 agree with that interpretation.
鈥淚 think the evidence is much stronger that it was to stop the court from dispossessing local farmers,鈥� said Vermont historian Kevin Graffagnino. 鈥淚鈥檇 be very surprised if anyone in that crowd was shouting, 鈥楧own with the King. Down with England. Up America.鈥欌��
Graffagnino is a former director of the Vermont Historical Society, and has published more than 20 books, many on Vermont history.
And he says while the facts of the massacre are indisputable, the event had more to do with local politics and land debt than ending tyrannical rule in the new country.
Those Westminster farmers were worried about losing their land due to debt payments, he says, and they were most likely motivated by their own self interests.
I think the evidence is much stronger that it was to stop the court from dispossessing local farmers. I鈥檇 be very surprised if anyone in that crowd was shouting, "Down with the King. Down with England. Up America."Kevin Graffagnino, Vermont historian
Soon after the war started, Vermonters started pinning the Westminster Massacre to the ongoing conflict with Great Britain, and when the war was over, historians embraced that idea.
But Graffagnino says this idea of rethinking our history aligns with a more modern interpretation of the actions and motivations of the past.
鈥淚 think it鈥檚 part of a broader national trend of looking more objectively, not, oh, idolizing the Founding Father鈥檚 generation anymore; putting them on pedestals, statues of great white men who did no wrong, who never had any faults, who had no human nuances,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd I think that that has led Vermonters to a more balanced look at how the state began.鈥�
And Graffagnino says the debate is good.
He understands the local pride Westminster residents have in believing the American Revolution began in their fields and roads.
The three-day celebration in Westminster was a success, and Haas says the more you talk about what really happened, the more you honor all of the people who paid a sacrifice to carry the American experiment forward.
Because, she says, the fight is not over.
鈥淚 wish it were not a timely story. I wished it seemed quaint and old fashioned to think about government violence and government mendacity,鈥� Haas said. 鈥淪o, yeah, I wonder sometimes in the press of current events, like the first month of this administration, like, does this matter to be accurate about something that happened 250 years ago? But, the fact that it was part of the founding of this country, and with all its flaws, an experiment that I would like to see continue, I think it matters to get the truth about it, and I think it just matters to kind of put down a marker that, yeah, we should get it right.鈥�
Peter Engisch produced the audio for this story.
