Talk:Westminster Massacre

Notability
If Mr. French is only known for dying at the age of 22, I think he his of dubious notability, especially if nothing else is known of him beyond is genealogy. The best Wikipedia account of the circumstances around his death are in the article on Ethan Allen. The claim that he died at the hands of tyrannical Crown officials is also a quaint 19th century Vermont historical fiction; the dispute was really between colonial factions, one of which had de jure crown authority on its side.  Magic ♪piano 02:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

--

Fact- William French was killed on March 13, 1775. His father held deed to land via the New Hampshire Grants. His brother held deed to land via the New Hampshire Grants. The governor of New York (representing the Crown) was attempting to nullify the ownership or the deeds held by hundreds of farmers (the Rebels) within the New Hampshire Grants. William French was killed because he was part of an organized resistance to the activities of the Crown, i.e., the theft of their land.

http://www.ibrattleboro.com/braintrust/index.php?title=William_French

http://www.vermontgenealogy.com/history/massacre_at_westminster_vermont.htm

http://www.vermonthistory.org/freedom_and_unity/new_frontier/massacre.html

http://westminster.govoffice.com/vertical/Sites/%7BA171D8D5-AAF9-44F2-8E0E-B30695F0816B%7D/uploads/%7B51F62919-B2D6-4099-85CD-2214852C3006%7D.HTM

http://books.google.com/books?id=_L0MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=william+french+westminster+vt&source=bl&ots=xIgO4hX2Et&sig=WJDX6ZIUX3znpt49AT5asGIg_DE&hl=en&ei=Nw5GTYr2JsL7lwe57fgU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~vtwindha/vhg5/westminster.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70613F63B5D11738DDDA90B94D9405B8885F0D3

http://www.westminsterhistory.net/?p=101

westminster.govoffice.com/.../%7B9D7EF559-4A45-4DE5-8182-89A8A0FC84D9%7D.PDF

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D1FFE3B5C1B7B93CAAB178FD85F418784F9

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Vermont — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoohniboR (talk • contribs) 01:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to read some slightly less biased history; the granters didn't have the law on their side, their landholdings were technically void as a matter of law. However, none of the above addresses the notability question, to whit: is there anything about Mr. French that merits mention beyond, say, an article specifically about the "Westminster massacre"?   Magic ♪piano 03:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The historical evidence is that this event became a public catalyst of events leading up to the revolutionary war. Two nearby colonial militia's (100 men)were dispatched the recapture the court house. There are reports that upon Gage hearing of this he was enraged. The event was published in papers in Boston. More to follow.


 * Nowhere have I argued that the event is not interesting or notable; please stick to the question of notability. I hope the "more to follow" includes something about the notability of this individual (beyond the immediate circumstances of his death), rather than the event.  At this point, I'm being strongly tempted to write up a stub on the Westminster massacre and redirect this article there.  Magic ♪piano 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

--

You need to read some slightly less biased history; '''[I agree. My only source for local Vermont history is the Internet. Would you please suggest an online source that would support your unbiased history?] the granters didn't have the law [Whose law?]  on their side, their landholdings were technically void as a matter of law [Again, whose law? The point is; as ordinary folks emigrated west and built homesteads (farms that they paid for - purchase agreements and deeds are available for N.F., Sr. in Brattleboro, VT - N.F., Jr. in Dummerston, VT), the Crown was threatening to take THEIR land. The Frenchs and other ordinary hard working farmers weren't the original Grantees - they had purchased the land from the original owners. No one disputes the fact that law-of-the-land in 1775 WAS the issue. No one disputes the fact that there was wide-spread agitation. The point is, again, that very hard working, relatively uneducated farmers were threatened by the Crown and encouraged by others to resist the New Yorkers. Were these families famous or notable? No! But do they personify ordinary colonists? Yes! William French could and should (in my opinion), represent those common folks.]'  However, none of the above addresses the notability question, to whit: is there anything about Mr. French that merits mention beyond, say, an article specifically about the "Westminster massacre"?  '[History, unfortunately, is nothing more than collections of opinions. And yes, the roughly twenty histories that I have read all claim that William French died as the result of a gunshot where the perpetrator opposed his right to assemble. Wasn't that one of the great matters of the day?]''' ''The historical evidence is that this event became a public catalyst of events leading up to the revolutionary war. Two nearby colonial militia's (100 men)were dispatched the recapture the court house. There are reports that upon Gage hearing of this he was enraged. The event was published in papers in Boston'' [Exactly!].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoohniboR (talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, there is no need to shout.
 * I will recommend two things called books to you; if you live in or near Vermont, they will probably both be in your nearest public library:
 * Jellison, Charles A (1969). Ethan Allen: Frontier Rebel. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-2141-8. Jellison writes well about Allen and the grants dispute without the fawning Vermont bias your links present.
 * Van de Water, Frederic. The Reluctant Republic, New York: John Day, 1941. Van de Water is also not ridiculously biased, even though he's a Vermont historian.
 * You ask "what law?" was against the granters? Pretty much all of the law except that of their own making was against them. The land they bought was improperly granted by Benning Wentworth, the governor of New Hampshire.  Some of the grants were made even after he agreed to stop doing so (for example, those purchased by Ethan Allen in the 1770s were made after King George III ruled against Wentworth and declared the territory to be New York's).  New York uncharitably refused to recognize Wentworth's grants without paying additional fees to New York; money most of the grantees did not have.  This is what started the resistance.
 * The resistance was complicated by the fact that there were grantees who wanted New York rule; this complication was especially problematic in the greater Brattleboro area. In my opinion, this dispute had precious little to do with the Crown, and lots to do with inter-colonial territorial rivalries, complicated by interpersonal rivalries.  When you claim things like "the crown was trying to steal their land", it's like someone whose car title has been declared invalid by a judge complaining that the President of the United States is trying to steal his car.  This is silly.
 * Just because William French "represents the common folk" doesn't mean he gets to have a whole Wikipedia article written about him. He needs to meet Wikipedia's definition of notability for people for that (see specifically WP:1E, covering people known for a single event).  The event is notable (in my opinion -- I knew of it from working on Ethan Allen), but the person is not.  I suggest you try your hand at writing Westminster massacre.  Magic ♪piano 23:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Not a shout (I'm old school) - emphasis! Truly; had I read the rules for notability, I could have saved you a good deal of time. You're right. William French is not notable. The notion that the Crown was stealing their land, however, isn't silly.  In my opinion, these settlers believed that the Crown WAS (emphasis) stealing their land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoohniboR (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll disagree a little with your last; the settlers may have thought their land was being stolen, but it was not for the crown's benefit. It was for the benefit of rich New York colonial landowners looking to expand their holdings, and the colonists almost certainly knew that.  Magic ♪piano 19:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since User:DoohniboR seems to have disappeared, I've renamed and repurposed this article.  Magic ♪piano 13:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)