Address newsletter
Get the latest news on buying, selling, renting, home design, and more.
Three hundred and thirty years ago, a group of English settlers and allied French and Wabanaki soldiers battled near the Oyster River, in what is now Durham, leaving about 100 settlers dead.
While those bare facts were first commemorated on a historical marker decades ago, the story behind the battle – including where the blame lies, what led to the conflict, and which group suffered more – is still up for debate as Durham residents have been working to erect what they hope will be a more accurate marker describing the deadliest event in the town’s history.
A committee of residents and representatives from several local and state agencies have spent months in lengthy roundtable discussions, struggling to agree on the words to best describe this colonial-era conflict. The conversations became so contentious that town leaders brought in mediators to help find consensus.
“I don’t think at the end of this process that we are going to have resolved what happened in 1694,” said facilitator Barbara Will at a meeting earlier this year. “I think what we’ll find at the end of this process is that we have come together as a community to give our best interpretation of what happened and the context within which it happened.”
Now, the story of what came to be known as the “Oyster River Massacre” has the chance to be presented in a new way – as long as it can be encapsulated into just a few dozen words while also touching on issues of Indigenous identity, historical memory and the legacy of colonialism.
The current debate over how to properly commemorate the battle began in 2021, when the state of New Hampshire removed the historical marker that had stood near Durham’s town hall for decades.
In a revision form filed with the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources, members of the state’s Commission on Native American Affairs had flagged the sign’s language as problematic and suggested revising it.
The original historical marker described the battle as an attack in which a French soldier led 250 “Indians” in a “raid” on the English settlements in the area, “killing or capturing approximately 100 settlers, destroying five garrison houses and numerous dwellings.” It also described the event as “the most devastating French and Indian raid in New Hampshire during King William’s War,” a conflict between France and England over control of North American territories in which the Wabanki people allied with the French.
In a few short bullet points, the Native American Affairs Commission said the sign lacked context, called the language “insulting or derogatory” and asked: “Devastating for whom?”
The former director of the Durham Historical Association, who was not involved in the roundtable discussions, said the complaints outlined by the Commission on Native American Affairs were the only information the association was given as to why the sign was removed, and the only guidance they had for suggesting a revision. The form didn’t include any suggestions for what should be on the sign instead.
“We were always working in the dark, not knowing specifically what the issues with the original sign were,” David Strong said.
The Commission on Native American Affairs is composed of New Hampshire residents who are tasked with representing Indigenous people in the state. But the Indigenous identity of one member, who was a part of flagging the Oyster River marker for revision, is contested.
Denise Pouliot describes herself as the head female speaker of the Cowasuck Band of the Pennacook Abenaki People. She was also selected to participate in the roundtable discussions in Durham as a representative of the Indigenous community.
“My presence here is very simple,” Pouliot said in January. “I want to make sure that the Indigenous history of the past is included in these signs. These signs are primarily constructed of colonial perspectives.”
However, as a 2023 NHPR investigation found, there is no evidence to support Pouliot’s claim of Abenaki heritage, as leaders of the Odanak First Nation in Canada and scholars on Indigenous identity have said for years. Pouliot continues to assert that she does have Abenaki ancestry, although she declined to provide any family names or documentation to corroborate her claims.
During the roundtables in Durham, Pouliot insisted on using oral histories to recount the events of the massacre, and has claimed to personally know the history of that era.
“We were here first,” Pouliot said at a February meeting. “We were hunting and fishing and living in these locations and you came in and forced us out by gunpoint. And that’s the story that really should be told if you want to talk about really encompassing the true history of the region. But I don’t see a plaque for that anywhere, and I don’t see anywhere trying to fight for that level of truth.”
While none of the roundtable participants have publicly questioned Pouliot’s ancestry claims, Carolyn Singer of the Durham Historic District and Heritage Commission has stressed the importance of using primary and secondary sources when constructing the language for the sign, instead of a sole reliance on oral histories. She said the Heritage Commission had used primary sources in its draft, but that she had not seen evidence of documentation in iterations suggested by other groups, including that of the Commission on Native American Affairs.
“Language has already been suggested,” Singer said, referring to the draft from the Commission on Native American Affairs. “A narrative has already been suggested, so we should have a document to back up that narrative.”
Durham Town Administrator Todd Selig has a longstanding relationship with Pouliot and her husband, Paul Pouliot, who is also a co-speaker of her group. When asked about Denise Pouliot’s involvement in the process as a representative of the Indigenous community, despite a lack of evidence of her connection to that community, Selig said he had no problem with her presence at the table. Selig said over the years, he’s valued the couple’s contributions to Durham.
“To the extent the Pouliots have been involved in Durham, it’s generally been helpful,” Selig said.
The roundtable panelists began with three versions of the text for the new marker suggested by different groups. The group debated each option until, eventually, they combined and whittled them down to one.
Panelist Steve Eames was there as a representative of the Durham Historical Association. He’s a historian who focused his research on warfare on the New England frontier in the 17th century. He saw problems with all three versions.
For example, Eames and others around the table debated what to call the event, which has for years been referred to as a “massacre.”
“One person’s ‘massacre’ is another person’s ‘successful attack,’” Eames said. “But if we’re trying to remember the trauma, we can’t leave out the trauma.”
Another sticking point was the theft of Wabanaki land by European settlers and colonization that precipitated the massacre. One draft included the phrase “questionable treaty” to describe the Treaty at Pemaquid, a 1693 peace and trade treaty between the English and the Indigenous tribes in the area.
“I mean, from a historian’s point of view, that treaty, as all the treaties were, were ‘questionable’ because you had a culture that had a written language dealing with a culture that had no written language,” Eames said.
Others countered, asking: For whom was the treaty “questionable” and what does that really mean?
Ideas continued to swirl about the specific language on the sign and perspectives it should include. The Durham Historic Association, which sponsored the original marker, was represented at the table by Janet Mackie, who suggested the voices of the early settlers of Durham be featured on the new sign.
“There are still people living in Durham today whose ancestors were massacred,” Mackie said in a mediated session, though no one claiming familial ties to those killed spoke at the meetings.
Nadine Miller represented the state’s Department of Transportation. She agreed at a January meeting that both Indigenous and settler perspectives should be featured.
“I would think in a town where I was living and I had young children, I would find a sign would be a really great educational opportunity for young children to go to and talk with their parents about,” Miller said. “And in my mind, for my child, I would want them to know both sides of a story.”
Selig, the Durham town administrator, watched the process from the start. He says final wording has been sent to the state for approval, and he’s glad the sign will be back up, though it is unclear how soon that will happen. He said he and many others consider the “Oyster River Massacre” a seminal moment in Durham’s history, an event that could have wiped Durham from the map in its infancy.
“Controversies like this offer an opportunity to demand attention to an issue, to a topic. And while we have people’s attention, it helps to instill a deeper sense of history and appreciation for that history and the complexity of that history,” Selig said.
After the group’s last meeting in March, they agreed on a final version, one that was put together by the Durham Historical Association. It omitted the word “Indian,” named Wabanaki leaders who were there, and didn’t implicate them in the breaking of the peace treaty, rather that they were convinced to do so by the French. The title also no longer includes the word “massacre.” Instead, it was replaced by a dispatch sent to Boston after the attack: “Oyster River… is Layd Waste”
As the culmination of years of background conversations and more than six hours of facilitated debate over every word, the Durham Historical Association’s version was sent to the state Division of Historical Resources. Despite originally suggesting the community conversations, the state countered with its own version and turned it over to the panelists for review and sign-off. They’ll have to find consensus — again — before it’s sent to the foundry where the text will be cast in metal. If they don’t, the state can move forward with its own version, just as they would’ve if the conversations hadn’t happened at all.
Much of the debate was about what really happened in 1694, and — most of all — why such violence felt warranted. But for some, if the picture of that early morning at Oyster River isn’t captured in full, the sign isn’t worth being there at all.
“If the final decision is to write a sign or to finalize a sign that’s not based on the facts, then I hope the sign never goes back up,” David Strong said.
These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.
A mistrial was declared Tuesday in the first criminal trial linked to New Hampshire’s sprawling child abuse scandal after a jury deadlocked in the case of a former youth detention facility staffer charged with raping a teenage girl.
Victor Malavet, 62, was one of nine men charged in the 5-year-old investigation into abuse allegations at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester, though unlike the others, he worked at a separate state-run facility in Concord.
After a four-day trial and roughly 11 hours of deliberations over three days, jurors said they were deadlocked on the 12 counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and the judge declared a mistrial.
Malavet was accused of assaulting a resident of the youth detention services unit, where children were held awaiting court disposition of their cases.
Natasha Maunsell, who was 15 and 16 when she was held at the facility in 2001 and 2002, testified that Malavet frequently arranged to be alone with her in a candy storage room, the laundry room and other locations and repeatedly raped her.
Malavet’s attorneys argued that Maunsell made up the allegations to get money from a lawsuit.
Malavet did not testify, and his attorneys called no witnesses in his defense. But jurors heard him deny the allegations Thursday during the testimony of a state police officer who had been authorized to secretly record her interview with him in April 2021.
The Associated Press does not typically identify people who say they’ve been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Maunsell has done. She is among more than 1,100 former residents of youth facilities who are suing the state over abuse allegations abuse spanning six decades.
Real Estate
After surviving the Titanic, Richard Beckwith sought peace and quiet. He found it by constructing 58 Wiggin Farm Road on Squam Lake, in the picturesque town of Moultonborough, N.H.
The summer property is listed for $9,500,000.
Beckwith, his wife, and teenage daughter were passengers on the Titanic, but made it into the lifeboats. Some claim their story was potentially a source of inspiration for the famed 1997 film “Titanic.” Legend has it that the family was aboard the ship in an attempt to get the teen away from a potential boyfriend, The Wall Street Journal, which broke the story on the listing, reported. Ultimately, the boyfriend found himself on the lifeboat as well, and the parents had a change of heart.
“Some newspaper accounts, filed just after the survivors reached New York, claimed that Behr had proposed to Helen while they were still in their lifeboat,” the Journal wrote, adding that the couple later married with the Beckwith parents’ blessing.
These days, the eight-bed, 3.5-bath property, which was built in 1899, is a shingled home on the market for the first time in more than a century. Set on just under 4 acres and boasting 964 feet of shorefront, the home measures 5,605 square feet.
A long drive through the woods leads to the luxury property, which welcomes guests up a few steps onto the wraparound porch, which has screened-in sections. The entrance leads into a welcoming living room, home to a three-sided white brick fireplace under beautiful wooden beams.
But it’s the view that strikes you upon entrance.
“When you walk into the house, you’re just immediately drawn to the views of the lake,” said Joe Dussault of Dussault Real Estate, who is the co-listing agent with Jacalyn Dussault. “These long lake views [see] across to the Squam Range. And if the sun were going down, you would have views of beautiful sunrises and sunsets.”
Wood floors run throughout the home, which features many original elements, including the door handles and windows. The dining room also has a share of the three-sided fireplace in the corner. From there, a walk-through pantry leads into the kitchen, which blends original rustic features with more modern white appliances. It also has a second pantry for additional storage. There’s a small parlor on the first floor with access to a half-bath, as well as Palladian doors that open to the screened-in porch.
A staircase from the living room leads to the second floor, which is home to eight bedrooms and three bathrooms, each with claw-foot tubs. The primary suite boasts stunning views of the outdoors on three sides. All of the bedrooms have beadboard walls and ceilings, which emphasize the rustic nature of the home.
A staircase leads up to the partially finished third floor, and there is a small unfinished basement.
There’s a 555-square-foot boathouse on the property with dock space on both sides, as well as a few other small structures: a former ice house, a pump house, and an old chicken coop. There’s also a two-car detached garage. A sandy swimming area and a large dock make it easy to go for a swim. The home could potentially be winterized for year-round use.
If the property gets its $9,500,000 asking price, it would be the highest ever paid for a home on Squam Lake, Dussault told the WSJ.
Jacalyn Dussault emphasized the tranquility of Squam Lake, thanks to its protection by conservation easements in comparison to other bodies of water in the region.
Get the latest news on buying, selling, renting, home design, and more.
Kamala Harris speaks to the New Hamsphire Institute of Politics during the 2020 presidential primary.
Poll after poll shows Vice President Kamala Harris locked in a margin-of-error wrestling match with former President Donald Trump over the seven swing states that will pick the next president.
And none of those states are New Hampshire.
Which is why political observes in New Hampshire and nationwide are scratching their heads over Harris’s decision to take one of the 63 campaign days she has left and spend it in Portsmouth this Wednesday. Veteran campaign insiders from both sides of the aisle told NHJournal they didn’t understand the decision and could only offer speculation. Speculation, they conceded, that didn’t entirely make sense.
The media advisory from the campaign simply says the vice president “will travel to the Greater Portsmouth area for a campaign event.”
The post from Marisa Nahem, who handles communications for the Harris campaign in New Hampshire, reads: “Kamala Harris is coming to NH & she’ll be greeted by amazing energy!”
What veteran political reporter Mark Halperin reads into all this is that something is up for Harris in New Hampshire.
“Kamala Harris to New Hampshire is very interesting,” Halperin posted on Twitter. “If the reason is not because Democratic internal [polls] show the race close, I’m eager to hear the alternate explanation. Endorsing a House candidate in a primary? Raising money from a Seacoast billionaire?”
So, is Harris coming to shore up her support in the Granite State? “Maybe it’s for insurance,” one Democrat told NHJournal on background.
But public polls show New Hampshire is, as it has been in seven of the previous eight presidential elections, a safe Democratic state. The Cook Political Report shifted the state from “leans Democrat” to “likely Democrat” after the party pushed out President Joe Biden and replaced him with Harris.
Recent polling by both St. Anselm and the University of New Hampshire’ gives Harris an eight-point lead over Trump. And two additional sources confirmed to NHJournal that their private polling has also found a solid Harris lead.
And then there’s an email sent by Massachusetts Trump staffer — or rather, former staffer — Tom Mountain, declaring “the campaign has determined that New Hampshire is no longer a battleground state.”
According to reporting by The Boston Globe, Mountain said was “sure to lose by an even higher margin” in New Hampshire than in 2016 and 2020, citing “campaign data/research.”
“We’re off the map,” one New Hampshire GOP source familiar with the state of the Trump campaign told NHJournal.
So, why is Harris coming here?
Some New Hampshire political operatives speculate the visit may be to repair relationships from the First in the Nation presidential primary fiasco, when Biden directed the Democratic National Committee to strip the Granite State of its place on the primary calendar. They note potential 2028 candidates like Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) made Labor Day weekend appearances in New Hampshire.
“It’s September. You don’t burn a candidate’s time like that in an uncompetitive state unless someone is writing her a $5 million check,” one national political pro told NHJournal. “The First in the Nation primary can wait until January.”
Fundraising appears to be the most likely answer. Several campaign professionals in both parties said it’s very possible Harris is coming to the Boston area for a big-dollar event and a quick trip to Portsmouth will get media coverage in Maine and New Hampshire. Not exactly Michigan, Nevada, or North Carolina, but not entirely wasted, either.
“You can make bank in Massachusetts and dip your toe in New Hampshire-Maine in less than 8 hours combined,” one Massachusetts GOP source noted.
Interestingly, Harris is coming just days before the primary that will determine the Democratic ticket in November. If she delayed her trip a week, she’d be able to appear with the nominees for governor and the Second Congressional District. Does that mean an endorsement in one of those races might be on the agenda this Wednesday?
“There is no way,” one longtime New Hampshire Democratic operative told NHJournal.
Meanwhile, the Trump campaign insists that New Hampshire is on the board and the Harris team knows it.
“President Trump’s campaign maintains an on-the-ground presence in New Hampshire, including staff and offices, while Kamala Harris is parachuting in because she knows that the Granite State is in play,” campaign senior advisor Brian Hughes told the Boston Globe.
Why won't Pennsylvania voters have results on Election Night?
Trump sets intense pace with campaign events as questions swirl about Harris' policy positions
Portugal coast hit by 5.3 magnitude earthquake
Former national security adviser McMaster says he won’t work for Trump again
Who is Telegram CEO Pavel Durov? What to know about his arrest in France
VP Harris' tiebreaker votes in Senate were key to inflation-boosting Biden policies: expert
Photos: 300,000 in emergency shelters after Bangladesh floods
How much more water and power does AI computing demand? Tech firms don't want you to know