On March 5th 1770, five people fell dead on Kings Street from shots fired by British soldiers. Weeks after the shooting, more than 90 people of all colonie ranks gave their testimonies. Some say that Captain Preston and his men are guilty of murder and should be hanged, and some say they are a lawful assembly and not guilty of murder, that they were acting in pure self-defense. I will prove Captain Preston and his men are not guilty of murder, through eyewitnesses and testimonies.
Captain Preston and his men are not guilty of committing murder. Teenage boys were harassing a British soldier by calling him names like lobster and making fun of they way they walked. The boys were also throwing snowballs with seashells in them at the British soldier. The soldier never did or said anything until the seventeen year old boy walked up to him and started running his mouth. The soldier then hit the boy in the mouth with the butt of his gun. The boy backed off and went back to the crowd. About 200 people came out of the bars and joined the crowd. They were carrying clubs with them because they
…show more content…
When Montgomery fell his musket discharged. The crowd was screaming ¨Fire I dare you fire.¨ After Montgomery´s musket discharged and the people screaming fire, all of the other British soldiers began to shoot. Nobody could tell if Captain Preston ordered his men to fire, but what we do know is that Captain Preston was standing in front of his men talking to Richard Palms. A true historical account in the American Story of Us. In fact they were so close to the soldiers that Richard Palms has a burn and tear in the arm of his jacket from the musket being fired. This proves that Captain Preston was in front of his men, and why would he tell his men to fire when he is standing in front of
Accidents do happen, as shown with the Boston Massacre. The crowds were getting rowdy, made then British soldiers panic, and they opened up fire.
The British colonies in the 17th century were afflicted by many strenuous periods of tension that boiled over resulting in violent rebellions. Bacon’s Rebellion and the Stono rebellion are two such rebellions that rocked the colonies. These conflicts rose from tension between the governance of the colonies and those who they ruled over. The Stono Rebellion and Bacon’s Rebellion were both examples of the American people’s willful determination, unifying capability, and ability to fight back.
The Boston Massacre was an event that could have never happened. The innocent lives could have been saved and the British troopers would have never been put on Trial. The aftermath of the lives been loss in Boston Massacre was a trial to punish the British Troopers and finally get them out America. The lawyer of the British troops was a man named John Adams, who was the cousin of Sam Adams. John’s role in the Boston Massacre trial was to represent his clients without negotiate his role as an American. Since John had to stand behind the British troops, he had to team up with different other lawyers to make sure the British troops be treated fair. John’s ethic perspective was deontological ethics because he may not believe the British troops
Major Anderson thought that the people of Charleston were about t attempt to seize Fort Sumter. He would not stand for this, so since he was commander of all the defenses of the harbor, and without any orders to disagree with him, he said that he could occupy any one of his choice. Since he was being watched he only told his plan to three or four officers that he knew that he could trust. He first removed the women and children with a supply of provisions. They were sent to Fort Johnson on Dec. 26 in vessels. The firing of tree guns at Moultrie was to be the signal for them to be conveyed to Sumter. In the evening the garrison went to Sumter. The people of Charleston knew that the women and children were at Fort Johnson and thought that Anderson would take his troops there. (www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/battlefort-sumter.html)
Even though no one can know for sure who attacked first, the soldiers or the colonists the colonists still fought showing it wasn’t one sided so not a massacre. The evidence that supports my claim is in John Buford’s painting (document B)you can see colonists holding clubs, cudgels, and other weapons and they are using them. This corroborates with the information given in Captain Thomas Preston’s article stated “On this a general attack was made . . . by a great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being thrown at them [the soldiers], by which all our lives were in imminent (immediate) danger,” This evidence supports my claim because although Captain Preston may have a bias against the colonists, John buford’s painting has virtually no bias considering it was painted about one hundred years after the event happened.
Learning your brother has passed is sad but watching him be murdered is the most traumatic thing a young boy could be put through. Sam had been accused of cattle theft, but it was his own cattle. Tim tried to explain to general Putnam but he refused to listen saying that the execution would show soldiers that they will be punished for their actions and might save civilians lives. They went on with the execution and “shot him so close that his clothes were on fire.he went on jerking with flames on his chest until another soldier shot him again.then he stopped jerking”(208). The patriots killed on of their own to save others. Sam did not do anything and was totally innocent but he did not have enough telling points to prove that he was. It was unfair that instead of somebody that actually committed a crime was not executed as an example. Tim would not want to choose a side where he was not protected by his own people. Being neutral was the best choice for Tim since he was against war overall and did not want to support either
It was so sad for him since the four men who were shot in that night by the British military men were not only his Bostonians but Sergeant Caldwell who one of the four was standing just at his side when he was met with the bullet, and it was Hewes who got hold of him as he fell. Being angered by the nightmare, Hewes equipped himself with a cane, but his mission was not to be since he was immediately threatened by Sergeant Chambers who was a member of the 29th British Regiment along with other eight military men who were armed with cutlasses and massive clubs. Sergeant Chambers took away the cane from him, but as Hewes explained in a legal statement, "I told him I had as good a right to carry a cane as they had to carry clubs" – a statement that went on to explain the brutality of the military men who brutalized and killed
King Philip’s War (1675-76) is an event that has been largely ignored by the American public and popular historians. However, the almost two-year conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England stands as perhaps the most devastating war in this country’s history. One in ten soldiers on both sides were wounded or killed. At its height, hostilities threatened to push the recently arrived English colonists back to the coast. And, it took years for towns and urban centers to recover from the carnage and property damage.
As proclaimed in the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,” we agreed that the British government had left the people with only two options, “unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers or resistance by force.” Thus, in the early months of the dreadfully long year of 1775, we began our resistance. As the war progressed, the Americans, the underdogs, shockingly began winning battles against the greatly superior mother country of England. Actually, as seen in the battle of Bunker Hill, not only were they winning, they were annihilating hundreds of their resilient opponents. Countless questions arose before and during the War of Independence. Problems like: social equality, slavery, women’s rights, and the struggle of land claims against Native Americans were suddenly being presented in new and influencing ways to our pristine leaders. Some historians believe that while the Revolutionary War was crucial for our independence, these causes were not affected; thus, the war was not truly a revolution. Still, being specified in the Background Essay, several see the war as more radical, claiming it produced major changes above and beyond our independence.
The article “Why Men Fought in the American Revolution” delves into the reasons why men chose to stay and fight in the American Revolution. The author, Robert Middlekauff, gives his rationale on why he believes men risked their lives in the battles against the British. While Middlekauf explains reasons men had for risking their lives fighting, he is swift to dismiss motivations these American men did not have to fight. Not only does Middlekauff discuss motivations of men, he also draws contrast between the American and British armies; more specifically, differences between the armies’ officers and soldiers.
Preston and the soldiers were arrested and put on trial in front of a Boston trial. Preston, with the help of his lawyer, John Adams, was found not guilty. Many historians, however, feel as if the verdict was not justified. Preston himself stated that he did not order the soldiers to fire, and many others testified this. Much of the information from the accounts is controversial and many claimed that they did not hear Preston instruct his troops to fire. Based on evidence from sources such as eyewitness accounts and Preston’s own account, Preston is not guilty. Preston never once told a soldier to fire, but the confusion made it seem like he did, so his verdict of innocent was justified.
"I shall show you what happens to people who defy the laws of the land! In the tribunal everybody is equal, here there is no regard for rank or position. The great torture shall be applied to you!" (194)
Captain Thomas Preston’s vision of the Boston massacre was an incident were a British soldier accidently fired his weapon and his men then followed after resulting in the death of five Bostonians including free black sailor Cripus Attucks. Starting the story Captain Thomas Preston admits that the arrival of the Majesty’s Troops were obnoxious to the inhabitants. Troops have done everything in their power to weaken the regiments by falsely propagating untruths about them. On Monday at 8 o’ clock two soldiers were beaten and townspeople then broke into two meetinghouses and rang the bells. But at 9 o’ clock some troops have informed Captain Thomas Preston that the bell was not ringing to give notice for a fire but to make the troops aware of the attack the towns people were going to bring upon them.
In 1843, an Englishman named Daniel M’Naghten killed Secretary British Minister. Daniel thought British minister was conspiring Daniel. The court put him in for Insanity Defense and was put in ...
Whitehouse goes on to saying that a soldier got knocked down by a chunk of wood that a man got it from under his coat. Based on most against Preston and some for Preston testimonies like the Benjamin Burdick against testimony, he said that he saw” stick thrown at the Soldiers” not a big chunk of wood that would knock a soldier out. Whitehouse testimony was most likely to distract the jury from the other strong testimonies that were made against Preston, so they might think that there is something that they are misinterpreted from the other testimonies. These testimonies show evidence that Preston ordered his soldiers to fire at people who some of them were innocents who were just there to fulfill their curiosity of the situation to murder them. The Boston Massacre created a new attitude in people that was not there before. It created more hatred toward the British forces living with them and taking their money from them. It also made us understand that the American Revolution is coming because the people will not wait until another massacre to happen to kill more people of their own, they want the British to