What Really Happened in the Boston Massacre?

921 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: the boston massacre facts essay

This chapter provided information from the trial of Captain Thomas Preston. The chapter asked the question, “What really happened in the Boston Massacre”. Chapter four focused on the overall event of the Massacre and trying to determine if Captain Preston had given the order to fire at Boston citizens. The chapter provides background information and evidence from Preston’s trial to leave the reader answering the question the chapter presents. Although, after looking through all the witnesses’ testimonies some might sway in Captain Preston’s favor, just the way the grand jury did.

Before the Boston Massacre even occurred, tensions were high in the city of Boston between the Bostonians and the British. At this time people were just getting over the Stamp Act and were now angered by the new taxes also known as the Townshend Duties. This new tax caused Bostonians to become more aggressive causing the British to send more soldiers to impose the laws of Parliament and to restore order among the people. The arrival of more soldiers only caused more of an uproar between the people of Boston and the red coats. Bostonians went out of their way to harass British soldiers whenever they got the chance, but on March 5, 1770 both sides acted unacceptably resulting in the Boston Massacre (84-85).

On the night of March 5th, it is believed that a small group of boys began taunting a British soldier. Over the boys’ nonsense, the soldier battered one of his oppressors with his musket. Soon after the alleged incident a crowd of about fifty or sixty people surrounded the frightened solider. The enraged crowd of people sounded the soldier, encouraging him to call for backup. Soon after calling for help, seven soldiers along with Captain Preston...

... middle of paper ...

... to a miscommunication between the Captain and his soldiers. If the crowd had not been in such an uproar the Boston Massacre never would have happened. With all the testimony and the deposition from the Captain, the jury made the correct decision by determining Preston innocent.

Overall, it seems that the tragedy that happened in Boston of the night of March 5th could have been avoided if the citizen of Boston had acted differently. If the crowd had not been in such mayhem, the soldiers would have been able to hear the Captain more clearly and they never would have fired without the proper command. As for Captain Preston, he received the verdict he deserved because as witnesses can attest he never yelled fire, he actually yelled the opposite. The overall massacre was one big misunderstand that sadly ended in tragedy with average Bostonians losing their lives.

Show More
Related

  • Why Is Preston Justified In The Boston Trial

    612 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Examining Whether or not the Boston Massacre was a True Massacre

    1099 Words  | 3 Pages

    Phelan, Mary Kay. The Story of the Boston Massacre. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976. Print.

    Read More

  • Boston Massacre: The Shot Heard Round The World

    586 Words  | 2 Pages

    The 5 people that died were,sailor named Crispus Attucks, rope-maker Samuel Gray, and a mariner named James Caldwell,Samuel maverick, and Patrick Carr. The first in the crowd were the people that get shot. The Americans were the first because the men were trying to fight for what was right. These men were men from sons of liberty and people who were just fighting for what was right. The British in the crowd only heard fire and shot. It was an outrage because the British weren't told to fire. The only person that could tell him to shoot was the general but the general didn't command. Because of all of this it had some serious outcomes.

    Read More

  • John Adams Role In The Boston Massacre

    1554 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Essay On Boston Massacre

    653 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Boston Massacre was/was not a massacre because there was less than ten losses of life and the colonists were fighting as well making it not one-sided both of these facts go against our definition of a massacre where we said ten or more deaths in a one-sided event. The Boston Massacre was important because It was used by the Sons of liberty as anti-British propaganda to make the colonists dislike the British soldiers leading to the revolution for our freedom later becoming the United States of

    Read More

  • Captain Thomas Preston's Account Of The Bloody Massacre In King Street

    650 Words  | 2 Pages

    He explains the beginning of the night by saying that the American mob was yelling horrible words and evil threats toward his men. In both the Anonymous document and the Boston Gazette there is no account of that occurring. Here is where the bias comes in by leaving out an important fact of what happened that night.

    Read More

  • The Boston Massacre

    925 Words  | 2 Pages

    On March 5, 1770 a fight broke out in the streets of Boston, Massachusetts between a patriot mob and British soldiers. Citizens attacked a squad of soldiers by throwing snowballs, stones and sticks. British Army soldiers in turn killed five civilians and injured six others. The presence of British troops had been stationed in Boston, the capital of Province of Massachusetts Bay since 17681. The British existence was increasingly unwelcome. The British troops were sent to Boston in order to protect and support the crown-appointed colonial officials attempting to enforce unpopular Parliamentary legislation.

    Read More

  • Essay On The Boston Massacre

    1004 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Boston Massacre was a critical point in American history and fueled the American Revolution. It caused the Royal Governor to evacuate the occupying British troops from Boston. The Boston Massacre united the colonies in their fight for independence which, along with continued propaganda, led to the Revolutionary War.

    Read More

  • Comparing The Boston Massacre And The Boston Tea Party

    592 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Americans screamed at the soldiers to ‘Fire and be Damned’ and kept goading the British by throwing rocks at them. Eventually, the British Army opened fire, which led to the deaths of 5 American civilians (including Crispus Attucks) and 6 injured civilians. Governor Hutchison had Captain Preston arrested the next morning. It was then discussed at Faneuil Hall (the meeting spot for the Patriots) what to do with the arrestees. On March 28th the trials began, and eventually Preston, 8 soldiers and 4 civilians were acquitted, except for two soldiers. John Adams defended Preston and helped ‘Reasonable Doubt’ become a defense with this quote: “[w]here you are doubtful never act: that is, if you doubt of the prisoner’s guilt, never declare him guilty; that is always the rule, especially in cases of life.” The term ‘Boston Massacre’ was actually the propagandized term assigned by the Patriot leaders (Samuel Adams and Paul Revere), while the British titled this event as the ‘Incident on King Street’;

    Read More

  • Unsolved History: The Boston Massacre

    215 Words  | 1 Pages

    clear that the incident was self defense. Firstly, Hugh Montgomery was struck with a stick, and then he fired his musket. This was testified by James Bailey. This shows that Montgomery was defending himself from the crowd so he fired. Also, the crowd was adding to all of the confusion by pulling the fire alarm and yelling fire to bring more colonists to the spot of the incident. This was stated in the video "Unsolved History: The Boston Massacre". The soldiers could've been confused by this because they might have thought the colonists yelling fire were actually their captain telling them to fire. Finally, Captain Preston

    Read More

  • Differences between Captain Thomas Preston's Account of the Boston Massacre and Paul Revere's Image of the Bloody Massacre

    683 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Was The Boston Massacre Really a Massacre?

    950 Words  | 2 Pages

    On March 5, 1770, an event occurred in Boston, which consisted of British troops shooting upon colonists. People refer to this as a massacre, but they only look at one side of the story. The Boston Massacre in 1770 was not really a massacre, but a mutual riot (Boston Massacre History Society). British soldiers went to America to keep the people of Boston in order. However, the soldier's presence there was not welcomed by the Bostonians and this made things worse (Boston Massacre History Society). The British had to fire their guns because the Bostonians were antagonizing the soldiers, which caused five people to die. The Bostonians made the soldiers feel threatened so in turn they acted in self-defense. The British soldiers and their Captain had to go through a trial, to prove they were not to blame for what had occurred.

    Read More

  • Why Do British Soldiers Commit Murder

    310 Words  | 1 Pages

    British soldiers fired into a crowd on Kings Street on March 5, 1770. There was a total of 5 people killed. The eight soldiers were charged with murder. I don’t believe the soldiers did commit murder. So I will prove that they did not commit murder. It was just an act of self defense.

    Read More

  • The Boston Massacre: Guilty Or Murder?

    127 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Boston Massacre happened on a snowy night when British soldiers fired on a angry crowd on March 5, 1775. The big question today is are the soldiers guilty or innocent of murder. I think that they were all guilty of murdering innocent colonists. Now there is evidence the colonists did attack first, but all that happened was the one of the Bostonians hit a British soldier with a stick, but it still didn't make it okay for the soldiers to fire. These soldiers were well trained and should have been a lot smarter in the situation. They let their emotions get the best of them, and as a soldier, that shouldn't happen. Really what I think about this is that these soldiers were guilty of murder.

    Read More

  • The Boston Massacre

    1417 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout history, events are sparked by something, which causes emotions to rise and tensions to come to a breaking point. The Boston Massacre was no exception; America was feeling the pressure of the British and was ready to break away from the rule. However, this separation between these two parties would not come without bloodshed on both sides. The British did not feel the American had the right to separate them from under British rule, but the Americans were tired of their taxes and rules being placed upon them and wanted to succeed from their political tyrants. The Boston Massacre would be the vocal point in what would be recognized, as the Revolutionary War in American history and the first place lives would be lost for the cost of liberty. Even though the lives were lost that day, eight British soldiers were mendaciously accused of murder when it was clearly self-defense. People who are placed in a situation where their lives are threatened have the right to defend themselves. History does not have the right to accuse any one event those history may have considered the enemy guilty when they are fighting for their lives.

    Read More

More about What Really Happened in the Boston Massacre?

Open Document