The Boston Massacre is considered by many historians to be the first battle of the Revolutionary War. The fatal incident happened on March 5 of 1770. The massacre resulted in the death of five colonists. British troops in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were there to stop demonstrations against the Townshend Acts and keep order, but instead they provoked outrage. The British soldiers and citizens brawled in streets and fought in bars. “The citizens viewed the British soldiers as potential oppressors, competitors for jobs, and a treat to social mores'; (Mahin 1). A defiant anti-British fever was lingering among the townspeople.
There are three major things that led to the Boston Massacre: First was the growing mistrust among the British soldiers and Americans. There were a number of other incidents were the British clashed with the patriots and their supporters. Individual soldiers were beaten on street corners and soldiers abused unarmed civilians. In all the Americans in Boston made it clear that the British soldiers were unwanted.
The second reason is somewhat odd. The removal of two out of four regiments meant there were to inadequate amounts of soldiers to keep the peace. There were enough on the other hand to remind the patriots of the great British military.
The last reason would be the revolt of the Townshend Acts. The patriots and Americans did not agree and strife with the British soldiers over it. The Act built tension between the two. (Griswold 23)
On March 5, 1770 the dreadful day came. A mob of people went in front of the Customs Office in Boston Massachusetts and started to throw stuff and give insults at the soldiers. As a result to this so-called harassment the soldiers fired on the crowd. The first to die was a black man named Crispus Attucks. He was a native of Frainghan, Massachusetts. He escaped from slavery in 1750 and had become a sailor. Crispus Attucks is considered the first martyr of the American Independence (Mahin 1). The four others who died were Samuel gray, a rope maker; James Caldwell, a sailor; Samuel Maverick, a seventeen year old apprentice and Patrick Carr, a leather worker and Irish immigrant. All in which were unarmed and brutally murdered. The soldiers killed three, mortally wounded two others, and wounded six. How much ha...
... middle of paper ...
...at were stationed in Boston were guilty for many other crimes.
I think either the soldiers should have been guilty for firing without an order or that Preston should have been guilty for giving the order to fire. According to Liesenfelt, the eight men said they were following Preston orders and should be tried at one time (1). So the soldiers are saying they were following orders which means Preston is guilty. Also three black witnesses gave testimony that they did hear an order to fire by Preston. Then again a merchant said he did not hear an order. Either way the soldiers and/or Preston should have been guilty. I think it a lot easier to miss something said than to be hearing things. So the evidence is there that Preston gave an order to fire.
I feel the verdict of the trial of the Boston Massacre should have been “guilty';. The victims were unarmed and brutally murdered. I soldier enraged the citizens and were guilty of many other crimes. The order to fire give from Preston proves he’s guilty of the crime of manslaughter. My conclusion is that the soldiers and/or Preston are guilty. “Half a pale of blood had been spilled into he snow'; (Mahin 2).
I will be discussing the differences between Captain Thomas Preston’s Account of the Boston Massacre (1770) and Paul Revere, Image of The Bloody Massacre (1770). I will explain both men’s story beginning with Captain Thomas Preston vision of the event, then explain Paul Revere version of the event. I will then include my opinion on which account I believe is most accurate and explain why.
On March 5th, 1770 in Boston, Massachusetts, a soldier rang a town bell that meant there was a fire or that police backup was needed after being approached by Boston residents who were being hostile towards him. In response to the bell being rung, British commanding officer, Thomas Preston, came to the soldier’s aid with armed British troops. Because the bell also meant “fire,” many residents flooded into the area believing a fire was occurring. A mob broke out, and the hostility of the Boston citizens rose. Objects such as ice and rocks were thrown and many citizens were armed with clubs, sticks, and other objects. At one point, an object hit a soldier, causing his gun to go off. Amidst all of the people screaming “fire,” British troops thought that Preston told them to fire.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
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).
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
The British were responsible for the Boston Massacre that happened on March 5 in 1770. The British had shot and killed many people in this tragedy making it one of the greatest events in the American history. Attacking unarmed boys and firing at a crowd where there was no actual danger involved makes the British wrong for committing these actions. These were the reasons why the Boston massacre was the British soldiers fault for all this to
July 4th of 1776 is arguably the most significant day in American history. On this day, the thirteen British colonies won their independence from Great Britain, their mother country at the time. The war that allowed the colonies to gain their independence was, of course, the American Revolution. One reason the colonists’ declaration of independence was understandable was because after an extended period of salutary neglect, the British started imposing laws on the colonies. Another reason was that the British violated colonists’ rights by implementing the Proclamation of 1763. A third and final reason the colonies were correct in breaking away from Great Britain was that although the colonists were not represented in British Parliament, Great Britain still taxed them. The thirteen British colonies were absolutely justified in seceding from Great Britain because the British started to enforce laws after a long period of salutary neglect, they violated the colonists’ rights by passing the Proclamation of 1763, and the colonies were required to pay taxes even though they were not represented in Parliament.
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
The events of March 5, 1770 should and have been remembered as momentous and predictable. Perhaps not the night or city specifically, but the state of affairs in Boston, if not throughout The English Colonies, had declined to the point that British troops found themselves frequently assaulted with stones, dirt, and human feces. The opinions and sentiments of either side were certainly not clandestine. Even though two spectators express clear culpability for the opposing side, they do so only in alteration of detail. The particulars of the event unfold the same nonetheless. The happening at the Custom House off King Street was a catastrophic inevitability. Documents from the Boston Massacre trial, which aid us in observing from totally different perceptions. The depositions of witnesses of the event prove to be useful; an English officer Captain Preston and a colonial Robert Goddard give relatively dissimilar details. In spite of these differences, they still both describe the same state of affairs.
The Boston Massacre was one the most controversial massacre in American history that teased the coming of the American Revolution. People were taunting a British soldier who was standing “in front of the Boston Custom House” who got very frustrated to the point where he hit somebody. The soldier got overwhelmed by people who came after he hit one of them, called help from his fellow soldiers. When Captain Preston and his soldiers arrived at the scene, people were coming from everywhere, some were trying to fight them and some were just there to watch. Then, one of the soldier shot at the people and his fellow soldiers started shooting after, which killed five people. This what ended it up being called the Boston Massacre. Some might say that the murderer were the soldiers who shot the people, but the real murderer is
The Boston Massacre came about because the British troops came into town and tried to enforce the Townshend Act, which placed a tax on tea, paper, glass and some other products from England (History.com). The people of Boston hated this idea and rapidly started to rebel. At this point people believed that the British were the first to start the confrontation, but they were wrong. The colonists started the riot. The colonists started throwing things at the soldiers, such as snowballs, sticks and rocks (Rebecca Beatrice Brooks).
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.
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.
The main reason for the severance of the colonies from Britain was the lack of equality in parliament and the disregard for colonial needs. Whether it be forcing someone to pay for a war they did not fight or want, limiting one’s need for land, or piling on the taxes, all of these factors played a part in the dissolving of British-colonial ties. The colonists were only human and had the human reaction of defiance to injustice. If the colonists had not of had the audacity that they did, today’s America would be a very different place. Breaking away from Britain was the greatest thing the colonists could have possible done.
These are just some of the reasons that Americans wanted the revolution; there are many more causes that could be justified for this major event. Americans did not want to be ruled by the British, who were thousands of miles away from them, they wanted to have control of their country and have their own laws.... ... middle of paper ... ...