Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Boston massacre research essay
Colonial resistance to British rule
The boston massacre easy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Boston massacre research essay
The Boston Massacre of 1770 was an act where soldiers killed 5 colonists that were part of the crowd that was rising up against the soldiers. Some believe that the Boston Massacre was pure murder, but others know better, and I know that it was simply just an act of self-defense. According to Exhibits B, E, and H the colonists were the ones who started up this riot that took place at 9 pm, and became physically aggressive towards the soldiers. This means that not only is this riot not the soldiers fault. There is a scientific term called Herd Behavior. Herd Behavior is when a riot or crowd is together and a person suggests/ does something and the all of a sudden that is what everyone is doing. So according to Exhibit C, a colonist hit Captain
Presto on the head and another soldier. So if what we put what we know and what we have been told, that means that if the soldiers hadn’t fired when they did to scare off the rest of the colonists. Then even more people would have joined in to attack the British Soldiers. As seen in Exhibits B, E, and C soldiers weren’t the only ones with weapons. So, as we know the soldiers we being threatened with their life as said in William Wyatt’s account. William said he heard the mob yell such things as “Fire if you dare” or “You dare not fire”. So basically they were telling the soldiers to fire while being all up in the soldier’s faces. Then, in George Sanderline’s account he says that Samuel Atwood saw a colonists hit Captain Preston’s head with a bid log, and a soldier’s and. So, when people say the crowd was just minding their business, and not doing anything to hurt the British Soldiers, they are lying. The Boston “Massacre” was no massacre, but a mere act of self-defense.
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.
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.
shown with the Boston Massacre.
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 Americans acted on this plan, so British troops would be removed off American soil. The Americans had to plan about this riot for days and knew that some lives was going to be lost. The citizen were not thinking about the outcome of their plan, or how lives would be changed forever because their decision to pick a fight with the British troops would have been changed. My personal ethic perspective would be deontological ethic because I would react to by thinking about the wrong and right way because of my religion. Since I am a Christian, I would have to think to see if the result going to affect me in a negative way or influence my life in a positive way. If Americans would have thought about their religion and beliefs, then the Boston Massacre would have been an idea not an event. If I was one of the Americans in the Boston Massacre, I would have tried to talked people out of doing the deed. I would have questioned their beliefs and make them picture the outcome of picking a fight with the soldiers. Some of the American citizen would have backed down, but most of them was going to act upon the deed. Even someone would have tried to stop the angry mob, the results would have been the same anyways. If the Boston Massacre was avoided, American’s history would have been very different in terms of what would have happened with
What started out as a simple snowball fight was turned into a huge catastrophic dilemma. A few colonists started to throw snowballs at a group of Patriots. However, as more and more people joined in on the bullying, things like sticks, rocks, and bricks were being lunged at them. The Patriots then fired at the group, killing some. The press exaggerated this and turned it into a “massacre” so people would turn on the Patriots even more when in reality, they were just protecting themselves.
On the morning of the Ludlow Massacre, explosions were set off by the National Guard around 9 o’clock and certain panic ensued. Women and children ran from their tents to the arroyo outside of the town. An exchange of fire began between strikers and guardsmen and continued until around 5 o’clock when the guardsmen began looting striker’s tents and setting them on fire. Twenty lives were lost including two of the striker’s wives and eleven children, but only one of these lives belonged to the National Guard. With this in mind, it can be debated whether or not this event should be considered a battle or a massacre. Some have argued that, because of the striker’s retaliation, the event should be considered battle, but because of previous abuse and the guard’s disregard for who they were firing at it and careless destruction, it should be considered a
The British were to fault for the Boston massacre making it a great historical tragedy in our country. A reason why the Boston Massacre was the fault of the British is because they killed the colonists by firing their weapons in the crowd of 30-40 colonists. In the text it says (Boston massacre 2). "30-40 persons, mostly lads…the soldiers pushing their bayonets into people...the Captain
The Boston Tea Party was not really a tea party. Instead it was a group of people dressed like Indians with axes dumping tea off three ships to protest British taxes. It took place in Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts on December 16, 1773, from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
My original thoughts on the Boston Massacre were that the name rang true. I based these thoughts solely on the idea that no matter how colonist act, the military should never use excessive force in maintaining the peace. During my closer review of the actual event I have come to believe this has been given the name massacre in error. When you look at all of the depositions together and then start to take out the differences you will notice that everyone account of the event is nearly the same. The differences that are evident during the trial have been made by biased opinions and propaganda to promote the release of British troops from Boston. Although the ruling may not have been just, it served its purpose and drew the troops away from Boston in the end.
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
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.
The Boston Massacre was a fundamental event at the beginning of the American Revolution. The massacre became part of anti-British propaganda for Boston activists and fed American fears of the English military in both the North and South. The Boston Massacre was the first “battle” in the Revolutionary War. Although it wasn’t until five years after the Boston Massacre that the Revolutionary War officially began, the Boston Massacre was a forecast of the violent storm to come.
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.
At long last, today the trials of the British soldiers finally concluded! It has been many months since the Boston Massacre occurred on March 5th. I remember that day extremely clearly. I was at my home in North Square when I heard loud knocks and shouts coming from outside my property. I was completely terrified to see what the predicament was! Five years ago a mob ransacked my house and almost killed my family and we barely escaped with our lives! It was only due to my support of the Stamp Act this happened. However, this time I decided to take the chance in order to find out what the dilemma was. As I opened my door I was greeted by colonists urging me to help them stop the violence and unrest which was being committed on King Street.