Captain Thomas Preston: The Boston Massacre

954 Words2 Pages

Boston Massacre: Captain Thomas Preston
Before the1770’s the British government started to past laws without the Colonist knowing or having representation. Such as the Stamp act which caused newspapers, pamphlets, and public and legal document to by stamp which was taxed on the Colonists . This caused tension among the Colonists, especially the citizens of Boston. Soon most of the Colonists would start protesting in the streets. Then on March 5, 1770 next to the custom house a group of soldier were being teased by a group of teenagers . This annoyed and angered the soldiers, then when the soldiers tried to scare them with their guns. A mob of people start to show up and yell. Throwing sticks and snowballs with stones in the center. The Colonists started to yell fire and other phrases that would edge the soldiers on. Sadly this lead to some British soldiers firing shots which in turn killed five people. Later having a trial framing everything on Captain Preston by telling his troops to fire. When Captain Preston said that he did no such thing. Throughout …show more content…

Captain Preston told the jury that he never gave the order to fire. In Preston testimony, Preston says that a group of well-behaved people ask if he was going to give the order to fire and he said no. Preston also said “On asking my soldiers why that fired without orders, they said they heard the word and supposed it came from me.” Witnesses such as Matthew Murray saying “I heard no order given. I stood within two yards of the Captain.” This is similar to what Daniel Cornwall was saying that he also stood two yards from the Captain and never heard he give any orders to fire. Three witnesses said that they heard the large crowd shout fire and the soldiers which could have made them confused and think that Captain Preston might have told them to

Show More
Related

  • 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

  • Dbq Essay

    591 Words  | 2 Pages

    One of the British actions that angered the colonists was the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act was passed in response to colonist's complaints about the Sugar Act. The Stamp Act, according to the chart in document one, forced colonists to buy a stamp and place it on all of their paper products. Colonists boycotted the Stamp Act and and formed the Committees of Correspondence and the Sons of Liberty. The Sons of Liberty, according to document two, tarred and feathered British officials and tax collectors to protest the Stamp A...

    Read More

  • 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

  • How Did The Tea Act Affect The American Revolution

    856 Words  | 2 Pages

    At the beginning of the war, everything was in array and no one could agree on anything, disorganization and uncertainty overwhelmed everyone. Organizations that were meant to be unifying factors for the colonists, like the Continental Congress, were little more than debating clubs that had to work for weeks before they could come to a decision. As time went on and the Tea Act was put into place the rage of the people made them grow closer. By the eve of the American Revolution, Parliament’s aggression towards the colonists had drawn a distinction between the colonist’s political, economic, and social ideas and those of the British. Colonists had embraced a new identity that helped fuel their resistance against Britain (American Identity and

    Read More

  • Justification of the Colonists' Declaration of Independence from England

    328 Words  | 1 Pages

    During this entire period the British were starting to make attempts to intimidate the colonists in hopes to end the rebellions. It seemed that the more and more England tried to scare the people, the angrier they got. The tactics obviously didn't work, but instead pushed the colonists even further into standing up against Britain. The British soldiers in America were told not to entice violence, and especially not to kill anybody.

    Read More

  • What Really Happened in the Boston Massacre?

    921 Words  | 2 Pages

    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).

    Read More

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

    1099 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines massacre as “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty” or “a cruel or wanton murder” (m-w.com). Essentially a massacre results in either the death of many people or death by cruel means. The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770, in Boston, Massachusetts and involved American colonists and British troops. The colonists, upset by recent laws enacted by the British, taunted a smaller group of British soldiers by throwing snowballs at them (Boston Massacre Historical Society). In response, the soldiers fired upon the unarmed colonists leaving five people dead and six wounded (Phelan, 131). Even though the event in Boston on March 5, 1770, in which blood was shed, and called the Boston Massacre, the actions which took place on that day did not constitute a massacre. Since only five people were killed and six wounded and there was no evidence of cruelty, the name Boston Massacre was likely a propaganda ploy by Samuel Adams to rally the colonists against the British instead of a true massacre.

    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

  • Why Was The British To Blame For The Boston Massacre

    568 Words  | 2 Pages

    Imagine a powerful organization from a different place coming into your town taking your jobs, destroying your possessions and telling you what you can and can't do. This is what the British were doing to the colonists during the time of the Boston massacre. The Boston Massacre was a conflict that happened on March 5th 1770. It happened near the courthouse in front of the church on a street called King Street. British soldiers had shot at a group of colonists killing 5 of them. Some think it was the British to blame for this tragedy but others think it was the colonists fault for this event.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On The Boston Massacre

    751 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • British Imperial Policies and Colonial Resistance

    788 Words  | 2 Pages

    The imperial tactics of the British Empire were exercised on the colonists through heavy taxes trade restrictions because of their mercantilist economy. The Stamp Act taxed the colonists directly on paper goods ranging from legal documents to newspapers. Colonists were perturbed because they did not receive representation in Parliament to prevent these acts from being passed or to decide where the tax money was spent. The colonists did not support taxation without representation. The Tea Act was also passed by Parliament to help lower the surplus of tea that was created by the financially troubled British East India Company. The colonists responded to this act by executing the Boston Tea Party which tossed all of the tea that was imported into the port of Boston. This precipitated the Boston Port Act which did not permit the colonists to import goods through this port. The colonists protested and refused all of these acts which helped stir the feelings of rebellion among the colonists. The British Mercantilist economy prevented the colonists from coin...

    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

  • Boston Massacre

    992 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    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

  • Who Was To Blame For The Boston Massacre

    1495 Words  | 3 Pages

    In March of 1770, during a time in which tensions were high between the British and the Colonists, five colonists were shot by British Soldiers in Boston. This was known as the Boston Massacre in the colonies, and it sparked incredible rage in the hearts of the colonists. In Great Britain, meanwhile, it was known as the Incident on King Street, and was just another worrisome action of the colonies. It all began when a British soldier was called into question about whether he paid for his new wig or if he hadn’t. The situation devolved into a fight very quickly, and a crowd gathered. It began to grow as both sides summoned reinforcements. A huge, angry mob of people began to taunt and jeer at the British, throwing things at them and yelling

    Read More

More about Captain Thomas Preston: The Boston Massacre

Open Document