Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on the boston massacre
Essay on what really happened in the boston massacre
An essay on the boston massacre
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on the boston massacre
Our topic is the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party, both of which took place in Boston Massachusetts and were two of many grievances that escalated the tension between the colonists and the British.
The Boston Massacre occurred March 5th in the year 1770. British troops were already in Massachusetts since 1768 to help enforce the Townshend Acts and tensions had been rising. The Townshend Acts was a tax of common goods (paper, glass, tea) imposed by the British government on the colonists. The colonists despised the ‘Redcoats’ and consistently taunted them by spitting, name-calling and fighting. It began with a disagreement between Private White (British) and a wigmaker’s apprentice (American); however the crowd increased quickly when Private White struck the apprentice.
…show more content…
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’;
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.
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.
... 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.
in the text it says (Boston gazette 4). One of the boys asked a group of British soldiers. "If they intended to murder people" the British had said “yes, by g-d, root and branch.” not so later one of had struck the young lad leaving a wound on him. The evidence helps prove that the British were trying to hurt the colonists. It proves this because when the boy asked they told him upfront and began to attack him when he was unarmed.
Whenever the colonies were being established there were always issues, much like today. They worried about over taxation, jobs, money, their children, and many other things. Things haven’t really changed other than some of our morals. Back in the 1770’s many men in power were selfish and cared for nothing but money. Granted, some people make the argument that America is still that way, but we know it’s not all true. Way back when, America was still mainly ruled by England, any war that England fought in, America paid the price. These men in positions of power would force Americans to pay overbearing taxes to cover the debts of wars and even sometimes just to get money from them. So, here’s how one event of over taxation lead to the event of a deadly outcome (Godwin).
"the shot heard round the world"-Ralph Waldo Emerson concord hymn. No this doesn't mean in 1770 all of the people in the world heard the shot. It means that this incident was known about throughout everywhere in the world. Ralph Waldo Emerson meant to say this to tell the significance behind the shooting and the outcome of the shooting as well. Many people also believed that this was the thing that's started it all. People thought that because of the outrages and protesting caused by the massacre it caused the start of the revolutionary war. The infamous Boston massacre was caused by colonists protesting unfair British actions and defensive British soldiers try to contain the crowd then sparking the revolution.
“.the frightened soldiers fired into the crowd.” (Doc 3). As a result of this incident, three people were killed on the scene and two were mortally wounded. The soldiers were also ordered not to fire. The colonists did not think that they should have been shot at or killed, this infuriated them.
George Hewes’ account of the Boston Tea party is considered a firsthand account of a historically significant event. The Boston Tea party took place the night of December 16, 1773 on three ships anchored in Boston Harbor. Hewes recounts the events leading up to the Boston Tea Party, the actual attack on the ships and its aftermath. He provides descriptive narration thus contributing to the historical context surround the Tea party. This event and many others leading up to it, provide a colorful backdrop on the eve of the American Revolution.
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.
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
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.
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).
The Boston Massacre was a very harsh time in the American Revolution. Great Britain sent guards to Boston, to enforce the different Tax Acts.The Bostonians were fed up with the British guards and their taxes. In response to the taxes the Bostonians were enraged and one day they formed a big mob after several angry words were exchanged. The Redcoats became annoyed with the harassment of the Bostonians, so they fired into the mob. When the mob cleared there were dead and wounded Patriots on the ground.
Most people have heard of The Boston tea party. When American patriots dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded the British ships in the Boston harbor and dumped all of the tea into the ocean. But what most people fail to realize is the great importance behind this protest. To fully understand a topic of history one must first acknowledge the actions behind it. The French and Indian war, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Revenue Act, as well as the Tea Act are all important catalysts of the legendary Boston tea party. Which is why we will discuss these topics before examining the events of the Boston tea party.
The Boston Massacre was and is still a debatable Massacre. The event occurred on March 5, 1776. It involved the rope workers of the colonial Boston and two British regiments, the twenty-ninth and the fourteenth regiments. Eleven people were shot in the incident; five people were killed and the other six were merely wounded. The soldiers and the captain, Thomas Preston, were all put on trial. All were acquitted of charges of murder, however the two soldiers who fired first, Private Mathew Killroy, and Private William Montgomery, the two soldiers were guilty of manslaughter. The causes were numerous for this event. There had been a nation wide long-term dislike towards the British, and a growing hatred towards them by the people of Boston. Even before the two regiments were sent in to monitor Boston there was a growing feud before the two sides.