Essay On Boston Massacre

On March 5th, 1770 the colonists were going to protest against the British rule because they were being unfair to the colonists, with taxes being passed without the colonists’ approval. The proclamation of 1763 didn’t help stopping people from settling across the Appalachian mountains even though people fought for it. Also each house had to house and feed a soldier. Many other taxes on different items also caused colonists to be angry. Many started to protest one of these protests had the colonists in front of government building with weapons the British soldiers then fired killing five and injuring others. There was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because there was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because less than ten colonists

died and the colonists had weapons.

The first reason the event was/was not a massacre is because less than ten people died. The evidence that supports my claim is… in the Gazette article about the Boston Massacre (document C) it states the names of all those that died “The dead are Mr. Samuel Gray, killed on the spot, the ball entering his head and beating off a large portion of his skull. A mulatto man named Crispus Attucks, who was born in Framingham, but lately belonged to New-Providence and was here in order to go for North Carolina, also killed instantly, two balls entering his breast, one of them in special goring the right lobe of the lungs and a great part of the liver most horribly. Mr. James Caldwell, mate of Capt. Morton's vessel, in like manner killed by two balls entering his back. Mr. Samuel Maverick, a promising youth of seventeen years of age, son of the widow Maverick, and an apprentice to Mr. Patrick Carr, about thirty years of age, who worked with Mr. Field, leather breeches-maker in Queen Street, wounded; a ball entered near his hip and went out at his side.” this corroborates with Captain Thomas Preston’s entry (document D) which says “ The mob ran away, except three unhappy men who instantly expired (died), one more is since dead” This corroborates with the amount of dead pictured in both Paul Revere’s picture (document A) picturing four dead which further corroborates with John Buford’s painting (document B) shows three people dead.
This evidence supports my claim because all four documents agree that less than ten died, showing all biases are agreeing that not enough died.

The second reason the event was not a massacre is because the colonists had weapons and were fighting back.

Even though no one can know for sure who attacked first, the soldiers or the colonists the colonists still fought showing it wasn’t one sided so not a massacre. The evidence that supports my claim is in John Buford’s painting (document B)you can see colonists holding clubs, cudgels, and other weapons and they are using them. This corroborates with the information given in Captain Thomas Preston’s article stated “On this a general attack was made . . . by a great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being thrown at them [the soldiers], by which all our lives were in imminent (immediate) danger,” This evidence supports my claim because although Captain Preston may have a bias against the colonists, John buford’s painting has virtually no bias considering it was painted about one hundred years after the event happened.

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

America.