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 …show more content…
and the citizens handled the situation in the right way, but he know the British should not be the only ones getting in trouble. The main question that the American wanted to know was, “Why did Adams take on the British’s case without trying not to ruin their lives.” (Callahan, North, 355-56, 1971) The answer to the American question is John wanted to do his job in the right way because it is by law and he was a noble and respected man in Boston. During the case, John would open eyes and mind about the American’s society and realized that the British troops are like the Americans, but they are from a different part of the world. The British troops did not want to be in America anymore because they wanted to be with their own families in England. The second question that was brought up was, “What was Adams’ strategy to help the British soldier from getting killed by the American’s government?” John’s strategy was to make the British troops look like they were the victim of the horrible crime. Self-defense was hard to prove because Adams had to convince the judge and jury that the troops did not mean to kill people, but they wanted them to stop throwing rocks at them for no reason at the time. On March 5, 1770, a patriot mob of American citizens marched up to the British troops, who were just standing there, and started to harass them by getting rocks to throw at them, name-calling, and being rude to them on purpose. The British Troops had to defend themselves from the citizens, so they fired into the crowd and killing several people during the street fight. Captain Thomas Preston called for additional troops to help defend the British troops. There were three people killed on the spot named Crispus Attacks, Samuel Grey, and James Caldwell. Several other people were wounded during the fight, they died later that the day because of their lack of blood. After the event, Boston had a town meeting about the incident and the removal of the British Troops on American soil. The trial of the Boston Massacre begun and the British troops had two American lawyers to represent them throughout the process of the trial. John Adams and Josiah Quincy were assigned to defend the troops. Both of their lives and careers was on the line and at risk. Finally the trial was over, seven out of nine soldiers were acquitted while the other two were convicted of manslaughter and branded on the thumb. (Halko, Henery, 677, 1970). During the trial, Adams was doing what his job was supposed to do and that was to defend the troops even if it was against his home land’s will. John and Josiah believed the British soldiers needed a fair trial even if they were unwanted on American soil. John stated anyone was the blame could have been the blame of the Boston Massacre occurring. The American believed if the British troops was took out of America after the first war, then the Boston Massacre would have never been on anyone’s mind. America blamed Great Britain for everything, but in reality, the real problem was that America cannot take the blame for anything in history. The ethic perspective that John projected was the deontological ethic.
Deontological ethics are those in which duty or obligation to do the right thing is based on God, tradition or an authority. Since John was a lawyer, he had to follow authority rules instead of doing what he believed was right. John Adams regarded his participation in the Boston Massacre as one of his finest hour as a lawyer. When come to upper class, John’s political philosophy was not a simple answer to explain because his philosophy can change throughout years as a lawyer.( Farrell, James, 233-49, 1991) As John’s ethic was deontological, he made the right critical decision that would be applied to everyone at that time, so he using the Kantian ethic during the Boston Massacre trial. Some people may did not agree with Adam’s decision to be the British troops, the law had to be followed in Adam and Quincy’s eyes. Adams felt like a rebel because he was defending the British troops and Sam Adams was against his choice to represent the troops at the Boston Massacre Trial. The most important part of the Boston Massacre was American saw how bad people was trying to take care of business by themselves instead of just walking away. By John defending the soldiers and doing his job the correct way, people realized that America needs to change their way of thinking and let someone else handle situations, who knows what they are doing. America’s ways would change slowly through the years to come, but America …show more content…
actually opened their minds to think about how certain situations supposed to handle. When it comes to the Boston Massacre, the American citizens were out of line by walking up to the British troops and starting an issue on purpose.
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
the British troops. God needs to be in the back of people’s minds before acting out their plans or ideas. The religion would have made the citizens think more about the outcomes of the event and they could have pictured been the British’s footsteps. One decision can change a nation’s world completely, but one person can stop the whole thing from happening. The Boston Massacre changed America’s history on that fateful day of March 5, 1770. John Adams’ ethic was deontological because he did his job in the correct way instead of worrying about people’s opinions about his choice to defend the British troops. John remembered the authority of law during the Boston Massacre Trial. John helped the nine British troops by making sure their trial was fair instead of been different in a way. John’s bravery to stand up for the British troops would be reflected on people’s lives for years to come because for the first time in America, someone has put his lives on the chopping board for a foreign person. John Adams put his homeland’s ideas aside and thought about the law s and regulations. America opened their eyes and saw how bad society was getting through the years. America realized holding a grudge on Great Britain’s government was not going help them in the future. John helped make the Americans to see that if America does not change soon, then horrible events like the Boston Massacre could make America fall apart and lose everything that they fought for in the wars. The aftermath of the event was the British troops left America and people slowly started to forget about the Boston Massacre had happened months before. The Boston Massacre become an enshrined in the patriotic storytelling as an unprovoked butchery that spilled innocent people’s blood. (Halko, Henry, 677) While someone is imagining doing something wrong, they should realize all the possibly outcomes of their action and they need to know there is consequences for every action.
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.
JOHN ADAMS – A SHORT BIOGRAPHY HISTORY 1301 – U.S. HISTORY TO 1877 WHEN SEARCHING FOR THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSON DURING THE EARLY U.S. HISTORY, GEORGE WASHINGTON COMES TO THE FOREFRONT. INCIDENTLY, DUE TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE RESEARCH, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON PEOPLE OR EVENTS ON HISTORY BEFORE 1877. TO MY SURPRISE, INFORMATION WAS LOCATED ON JOHN AND ABIGAIL ADAMS. JOHN AND ABIGAIL ADAMS SUPPOSIVELY HAD A WONDERFUL LIFE AND MARRIAGE TOGETHER. JOHN ADAMS SOMETIMES SEEMED TO BE A CONTRADICTING, RUDE AND OUTSPOKEN MAN, BUT AT OTHER TIMES PLAYFUL AND TENDER. ABIGAIL’S INTELLIGENT, CARING AND WITTY CHARACTER MADE UP FOR JOHN’S MANNERS, THEIR MARRIAGE SIGNIFIES THE POSITION IN WHICH A WOMAN WAS INVOLVED IN THE EVOLVING OF A GREAT MAN, FOR HER IMPORTANT FAMILY CONNECTIONS PROBABLY BENEFITED HIS CAREER. JOHN ADAMS WAS BORN IN 1735, BRAINTREE, MASSACHUSETTS TO JOHN ADAMS AND SUSANNA BOYLSTON. JOHN ADAMS WAS THE ELDEST OF THREE SONS. MR ADAMS WAS A DEACON AND FARMER (WHICH MEANT THE FAMILY WAS NOT WEALTHY). MRS ADAMS WAS BORN FROM ONE OF THE FIRST FAMILIES OF MASSACHUSETTS (THE BOYLSTON’S OWNED A LOT OF PROPERTY). JOHN ADAMS GRADUATED FROM HARVARD IN 1755. UPON GRADUATING, HE WAS OFFERED A JOB TO TEACH IN WORCHESTER. LIKE MOST BACHELORS, JOHN HAD NO INTEREST IN CHILDREN OR THE SLIGHTEST UNDERSTANDING OF THEM. BUT LIKE ANYONE HE ADAPTED TO THE SITUATION, PROBABLY BECAUSE HE HAD TWO YOUNGER BROTHERS. JOHN MARRIED ABIGAIL SMITH IN 1764. ABIGAIL WAS THE SECOND OF FOUR CHILDREN, BORN IN 1744.
This chapter provided information from the trial of Captain Thomas Preston. The chapter asked the question, “What really happened in the Boston Massacre”. Chapter four focused on the overall event of the Massacre and trying to determine if Captain Preston had given the order to fire at Boston citizens. The chapter provides background information and evidence from Preston’s trial to leave the reader answering the question the chapter presents. Although, after looking through all the witnesses’ testimonies some might sway in Captain Preston’s favor, just the way the grand jury did.
...t day, not purposeful wanton murders. Using the term massacre to describe what happened to the colonists was a successful propaganda ploy by Samuel Adams to rally the colonists against the British, eventually resulting in American independence.
When it comes to the topic of the American Revolution, most of us will readily agree that it influenced essentially every code of ethics in today’s society. Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine address an identical topic. That is, they both provided inspiration to the American Revolution cause. Patrick henry on one point of view, speaks of the harshness of the British rule over the American colonies. In his statement, Patrick Henry addresses the oppressive British rule and emphasis grounds to maintain basic human rights. “Common Sense”, on the other hand stresses on the trials and tribulations of the American colonies under the British rule. With the use of persuasion in their writings, both Henry and Paine support the war against the Great Britain.
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
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
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 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.
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.
The Boston Massacre happened on a snowy night when British soldiers fired on a angry crowd on March 5, 1775. The big question today is are the soldiers guilty or innocent of murder. I think that they were all guilty of murdering innocent colonists. Now there is evidence the colonists did attack first, but all that happened was the one of the Bostonians hit a British soldier with a stick, but it still didn't make it okay for the soldiers to fire. These soldiers were well trained and should have been a lot smarter in the situation. They let their emotions get the best of them, and as a soldier, that shouldn't happen. Really what I think about this is that these soldiers were guilty of murder.
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up.