More handpicked essays just for you.
Factual essay on how the boston massacre happened
Factual essay on how the boston massacre happened
Effects of British colonisation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Factual essay on how the boston massacre happened
On March 5, 1770 The Boston Massacre (also known as the Bloody Massacre) took place. Because of the British government passed so many different laws such as the stamp act which the colonist didn't think was fair or right for the British government to be treating them so wrongly. Which it wasn’t fair at all in my opinion. Maybe the colonist could of handled it better than starting violence, I believe that the Boston Massacre was an accident to some extent. Because yes the colonist got out of hand with the riot and threw rocks, however they did not intend for the British troops to react in the way they did by taking out their guns and firing. Also the colonist just thought of it in a way to show their feelings. And they also thought it in
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.
Accidents do happen, as shown with the Boston Massacre. The crowds were getting rowdy, made then British soldiers panic, and they opened up fire.
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.
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
We, the people of the colonies, are being taxed without representation within Parliament. The British government is proving to be one of corrupt policies. The people here are boycotting the purchases of British imports. The British government has sent troops into all the colonies. Troops are looking for work in our colonies at our factories. In Boston on March 5, 1770, there was considered to be a massacre. Three troops had attempted to get a job at a local rope factory. The boss assigned them to latrine clean-up. These soldiers took this as an insult and reacted. The soldiers were beat and thrown in the streets. That night those soldiers were stationed outside the British Customs House. A mob gathered around the troops and a bell was rung to wake the town. British soldiers started shooting at the mob. There were a total of 5 dead and 8 wounded. This massacre led the British government to repeal the Townsend Acts on all products but tea. This was so the colonist...
The Boston Massacre occurred in the evening of March 5, 1770. A crowd of people began harassing the soldiers. One event lead to another and the crowd began hurling snowballs and rocks. One of the snowballs stuck a soldier and he fired his weapon causing a series of shots toward the crowd. “...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. This event was said to have started the American Revolution. This leads to the British seizing power over the
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
On March 5, 1770 a fight broke out in the streets of Boston, Massachusetts between a patriot mob and British soldiers. Citizens attacked a squad of soldiers by throwing snowballs, stones and sticks. British Army soldiers in turn killed five civilians and injured six others. The presence of British troops had been stationed in Boston, the capital of Province of Massachusetts Bay since 17681. The British existence was increasingly unwelcome. The British troops were sent to Boston in order to protect and support the crown-appointed colonial officials attempting to enforce unpopular Parliamentary legislation.
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
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.
Overall, it seems that the tragedy that happened in Boston of the night of March 5th could have been avoided if the citizen of Boston had acted differently. If the crowd had not been in such mayhem, the soldiers would have been able to hear the Captain more clearly and they never would have fired without the proper command. As for Captain Preston, he received the verdict he deserved because as witnesses can attest he never yelled fire, he actually yelled the opposite. The overall massacre was one big misunderstand that sadly ended in tragedy with average Bostonians losing their lives.
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
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.