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 population of Boston in 1765 was over twenty thousand people, and it was the second largest city in the country. The city was split up into two political factions, the loyalists, also known as the “Tories” were loyal to the British nation and respected and followed their policies. The other group was the Patriots, they too pledged alliance with the British, but they also believed strongly in their colonial rights, and more often then not went against parliamentary decisions. America still had not declared independence from England in 1765, and was expected to follow the rules of the parliament and the King. The government like all other states was structured differently, but the people elected their representatives. Unlike the British who let the people vote, but they are “indirectly represented” by Parliament. The stamp act was one of the first things Britain did to upset the colonies. John Adams who was a prospering young lawyer at the time, called the Stamp Act “That enormous engine, fabricated by the British Parliament, for battering down all the rights and liberties of America.” The stamp act put a tax on legal documents, and other paper items. The Americans called this “Taxation without representation”, because they didn’t have any elected officials in Parliament, who were representing them. The Americans petitioned the administration, but the King and Parliament simply ignored our pleas. This act caused the formation of the loyal nine.
The Loyal Nine were a group of several Bo...
... middle of paper ...
... device that let first offenders off without punishment, priest used it. They were not put to death. They were set free, but only after they had been branded on the thumb.
The Boston Massacre was an event that only strengthened colonial America’s hatred toward the British nation. People could answer the question of whether or no the Boston Massacre was truly a massacre differently. In my mind, yes, it was a massacre, I believe this because in the dictionary it states that a massacre is, “The unnecessary, and indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals.” I would have to say five people is a large number of human beings to kill in one sitting.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lukes, Bonnie L. 2000. The Boston Massacre. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books.
Freedman, Russell. 2000. Give Me Liberty. Library in congress cataloging-in-publication data.
Hull, Mary E. 1999. The Boston Tea Party. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers.
Stout, Neil R. 1976. The Perfect Crisis. New York, NY: New York University Press. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761579296 http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0808436.html
http://earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/massacre.html
I read a book about the Boston Massacre the was originally named the bloody massacre. The amount of killed persons is generally accepted to be 5 people. The Fifth of March is a 1993 novel about the Boston Massacre (of March 5, 1770) by historian and author Ann Rinaldi, who was also the author of many other historical fiction novels such as Girl in Blue and A Break with Charity. This book is about a young indentured servant girl named Rachel Marsh who finds herself changing as she meets many people, including young Matthew Kilroy, a British private in the 29th regiment.
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).
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 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
In 1765 the news was bad. England had enacted the Stamp Act, imposing taxes on Americans in 55 different ways. Americans, who had always managed their money in their own assemblies, considered, the act was unconstitutional.
So the government decided to place taxes in. The Stamp Act was taxes, the Stamp Act it states, “Right and Power to lay Taxes and Impositions upon the inhabitants of this Colony.” It was hard for the merchant to trade because they had to pay taxes to people. In Zinn it said that merchants helped start a protest against the stamp act, “A political group in Boston called the Loyal Nine-merchants, distillers, shipowners, and master craftsmen who opposed the Stamp Act-organized a procession in August 1765 to protest it.” This shows that they didn’t like being tax. In “We are equally Free,” in said “Two years earlier, some merchants had organized boycotts against certain products imported from Great Britain (a strategy known as nonimportation) to resist British taxation measures aimed at the rebellious Americans.” As shown by this tried to protest
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
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
Before his presidency, Adams took part in many of the historical events that marked this country. He became a prominent figure in his activities against the Stamp Act, which he wrote and published a popular article “Essay on the Canon and Feudal Law” (Ushistory.org). Word had arrived in Boston that Parliament was planning to pass a stamp tax, which was the first direct tax on the colonies, unless the colonies taxed themselves to help raise the needed revenue to pay off the war debt. The colonies, however, did not tax themselves. On March 8, 1765, the Stamp Act passed both houses of Parliament. It provided for a tax to be specified by a stamp on legal documents, newspapers, licenses, and other printed matter. Once the Stamps arrived to Boston, they were detained and burned. The people rushed in the streets saying, “No taxation without representation!” (Cowley 21-22).
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
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.
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 war had been enormously expensive, and the British government’s attempts to impose taxes on colonists to help cover these expenses resulted in chaos. English leaders, were not satisfied with the financial and military help they had received from the colonists during the war. In a desperate attempt to gain control over the colonies as well as the additional revenue to pay off the war debt, Britain began to force taxes on the colonies. Which resulted in The Stamp Act, passed by parliament and signed by the king in March 1765. The Stamp Act created an excise tax on legal documents, custom papers, newspapers, almanacs, college diplomas, playing cards, and even dice. Obviously the colonist resented the Stamp Act and the assumption that parliament could tax them whenever and however they could without their direct representation in parliament. Most colonials believed that taxation without their consent was a violation of their constitutional rights as Englishmen. Which is where the slogan “No Taxation without Representation” comes
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.