Unsolved History: The Boston Massacre

215 Words1 Page

The Boston Massacre
Brandon Bowers Although many historians believe that the Boston Massacre was an act of murder, it is clear that the incident was self defense. Firstly, Hugh Montgomery was struck with a stick, and then he fired his musket. This was testified by James Bailey. This shows that Montgomery was defending himself from the crowd so he fired. Also, the crowd was adding to all of the confusion by pulling the fire alarm and yelling fire to bring more colonists to the spot of the incident. This was stated in the video "Unsolved History: The Boston Massacre". The soldiers could've been confused by this because they might have thought the colonists yelling fire were actually their captain telling them to fire. Finally, Captain Preston

Show More
Related

  • Differences between Captain Thomas Preston's Account of the Boston Massacre and Paul Revere's Image of the Bloody Massacre

    683 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Why Is Preston Justified In The Boston Trial

    612 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Thomas Preston’s account of what happened that night, he claimed that he did not order anyone to fire. He said that the residents of Boston were obnoxious and pugnacious. Many other people have claimed that Boston

    Read More

  • The Fifth of March by Ann Rinaldi

    1111 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Justification of the Colonists' Declaration of Independence from England

    328 Words  | 1 Pages

    shown with the Boston Massacre.

    Read More

  • What Really Happened in the Boston Massacre?

    921 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Adams Role In The Boston Massacre

    1554 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Ludlow Massacre: The Battle Of The Colorado Coal Strike

    1290 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Why Was The British To Blame For The Boston Massacre

    568 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Essay On The Boston Massacre

    970 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On The Boston Massacre

    751 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Was The Boston Massacre Really a Massacre?

    950 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Boston Massacre

    992 Words  | 2 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • The Boston Massacre

    925 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Assassination Of John Kennedy

    1748 Words  | 4 Pages

    From examining John F. Kennedy’s assassination, many people have come to the conclusion that there was a second party involved in the shooting of the President of the United States. The writers give great theories and facts leading people to believe that the Warren Report was false and later used to cover up the death of John Kennedy. With this great information out to the public it is obvious that the mob was involved with the planning assassination. After, all this evidence it only makes sense that the Warren Report is false, and that the mob was involved the whole time.

    Read More

  • The Boston Massacre

    1417 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Unsolved History: The Boston Massacre

Open Document