In March of 1770, during a time in which tensions were high between the British and the Colonists, five colonists were shot by British Soldiers in Boston. This was known as the Boston Massacre in the colonies, and it sparked incredible rage in the hearts of the colonists. In Great Britain, meanwhile, it was known as the Incident on King Street, and was just another worrisome action of the colonies. It all began when a British soldier was called into question about whether he paid for his new wig or if he hadn’t. The situation devolved into a fight very quickly, and a crowd gathered. It began to grow as both sides summoned reinforcements. A huge, angry mob of people began to taunt and jeer at the British, throwing things at them and yelling …show more content…
profanities. As the crowd grew, more soldiers were summoned. The British were on the defensive, trying to get the colonists back without turning to violence themselves, but then a shot was fired. This led to the deaths of five colonists: Crispus Attucks, Samuel Gray, James Caldwell, Samuel Maverick, and Patrick Carr were all shot and killed by the British troops. The Boston Massacre was an incident that one party cannot be entirely at fault for, because both the British and the Bostonians added fuel to the fire; the points of view of each side, as well as summaries of its history, can show this. Because the colonists had been so vehemently opposed to military occupation of Boston, much of their reasoning for the British being at fault for the Boston Massacre has to do with the buildup of the colonists’ negative feelings toward the British and the impossibility of removing them from the area.
Taxes had been raised greatly on the colonies as a result of the French and Indian War, which had left their mother country in great debt. The best way to pay off this debt was decided to be to tax the colonists. They didn’t have a say in this, as no one represented the colonists in Parliament. As if all of the taxation and attention the colonies hadn’t been bad enough, 4,000 British soldiers were transferred to the city. A Journal of the Times describes the abuses of the British military. Because of all of the soldiers’ presence, “the inhabitants [of Boston] are exposed to...great insults and injuries.” (A Journal of the Times) They broke into houses and attacked innocent citizens, which the journal argues is just the result of military …show more content…
occupation. The solution would be for the British to remove their soldiers.
John Rowe agrees with this point when he writes in his diary that “the Inhabitants [of Boston] are greatly enraged and not without Reason.” (John Rowe, 1076) The citizens of Boston directed their fury of being occupied at the troops. They believed that the military presence in Boston was “forced upon [them] contrary to [their] inclination—contrary to the spirit of Magna Charta—contrary to the very letter of the Bill of Rights.” (A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston) Nothing about the occupation of the city of Boston was right, yet here they were. The citizens were powerless to stop the much more powerful British from coming in and changing their city
forever. The relationship between the colonists and the British military was always strained, and the Boston Massacre made many colonists see things on the Bostonians’ side. One main reason for this is Paul Revere’s engraving on the subject of the massacre. The title of Revere’s engraving alone, “The Bloody Massacre,” tells a lot about the American perspective on the scene. This engraving tells the story of innocent, unarmed colonists who were attacked without cause by British soldiers, which is far from what happened. This engraving was spread throughout the colonies rapidly, though, as was the story that went along with it. The Americans’ view was the complete opposite of the views of the British, which painted the colonists as the villains and the British as the victims. The British, when called to the scene of the growing mob, weren’t sure what to do. The scene was absolute chaos, with the screaming of the crowd and the yelling of the soldiers to get back. That isn’t even bringing the objects being thrown at the soldiers into consideration. The argument of the British is that, under this great pressure, the soldiers panicked and fired in self-defense. Captain Thomas Preston testified in court that the scene on March 5th was full of disorder and that no one knew what was happening. He describes that, after an alarm was rung, he gathered his troops and they headed to the custom house. There, a huge, angry mob was gathered, threatening to kill the soldiers and screaming profanity at them. Preston describes how he tried to diffuse the situation by “parleying with, and endeavouring in all [his] power to persuade them to retire peacefully” (Captain Thomas Preston, Disposition). He was unsuccessful, though, and it led to shots being fired on the British side. Despite the shots being fired at Bostonians, citizens who witnessed the Boston Massacre testified in favor of the British. One woman describes a soldier who had a “chunk of wood” (Jane Whitehouse, Boston Massacre Trials, Testimony) thrown at him, unprovoked, and also that a strange man ordered the soldiers to fire. She stated that she was 100% sure that the order was not given by the Captain. In addition to Whitehouse’s account, Newton Prince also testified. He said, similarly, that the order to fire was not given, and it was not the Captain’s fault. Prince described the vulgarity of the mob, describing similar profanities as Preston described. The most intriguing argument on the side of the British, though, came from a member of the Sons of Liberty: John Adams. He was defending the Captain, and did not at all condone the actions of the mob on the night of March 5. Adams, just like the Captain and witnesses, defended the soldiers on the premise that the mob was dangerous. He states that one death in particular was entirely justified (that of Crispus Attucks), because his “very looks…[were] enough to terrify any person” (John Adams, Closing Argument in Preston Trial). He states that this scene was complete furor, that the soldiers were guilty only of defending themselves. While “the soldiers did not leave their station, but cried to the people, stand off,” (John Adams, Closing Argument in Preston Trial) this did not work, and the colonists’ violence led to shots fired by the British. In this trial, Preston was acquitted, and only two of his men were found guilty (during a different trial). It is very difficult to distinguish who was in the wrong and who was in the right in this situation. The primary sources from the colonies all describe the past injustices of the British army and the building anger, while the British argument just tells about this one incident. Neither really gives a full picture of the situation, so it is difficult to pin anything on one side. The Americans were right in being angry at what was happening in the colonies, because years of salutary neglect had formed a sense of national identity within them. They were used to being relatively independent, so when acts such as the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts were put into place, they had every right to be furious. Forming an angry mob to shout profanity and throw things at the soldiers definitely wasn’t the answer, though. The British soldiers were out of line firing their weapons into the crowd. They had no way of knowing where the shots would hit, and at point-blank range it would be hard to not be fatal. With that said, they likely felt like their lives were in danger with the way things were escalating. They were outnumbered and surrounded by the colonists, and all the while were being shouted at and called names. Getting made fun of or having something thrown at them was no reason to fire a gun at the people, though. If anti-British sentiment before the Boston Massacre was bad, this escalated it to trouble territory. The colonists banded together to defend Boston, partially because all the knowledge they had about the Boston Massacre came from Paul Revere’s engraving of the incident. The Massacre was another block stacked up on top of the pile that would eventually topple to form the Revolutionary War. In addition to this, the Boston Massacre also indirectly caused taxes to be lowered and some import taxes removed. Both sides were right and wrong in different ways, so the blame really doesn’t belong to one of them. Without the actions of the Bostonian colonists, the British would not have fired, but without the buildup of hatred toward the British, the mob never would have formed. The Boston Massacre was a horrible tragedy that led to a war for independence from the British.
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.
On March 5th, 1770 in Boston, Massachusetts, a soldier rang a town bell that meant there was a fire or that police backup was needed after being approached by Boston residents who were being hostile towards him. In response to the bell being rung, British commanding officer, Thomas Preston, came to the soldier’s aid with armed British troops. Because the bell also meant “fire,” many residents flooded into the area believing a fire was occurring. A mob broke out, and the hostility of the Boston citizens rose. Objects such as ice and rocks were thrown and many citizens were armed with clubs, sticks, and other objects. At one point, an object hit a soldier, causing his gun to go off. Amidst all of the people screaming “fire,” British troops thought that Preston told them to fire.
The Sons of Liberty answered the call. In an act of defiance, “a few dozen of the Sons of Liberty, opposing new British laws in the colonies, systematically dumped three shiploads of tea into Boston harbor. They acted to prevent the royal authorities from collecting taxes on that import” (Bell). This left Parliament infuriated. They did what they only knew how to do and put a tighter squeeze on the colonists.
During this entire period the British were starting to make attempts to intimidate the colonists in hopes to end the rebellions. It seemed that the more and more England tried to scare the people, the angrier they got. The tactics obviously didn't work, but instead pushed the colonists even further into standing up against Britain. The British soldiers in America were told not to entice violence, and especially not to kill anybody.
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 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
...itish government. In Boston, the site of a bloody confrontation between British redcoats and Americans citizens less than 10 years before, emotions ran high. Boston was a center of agitation and finally on the night of December 16,1773, the course of world history was changed. A revolutionary event was on the horizon. As once patriot mournfully observed, “Our cause is righteous and I have no doubt of final success. But I see our generation, and perhaps out whole land, drown in blood.” (Liberty, 2) The rest is history.
Imagine a powerful organization from a different place coming into your town taking your jobs, destroying your possessions and telling you what you can and can't do. This is what the British were doing to the colonists during the time of the Boston massacre. The Boston Massacre was a conflict that happened on March 5th 1770. It happened near the courthouse in front of the church on a street called King Street. British soldiers had shot at a group of colonists killing 5 of them. Some think it was the British to blame for this tragedy but others think it was the colonists fault for this event.
For my whole life, I have lived in Boston. In 1773, me and some others went on to the British’s ship to protest. We threw 342 chests of tea into the Ocean. This had caused the Boston Tea Party. As I am serving in the war, young women at home are crushing on British soldiers, only for their handsomeness and red fancy coats. At one point Washington’s position was uncertain. Valley Forge was located about 18
The events of March 5, 1770 should and have been remembered as momentous and predictable. Perhaps not the night or city specifically, but the state of affairs in Boston, if not throughout The English Colonies, had declined to the point that British troops found themselves frequently assaulted with stones, dirt, and human feces. The opinions and sentiments of either side were certainly not clandestine. Even though two spectators express clear culpability for the opposing side, they do so only in alteration of detail. The particulars of the event unfold the same nonetheless. The happening at the Custom House off King Street was a catastrophic inevitability. Documents from the Boston Massacre trial, which aid us in observing from totally different perceptions. The depositions of witnesses of the event prove to be useful; an English officer Captain Preston and a colonial Robert Goddard give relatively dissimilar details. In spite of these differences, they still both describe the same state of affairs.
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.
One night, on March 5, 1770, a street fight occurred between a group of American patriots and some British soldiers stationed in Boston. The Americans harassed the troops by yelling and shouting names at them and throwing snowballs and sticks. A crowd formed and in the noise and confusion, weapons were fired. In the end, ...
On March 5, 1770, five colonists lost their lives in what American history would deem their fight for liberty; however, several British soldiers were placed on trial for murder when they were only fighting for their lives against an anger mob. John Adams, who would become our second president, defended these soldiers in an attempted to prove their innocents. The trial was held on American soil and the outcome did not fare well for the British soldiers. Adams was able to keep them from receiving the death penalty, however both soldiers were “branded” for life as murders. Boston was a cauldro...