On the evening of March 5th, 1770 on the cold streets of Boston, a group of British soldiers gunned down a crowd gathered in protest. What started as a group of young men harassing a guard would quickly escalate into what would later be referred to as the Boston Massacre as well as serve as fuel for the growing anger of the colonists towards Britain. This paper will analyze two accounts of this event. One is of a civilian observer by the name of William Wyatt whose account, while short, is to the point. The other is that of Captain Thomas Preston, the commanding officer of the soldiers involved who gives a much more dramatic description of the event. Both sides agree on certain elements of the massacre, but yet they still have completely different interpretations on others, such as who actually gave the command to open fire. Where Wyatt and Preston both agree is rather limited in terms of the whole story. Both initially believed that that the bells that sounded while the riot was occurring meant there was a fire in the city and both learned around the same time that it was in fact a warning of a protest. They also agree that the crowd …show more content…
In Wyatt’s account the crowd, although rowdy, was still in a relatively nonviolent state. While they were brandishing various tools and weapons and goading the troops with insults and threats, they still maintained a distance.(Wyatt, 166) Preston on the other hand that the crowd was actually advancing on the troops and even beginning to attempt to knock away their muskets.(Preston, 168) Preston also uses much more colorful language to describe the attitude of the protesters. Where Wyatt just described the crowd as angry but somewhat controlled, Preston describes the language being used as extremely violent with examples such as, “...fire if you dare, G-d damn you, fire and be damned…”(Preston,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Townspeople are calling it a battle for liberty (The Boston Massacre). The etching posted in town square seems farfetched. Why would the soldiers purposely fire into a crowd without good reason? Pastor Weston was in Boston during the massacre. He said that Patriots were in a drunken stupor protesting near the Customs House about the resent increase of soldiers and the newly implemented Townshend acts in Boston.
Little did the colonists know the bitter depiction of the 1770s “Bloody Massacre” blinded them from the truth. On the evening of March 5, 1770,
The evidence, from the 7 eyewitnesses, support that the colonists were the aggressors during the fateful evening of March 5, 1770, the Boston Massacre. Some cited evidence proves it. Number one, “I saw the people throw snowballs at the soldiers and saw a stick 3 feet long strike a soldier upon the right” (Theodore Bliss). In other terms they were assaulting the soldiers with pieces of snow or ice at them, afterward they hit one of them with a 3 foot club. This shows that the soldiers didn’t shoot to murder, they shot in self-defense.
As a witness to The Boston Massacre as a Patriot as an English citizen, I believe that the British Soldiers are unstable to protect us if they will kill us. The acts that lead up to the killing of five patriots were downgrading us. After are Victory in the French and Indian War we became in debt. The British officials decided to make laws such as Writs of Assistance, Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Stamp Act and the Proclamation of 1763 and more were soon made. This just anger us so a boycott was made called The Sons of Liberty the leader was Samuel Adams.
You made a great point on the propaganda used in the etching. In many ways, Paul Revere was trying to invoke emotions in the colonists in order to support his own views of the British. The use of the words favage and murd’rous give a dark tone on the Boston Massacre. The British did in fact kill only 5 people, yet the etching made it seem as if it were thousands. This over exaggeration worked in Revere’s favor as that was his intended goal.
Call me a tory or not, but the british in the Boston Massacre were not guilty of murder and opening fire on crowd for no reason. The british completely and utterly acted in self defense on March 5,1770. Know you might say well they placed taxes on us… NEWS FLASH… this is about whether this is murder or done in self defense, not taxes. Trust me this king’s Street mess was definitely in self defense.
The Boston Massacre was a street fight that occurred on March 5, 1770, between a “patriot”. They were throwing sticks, snowballs, and trash at a group of British troops. The loyalists got very annoyed with the patriots so they shot into the mob killing five. The riot began when around 50 colonists attacked a British sentinel. A British officer called in for additional troops
The Boston Massacre Many historians believe that Captain Thomas Preston ordered his men to shot the American colonists of Boston. However, there is evidence that proves this statement to not be true. On March 5, 1770, an altercation broke out in Boston between a British sentry and a group of American colonists. When British troops converged on the scene, an angry mob formed and began yelling insults and pelting them with snowballs and debris.
The people of Boston had a town meeting. They wanted to remove all of the British soldiers and convict the soldiers that took place in the Boston Massacre of murder. A trial was held. John Adams and Josiah Quincy II defended the soldiers, eventually they were acquitted. However, later
The Boston Massacre is an event that will continue to live in infamy for many years to come. The events surrounding the shot heard ‘round the world will forever be clouded in mystery, however; the examination of these events is critical to a larger understanding of the British and Colonial relationship. Unfortunately, like many historical events, there is no unified story on which historians agree. The documents integrated into this essay are a brief snapshot in time that can never represent a perfect history. For the purposes of this essay, I will focus on three major historical disagreements and attempt draw a conclusion on each aspect to hopefully provide an unbiased analysis of the Boston Massacre.
In the early 1760’s, the tension between the people in Boston and the British soldiers started to grow until in early 1770, when the two groups reached their breaking point. On March 5, 1770, a group of men started intimidating a British soldier; he soon called for assistance but eventually the crowd had grown to practically one hundred people. Captain Thomas Preston and seven other soldiers arrived, trying to calm the situation down, but to no avail. A soldier fired into the crowd followed by the other soldiers firing soon after, resulting in five people being killed. Captain Thomas Preston happened to be arrested and charged with murder.
There were many disagreements and because of those, many events were the cause of the American Revolution. These events included bloodshed by others, peoples rights weren’t enforced, individuals didn’t receive freedom, and our country was just not yet whole. Despite of the causes of why the road to Revolution took place there were effects afterwards. When American Revolution was over with the The Declaration of Independence came into place, treaties were signed, and the Bill of Rights. Now these effects/events were amazing, it helped our country tremendously.
In recent discussions pertaining to Thomas Preston, a controversial issue discussed has been whether he was innocent or guilty in the events of the Boston Massacre. On one hand, some people dispute that Preston was faultless. From this perspective, it is believed that he was not to blame for the actions of his troops when they opened fire into the crowd. They believe the bitter actions of the troops should not reflect onto Captain Preston. On the other hand; however, others argue that Preston was undeniably at fault as he gave the commanding orders to fire.
The Boston Massacre is an event most Americans and British students learn about over the course of their education. In America, we learn that British soldiers fired upon innocent civilians, although this may not have been the case. British historians have referred to the Boston Massacre as the "Incident on King Street". After looking over the "Captain Thomas Preston 's Account of the Boston Massacre", as well as "Boston Massacre Trial Depositions" I believe that American historians should refer to the "Boston Massacre" as the "Incident on King Street". The definition of a massacre refers to an unnecessary and random killing of a large number of individuals.
The mystery behind the Jonestown massacre can be summed up in two theories a CIA mind control experiment or good people being influenced by a bad man. While Jonestown is known as one of the greatest tragedies in American history it still puzzles those who wonder about how this could have happened. “Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001,