Civil War: The Boston Massacre

552 Words3 Pages
In my opinion I think that both sides were at fault, but ultimately it was the fault of the British soldiers. The Townshend acts was a series of acts passed down by the Parliament of Great Britain. However, the colonist did not agree with the acts because it raised revenues in order to pay for government officials. The colonist began a riot, thus resulting in the importation of British troops within Boston. The Boston Massacre happened on March 5th, 1770. The tension between the British soldiers and the colonist in Boston was on the rise. Altercations between the redcoats, British soldiers, and the colonist happened often as a simple disagreement would result in street fights and riots. With so many British troops deployed in Boston, the competition for limited jobs increased resulting in the frustration of colonist who claimed it was unfair because…show more content…
The colonist was angry and the soldiers panicked as they were surrounded by mobs of angered colonist and the sons of liberty. Looking at the situation on the side of the British soldiers, it was safe to say that they were scared and angry because of the sheer amount of colonist who surrounded them. However, this still does not give them the right to open fire among unarmed civilians without authorization. One could argue that their lives were in danger as they were going to be attacked, but I would argue that there could have been other ways to attempt to fix the situation. On the other hand, looking at the side of the colonist mobbing the soldiers and provoking them by throwing stuff at them was not a wise decision either. Even if they were frustrated with the British soldiers invading their town, there was no reason for them to do what they did which ultimately led to the soldiers opening fire out of
Open Document