The Boston Massacre: Provoked Self-Defense or Justified Riot Met With Bloodshed
The Boston Massacre was one of the main events that changed the course of history. The
Boston Massacre occurred when a riot of Boston citizens met the a squadron of British soldiers with snowballs, sticks, and stones. Thomas Preston, the Caption of the squadron, called more officers for support. The mob attacked these soldiers as well, and the soldiers started firing upon the Boston colonists. Five people died during this massacre which sparked a campaign of speech-writers that led to the Revolutionary War.
There is always two sides to a story. There are over two hundred witness accounts to this event, and Captain Preston gave his account. Him and a few of …show more content…
The mob was taunting the soldiers and daring them to fire upon them. In fact, Captain Preston was yelling at them to not fire under no conditions. While this was happening, the crowd threw stones and hit the soldiers with sticks. One citizen struck Captain Preston so bad that it disabled his arm for quite a few a minutes. He said that if it had hit him on the head, he would not have survived it. He even told them before heading into the street to not fire. Captain Preston was eavesdropping the night before and heard the Boston citizens planning on attacking the guard who was on duty at the custom house. For this is the reason the squadron was met with the mob. From Captain Preston’s
Coy 2 account, it deems The Boston Massacre as provoked self-defense (Captain Preston’s Account of the Boston Massacre March 5 1770).
However, the second side of the story provides additional information. The British soldiers were doing many things to instigate a riot from the Bostonians. A British soldier challenged the rope makers to a boxing match. One of the rope makers accepting the challenge and arrange a fight with the soldier. When the soldier was fairly beaten by the rope maker, …show more content…
It is safe to say that both sides instigated this massacre. The Boston Massacre was justified self defense but the soldiers did not need to take it to the degree they did. Maybe arresting a few of them or firing in the air could have settled the crowd enough to take control, but I am certain the soldiers felt their lives were in danger and fear took control of them. The riot was made to kill or severely hurt some of the soldiers, the reason for the riot being there was not justified. The soldiers were in the wrong for firing upon citizens and killing a few innocent bystanders, but the citizens were in the wrong for causing a riot and attacking the soldiers with sticks, stones, and snowballs.
Eric Hinderaker puts it this way, “the shootings triggered a war of words in which truth was the first casualty” (Smith). The reason the Boston Massacre was labeled a massacre is because the first publications of newspaper labeled the altercation a massacre and blaming the
British. Samual Adams and Paul Revere used these publications to put a negative shadow on the
British and make it look like the British planned the attack. After the dust settled, they
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.
After the shooting, the people of Boston demanded that the soldiers be tried and executed for the shooting. Two soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter. This whole incident is outrageous. There isn't any need to result to violence when something goes wrong.
The Boston Massacre This is Tyair Sallam, reporting live from Boston, in position to inform news upon the Boston "Bloody" Massacre across the colonies. The British had repealed almost all of the Townshend Acts! The repeal of the Townshend Acts brought peace and stability to the colonies, but only temporarily. Colonist newspapers portrays the British as tyrants, "lobster backs", who are willing to kill people who stood up for their rights. Bostonians referred to the British troops stationed there as "lobster backs" due to the red coats they wore.
The Boston Massacre Trial It’s March 6, 1770 and tension between the American colonists and the British is palpable. The night before British troops shot and killed five Americans and injured another six during a fight at the Boston Customs House. Colonist Paul Revere claims it as the, “Boston Massacre”. Captain Thomas Preston and his soldiers are on trial for the deaths of the five colonists.
T. Hewes ' account of the Boston Massacre tells the tale of how the towns people were treated prior to this event. He talks about the treatment of the soldiers towards the colonists. They did many things that were advantageous and not fair. One incident he discusses is when an apprentice is not paid for the work that his master has called him to do for a soldier. This incident coupled with the numerous things that have happened during that time, incited the people and caused them to want to protest more vehemently.
Paul Revere creates an elaborate print titled “The Bloody Massacre perpetrated in King Street”. The Sons of Liberty use the incident as a powerful piece of propaganda .British troops were withdrawn from the city and several British soldiers are put on trial for murder. Sam Adams insists that the soldiers be tried for murder. John Adams defends the seven soldiers, but John Adams argued that “emotions cannot override facts” and that the soldiers acted 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
Now, who is to blame for this incident? Well, the British Soldiers are to blame for the Boston Massacre because they didn’t hear things clearly and they reacted with violence rapidly. The British soldiers are to blame for the Boston Massacre because they didn’t listen carefully and shot immediately after they thought the captain said to
In the famous engraving based on the Boston Massacre, by Paul Revere, the engraving illustrates the conflict tension between the colonists and British officials during the major taxing acts. The image setting encompasses a late afternoon, on King Street. The image displays British soldiers firing into a crowd of civilians, murdering three, and injuring two. The British have the advanatge of weaponary, and auhtority, giving the illusion the soldiers are guilty of assault, by the viewers point of view. An important detail to point out is the colors represented by the soldiers versus the colonists.
I did not know that the British sent their military into Boston. It now Sorcinelli 2 makes sense to me why the people of Boston were so aggressive and agitated. The colonies were used to being self-governed during the 7 Years' War, and now they were suddenly being pushed around and ruled by the British. Reading the personal accounts was eye-opening, and interesting to hear exactly how it played out. It makes me very sad that the massacre led to the deaths of people, but I am overall grateful that it led to the American Revolution.
On the night of March 5, 1770, the streets of Boston became a battleground, forever marking an important event in American history, the Boston Massacre. Bloodshed and turmoil ensued, leaving behind a legacy that would be examined and reinterpreted for decades, revealing the deep levels of historical significance and societal viewpoint. This research paper explores the intricate dynamics of how initial responses, shifting perspectives, and media depictions have shaped the understanding of this pivotal event. By examining the varied narratives and perspectives from the colonial era to the present, as well as the impact of media representations, we can gain deeper insights into the complexities and historical significance of the Boston Massacre.
Due to the impartial view of the British and the desire of the colonists to remove the British the massacre was the perfect event to propagandize, resulting in war and restoration of power with the upper class. The issue of perspective as it pertains to the Boston Massacre is the key point to consider how an individual should view it. The name of the event even gives it an inflated nature calling it a “massacre” when only five people died. While the soldiers were declared guilty, consideration must be given to the fact that they were tried in Boston.
There was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because according to Captain Preston and John Bufford, the colonist and the troops were both armed and attacked each other. This means that what happened in Boston was not a massacre. The first reason the event was not a massacre is because the event in Boston 1770 was a war. As stated by Captain Preston “The colonists were assembling to attack the troops… they surrounded the guard and threatened to execute… after a soldier was attacked he fired…”. This supports my claim because it proves that, both the troops and colonists were attacking each other, and the troops attacking the colonists was not a random decision.
One of the most historical incidents that has happened in the world would be the Boston Massacre, which took place on March 5, 1770. Even though this event happened many years ago, it is something that is still talked about heavily today in history. There will always be one person that people will relate to this massacre, Paul Revere. If no one knows anything about him, they will know him by his famous line, “The British are coming”. However, Paul Revere was not the only notable person that should be related to this affair.
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.