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…
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…
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
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.
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.
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.
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
In the 1760s, Boston was full of disorder. With each new British law came protest from American colonists. The people of Boston believed that Britain did not have the right to tax them because they did not elect their representatives in Parliament. Only the Massachusetts Assembly, whose members were elected every year, had the right to tax its citizens. The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 led to boycotts and unrest, steered by a group known as the Sons of Liberty. As a result, the British government sent troops to Boston to keep order. Instead of staying in a fort on an island in the Boston harbor, the British troops stayed on the commons and were living in buildings in the middle of town. The British troops’ presence in Boston was not welcome and Bostonians viewed them as a threat. Because they did not like the English army in their city, fights between the American colonists and the British troops were common.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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
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.