Why Is Preston Justified In The Boston Trial

612 Words2 Pages

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. …show more content…

Preston and the soldiers were arrested and put on trial in front of a Boston trial. Preston, with the help of his lawyer, John Adams, was found not guilty. Many historians, however, feel as if the verdict was not justified. Preston himself stated that he did not order the soldiers to fire, and many others testified this. Much of the information from the accounts is controversial and many claimed that they did not hear Preston instruct his troops to fire. Based on evidence from sources such as eyewitness accounts and Preston’s own account, Preston is not guilty. Preston never once told a soldier to fire, but the confusion made it seem like he did, so his verdict of innocent was justified. 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

Open Document