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 …show more content…
Deontological ethics are those in which duty or obligation to do the right thing is based on God, tradition or an authority. Since John was a lawyer, he had to follow authority rules instead of doing what he believed was right. John Adams regarded his participation in the Boston Massacre as one of his finest hour as a lawyer. When come to upper class, John’s political philosophy was not a simple answer to explain because his philosophy can change throughout years as a lawyer.( Farrell, James, 233-49, 1991) As John’s ethic was deontological, he made the right critical decision that would be applied to everyone at that time, so he using the Kantian ethic during the Boston Massacre trial. Some people may did not agree with Adam’s decision to be the British troops, the law had to be followed in Adam and Quincy’s eyes. Adams felt like a rebel because he was defending the British troops and Sam Adams was against his choice to represent the troops at the Boston Massacre Trial. The most important part of the Boston Massacre was American saw how bad people was trying to take care of business by themselves instead of just walking away. By John defending the soldiers and doing his job the correct way, people realized that America needs to change their way of thinking and let someone else handle situations, who knows what they are doing. America’s ways would change slowly through the years to come, but America …show more content…
The Americans acted on this plan, so British troops would be removed off American soil. The Americans had to plan about this riot for days and knew that some lives was going to be lost. The citizen were not thinking about the outcome of their plan, or how lives would be changed forever because their decision to pick a fight with the British troops would have been changed. My personal ethic perspective would be deontological ethic because I would react to by thinking about the wrong and right way because of my religion. Since I am a Christian, I would have to think to see if the result going to affect me in a negative way or influence my life in a positive way. If Americans would have thought about their religion and beliefs, then the Boston Massacre would have been an idea not an event. If I was one of the Americans in the Boston Massacre, I would have tried to talked people out of doing the deed. I would have questioned their beliefs and make them picture the outcome of picking a fight with the soldiers. Some of the American citizen would have backed down, but most of them was going to act upon the deed. Even someone would have tried to stop the angry mob, the results would have been the same anyways. If the Boston Massacre was avoided, American’s history would have been very different in terms of what would have happened with
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.
...t day, not purposeful wanton murders. Using the term massacre to describe what happened to the colonists was a successful propaganda ploy by Samuel Adams to rally the colonists against the British, eventually resulting in American independence.
When it comes to the topic of the American Revolution, most of us will readily agree that it influenced essentially every code of ethics in today’s society. Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine address an identical topic. That is, they both provided inspiration to the American Revolution cause. Patrick henry on one point of view, speaks of the harshness of the British rule over the American colonies. In his statement, Patrick Henry addresses the oppressive British rule and emphasis grounds to maintain basic human rights. “Common Sense”, on the other hand stresses on the trials and tribulations of the American colonies under the British rule. With the use of persuasion in their writings, both Henry and Paine support the war against the Great Britain.
On March 5th, 1770 the colonists were going to protest against the British rule because they were being unfair to the colonists, with taxes being passed without the colonists’ approval. The proclamation of 1763 didn’t help stopping people from settling across the Appalachian mountains even though people fought for it. Also each house had to house and feed a soldier. Many other taxes on different items also caused colonists to be angry. Many started to protest one of these protests had the colonists in front of government building with weapons the British soldiers then fired killing five and injuring others. There was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because there was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because less than ten colonists
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up.
The deontological view would be that we should act according to a set of rules, obligations, or duties that we must fulfil, unmindful of the consequences. Kant, a popular deontological philosopher of the 19th century, wrote in his “Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals”,
I feel the verdict of the trial of the Boston Massacre should have been “guilty';. The victims were unarmed and brutally murdered. I soldier enraged the citizens and were guilty of many other crimes. The order to fire give from Preston proves he’s guilty of the crime of manslaughter. My conclusion is that the soldiers and/or Preston are guilty. “Half a pale of blood had been spilled into he snow'; (Mahin 2).
The Boston Massacre took place in the Custom House of King Street. Before the event the colonies were being taxed by the British which caused tension between them. One of the events that led up to the Boston Massacre was the Townshend Act. Some items the British would tax the colonies were: tea, glass, paper, paint, and lead. This was part of the Townshend Act. Colonists were against these laws and started to protest. They felt that it limited their rights. Anger grew between the two sides and that is how it lead to the Boston Massacre.
The Boston Massacre was and is still a debatable Massacre. The event occurred on March 5, 1776. It involved the rope workers of the colonial Boston and two British regiments, the twenty-ninth and the fourteenth regiments. Eleven people were shot in the incident; five people were killed and the other six were merely wounded. The soldiers and the captain, Thomas Preston, were all put on trial. All were acquitted of charges of murder, however the two soldiers who fired first, Private Mathew Killroy, and Private William Montgomery, the two soldiers were guilty of manslaughter. The causes were numerous for this event. There had been a nation wide long-term dislike towards the British, and a growing hatred towards them by the people of Boston. Even before the two regiments were sent in to monitor Boston there was a growing feud before the two sides.
JOHN ADAMS – A SHORT BIOGRAPHY HISTORY 1301 – U.S. HISTORY TO 1877 WHEN SEARCHING FOR THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSON DURING THE EARLY U.S. HISTORY, GEORGE WASHINGTON COMES TO THE FOREFRONT. INCIDENTLY, DUE TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE RESEARCH, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON PEOPLE OR EVENTS ON HISTORY BEFORE 1877. TO MY SURPRISE, INFORMATION WAS LOCATED ON JOHN AND ABIGAIL ADAMS. JOHN AND ABIGAIL ADAMS SUPPOSIVELY HAD A WONDERFUL LIFE AND MARRIAGE TOGETHER. JOHN ADAMS SOMETIMES SEEMED TO BE A CONTRADICTING, RUDE AND OUTSPOKEN MAN, BUT AT OTHER TIMES PLAYFUL AND TENDER. ABIGAIL’S INTELLIGENT, CARING AND WITTY CHARACTER MADE UP FOR JOHN’S MANNERS, THEIR MARRIAGE SIGNIFIES THE POSITION IN WHICH A WOMAN WAS INVOLVED IN THE EVOLVING OF A GREAT MAN, FOR HER IMPORTANT FAMILY CONNECTIONS PROBABLY BENEFITED HIS CAREER. JOHN ADAMS WAS BORN IN 1735, BRAINTREE, MASSACHUSETTS TO JOHN ADAMS AND SUSANNA BOYLSTON. JOHN ADAMS WAS THE ELDEST OF THREE SONS. MR ADAMS WAS A DEACON AND FARMER (WHICH MEANT THE FAMILY WAS NOT WEALTHY). MRS ADAMS WAS BORN FROM ONE OF THE FIRST FAMILIES OF MASSACHUSETTS (THE BOYLSTON’S OWNED A LOT OF PROPERTY). JOHN ADAMS GRADUATED FROM HARVARD IN 1755. UPON GRADUATING, HE WAS OFFERED A JOB TO TEACH IN WORCHESTER. LIKE MOST BACHELORS, JOHN HAD NO INTEREST IN CHILDREN OR THE SLIGHTEST UNDERSTANDING OF THEM. BUT LIKE ANYONE HE ADAPTED TO THE SITUATION, PROBABLY BECAUSE HE HAD TWO YOUNGER BROTHERS. JOHN MARRIED ABIGAIL SMITH IN 1764. ABIGAIL WAS THE SECOND OF FOUR CHILDREN, BORN IN 1744.
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.
Overall, it seems that the tragedy that happened in Boston of the night of March 5th could have been avoided if the citizen of Boston had acted differently. If the crowd had not been in such mayhem, the soldiers would have been able to hear the Captain more clearly and they never would have fired without the proper command. As for Captain Preston, he received the verdict he deserved because as witnesses can attest he never yelled fire, he actually yelled the opposite. The overall massacre was one big misunderstand that sadly ended in tragedy with average Bostonians losing their lives.
Whitehouse goes on to saying that a soldier got knocked down by a chunk of wood that a man got it from under his coat. Based on most against Preston and some for Preston testimonies like the Benjamin Burdick against testimony, he said that he saw” stick thrown at the Soldiers” not a big chunk of wood that would knock a soldier out. Whitehouse testimony was most likely to distract the jury from the other strong testimonies that were made against Preston, so they might think that there is something that they are misinterpreted from the other testimonies. These testimonies show evidence that Preston ordered his soldiers to fire at people who some of them were innocents who were just there to fulfill their curiosity of the situation to murder them. The Boston Massacre created a new attitude in people that was not there before. It created more hatred toward the British forces living with them and taking their money from them. It also made us understand that the American Revolution is coming because the people will not wait until another massacre to happen to kill more people of their own, they want the British to
The Boston Massacre happened on a snowy night when British soldiers fired on a angry crowd on March 5, 1775. The big question today is are the soldiers guilty or innocent of murder. I think that they were all guilty of murdering innocent colonists. Now there is evidence the colonists did attack first, but all that happened was the one of the Bostonians hit a British soldier with a stick, but it still didn't make it okay for the soldiers to fire. These soldiers were well trained and should have been a lot smarter in the situation. They let their emotions get the best of them, and as a soldier, that shouldn't happen. Really what I think about this is that these soldiers were guilty of murder.