Boston Massacre And Propaganda Essay

After analyzing the video about the Boston Massacre, what it should be called depends all on which side you took. Patriots would have took this as a massacre because, not only would it blame the British, but their people were also considered "slaughtered". Thus, to the Patriots, this would be considered a massacre. However, for the Loyalists and British, this would be considered a riot. A crowd of colonists threw snowballs, stones, oyster shells, and even wood at British soldiers. This was basically a disturbance of peace, or a riot. The soldiers had the right of defending themselves, so I do understand the reasons for shooting, but killing wasn't necessary. In the end however, in my opinion, without being biased to any sides, the Boston Massacre should be considered a riot.

The British soldiers were anything but loved by the American colonists in the 1770s. They maliciously planned an attack on the soldiers because of their hate. Many townspeople gathered together in effort to strike against the British presence. The men were just doing their job trying to keep order in Boston, but the people still taunted them. The soldiers were being tried for murder because they fired at the people, but those charges should not have existed. The crowd initially attacked the soldiers, not the other way around. It was also dark out so the soldiers did not know of the number of colonist attackers. The soldiers heard the word fire coming from the crowd, confusing the voices with Captain Preston’s. The incident referred to as the

In the story "John Adams and the Coming of the Revolution”, author David McCullough discusses how John Adams was asked to defend the British soldiers in court of the soldier’s accusation of man slaughter, following the Boston Massacre. Being such a problematic case that could ruin his reputation, John Adams accepted to defend the soldiers because of his experience in difficult cases, and his strong principles and beliefs. John Adam’s reputation did not even tarnish because of how skillfully he handled the case gaining the respect of the people of Boston.

The Boston Massacre is considered by many historians to be the first battle of the Revolutionary War. The fatal incident happened on March 5 of 1770. The massacre resulted in the death of five colonists. British troops in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were there to stop demonstrations against the Townshend Acts and keep order, but instead they provoked outrage. The British soldiers and citizens brawled in streets and fought in bars. “The citizens viewed the British soldiers as potential oppressors, competitors for jobs, and a treat to social mores'; (Mahin 1). A defiant anti-British fever was lingering among the townspeople.     

On March 5 1770, a union of colonists gathered at the Customs House where they protested and harassed soldiers standing outside. These colonists were representing The Sons of Liberty, a secret organization aiming to rebel against the British Parliament. There was an abundance of tension between the colonists and Great Britain after new taxes were passed and British troops arrived in Massachusetts to enforce them. After many hours of chanting and protesting a shot was fired; the atrocious event left five men dead. The question society still ponders over 200 years later is what really happened and whose fault was it? The Boston Massacre initiated because of miscommunication; it was not a massacre but a mutual riot.

During the night of March 5, 1770, colonists gathered outside the Boston Customs House. As the crowd grew bigger, colonists started to throw “snowballs, oyster shells, and chunks of ice” at the soldiers. The soldiers panicked and fired at the colonists causing the death of five colonists and ten injured men. I believe that the cause of the Boston Massacre was due to the British. The reason why I blame the British is because, the British soldiers could have handled the situation, made unnecessary actions, and made the colonists angry with taxes and the Quartering act.

This chapter provided information from the trial of Captain Thomas Preston. The chapter asked the question, “What really happened in the Boston Massacre”. Chapter four focused on the overall event of the Massacre and trying to determine if Captain Preston had given the order to fire at Boston citizens. The chapter provides background information and evidence from Preston’s trial to leave the reader answering the question the chapter presents. Although, after looking through all the witnesses’ testimonies some might sway in Captain Preston’s favor, just the way the grand jury did.

The colonists used propaganda to invoke anger in the colonists. Document 1, which is an engraving of the Boston Massacre by Paul Revere depicts the colonists as helpless bystanders that were shot down by the British soldiers. In the engraving, colonists are shown unarmed in the town square. This leads the viewer to believe that the British were the only ones with clubs and other weapons. The engraving depicted the colonists as the victims as a way of getting

Beginning on March 5th of 1770, several men grouped around a sort of British redcoats and began to curse at them while throwing snowballs at their frames. This angered the soldiers, and even scared them a little bit as well. In reaction they fired their weapons and watched the patriots fall to the ground. In the description of Paul Revere’s engraving, The Bloody Massacre in King Street states, “When the shooting ended, several people were dead and more were wounded.” This engraving had been sent throughout the colonies, therefore raising awareness of the tragedy that had happened just weeks before. In particular, it made the redcoats look guilty and the colonists to be innocent. This was probably because in the engraving, the patriots were on the ground, injured and defenseless while the soldiers held their guns high, in perfect bodily conditions. Thus giving it its name, the “Boston Massacre.” This gave the colonists the idea that the British were cruel and unjust, which made them want to fight back even

With colonists throwing snowballs with shards of ice to colonists laying on the ground and losing blood. 5 colonist deaths and 6 nonfatal injuries that profoundly affected their day-to-day lives. The Boston Massacre was a fatal altercation between a mob of violent protesting colonists and a group of British soldiers protecting themselves. It occurred on the night of March 5th, 1770, a small argument broke out between a few colonists and British Private Hugh White in front of the Custom House in Boston. After a while, more colonists started to gather around creating an agitated mob. Many think that the British were at fault for firing when not given permission, and others think the colonists were at fault for harassing and mocking the

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

The Boston Massacre was an incident that took place on March 5, 1770 where the British Army killed five male civilians as well as injuring six others. The use of propaganda at the time led by patriots spurred hostility towards the British authority. The result of the hatred was great tension among the public as well as the death of some of the participants. Following the alarming incidence, Thomas Hutchinson, the acting governor committed himself to undertaking an inquiry, which reformed on the following day and the troops withdrew to Castle Island . The soldiers and the civilians arrested there in were arrested and charged with murder. Consequently, John Adams, a defense lawyer defended them and they were acquitted. Thus, this paper focuses on the investigative role of John Adams and the ethics behind the Boston Massacre.

The Boston Massacre was an extremely important event in American History. Also, it a very controversial topic. To this day, no one can really give an accurate description of the events that transpired. The Boston Massacre was not a random event at all; many actions led up to the massacre. As a result of this disaster, America was changed forever and sent on a road towards revolution. The Boston Massacre was a defining moment in American history.

The Boston Massacre is one of the most controversial events in American history that occurred in Boston before the American Revolution. Certainly, it has a fundamental role in the development of America as a nation, which led it to have a huge motivation for revolution. A heavy British military presence and having very high taxes in the country were some of the main reasons that made Boston citizens very irritated. Thus, there were already many disagreements and tensions between inhabitants and the British that could have led to the Massacre. In this essay, I will carefully analyze three primary sources, and compare these to the interpretation given by HBO’s John Adams. In my view, these sources can be

The Boston Massacre is considered by many historians to be the first battle of the Revolutionary War. The fatal incident happened on March 5 of 1770. The massacre resulted in the death of five colonists. British troops in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were there to stop demonstrations against the Townshend Acts and keep order, but instead they provoked outrage. The British soldiers and citizens brawled in streets and fought in bars. “The citizens viewed the British soldiers as potential oppressors, competitors for jobs, and a treat to social mores”. A defiant anti-British fever was lingering among the townspeople.