Effectiveness Of The Boston Massacre

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.

William Wyatt and Captain Thomas Preston had very different accounts on what happened at the Boston Massacre. Wyatt said that he was in Boston, when he heard the bells ring, which usually indicated that there is a fire. He ran up too the Town-house, where he saw soldiers and their officer, who was telling them to load their guns and then proceeded to tell the soldiers to fire. When they did not fire, he told them to fire again, until someone did and after everyone fired and killed townspeople, the officer yelled "Damn ye, rascals, what did ye fire for?" Wyatt also mentioned that the towns people did not throw anything at the soldiers.

On the evening of March 5, 1770, with a foot of snow on the ground, groups of Bostonians gathered around the Custom House on King Street. Some had buckets of water, after responding to a fire alarm. Others had clubs to defend themselves or perhaps to threaten the despised “lobsterbacks.” Private Hugh White was, in fact, being threatened by several wigmakers’ apprentices (Aron 24). When Captain Thomas Preston heard of Private White’s situation, he came with seven other soldiers to help. Words escalated into snowballs and stones, and the soldiers began to fight back with the butts of their guns. The crowd of Bostonians was growing and now numbered about 100 (24). Then, a huge chunk of ice came flying in from the mob and knocked

The tension between the colonies and Britain was nothing new. There were several occasions where the colonies became greatly infuriated with the unpleasant treatment they were receiving. Prior to the year 1770, much of the outcry came from the acts passed by the British government, such as the Stamp Act, Quartering Act, and Declaratory Act (“A Timeline of the American Revolution”). Even though the colonists were infuriated, it would take something more to push them over the edge. This something would turn out to be what is now called the Boston Massacre. Although the Boston Massacre won’t go down as the deadliest massacre in American history, it will go down as one of the most pivotal turning points due to the colonists’ depiction of the event.

Similar to the way that the colonial and British perspectives greatly varied for the Boston Massacre, their opinions are once again vastly different for the Battles of Lexington and Concord. In this event as well, both parties attempt to place the blame on the other which is not unusual due the nature of the sources. However, this highlights the large amount of bias evident in all of the accounts. For the colonial perspective, there are two statements, each from a member of a colonial militia that fought during the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Both of these sources place the blame on the British soldiers and claim that the British fired first, killing several colonists. One account, from the Battle of North Bridge, claims that the colonists were ordered to hold their fire and that they didn’t fire until the British opened fire upon them. The other account, from soldier who fought during the skirmish at the Lexington Green, states that the colonists did not even get a single shot off, at least not before the soldier whose account this is was wounded. This source also claims that the British commanding officers were yelling at and insulting the colonists as their ranks closed on the milita. Both these sources are very similar to the colonial perspectives of the Boston Massacre because they all place the blame on the British soldiers and attempt to make themselves appear as the victims.

Common Sense is a pamphlet in a series of pamphlets called, The American Crisis, which was written by the enlightenment philosopher and author, Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a significant character in the American fight for independence by using his radicalized writings to inspire the colonists to conclude it was time to break away from British rule. Common Sense was critically successful due to it selling 500,000 copies a few months after it’s publication in 1776. Common Sense is a pamphlet that has many key ideas that show the many strengths of Paine’s argument while also having some weaknesses that could damage the credibility of his argument.

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

Before America was America people fought a war where theoretically they should not have won. After the war ended, they came out victors, but at the price of losing thousands of men. “We are fallen into the most unhappy times, when even innocence itself is nowhere safe!” (Boston Gazette, February 1770). This excerpt shows that the people in the colonies were angry and wanted change. There was sufficient cause for the American colonists to take up arms and rebel against the British government because people have the right to privacy, and Britain was not giving it to them.

To deeply understand that what is Boston Massacre is all about, it is necessary to critically analyze the causes and effects of the incident of Boston Massacre. Boston Massacre is considered as one of the decisive incidents in the history of America. The act of Boston Massacre happened on March 5, 1770. This incident was known as the act of massacre because it causes the brutal killing of five American men due to the fight between British soldiers and the American

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.

Revolution. This event brought attention to the unfair ways the British soldiers were treating the colonists. The British were treating the colonists unfairly by taxing them and using their homes for shelter and food. They used them for food by making them make meals for them to eat and if the colonist was a farmer with horses they would also take the horses. I will talk about the famous lawyer John Adams and other events that happened in the Boston Massacre.

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

“Between the hours of nine and ten o’clock, being in my master’s house, was alarmed by the cry of fire, I ran down as far as the town-house, and then heard that the soldiers and the inhabitants were fighting in the alley… I then left them and went to King street. I then saw a party of soldiers loading their muskets about the Custom house door, after which they all shouldered. I heard some of the inhabitants cry out, “heave no snow balls”, others cried “they dare not fire”. The Boston massacre has been no massacre it was propaganda. The incident that happened March 5th, 1770 in the streets of Boston only killed five people and had six people with non fatal injuries. There were

On March 5, 1770, indignant Boston colonists assembled on King Street, rocketing snowballs and launching stones at the British soldiers stationed in the English city. The rebels heckled the troops, threatening them with weapons and ominous declarations, inducing defensive military action by the British, leading to the deaths of five colonial rebels…Let’s try that again.

The Boston Massacre started when conflict began brewing in Boston. Riots followed the seizure of Liberty, a British ship that violated trade regulations. Royal soldiers were sent to Boston in 1768 as a tool of protection against the rioters. The soldiers became more and more unpopular with the common Boston folks because they competed for the jobs associated with the Boston waterfront. The growing dislike of the soldiers caused a fight to break out on March 5, 1770. This confrontation between Bostonians and the troops quickly escalated to an armed fight. Five Bostonians were killed by the armed troops, creating the event that is known today as the Boston Massacre. Crispus Attucks was one of the five fallen people and he later was known as the first victim of the American Revolution. Nine people, one commanding officer and eight soldiers, were put on trial for the Boston Massacre, yet only two were convicted on manslaughter. The two men that were convicted of manslaughter did not receive the death penalty; however, the hands of these two soldiers were branded with the letter “M”. This mark meant that they should not receive a lenient treatment in the future.