Examining Whether or not the Boston Massacre was a True Massacre

Why or why not? He’s just trying to get Preston in trouble with the court so that way they can win the war.

On October 1. 1768, two thousand British soldiers landed and camped out on Boston. Samuel Adams was not liking having the Presents of the British soldiers it was making him very angry. Samuel and the Sons of Liberty published the acts of how harsh and brutal towards the towns citizens. One event had occurred a unimportant act was taken into a riot. A customs informer was under an attack when he fired a shot to warn a crowd that was surrounded by his home, this act accidentally killed a young boy.

On March 5, 1770 a horrible incident had occurred that resulted with five people being struck down by British bullets. But before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s discuss what happened prior to the brutal shooting. On March fifth, a angry mob of colonists started to protest against a lone sentry that was posted near the Customs House, complaining that the British were responsible for the loss of working jobs. They threw ice balls and other nearby junk they could find towards the sentry. Soon enough the mob started to slowly grow and the punishment against that lone soldier started to rapidly increase. Captain Thomas Preston was called with his seven men to control the ever growing mob of colonists and to help protect the Customs House. Although

On March 5, 1770...The Boston Massacre, known as the Incident on King Street by the British, was an incident on March 5, 1770, in which British Army soldiers shot and killed people while under attack by a lot of colonists. There was not a  massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because. According to the sources B,C and D say that the colonists had weapons and they were also attacking in the massacre. The evidence that supports my claims is that in documents B,C,D the colonists are clearly seen with weapons according to the documents with the gazette, it said that the colonists had weapons and were involved in the fight. This supports my own opinion because in document b the colonists are seen with some type of sword or golf club. My second reason

The colonists were not thrilled about the Townshend duties. However, when the redcoats were marching down the streets even though their facial expressions showed dislike they kept it down. The other 12 colonies thought that they restrained because they were scared. On, March 5, 1770, it was a turning point for the colonist because Townshend Act was repealed except for tax on tea. On this day the 60 people of Boston gathered in front of the custom house and attacked the Redcoats with rocks and snowballs. The redcoats replied by firing back at the Bostonians without Captain Thomas’ permission. It resulted in the death of 5 people which lit up their desire for independence.

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 occurred on March 5, 1770 in Boston, Massachusetts. The Boston Massacre was a small riot between the colonists and British soldiers. Evidence supports that the colonists were to blame for the events that led to the Boston Massacre, which resulted in five colonial deaths.

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.

The Boston Massacre was a reaction to the British action. This started off with the British sending troops to Boston to watch over the city. Some of the colonists thought that what the British was doing was unnecessary and that they didn’t need any “babysitters” to watch over them. They also thought that this was an invasion of their privacy. Tensions started to rise between the colonists and the British troops. This caused many fights between the colonists and the British. One night, March 5th, 1770, the colonists started to throw rocks and attack the soldiers with clubs. From that point on, no one knew exactly what happened, but we know that the British soldiers started to fire at the colonists. At the end of the night, 5 colonists were killed. The next day, Paul Revere made an engraving of the event and he labeled it “The Boston Massacre” (Document 2). The engraving turned out to be very inaccurate, as Paul Revere drew the colonists as innocent victims. The engraving was then printed many times and hung up throughout the city and the colony. Almost all the colonists saw or had heard of the engraving within a week. Because of this false engraving, many colonists changed their view of the British. This made the engraving that Paul made one of the most famous and useful “propaganda”. The Boston Massacre was, and still is, known as the first shots

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.

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

“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

Sept. 13, 1768 – with troops about to arrive, the people of Boston gathered in Town Meeting and declared that the keeping of a standing army amongst them “without their consent in person or by Representatives of their own free election, would be an infringement of their natural, constitutional and Charter Rights; and the employing such Army for the enforcing of Laws made without the consent of the people, in Person, or by their representatives would be a grievance.” (p45)

In 1770 an extraordinary number of British troops were stationed in Boston. The Colonists didn’t understand why there were so many troops after the war. This added to the already existent tension. The colonists taunted the Red Coats and on March 5, 1770 the colonists threw snowballs resulting a hasty decision by the Red Coats to fire at the colonists. Five colonists were killed and nine were wounded. This night is known as the Boston Massacre.

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.