Summary Of John Tudor's '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.

The third and most obvious reason the British are to blame for the massacre is that the British soldiers fired into the crowd. When Hugh Montgomery was knocked down by a chunk of ice, he stood up and fired into the crowd (Aron 24). The other soldiers soon fired as well. The gunfire killed five people. Crispus Attucks, Samuel Gray, and James Caldwell died at the scene. Samuel Maverick died a few hours later, while Patrick Carr survived for nine days before dying of his wounds (Olson). Samuel Gray was killed by a single ball entering his head, Crispus Attucks was killed by two balls entering his chest, and James Caldwell was killed by two balls entering his back (“Boston”). Benjamin Frizell, who was standing near the west corner of the Custom House before and at the time of the gun discharges, declared that the first discharge was of only one gun, the second discharge was of two guns, the third discharge was of three guns, immediately followed by the fourth and final discharge of five guns (“Boston”). He also declared that of the final discharge, two were from soldiers on the ground on Preston’s right side, but three discharges came from the balcony, or the chamber window, as the flashes appeared on the left side of Preston, and higher than the flashes of the other two discharges. This information shows that at least three soldiers were on the balcony and carefully took aim and

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.

The Boston Massacre took place on March 5th, 1770. This historic event was caused because of an ongoing conflict between the British soldiers and the people of Boston. According to George Hewes account, “Crowds of artisans and laborers joined the elite in protesting British policies, although their differing points of view revealed the divisions within colonial society.” People were upset over the British passing the Towsend Act, which was a surplus of unpopular taxes. The people of Boston also resented the British troops, who were also looking for jobs.

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.

Since the 1960s, considerable disagreements between North American colonists and British soldiers derived in the so called “Boston Massacre” because of imposed laws by the British Empire into the colonies. After this conflict that took place on March 5, 1770, Captain Thomas Preston was charged with murder. The event occurred as a response of a series of violent encounters between the two groups. Curiously, Capt. Preston trial was delayed until October 24 in order to calm down witnesses’ exasperations. However, the witnesses who declared in the trial gave controversial and questionable testimonies; as a result, it creates indeterminate conditions to make a valid verdict. Among the allegations, Capt. Presto stood between the infuriated town and soldiers; for that reason, it was not clear if the order to shoot was given and if it was, the order came from behind the soldiers. After considering all declarations there were not sufficient evidences to condemn Capt. Presto because British soldiers acted in self-defense. Therefore, my decision for the case is that Capt. Preston was not guilty of giving the order to fire.

Boston Massacre The day of 5, March 1770 have its immense significance in the history of America. It is remembered as the day of the killing of five heroes of the revolutionary process of America. It is the day of Boston Massacre. It has its strong implications in the nation’s history (Sanchez).

If you don’t know who Captain Preston is, he is the captain of the group of soldiers. Some people say that he was the one that told the soldiers to fire. It even shows him raising his hand to fire in Paul Revere’s engraving. It is not certain that, this is what happened because there is no other proof but the engraving. From what I have heard Captain Preston was telling the soldiers not to fire.

From there we follow her journey from Fort Number 4 to Fort St Frédéric where they were treated with kindness by the French, but never-the-less were still captives. After that they were forced to traverse hundreds of miles to the Abenaki village where Susanna Johnson she watched her family split up and sold to the far reaches of the colonies. This offense and the massacre at Fort William Henry caused great anger in the colonies and in Britain. The order was given, find who did this and enact revenge, Robert Rogers and his group of elite Rangers took up the challenge.

These Indians, aggravated because they never were able to plunder the British, massacred the retreating party in a more historically recognized event that the actual siege. Reports of the casualties vary. Some historical accounts claim that nearly fifteen hundred English were killed. However, since the Natives were more interested in money than scalps and ransoms were profitable, it is more likely that the English casualties ranged from seventy to one hundred eighty people. (Fort William Henry "Massacre" 2015)

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.

The massacre is describe on a monday evening when several soldiers of the 29 Regiment were seen parading in the streets. Four men Edward Archibald, William Merchant, Francies Archibald and John Leech. The four of them was coming down these street. Two of the men went one way then the other two went another. The soldier grabbed his sword and stuck Archibald on the arm. Then the soldier pierced at Merchant and grazed his skin. The soldier brought back two more soldiers. The soldiers got Archibald and laid him over the head with tongs. The noise brought people together and John knocked one of the soldiers down. When the boys disappeared, A man named Mr. Atwood come up to see what was the matter. He heard about the combat then he met ten or twelve

The evening of May 26, 1637, the English retaliated against the murder of Captain John Stone by brutally attacking a large Pequot village in Missituck. The invasion began around 2 A.M. on the twenty-sixth proceeding the all day march and short rest the men were permitted. The English, led by Major John Mason and Captain John Underhill, split forces and attacked through the only two village entrances. Instead of engaging the Englishmen, many Pequots stayed huddled in their shelters. Mason quickly was engulfed with irritation that his enemy would not fight in traditional European ways. He took a torch and set fire to one side of the village while Underhill set fire to the other end. In a matter of less than an hour, several Pequot men, women,

One passage from Hagendorf’s log records the execution of seven soldiers in the Swedish army by their own commander . Hagendorf states that the commander lured the seven soldiers to accompany him to soldiers that temporarily abandoned the regiment where he shot all seven of them to remind people of the consequences of disobeying commands. There are no legally justifiable reasons for these killings as the soldiers murdered were innocent of any wrongdoing. This event highlights the abandonment of law and order within the military as seven innocent soldiers were murdered simply to send a message that anything perceived as insubordination will be punishable by death. Hagendorf does not express outrage or sympathy and instead sarcastically remarks upon the murders as ‘‘their escort payment’’ . Hagendorf casually recalls taking part in another war crime; the incineration of a castle on the French border with seven resisting peasants left to die inside . In sequence to this crime is the destruction of a nearby village, which per Hagendorf consisted of around one thousand settlers . The diary informs that an imperial and Bavarian force of two thousand and five hundred strong were met with resistance from the villagers and were resigned to bombarding the settlement with cannon fire before abandoning the village as it burned . Hagendorf fails to clarify whether the