The Causes 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

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.

The American Revolution was justified because the colonists were not being treaty fairy and equally by the British. And according to Jefferson, “people being oppressed have a moral obligation to rebel against their oppressors”. From the beginning, the colonists were not given the full rights as British men, just because they were not living in that country. The Navigation Acts passed by the Parliament to restrict colonial trade, and all of colonial trade with Europe had to go through England, overall they wanted to keep colonies in a position of economic dependency on Britain. And that was a serious damage in the colonial economies and people’s aspirations, it makes many colonists unhappy and smuggle goods to other country. And British

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.

On March 5th 1770, shots was were fired at colonists leaving 5 of them dead. The colonist were mad about the Stamp Act and were protesting. The King sent soldiers to go and maintain the colonist, this later ended up causing the boston massacre. The Boston Massacre lead to more tension for the revolutionary war. There were a lot people that could have been at fault on this day. The colonists are to blame because they were taunting the soldiers, throwing objects at the soldiers, and the colonist were upset with the stamp act.

The first reason that the colonists were justified in breaking away from the British was because the British Parliament and soldiers made unjust decisions for their own personal gain and abused their powers over the colonists. As stated in Document 2 of the packet “Document-Based Questions--Path to Revolution”, the British parliament taxed the colonists for the sole purpose of levying money upon them (Stamp Act). The taxes was also mainly used to pay for the French-Indian War, which seems like it justifies the British taxing, except for the fact that it was taxes without representation, which can be labeled as tyranny. This supports my argument, as the American colonists didn’t like having to pay for the war, and let Britain take money away from them for profit. Another piece of evidence that supports my claim would be that on Document 10 of the packet it was stated that, “We have understood it be

Due to the British tightening their control over the colonies to pay off the huge debt after the French and Indian War, patriots rebelled and started a revolution that would lead to great things. These were colonists who believed that the right to govern themselves belonged to the colonies. Britain had recently gotten into a war in the Americas against France and the Native Americans. Although they won and expanded their American empire, the debt they were in was just about up to their necks. To help solve this problem, they took more control over the colonies. Before the Proclamation of 1763, Britain did not pay much attention to the colonies. However Prime Minister George Grenville needed help to pay off the debt, and the British people were already paying taxes on several of their

In Brinkley eyes, results from The Boston Massacre is more than just a tragic but rather another cause for the revolution and claiming independence for the U.S. from Britain. As taxes rises and become more abundant, the colonists started to take actions against the British, causing the tensions to get worse. The Boston Massacre, along with other significant events such as Boston Tea Party, Boston Port Act, and more set the revolution in motion. The Boston Massacre was another event that help fueling the flame for the claim of independence.

The events surrounding the Boston Massacre exposed sharp divisions in the British colonies in North America with two distinct rival groups emerging, namely, the Loyalists and Patriots. The Loyalists were dedicated supporters of the British Crown whereas the Patriots were independence-minded colonists keen to break away from English rule. As a result, both feuding parties would seek to promote their own agenda without regard for core values such as accuracy and impartiality.

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).

The Boston Massacre was an important event in U.S. history, that lead to the American

“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

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.