The Rhetorical Analysis Of The Boston Massacre Trial

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.

He delivered a public address to a large crowd in Boston, commemorating the Boston Massacre. In Hancock's speech he had been so explicit and so patriotic that even the most doubtful became convinced of what his close associates already knew, that Hancock was for real. The speech also convinced the British that he was a rebel. Hancock became a marked man. For this reason, on the day of the battles of Lexington and Concord the British were seeking to arrest Hancock and Samuel Adams. Following those battles, Massachusetts governor Gage issued a proclamation granting a general pardon to all who would demonstrate a proper penitence to the crown, except Hancock and Samuel Adams.

Convincing an audience of 133.4 million is a daunting task, especially when they must be convinced to join a war less than thirty years after World War I. On January 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the State of the Union Address that began his third term as president. This speech, broadcast across the United States on the radio, sparked the idea to join World War II even before Pearl Harbor was attacked. In this speech, he fully supports the English against the attack of the dictators trying to extinguish democracy across the world. He proposes the four freedoms that America is invested in protecting around the world: freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in any way, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. In his speech, “The Four Freedoms,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt inspires nationalism and creates fear in his audience to convince them to join the war ravaging through Europe through many forms of metaphor and repetition.

In the 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine, American political activist and filmmaker Michael Moore sets out to explore the primary causes of the 1999 Columbine Highschool massacre, as well as the roots of gun violence in the United States in his trademark provocative yet satirical manner. Bowling for Columbine takes a deep and often disconcerting investigation into the motives of two Colorado student shooters, responsible for the deaths of over 12 people at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, and examines other gun-related issues as well. From obtaining free guns at a bank, to reviewing America’s violent history, and interviewing a variety of people, Moore demonstrates that the conventional answers of violent national history and entertainment, as well as poverty are inadequate of causing this violence, for other nations share the same factors without the same levels of carnage. In order to arrive at a possible explanation, Moore takes on a deeper inspection of America’s culture of fear, and violence in a nation with widespread gun ownership. Ultimately, the documentary implies that the high incidence of gun deaths in America is caused by the deadly combination of cultural paranoia and easy accessible firearms that is, to some extent, effectively established through rhetorical techniques of ethos, logos, and pathos.

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.

Throughout In Cold Blood Capote goes through the lives of the killers, Dick and Perry. Both convicts released from jail and at first glance seem to have a lot in common, but as the book continues the reader can see that the two characters are in fact very different. To characterize the killers Capote frequently uses flashbacks into their pasts, giving the reader a sense of what their lives were like and why they became who they are. Capote also utilizes detailed descriptions of the men’s appearances, quirks, and habits to characterize the murderers.

Through the newly established revolutionary’s communication networks, the story of the “Boston Massacre” had spread through the colonies quickly. The news of the massacre was aided by Paul Revere’s engraving of the British soldiers shooting the citizens. He put into detail bloodthirsty British soldiers with grins on their faces firing into a peaceful crowd. The story and engraving were circulated and reprinted in many newspapers throughout the colonies, thus creating sympathy for Boston and filling the colonies with anger and contempt towards Britain. This allowed for the people of Boston to bring the soldiers to court. The soldiers were tried in Boston and won their innocence as part of self-defense, thanks to their defense attorney, John Adams. Though they had won their trial, the citizens of the colonies still felt anger to the soldiers for killing the people by firing their weapons into the crowd that was fighting unfair acts that were attacking their freedoms and increasing the taxes on their

In his closing argument for OJ Simpson’s criminal trial, Johnnie Cochran successfully argues for Simpson’s innocence. Repetition, appeals to audience emotion, and the use of scenarios to appeal to logic are all rhetorical devices which Cochran skillfully uses in order to create an argument that is strong and convincing to the courtroom. These devices help him shape his argument tactically in a manner and order that successfully defends OJ Simpson in the trial.

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 purpose for Truman Capote's writing of his book, In Cold Blood was to take literary definitions to a whole new level. He used them in ways that people were able to relate to them personally. He did this by using several different types of literary devices. Nancy's diary for instance, is used to symbolize the impossible future that will never happen for her. The purpose of Nancy's diary is for her to collect all of the things that she had gone through each day, so that someday, when things were looking up for her, she would be able to go back and read all of the hard times that she had once gone through. This never happens, as we know, due to her death. But coincidentally, the last entry that Nancy ever makes, sadly, is about how she had yet another boring, uneventful day, but she also involuntarily wrote about how when you have no life, and no hope, that even the last night of your life, no future is boring. Capote's clever thought out analogy for Nancy's consisted of something that many adults are able to

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

During the Boston Massacre, a mob of colonists in Boston harassed the British soldiers. Captain Thomas Preston wrote,” On this is a general attack was made on the men by a great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being thrown at them…” During the riot, the British troops shot 5 colonists from the mob. The shots, however, were fired without their Captain’s demand. In Captain Thomas Preston’s report he admitted that he did not order the men to fire. He wrote, “ This might be the case as many of the mob called out fired, fire, but i assured the men that i gave no such order; that my words were, don’t fire, stop your firing.” To this day, no one knew who called out “fire”. At last, the colonists called a town meeting to demand the removal of British troops and even argued a trial for the incident of the shots. The judges agreed to put the soldiers on trial while the colonists were the one who started

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 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.