The Boston Massacre, Research Paper Example

In many ways the infamous Boston Massacre is significant landmark in the historical development of the United States of America along the lines of its quest to break the shackles of royal British imperial dominance. Notwithstanding the relevance of this historical event, the real facts of the actual incident have been subsumed in a thick cloud of varied and often divergent details. One fact that remains undisputable in the midst of the many accounts is that American lives were lost on that fateful day; whether justifiably or unjustifiably is yet another case by itself (Davidson 1941). In this brief essay, I will make a strenuously diligent effort to skim through all the historical details covering this historic event. From this point, I will endeavor to make a case for my own position based on evidence of which account I believe is reasonably authentic in its documentation of the facts of the incident.

The general facts around the events of the Boston Massacre is that on the fateful day of March 5, 1770 a rowdy crowd of Boston citizens came into a confrontation with British military servicemen stationed in the city resulting in the outbreak of violence claiming the lives of the victims of that day. Indeed, all this took place at a time when British colonial influence was significantly waning in influence in most parts of her colonies including Boston. The cold relationship thus created the most fertile grounds for the escalation of the tragedy that this essay is discussing. It is worthy of note that like most historical accounts with a egalitarian flavor, the account of the Boston Massacre is rather regrettably shrouded by the biases of the narrators. For instance, from the position of the adherents of the Sons of Liberty, a common inclination in retelling the story behind the Boston Massacre is that the occupying British colonial authorities are viewed as foes that bare the brunt of responsibility for all the unfortunate consequences of events that preceded and culminated into the violent deaths of the citizens of Boston. Meanwhile, what is clear is that these accounts fall short of chronicling the contributory role of the angry mob in sparking the violent explosion that turned out very sour.

Putting this in perspective, the story can still be told in its tentative form. A group of teenagers are alleged to have embarked on a wild rumor mongering spree about how they had been manhandled by soldiers of the British army on duty post at the city’s custom office. Whilst some report that the teenage boys were attacked by the soldiers without any provocation, others contend that the boys were actually involved in howling snowballs and other objects at the soldiers on guard. Indeed, as stated in the preceding paragraphs the relationship between the British colonial authorities and the indigenes of Boston had already been stretched beyond its elastic limit in other words the nature of the existing friction was such that it was so highly combustible that the slightest ignition could set the whole place ablaze and that is precisely what happened on that fateful day.

Events following the unfortunate massacre set the stage for a new showdown of the colonial resolve of the people Boston and how this has grown to direct the course of American history over the years. With the death of the five citizens of Boston during the riots, there was a popular clarion call for justice for the souls of the victims of the shooting tragedy—indeed a retributive justice system in which the British soldiers involved were already tried in the court of public opinion and duly convicted on the grounds of emotionally charged sentimental evidence available (Hiller 1970). But the reverberating is if indeed the accused soldiers were really guilty of the charges brought against them or they were only been innocent lambs used to appease an angry lion?

Suffice to take a closer look at the deeper dimensions of the case and how it amounts to criminal liability or not on the part of the soldiers. Attorney John Adams in representing the accused soldiers put up a strong counter argument to exonerate the soldiers accused of murder from any wrong doing and therefore the leading officer Captain Preston was discharged and acquitted (Wroth et al 1965). The trial and events surrounding all that transpired did invariably work to worsen the prejudice position of the British colonists against the British crown and in some instances is said to have subtly contributed in triggering the revolution (Miller n.d; Schlesinger 1958).

With this foundation laid, this essay will proceed to highlight what this writer believes to be the most convincing and authentic account of the remote and immediate factors that contributed to the angry explosion that has become known as the Boston Massacre. My conclusion is based on the veracity of the facts presented in each of the historical reports giving. My task here is to filter facts from fiction and propaganda. Naturally, the possibility of distortion and misrepresentation of facts as witnessed in the scores of reports available indicate that the possibility of the nationalist sentiments of the day warping objectivity cannot be dismissed.

After reading the several accounts available today, I remain convinced that the work of Miller (n.d.) carries more convincing facts beyond the superficial heresy historical reports that are available today. My first conviction stems from the understanding that her reports are the reflection of an eye witness account of the Charles Scribner’s sons. These are built on tentative facts gathered from the testimonies of from both prosecution and defense witnesses called during the trial of Captain Thomas Preston, the British officer who was in command of the soldiers involved in the shooting incident. It is also very convincing because the statements of witnesses from both sides were taken strictly under oath, besides attorneys from both sides of the case also had the ample opportunity to cross examine all persons parading as witnesses. To this end there is conscientious effort in filtering out the grains from the chaff by way of leaving an unadulterated historical account of the facts as they are.

As alleged by some reporters, the Boston teenage boys who spread the rumors of manhandling by the British sentinel claim there was little or provocation at all. This proves to be untrue as gathered from the testimonies in court.

The soldier in his sentinel box was reportedly taunted by these youngsters to a point where his reaction was to reprimand them with his musket. The city mob was drawn to the tax office where the sentinel was stationed in apparent protest of the allegation of manhandling of the teenage boys by the soldier. Sensing danger, the young soldier called for reinforcement, which was led by Captain Thomas Preston and eight other soldiers.

In reading through most of the accounts presented, it can clearly be seen that the point of divergence in the reporting of the Boston Massacre begins from the point of the arrival of Captain Thomas Preston’s reinforcement squad. Contrary to the reports that Captain Thomas Preston ordered his men to open fire on the mob, the court evidence indicates that the decision to open fire was arbitrarily taken by a soldier who was hit by an object from the mob. The court evidence also establishes that indeed objects had been hurled at the soldiers. Instinctively, the firing was a reflex response of self-defense against an angry mob. Moreover, the soldiers did not spontaneously open fire on the mob as that will be the conventional process in obedience to a superior command. In this case, the shots came independently and irregularly. The British service men reputed for their level of discipline will definitely be better disciplined in their response to an order from a superior as opposed to what is being alleged. In the light of all this, self-defense was clearly the motive behind the reaction of the soldiers who in retrospect may be accused of acting disproportionately. Nevertheless, there was no better way to respond to an angry and violent mob within the rudiments of military standards during those days (Dirk, 1977).

Reference

Davidson, Philip. Propaganda and the American Revolution, 1763–1783. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1941.

Dickerson, Oliver M., ed. Boston under Military Rule, 1768–1769: As Revealed in a Journal of These Times. Boston: Mount Vernon Press, 1936.

Hoerder, Dirk. Crowd Action in Revolutionary Massachusetts, 1765–1780. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Miller Laura. Paul Revere’s Account of His Ride (1775): An entry from Charles Scribner’s Sons’ Dictionary of American History, n.d.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Prelude to Independence: The Newspaper War on Britain, 1764–1776. New York: Knopf, 1958.

Wroth, L. Kinvin, and Zobel, Hiller B., eds. The Legal Papers of John Adams, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Zobel, Hiller B. The Boston Massacre. New York: Norton, 1970.