www.historyisnowmagazine.com
A New Look at the 1770 Boston Massacre
On March 7, 1770, a contingent of British soldiers were on patrol in the streets of Boston and were directed to respond to an incident involving a British soldier who had been taking the brunt of harassment from a group of colonial protesters. Still years away from the start of the American Revolution, tensions across the 13 colonies were at a boiling point due to unfair taxes, land restrictions, and presence of the British military. Suddenly they were confronted with a mob of angry colonists.Here, Ryan Reidway gives his take on the Boston Massacre.
The Boston Massacre. By Paul Revere. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. Russell Sage, 1910, here.
Outnumbered, far from home, inexperienced, and in the wrong place at the wrong time, the Redcoats under the command of Captain Thomas Preston fired upon the crowd. Tragically five colonists in the mob ultimately died. Among the dead was an escaped slave Crispus Attucks who is often considered by historians as the first casualty of the American Revolution. In the trial that followed John Adams, founding father and the second President of the United States, participated in the legal defense of Captain Preston and eight of the British soldiers in court. With the odds against him and without public support, Adams and his legal team successfully argued for their innocence and release from imprisonment of Captain Preston and six of the eight soldiers. The two other soldiers were branded on the thumb with an M for Manslaughter and then ultimately released. In his closing arguments Adams argued this:“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defense; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offense of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated. To your candor and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause. The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady, undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations and wanton tempers of men.” Legal caseAdams and his legal team that consisted of Robert Auchmuty Jr., and Josiah Quincy Jr. were the only ones willing to take on a case like this due to the rising opposition and public outcry against Preston and his men. Ironically the reason there was so much outrage in the colonies was due to the response to the incident by Adams' cousin and leader of the Sons of Liberty Sammuel Adams. For years Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty had been stirring up anti British sentiment in Boston for what they considered to be a series of unfair regulations and taxes. Paul Revere who would later become famous for his famous Midnight Ride in which he is quoted “One if by land and two if by sea”, before the battles of Lexington and Concord, and founding member of the Sons of Liberty, created and distributed the illustration above throughout the 13 colonies.After careful examination of the illustration one will notice that none of the colonists portrayed in the image have a variety of weapons or objects such as oyster shells, snowballs, or rocks in their hands or around their bodies. And yet this clearly is not how it happened. From both Preston's account written only hours after the altercation and the closing legal arguments of John Adams, the mob had the means if not the intention to cause bodily harm to Preston and his men. Massacre?This image, forged from anger after the event, was distributed first in the city of Boston, and then around the rest of the 13 colonies. Revere even proclaimed his depiction as the “Bloody Massacre on King Street.” However Revere was not present to witness the event first hand and yet was the first one to call it a Massacre. Webster Dictionary defines Massacre as the “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.”So to call it a Massacre may have been a bit of a stretch. Tragic loss of life? Yes. An unfortunate and upsetting incident? Indeed. But from the very definition of the word it is very clear that there are two reasons why Revere had no business calling it a massacre. The first reason is implied: intention. Did Captain Preston’s soldiers set out that night with the intention of killing those colonists? No. There is no historical evidence anecdotal or otherwise to show that was what those men were thinking or planning to do. They were caught in a bad situation that was compounded by the fact that most were inexperienced, perhaps not in the art of being a soldier, but as a quasi police/occupational force. The second and arguably more evident, is the fact that the definition points out that victims of massacres are usually unarmed. We know for a fact that the colonial mob was not unarmed. Perhaps at a disadvantage in terms of fire power (ie: rocks vs. muskets) but armed nonetheless. Neither of these points were ever present in the narrative surrounding Paul Revere's depiction of the event and still it was sold to the public as yet another example of aggression towards the Colonies by the King George III government. If a plantation owner in Charleston, a merchant in Philadelphia, or a shopkeeper in New York City, saw this illustration with the title Bloody Massacre on King Street, how could History expect them to feel anything other than anger and frustration towards the British Crown or its agents present in the 13 Colonies. It is certainly expected that the events that followed this incident drummed up the feelings of patriotism and love of country for many Americans. As it should. However, in the Republic that was built from the ashes of the American Revolution, Article 3 of the United States Constitution argues for the value of a virtuous court system based on rule of law and not on the whims of one individual or even that of the entire population. Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here. ReferencesHodgson, John, and John Adams. n.d. “Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3–4 December 1770.” Founders Online. Accessed May 9, 2024. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0004-0016.Preston, Thomas. 2015. The Trial of the British Soldiers [T. Preston and Others] of the 29Th Regiment of Foot, for the Murder of Crispus Attucks [And Others]. N.p.: Creative Media Partners, LLC.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
