What Caused the "Boston Massacre"?
Thursday March 5, 2009
March 5, 1770, British troops opened fire into a crowd killing five colonists in Boston, Massachusetts. This action later became known as the "Boston Massacre." The crowd had gathered in disagreement over the Stamp Act which taxed all legal or printed documents. There are questions even today over exactly what caused the British soldiers to fire into the crowd.
Comments
The colonists started the fight by insulting the “redcoats.” The “redcoats” were trying to defend themselves so they fired into the crowd. That is what truly happened, the “redcoat” didn’t start it, the colonists did.
the colonists were pelting the soldiers with rocks and snowballs so they shot in self defense the colonists also violated the Riots Act and were the cause of the whole event
Apparently Cindy and Russie are both smarter than historians. Maybe they would have preferred British rule. Officially, the evidence on each side contradicted the other and a clear accounting of the event is unknown.
Come on, Colonist. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn’t mean that they would prefer subjugation under a tyrannical king. They are both mistaken in seeming to assume that the colonists were all vicious thugs bent on destruction and the soldiers all were meek little lambs only doing what they could to save themselves. Well-trained soldiers do not simply fire into crowds, though I’ll bet that they didn’t know what else to do with the angry mob that faced them that day. I’d have lobbed a few snowballs myself if I’d been there…
I like EM’s thoughts. A group of armed soldiers under duress must have a strong and experienced leader, or this is what happens. Anyone remember Kent State, May 4 1970. Again, the students weren’t exactly being angels, but firing into the crown is not how you deal with that.
Were’nt the soldiers tried (defended by John Adams) and found innocent of any crime?
right on both counts Paul
With respect, neither Cindy or Russie stated an opinion, or a factually accurate statement for that matter. Cindy stated what “truly happened” was that the colonists started it. Russie stated the colonists “were the cause of the whole event”. Neither are clearly supported by the evidence.
The truth is not subject to a viewpoint. It is simply the truth. In this case, the truth is unknown according to the best historians. So people talking like they know for certain are just making things up and are misleading people.
And technically, Preston was found “not guilty”, not “innocent”. The prosecution was unable to meet the necessary burdon of proof for conviction, leaving a reasonable doubt. With all of the conflicting eyewitness testimony, the verdict makes sense. But, that is a long way from saying somebody is innocent. Understanding how the British treated the colonies during this time, there may not have been enough evidence in this particular example, but there are plenty of other examples. Read the Declaration of Independence, where a lot of their grievances were enumerated.
Peace
god bless america. ok fellow americans,this why we have the right of freedom of speech. all i have to say about the subject is this. history is history,right? nothing can change the past,right? (unless there was a real time machine,yah right.who would change it? you might just want to see it for yourself.) we should learn for the past. taxes still exist,soilders with guns still exist,government reform still exist,and the news still exist. what has really changed? people still dying for no real good reason. i day,fight a good fight and die for a good cause, but don’t make the same mistakes.
I have heard that the Colonist had been celebrating a bit too much with some John Barleycorn which no doubt added a little courage to the situation.
Who cares who started it. I’m just glad it happened. Besides,it was stones and snowballs, did the ” Redcoats” really have to use their guns? Why didn’t they throw snowballs. If I was living Back then I would of thrown the first one.
If the Redcoats responded to insults with gunfire, both they, and those who they represented, deserved being booted out of the country. It took a few years, but that’s what happened…..Thank goodness.
The British soldeirs were called “Bloody backs,” lobsters,” and “Redscoats.”
With respect to the “colonist”, we do know what happened. Even though John Adams and Josiah Quincy successfully defended Preston, two of the soldiers that fired were convicted of manslaughter and had their thumbs branded. The soldiers had been conducting drills in the Common, playing loud band music on the Sabbath and set up a sentry point at the only inlet to the city just to aggravate the colonists. Tensions were understandably high and snowballs were hardly a reason to open fire. All of the soldiers should have been hanged.
the colonists were mad because the british parlement wanted the british soldiers to live in the colonists homes.
Ttax’s started the whole thing.
Yall r all wrong… the bloody british started everything
Okay I got taught at school that Private white… one of the red coats was guarding the customs house (where they keep tax money) when a man named edward garrick went up to the soldier and started to taunt him. then Private white hit him with the butt of his gun and droped garrick. When Garrick got up he yelled for help… so colonist out of bars and local taverns heard him and started a riot over that… then a guy named richard palms hit another soldier named private Montgomery with a long stick… Private Montgomery reacted to this and aimlessly fired his bayonet… soon after the rest of the soldiers did the same…as they felt threatened by an angry mob of 200+ colonists. There were 11 people shot… 5 dead.. and only six shots were fired… Scientist believe dat their bayonets were double loaded meaning two lead bullets… also that Crispus attucks was not the first to get shot.. the bullet that hit him had already been through another person before it shot him.. So finally when the soldiers were trialed for murder they were surprisingly defended by samuel adams… an anti-british king type guy… who defended the soldiers by “self-defense” but two of the soldiers at the end were trialed for manslaughter… in the end i think that the soldiers were right for shooting the colonists because they were only doing their job… though… yes though.. their ideas were wrong and their actions as well… there shouldnt be a king… anywayz no one really for sure knows what happened that night… THIS IS THE CLOSESt I CAME UP WITH…
Im SOrry who defended the soldiers was John Adams… Samuel adams COusin…
The Boston Massacre was caused by a colonist who hit a red coat. Since the people were yelling at the red coats to fire their guns the red coats were confused.Thinking it was an order from the general the red coats fired their guns that is when everything started.
Uhm. What really happened is unknown. Anyone could have said fire.