ipl-logo

Boston Massacre Dbq

694 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The boston massacre summary

The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5th, 1770 on King Street in Boston, Massachusetts. 5 men were killed and 6 others were harmed as a result of it. It started as a British guard was being harassed by a mob of angry civilians. 8 more soldiers joined his side who took on what he was going through. Eventually, guns were fired and killed 3 people on the spot, while 2 others died afterwards due to injuries. Now, who is to blame for this incident? Well, the British Soldiers are to blame for the Boston Massacre because they didn’t hear things clearly and they reacted with violence rapidly.

The British soldiers are to blame for the Boston Massacre because they didn’t listen carefully and shot immediately after they thought the captain said to …show more content…

Although they were being harassed, they weren’t being harmed. In Document D, it states “I went up to the main guard and addressed myself to the captain and said to him What have you done? He said sir, it was none of my doings, the soldiers fired of their own accord…His character is good as a gentleman and soldier. I think it exceeds any of the Corps!” The soldiers firing on their own accord shows they reacted with violence too quickly, as well as their guard never ordering them to do so. The guard was said to have a good character and seemed surprised by the incident as well, so the soldiers most likely didn’t pick this type of reaction up from their guard. This shows that the British are to blame due to reacting with violence quickly because even though they were provoked, that doesn’t change the fact that they still …show more content…

However, it is wrong to fully blame the colonists because they were getting unfair treatment from the British already with taxes. It was merely a protest. “...great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being thrown at them, by which all of our lives were in imminent danger, some persons at the same time calling out, damn your bloods-why don’t you fire.” (Document B) The colonists are seen here provoking the soldiers with their protests, and although it may have been a cause leading to a terrifying effect, it still doesn’t change the fact that the British Soldiers had reacted with violence

Show More
Related
165 Words | 1 Pages

After the shooting, the people of Boston demanded that the soldiers be tried and executed for the shooting. Two soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter. This whole incident is outrageous. There isn't any need to result to violence when something goes wrong.

Read More
144 Words | 1 Pages

The Boston massacre Although many historian believe the the Boston Massacre was a murder it is clear that it is an act of self-defense. First, the situation was self-defense because Preston was trying to get the sentry to safety when they got surrounded by armed and drunken citizens. The soldiers were defending themselves because they were unable to escape with their backs against the custom house and faced an angry mob. Secondly, the solders’ fire was eight to six seconds between them. this shows that the solders fired on there own accord because usually they all fire at the same time when following orders.

Read More
1470 Words | 6 Pages

The Boston Massacre, also referred to as the Incident on King Street was a street fight that broke out between colonial residents and British Soldiers. One of the most common misconceptions about this event, roots form it's name. The Boston Massacre was not truly a massacre, in fact it only resulted in five deaths. It was more of a chaotic riot that arose from enraged colonist.

Read More
341 Words | 2 Pages

The British soldiers are not guilty because they only used self defense against the colonist. First, the soldiers are not guilty because their lives were in danger. Captain Thomas Preston states, “They [colonists] advance to the points of the bayonets...seemed to be endeavoring to close with the soldiers.” The colonists were coming closer to the soldiers,

Read More
498 Words | 2 Pages

Was the Boston Massacre an accident, people say it was, people say it wasn't. Till what I´ve heard the Boston Massacre is not an accident because according to the articles many witnesses were there to experience it such as Benjamin Burdick he had a testimony of the Boston massacre that he said in court. Another guy that was there to witness the horrible traject was Nutent Prince both of them saw what happened. Nutent Prince supports either side because it says in source D that he saw snow balls, clubs, buckets, that the colonist had to defend themselves. Also the testimony of Thomas Preston who was the captain of the british soldiers, said i source B that many of the civilians were yelling saying ¨Come on rascals, your bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare...dam you…

Read More
949 Words | 4 Pages

Then the colonist made it seem that it was the soldiers fault by writing articles and drawing pictures. I know this because if you see the image that Paul Revere about the Boston Massacre it shows how the colonist are just standing there begging for mercy but it seems that the soldiers are being mischievous by killing the colonist. This picture was drawn by Paul Revere, this image was made in Boston. This supports my evidence because Paul Revere was in a group called “Our Sons of Liberty” which was against the British Government, so Paul made it seem like it was all the soldiers fault because they are shooting the “innocent” colonists. Many people saw this article and image so they decided to join the colonists side and they when against the soldiers by stop buying all British

Read More
158 Words | 1 Pages

he infamous street fight that took place in Boston, Massachusetts is referred to as The Boston Massacre. The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770. The riot started when a few young boys began to throw stones and rocks at British soldiers who were guarding the Customs House. The crowd around the boys started to grow larger and larger, and then people from the crowd begun to join the boys, throwing ice at the soldiers and taunting them. The soldiers then fired, killing five colonists.

Read More
1002 Words | 5 Pages

The perception of peer pressure and societal expectations add to the severity and violence of war. The troops feel pressured to commit violent crimes in order to defend themselves as well as to live up to the ideals of courage and masculinity. This emphasizes how dehumanizing war is, with people sometimes acting violently out of shame or fear of being judged rather than out of genuine

Read More
166 Words | 1 Pages

The colonists was throwing snowballs and had no other way to protect themselves. On the other hand the Redcoats had to protect themselves also. Based on other sources I was given in multiple court trials the court room discussed what happened in the Boston Massacre. It was both the colonists and the redcoats fault.

Read More
735 Words | 3 Pages

The Boston Massacre is an event most Americans and British students learn about over the course of their education. In America, we learn that British soldiers fired upon innocent civilians, although this may not have been the case. British historians have referred to the Boston Massacre as the "Incident on King Street". After looking over the "Captain Thomas Preston 's Account of the Boston Massacre", as well as "Boston Massacre Trial Depositions" I believe that American historians should refer to the "Boston Massacre" as the "Incident on King Street". The definition of a massacre refers to an unnecessary and random killing of a large number of individuals.

Read More
558 Words | 3 Pages

The Boston Massacre was a street fight that occurred on March 5, 1770, between a “patriot”. They were throwing sticks, snowballs, and trash at a group of British troops. The loyalists got very annoyed with the patriots so they shot into the mob killing five. The riot began when around 50 colonists attacked a British sentinel. A British officer called in for additional troops

Read More
318 Words | 2 Pages

There were many possibilities that it was an accident. One way it was an accident is the colonists were hitting the British’s guns with sticks and one could have fired from getting hit with a stick. Then it was just a chain of events leading to all the other firings. Another way the Boston Massacre was an accident

Read More
573 Words | 3 Pages

A riot has just broke out in downtown Boston! It all started when a local barbershop owner, who’s name is Mr. Qwerty, made fun of a British official. That was when all of the other colonists went on a even bigger riot and started pushing and shoving the British soldiers. One of the soldiers got pushed over; and when he fell, his brand new, never before used musket fired killing someone. During that riot, five people were killed including a man who led the riot who goes by the name of Crispus Attucks who was an African American dockworker.

Read More
620 Words | 3 Pages

This statement disproves the definition of massacre because it was not an indiscriminate slaughter of people. If the soldiers were begin attacked it was merely self defense. Mr. Woodall was not the only account that stated the soldiers were being attacked by the townspeople before any firing took place, Jane Whitehouse said that same. She said that one man threw wood at one of the soldiers. Further more looking at the Revere painting, Preston’s deposition and also testimonies from people that gave their account of the story we can conclude that calling it the “Boston Massacre” would be stretching the truth of an event that has been warped for years.

Read More
685 Words | 3 Pages

The British fought to defend themselves. They had no intentions of getting back at the colonists for their misdeeds. The colonists should also be held accountable for the first shot, because the British didn 't plan ahead to specifically target the colonists. Though, the Colonists purposely targeted the British. I believe

Read More

More about Boston Massacre Dbq

Related Topics

Open Document