ipl-logo

Colonial Propaganda And The Boston Massacre

809 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Narrative of boston massacre analysis

The Boston Massacre was in 1770, and was a clash between British soldiers and a large mob. It is very controversial on who started the incident, but their was a lot of colonial propaganda that came out on this incident. The colonists were the aggressors in the Boston Massacre because they taunted and “assaulted” the British soldiers, they made the soldiers think that their captain was telling them to fire, and their was a lot of propaganda and bias that came out to show the opposite of what happened at the massacre. The Colonists taunted the British and threw things at them to make them shoot. Most of the crowd was drunk and acted in an unacceptable manner. Theodore Bliss stated in the trial of Captain Preston that “I saw the People throw …show more content…

This is an untrue aspect of the massacre. People may argue that the officer ordered the firing according to william wyatt’s testimony, “I heard the officer say fire. The Soldiers did not fire. His back was to me. I heard the same voice say fire. The Soldiers did not fire. The Officer then stamped and said Damn your bloods fire be the consequences what it will. Immediately the first Gun was fired.” You may think that this is true, but three people (Theodore Bliss, Jane Whitehouse, and Newtown Prince) testify that they do not recall the captain saying fire to the soldiers. Another argument could be that these are soldiers who killed innocent people in the Boston Massacre. This argument is also wrong because the people were drunk, and they beat and taunted the soldiers. Also, the colonial newspaper that published “The Bloody Massacre” was completely biased to get people onboard with the revolution. In the article from the Boston Gazette, the paper states, “the unhappy Victims who fell in the bloody Massacre of the Monday Evening preceeding!” This is obviously also biased and is only a piece of propaganda used by the patriots. It is obvious that the patriots deceived the people into thinking that the British were at fault in the

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
641 Words | 3 Pages

This makes sense because if he did give the command to fire the gun, he would have been killed since he was standing in front of them. Another supporting fact is that there was a man standing next to Preston, in FRONT of the soldiers, who witnessed what happened. The evidence was on his jacket where it showed the scorched cloth from the

Read More
2373 Words | 10 Pages

Although they wielded the guns that killed five civilians, the trials of the British soldiers shows how they retained innocence in the murder of the Bostonians. If not for the violent assaults dealt by the Bostonians, the soldiers never would have needed to fire upon the rioters in order to defend themselves. However it went down, the Boston Massacre is one of the most overlooked events in world history. The spark of the Boston Massacre grew into the Revolutionary War. The anger of the outcome of the trial led colonists to events such as the Boston Tea Party, the First Continental Congress, and eventually the American Revolution.

Read More
646 Words | 3 Pages

Some individuals falsely accused the captain, Thomas Preston, of giving his soldiers the command to open fire into the crowd. However, there is no direct evidence pertaining to this crucial accusation. The person who shouted out the order to fire remains a mystery. Several key witnesses who were present during the massacre and saw clearly the face of Thomas Preston was standing right with, or near him, makes it obvious that he does not order his troops to fire into the crowd of protesters.

Read More
1397 Words | 6 Pages

The Boston Massacre was the result of the ongoing tension that was growing between the colonists and the British. Paul Revere, who was an engraver, turned this event into a huge piece of propaganda with the help of others for the colonials to realize what the British were trying to do. Paul Revere wanted them to realize that what the British were doing was unconstitutional. He was trying to bring to light the injustices that the British were imposing on America. And, if enough people could see what Britain was doing, then they would have enough people in which they could form a rebellion, and reject British rule.

Read More
709 Words | 3 Pages

On March 5, 1770, five people died at the hands of British soldiers in Boston, Massachusetts. Based on an analysis of the eyewitness testimonies, medical examiner’s reports, and the crime scene, it was determined that the soldiers did not commit murder, but rather acted in self-defense. Many eyewitness testimonies clearly describe the mob as threatening to the point where the soldiers felt they were in danger. Dr. John Jeffries, the surgeon attending to Patrick Carr, who died during the incident, states that Carr said the soldier who shot him “had no malice, but fired to defend himself.”

Read More
334 Words | 2 Pages

The British were responsible for armed conflict, as they oppressed the colonists repeatedly starting with random unfair taxes, like the Sugar Act of 1764,The Stamp Act of 1765, and possibly one of the most unfair,The Townshend acts of 1767. The colonists were left with no choices, their privacy, property and well being was being invaded through the use of acts passed with no say from the people who were being imposed. Consequently, events like the Bostons Massacre were milked as highly effective propaganda to turn Colonists against the British by rebels like Paul Revere. Although events like the Boston Massacre may have been blown way out of proportion, they still convinced many to be aggravated and choose to revolt. One of the last straws

Read More
636 Words | 3 Pages

Not to mention that the colonists were demanding the British soldiers to fire. The Boston Massacre was nothing more than a street fight between a seemingly “patriot” mob and a squad of British soldiers that was blown out of proportion by the media. The involved

Read More
694 Words | 3 Pages

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.

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
102 Words | 1 Pages

The Boston Massacre was self-defense because according to history from books on March 5,1770 groups of colonist decided to riot and surround the British soldiers, Throwing things at the soldiers and taunting them to fire. My first argument is Crispus Attucks took a cordwood stick and swung it at one of the soldiers who protected him from the blow. Attucks was yelling" Kill the dogs"! " Knock them over!" This is self-defense because Crispus Attucks struck the soldier first, and once the soldier was hit he could act back upon the hit and could do anything to protect himself from a contact

Read More
763 Words | 4 Pages

The Boston Massacre is historically viewed as a spark that moved the colonists towards the Revolutionary War and independence from Britain. The British and Americans relations were very strained because the British had been forcing taxation laws on Americans and had been living in their

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
561 Words | 3 Pages

The Tough Will Train and the Weak will complain Are you tough enough to train with the rough and deadly Navy Seals in Bud/s training (Basic Underwater Demolition? In the last 3 years on 750 people have passed this hated training. Only a special breed can pass this training. Bud/s training is the worst thing a person can go through.

Read More

More about Colonial Propaganda And The Boston Massacre

Related Topics

Open Document