Massacre: The Boston Massacre

Looking back at the Boston Massacre we have to ask ourselves a few questions; Does the name really fit the event? We all know the story that has been told for generations, but we need to go back and look at the facts. Was it really a massacre?, What was the intent of the solders?, and How many people were killed? These are the questions we need to look at when figuring out if the name fits the facts. If you ask a British man what they call the “Boston Massacre” they would call it the “Incident on King Street.” Should we do the same? One picture many people look at as evidence for this event is Paul Revere’s engraving. What many people do not know is that not only was he not present at the event, but he copied this painting from someone else who also was not there. This picture does not accurately display the events that took place on that night. Looking first at the setting of the event, this

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. Looking at multiple piece of evidence and not just the Revere engraving, which people have done for generations, we can see the clear picture. It truly was the “Incident on King