Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Narrative of boston massacre analysis
The boston massacre facts essay
The boston massacre facts essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Narrative of boston massacre analysis
The boston massacre facts essay
The boston massacre facts essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Boston Massacre was not called ‘The Boston Massacre’ at first. The original name, was in fact the ‘State Street Massacre’. Another name they had called it was the ‘Bloody Massacre on King Street,’ and Paul Revere was the one who had originally called it the ‘Bloody Massacre on King Street.’ Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Samuel Prescott all played a major role in The Boston Massacre. Paul Revere went down in History as the one to ride his horse around the Boston and warn people the British were coming.
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.”
Call me a tory or not, but the british in the Boston Massacre were not guilty of murder and opening fire on crowd for no reason. The british completely and utterly acted in self defense on March 5,1770. Know you might say well they placed taxes on us… NEWS FLASH… this is about whether this is murder or done in self defense, not taxes. Trust me this king’s Street mess was definitely in self defense.
Sara Delurski Mrs. Norris, period 1 Boston Massacre Argumentative Essay January 6th, 2023 On March 5th, 1770, British soldiers protecting British officials on King Street in Boston fired into a mob of colonists, killing five civilians and wounding six others. This altercation, dubbed the Boston Massacre, was vital for the lead-up to the fight for American independence. The argument on who was at fault for the incident is still in question today. British soldiers claim that they had heard somebody say the word ‘fire’ while the protestors were assaulting the guards, giving them a reason to fire. Colonists claim they fired on their own accord and that the British merely wanted to kill civilians who posed no threat to Britain.
On March 5th, 1770, the event now known as the Boston Massacre took place, in which about 5 colonists were killed after soldiers opened fire on a riot. The event led to the engraving entitled "The Bloody Massacre" by Paul Revere. Revere was a well known silversmith and leader of Patriots, the group against the British Parliament, who had been taxing them and not letting them live in the areas they wanted to live in. The group called the Sons of Liberty was a group of Patriots who had held protests against the British taxation and boycotted many British goods in retaliation. The Boston Massacre occurred after a British customs official killed the 11 year old Christopher Seider, followed by a large funeral held by the Sons of Liberty.
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…
One of its own kinds in history of America, Boston Massacre ended up in killing of five people and a few injured but this end up was just the beginning of
The incident ignited the already simmering tensions between the British authorities and the American colonists, and it became a rallying cry for those who sought to end British rule and gain independence. The Boston Massacre is seen as a precursor to the American Revolution, which culminated in the United States’ independence from Britain. On the evening of March 5, a group of colonists confronted a British sentinel, who called for backup. British soldiers soon arrived and found themselves surrounded by a hostile crowd of colonists, who hurled insults, snowballs, and stones at them. In the chaos, the soldiers panicked and fired their muskets into the crowd, killing five
The Boston Massacre was influenced by the British soldiers first shooting the colonists. Due to the commands of Captain Preston, the soldiers were forced to engage in fighting, said by William Wyatt. In his account, the British were ordered around by Captain Preston and were not in the usual formation for a battle. From other perspectives, like George Sanderlin and Andrew, they had heard the captain boom, “Fire! Be the consequences at will.”
The soldiers were in the wrong for firing upon citizens and killing a few innocent bystanders, but the citizens were in the wrong for causing a riot and attacking the soldiers with sticks, stones, and snowballs. Eric Hinderaker puts it this way, “the shootings triggered a war of words in which truth was the first casualty” (Smith). The reason the Boston Massacre was labeled a massacre is because the first publications of newspaper labeled the altercation a massacre and blaming the British. Samual Adams and Paul Revere used these publications to put a negative shadow on the Coy 3 British and make it look like the British planned the attack. After the dust settled, they
Although there are many historians that go back and forth between believing that the Boston Massacre was murder or self defense. But it is clear that is was an act of murder on the part of the Red-Coat soldiers. There were many pieces of evidence leaning onto the side of murder, the first one being that every murder has a motive right? This motive involved a colonist named Samuel Gray and a soldier named Killroy. A day before the massacre happened, Killroy and Samuel got in a fight in Samuels shop.
Due to the impartial view of the British and the desire of the colonists to remove the British the massacre was the perfect event to propagandize, resulting in war and restoration of power with the upper class. The issue of perspective as it pertains to the Boston Massacre is the key point to consider how an individual should view it. The name of the event even gives it an inflated nature calling it a “massacre” when only five people died. While the soldiers were declared guilty, consideration must be given to the fact that they were tried in Boston.
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.
I believe the incident in Boston was just a terrible tragedy. The incident was a tragedy because the soldiers wouldn't have opened fire if the 2 men hadn't stepped out of the bar and started throwing snowballs, making a bunch of unneeded noise causing lots of people to come out of their homes. Massacre means the killing of lots of people almost like it was on purpose, yet it is too big of a word for this situation because only 3 people died on the spot. It would’ve been a massacre if the soldiers opened fire right away on the 2 men and a lot of other people.
The definition of a massacre is a specific incident which involves the killing of people, although not necessarily a crime against humanity. The number of killed ranges from just a few people to many millions. Don’t let the name fool you, this massacre resulted in the death of five, a small number compared to other events. This fact did not prevent people from using this against the soldiers and create an even bigger stir of it. While colonists saw it as a brutal attack that was unprovoked and simply began by children joking around with soldiers and throwing snowballs, the British soldiers claimed that it was planned by the citizens who attacked them in a mob with clubs and snowballs packed so densely they were mounts of solid ice and provoked them to fire.