Boston Massacre

[Salty]

5 Mar will be the 247th Anniversary of the Boston Massacre.

Five Civilians where shot and killed by British GI's.

According to Wiki, The British soldiers hit by clubs, stones and snowballs.

So were the British justified in firing into the crowd?


Open for Discussion

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yes, considering John Adams was the lead defense attorney.

 

[rsr]

Probably not; some of those who were shot apparently not threatening the soldiers are all. One man was reported to have had his hand in his pockets. The soldier also, apparently, were under order not to fire. Two of the soldiers appeared to be especially culpable. Of one it was said that he "would never miss an opportunity, when he had one, to fire on the inhabitants, and that he had wanted to have an opportunity ever since he landed."

But: The outcome was roughly justice, although the two most culpable soldiers submitted to having their thumbs branded instead of being executed for manslaughter.

Adams' participation in the defense was certainly laudable, but an often-overlooked detail is that patriot Josiah Quincy II was Adam's co-counsel and Quincy's brother, Samuel, led the prosecution. Must have made for some interesting family dinners.

Of course, since we still refer to it as the "Boston Massacre," thanks to John's cousin, Samuel, and to illustrator Paul Revere, shows that the patriots' version won wider currency.

 

[blessedwife318]

I was just thinking about this the other day as how and which facts are presented changes how it is viewed. We know that all but 2 of the soldiers were acquitted by a Jury of Boston men. According to the trial, the 11 shots were scattered, not what you would expect from British military precision. Also from the trial the CO was standing in front of his men, not the spot to stand if you are going to have your men fire. The men in the crowd were challenging the soldiers and yelling fire as well.
It really comes down to the first shot fired as that obviously set up a chain reaction among both sides. I read recently that one solider dropped his musket and there are conflicting reports on if that caused it to fire or if after he picked it up he fired it.

This is an event in history that is hard on get a good handle on because the propaganda around it is so much apart of our very culture. Calling it the Boston Massacre, that famous drawing that Paul Revere did all put the colonist in a sympathetic light. I tend to think everyone their has some responsibility for what happened. The Soldiers were viewed as an occupying force and given the anger boiling in Boston. Private White should not have engaged in trading insults with a colonist nor should he have hit him with his Musket, thus creating the catalyst for drawing a crowd.
The crowd (estimated at 3 to 4 hundred) on the other hand should not have continued to yell at the Private prompting him to request back up. Once his fellow soldiers go there, the crowd should not have continued to yell and throw snowballs at the soldiers. The Soldiers for their part should have remembered their training and not shot with out express orders, even though they heard a musket go off.
Boston was a powder keg and if not this incident something would have happened given the hostility toward the British Soldiers.

So to answer the question were they justified: not really, but the crowd was also not just innocent bystanders.
I do think the trial results show that cooler heads in Boston wanted Justice and fairness for both Colonist and British since the majority of the soldiers were acquitted.


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk