Personal Narrative Essay: The Boston Massacre

As he moved from one mill town to another he adds a new family members Alice and Anna. They moved to homestead where they worked in steel mill. The conflict between the labor unions and the steel mill company in Braddock lead to attempt to closing the mill. Even though he gets paid more than we used to, rents were high

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.

In 1770, he decided to signify the British soldiers on trial for the murder of five citizens in what is recognized as the Boston

This means that the rioting people of Boston created such chaos, that it threatened the soldiers, who then acted in self-defense. Even though, “The British officer in charge, Capt. Thomas Preston, was arrested for manslaughter, along with eight of his men; all were later acquitted,” states History.com. This reveals another untruth within the painting because Captain Preston did not order his soldiers to fire. On the right edge of the artwork, there is a Red Coat officer with a sword clearly commanding the soldier to fire.

This image tells a tale that the British soldiers premeditatively murdered innocent Boston colonists, unprovoked. In fact, our text defines the Boston Massacre as an “Inflammatory description of a deadly clash between a mob and British soldiers on March 5, 1770, that became a symbol of British oppression for many colonists.” The keyword in this definition is inflammatory. One part of the image I found interesting was the dog in the lower

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.

On the evening of March 5th, 1770 on the cold streets of Boston, a group of British soldiers gunned down a crowd gathered in protest. What started as a group of young men harassing a guard would quickly escalate into what would later be referred to as the Boston Massacre as well as serve as fuel for the growing anger of the colonists towards Britain. This paper will analyze two accounts of this event. One is of a civilian observer by the name of William Wyatt whose account, while short, is to the point. The other is that of Captain Thomas Preston, the commanding officer of the soldiers involved who gives a much more dramatic description of the event.

As a witness to The Boston Massacre as a Patriot as an English citizen, I believe that the British Soldiers are unstable to protect us if they will kill us. The acts that lead up to the killing of five patriots were downgrading us. After are Victory in the French and Indian War we became in debt. The British officials decided to make laws such as Writs of Assistance, Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Stamp Act and the Proclamation of 1763 and more were soon made. This just anger us so a boycott was made called The Sons of Liberty the leader was Samuel Adams.

A unfortunate incident happened when a gathering of individuals tossed snowballs and shakes at the troopers outside the custom's home. At the point when the group begun to get greater the fighters that encompassed Butchers Hall begun to get frightened and thought somebody had discharged a shot. In Paul Revere's toon "Boston Massacre" it demonstrates the natives don't have any weapons (Doc. A). in striking back, the fighters let go at the group murdering five pioneers which prompt an open clamor.

The Boston Massacres was a terrible event that has faults on both the colonists and the British soldier's shoulders. However, no part of this event would have happened if the colonists had not formed a riot right in front of the British soldiers. The colonists have the right to complain about their feeling on how they are treated by the king. They do not have the right harass and or threaten these British soldiers because these soldiers had done the colonists no fault. By complaining, cursing and or threatening these British soldiers is not going to change the way in which the colonies are treated.

This lesson was effective because it showed you what different people thought of the same event. In many people 's accounts it was biased, but others close to what we believe is the truth. An example of a biased depiction of the Massacre is Paul Revere 's engraving, which he actually copied from Henry Pelham. It depicts a line of British soldiers firing on unarmed colonists, and the British commander giving them an order to fire, while in real life the colonists were taunting the British and has weapons such as sticks, snowballs and small knives. Also, only one British soldier fired after a colonist hit him with a stick, which proves that while Revere 's engraving is famous, it is not even close to accurate.

Propaganda also played an important role in the process of mass hysteria. In Paul Revere’s famous engraving of the Boston Massacre, he depicts the British soldiers, also known as redcoats, shooting the helpless colonists (The Boston Massacre Engraving). This engraving became one of the most popular ones known throughout history because at the time, most colonists were illiterate and this image helped them to understand what happened. Mass hysteria was incorporated into both propaganda and crowd action, and this was only the beginning of the colonists’

There was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because according to Captain Preston and John Bufford, the colonist and the troops were both armed and attacked each other. This means that what happened in Boston was not a massacre. The first reason the event was not a massacre is because the event in Boston 1770 was a war. As stated by Captain Preston “The colonists were assembling to attack the troops… they surrounded the guard and threatened to execute… after a soldier was attacked he fired…”. This supports my claim because it proves that, both the troops and colonists were attacking each other, and the troops attacking the colonists was not a random decision.

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

The events of the Boston Massacre are recorded as a group of British soldiers firing upon a large group of colonists, killing three people on sight, one expired after the event, three were badly wounded, and four were slightly wounded totaling 11 civilians being shot. With multiple individuals such as Captain Thomas Preston, and Theodore Bliss claiming there were at least 100 people, as well as Peter Cunningham accounting 30-40 citizens gathered at the customs house. All three of these individuals were reliable in their depositions. Bliss and Cunningham were uninvolved in the act, both were bystanders to the situation.