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. The British soldiers were there just to guard the king’s money, they did not cause trouble for anyone nor did they harm anyone. When the colonists
John Adams was born on October 30, 1735, in Braintree, Massachusetts. His mother, Susanna Boylston Adams, was a successor of the Boylstons of Brookline, a protruding family in colonial Massachusetts. His father John Adams Sr. was a town councilman, a Congregationalist, and a farmer. When he was 16 he received a studentship to Harvard university, he advanced in 1775 at the age of 20. He was awarded his master’s degree in 1758, he studied law in the office.
One week ago, the colonist attacked the British. This was a tragic event where the Colonist threw snowballs, clubs,oysters,and chunk of ice. In addition they told us the British,to fire if we dared, so we did but, on accident. Once one of us fired, other British started to. The colonist protested that they were unarmed but they really had many items that could kill.
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.
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.
And it is true that, in 1775 and 1776, the Americans had presented the king with formal appeals for reconciliation. These peaceful pleas were met with armed military force and several violations of British Common Law and the English Bill of Rights. In 1770, the British fired upon unarmed citizens in the Boston Massacre. At Lexington, the command was “Don’t fire unless fired upon.” The colonists, therefore, saw their actions as simply defending themselves after the conflict had been initiated by the
A brutal slaughter of people for a minor action of anger? The Boston Massacre inspired and motivated the colonists to take a stand against the British to protect their rights. How can you blame them for wanting to break away from a system that kills their “own
Many British acts had angered the colonists. For instance, the Sugar Act was a law passed by Parliament in 1764, that placed tax on sugar, molasses, and other products shipped to the colonies. Colonists became angry because of taxation without representation which they thought was not right because they weren't represented in Parliament. Also, in 1765, a law passed by Parliament required all legal and commercial documents to carry an official stamp showing a tax had been paid. Again, the colonists protested about “taxation without representation” and they began boycotting goods and attacked customs officials.
The colonist was angry and the soldiers panicked as they were surrounded by mobs of angered colonist and the sons of liberty. Looking at the situation on the side of the British soldiers, it was safe to say that they were scared and angry because of the sheer amount of colonist who surrounded them. However, this still does not give them the right to open fire among unarmed civilians without authorization. One could argue that their lives were in danger as they were going to be attacked, but I would argue that there could have been other ways to attempt to fix the situation. On the other hand, looking at the side of the colonist mobbing the soldiers and provoking them by throwing stuff at them was not a wise decision either.
A rallying cry of patriotism in the colonies. Some say it sparked the American Revolution. Can you imagine, a thing as small as an argument throwing our country into war? It was just a passionate protest, but it quickly escalated. The head British officer sent more soldiers to direct order, but with the guns laying there in their arms it only spiked the tension.
The British fought to defend themselves. They had no intentions of getting back at the colonists for their misdeeds. The colonists should also be held accountable for the first shot, because the British didn 't plan ahead to specifically target the colonists. Though, the Colonists purposely targeted the British. I believe
The Boston Massacre occurred in 1780, six colonists were shot and killed by British Soldiers. Adams successfully defended these soldiers in court, although it was the unpopular view of the colonists. In 1774 Adams was chosen as a delegate to attend the First Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia. During this meeting Adams played a leading role in convincing the congress to strive to declare independence. After this first meeting of congress Adams was elected once again to participate in the Second Continental Congress in 1775.
This Act made colonies very angry. They react with a boycott. Now watching live from just block away of the ground breaking event The Boston Massacre. Now flying in from Boston is their troops coming in to maintain order to the colonists. British officer walking over to a group of boycotting Colonials.
There were many disagreements and because of those, many events were the cause of the American Revolution. These events included bloodshed by others, peoples rights weren’t enforced, individuals didn’t receive freedom, and our country was just not yet whole. Despite of the causes of why the road to Revolution took place there were effects afterwards. When American Revolution was over with the The Declaration of Independence came into place, treaties were signed, and the Bill of Rights. Now these effects/events were amazing, it helped our country tremendously.
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 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.