How Did The British Soldiers Get Innocence In The Boston Massacre

I believe that the British soldiers were using self defense in the Boston Massacre. Through witnesses and evidence, it is proved that the British killing the colonists was an act of defending themselves. In exhibit A, the crime scene showed how the colonists threw snowballs filled with rocks and sharp things at the British. I think that the British were only firing their guns back at the colonists to save themselves from being badly hurt. I believe that the British fired their guns at the colonists back without intentions go kill, but only to protect themselves.

1776 marked a significant year in American history. That was the year in which the U.S. declared its independence from its fathering nation, Britain. Britain did not just give America the freedom, America fought for their freedom. American broke away for numerous reasons. This paper will explain why the colonists broke away and whether or not their reasons for waging war and breaking justified.

The colonists decided that they wanted the troops out of the colonies so they began to harass them and officials. This then led to, “radical mobs that attacked Loyalists. Soldiers and civilians also clashed, raising the level of resentment on both sides. Adding to the mob's bravado was the erroneous belief, encouraged by radical agitators, that the soldiers could not use force, even to defend themselves, unless requested by a civil magistrate.”. British soldiers then began to fire out into the crowd; “nine soldiers were tried for murder” and were later acquitted of murder yet never faced the consequences of their actions

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

There were many times where the British King was viewed as a tyrant, and the Boston Massacre was one of them. The engraving done by Paul Revere's, “Bloody Massacre”, clearly portrays the tyrannical behaviors of the king. The picture of the Boston Massacre traveled around the colonies, leaving many colonists furious. The king leaving his men in Boston, and the quartering act eventually lead to the tension among the two to finally explode. The king’s need to have a complete control on the colonies, eventually lead to many angered, upset, and some dead.

My brother Bob was one of the 5 victims who died protesting against the British, poor guy he was stabbed by a bayonet. The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770. The Boston Massacre was when a crowd of colonists started to taunt some soldiers then seven other soldiers joined with loaded muskets. The soldiers fired, 5 dead and 6 wounded. At the trial, John Adams and Josiah Quincy II, defended the British, leading to their acquittal and release.

The Boston Massacre is one of America’s most memorable moments in history. The Tragedy of March 5th was a leading event that soon stimulated its significance toward the American Revolution. The debate of who to blame for the occurrence of the massacre is still ongoing, and like most debates there are two different sides to the argument. Doug Linder, phenomenally explains the events that led to the massacre in his article “The Boston Massacre Trails: An Account”, in which he analyzes all facts and aspects that occurred during the trial to the point where he explores who is to blame for the horrendous event on the night of march 5th. In the article, Linder is trying to explain that through all the pain and death during that dreadful night, the

On March 5, 1770, a crowd started to harass and attack the royal's soldiers station of Britain, this known as Boston Massacre and further enraged the colonists against British oppression (Give Me Liberty, p. 146). A highlight of the massacre that was many of the taxes repealed, except the Tea Act. The Parliament continued to anger American patriots, Sons of Liberty organized the Boston Tea Party in 1773 where they boarded British merchant ships and destroyed crates of tea (Give Me Liberty, p. 148). Later, the British government have to close Boston ports and pass the Intolerable Acts, which imposed on colonist's individual freedoms (Give Me Liberty, p. 146). America stepped by step closer

The Boston Massacre was an “incident” that took place on march 5, 1770. On March 5, 1770 the colonists began taunting the British soldiers, this group of colonists called themselves patriots. They were protesting the occupation of their city by british troops that were sent to Boston in 1768 to enforce unpopular taxation measures passed by the British Parliament. The patriots started to riot so, Thomas Preston (the commander) ordered his to straighten their bayonets and join the guard outside the building. The colonists responded by throwing snowballs and other objects at the guards.

There is a common saying, “History repeats itself”, and if one were to disagree on that, then they must concur on the fact there are numerous parallels when looking at history. The Boston Massacre taken place in 1770 and the Kent State shooting, nearly 200 years later, hold many symmetries, from the protests that required authority to intervene to the result of having tragic shootings. Of course, the two events are not absolutely alike as each has their own unique circumstances, but both are well remembered in American History. On April 30th, 1970, President Nixon announced the need to draft 150,00 more soldiers for the Vietnam war effort.

On March 5, 1770, British soldiers fired into a crowd on King’s Street in Boston. Five people died and the soldiers were charged with murder. The events of the Boston Massacre made the colonies hunger for independence even stronger, however I believe that the soldiers are not guilty of committing murder. I will prove through historical accounts and eyewitness testimony that the British Soldiers are indeed not guilty of murder, but were acting purely out of self-defense. William Sawyer, a Boston citizen, gave this account of the incident during the trial, “The people kept huzzaing.

If the following events didn’t take place we wouldn’t have America. In my opinion the Boston Massacre was one of the very main causes to why the Road to Revolution took place. The reason I believe this was an important cause because it was, “ the first episode which resulted in the loss of life.” It is stated that, “Four Bostonians were killed when Redcoats fired into an angry mob.”

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.

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.