The Boston Massacre from Two Perspectives - Essay Example

The Boston Massacre from Two Perspectives I. Introduction The Boston Massacre in which the British military killed five civilians and injured 6 more, occurred on March 5, 1770.This essay examines two primary sources in which the incident was documented by two contemporaneous accounts. The two accounts are selected because they reflect two opposing perspectives: one from British Captain Thomas Preston and another from an anonymous civilian. By taking this approach, it is possible to travel back in time and to see the incident from the perspective of the British military and the civilians. II. Captain Thomas Preston’s Account of the Boston Massacre Captain Thomas Preston’s account of the Boston Massacre is dated 13 March 1770, just more than a week after the incident. Preston starts his account by complaining about the general problems civilians gave the British military. According to Preston, civilians have always “used all means in their power to weaken the regiments” (Account of the Boston Massacre n. p.). According to Preston civilians had a history of “promoting and aiding desertions,” and “falsely propagating untruths concerning them” (Account of the Boston Massacre n. p.). Preston observed however, that the civilians were becoming increasingly mob-like and have been growing more dangerous and hostile. In fact it had gotten so bad that a judge had previously stated that: The soldiers must now take care of themselves, nor trust too much to their arms, for they were but a handful; that the inhabitants carried weapons concealed under their clothes, and would destroy them in a moment, if they passed (Account of the Boston Massacre n. p.). Preston goes on to describe how this announcement by a judge and similar comments by magistrates, together with the growing ire of civilians and persistent skirmishes between civilians and soldiers, fear and a need for protection grew within the British regiments deployed in Boston Harbor. Preston noted that “the insolence as well as utter hatred of the inhabitants to the troops increased daily” so much so that by the 5th March 1770, the soldiers had resolved to finally stand up to the civilians “to destroy any who should oppose them” (Account of the Boston Massacre n. p.). By the 5th March 1770 at about 8 p.m., two soldiers “were attacked and beat” (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Civilians were determined to take things farther and “broke into two meeting houses and rang the alarm bells” (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). An hour later, Captain Preston was alerted by a guard that the civilians were gathering with a view to attacking the military and the bell ringing was a signal. This warning was corroborated by what Preston observed for himself. In general there was a lot of “commotion”, accompanied by “the most cruel and horrid threats against the troops” (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Preston’s first instinct was to check on the guard and the place in which the crown’s money was kept. At the time there were about 100 civilians converging on this place. Once Preston found the guard and took him to a safe place, he was informed by the guard that he heard the mob planning to kill him. Fearing that the murder of the guard was only a first step toward stealing the crown’s money, Preston dispatched 12 men to protect the money (Account of the Boston Massacre). According to Preston he followed the 12 soldiers and observed rioting in the streets prompting the soldiers to rush “through the people” and “by charging their bayonets in half-circles” were able to negotiate some space between them and the crowd. In the midst of the mayhem, Preston claimed that he did not intend for any of the civilians to be killed and that he gave the order for troops to attend the fray but gave no specific orders to use weapons against the crowd (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Nevertheless, the crowd continued to grow: ...striking their clubs or bludgeons one against the other and calling out, ‘come on your rascals, you bloody backs, you lobster scroundrels, fire if you dare, G-d damn you, fire and be damned (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Preston reports that despite his pleas for “peace” the crowd would not relent and appeared determined to engage in confrontation with the soldiers (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Preston insists however, that he had not considered giving the order to fire as it would be unbecoming of an officer. He observed however, that one officer did fall after being brutally struck by a member of the mob and immediately opened fire (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Preston also reports being struck with a club on his arm which rendered his arm useless for a while. According to Preston the crowd continued to assault them with clubs and snowballs “by which all our lives were in imminent danger” and the crowd kept taunting them to fire upon which approximately four soldiers obliged the crowd. In that instance, one civilian was killed and 4 wounded (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). The crowd dispersed thereafter. When asked why they opened fire, the soldiers claimed that they heard the word “fire” and assumed it had been the captain’s order (Account of the Boston Massacre). Preston closes his account of the Boston Massacre by describing how an arrest warrant was issued for him and that he did not wait for it to be executed. Instead, he bravely turned himself in and lamented that by turning himself in he was demonstrating his innocence since he could have escaped. Preston also describes how civilians lied maliciously at this trial with a view to having him convicted. Preston claims that all of the witnesses that claimed they heard him use the word “fire” were manufacturing evidence against him (Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). III. Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre Unlike Preston’s account of the Boston Massacre, the Anonymous writer goes back a bit farther to establish the tensions and conflicts brewing and leading up to the massacre. According to the anonymous author, by the end of the French and Indian war there was a harmony between “Great Britain and the colonies” (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). However, all of that changed with the introduction of the Stamp Act. However, once the Stamp Act was repealed, tensions subsided. Peace, however did not last as soon thereafter a succession of Acts of Parliament commenced which unduly taxed the citizens of America (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre). Anonymous also noted the creation of the Board of Commissioners which was situated in Boston and that it had been “detrimental, not only to the commerce” but to the “political interests of the town and province” (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Since the arrival of the Commissioners in November 1767, the Commissioners did not just conduct the business that they were appointed to conduct. Instead they “became partizans of the Governor Bernard in his political schemes” and generally practiced corruption and victimization (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). In addition, the Commissioners were unapproachable and inaccessible and the townspeople were neglected and ignored. In order to get attention, the people made themselves visible and heard but to no avail. The Commissioners together with Governor Bernard, responded by treating the townspeople as if they were “enemies and rebels, by an invasion of the town by sea and land” and as might be expected, the attacks were met with “vigorous opposition” (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). According to Anonymous the town resembled a war zone. The following description bears this out: While the town was surrounded by a considerable number of his Majesty’s ships, two regiments landed and took possession of it; and to support these, two other regiments arrived sometime after from Ireland...(Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). This only added to the tensions. Not only was the situation of troops contrary to the Bill of Rights, but it was unlawful. This together with the lack of representation only served to draw the ire of the towns folks. Thus, according to Anonymous, the Commissioners must take responsibility for “all the disturbances and bloodshed that have taken place in consequence of that measure” (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Anonymous goes into far greater detail about the circumstances and facts leading up to the massacre than Preston’s account does. Anonymous explains that the troops were also taking possession of official building such as the State House, a place designated for the courts and the provincial representatives. This was disruptive to official business, particularly courts. It was also disruptive to the merchants who used the House floor to conduct their commerce. The troops according to Anonymous simply did what they wanted and asserted rule by force. According to Anonymous although tensions had been building, the massacre was not expected. The massacre was led by Captain Preston who was subsequently jailed. Relying on the depositions at the trial, Anonymous reports that the massacre occurred when a number of guns “were fired” simultaneously from the State House which precipitated the massacre (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Anonymous reports that the massacre began in earnest when a soldier had a confrontation with a man at a ropewalk owned by the man. The soldier had invited the man to engage in a “boxing match” (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). The man won the boxing match and the soldier fled, only to return with several other soldiers. Rope-makers joined the man and boxing matches persisted with each side increasing in size and with the soldiers leaving in defeat each time, only to return with more soldiers (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre). It was a result of this skirmish and the embarrassment suffered by the soldiers that a decision was made to take revenge on the people of the town and the date for that revenge was marked for 5th March, 1770. Eyewitnesses gave several accounts of overhearing the plotting by soldiers which began since the 1st March, 1770. By 9 p.m. the attack on civilians began. Armed soldiers (cutlasses, swords and other weapons) converged on the citizens. Some civilians fled and some fought back. Where Preston appears to have overheard civilians taunting soldiers, according to Anonymous civilian witnesses overheard the soldiers taunting the civilians crying out “where are the boogers! Where are the cowards!” (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n.p.). Since there were very few civilians in the street at the time, those who were confronted by the troops immediately entered the State House and began ringing the bells (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre). This is also corroborated by Preston’s account. The only difference is that Preston claims the civilians entered the State House and rang the bells as a battle cry whereas according to Anonymous, there was merely an act of self-defense. Civilians were largely outnumbered by troops and fearing for their lives, they called out for help from others. Anonymous also reports that civilian witnesses observed Captain Preston and his men converging upon State House and through the civilians armed with bayonets and guns. As Preston and his soldiers passed they deliberately pushed civilians aside with their bayonets “driving through the people in so rough a manner that it appeared they intended to create a disturbance” (Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre n. p.). The civilians responded by throwing snowballs at the soldiers and this is what appears to have ignited the massacre that followed (Anonymous). IV. Concluding Remarks The two accounts of the Boston Massacre can both be described as defensive accounts. Preston was obviously attempting to defend claims that his soldier’s attack was provoked, while Anonymous claimed that the attack was indeed unprovoked and was no more than a continuation of the tensions and conflicts created by the Commissioner and British rule. The soldiers were merely acting in what was no more than an extension of abuse of power on the part of the crown. Preston saw the massacre as no more than a state of affairs created by an unruly and unreasonable crowd that had gotten out of control. Preston goes to great lengths to present himself as an honorable soldier forced to defend his soldiers. According to Preston’s account the civilians were far more alarming and dangerous armed with snowballs and clubs than soldiers armed with guns and bayonets. The civilian accounts as revealed by Anonymous do not admit to being armed with clubs, but do admit to being armed with snowballs. Even so, it is hardly justifiable that armed soldiers would feel that their lives were so threatened by clubs and snowballs that they absolutely would have been required to use guns to defend their lives. It also seems unlikely that civilians would deliberately assault armed soldiers and beg them to fire upon them. In this regard, it is unlikely that Preston, who was subsequently arrested was simply going about his business and found himself having to defend himself against irate and dangerous civilians. The only common theme that can be deduced from the two accounts of the Boston Massacre was that there were a lot of tensions and discontent as well as distrust between the troops and the civilians. The fact that these tensions could not be resolved and produced bloodshed speaks to the lack of governance and representation in the first place. Works Cited Account of the Boston Massacre: Captain Thomas Preston, March 13, 1770. America’s Homepage: Historic Documents of the United States. March 13, 1770. http://ahp.gatech.edu/preston_boston_mass_1770.html February 15, 2013. Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre. America’s Homepage: Historic Documents of the United States of America. n.d. http://ahp.gatech.edu/anon_boston_mass_1770.html February 15, 2013. Read More