In the 1770s, the American Colonies were in a state of turmoil. The pressing and torturous demands of the British crown on the colonists were taking its toll on them. The people were distrustful of the British and were tired of the high taxes, fees, and penalties levied against them by King George, III. For this reason there was an increase in British military troops within the colonies. The general population saw the “red coats” as threatening and an instrument used by the crown to subdue them and take away their freedoms. In essence, they saw the soldiers as their enemy. Revolution was in the air. This mutinous attitude played a major role in the event that took place on March 5, 1770 in Boston, Massachusetts. This event is known as the Boston Massacre.
According to the Boston Gazette and Country Journal, a Boston newspaper during the 1770s, the soldiers in question were “seen parading the streets with their drawn cutlasses and bayonets, abusing and wounding numbers of the inhabitants.” The British troops were portrayed as “bullies” intent on murdering the people. They were seen randomly accosting and abusing “single and unarmed persons.” The report further stated that the soldiers were chasing people, even up to the door of the individuals’ residence.
The colonists were portrayed as innocent victims, beaten and harassed without reason. A few colonists were said to have defiantly stood up to the soldiers. All the while, a group of about thirty young men had formed in front of the custom house. By the time Captain Preston, the leader of the regiment, arrived there was complete chaos and the soldiers, in their effort to protect themselves and the custom house, injured several of the civilian men with their bayonets. Someone threw a snowball and the Captain ordered the soldiers to fire their weapons upon the crowd. There was no mention of casualties in the newspaper article.
Captain Thomas Preston’s account of the incident is vastly different than the Boston Gazette’s account. In his first sentence he stated that it was obvious to all that the arrival of British troops in the colonies was a sore issue. He went on to say that the inhabitants were constantly harassing and bringing false accounts against the troops. A British justice warned that it was every soldier for himself and not to trust the colonists because they would try to harm them at their first chance. The captain argues that the townspeople beat two of his soldiers, broke into meeting houses and rang alarm bells. He stated that a mob of about 100 townspeople had gathered around the custom house. He said that they were surrounding the guards and threatening them with violence, practically begging the troops to fire upon them in order to have an excuse to attack. Captain Preston believed the townspeople meant to break into the custom house in order to steal the King’s money. He makes it sound as if the mob is overwhelming the troops and intent on doing harm in order to get their way. If he is to believed, he feared for his life and the life of each of his soldiers. Captain Preston stated that he refused to give the order to fire upon the townspeople; however, through all of the confusion, his soldiers heard the townspeople’s screams to fire and thought it was Captain Preston giving the order. In fact, he prevented a further attack while the townspeople collected the dead bodies. Eight of the soldiers were arrested and Captain Preston turned himself in peacefully stating he was, “perfectly innocent.”
The main points of each document have been mentioned to show the contrast and give an idea of both sides of the story. Both accounts of the incident have truths, as well as, exaggerations. The Boston Gazette puts all of the blame on the soldiers, painting them as evil men lurking in dark places with intent to maim and murder the townspeople. In turn, the captain
painted the townspeople as, “promoting and aiding desertions,” as well as using, “all means in their power to weaken the regiments.” It was interesting to see such bias in both accounts. Both were guilty of harassing of each other.
The more believable of the two accounts would be the captain’s account. There is evidence that shows that the townspeople were unruly, and rightly so. Did they actually beg the soldiers to fire upon them? It is doubtful. Thoroughly fed up with King George’s demands and the harassment from the troops, the townspeople used this incident to vent their anger. Protesting and rebelling against the authority of the crown was a way to get at the king. The townspeople had no intention of breaking into the custom house. They feared the soldiers with their bayonets and high tempers. Whether or not the captain issued the order to fire was not proven in either document; however, the emotionally charged “riot” and his fear of the growing number against him caused him to act irrationally and it is more believable that he did, in fact, order the troops to fire. He lost control of his soldiers, if he ever had it, and the soldiers acted defensively and out of fear a weapon was discharged causing pandemonium.
In conclusion, describing this skirmish as a massacre perhaps comes from the fact that it involved a group with utmost authority harassing, injuring, and killing “innocent” members of society. Only a few men lost their lives. To refer to the Boston Massacre as a “massacre” is an overstatement. The troops did not seek out the townspeople and murder them. This was an act of defense, whether warranted or not, that got out of hand and exaggerated. However, the general attitude among both soldiers and townspeople was extreme distrust of each other. This was not the first act of rebellion before the American Revolution and both sides were on their guard and fearful.
0 comments:
Post a Comment