Boston Massacre Research Paper

Words: 530
Pages: 3

Taking place on the evening of March 5, 1770, the Boston Massacre was an interaction between a mob of colonists, and nine British redcoats outside the Boston Customs House that took a bloody turn, resulting in the death of five colonists, and leading to the British soldiers being tried for murder. In the case of the Boston Massacre Trial, justice was served to the soldiers who were found not guilty or branded for manslaughter.
To being, the soldiers deserved to be found not guilty because they acted largely in self-defense. According to Primary Source #3 and #4, “Testimony from Captain Thomas Preston”, “They immediately surrounded the sentry with clubs and other weapons threatened to execute their vengeance on him. They advanced to the points
…show more content…
As shown in Primary source #2, “Testimony from Bostonian William Tant” those in the mob were crying “Fire, fire, and be-damned.” with these shouts ringing in the air, the likelihood of one of the soldier’s assuming they had received an order to fire is high, and even though two of the soldiers did fire directly into the crowd, they probably did so due to the shouts of the mob. Although the soldiers were not at fault for mishearing the word fire or acting in self-defense, it was a fitting punishment for the two soldiers who fired into the crowd to receive branding on their thumbs. Even if they heard the order fire in the ruckus, the soldiers should have been better trained and more rational, and not fired into the crowd. The branding is a fitting punishment to serve as a reminder for being reckless and unprofessional in a time of crisis. Even a notable patriot John Adams who reluctantly accepted the defense position for the Redcoats stated in Primary Source #7 “An Excerpt from Diary and Autobiography of John Adams” “Judgement of Death against those soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently.” The justice of the trial’s verdict is confirmed by the statement of someone whose initial views are against the