Justifying the British Troop's Actions During the Boston Massacre: A foundation of History - Paper Sample

The Boston Massacre was a deadly riot that happened on the night of March 5, 1770. It started as a street fight between a lone British soldier and American colonists but rapidly intensified to an unruly, gory carnage. The event enhanced anti-British sentiment acting as a precursor of the American revolution six years later. In 1767, the British government enacted the Townshend Acts, a series of strict provisions in the colonies to collect income duties, resulting from the British treasury being drained due to the Seven Years' War. Those duties were met with frustrating opposition from various Massachusetts colonists since they increased their financial burden. In 1770, British soldiers were deployed in Boston to enforce the Townshend Acts. In response, the American colonists rebelled against the tax laws they deemed repressive by vandalizing stores selling British commodities and intimidating store merchants and their clients. This caused frequent confrontations between British soldiers and colonists, one of which led to the Boston Massacre. In this light, this essay will justify the actions of the British troops during the Boston Massacre.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

To begin with, the British troops were sent to Boston to enact tax laws like the Townshend Act and the Stamp Act. This resulted from parliament reacting to the British colonial leaders' in Boston request for guards due to the rising colonist riots and threats to merchants selling British commodities and their customers by sending the 14th and 29th regiments of British soldiers to Boston. However, the soldiers' presence increased the tension in an already anxious environment, whereby the colonists were rioting for the increased taxes on the farmers without representation in parliament Indeed, radical colonists would harass the British troops, which led to many scuffles and skirmishes before the infamous Boston Massacre. As such, the main reason for deploying the British troops in Boston was to maintain law rule. Therefore, the British forces cannot be held accountable for the ensuing Massacre as their primary purpose for deployment in the city was to maintaining law and order.

In March 1770, the British authorities ordered the removal of every occupant of the Boston Manufactory House, a halfway house to broke people, ill people, and homeless persons. An army of British police could be kept there. However, the Manufactory House's homeless inhabitants disagreed and resisted the removal forcing the British army to back down. They had the authority to remove all occupants of the Boston Manufactory House forcefully, but when the residents resisted, the troops withdrew their assertion in the face of opposition. The event demonstrates that the British troops did not deliberately want to cause chaos or be the aggressor and respected Bostonians' standpoints. However, several other confrontations between the colonists and the British troops ensued.

Two events in the 1770s in Boston led to violence against British troops patrolling the city. The Sons of Liberty, who had successfully boycotted the British goods businesses, started to attack those who had ignored the boycott, creating tension. Ebenezer Richardson, an informer for Sons of Liberty, was trying to take down a sign from his radical neighbor's shop when attacked by a group of boys who chased him back to his neighborhood. Richardson armed himself and fired his muskets at the boys, killing 11-year-old Christopher Seider. During Seider's funeral, tension increased. On March 4th and 5th, 1770, there were confrontations between troops and rope creators on the South End of Boston, which resulted in a sergeant's death. British soldiers searched for John Gray, a rope maker suspected of killing the sergeant. The 14th Regiment was ordered to block riots, but the rumors of his directive spread. The British owners, who sided with the soldiers, were attacked, their stores vandalized, and boycotted all British goods. In essence, it is clear that the loyalist colonists and the radical colonists were also involved in their separate confrontations, further increasing tension in Boston. The loyalists backed the British rule and their tax laws, while the radicals despised them. Thus, in any case, the colonists were the troublemakers, and the British troops occupied the city to maintain law and order.

On March 5, 1770, Bostonians rioted over the fear that the soldiers would cut down the liberty tree, used as remembrance of the men who had favored the Stamp Act. A mob of angry Bostonians surrounded a British army camp, throwing sticks, and stones and insulting the troops. The British forces became nervous and opened fire, turning the confrontation into fully-fledged violence, killing five colonists and wounding many others. Indeed, a nervous and confused Redcoat opened fire, and another soldier followed suit, anticipating that they had been commanded to fire. Five participants of the crowd, including Crispus Attucks, a black sailor who became the first victim of the American Revolution, were shot dead. Therefore, the British soldiers' actions are justifiable since they resulted from fear, nervousness, and confusion arising from being encircled by an irate mob, pelting rocks, and hurling insults at them.

Preston and his group were ordered back to camp by Governor Thomas Hutchinson, who had been called to the scene. He pledged that there would be equity and justice for Bostonians, calming the angry mob. Within hours, there was an order to arrest Preston and his fellow soldiers. Sons of Liberty bosses such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams incited colonists to continue fighting the British. Paul Revere etched a currently-famous engraving portraying the British Army callously killing American colonists, which showcased the British as aggressor even though the colonists had started the fight. The Boston shooting shook up Boston's city and, ultimately, the American colonists' entire expanse. Therefore, confrontations and antagonism between the British troops resulted from adept propagandists such as Revere. The British troops were only reacting to a mob attack and aimed at maintaining and restoring law and order and stop the anti-British anger. Hence, Revolutionaries like Revere and Adams should bear the blame for inciting the colonists.

Together with the seven police involved in the Boston Massacre, Preston was under arrest the next morning, as was the guard they had pursued to rescue. A city conference generated a request for all the troops to be removed. Both the 14th and 29th brigades were relocated to Castle William (now Castle Island) in Boston Harbor by March 11 from the barracks. Customs commissioners, fearing for their safety, also vacated the city. Different developments detained the litigation of the officers, who were not prosecuted until September. In the 1770s, Boston citizens met at Faneuil Hall to discuss the "horrid Massacre in Boston by the Soldiery." A letter was drawn up by members of a council formed at the parley. However, the writers of the letter do not specify who the 'aggressors' are. Hence, this lack of aggressor specification indicates that the British troop's actions were justifiable as they did not attack first. Accordingly, the colonists were the instigators of the Boston Massacre.

The letter was sent in March 1770 to a patriotic member of the House of Commons in Ireland." The History of the Massacre is laid out in the letter titled "Representation of the late horrid Massacre. After the evidence was brought before the court of law, it was evaluated, and the decision was made based on the following; first, although the mob was not armed with machine guns, they had snowballs and sticks, which they threw at the soldiers. Secondly, the soldiers acted in self-defense. The court made the following judgment; Captain Preston and four of his soldiers were acquitted of all charges. The two others were judged for manslaughter, but they were sentenced to small thumb branding. Sam Adam had agreed to defend the soldiers in the court to demonstrate the importance of court law over mob rule. Adams also wanted to show the British government that the law of court is respected and followed. To the credit of Adams and the jury, the British police received a fair trial regardless of the hate directed towards them by colonists. In response to Adams's actions, the British government back in London chose to reduce taxation, and the Townshend Acts were abolished except for one, the tea tax. The lack of sufficient evidence by the court of law to sentence the British troops involved in the Boston Massacre guilty could only mean that their actions were justifiable.

To analyze the historical narrative, historians can focus on what happened before, during, and after events. The modern historians use the work of those who witnessed the event. For example, after the event, different activities took place. For instance, British troops' captain Preston, involved in the Boston Massacre, and leader, wrote a letter to his superiors explaining the event. Paul Revere crafted a British armed officer firing at unarmed civilians, published and distributed by the local newsletters to all colonies. The newspapers used the Revere art to sympathize with the colonists and direct anger toward the British guards. Sam Adam ignored the Boston massacre and went to court to defend the soldiers even though five people had died. Unlike the other riots, the colonial government responded and took control by taking the soldiers to court for trial. The trial process also provides further information to the historian. Thus, in trying to discuss what happened, the historian has a lot of sources to evaluate. To justify the soldiers' actions, the letter from Captain Preston to the superiors will be used as evidence.

The letter is essential because Preston was the unit commander and was involved in the shootings in Boston, making his account of events more credible. He clearly explains the events of that day. In the letter, Preston claims that rioters asked whether the guns were charged, to which he replied yes. The well-behaved rioters questioned whether they would use the guns to fire at the men and he replied no and pointed out that any man who fires will face the law. Nonetheless, as he spoke, one of the soldiers was severely hit with a stick on his face, stepped a little on one side, and then fired at the crowd. When he turned to question the soldier why he fired, all the soldiers were attacked with heavy clubs and snowballs. At this point, the soldiers' lives were in imminent danger, and some people screamed at them about why they were not firing. At that instant, four soldiers fired at the enraged mob, and others followed in the same hurry and confusion. Through Preston's lens, it is evident that the soldiers acted in self-defense.

In this light, the British soldiers' actions were justifiable in the Boston Massacre. Although the British soldiers were not supposed to shoot at the rioting mob, in this case, it is clear that they were threatened, feared for their lives, and opened fire for self-defense, which is justifiable. Critics may argue that the soldiers acted out of proportion; however, the crowd was armed with sticks, heavy clubs, and snowballs that could cause severe physical damage, which they used to attack the soldiers. The threat posed by the mob raised tension, which frightened the soldiers, making them open the fire. Second, it is evident that the command to fire did not come from the commander but from a panicking soldier. Other troops interpreted the first shot as a command to fire. Indeed, amidst the confusion during an attack on a military sentry, instructions can be compromised, especially if they were s...