Paper Example on Boston Massacre: Deadly Riots That Shaped US Independence

The Boston Massacre is recorded as one of the deadly riots on King Street, the night of 5th March 1770. This happened in front of the then parliament, which stored King's money on the custom-house. The riot began as a typical street brawl but later escalated to become deadly bloodshed that subsequently shaped the United States' independence. History books and other records indicate that the killings that night was deliberate by the British soldiers. The riots were between the American colonists and the Ione British soldiers. There are several conflicting opinions.

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

Save 25%

I think that the massacre, as is described, was not a massacre but rather was a defense by the soldiers. The first thing is that the American colonist and patriots arrived at the place when Hugh White was the only soldier by the time they visit. The rioters then started throwing stones and snowballs on him. When he realized that the people weighed him down, he called for backup upon which eight other soldiers arrived with Captain Thomas Preston. Preston and his officers were trying to calm down the crowd, no wonder they came few soldiers. If their intention was to massacre people, then they would have shot more people.

If the attack were a massacre, then more soldiers would have been on guard that night and that Captain Preston would not have come with the eight soldiers. The rioters also came at night when they knew that one guard would be in the custom-house. Weeks before the riots, there had been complaints about the taxes employed by the British government. The American colonists had revolted that they were not going to pay the fees. The fact that they advanced to the customs house that night insinuates that they intended to either break in and take King's money or do some destruction to it.

During the night, six people were wounded, and only three died, amides hundreds of rioters. It means that the soldiers' intentions were not to harm the people but rather to protect the custom house and disband the mob. The case against captain Preston and the soldiers was defended by John Adams, a staunch patriot among the American colonists. In his defense, he claimed that different witnesses gave conflicting accounts that do not provide what happed that night. The jury, which judged the sitting, was non-Bostonians and therefore, can be termed fair. Considering that Preston and some of the soldiers were not found guilty, it shows that their intentions were not t harm any of the people who were in the riot that night.

The American colonists were provoking the soldiers to fire at the time the riots escalated. Considering the intensity which was there, the soldiers must have panicked and shot at the crowd out of fright. The killing was of colonialist was actually against the law of Britain, and that is why Preston and his soldiers were arrayed in court. The fact that it was in Britain's ruling means that the soldiers would have followed to the later. The instability that was there in America during early 1700 against the British colonists must have caused some of the patriots to plan such a riot. The riot was done mainly at night, which is unlike the custom, typically done in the day and, therefore, must have been designed by the heads of the riots. I think that Crispus Attucks was not a hero but rather a trouble maker to the British government.