Prior the Revolutionary War of between 1775 and 1783, Britain was in control of its American colony, much to the chagrin of the latter. With the colonization came laws of governance imposed on the Americans as a form of dominance by the British forces. With the forced management and the increasing need for independence among the colonized nation, the resulting tense relations were inevitable if not expected. Boston city was no different as its people continued to repel the presence of the Britons in its society. Consequently, on March 5, 1770, a confrontation between people from both sides, in Boston Massachusetts, led to the deaths of five men (Allison, 2006, p.V). The event marked the end of the soldiers’ patience after long periods of hostility by the Americans (Draper, 2001, p.7). On the day of the massacre, British troops opened fire on unarmed American civilians and in turn, went against protocol (Allison, 2006, p.13). The shootings led to an inquiry into the incident and the trial of the involved persons. As aforementioned, the dead were not only civilians, but also unarmed, facts that sparked a need for righteous retribution amongst the remaining Americans. This paper seeks to explore the gradual and immediate causes of the Boston Massacre, the involved people and their trials, before determining the effects of the war on the United States and the world.
As aforementioned, ongoing riots encouraged the British guards at Boston's Custom House to shoot at an unarmed mob. However, there are different gradual causes of the riots and said reasons continue to be a topic of debate amongst Historians. In other words, one side argues for the necessity of the British soldiers’ decision to shoot because of the violent nature of the rioters, making the Boston Massacre an act of personal defense. Others maintain that with the unarmed character of the civilians, the Britons ought to have maintained the peace without resorting to the use of arms. Overall, clear fact is that from issues regarding Britain forcing the people of Boston to coexist with British soldiers and the cumulated taxations, tensions were high. The Stamp and the Townshend Acts are perhaps the foremost causes of the aforementioned riots and later, the deaths of five colonists.
After the French and Indian War in 1763, the British government attained more control over colonies (Kennedy, Cohen, and Bailey, 2008, p. 129). As a result, the increased power encouraged the country's decision to collect more revenues from its colonists. The first law was the Sugar Act of 1764 (Kennedy et al. 2008, p. 129). According to the legislation, “among other provisions, it increased the duty on foreign sugar imported from the West Indies” (Kennedy et al. 2008, p. 129). Subsequently, the British parliament saw to the passing of the Stamp Act in 1765. The legislation dictated American colonies to pay a direct tax to Britain through the purchasing of stamps for written material. Kennedy et al. (2008) point out that the legislation required individual markings "certifying payment of tax, on all sorts of legal and commercial documents” (p. 130). In other words, newspapers, letters, and even academic papers needed stamps for them to be legal. Any failure to adhere to the new law meant trial by a jury and possible penalty or a jail term for the guilty. Expectedly, the American colony retaliated with the Act with the formation of the Stamp Act Congress, America’s first systematized form of protest against British taxation. Next, there is the Townshend Duties of 1767 seeing to the payrolls of British troops placed in the colonies (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.134). From 1767, the British Parliament only modified The Townshend Duties to fit the favorable ruling of America. Foremost there was the Revenue Act of 1767 that imposed import taxes on all British goods brought into the colonies (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.129). As part of the Revenue Act, the proceedings paid the salaries of British troops deployed in America. In addition, the terms allowed British soldiers to search American ships, warehouses and other storage facilities to prevent the smuggling of goods. Americans boycotted British products and instead relied on smuggled foodstuff that were cheaper without the taxes. Consequently, that same year, the Indemnity Act removed the taxation of tea produced by the British East India Company (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.133). The action came as a means of discouraging tea smuggling into the colonies and encouraging the people to purchase goods imported from Britain (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.133). Because of continued opposition from the colonists, the British Parliament enacted the New York Restraining Act to prevent any further action by the New York Assembly. Finally, yet importantly, there are the Commissioners of Customs in 1767 and the Vice Admiralty Court Act of 1768 (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.131). Both laws aimed to curb smuggling tendencies in the colonies (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.131). While the former sought to implement firm custom rules including the posting of tax collectors and other officials, the latter saw to the building of courts with the prosecution of smugglers as their primary agenda.
Boston appeared on Britain’s radar after its peoples’ decision to retaliate to the imposed laws by boycotting all products from Britain. After the Boston Tea Party, the Intolerable Acts emerged in 1774 as punishment on the people of Boston. The event dubbed the Boston Tea Party saw to the destruction of an estimated eighteen thousand pounds worth of tea imported from Britain. Kennedy et al. (2008) point out that the Intolerable Acts swept away “many chartered rights of Colonial Massachusetts” including meetings (p.136). As part of the Intolerable Acts was the Quartering Act giving “local authorities the power to lodge British soldiers anywhere, even in private homes” (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.136). Thus emerges the reason behind the presence of four thousand British troops in Boston and the tension between the people as each group distrusted the motives of the other. Alongside the Intolerable Acts came the Quebec Act that Americans saw to be “especially noxious” (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.136). As per the terms of the new legislation, Catholicism was the new official religion of Quebec and part of the American colonies (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.136). The law “aroused anti-Catholics who were shocked by the extension of Roman Catholic jurisdiction southward into a vast region" of Protestantism (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.137). Following all of the imposed laws, riots were common in Boston with the people continually refuted British ruling.
Because of all aforementioned rules and the peoples’ retaliation to the same, the year 1768 saw the arrival of the 14th and 29th regiments in Boston (Pennsylvania State University, 2009, p.1). The troops’ purpose revolved around the collection of taxes, protection of government officials and the restoration of law and order in the area. Boston residents did not approve the presence of such a high number of British troops in their home. Consequently, while the civilians did all they can in attempts to torment the new arrivals, the soldiers, as commanded under the crown, could not retaliate (Allison, 2006, p.5).
After an extended period of small confrontations between the population and the British soldiers, the Boston Massacre finally happened on King Street (Kennedy et al. 2008, p.137). On March 5, 1770, Boston residents took to the streets and began a riot that apparently turned to physical assault on soldiers stationed to guard the Customs House in Boston. In the middle of jeering and pelting with snowballs and all manner of items, the soldiers finally had enough and in retaliation, fired into the crowd (Allison, 2006, p.13). The actions leading to the actual shooting appear distorted. There are instances of doubt where people were misrepresenting the events and in turn, falsifying information. However, when the gunshots stopped, three men lay dead on the spot, two died whilst receiving medical care, and six were severely injured. In “The American Revolutionary War and The War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power” there is a list of the victims. Attucks Crispus, Caldwell James, and Gray Samuel died at the scene of the shooting (Britannica Educational Publishing, 2009, p. 132). The mortally wounded include Samuel Maverick and Patrick Carr; both men died soon after (Britannica Educational Publishing, 2009, p. 132).
The massacre took place on King Street, an open area with the potential of many witnesses to view the event. Expectedly, the views regarding the event changed with the people opting to defend their own at the expense of the soldiers. It does not help matters that the only troops present in the open area, thus allowing them to see everything happening, were those involved in the massacre. On the other hand, many Boston residents had come out for a riot. Consequently, the resulting witnesses after the killings comprised mainly of the British hating troops. However, others maintained that the shootings were an accident. On that note, public uproar and calls for justice from the locals and other representatives of the Americans led to the trials of the involved British soldiers.
The trials’ proceedings provide a different narration of the events leading up to the massacre. In a report written by the Pennsylvania State University (2009), angry civilians accosted one of the guards at the Custom House after making a young child cry (4). Private Hugh White then called for help from fellow soldiers including Captain Thomas Preston and seven others, who promptly respond. By that time, as the crowd knows that unless they have orders from a magistrate the soldiers cannot shoot, the nine men have stones and ice thrown at them amidst many mockeries. Private Hugh Montgomery takes a hit and in the confusion, someone yells for the men to fire and they do so immediately (Allison, 2006, p.13). Later, after the killings, Boston’s governor Thomas Hutchinson assures the people stating, “The law shall have its course. I will live and die by the law” (Allison, 2006, p.17). His words mark the beginning of the Boston Massacre trials. Held in the Superior Court of Judicature, the trials commenced within three weeks after the massacre (Allison, 2006, p.19). The History of America as a British colony marks only two long trials and that of the British troops in the Boston Massacre is one of said suits. In “The Boston Massacre”, Allison Robert presents the names of the soldiers that stood trial according to their ranks. First, there is Captain Thomas Preston and Corporal William Wemms (Allison, 2006, p.41). The rest of the men include Hugh White, James Hartigan, Hugh Montgomery, William McCauley, Matthew Kilroy, William Warren and John Carrol (Allison, 2006, p.41).
The trials utilized witness accounts as the primary evidence, and the jury panel entailed people from outside Boston to ensure the fair trial of the accused. None could establish who gave the command for the soldiers to fire and in turn, most attested to the attack of the mob against the British soldiers. Consequently, Adam’s defense aimed at ensuring a fair trial for the Briton, regardless of the already known facts. A report written by the Pennsylvania State University (2009) quotes John Adams: “The law will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men” (p.101). Captain Thomas Preston was first to get a “not guilty” verdict (Pennsylvania State University, 2009, p.101). Afterward, the trial of the remaining men began with John Adams as the lawyer. In the end, prosecution failed to prove any form of malicious intent on the soldiers’ part thus encouraging a verdict of “not guilty of murder” (Pennsylvania State University, 2009, p.120). However, the court charged Kilroy Matthew and Montgomery Hugh with manslaughter leading to the Adam’s “Plea of Clergy” on behalf of the men (Pennsylvania State University, 2009, p.120). According to the plea, the guilty men were to receive brands on their hands, an act that prevents them from breaking the law in any manner (Pennsylvania State University, 2009, p.120). The trials mark the end of the trials and the Boston Massacre.
Conclusively, scholars view The Boston Massacre as the first step America took on its path to the American Revolutionary War against Britain. The deaths of the five people turned out to be a patriotic act and in turn, encouraged Americans to give a united front against the oppressions of the British Parliament. On the other hand, the effects of the Boston Massacre on the world are vast due to the emergence of the United States of America as a Superpower country. For instance, upon independence, the slavery institution in America formed the country’s economic backbone. Consequently, the slave trade across the Atlantic boomed with the white men calling for more black slaves. Slavery marks the domestic effect, internationally; the participation of the United States in the wars and decision-making processes affected many countries. A good illustration is the Great War, where America’s involvement tipped the favors against the Germans. Finally, yet importantly, there is the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, both of which continue to be the blueprint of many constitutions and other laws. Therefore, as a catalyst towards the Revolutionary War, the Boston Massacre affected America and the rest of the world.
References
Allison, R. J. (2006). The Boston Massacre. Massachusetts: Applewood Books.
Britannica Educational Publishing. ( 2009). The American Revolutionary War and The War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power. Chicago: Britannica Educational Publishing.
Kennedy, D., Cohen, L., Bailey, T. (2008). The American Pageant: Volume I: To 1877. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Pennsylvania State University. (2009). The Trial of the British Soldiers, of the 29th Regiment of Foot, for the Murder of Crispus Attucks, Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, James Caldwell, and Patrick Carr, on Monday Evening, March 5, 1770. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.
