On April 15, 2013 I remember hearing from Mr. Ham that the Boston marathon had been bombed at the finish line. The only knowledge I had of this incident before I read about it— was that it was a terrorist attack. After reading this article explaining about the convictions of the two terrorists Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, there isn’t any sort of bias that I can see going on in this topic. Although the author doesn’t have her own argument about the situation, she talks about the dispute between the terrorists and the prosecutors and the jury. The prosecutors and the jury came to the conclusion that Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were found guilty.…
I John Adams is here today to address the jury of the innocence of the men that were involved in the killing of 5 civilians. On March 5, 1770 a riot broke out on the streets of Boston causing mayhem; British soldiers arrived on the scene to find the civilians out of control, and in order to gain order knowing the risk that was being taken they put their lives in danger to get a furious mob under control. No one man deserves to have his life taking and neither does he deserves to have it threatened and that is exactly what these men were experiecneing as they stood befor a raging crowd of civilians as they tore threw the streets of Boston. To have you're life threatened is just as bad as having it taken away from you ; Iam not saying that what they did was right but Iam saying that they were given no other choice considering the circumstances they were put under it was either kill or be killed and if they had not made the decision to take out the threat it would be civilians here today instead of these soldiers, If you were put in their shoes would you have not made the same choice? or is it just these soldiers who find that their life is valuable enought to protect? They were harassed, objects were thrown at them and they were threatened. Please allow these men to have a fair trial and please do not pass judgement upon them for they felt that they were doing something in defence of them selves as for every one of the world wants to be protected and when ever they feel threaten they will react the same way these men…
The soldiers fired at the the crowd. Then the colonists were up and arms about the Boston Massacre so the King and Parliament were forced to have the soldiers tried in court at the colonies and The King had John Adams be the lawyer for the soldiers and John Adams accepted because he thought everyone deserves the right to a lawyer. “Quickly becoming known as the Boston Massacre, the episode further propelled the colonies toward war with the British. Flames were fanned even more when the eight soldiers involved in the incident and their captain Thomas Preston were acquitted on the grounds of…
You may know this affair as ¨The Bloody Massacre¨, The Boston Massacre, ¨the incident on King street¨, but do you know the true story. In this tract-ate you'll find why this event even happened, the scene itself, how Paul revere's engraving was actually a propaganda, and the aftermath of this all!…
In the story "John Adams and the Coming of the Revolution”, author David McCullough discusses how John Adams was asked to defend the British soldiers in court of the soldier’s accusation of man slaughter, following the Boston Massacre. Being such a problematic case that could ruin his reputation, John Adams accepted to defend the soldiers because of his experience in difficult cases, and his strong principles and beliefs. John Adam’s reputation did not even tarnish because of how skillfully he handled the case gaining the respect of the people of Boston.…
After reading and analyzing, “The Boston Massacre Trails” I feel like the movie left out some parts of the trial that I found interesting in the article. For example, John Adam’s assistant in the trial, Josiah Quincy, happened to be the younger brother of the trial’s prosecutor Samuel Quincy. Another interesting fact was that Samuel Quincy was a loyalist. However, he was prosecuting against the British soldiers. Overall, I do think that the movie did a great job depicting the Boston Massacre Trials. However, I also believe that the article as more detailed and had more interesting facts.…
Another area which must be discussed is the metropole responses to acts of resistance in the peripheries. W.A. Speck mentions some British politicians believed duty on Tea was ‘a symbol of parliamentary sovereignty over the colonies’ (Speck, 2015, p.32). It could be argued the reprisal policies following The Boston Massacre demonstrate the metropole believed they had a right to exercise they perceived superiority, as they considered the peoples in the peripheries as children. Measures such as the The Quartering Act could be seen as the metropole exercising to its parliamentary sovereign. As mentioned above, the colonists saw these polices by the metropole is unfair. From a British point of view the acts of resistance were not only caused disruption to profits, it is highly likely some politicians they saw the acts of resistance as…
As historians tell us the side of a story that is not often heard, Boston, Bloody, Boston is able to guide us into a piece of history that is most of the time not told in the average history book. The director wants us to know why the British thought this was an easy fight against the Bostonian Rebels. The theme throughout the documentary is to let the viewer know the important parts of American history, as it needs to be told. The events that took place is how our county was founded. The actions of the people in 1875, tell us that we fought a good fight to keep from the British and wanted nothing more than to be free.…
After all this, a man named Paul Revere decided to use his welding skills and make out the scene for the people that weren’t there to witness it. In that process, he decided to make it look like the Boston people were innocent while the armed soldiers looked terrifying. The man spread misinformation just so he could get the other colonists in other places enraged about the horrible deed the British soldiers had done. To further his point, he dubbed it to be called the ‘Boston Massacre’ to intrigue people while reading their papers. Now what?…
This investigation assesses the causes of the Boston Massacre in 1770, and which of the said causes had the biggest impact on the occurrence of the Massacre. To understand the causes of this Massacre, research had to be done to investigate how the presence of British soldiers, the Sugar, Stamp, Quartering, and Townshed Acts, the acts of the colonists, and the lack of representation of the colonists lead to the Boston Massacre. The main method for gathering information was from either book or Internet sources. The most used of these sources were the book The Boston Massacre by Robert J. Allison[1], and the book The Boston Massacre by Hiller B. Zobel.[2] Both of these sources will be evaluated in section C.…
In an interview printed by the Nova Scotia Chronicle following the shooting, an anonymous Bostonian recounted the events of the aforesaid day. His account of the situation, while correct in many senses, was aimed to gain public sympathy for the townspeople of Boston. He claims that "the [British] soldiery aimed to draw and provoke the townsmen" in order to "make use of...weapons" (Nova Scotia Chronicle 1). The colonist essentially claims that the Redcoats are guilty of premeditated…
On March 5, many innocent Bostonians were killed by British soldiers. It was an unprovoked murder where the soldiers fired and killed five colonists! The citizens were just attending to their daily duties on the streets when a soldier started a fight with them. The struggle soon turned into a full fledged confrontation. When other redcoats attempted to calm the group with threats of firing on them, Bostonians were rightfully outraged and began to fight back a little. Some citizens even picked up pebbles and twigs and threw them at the soldiers in defense.…
The American colonists took up arms in 1775 when the British attacked in the Battle of Lexington and Concord. The battle, however, was a long time coming, with tensions beginning to rise because of the many duties and acts passed by the British Parliament. A few of these include the Stamp Act, the Mutiny Acts, and the Townshend duties. The Americans expressed outrage over the many taxes that they were forced to pay, and as each act passed, more and more Americans began to believe that the only way to gain freedom was to go to war. One major event believed to be the impetus of the Revolutionary War is the Boston Massacre, in which British soldiers fired upon and killed five American colonists. However, about a month or so before the Battle of Lexington and Concord, Patrick Henry wrote his speech “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”, in which he expressed his willingness to fight the British. Similarly, a few months after the battle, Thomas Jefferson wrote his “Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms”. Although written at different times, both Jefferson and Henry believed the same thing. There was not a workable compromise between the British and the American colonists.…
Under the British governance early Americans experienced many things among them lie intimidation, limitation, abuse of power, and fear. With every action and inaction that the British government took they gave early Americans every encouragement they needed to revolt. One of the most significant ideals of British governance that ferociously disturbed the early Americans was the British’s lack of toleration for an armed militia, (The Revolutionary Worlds of Lexington and Concord Compared, 2012). When a person’s right to safety and defense is stripped away a part of their peace goes along with it. This is why when the British Government fought against rebels at Lexington and seized their weapons the Americans fought twice as hard in Concord, (The Revolutionary Worlds of Lexington and Concord Compared, 2012). This historic moment not only shaped early America but also made an impact on our Bill of Rights and modern day. The right to bear arms is a part of the American identity because of the battle at Lexington. It has become a right given to us by the second amendment as well as our peace that was once taken…
This article was written to illustrate the common citizen of the colonies and their struggles, both good and bad, through the revolution. By writing “The Shoemaker and the Revolution” Alfred F. Young shows the mass civilian involvement that acted as a catalyst for the anti-British sentiment that swept the nation, and specifically Boston. Young uses George Hewes, a lowly shoemaker, as an example of the power each individual holds. Hewes went from a shy apprentice, too scared to speak up in front of John Hancock, to an outspoken patriot…