Comparing Boston & Kent State Massacre the two Hundred year difference. There are similarities of Boston and Kent State Massacre event similarities, both of them brought something up with the government to make a large crowd of people, the Boston Massacre was started by a series of events included by civilians of colonist and soldiers trying to calm against the angry protesters. The Shootings of State University were a result of tensions between students and the Ohio National Guard, as the students where mad of the protested Vietnam war, The U.S. will start bombing in Cambodia, there were no orders to shoot the students but they killed 4 students anyways. The resemblance of the two massacres are like the same, both over the government, both…
From this excerpt, we can see how Britain didn’t mean to make a “massacre”. A crowd of Boston boys and men surrounded a number of British soldiers and began taunting and cursing them while pelting them with snowballs. This was the reason of the Boston “massacre”.…
A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens." ("Boston Tea Party Was Act of Terrorism?").…
According to Document 3, Account of the Boston Massacre, “A townsman with a cudgel struck him over the hands with such force…” This writing means that the colonists had clubs to fight back against the British and protect themselves. Although the British had much more powerful weapons, such as guns, the colonist were able to bring much harm to them as well. In Benjamin Edes’, Account of the Boston Massacre, a colonist “aimed a blow at the Captain’s head which grazed his hat and fell pretty heavy upon his arm”. A massacre is defined as an event where a large amount of people are killed and the victims cannot defend themselves. The fact that the colonists had clubs to defend themselves, proves the point that this event was not a massacre. As mentioned…
The event became known as the Boston Massacre. After this event, the soldiers involved were put on trial, resulting in the mild punishment of only one of…
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…
The film’s depiction of the trial differed from the article in the sense that, the men were found guilty of manslaughter, not let go free and the Boston Massacre’s trial was much longer in the article. In the docudrama, once John Adams had defended the soldiers and won the trial, it was shown as if they were able to just walk away from the scene. However, many complications came before they were let go without a death penalty. Also, in the article, the trial of this case occurred seven months after the trial, allowing much anxious uproar to arise around the town.…
The Boston Massacre happened on March 5, 1770. The Boston Massacre happened because the colonist were angry. The men were all riled up. They were just let of work. The colonist were physically and mentally messing with the English soldiers. "A general attack was made on the men by a great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being…
The Boston Massacre, was the first bloodshed between the British and the American colonists, which ultimately lead to war between the two. Here, I will discuss the events leading up to the Massacre, which the hostilities of the colonial people will be discussed. I believe that the British troops fired the first shot, but were ultimately lead to this point through the colonists antagonization.…
After quite some time of thought, I find the first man, Capt. Preston, to be not guilty of murder at any degree. He did not actually murder anyone because he did not have a gun during the Boston massacre, making it impossible for Preston to actually kill another man. There was also no disputable evidence that Capt. Preston ordered his men to shoot. After all, the eight men were provoked to shoot without command to do so.…
There are two popular views of the Boston Massacre, the pro-colonist view and the pro-British view. Neither of the views are entirely accurate, the true events of that night are found in the ‘middle ground’ of the accounts. No matter how truthful one account is believed to be, it is impossible for it to be entirely accurate because they couldn't know the intent of the opposing side.…
Many people misunderstood the Boston Massacre and believe it was all the British soldiers’ fault, but they would be wrong. The Boston Massacre took place on March 5th, 1770 and resulted in the deaths of 5 Colonists. Thirteen soldiers were put on trial for the murders of those five colonists, but it wasn’t all their fault. The Colonists were responsible for the Boston Massacre because they attacked the British, they were yelling fire, and they were not being truthful. The Colonists attacked the British by trying to murder a soldier, throwing snowballs, and clubs. Then the Colonists tried to look blameless by not fighting back, and not putting Crispus Attucks in the photo. But in order to understand the Boston Massacre, you need to understand the whole story.…
In 1767, British soldiers were sent to Boston to keep order. There was high tension between the British soldiers and the colonists. At 9'o clock at night, a fight broke out and 5 colonists were killed. The Boston Sons of Liberty called the event the Boston Massacre. Historians wondered if the Boston Massacre was an act of self defense by the soldiers or if the soldiers murdered the colonists. After further investigation on this topic, I propose that the British soldiers murdered the colonists.…
The Kent State shooting or May 4th Massacre was a very significant and controversial event in the 1970. This involved armed guardsmen firing 67 rounds in 13 seconds into a crowd of protesting students. This resulted in nine wounded students and four shot dead. This was a significant event as it began the nation-wide anti-war movement, opposing the war in Vietnam.…
On March 5, 1770 a specific event took place that had impacted many lives. This event is known as the Boston Massacre. The Boston Massacre was considered to be a street fight that took place when a mob started to throw snowballs, stones and sticks at a squad of British soldiers. In the end, five colonists resulted in death. This was caused by the developing tensions in the American colonies that had been growing ever since the Royal troops had first appeared. I believe that the Boston Massacre was an act of self-defense. I say this because, the British soldiers’ lives were under threat and had to use equal force. In addition, a massacre is when many are killed and it consists of an innocent/defenseless side. In the Boston Massacre, both sides were not defenseless. This was not murder either because, this event was not planned or was meant to happen. The British soldiers weren’t intending to kill these colonists. Lastly, manslaughter wouldn’t be reasonable because, the British soldiers killed these colonists in act of defense/protection.…