Massacre: The Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre
Alyssa Ladd
Although many historians believe that the Boston Massacre was an act of murder, it is clear that the incident was an act of self-defense. First reason why it was self-defense, is that the colonist Crispus Attucks was holding a cordwood stick and swung it at James Bailey. James Bailey then shot Crispus Attucks. James Bailey shot Crispus Attucks in act of self-defense. This led on to more shootings, but more colonists were getting angry and more violent. Another reason why it was self-defense, is that the captain of the British soldiers Preston, never did say fire and he never ordered his troops to fire. The colonists were taunting the soldiers by saying, "Fire, fire," which lead to more confusion. Also, Captain
Preston was facing the crowd and due to a test done by a sound expert off from the video Unsolved Mysteries: The Boston Massacre, showed that with all the sounds and the colonists' yells and the soldiers' yells were really hard to hear and the soldiers couldn't hear Preston that well. The soldiers shot the colonists because they were confused and they miss heard the, "Fire" calls. Overall, no one is 100% sure as to who said what when it came to the calling of, "Fire." The last reason why I believe it is self-defense is that Newton Preston (who was a colonist) surrounded the soldiers with the rest of colonists around him. There were only nine soldiers and two hundred colonists. Andrew, Oliver Wendell's servant, testified that none of the soldiers stepped out of line to try to push people. The soldiers didn't threaten any of the colonists or try to cause harm, but the colonists were gaining up onto the soldiers.
As a result, both sides did wrong actions, but this act was not a murder, but an act of self-defense because there were way more colonists than soldiers, and the colonists acted out with violence, and the soldiers couldn't hear the commands of their captain that well. In conclusion, the colonists and soldiers were both guilty and wrong, but the soldiers are not accountable for murder.
Alyssa Ladd
Although many historians believe that the Boston Massacre was an act of murder, it is clear that the incident was an act of self-defense. First reason why it was self-defense, is that the colonist Crispus Attucks was holding a cordwood stick and swung it at James Bailey. James Bailey then shot Crispus Attucks. James Bailey shot Crispus Attucks in act of self-defense. This led on to more shootings, but more colonists were getting angry and more violent. Another reason why it was self-defense, is that the captain of the British soldiers Preston, never did say fire and he never ordered his troops to fire. The colonists were taunting the soldiers by saying, "Fire, fire," which lead to more confusion. Also, Captain
Preston was facing the crowd and due to a test done by a sound expert off from the video Unsolved Mysteries: The Boston Massacre, showed that with all the sounds and the colonists' yells and the soldiers' yells were really hard to hear and the soldiers couldn't hear Preston that well. The soldiers shot the colonists because they were confused and they miss heard the, "Fire" calls. Overall, no one is 100% sure as to who said what when it came to the calling of, "Fire." The last reason why I believe it is self-defense is that Newton Preston (who was a colonist) surrounded the soldiers with the rest of colonists around him. There were only nine soldiers and two hundred colonists. Andrew, Oliver Wendell's servant, testified that none of the soldiers stepped out of line to try to push people. The soldiers didn't threaten any of the colonists or try to cause harm, but the colonists were gaining up onto the soldiers.
As a result, both sides did wrong actions, but this act was not a murder, but an act of self-defense because there were way more colonists than soldiers, and the colonists acted out with violence, and the soldiers couldn't hear the commands of their captain that well. In conclusion, the colonists and soldiers were both guilty and wrong, but the soldiers are not accountable for murder.