The Boston Incident: The Murderous Incident

Calling the Boston incident a murderous massacre is nothing more than an abundance of fabricated misconceptions and false accusations concocted in order to let biased power out way justice. This case is not of slaughter or senseless homicide but of prejudice and defense from both opposing parties. These British men who have been ordered here to this place of hatred and abhorrence to anything unpatriotic, are not murderers but frightened men trying to defend themselves from the harm of the vexed flock of colonists.

On the night of March 5 1770, a British soldier stood as he performed his duty as guard. Not with overfilled pride and extensive bourgeois but with the reluctance and anxiousness of any person forced into an uncomfortable situation. And as he labored through the hour to perform his duties he is surprised by the large mass of
400 colonists. Hordes of angry and viscous colonists armed with clubs and chunks of ice, ones that could break one’s head, were ready to begin a brawl with the "oppressing", "unlawful" and "immoral" soldiers. As any proper soldier would the man did not take thing into his own hands but instead notified his captain of the violent mob that was approaching, lurking, skulking towards them. The captain tried to order the crowd to disperse and leave but was only rewarded with harsh words and taunts. "Come on you rascals you bloody backs you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare, God damn you, fire and be damned, we know you dare not!" Only increasing the hostility amongst the crowd and prompting an attack.

The hostility and tension grew stronger and as a result, one of the colonist pumped with hatred flung a chunk of ice at the one of the soldiers head causing him to be knocked down. When he struggled back on to his feet full of pain and agony he fired his gun. The flame was ignited, sparks flew, and both parties were preparing for fight that was to come. The captain, whose brain was filled with blinding adrenaline ordered his men to shoot. Five deaths followed, but not because of the soldiers but because of the chaotic mayhem caused by both parties.

One of the main accounts of a colonist that witnessed the incident recalled that it was the soldiers, whose minds believe that they were superior to the colonist, who provoked the citizens to retaliate giving them no choice but to attack.
This statement is filled with complete and utter asinine. Who would dare to threaten the lion while in its den? Such is the act of an idiotic fool. There may have been an army of soldiers sent to the Americas but they were divided giving them no strength in numbers. Though the colonist were opposed to British rule what mighty and divine power gives them the right to unleash their anger on to the British men? Do they know the soldiers by face and name so they know who specifically the unjust culprit is? This I highly doubt.

The painting created by the artist best presents the event that took place on the night of March 5 1770. The art exhibits the savagery and ferocity that was exhibited by both parties. Chunks of ice thrown, fist flying, clubs swinging, shots fired, cruel intentions swarm through the night, this painting carries the energy of the total anarchy that boiled over that chaotic
evening.

Ladies and gentlemen, these men are not the demons of Satan who have come to unleash their wrath on the innocent. No, they are just average men that should be given the undisputed right to defend themselves against those who attack them. Even if they were Mr. Samuel Maverick, Christopher Monk, or John Clarke young apprentices with much potential, even if they are Mr. Samuel Gray, or Mr. Crispus Attuckus, or Mr. Samuel Gray, they created this violent situation and the British should not be held accountable for that.