The Boston Massacre, 1770
March 5, 1770
The Boston Massacre was an incident in which British regulars fired into a group of Bostonians who were harassing them. It is generally considered one of the first acts of violence of the American Revolution.
This illustration depicts the Boston Massacre. Image Source: Digital Culture of Metropolitan New York .
Boston Massacre Summary
The Boston Massacre was a deadly altercation between British soldiers and a Boston mob that occurred on March 5, 1770, where the Redcoats fired on colonists, killing five and wounding six others. It was the culmination of resentment by the Boston citizenry toward British troops that Parliament had deployed in 1768 to enforce the Townshend Acts of 1767 . The incident on March 5 began when a small group of Bostonians started harassing a lone British sentry guarding the Customs House. When a crowd assembled and became more hostile, British reinforcements arrived on the scene to protect the sentry. The soldiers, under the command of Captain Thomas Preston, fired their muskets into the crowd. The first person killed was Crispus Attucks , an African-American who worked on the docks in Boston. In order to restore peace between the Redcoats and the colonists, Governor Thomas Hutchinson conducted an investigation and the soldiers were tried in court. They were defended by Founding Father John Adams and two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter. In the years following the Boston Massacre, March 5 was observed as a holiday in Boston, and a memorial was held to commemorate the incident.
Boston Massacre History
The history of the Boston Massacre began long before the night of March 5, 1770. It is important to understand the Boston Massacre was not an incident that just happened one night, out of nowhere. There was a slow, steady buildup of tension between colonists living in Boston and British officials, especially Governor Francis Bernard , over British policies.
The Stamp Act Crisis and the Sons of Liberty
In 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which imposed taxes on the colonies by requiring various types of documents to be printed on paper that included a stamp on it. The paper was printed in Britain, shipped to the colonies, and had to be purchased from authorized Stamp Distributors. The colonies were outraged when news of the Stamp Act arrived, and the so-called Stamp Act Crisis began. There were protests throughout the colonies. American merchants set up trade boycotts and refused to order products from Britain and the colonial papers were full of articles that criticized the provisions of the act. The slogan, “No taxation without representation” became popular.
In Boston, a group formed that quickly gained a reputation for its harassment of British officials, which included physical violence and vandalism. Prominent members and associates of the group in Boston were Samuel Adams, Joseph Warren, James Otis Jr., and John Hancock.
The group came to be called the Sons of Liberty , and similar groups were formed in other cities, including New York, Charleston, and Philadelphia. Throughout the summer and fall of 1765, the group was responsible for publicly threatening British officials if they enforced the provisions of the Stamp Act. The Sons also coordinated riots that included mobs attacking the homes of men like Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson .
On the morning of December 17, 1765, a broadsheet was posted throughout Boston that demanded Stamp Distributor Andrew Oliver appear at the Liberty Tree at noon and announce his resignation. Oliver did as was requested, although he read his resignation from the window of a house near the Liberty Tree because it was raining.
Parliament Repeals the Stamp Act and Passes the Declaratory Act
On March 18, 1766, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, primarily due to protests from British merchants who believed it would damage their prospects of doing business in the colonies. However, on that same day, Parliament passed the Declaratory Act , which declared Parliament had the “full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”
The Declaratory Act made it clear the threat of Parliament levying taxes on the colonies was still viable. The Sons of Liberty in Boston did not disband when the Stamp Act was repealed, they continued to meet to discuss and plan resistance to British policies. They believed Parliament was going to continue to exercise its authority — which it gave itself — to levy taxes on the colonies.
The Townshend Acts
In 1767 and 1768, Parliament did exactly as the Sons of Liberty and prominent leaders like Samuel Adams expected, when it passed a series of acts for various purposes, including establishing a flow of revenue from the colonies to Britain, tightening control over the colonial governments, and paying the salaries of royal officials in the colonies.
Collectively, they are known as the Townshend Acts and they set up a system where the officials were obligated to support the taxes because the revenue generated from them paid their salaries. The five acts were:
- The New York Restraining Act
- The Townshend Revenue Act
- The Indemnity Act
- The Commissioners of Customs Act
- The Vice-Admiralty Court Act
The Liberty Affair
To help enforce the Townshend Revenue Act and the Navigation Acts, the American Board of Customs Commissioners located in Boston. The Board of Customs played a key role in an incident with John Hancock and one of his ships. On May 9, 1768, a small ship owned by Hancock, the Liberty, arrived at the Port of Boston. It had come from Madeira, so the Customs Officials expected the ship to be full of wine.
Initially, the Customs Officials said they could not inspect the ship’s cargo, because it was too dark. They said they had to wait until the morning of May 10. When the cargo of Liberty was inspected on the morning of May 10, Customs Officials found it was carrying less than 25% of what they expected. They informed the Customs Commissioners and said could not explain where the other 75% of the cargo went. They said they watched the ship all through the night of the 9th and did not see any cargo taken off the ship. One of those officials was Thomas Kirk, who would change his story two weeks later.
On May 17, the HMS Romney , a British man-of-war, arrived in Boston Harbor. The ship was under the command of Captain John Corner. Corner sent press gangs onshore to force sailors into service on the Romney . Merchants and smugglers avoided Boston Harbor, for fear of losing crew members. However, the presence of the Romney and Corner’s press gangs increased tension between the townspeople and British officials, but likely made Thomas Kirk feel like he could tell the truth about what happened on the night he was supposed to inspect the Liberty .
On June 9, the situation grew worse when Kirk changed his testimony about what happened on the night of May 9. He told Joseph Harrison, the Collector of the Port of Boston, that the Captain of the Liberty had offered him a bribe and the Liberty was, in fact, smuggling extra casks of wine. Harrison took the new information to the Board of Customs Commissioners.
Harrison, along with other British officials, including Comptroller Benjamin Hallowell were warned by members of the Sons of Liberty to leave Hancock’s ship alone. The warning was ignored, and on June 10, David Lisle, the Solicitor General to the Board of Customs, ordered the Liberty to be seized. Sailors from the Romney were sent to carry out the task.
A crowd gathered and some of them tried to convince the British officials to leave the Liberty alone, at least until John Hancock could arrive on the scene. Harrison and Hallowell declined and a fight broke out while the sailors towed the Liberty away and moored it near the Romney.
Harrison and Hallowell fled the scene. However, the crowd at the dock, which had grown to around 3,000 people, chased after them. When the crowd was unable to find them, they went to the homes of the two men and smashed in the windows. After that, they went back to the dock and pulled Harrison’s boat out of the water. They dragged it through the streets to Boston Common where they set it on fire and burned it to the ground.
The seizure of the Liberty caused unrest in Boston because many people believed it had been illegally taken. Rumors started to circulate that people from all around Boston were planning to “begin an insurrection.”
Boston’s political leaders sent a letter to the colony’s agent — or representative — in London, Dennys De Berndt. The letter placed the blame for the incident on the Townshend Acts and Parliament’s continued efforts to raise taxes from the colonies. It also compared the Customs Officers and Commissioners to thieves who stole from the people of Massachusetts.
The Customs Commissioners also expressed concerns that an uprising was imminent in a letter they sent to London. They accused the local assemblies of coordinating efforts to resist British policies and believed if there was an uprising in Boston it would spread to other colonies. They suggested the only way to stop an uprising was to send troops to Boston to occupy the town.
Governor Francis Bernard also sent a detailed narrative of the incident to William Legge, Lord Hillsborough, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Bernard urged Hillsborough to do something to help prevent an uprising because he believed the colonists were capable of insurrection.
Ultimately, Hancock was taken to court by the Customs Commissioners, where he was defended by John Adams. Although the charges against Hancock were eventually dismissed, he did lose the Liberty , which was purchased by the Customs Commissioners and used to patrol the waters off Rhode Island for smugglers.
Military Occupation of Boston
In order to restore order in Boston, prevent an uprising, and enforce the provisions of the Townshend Acts, British troops were sent to Boston to occupy the town. Governor Bernard had asked for troops as early as 1766 due to the unrest and his request was finally granted. The American Customs Board of Commissioners also asked for troops to help them enforce the Townshend Acts in the aftermath of the Liberty Affair. Ships carrying troops arrived on September 28, 1768. On October 1, the troops disembarked and were quartered at various locations throughout the town.
For several months, the monthly Boston Town Meeting discussed the problem of troops occupying the city during peacetime. During the meetings, the officials in Boston and Massachusetts questioned the legality of housing a standing army during a time of peace. They argued it was a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution, the and English Bill of Rights. They believed it would certainly be seen as illegal if it was done in London.
Joseph Warren Comes Into the Spotlight
In March 1769, the Boston Town Meeting adopted a petition to the King, asking for the removal of the troops. At the same meeting, Joseph Warren was appointed to a committee to clear the town from the false accusations that had been made, in regards to rebellion and loyalty to the Crown. The members of the committee were James Otis, Samuel Adams, Thomas Cushing , Richard Dana, Joseph Warren, John Adams, and Samuel Quincy.
John Adams was not as involved as some of the others during this time. He was more cautious about becoming too involved with the unrest. He wrote: “I was solicited to go to the Town Meetings and harangue there. This I constantly refused. My friend Dr. Warren the most frequently urged me to this: My Answer to him always was ‘That way madness lies.’. . . he always smiled and said, ‘it was true.’”
Bernard Replaced and Some Troops Leave Boston
On July 21, 1769, Governor Bernard left Boston and returned to England. He was replaced by Thomas Hutchinson, a native of Massachusetts.
Soon after Bernard left Boston, two regiments — the 64th and 65th — were removed from the city. The 14th Regiment and 29th Regiment remained. Despite the reduction in the number of troops that were quartered in the city, the activities the troops indulged in made matters worse with the citizens of Boston. Some of the issues were:
- British officers paraded their troops through the streets on a frequent basis.
- On Sundays, the troops would race their horses through the streets.
On top of those things, off-duty soldiers were often employed by businesses in the city when they were off duty. The residents of Boston who needed jobs accused the soldiers of taking their jobs.
The people of Boston retaliated by insulting and teasing the troops, which would sometimes lead to arguments or even fights.
The Death of Christopher Seider
On February 22, 1770, a mob gathered outside the home of a Customs Official Ebeneezer Richardson. The people were upset that Richardson had broken up a protest in front of the shop owned by Theophilus Lillie, a Loyalist merchant.
The crowd turned violent and threw rocks through the windows of Richardson’s house. One of them hit Richardson’s wife. When that happened, Richardson grabbed his gun and fired into the crowd. 11-year-old Christopher Seider was shot twice, once in the arm and once in the head.
After the boy died, his body was taken to Joseph Warren for an autopsy. Warren found the body contained, “eleven shot or plugs, about the bigness of large peas.”
Warren’s autopsy confirmed the boy was indeed killed by Richardson’s weapon. Some consider the boy to be the first casualty of the American Revolution.
Samuel Adams arranged for Seider’s funeral and a public display was made of what Richardson had done. An estimated 2,000 people attended the funeral at the Granary Burial Ground which fueled the outrage of the people of Boston.
Incident on March 2, 1770
On March 2, a British soldier, Private Patrick Walker, was walking along Gray’s Ropewalk in Boston, looking for a job. A Boston rope maker, William Green, asked Walker if he was looking for work. When Walker said he was, Green told him he could clean the public toilet. Walker was offended and told Green, “Empty it yourself.”
When the two exchanged heated words, Walker tried to hit Green. One of Walker’s employees knocked Green down. When Walker was able to get to his feet, he went to the barracks and gathered some friends. He returned to the scene with a handful of soldiers and they were looking for a fight.
When the rope makers saw them, they gathered to help defend Walker and then roughly 40 soldiers arrived on the scene. The crowd of rope makers included Samuel Gray and, possibly, Crispus Attucks. A full-scale riot broke out and the rope makers forced the British soldiers to return to their barracks.
The Boston Massacre — March 5, 1770
On the morning of March 5, the news of Christopher Seider’s death appeared in the Boston Gazette . That night, an altercation between a British soldier, Private Hugh White, and a 13-year-old boy, Edward Garrick exploded into violence.
The incident started when Garrick insulted Captain Lieutenant John Goldfinch. Goldfinch ignored the boy, but Private White, who was nearby at his post, demanded the boy apologize to Goldfinch. Garrick refused, and words were exchanged. Then Garrick poked Goldfinch in the chest, which led to White hitting the boy in the head with his musket. Garrick’s friend, Bartholomew Broaders, started arguing with White, which drew the attention of more people. The crowd grew and included Boston bookseller Henry Knox.
The officer in charge of the night’s watch, Captain Thomas Preston, was alerted to the trouble and sent an officer and six privates to assist White. Preston ordered the troops to fix bayonets and went with them to the scene. By the time they arrived, the crowd had grown to more than 300 people.
The commotion and shouting led to the church bells being sounded, which usually meant there was a fire. More people came running to the scene, including John Adams.
The crowd started throwing snowballs, ice, rocks, and other things at the troops. Private Hugh Montgomery was hit with something and dropped his musket. When he picked it back up, he fired into the crowd, even though Preston had not given an order to fire. Montgomery’s discharge struck and killed Crispus Attucks . Within moments, the other troops panicked and fired into the crowd. When the shooting was over, five were dead, and six were wounded. Along with Attucks, the others killed by British fire were Samuel Gray, Patrick Carr, James Caldwell, and Samuel Maverick.
The crowd backed away and Preston called soldiers from the 29th Regiment out. The British took defensive positions in front of the Town House to protect themselves from the mob. Governor Hutchinson was called out to help restore order. Hutchinson promised the mob there would be an investigation into the incident, but only if the mob dispersed. The mob did break up.
During the melee, Warren was called to the scene to tend to the wounded. Later, he recalled the incident and wrote: “The horrors of that dreadful night are but too deeply impressed on our hearts. Language is too feeble to paint the emotions of our souls, when our streets were stained with the blood of our brethren, when our ears were wounded by the groans of the dying, and our eyes were tormented by the sight of the mangled bodies of the dead.”
Warren continued, and made it clear he believed that British troops firing on British citizens was a final straw, “To arms! we snatched our weapons, almost resolved, by one decisive stroke, to avenge the death of our slaughtered brethren, and to secure from future danger all that we held most dear.”
Samuel Adams dubbed the incident “The Boston Massacre.”
Boston Massacre Outcome
Before the mob broke up, the Patriot leaders sent express riders to neighboring towns to inform them of what happened. On the morning of March 6, people from the towns and countryside went into Boston and gathered at Faneuil Hall. According to Hutchinson, they were “in a perfect frenzy.”
A delegation of prominent city leaders was chosen to go to Governor Hutchinson and ask for the immediate removal of the troops. Warren was one of the members of the delegation, along with Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Hutchinson had the troops moved out to Castle William in the harbor.
Official Report — A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre
A week later, the Boston Committee of Safety organized a committee, which included Warren, to investigate the incident. Warren wrote the report for the committee, which was called “A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston.” The report blamed Parliament for what happened because of the situation it had put the troops in.
The report said, “As they were the procuring cause of the troops being sent hither, they must therefore be the remote and blameable cause of all the disturbances and bloodshed that have taken place in consequence of that measure.”
The report was published as a pamphlet and included an appendix with 96 depositions. It was sent to Britain to ensure the government received the American viewpoint of what was happening in Boston.
Boston Massacre Trials
Captain Preston and his men were eventually tried in court for the accusations made against them in regard to the incident. John Adams defended them in court, along with Josiah Quincy, Jr., Sampson Salter Blowers, and Robert Auchmuty.
Preston’s trial started on October 24, 1770. He was found not guilty on October 30.
The trial of the eight soldiers from the 29th regiment started on November 27. The jury reached its verdict on December 5. Six of the soldiers were acquitted. Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy were found guilty of manslaughter. Montgomery and Kilroy were branded with the letter “M” — for manslaughter — on their hands, where the palm meets the thumb.
Repeal of the Townshend Acts
After the Boston Massacre, the situation calmed down in Boston, especially since the troops had been moved to Castle William.
On March 5, the same day the news of Christopher Seider’s death was printed in the Boston Gazette and the Boston Massacre took place, Lord North made a motion in the House of Commons to partially repeal the Townshend Acts.
On April 12, 1770, Parliament voted to repeal the taxes levied by the Townshend Acts, except for the tax on tea.
After the repeal of the Townshend Acts, many of the Patriots toned down their involvement in political affairs. However, Joseph Warren and Samuel Adams continued to write in the papers and warned people that it was only a matter of time before Parliament would start levying taxes and infringing on their rights again.
Boston Massacre Memorials
In the years following the Boston Massacre, May 5 was a holiday in Boston and a memorial was held to commemorate the incident. Each year, a prominent member of the community was chosen to deliver a speech, which would be printed in the papers.
Massacre Day 1772
In 1772, the committee that selected the speaker unanimously chose Joseph Warren. He delivered his speech at the Old South Church, and it marked the first time he spoke publicly before a large audience. An estimated 5,000 people were in attendance. Warren used the opportunity to give a passionate speech that criticized Parliament and he called on the people to defend their rights against oppressive British policies.
Warren’s speech was a huge success with the Patriot faction and was printed in the papers throughout the colonies.
Massacre Day 1775
In 1775, as March 5 approached, rumors spread through Boston that British officers were threatening violence against whoever delivered the Massacre Day speech. Once again, Joseph Warren delivered the speech from the pulpit at Old South Church. The church was so full that Warren had to use a ladder to climb in through a window a the back of the pulpit. Roughly 40 British officers were seated in the front rows and some of them were even on the steps leading to the pulpit. They intended to harass Warren during the speech. Warren’s friends, who were also in attendance and scattered throughout the church, feared for his life and were prepared to react at a moment’s notice to protect him.
Warren delivered the speech dressed in a white Roman toga, which was meant to be a symbol of liberty. His speech lasted for roughly 35 minutes. Warren delivered a speech that clearly laid out that Parliament had no right to tax the colonies without their consent and criticized it for the “baleful influence of standing armies in time of peace.” He pointed out that Britain had made a significant change in its colonials policies, starting with the Sugar Act, when it decided to pass legislation for the purpose of raising revenue.
One of the more famous quotes from his speech was, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
Within six weeks, British troops marched to Concord, by way of Lexington, where they were met by Massachusetts Minutemen under the command of Captain John Parker . When Parker and his men refused to lay down their weapons — even though they were dispersing, as ordered by British officer Major John Pitcairn — a shot was fired. Within moments, British troops and American Minutemen were firing on each other and the War for Independence had begun.
Boston Massacre Significance
The Boston Massacre was an important event in American history because British troops fired on and killed American colonists. Because of that, it is commonly referred to as the “First Bloodshed of the American Revolution.”
Boston Massacre APUSH Notes and Study Guide
The APUSH Study Guide for the Boston Massacre has been moved to a new page and expanded.
- Written by Randal Rust
- american history
- boston massacre
Boston Massacre
Introduction.
- Historical Context
- The Incident
- Significance
The Boston Massacre was a confrontation between British soldiers and a crowd of colonial civilians in the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, resulting in the tragic deaths of five colonists. This incident is seen as a pivotal event in the lead-up to the American Revolutionary War as it dramatically intensified tensions between the American colonists and the British authorities.
At its core, the Boston Massacre symbolizes the simmering resentment and escalating conflict between the American colonies and British rule. The imposition of measures such as the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts had fueled resentment and resistance, with colonial merchants and radicals alike opposing what they perceived as unjust encroachments on their rights and liberties.
Moreover, the presence of British troops in Boston served as a constant reminder of colonial subjugation. The soldiers, stationed in the city to enforce British authority and quell potential unrest, provoked deep-seated animosity amongst the locals, leading to frequent confrontations and clashes.
The Boston Massacre was a manifestation of the profound rift between the colonists and their imperial overlords. This incident not only intensified the hostility between the two groups but also served as a catalyst for the burgeoning patriot movement. It became a symbol of British oppression and a rallying point for those advocating for American independence. The significance of this event lies not only in the tragedy of the lives lost but also in its role in uniting the colonies and igniting the flames of revolution.
The Boston Massacre: A Crucial Turning Point in American History
In the annals of American history, few events have been as pivotal or as fraught with tension and tragedy as the Boston Massacre. On the crisp winter night of March 5, 1770, this violent incident marked a crucial turning point in the relationship between Britain and its American colonies, igniting a spark that would eventually explode into the American Revolution. This article aims to guide you through the tumultuous events leading up to the Massacre, the incident itself, its immediate aftermath, and the enduring legacy it left behind.
The Tensions in Pre-Massacre Boston
The townshend acts and the seeds of discontent.
The Townshend Acts were a series of laws passed by the British Parliament in 1767, named after Chancellor of the Exchequer Charles Townshend, who proposed the program. These acts imposed duties on several goods imported to the American colonies, including paper, glass, lead, paints, and, most notably, tea. This was part of Britain's broader strategy to exert greater control over the colonies and generate revenue to offset Britain's debt from the French and Indian War.
From the colonists' perspective, the Townshend Acts were not just a financial burden but also a glaring representation of the unjust principle of taxation without representation. The colonists had no say in these laws, and no voice in Parliament, yet they were expected to comply with them. This lack of representation was a significant source of discontent and a catalyst for the growing sentiment of rebellion.
In Boston, the opposition to these acts was particularly fierce. The city became a hotbed of resistance, with merchants organizing non-importation agreements as a form of economic protest. These measures were not wholly effective, but they did contribute to a climate of hostility and defiance toward British authority.
The Townshend Acts thus laid the groundwork for the escalating tensions between the colonists and the British government. The resentment these acts bred among the colonists contributed directly to incidents like the Boston Massacre. In retrospect, the Townshend Acts and the reaction they provoked can be seen as a significant step on the road to the American Revolution.
The arrival of the British Troops
In the autumn of 1768, an ominous shadow fell over Boston. The decision of the British government to dispatch soldiers to this bustling colonial hub was a grim warning of the escalating tensions that were to mark the latter part of the decade. These were the "redcoats," so-called for their distinctive uniforms, symbols of British authority, and the enforcement of the contentious Townshend Acts.
Imagine, if you will, the sight of a thousand soldiers disembarking from their ships, marching in formation through the narrow streets of Boston, a city of barely 16,000 souls. Their presence was a stark physical reminder of the far-off Parliament's will and their number, a grim indication of the lengths the Crown was prepared to go to assert its authority.
To the Bostonians, the arrival of the British troops was an invasive show of force. The city, a hotbed of resistance against the Townshend Acts, was under something akin to martial law. The soldiers were often quartered among the citizens, fueling a smoldering resentment against the British government.
This was a clash of two worlds, cultures and governance systems. On the one hand, the proud and defiant colonists had tasted the sweet fruit of autonomy and self-governance. Conversely, the disciplined and regimented soldiers represent a system built on hierarchy, tradition, and control.
The redcoats' presence stirred significant resentment among the colonists. Incidents of harassment and violence against the soldiers became increasingly common, setting the stage for a confrontation that would be a pivotal moment in the American struggle for independence. Thus, the arrival of British troops in Boston wasn't merely a significant event but a catalyst for further conflict, a spark that would ignite the fuse of revolution.
The Boston Massacre: A Night of Chaos
The incident.
On the night of March 5, 1770, snow blanketed the cobblestone streets of Boston, reflecting the pale moonlight. A winter's chill hung in the air, a silent spectator to the unfolding drama.
The evening began with a single altercation, a moment of friction between a small group of colonists and a lone British sentry near the Custom House on King Street. Heated words were exchanged, escalating into taunts and accusations. The tension in the air was palpable, a tangible manifestation of the months of unrest and hatred that had plagued the city.
As the crowd grew, the lone sentry found himself the focus of their ire. Objects - snowballs, stones, and chunks of ice - began to be thrown, each missile a physical embodiment of the crowd's resentment towards the British presence in their city.
The situation teetered on a knife's edge until the arrival of Captain Thomas Preston and a detachment of British soldiers. They intended to restore order, but their presence only stoked the flames of discord. Despite the Captain's efforts to maintain control, the crowd, now swollen to several hundred, refused to be cowed. Their taunts and provocations grew bolder, more defiant.
And then, the unthinkable happened. A shot rang out, piercing the din of the crowd. To this day, it remains unclear who fired that fateful first shot. But that solitary report was all it took to shatter the tension-filled silence. The British soldiers, perhaps panicked, perhaps fearful for their own lives, discharged their muskets into the crowd.
When the gunfire echoes subsided, five colonists lay dead or dying, and six more were injured. The night of chaos had culminated in shocking violence, forever etching March 5, 1770, into the collective memory of a nation yet to be born. The "Incident on King Street," as it was initially referred to, would soon come to be known as the Boston Massacre.
Aftermath and Trial
Public outrage and propaganda.
In the aftermath of the tragic event, the streets of the American colonies were awash with a tidal wave of public outrage. As if overnight, the incident had galvanized an already discontent populace, providing a potent rallying cry for those opposed to British rule. Aided by the powerful tools of propaganda, the narrative of the event took on a life of its own, stoking the fires of rebellion.
One of the most significant pieces of propaganda to emerge from this tumultuous time was an engraving crafted by Paul Revere. His piece, "The Bloody Massacre in King-Street," was less a factual depiction of the event and more a potent visual narrative designed to incite strong emotional responses. The British soldiers were cast as remorseless villains, coldly gunning down unarmed, innocent colonists. Though the reality of that fateful night was considerably more complex and chaotic, the stark black-and-white imagery of Revere's engraving etched a powerful, enduring image into the colonial consciousness.
Simultaneously, Samuel Adams, a formidable figure in the burgeoning resistance movement, saw the potential in this tragic event. He seized upon the incident, writing passionately about the harsh brutality of British soldiers towards their colonial subjects. While his depictions may have skewed away from the strictest adherence to the facts, they were undeniably effective in stirring public sentiment against the British. Adams' accounts were widely disseminated, his fiery words echoing through town squares and homes across the colonies.
Even the term "massacre" was a masterstroke of propaganda. The word evoked images of a premeditated, large-scale slaughter, a far cry from the messy, panicked skirmish that had occurred. However, it served its purpose brilliantly, inflaming passions and fortifying the colonists' resolve against their perceived oppressors.
In the hands of skilled propagandists like Revere and Adams, the Boston Massacre transformed from a tragic event into a rallying cry for freedom. The public outrage after the incident was like a spark to dry tinder, igniting a fire of rebellion that would eventually blaze into the American Revolution. As we delve into history, we must remember the power of such narratives and their role in shaping our perception of the past. It's a stark reminder of the adage that the victors often write history.
As the dust of the Boston Massacre settled, the British soldiers involved in the incident found themselves in the eye of a storm of public fury. However, in an unexpected twist, their defense was taken up by John Adams, a known patriot and future second President of the United States. This decision was not without its controversy, but Adams, ever the principled statesman, stood steadfast in his belief in the sanctity of a fair trial, even for those reviled by the public.
Adams' defense of the British soldiers was a delicate balancing act, a testament to his skills as a lawyer and a diplomat. He had to navigate the complex, tumultuous waters of public sentiment while adhering to the principles of law and justice. His argument hinged on the premise of self-defense, contending that the British soldiers, faced with an unruly mob hurling projectiles, had acted in response to a perceived mortal threat.
In a remarkable display of legal acumen, Adams secured acquittals for six of the eight soldiers. The remaining two were found guilty of manslaughter, receiving reduced sentences. This outcome was extraordinary despite overwhelming public sentiment against the soldiers.
However, Adams' role in the trial was not without personal cost. His defense of the British soldiers was deeply unpopular among his fellow colonists, and he faced significant backlash. However, he stood by his convictions, famously stating, "It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished."
In the grand tapestry of history, this trial was not just about determining the guilt or innocence of these soldiers; it was a pivotal moment that highlighted the core principles that would come to define the nascent United States.
The Enduring Legacy of the Boston Massacre
Prelude to revolution.
The fallout from the Massacre resonated far beyond the streets of Boston, spreading like wildfire through the thirteen colonies. This incident did not occur in isolation, culminating in growing colonial frustration with British policies, particularly the much-despised Townshend Acts. The Massacre stoked these simmering resentments, turning them into a roaring flame of opposition.
The American colonists, now united in their outrage, began to view themselves not just as British subjects but as a distinct entity with their rights and liberties. The Boston Massacre catalyzed this transformation, propelling the colonists down a path of resistance and revolution.
Key colonial figures, such as Samuel Adams and Paul Revere, leveraged the public outrage following the Massacre to rally support for the colonial cause. They harnessed the power of the printed word and the spoken voice to spread their message far and wide, turning the Boston Massacre into a powerful symbol of British tyranny.
In the aftermath of the Boston Massacre, the line in the sand was drawn. The British government's attempts to control the colonies had resulted in bloodshed, and the colonists were no longer willing to stand by idly. The incident served as a wake-up call, rallying the colonists and setting the stage for the momentous events that were to follow.
The Boston Massacre was thus not just a tragic incident but a prelude to the larger symphony of the American Revolution. It was a moment that marked a clear shift in colonial sentiment, a turning point where the path to revolution became not just possible but inevitable. And as such, it stands as a critical chapter in the narrative of America's journey toward independence.
The Boston Massacre was not merely an isolated violent incident on a frigid March night in 1770. It was a pivotal event, a catalyst that accelerated the American colonies' path toward revolution. This tragic event galvanized a burgeoning sense of colonial identity and shared destiny, from the echoes of the gunshots on King Street to the public outrage and propaganda that ensued.
The trial that followed the massacre also plays a vital role in our understanding of this period. The defense of the British soldiers by John Adams, a future U.S. President, demonstrates the commitment to justice and the rule of law that would become a cornerstone of the new nation.
Reflecting on the Boston Massacre, we must remember that it was more than a flashpoint in the long journey to American independence. It was a moment that illuminated the escalating conflict between the British government and the American colonies, a tragic episode that thrust the issues of representation, sovereignty, and liberty into sharp relief.
- History & Society
- Science & Tech
- Biographies
- Animals & Nature
- Geography & Travel
- Arts & Culture
- Games & Quizzes
- On This Day
- One Good Fact
- New Articles
- Lifestyles & Social Issues
- Philosophy & Religion
- Politics, Law & Government
- World History
- Health & Medicine
- Browse Biographies
- Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
- Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
- Environment
- Fossils & Geologic Time
- Entertainment & Pop Culture
- Sports & Recreation
- Visual Arts
- Demystified
- Image Galleries
- Infographics
- Top Questions
- Britannica Kids
- Saving Earth
- Space Next 50
- Student Center
- Introduction & Top Questions
The killing of Christopher Seider and the end of the rope
From mob to “massacre”.
- Aftermath and agitprop
What was the Boston Massacre?
Why did the boston massacre happen.
- What are the American colonies?
- Who established the American colonies?
- What pushed the American colonies toward independence?
Boston Massacre
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- Bill of Rights Institute - The Boston Massacre
- National Park Service - Boston Massacre
- Khan Academy - The Boston Massacre
- The Ohio State University - Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective - The Boston Massacre
- Teach Democracy - The Boston Massacre
- World History Encyclopedia - Boston Massacre
- Colonial America - Boston Massacre Facts
- Alpha History - The Boston Massacre
- American Battlefield Trust - The Boston Massacre
- Public Broadcasting Service - Africans in America - The Boston Massacre
- Boston Massacre - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
- Boston Massacre - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
- Table Of Contents
The incident was the climax of growing unrest in Boston , fueled by colonists’ opposition to a series of acts passed by the British Parliament . Especially unpopular was an act that raised revenue through duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea. On March 5, 1770, a crowd confronted eight British soldiers in the streets of the city. As the mob insulted and threatened them, the soldiers fired their muskets, killing five colonists.
In 1767 the British Parliament passed the Townshend Acts , designed to exert authority over the colonies. One of the acts placed duties on various goods, and it proved particularly unpopular in Massachusetts . Tensions began to grow, and in Boston in February 1770 a patriot mob attacked a British loyalist, who fired a gun at them, killing a boy. In the ensuing days brawls between colonists and British soldiers eventually culminated in the Boston Massacre.
Why was the Boston Massacre important?
The incident and the trials of the British soldiers, none of whom received prison sentences, were widely publicized and drew great outrage. The events contributed to the unpopularity of the British regime in much of colonial North America and helped lead to the American Revolution .
Boston Massacre , (March 5, 1770), skirmish between British troops and a crowd in Boston , Massachusetts . Widely publicized, it contributed to the unpopularity of the British regime in much of colonial North America in the years before the American Revolution .
In 1767, in an attempt to recoup the considerable treasure expended in the defense of its North American colonies during the French and Indian War (1754–63), the British Parliament enacted strict provisions for the collection of revenue duties in the colonies. Those duties were part of a series of four acts that became known as the Townshend Acts , which also were intended to assert Parliament’s authority over the colonies, in marked contrast to the policy of salutary neglect that had been practiced by the British government during the early to mid-18th century. The imposition of those duties—on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea upon their arrival in colonial ports—met with angry opposition from many colonists in Massachusetts. In addition to organized boycotts of those goods, the colonial response took the form of harassment of British officials and vandalism. Parliament answered British colonial authorities’ request for protection by dispatching the 14th and 29th regiments of the British army to Boston, where they arrived in October 1768. The presence of those troops, however, heightened the tension in an already anxious environment .
Early in 1770, with the effectiveness of the boycott uneven, colonial radicals, many of them members of the Sons of Liberty , began directing their ire against those businesses that had ignored the boycott. The radicals posted signs (large hands emblazoned with the word importer ) on the establishments of boycott-violating merchants and berated their customers. On February 22, when Ebenezer Richardson, who was known to the radicals as an informer, tried to take down one of those signs from the shop of his neighbour Theophilus Lillie, he was set upon by a group of boys. The boys drove Richardson back into his own nearby home, from which he emerged to castigate his tormentors, drawing a hail of stones that broke Richardson’s door and front window. Richardson and George Wilmont, who had come to his defense, armed themselves with muskets and accosted the boys who had entered Richardson’s backyard. Richardson fired, hitting 11-year-old Christopher Seider (or Snyder or Snider; sources differ on his last name), who died later that night. Seemingly, only the belief that Richardson would be brought to justice in court prevented the crowd from taking immediate vengeance upon him.
With tensions running high in the wake of Seider’s funeral, brawls broke out between soldiers and rope makers in Boston’s South End on March 2 and 3. On March 4 British troops searched the rope works owned by John Gray for a sergeant who was believed to have been murdered. Gray, having heard that British troops were going to attack his workers on Monday, March 5, consulted with Col. William Dalrymple, the commander of the 14th Regiment. Both men agreed to restrain those in their charge, but rumours of an imminent encounter flew.
On the morning of March 5 someone posted a handbill ostensibly from the British soldiers promising that they were determined to defend themselves. That night a crowd of Bostonians roamed the streets, their anger fueled by rumours that soldiers were preparing to cut down the so-called Liberty Tree (an elm tree in what was then South Boston from which effigies of men who had favoured the Stamp Act had been hung and on the trunk of which was a copper-plated sign that read “The Tree of Liberty”) and that a soldier had attacked an oysterman. One element of the crowd stormed the barracks of the 29th Regiment but was repulsed. Bells rang out an alarm and the crowd swelled , but the soldiers remained in their barracks, though the crowd pelted the barracks with snowballs. Meanwhile, the single sentry posted outside the Customs House became the focus of the rage for a crowd of 50–60 people. Informed of the sentry’s situation by a British sympathizer, Capt. Thomas Preston marched seven soldiers with fixed bayonets through the crowd in an attempt to rescue the sentry. Emboldened by the knowledge that the Riot Act had not been read—and that the soldiers could not fire their weapons until it had been read and then only if the crowd failed to disperse within an hour—the crowd taunted the soldiers and dared them to shoot (“provoking them to it by the most opprobrious language,” according to Thomas Gage , commander in chief of the British army in America). Meanwhile, they pelted the troops with snow, ice, and oyster shells.
In the confusion, one of the soldiers, who were then trapped by the patriot mob near the Customs House, was jostled and, in fear, discharged his musket . Other soldiers, thinking they had heard the command to fire, followed suit. Three crowd members—including Crispus Attucks , a Black sailor who likely was formerly enslaved—were shot and died almost immediately. Two of the eight others who were wounded died later. Hoping to prevent further violence, Lieut. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson , who had been summoned to the scene and arrived shortly after the shooting had taken place, ordered Preston and his contingent back to their barracks, where other troops had their guns trained on the crowd. Hutchinson then made his way to the balcony of the Old State House, from which he ordered the other troops back into the barracks and promised the crowd that justice would be done, calming the growing mob and bringing an uneasy peace to the city.
The Boston Massacre
Written by: bill of rights institute, by the end of this section, you will:.
- Explain how British colonial policies regarding North America led to the Revolutionary War
Suggested Sequencing
Use this Narrative with the Stamp Act Resistance Narrative and The Boston Tea Party Narrative following the Acts of Parliament Lesson to show the growing tensions between England and the colonies.
In late 1767, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, which taxed the colonists on purchases of British lead, glass, paint, paper, and tea. The British also headquartered customs officials in Boston to collect the new round of taxes and enforce trade regulations more stringently. The colonists could buy only British goods, and now those goods were hit with tariffs that meant there was no limit to Parliament’s taxing power, because the colonists were forbidden to manufacture many of their own goods.
Colonial reaction was swift. John Dickinson wrote in Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania that if Parliament succeeded in “taking money out of our pockets without our consent . . . our boasted liberty is but . . . a sound and nothing else.” Massachusetts sent other colonies a circular letter drafted by Samuel Adams denouncing the taxes. In Williamsburg, George Mason and George Washington followed the example of other colonies by creating an agreement not to import any British goods. Throughout the colonies, women held spinning bees, gatherings in their homes where they made homespun clothing as a symbol of republican simplicity to replace imported luxuries.
Bostonians protested the taxes in the streets, assembled at town meetings, and threatened customs officials, leading Royal Governor Francis Bernard to dissolve the assembly. The British also dispatched four thousand redcoats as a show of force to pacify the city. Many colonists considered the peacetime presence of this standing army, which their legislatures did not invite, a grave threat to their liberties and a gross violation of the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Its presence strained an already tense atmosphere. John Adams, cousin of Samuel Adams, wrote later that the troops’ “very appearance in Boston was a strong proof to me, that the determination in Great Britain to subjugate us was too deep and inveterate ever to be altered by us.” Fights erupted in taverns and streets as mobs of townspeople wielded insults, clubs, swords, and shovels against redcoats armed with bayonets.
On the morning of February 22, 1770, a crowd of hundreds threatened a merchant, Theophilus Lillie, who had violated the boycott of British goods. After Lillie’s neighbor, Ebenezer Richardson, rushed to his aid, the throng chased Richardson, who retreated inside his own house. The crowd lobbed taunts and rotten food. As his windows shattered, Richardson fired into the crowd, killing an eleven-year-old boy. The mob seized Richardson, beat him senseless, and nearly hanged him. Samuel Adams used the incident to portray the dead boy as a martyr to British tyranny and organized a funeral procession attended by thousands.
A few days later, near the customs house, a group of hostile boys insulted a young sentry who responded by smashing the butt of his musket into a boy’s head. The church bells tolled, bringing hundreds of citizens into the streets to pelt the sentry with snowballs, rocks, and ice. Captain Thomas Preston marched a few men out to relieve the sentry, forming a line and ordering the crowd to disperse. In the skirmishes that followed, one soldier was knocked down by a club; he rose and discharged his musket. The rest of the soldiers fired a volley that struck eleven Bostonians, instantly killing three and mortally wounding two more. Preston and his men were jailed that night, and the rest of the troops relocated to a fort in Boston harbor, narrowly averting a full-scale battle.
Patriot leaders seized on the “massacre” for a public relations victory. The British government – responsible for protecting its subjects’ rights to life, liberty, and property – in the years since the French and Indian War had seemed to seize colonists’ property and curtail their liberty; now its soldiers had taken their lives. Ten thousand mourners attended the funeral procession staged by Samuel Adams. Silversmith Paul Revere contributed an engraving showing bloodthirsty soldiers firing at innocent civilians; it was mostly propaganda but served to galvanize many colonists’ feelings about British oppression.
Why would Paul Revere’s engraving of the Boston Massacre rouse colonists toward the Patriot cause?
John Adams, then a practicing lawyer, defended the British soldiers in court, an unpopular decision that nevertheless defined his stand for justice and the rule of law. Preston was judged not to have given an order to fire and was acquitted. Most of the soldiers were also acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. Adams had proved that in the colonies, the law was supreme. He staked his public reputation and Patriot credentials on the principle that the traditional rights of Englishmen were deserved by all, even hated British soldiers who had slain five colonists. His courageous act contributed to a relative calm that lasted a few years. Meanwhile, Parliament revoked the hated Townshend Acts, except, fatefully, the tax on tea.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following methods was not used by colonists to protest the Acts passed by Parliament after the French and Indian War?
- Boycotting British imports such as textiles
- Publishing written arguments in newspapers and pamphlets
- Antagonizing British soldiers in the streets with verbal and physical attacks
- Forming militia and securing funds to declare a war for independence
2. The Boston Massacre refers to
- the period when mobs frequently wounded or killed British soldiers in the streets of Boston because the soldiers were viewed as symbols of British tyranny
- the episode in which a Boston mob attacked British soldiers who then fired into the crowd, killing five colonists
- the period when the British enforced the Stamp, Sugar, Tea, and Townshend Acts on the colonies
- the funerals held for murdered colonists that thousands of Bostonians attended to demonstrate solidarity against the British
3. Which of the following provides an example of colonists participating in an economic protest against the Townsend Acts?
- Well-known leaders like John Dickinson writing circular letters in protest
- Women creating homespun clothes instead of purchasing imported goods
- An organization called the Sons of Liberty burning effigies in public
- Protestors dressing up like American Indians and dumping tea into the harbor
4. What was the effect of the Boston Massacre engraving and funeral procession in other colonies?
- Patriots in other colonies interpreted the Boston event as a danger to all colonies.
- Newspapers barely reported the events and few colonists took notice.
- Loyalists were impressed by the successful actions taken by the British to regain control.
- Immediate actions were taken to create an intercolonial body that would protest these actions.
5. What was John Adams’ intention when he defended the British redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre?
- Adams was a fierce Loyalist who believed the crown had absolute authority in the colonies and desired to prove the redcoats had committed no crime.
- Adams wanted each redcoat to suffer the consequences of his murderous actions.
- Adams desired to prove that the colonists, regardless of their political rage, would always uphold the rule of law.
- Adams longed for a position as a lawyer in Great Britain and knew this case could fulfill his dream.
6. Which of the following was Britain’s direct response to the Boston Massacre?
- Passage of the Declaratory Act, reasserting British jurisdiction over the colonies
- Closing of Boston Harbor in retaliation for colonial economic protest
- Repeal of all Townsend Act taxes except the one on tea
- Awarding of religious freedom to French-Canadian colonists under British rule
7. Which of the following best contextualizes the Boston Massacre?
- British declared that each purchased paper item would require a stamp tax.
- The Proclamation of 1763 prohibited settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains.
- Rowdy colonists dressed as American Indians and poured East India Tea into the harbor.
- British customs officials were headquartered in Boston to enforce the newly declared Townsend Acts.
Free Response Questions
- Briefly summarize the interactions between the British government and North American colonists that led to the Boston Massacre.
- Explain how John Adams’s defense of British troops in Boston demonstrated the strength of the rule of law in colonial America.
AP Practice Questions
“And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal; That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal; That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious; That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal; That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal; That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law.”
English Bill of Rights, 1689
1. The principle expressed in the English Bill of Rights that contributed most to the tensions in Boston was
- the right of petition should not be denied
- a standing army should not be kept among them during a time of peace
- the king should not suspend or ignore laws
- special courts should not be convened
2. Taken as a whole, the English Bill of Rights most clearly demonstrates the British belief in the principle of
- due process
- regal authority
- the rule of law
- the common good
“The mob still increased and were more outrageous, striking their clubs or bludgeons one against another, and calling out, come on you rascals, you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare, G-d damn you, fire and be damned. . . . At this time I was between the soldiers and the mob, parleying with, and endeavouring all in my power to persuade them to retire peaceably, but to no purpose. . . . On this a general attack was made on the men by a great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being thrown at them, by which all our lives were in imminent danger, some persons at the same time from behind calling out, damn your bloods-why don’t you fire. Instantly three or four of the soldiers fired, one after another, and directly after three more in the same confusion and hurry. The mob then ran away, except three unhappy men who instantly expired, in which number was Mr. Gray at whose rope-walk the prior quarrels took place; one more is since dead, three others are dangerously, and four slightly wounded. The whole of this melancholy affair was transacted in almost 20 minutes. On my asking the soldiers why they fired without orders, they said they heard the word fire and supposed it came from me. This might be the case as many of the mob called out fire, fire, but I assured the men that I gave no such order; that my words were, don’t fire, stop your firing.”
Captain Prescott, Account of the Boston Massacre, 1770
3. The excerpt gives historians insight into the
- likelihood that authors who opposed British policy exploited the event for political gain by omitting certain details
- strict discipline was observed by all redcoats assigned to Boston even in tense situations
- health care provided to those injured during conflict regardless of race or social status
- nonviolent protest strategies colonists used to decry perceived British injustice
4. An important consequence of the account described in the excerpt was that the
- British soldiers were acquitted on the grounds of self-defense
- British soldiers were reprimanded in colonial courts and then executed
- Colonial vigilantes took to the streets to silence any further discussion of the massacre
- Colonial minutemen began stockpiling weapons for a retaliatory offensive
5. Which of the following best describes a reaction to the event described in the excerpt?
- Colonists along the Atlantic seaboard realized the tense circumstances caused unnecessary death and vowed to restore order in their cities.
- British parliament was so moved by the Captain’s words that it ordered his troops to escort the funeral for those unfairly slain.
- Patriots used the event to galvanize citizens by producing images and rhetoric.
- Imperial rivals, such as France and Spain, sent letters of caution to Great Britain encouraging it to reduce the force used in the colonies.
Primary Sources
“Biography of John Adams. The Boston Massacre.” American History. University of Groningen. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/john-adams/the-boston-massacre.php
Chappel, Alonzo. Boston Massacre . Printed 1878 The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Print Collection, The New York Public Library. http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47da-e8e9-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99
Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Paul Revere’s engraving of the Boston Massacre, 1770. https://gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/road-revolution/resources/paul-revere%E2%80%99s-engraving-boston-massacre-1770
Suggested Resources
Archer, Richard. As If an Enemy’s Country: The British Occupation of Boston and the Origins of Revolution . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
McCullough, David. John Adams . New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.
Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 . New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Zobel, Hiller B. The Boston Massacre . New York: Norton, 1970.
Related Content
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.
- History Classics
- Your Profile
- Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
- This Day In History
- History Podcasts
- History Vault
Boston Massacre
By: History.com Editors
Updated: June 24, 2024 | Original: October 27, 2009
The Boston Massacre was a deadly riot that occurred on March 5, 1770, on King Street in Boston. It began as a street brawl between American colonists and a lone British soldier, but quickly escalated to a chaotic, bloody slaughter. The conflict energized anti-British sentiment and paved the way for the American Revolution.
Why Did the Boston Massacre Happen?
Tensions ran high in Boston in early 1770. More than 2,000 British soldiers occupied the city of 16,000 colonists and tried to enforce Britain’s tax laws, like the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts . American colonists rebelled against the taxes they found repressive, rallying around the cry, “no taxation without representation.”
Skirmishes between colonists and soldiers—and between patriot colonists and colonists loyal to Britain (loyalists)—were increasingly common. To protest taxes, patriots often vandalized stores selling British goods and intimidated store merchants and their customers.
On February 22, a mob of patriots attacked a known loyalist’s store. Customs officer Ebenezer Richardson lived near the store and tried to break up the rock-pelting crowd by firing his gun through the window of his home. His gunfire struck and killed an 11-year-old boy named Christopher Seider and further enraged the patriots.
Several days later, a fight broke out between local workers and British soldiers. It ended without serious bloodshed but helped set the stage for the bloody incident yet to come.
How Many Died After Violence Erupted?
On the frigid, snowy evening of March 5, 1770, Private Hugh White was the only soldier guarding the King’s money stored inside the Custom House on King Street. It wasn’t long before angry colonists joined him and insulted him and threatened violence.
At some point, White fought back and struck a colonist with his bayonet. In retaliation, the colonists pelted him with snowballs, ice and stones. Bells started ringing throughout the town—usually a warning of fire—sending a mass of male colonists into the streets. As the assault on White continued, he eventually fell and called for reinforcements.
In response to White’s plea and fearing mass riots and the loss of the King’s money, Captain Thomas Preston arrived on the scene with several soldiers and took up a defensive position in front of the Custom House.
Worried that bloodshed was inevitable, some colonists reportedly pleaded with the soldiers to hold their fire as others dared them to shoot. Preston later reported a colonist told him the protestors planned to “carry off [White] from his post and probably murder him.”
The violence escalated, and the colonists struck the soldiers with clubs and sticks. Reports differ of exactly what happened next, but after someone supposedly said the word “fire,” a soldier fired his gun, although it’s unclear if the discharge was intentional.
Once the first shot rang out, other soldiers opened fire, killing five colonists–including Crispus Attucks , a local dockworker of mixed racial heritage–and wounding six. Among the other casualties of the Boston Massacre was Samuel Gray, a rope maker who was left with a hole the size of a fist in his head. Sailor James Caldwell was hit twice before dying, and Samuel Maverick and Patrick Carr were mortally wounded.
7 Events That Enraged Colonists and Led to the American Revolution
Colonists didn't just take up arms against the British out of the blue. A series of events escalated tensions that culminated in America's war for independence.
8 Things We Know About Crispus Attucks
Crispus Attucks, a multiracial man who had escaped slavery, is known as the first American colonist killed in the American Revolution.
Did a Snowball Fight Start the American Revolution?
On a cold night in Boston in 1770, angry colonists pelted a lone British sentry with snowballs. The rest is history.
Boston Massacre Fueled Anti-British Views
Within hours, Preston and his soldiers were arrested and jailed and the propaganda machine was in full force on both sides of the conflict.
Preston wrote his version of the events from his jail cell for publication, while Sons of Liberty leaders such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams incited colonists to keep fighting the British. As tensions rose, British troops retreated from Boston to Fort William.
Paul Revere encouraged anti-British attitudes by etching a now-famous engraving depicting British soldiers callously murdering American colonists. It showed the British as the instigators though the colonists had started the fight.
It also portrayed the soldiers as vicious men and the colonists as gentlemen. It was later determined that Revere had copied his engraving from one made by Boston artist Henry Pelham.
John Adams Defends the British
It took seven months to arraign Preston and the other soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre and bring them to trial. Ironically, it was American colonist, lawyer and future President of the United States John Adams who defended them.
Adams was no fan of the British but wanted Preston and his men to receive a fair trial. After all, the death penalty was at stake and the colonists didn’t want the British to have an excuse to even the score. Certain that impartial jurors were nonexistent in Boston, Adams convinced the judge to seat a jury of non-Bostonians.
During Preston’s trial, Adams argued that confusion that night was rampant. Eyewitnesses presented contradictory evidence on whether Preston had ordered his men to fire on the colonists.
But after witness Richard Palmes testified that, “…After the Gun went off I heard the word ‘fire!’ The Captain and I stood in front about half between the breech and muzzle of the Guns. I don’t know who gave the word to fire,” Adams argued that reasonable doubt existed; Preston was found not guilty.
The remaining soldiers claimed self-defense and were all found not guilty of murder. Two of them—Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy—were found guilty of manslaughter and were branded on the thumbs as first offenders per English law.
To Adams’ and the jury’s credit, the British soldiers received a fair trial despite the vitriol felt towards them and their country.
Aftermath of the Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre had a major impact on relations between Britain and the American colonists. It further incensed colonists already weary of British rule and unfair taxation and roused them to fight for independence.
Yet perhaps Preston said it best when he wrote about the conflict and said, “None of them was a hero. The victims were troublemakers who got more than they deserved. The soldiers were professionals…who shouldn’t have panicked. The whole thing shouldn’t have happened.”
Over the next five years, the colonists continued their rebellion and staged the Boston Tea Party , formed the First Continental Congress and defended their militia arsenal at Concord against the redcoats, effectively launching the American Revolution . Today, the city of Boston has a Boston Massacre site marker at the intersection of Congress Street and State Street, a few yards from where the first shots were fired.
After the Boston Massacre. John Adams Historical Society. Boston Massacre Trial. National Park Service: National Historical Park of Massachusetts. Paul Revere’s Engraving of the Boston Massacre, 1770. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. The Boston Massacre. Bostonian Society Old State House. The Boston “Massacre.” H.S.I. Historical Scene Investigation.
HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution
Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.
Sign up for Inside History
Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.
By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.
More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
COMMENTS
Boston Massacre Summary. The Boston Massacre was a deadly altercation between British soldiers and a Boston mob that occurred on March 5, 1770, where the Redcoats fired on colonists, killing five and wounding six others. It was the culmination of resentment by the Boston citizenry toward British troops that Parliament had deployed in 1768 to ...
Investigating Perspectives on the Boston Massacre: Historical Context Essay. The Townshend Acts: Fall 1767. ... Argue or explain conclusions using valid reasoning and evidence. Content Standards Grade 3, Topic 6, Topic 6. Massachusetts in the 18th century through the American Revolution.
The Boston Massacre was a confrontation between British soldiers and a crowd of colonial civilians in the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, resulting in the tragic deaths of five colonists. This incident is seen as a pivotal event in the lead-up to the American Revolutionary War as it dramatically intensified tensions between the American ...
Conclusion. The Boston Massacre was not merely an isolated violent incident on a frigid March night in 1770. It was a pivotal event, a catalyst that accelerated the American colonies' path toward revolution. This tragic event galvanized a burgeoning sense of colonial identity and shared destiny, from the echoes of the gunshots on King Street to ...
The result—the "Boston Massacre"—is perhaps the most densely described incident in early American history, yet, as historian Eric Hinderaker shows in his comprehensive new study, the descriptions are sufficiently contradictory to make the unfolding sequence of events surprisingly hard to pin down. ... In a series of newspaper essays and ...
On the evening of 5 March 1770, a confrontation between British soldiers and a boisterous crowd in front of the Custom House on King Street in Boston, Massachusetts had deadly results and the event quickly became known as the "Boston Massacre." In its aftermath, the commander of the 29th Regiment, Captain Thomas Preston, as well as the eight ...
Boston Massacre, (March 5, 1770), skirmish between British troops and a crowd in Boston, Massachusetts.Widely publicized, it contributed to the unpopularity of the British regime in much of colonial North America in the years before the American Revolution.. Prelude. In 1767, in an attempt to recoup the considerable treasure expended in the defense of its North American colonies during the ...
2. The Boston Massacre refers to. the period when mobs frequently wounded or killed British soldiers in the streets of Boston because the soldiers were viewed as symbols of British tyranny. the episode in which a Boston mob attacked British soldiers who then fired into the crowd, killing five colonists. the period when the British enforced the ...
The Boston Massacre was a deadly riot that occurred on March 5, 1770, on King Street in Boston between American colonists and British soldiers. It helped pave the way for the American Revolution.
Boston Massacre by Kecia Butlinm, a grade 5 student. Interestingly, in this essay the young author is sympathetic to the soldier and takes close to the heart the fact that the British soldiers were called offensive names by the rioting youth. Even though some "facts" put forth in the essay can be described as speculative, the paper provides ...
The conclusion should also provide some insight into the broader implications of the Boston Massacre and its significance in American history. Overall, writing an essay on the Boston Massacre is important for understanding the complexities of this pivotal event in American history.
The Boston Massacre had happened in March 5, 1770. Based on the account of Mauricio Tellez, a number of soldiers had tried to help their comrade from the violent crowd which were throwing snowballs at the sentry. The squad released fire at the crowd, wounding three persons fatally and killing two people on the spot.
This essay is about the Boston Massacre, a pivotal event in American history that took place on March 5, 1770. It explores the key figures involved, including the British soldiers led by Captain Thomas Preston and the colonists such as Crispus Attucks, who became a symbol of the burgeoning resistance against British rule.
March 19, 2020 • Updated July 26, 2024. On March 5, 1770, British soldiers shot into a crowd of rowdy colonists in front of the Custom House on King Street, killing five and wounding six. Library of Congress. Share to Google Classroom Added by 203 Educators. The Boston Massacre marked the moment when political tensions between British ...
The Boston Massacre. Introduction; Task; Procedure; Conclusion; Evaluation; Now that you have read all of the primary source documents, accounts of what happened on that day, use the questions I asked, as well as your own, to determine who was at fault on March 5, 1770, the citizens or the soldiers. After all of these steps you should have a ...
The first trial to be held as a consequence of the Boston Massacre was Rex v. Preston. The trial of Capt. Preston, who had been held in jail for seven months, began on 24 October 1770 and the verdict of not guilty was issued a week later on 30 October 1770. Deposition of Joseph Belknap regarding 5 March 1770, manuscript copy by Jeremy ...
conclusion . The Boston Massacre is one of several events that turned colonists against the Bristish rule. We will always remeber those brave men who died during that act of brutality. It was an event that helped spark a revoltion to freedom and helped make America free from all rule and keep us civilized and peaceful, giving every citizen the ...
In conclusion, the Boston Massacre was not an isolated incident, but rather the result of a complex web of political, economic, and social factors. The presence of British troops, the imposition of taxes, the struggle for political power, and the social divisions within colonial society all contributed to the growing tensions between the ...
Date. Boston Massacre (March 5, 1770) Based on the two written accounts of the Boston Massacre, I find the Loyalist account of the massacre more believable than the Patriots account. I choose to believe the loyalist account since it provides a fair account of the late events that transpired in Boston. The Patriots account on the other hand only ...
Read this English Essay and over 89,000 other research documents. Boston Massacre. Eric Wong November 15, 2006 In American history, March 5th, 1770 was a very important date because it was the...
By explaining and supporting each main point, you then will have explained and supported your overall thesis. Think of it as a math formula: Point 1 + Point 2 + Point 3 = Thesis Statement. So, you ...
If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website. If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.
The Trial of Captain PrestonIntroductionThe Trial of Captain Preston was a famous trial that took place in Boston, Massachusetts in 1770, following the Boston Massacre. Captain Thomas Preston was a British officer who was accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd of American colonists, killing five people.