essay on the boston massacre

• 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

• 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.

Everything you've ever wanted to know about the American Revolution

Boston Massacre of 1770 | Summary, Causes, Effects, Facts

About the author.

Edward A. St. Germain created AmericanRevolution.org in 1996. He was an avid historian with a keen interest in the Revolutionary War and American culture and society in the 18th century. On this website, he created and collated a huge collection of articles, images, and other media pertaining to the American Revolution. Edward was also a Vietnam veteran, and his investigative skills led to a career as a private detective in later life.

The Boston Massacre was an incident that occurred on March 5, 1770, where a group of British soldiers fired into a crowd of civilians on King Street in Boston.

In this article, we’ve explained what happened during the Boston Massacre, and what caused it. We’ve also explained what happened in the aftermath, and provided some interesting facts about the event.

On the evening of March 5, 1770, two British soldiers guarding the Boston Custom House got into an argument with a local apprentice, leading one of the soldiers to hit the boy over the head with his musket.

A colonist who witnessed the assault began arguing with the soldiers, and gradually a mob formed, surrounding the British troops on the steps of the Custom House.

The crowd grew to over 300 people over the course of a few hours, and the British called for backup. They eventually ended up with nine men, including Captain Thomas Preston, who arrived from the nearby barracks.

The crowd threw snowballs, stones, and other projectiles, and hurled insults at the soldiers. Eventually, the soldiers panicked, and let out a volley of shots.

Three Americans were killed instantly, and another two would later die in hospital. Eight further civilians were injured.

In the late 1760s, tension was building between American colonists and the British government.

The British implemented the Stamp Act in 1765 , creating a new direct tax on colonial consumers. This led to widespread protests – colonists were outraged, as they did not feel the British had the right to tax them without their consent. Ultimately, the British were forced to repeal the Stamp Act a year later.

To the colonists’ dismay, the British immediately began implementing new laws to try and increase taxation revenue, in part by cracking down on illegal smuggling.

In 1767 and 1768, the British implemented the Townshend Acts . The Acts gave customers officials more power to search colonial ships and seize goods, and made it so that people accused of smuggling would be tried by a judge, rather than a colonial jury, increasing the likelihood of a conviction.

The acts also reduced the tax on tea purchased from the British East India Company, and placed new taxes on certain goods traded by colonial merchants.

The Townshend Acts caused widespread discontent, especially in Boston. At the time, Boston was a major trading hub, meaning it was home to large numbers of colonial merchants, sailors, and traders, who relied on being able to conduct commerce (including illegal smuggling) to make a living.

Boston residents were also upset by the presence of large numbers of British troops stationed in the city, who had arrived in 1768 to deal with protests, vandalism, and violence caused by the Townshend Acts.

Officially, under the British Quartering Act of 1765 , Massachusetts was supposed to provide housing and other supplies to British troops in their colony, which further upset the colonists.

Essentially, the Boston Massacre occurred because the people of Boston were extremely upset with the British authorities in the late 1760s and early 1770s. They felt that the British were threatening their livelihoods, freedom, and the autonomy of their colony.

Aftermath and effects

Immediately after the Boston Massacre, there was a fight to control the narrative about what happened.

The Patriot side labeled the event “The Boston Massacre” and portrayed it as a senseless killing of unarmed civilians, orchestrated by the British Army.

Paul Revere produced a famous propaganda engraving of the incident, which is shown below.

This engraving is not factually accurate – the British did not open fire in an orderly fashion as the image suggests, and they were not given the order to fire as the scene depicts.

The British called the event “The Incident on King Street” and tried to quell tensions in Boston. British troops were removed from the city, and those involved in the massacre were arrested and charged with murder.

For the Patriot side, propaganda about the Boston Massacre was very effective. The event caused an increase in colonial unity against British rule, and was used to demonstrate that the British government were tyrants, as hardline Patriots argued.

The trials for the soldiers were held in a colonial court in Massachusetts. The colonial government wanted to avoid a further escalation in tension with the British, so care was taken to ensure a fair trial.

John Adams , a leading Patriot, was brought in to defend the soldiers to avoid any accusations of bias from Bostonians.

The trial was decided by jury, to improve public trust. However, none of the jurors were from Boston, as the court thought that Bostonians would be too biased against the British.

Adams argued that the soldiers feared for their lives, and were forced to open fire after the crowd attacked them. He claimed that the crowd got close enough to grab the soldier’s bayonets, although some eyewitness accounts contradicted this.

In the end, six of the eight soldiers were acquitted, including Captain Preston. Two soldiers who were found to have fired into the crowd were found guilty of manslaughter, and were sentenced to branding of the thumb, escaping the death penalty.

• The first person killed during the massacre is thought to be Crispus Attucks, a man of African and Native American descent. He is remembered as a significant figure in African-American history, as the first person killed during the American Revolution, five years before the Revolutionary War officially started.
• The term “Boston Massacre” was coined by Samuel Adams to emphasize the brutality of the event and rally public support against the British government. The word was used to evoke strong emotions, even though the killing was relatively small in scale compared to most definitions of the word “massacre”.
• Following the incident, Bostonians began the tradition of marking the anniversary of the event with speeches and commemorations, which became known as the “Boston Massacre Orations”.
• The famous engraving by Paul Revere, depicting the Boston Massacre, was actually based on a drawing by Henry Pelham, another artist. Revere’s version was altered to emphasize the violence of the British.
• It remains unclear who exactly fired the first shot during the Boston Massacre. Some reports suggest that a soldier was knocked down by a club or a stick, and his musket discharged as he fell, while others believe the firing was more deliberate.

Related posts

Diary of charles herbert, american prisoner of war in britain.

Read the diary of Charles Herbet, a Continental soldier that was captured by the British Army and sent to a prison of war camp in the UK.

1781 Entries | James Thatcher’s Military Journal

Read entries from 1781 in the journal of James Thatcher, Continental Army surgeon during the American Revolution.

1780 Entries | James Thatcher’s Military Journal

Read entries from 1780 in the journal of James Thatcher, Continental Army surgeon during the American Revolution.

Boston Massacre

The Boston Massacre , or the Incident on King Street, occurred in Boston, Massachusetts, on 5 March 1770, when nine British soldiers fired into a crowd of American colonists, ultimately killing five and wounding another six. The massacre was heavily propagandized by colonists such as Paul Revere and helped increase tensions in the early phase of the American Revolution (c. 1765-1789).

In the mid-1760s, the Parliament of Great Britain attempted to directly tax the Thirteen Colonies of British North America to raise revenue in the aftermath of the expensive Seven Years' War (1756-1763). Although Parliament believed it was well within its authority, the American colonists disagreed; as subjects of the British Crown, the colonists believed they enjoyed the same rights as all Britons, including the right of self-taxation. Since the colonists were unrepresented in Parliament, they contended that Parliament had no power to directly tax them; prominent colonists like Samuel Adams (1722-1803) of Boston argued that the Americans would be resigning themselves to the status of 'tributary slaves' if they consented to pay the Parliamentary tax (Schiff, 73).

In April 1765, news reached the colonies that Parliament had issued the Stamp Act , a direct tax on all paper documents. The outraged colonists protested the Stamp Act in a variety of ways; the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a series of resolves denouncing the act as a violation of Americans' rights, while colonial merchants began boycotting British imports. However, the most dramatic opposition to the Stamp Act took place in Boston, the capital of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. On 14 August 1765, a mob of Bostonians hanged an effigy of Andrew Oliver, the stamp distributor for Massachusetts, from an elm tree before viciously ransacking his house that evening. Fearing for his life, Oliver resigned the next day, but the mob was unsatisfied; on 26 August, it attacked the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts, stealing all movable goods from the house. These riots were celebrated throughout the colonies; the Sons of Liberty, a loosely organized group of colonial political agitators, dated its founding from the riots, while the elm tree on which Oliver's effigy was hanged became known as Boston's 'Liberty Tree'.

Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in March 1766, but the colonists barely had time to celebrate before a new set of taxes and regulations, the Townshend Acts , were passed by Parliament between 1767 and 1768. These acts imposed new duties on goods such as glass, paint, and tea, and required a Board of Commissioners to set up headquarters in Boston to oversee the collection of the taxes. When the five commissioners arrived in Boston in November 1767, they were greeted by a hostile crowd carrying effigies and wearing labels that read, "Liberty & Property & no Commissioners" (Middlekauff, 163). Nor did the commissioners receive a much warmer welcome from Boston's leading citizens; John Hancock (1737-1793), one of the city's wealthiest merchants, refused to allow his Cadet Company, a military organization he operated, to participate in a parade held to welcome the commissioners. Eager to put men like Hancock in his place, the commissioners seized Hancock's sloop, the Liberty , on 10 June 1768, on the pretext that the Liberty had transported contraband goods and that its captain had threatened a tax collector.

When British sailors arrived to take possession of the Liberty , they were greeted by a mob, who were already angry that the British had been impressing Boston sailors into the Royal Navy. A brawl broke out along the docks that soon blossomed into a city-wide riot, as thousands of colonists roamed the streets beating up tax collectors and attacking the commissioners' homes. The royal officials had to flee to Castle Island, a fortified island in Boston Harbor, to escape the violence. To restore order, General Thomas Gage, commander-in-chief of all British forces in North America, decided to move troops into Boston. Roughly 2,000 British soldiers, mostly from the 29th and 14th regiments, were loaded into transports and carried from Halifax to Boston, arriving in the town on 1 October 1768. A manifestation of Britain's imperial power, the red-coated soldiers disembarked and marched to Boston Common, their fixed bayonets gleaming in the sunlight.

A Garrison Town

The British force was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel William Dalrymple of the 14th Regiment, who sent a request to Boston officials to supply quarters and provisions for his men. The colonial authorities refused, telling Dalrymple that there were ample barracks on Castle Island, and until those barracks reached capacity, they would not pay for any British soldiers to be quartered in Boston itself. After several days of fruitless negotiations, during which time the British regiments remained stuck on the ships, Colonel Dalrymple finally had enough. He ordered all his men into Boston; if the stubborn local officials refused to provide quarters, Dalrymple would simply camp his men on Boston Common.

The majority of the 29th Regiment did indeed set up camp on the common, pitching their tents amongst the town's livestock, while the 14th Regiment got slightly luckier and moved into Faneuil Hall, drafty and cramped though it was. With the rapid approach of winter, these accommodations could only last for so long, and within weeks, the troops had moved into warehouses, inns, and other buildings rented out by private citizens. If the Bostonian officials had hoped to make a point by refusing to pay for the army's lodgings, Colonel Dalrymple had made a point of his own: until Boston cleaned up its act, the soldiers were here to stay. For the next year and a half, this was an unavoidable fact of life, as Bostonians and soldiers lived and worked side by side.

The enmity between the colonists and the soldiers was apparent from the beginning. The daily sight of armed redcoats patrolling their streets and standing guard outside public buildings was almost too much to bear for the Bostonians, who were unused to having their personal liberties challenged in such a way. The colonists particularly hated having their comings and goings challenged by British sentries, posted on major streets. Though it was standard procedure for sentries posted anywhere in Britain to challenge passers-by, the Bostonians resented this and often chose not to respond; this sometimes led to scuffles that would more than likely end with the unruly colonist being hit with a musket butt. Matters were not helped by the fact that off-duty soldiers often drank to excess, leading to several incidents where colonists were taunted or threatened by drunken soldiers.

The longer the British soldiers remained in Boston, the more they integrated themselves within the community, much to the chagrin of some of their new neighbors. Army regulations at the time allowed off-duty soldiers to find work at civilian jobs to supplement their military incomes. These soldiers were often willing to work below the going rate of pay, leading them to take jobs that Bostonian laborers felt belonged to them. Some British soldiers courted and even married Boston women , a union unacceptable to any self-respecting Son of Liberty. Bostonian Judge Richard Dana, for instance, went so far as to prevent his daughter from leaving the house, for fear that she would fraternize with a soldier.

At the same time, many Bostonians took pity on the British soldiers, especially after witnessing the harsh discipline they were subjected to. It was not uncommon for soldiers to receive hundreds of lashes for infractions that the colonists considered insignificant; one Private Daniel Rogers was sentenced to 1,000 lashes from a cat-o'-nine-tails after deserting his post to visit his family in nearby Marshfield. Rogers received 170 lashes before losing consciousness; he was spared from enduring the rest of his punishment after Bostonians petitioned Colonel Dalrymple to have mercy on him.

Private Richard Eames, another deserter, was not so lucky; after being caught on a farm in Framingham, Eames was executed by firing squad on Boston Common. Such actions horrified the colonists and convinced them of the cruelty of the British army. By April 1769, an average of one British soldier was deserting every two and a half days, a rate that alarmed military officials, who suspected that the colonists were aiding runaway soldiers. They were not wrong, as some Bostonians were actively encouraging the soldiers to desert; the rate of desertion added to the propaganda of the Sons of Liberty, who wasted no time using it to show that American life was preferable to life in the British army.

Murder of Christopher Seider

As tensions rose between Bostonians and British soldiers, colonial merchants' boycotts of the Townshend Acts remained in force. However, some merchants, like Theophilus Lillie, refused to comply with the boycotts; Lillie argued that the Bostonians had no more right to force him to comply with a boycott than Parliament had to tax the colonies. Lillie's outspokenness marked him as a target for Boston's liberty faction; on 22 February 1770, a crowd primarily comprised of young boys carried a sign to his shop that read "Importer", singling Lillie out as a violator of the boycott.

One of Lillie's neighbors, Ebenezer Richardson, attempted to shoo the crowd away and tear down the sign. Richardson was well-known as an informant for royal officials, and the crowd quickly redirected its anger toward him. The crowd followed him home and surrounded his house, with some participants shouting: "Come out you damn son of a bitch, I'll have your heart and liver out" (Middlekauff, 208). Richardson felt his life was in danger, and after some of the crowd began breaking his windows, he fired a gun into the mass of people. One boy was wounded and another, eleven-year-old Christopher Seider, was killed. Richardson was arrested and eventually convicted of murder, although he was ultimately freed when the king pardoned him.

The murder of young Seider only served to pour gas on the fire. Richardson was not a British soldier, but his actions increased the town's disdain of royal officials and of the soldiers, who were after all there to see those officials' policies carried out. The Sons of Liberty organized Seider's funeral, which was attended by thousands of Bostonians.

Brawl at Gray's Ropewalk

In the weeks following Seider's funeral, fights between soldiers and Bostonians became more frequent. The most consequential of these occurred on 2 March, when an off-duty soldier walked into John Gray's Ropewalk searching for a job. When the soldier asked a ropemaker if he had any work, the ropemaker responded that he did, inviting the soldier to "clean my shithouse" (Middlekauff, 209). The soldier took this as an insult and struck the ropemaker; their fight quickly turned into a street brawl as more soldiers and Bostonians joined the fray. The following day, several more fights broke out, often involving clubs and cudgels. With tensions in the city at an all-time high, it was only a matter of time before blood would be spilled.

The Incident

At 8 p.m. on 5 March 1770, Private Hugh White of the 29th Regiment was standing guard outside the customshouse on King Street. As he stood at his post, Private White overheard Edward Gerrish, an apprentice, insult an army officer by saying that there were "no gentlemen among the officers of the 29th" (Middlekauff, 210). White took it upon himself to discipline the lad by giving him a blow on the ear; Gerrish also appears to have been struck by an off-duty soldier standing nearby. Word that Gerrish had been accosted by a British soldier quickly spread and within 20 minutes, a crowd of angry Bostonians had surrounded Private White. The crowd hurled verbal abuse at the soldier; when White threatened to run them through with his bayonet if they did not disperse, the crowd started throwing snowballs and chunks of ice. White backed up to the door of the customshouse, where he attempted to hold back the mob singlehandedly.

Captain Thomas Preston watched with mounting unease. Preston was in command that evening and was aware that he would have to act if the crowd did not clear off on its own. It soon became apparent that Preston would have no such luck; the city's church bells began to ring, which usually meant that there was a fire. At first, scores of well-meaning civilians showed up carrying buckets of water to help put out the nonexistent flame, then others arrived, carrying clubs and even swords, their anger fueled by rumors that British soldiers meant to cut down the Liberty Tree. Preston decided to act; he ordered six privates and a corporal to follow him into the crowd, intending to rescue White. Preston and the soldiers easily pushed their way through the crowd but found themselves trapped when the Bostonians filled in behind them.

With the soldiers now trapped by the mob, Preston ordered his men to form a semicircle, their backs to the customshouse, and load their muskets. For 15 tense minutes, the standoff continued; some of the redcoats were recognized by the colonists as having participated in the brawl outside Gray's Ropewalk, leading tensions to increase. By this point, the crowd numbered 300-400, and angry Bostonians continued to throw snowballs and pieces of ice at the soldiers. Some colonists began striking the soldiers' muskets with sticks, daring them to fire. Captain Preston positioned himself in front of his men, at which point a colonist warned him to "take care of your men for if they fire, your life must be answerable." To this, Preston simply replied, "I am sensible of it" (Middlekauff, 211). An innkeeper named Richard Palmes then pulled Preston aside to inquire if the soldiers' muskets were loaded; Preston responded that they were but assured Palmes that they would not fire.

Sign up for our free weekly email newsletter!

As Preston and Palmes spoke, a piece of ice flung from the crowd hit Private Hugh Montgomery, causing him to slip and fall down. Montgomery staggered to his feet before discharging his musket into the crowd, despite having received no order to do so. After Montgomery's shot rang out, there was a short pause before the other soldiers opened fire. Eleven men were hit. Three died instantly including ropemaker Samuel Gray, mariner James Caldwell, and Crispus Attucks, a mixed-race sailor of African and Native American descent. Samuel Maverick, a 17-year-old apprentice, became the fourth victim when he died of his wounds the next morning, while Patrick Carr, an Irish immigrant, sustained a wound in the abdomen and lingered for two weeks before finally succumbing.

Although the crowd was scattered by the shooting, it had reformed within hours and began prowling the streets calling for vengeance against Captain Preston and his men. Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson knew he had to de-escalate the situation and had Preston and the other eight soldiers arrested the following day; the British soldiers were indicted for murder. Despite the rage that many Bostonians felt toward the British army, Boston officials were aware that they needed to ensure a fair trial, lest they give the army reason to retaliate. To achieve this purpose, the trials of Preston and his men were delayed until autumn, to give tempers time to cool off and to have a better chance of finding an impartial jury. The soldiers would be defended by John Adams (1735-1826), a Bostonian lawyer destined to become the second President of the United States. Although Adams was an ardent Patriot, he firmly believed that everyone was entitled to a fair trial, leading him to accept the case.

Captain Preston was tried first, in the last week of October 1770. After calling many witnesses who gave often contradictory accounts, Adams was able to give the jury reasonable doubt that Preston had given the order to fire, and the captain was acquitted. The other eight soldiers were tried together a month later; Adams told the jury that they had been accosted by a violent mob and had only fired out of self-defense. This mob, according to Adams, was comprised mainly of "molattoes, Irish teagues, and Jack Tars [i.e., sailors]" (Zabin, 216). By painting the mob as consisting mostly of those considered to be outsiders, he successfully deflected the blame from both the 'upstanding' Bostonians and the soldiers. Again, Adams achieved his goal; six soldiers were fully acquitted. Two were convicted of manslaughter and had their thumbs branded, a light punishment compared with the penalty of death that was originally on the table.

Although the soldiers were lightly punished, the people of Boston would not soon forget that five of their number had been killed in cold blood by soldiers of His Majesty's army. Tensions between colonists and redcoats only increased after the incident; a famous engraving by Paul Revere (1735-1818), based on an original by Henry Pelham, depicts the line of British soldiers calmly firing a volley into the crowd, Captain Preston standing behind them with his sword raised. While this is clearly a propagandized version of events, it became accepted by many colonists who began referring to the incident as the 'Boston Massacre'.

The massacre holds an important place in the story of the American Revolution, marking the first instance in which blood was spilled over the cause of American liberty. More colonists began to view Britain, and even the king, with distrust; after the massacre, the lines between American 'Loyalists', or supporters of Britain, and 'Patriots', or supporters of the Liberty cause, became more defined, helping to hasten the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) and, ultimately, the drafting of the American Declaration of Independence .

Subscribe to topic Related Content Books Cite This Work License

Bibliography

• Boston Massacre | History, Facts, Site, Deaths, & Trial | Britannica , accessed 9 Nov 2023.
• Brands, H. W. The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin. Anchor, 2002.
• McCullough, David. 1776. Simon & Schuster, 2006.
• Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause. Oxford University Press, 2007.
• Schiff, Stacy. The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams. Little, Brown and Company, 2022.
• Zabin, Serena R. . The Boston Massacre: A Family History. Mariner Books, 2020.

About the Author

Translations

We want people all over the world to learn about history. Help us and translate this definition into another language!

Questions & Answers

What was the boston massacre, was the boston massacre self-defense, what happened in the boston massacre trial, why was the boston massacre significant, related content.

Paul Revere

Townshend Acts

Samuel Adams

Boston Tea Party

Joseph Warren

Free for the world, supported by you.

World History Encyclopedia is a non-profit organization. For only $5 per month you can become a member and support our mission to engage people with cultural heritage and to improve history education worldwide.

Recommended Books

Cite This Work

Mark, H. W. (2023, November 13). Boston Massacre . World History Encyclopedia . Retrieved from https://www.worldhistory.org/Boston_Massacre/

Chicago Style

Mark, Harrison W.. " Boston Massacre ." World History Encyclopedia . Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.worldhistory.org/Boston_Massacre/.

Mark, Harrison W.. " Boston Massacre ." World History Encyclopedia . World History Encyclopedia, 13 Nov 2023. Web. 28 Sep 2024.

License & Copyright

Submitted by Harrison W. Mark , published on 13 November 2023. The copyright holder has published this content under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike . This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms. When republishing on the web a hyperlink back to the original content source URL must be included. Please note that content linked from this page may have different licensing terms.

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.

Perspectives on the Boston Massacre

• Reactions and Responses
• The Massacre Illustrated
• Anniversaries
• Browse Items by Format

Eventually two trials (one for Captain Preston, the other for the eight British soldiers) were held in the fall of 1770, with John Adams and Josiah Quincy serving as defense attorneys for the soldiers and Samuel Quincy and Robert Treat Paine representing the “Relatives of the Deceased.” Even after the verdicts were announced - the Captain and six soldiers were acquitted, while two soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter - the reverberations of the Boston Massacre continued, including annual commemorations held by colonists as a way of supporting or furthering the Revolutionary cause.

We invite you to read and examine materials offering a range of perspectives on this important event in our nation's history.

Funding from the Massachusetts Society of the Cincinnati supported this project.

American Revolution: The Boston Massacre

• M.A., History, University of Delaware
• M.S., Information and Library Science, Drexel University
• B.A., History and Political Science, Pennsylvania State University

In the years following the French and Indian War , the Parliament increasingly sought ways to alleviate the financial burden caused by the conflict. Assessing methods for raising funds, it was decided to levy new taxes on the American colonies with the goal of offsetting some of the cost for their defense. The first of these, the Sugar Act of 1764 , was quickly met by outrage from colonial leaders who claimed "taxation without representation," as they had no members of Parliament to represent their interests. The following year, Parliament passed the Stamp Act which called for tax stamps to be placed on all paper goods sold in the colonies. The first attempt to apply a direct tax to the North American colonies, the Stamp Act was met with widespread protests.

Across the colonies, new protest groups, known as the " Sons of Liberty " formed to fight the new tax. Uniting in the fall of 1765, colonial leaders appealed to Parliament stating that as they had no representation in Parliament, the tax was unconstitutional and against their rights as Englishmen. These efforts led to the Stamp Act's repeal in 1766, though Parliament quickly issued the Declaratory Act which stated that they retained the power to tax the colonies. Still seeking additional revenue, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in June 1767. These placed indirect taxes on various commodities such as lead, paper, paint, glass, and tea. Again citing taxation without representation, the Massachusetts legislature sent a circular letter to their counterparts in the other colonies asking them to join in resisting the new taxes.

London Responds

In London, the Colonial Secretary, Lord Hillsborough, responded by directing colonial governor to dissolve their legislatures if they responded to the circular letter. Sent in April 1768, this directive also ordered the Massachusetts legislature to rescind the letter. In Boston, customs officials began to feel increasingly threatened which led their chief, Charles Paxton, to request a military presence in the city. Arriving in May, HMS Romney (50 guns) took up a station in the harbor and immediately angered Boston's citizens when it began impressing sailors and intercepting smugglers. Romney was joined that fall by four infantry regiments which were dispatched to the city by General Thomas Gage . While two were withdrawn the following year, the 14th and 29th Regiments of Foot remained in 1770. As military forces began to occupy Boston, colonial leaders organized boycotts of the taxed goods in an effort to resist the Townshend Acts.

The Mob Forms

Tensions in Boston remained high in 1770 and worsened on February 22 when young Christopher Seider was killed by Ebenezer Richardson. A customs official, Richardson had randomly fired into a mob that had gathered outside his house hoping to make it disperse. Following a large funeral, arranged by Sons of Liberty leader Samuel Adams , Seider was interred at the Granary Burying Ground. His death, along with a burst of anti-British propaganda, badly inflamed the situation in the city and led many to seek confrontations with British soldiers. On the night of March 5, Edward Garrick, a young wigmaker's apprentice, accosted Captain Lieutenant John Goldfinch near the Custom House and claimed that the officer had not paid his debts. Having settled his account, Goldfinch ignored the taunt.

This exchange was witnessed by Private Hugh White who was standing guard at the Custom House. Leaving his post, White exchanged insults with Garrick before striking him in the head with his musket . As Garrick fell, his friend, Bartholomew Broaders, took up the argument. With tempers rising, the two men created a scene and a crowd began to gather. In an effort to quiet the situation, local book merchant Henry Knox informed White that if he fired his weapon he would be killed. Withdrawing to safety of the Custom House stairs, White awaited aid. Nearby, Captain Thomas Preston received word of White's predicament from a runner.

Blood on the Streets

Gathering a small force, Preston departed for the Custom House. Pushing through the growing crowd, Preston reached White and directed his eight men to form a semi-circle near the steps. Approaching the British captain, Knox implored him to control his men and reiterated his earlier warning that if his men fired he would be killed. Understanding the delicate nature of the situation, Preston responded that he was aware of that fact. As Preston yelled at the crowd to disperse, he and his men were pelted with rocks, ice, and snow. Seeking to provoke a confrontation, many in the crowd repeatedly yelled "Fire!" Standing before his men, Preston was approached by Richard Palmes, a local innkeeper, who inquired if the soldiers' weapons were loaded. Preston confirmed that they were but also indicated that he was unlikely to order them to fire as he was standing in front of them.

Shortly thereafter, Private Hugh Montgomery was hit with an object that caused him to fall and drop his musket. Angered, he recovered his weapon and yelled "Damn you, fire!" before shooting into the mob. After a brief pause, his compatriots began firing into the crowd though Preston had not given orders to do so. In the course of the firing, eleven were hit with three being killed instantly. These victims were James Caldwell, Samuel Gray, and Crispus Attucks . Two of the wounded, Samuel Maverick and Patrick Carr, died later. In the wake of the firing, the crowd withdrew to the neighboring streets while elements of the 29th Foot moved to Preston's aid. Arriving on the scene, Acting Governor Thomas Hutchinson worked to restore order.

Immediately beginning an investigation, Hutchison bowed to public pressure and directed that British troops be withdrawn to Castle Island. While the victims were laid to rest with great public fanfare, Preston and his men were arrested on March 27. Along with four locals, they were charged with murder. As tensions in the city remained dangerously high, Hutchinson worked to delay their trial until later in the year. Through the summer, a propaganda war was waged between the Patriots and Loyalists as each side tried to influence opinion abroad. Eager to build support for their cause, the colonial legislature endeavored to ensure that the accused received a fair trial. After several notable Loyalist attorneys refused to defend Preston and his men, the task was accepted by well-known Patriot lawyer John Adams .

To assist in the defense , Adams selected Sons of Liberty leader Josiah Quincy II, with the organization's consent, and Loyalist Robert Auchmuty. They were opposed by Massachusetts Solicitor General Samuel Quincy and Robert Treat Paine. Tried separately from his men, Preston faced the court in October. After his defense team convinced the jury that he had not ordered his men to fire, he was acquitted. The following month, his men went to court. During the trial, Adams argued that if the soldiers were threatened by the mob, they had a legal right to defend themselves. He also pointed out that if they were provoked, but not threatened, the most they could be guilty of was manslaughter. Accepting his logic, the jury convicted Montgomery and Private Matthew Kilroy of manslaughter and acquitted the rest. Invoking the benefit of clergy, the two men were publicly branded on the thumb rather than imprisoned.

Following the trials, tension in Boston remained high. Ironically, on March 5, the same day as the massacre, Lord North introduced a bill in Parliament that called for a partial repeal of the Townshend Acts. With the situation in the colonies reaching a critical point, Parliament eliminated most aspects of the Townshend Acts in April 1770, but left a tax on tea. Despite this, conflict continued to brew. It would come to head in 1774 following the Tea Act and the Boston Tea Party . In the months after the latter, Parliament passed a series of punitive laws, dubbed the Intolerable Acts , which set the colonies and Britain firmly on the path to war. The American Revolution would begin on April 19, 1775, when to two sides first clashed at Lexington and Concord .

• Massachusetts Historical Society: The Boston Massacre
• Boston Massacre Trials
• iBoston: Boston Massacre
• The Root Causes of the American Revolution
• American Revolution: Boston Tea Party
• American Revolution: The Intolerable Acts
• Questions Left by The Boston Massacre
• All About the Sons of Liberty
• American Revolution: Siege of Boston
• The Battles of Lexington and Concord
• American Revolution: The Townshend Acts
• American Revolution Battles
• John Hancock: Founding Father With a Famous Signature
• The Currency Act of 1764
• Quartering Act, British Laws Opposed by American Colonists
• Biography of Paul Revere: Patriot Famous for His Midnight Ride
• American Revolution: The Stamp Act of 1765
• American Revolution: Early Campaigns
• An Introduction to the American Revolutionary War

Account of the Boston Massacre

An Account of a late Military Massacre at Boston, or the Consequences of Quartering Troops in a populous Town.

BOSTON March 12, 1770.

THE Town of Boston affords a recent and melancholy Demonstration of the destructive consequences of quartering troops among citizens in time of Peace, under a pretence of supporting the laws and aiding civil authority; every considerate and unprejudic'd Person among us was deeply imprest with the apprehension of these consequences when it was known that a number of regiments were ordered to this town under such a pretext, but in reality to inforce oppressive measures; to awe and controul the legslative as well as executive power of the province, and to quell a spirit of liberty, which however it may have been basely and even ridicul'd by some, would do honour to any age or country. A few persons among us had determin'd to use all their influence to procure so destructive a measure, with a view to their securely enjoying the profits of an American revenue, and unhappily both for Britain and this country, they found means to effect it.

It is to Governor Bernard, the commissioners, their confidents and coadjutors, that we are indebted as the procuring cause of a military power in this capital.—The Boston Journal of Occurrences printed in Mr. Holt's York Journal, from time to time, afforded many striking instances of the distresses brought upon the inhabitants by this measure; and since those Journals have been discontinued, our troubles from that quarter have been growing upon us: We have known a party of soldiers in the face of day fire off a loaded musket upon the inhabitants, others have been prick'd with bayonets, and even our magistrate assaulted and put in danger of their lives, where offenders brought before them have been rescued and why those and other bold and base criminals have as yet escaped the punishment due to their crimes, may be soon matter of enquiry by the representative body of this people.—It is natural to suppose that when the inhabitants saw those laws which had been enacted for their security, and which they were ambitious of holding up to the soldiery, eluded, they should most commonly resent for themselves—and accordingly if so has happened; many have been the squabbles between them and the soldiery; but it seems their being often worsted by our youth in those ren counters, has only serv'd to irritate the former.—What passed at Mr. Gray's rope walk, has already been given the public, and may be said to have led the way to the late catastrophe.—That the rope walk lads when attacked by superior numbers should defend themselves with so much spirit and success in the club-way, was too mortifying, and perhaps it may hereafter appear, that even some of their officers, were unnappily affected with this circumstance: Divers stories were propagated among the soldiery, that serv'd to agitate their spirits particularly on the Sabbath, that one Chambers, a serjeant, represented as a sober man, had been missing the preceding day, and must therefore have been murdered by the townsmen; an officer of distinction so far credited this report, that he enter'd Mr. Gray's rope-walk that Sabbath; and when enquired of by that gentleman as soon as he could meet him, the occasion of his so doing, the officer reply'd, that it was to look if the serjeant said to be murdered had not been hid there; this sober serjeant was found on the Monday unhurt in a house of pleasure.—The evidences already collected shew, that many threatnings had been thrown out by the soldiery, but we do not pretend to say there was any preconcerted plan; when the evidences are published, the world will judge.—We may however venture to declare, that it appears too probable from their conduct, that some of the soldiery aimed to draw and provoke the townsmen into squabbles, and that they then intended to make use of other weapons than canes, clubs or bludgeons,

Our readers will doubtless expect a circumstantial account of the tragical affair on Monday night last; but we hope they will excuse our being so particular as we should have been, had we not seen that the town was intending an inquiry and full representation thereof.

On the evening of Monday, being the 5th current, several soldiers of the 29th regiment were seen parading the streets with their drawn cutlasses and , abusing and wounding numbers of the .

A few minutes after nine o'clock, four youths, named Edward Archbald, William Merchant, Francis Archbald, and John Leech, jun. came down Cornhill together, and seperated at Doctor Loring's corner, the two former were passing the narrow alley leading to Murray's barrack, in which was a soldier brandishing a sword of an uncommon size against the walls, but of which he struck fire plentifully. A person of mean countenance armed with a large club bore him company. Edward Archbald admonished Mr. Merchant to take care of the sword, on which the soldier turned round and struck Archbald on the arm, then push'd at Merchant and pierced thro' his clothes inside the arm close to the arm pit and grazed the skin. Merchant then struck the soldier with a short stick he had, and the other person ran to the barrack and brought with him two soldiers, one armed with a pair of tongs the other with a shovel; he with the tongs pursued Archbald back through the alley, collar'd and laid him over the head with the tongs. The noise brought people together, and John Hix a young lad, coming up, knock'd the soldier down, but let him get up again; and more lads gathering, drove them back to the barrack, where the boys stood sometime as it were to keep them in. In less than a minute 10 or 12 of them came out with drawn cutlasses, clubs and bayonets, and set upon the med boys and young folks, who stood them a little while but finding the inequality of their equipment dispersed.—On hearing the noise, one Samuel Atwood, came up to see what was the matter, and entering the alley from dock square, heard the latter part of the combat, and when the boys dispersed he met the 10 or 12 soldiers aforesaid rushing down the alley towards the square, and asked them if they intended to murder the people? They answered Yes, by G—d, root and branch! With that one of them struck Mr. Atwood with a club, which was repeated by another and being he turned to go off, received a wound on the left shoulder which reached the bone and gave him much pain. Retreating a few steps Mr Atwood met two offcers and said, Gentlemen what is the matter? They answered, you'll see by and by. Immediately after those heroes appeared in the square, asking where were the boogers where were the cowards? But notwithstanding their fierceness to naked men, one of them advanced towards a youth who had a split of a raw stave in his hand, and said damn them here is one of them; but the young man seeing a person near him with a drawn sword and a good cane ready to support him, held up his stave in defiance, and they quietly passed by him, up the little alley by Mr. Silsby's to King Street, where they attacked single and unarmed persons till they raised much clamour, and then turned down Cornhill street insulting all they met in like manner, and pursuing some to their very doors.

Thirty or forty persons, mostly lads, being by this means gathered in King-street, Capt. Preston with a party of men with charged bayonets, came from the main guard to the Commissioner's house the soldiers pushing their bayonets, crying, Make way! They took place by the custom-house, and continuing to push, to drive the people off, pricked some in several places; on which they were clamorous, and, it is said threw snow balls. On this, the Captain commanded them to fire, and more snow balls coming he again said, Damn you, Fire, be the consequence what it will! One soldier then fired, and a townsman with a dudgel struck him over the hands with such force that he dropt his firelock; and rushing forward aimed a blow at the Captain's head, which graz'd? hat and fell pretty heavy upon his arm: However, the soldiers continued the fire, successively, till or 8, or as some say 11 guns were discharged.

By this fatal manœuvre, three men were laid dead on the spot, and two more struggling for life; but what shewed a degree of cruelty unknown to British troops, at least since the house of Hanover has directed their operations, was an attempt to fire upon, or push with their bayonets the persons who undertook to remove the slain and wounded!

Mr. Benjamin Leigh, now undertaker in Delph Manufactory, came up, and after some conversation with Capt. Preston, relative to his conduct in this affair, advised him to draw off his men, with which he complied.

The dead are Mr. Samuel Gray, killed on the spot, the ball entering his head and beating off a large portion of his skull.

A mulatto man, named Crispus Attucks, who was born in Farmingham, but lately belonged to New Providence and was here in order to go for North Carolina, also killed instantly; two balls entering his breast, one of them in special goring the right lobe of the lungs, and a great part of the liver most horribly.

Mr. James Caldwell, mate of Capt. Morton's vessel, in like manner killed by two balls entering his back.

Mr. Samuel Maverick, a promising youth of 17 years of age, son of the widow Maverick, and an apprentice of Mr. Greenwood, Ivory Turner, mortally wounded, a ball went through his belly, and was cut out at his back: He died the next morning.

A lad named Christoper Monk, about 17 years of age, an apprentice to Mr. Walker, Shipwright; wounded, a ball entered his back about 4 inches above his left kidney, near the spine, and was cut out of the breast on the same side; apprehended he will die.

A lad named John Clark, about 17 years of age whose parents live at Medford, and an apprentice to Capt. Samuel Howard of this town; wounded a ball entered just above his groin and came out at his hip, on the opposite side, apprehended he will die.

Mr. Edward Payne, of this town, merchant, standing at his entry door, received a ball in his arm, which shattered some of the bones.

Mr. John Green, Taylor, coming up Leverett's Lane, received a ball just under his hip, and lodged it in the under part of his thigh, which was extracted

Mr. Robert Patterson, a seafaring man, who was the person that had his trowsers shot through in Richardson's affair, wounded; a ball went through his right arm, and he suffered great loss of blood.

Mr. Patrick Carr, about 30 years of age, who work'd with Mr. Field, Leather-Breeches maker in Queen-street, wounded, a ball enter'd near his hip, and went out at his side.

A lad named David Parker, an apprentice to Mr. Eddy the Wheelwright, wounded, a ball enter'd in his thigh.

The people were immediately alarmed with the report of this horrid massacre, the bells were set a ringing, and great numbers soon assembled at the place where this tragical scene had been acted; their feelings may be better conceived than expressed; and while some were taking care of the dead and wounded, the rest were in consultation what to do in these dreadful circumstances.—But so little intimidated were they, notwithstanding their being within a few yards of the main-guard, and seeing the 29th regiment under arms, and drawn up in King-street; that they kept their station, and appear'd as an officer of rank express'd it, ready to run upon the very muzzles of their muskets.—The Lieut. Governor soon came into the Town House, and there met some of his Majesty's Council, and a number of civil Magistrates; a considerable body of people immediately enter'd the Council chamber and expressed themselves to his Honour with a freedom and warmth becoming the occasion. He used his utmost endeavoure to pacify them, requesting that they would let the matter subside for the night, and promised to do all in his power that justice should be done, and the law have its course; men of influence and weight with the people were not wanting on their part to procure their compliance with his Honour's request, by representing the horrible consequences of a promiscuous and rash engagement in the night, and assuring them that such measures should be entered upon in the morning, as would be agreeable to their dignity, and more likely way of obtaining the best satisfaction for the blood of their fellow-townsmen.—The inhabitants attended to these suggestions, and the regiment under arms being ordered to the barracks which was insisted upon by the people, they then separated and return'd to their dwellings, by one o'clock. At 3 o'clock Capt. Preston was committed, as were the soldiers who fir'd, a few hour after him.

Tuesday morning presented a most shocking scene, the blood of our fellow-citizens running like water thro' King-street, and the Merchant's Exchange, the principal spot of the military parade 

for about 18 months past. Our blood might also be track'd up to the head of Long-Lane, and thro' divers other streets and passages.

At eleven o'clock, the inhabitants met at Faneuil-Hall, and after some animated speeches, becoming the occasion, they chose a Committee of 15 respectable Gentlemen, to wait upon the Lieut. Governor in Council, to request of him to issue his orders for the immediate removal of the troops.

The Message was in these Words:

THAT it is the unanimous opinion of this meeting that the inhabitants and soldiery can no longer live together in safety; that nothing can rationally be expected to restore the peace of the town and prevent further blood and carnage, but the immediate removal of the troops; and that we therefore most servently pray his Honour, that his power and influence may be exerted for their instant removal.

His Honour's Reply, which was laid before the Town then adjourn'd to the Old South Meeting House, was as follows;

“I AM extremely sorry for the unhappy differences between the inhabitants and troops and especially for the action of the last evening, and I have exerted myself upon that occasion, that a due inquiry may be made, and that the law may have its course. I have in council consulted with the commanding officers of the two regiments who are in the town. They have their orders from the General at New-York. It is not in my power to countermand those orders. The council have desired that the two regiments may be removed to the Castle. From the particular concern which the 20th regiment has had in your differences, Col. Dalrymple, who is the commanding officer of the troops, has signified that regiment shall, with out delay, be placed in the barracks at the Castle until he can send to the General and receive his further orders concerning both the regiments; and that the main guard shall be removed, and the 14th regiment so disposed and laid under such restraint that all occasion of future disturbances may be prevented.”

The foregoing reply having been read and fully considered—the question was put, Whether there report be satisfactory? Passed in the negative, only 1 dissentient out of upwards of 4000 voters.

It was then moved and voted John Hancock, Esq; Mr. Samuel Adams, Mr. William Molineux, William Phillips, Esq; Dr. Joseph Warren. Joshua Henshaw, Esq; and Samuel Pemberton, Esq; be a Committee to wait on his Honour the Lieut. Governor, and inform him, that it is the unanimous Opinion of this Meeting, that the Reply made to a Vote of the Inhabitants presented his Honour in the Morning is by no means satisfactory; and that nothing less will satisfy, than a total and immediate removal off all the Troops.

The Committee having waited on the Lieut Governor agreeable to the foregoing Vote; laid before the Inhabitants the following Vote of Council received from his Honor.

His Honor the Lieut. Governor laid before the Board a Vote of the Town of Boston, passed this afternoon, and then addressed the Board as follows,

Gentlemen of the Council,

“I lay before you a Vote of the Town of Boston which I have just now received from them, and I now ask your advise what you judge necessary to be done upon it.”

The Council thereupon expressed themselves to be unanimously of opinion, “that it was absolutely necessary for his Majesty's service, the good order of the Town, and the Peace of the Province, that the Troops should be immediately removed out of the Town of Boston, and thereupon advised his Honor to communicate this Advise of the Council to Col. Dalrymple, and to pray that he would order the Troops down to Castle William.” The Committee also informed the Town, that Col. Dalrymple, after having seen the Vote of Council, said to the Committee, “That he now gave his word of Honor that he would begin his Preparations in the Morning, and that there should be no unnecessary delay until the whole of the two Regiments were removed to the Castle.

Upon the above Report being read, the Inhabitants could not avoid expressing the high satisfaction it afforded them.

After Measures were taken for the Security of the Town, in the Night by a strong Military Watch, the Meeting was Dissolved.

The 29th regiment have already left us, and the 14th regiment are following them, so that we expect the town will soon be clear of all the troops.

The wisdom and true policy of his majesty's council and Col. Dalrymple, the commander, appear in this measure. Two regiments in this populous city; and the inhabitants justly incensed: Those of the neighbouring towns actually under arms upon the first report of the massacre, and the signal only wanting to bring in a few hours to the gates of this city many thousands of our brave brethren in the country, deeply affected with our distresses, and to whom we are greatly obliged on this occasion—No one knows where this would have ended and what important consequences even to the whole British empire might have followed, which our moderation and loyalty upon so trying an occasion and our faith in the commander's assurances have happily prevented.

Last Thursday, agreeable to a general request of the Inhabitants, and by the consent of parents and friends, were carried to their grave in succession, the bodies of Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, James Caldwell and Chrispus Attucks, the unhappy victims who fell in the bloody massacre of the Monday evening preceeding!

On this occasion most of the shops in town were shut, all the bel?s were ordered to toll a solemn peal, as were al? those in the neighbouring towns of Charlestown Roxbury, &c. The procession began to move between the hours of 4 and 5 in the afternoon; two if the unfortunate sufferers, viz. Mess. James Goodwell and Crispus Attucks, who were strangers, borne from Faneuil-Hall, attended by a numerous twain of persons of all ranks; and the other two viz. Mr. Samuel Gray, from the House of Mr. Benjamin Gray, (his Brother) on the north side exchange, and Mr. Maverick, from the house of his distressed mother Mrs. Mary Maverick, in Union street, each followed by their respective relations and friends: The several hearses forming a junction in King street, the theatre of that inhuman tragedy! proceeded from thence thro' the main-street, lengthened by an immense concourse of people, so numerous as to be obliged a follow in ranks of fix, and brought up by a long train of carriages belonging to the principal entry of the town. The bodies were deposited in one vault in the middle burying-ground. The aggravated circumstances of their death, the distress and sorrow visible in every countenance, together with the peculiar solemnity with which the whole funeral was conducted, surpass description.

A military watch has been kept every night at the town-house and prison, in which many of the most respectable gentlemen of the town have appeared as the common soldiers, and night after night have given their attendance.

A Servant boy of one Manwaring the tide-waiter from Quebec, is now in goal, having deposed that himself, by the order and encouragement of his superiors, had discharged a musket several times from one of the windows of the house in King-street, hired by the commissioners and custom house officers to do their business in; more than one other person declared upon oath, that they apprehended several discharges came from that quarter.—It is not improbable that we may soon be able to account for the assassination of Mr. Otis some time past; the message by Wilmot, who came from the same house to the infamous Richardson before his firing the gun which kill'd young Snider, and to open up such a scene of villainy acted by a dirty banditti, at must astonish the public.

It is supposed that there must have been a greater number of people from town and country at the funeral of those who were massacred by the soldiers, than were ever together on this continent on any occasion.

A more dreadful tragedy has been acted by the soldiery in King-street, Boston, New-England than was some time since exhibitted in St. George's field, London, in old England, which may serve instead of Beacons for both countries.

Had those we thy Patriots, not only represented by Bernard and the commissioners as a faction, but as aiming at meaning a separation between Britain and the colonies had any thing else in contemplation than the preservation of our rights, and bringing things back to their old foundation What an opening has been given them?

Among other matters in the warrant for the annual town-meeting this day, is the following clause, viz. “Whether the town will take any measures that a public monument may be erected on the spot where the late tragical scene was acted, as a me mento to posterity, of that horrid massacre, and the destructive consequences of military troops being quartered in a well regulated city?”

Boston Goal, Monday 12 th March, 1770.

Messieurs Edes and Gill,

PERMIT me thro' the channel of your paper, to return my thanks in the most publick manner to the Inhabitants in general of this town—who throwing aside all party and prejudice, have with the utmost humanity and freedom slept forth advocates for truth, in defence of my injured innocence, in the late unhappy affair that happened on Monday night last: And to assure them, that I shall ever have the highest sense of the justice have done me, which will be ever gratefully remembered by their much obliged, and obedient humble servant, THOMAS PRESTON.

Dec. 30. Letters from Dantzick inform us, that orders have been given by her imperial majesty to fit out another fleet of twelve ships of the fine with the utmost expedition, the command of which it is said, will be given to Mr. Kofmin, a Russian officer, who was educated in the British navy under the brave admiral Warren.

A bet of 100 guineas was yesterday evening made at a coffee-house not far from Charring cross, that the author of Junius would be in custody before the first of next February.

It was yesterday reported, that the author of the last Junius is known, and that proper measures were taking in order to come at his person.

A great man absolutely declared this week that Junius's last letter had operated totally different from its intentions; for that “thereby the ministry were now become immoveable.”

It is reported that a great Personage has within these few days, had the real name of Junius, with the intelligence properly authenticated, sent by an anonymous hand, through the channel of the common post.

A certain very popular nobleman, and a great officer in the law department, have of late had several conferences on the subject of the Middlefex petition.

The national debt of this and our sister kingdom, Ireland, seems to terrify several among the moneyed men, who, in our present distractions, with so heavy a burthen, do not think their property over-safe in the public funds, especially in case of another war as expensive as the last.

It is said, that should the advice of Lord Catham be taken on an important subject, Mr. Wilkes will certainly take his seat without a dissolution of parliament.

A correspondent remarks that Junius, in all his letters never once shewed he wanted a head, till his last long laboured epistle, in which he struck at the supreme head both in church and state.

We hear that a petition from Mr. Wilks will be presented to the House of Commons, at the beginning of the ensuing sessions, desiring the house to examine the several parts of his former petition which have not as yet been enquired into: such as the evasion of the Habeas Corpus; the close commitment of their member for three days, with out the permission of seeing any person but his jailors; although charged only with a misdemeanour the breach of privilege, by serving a member of parliament with a subpœna; the counter notices signed Summoning Officer, sent to several of his jury only the day before the trial; and the papers seized under the general warrant, produced as evidence on his trial.

We are assured, from undoubted veracity, that the present state of the nation will undergo a very serious consideration at an ensuing meeting.

It is said that a noble Lord, who lately matched a certain cast-off Dutchess is, in the jockey-phrase already sick of the lay, and would willingly pay forfeit.

From the 15th of November to the 22d instant inclusive, the East India company have entered for their outward bound trade, of the woollen manufacture and other home commodities, to the amount of 213,000l. and as yet not near half of the? are freighted.

Paul Revere's Letters to his Wife and Son

"story of the battle of concord and lexington and revear’s ride twenty years ago", rachel revere's captured letter, you may also like.

Account of the Boston Massacre

• March 05, 1770
• March 06, 1770
• March 08, 1770

No related resources

Introduction

The Townshend Acts resulted in colonists’ nonimportation agreements. The enforcement of these pacts sometimes resulted in violence. On February 22, 1770, when a group of Boston teenagers placed a sign in front of the shop of merchant Theophilus Lillie noting his status as an “IMPORTER,” an angry crowd gathered. Ebenezer Richardson (1718–?), a customs employee who tried but failed to remove the sign, succeeded in attracting the scorn of the mob, which followed him home. As his house shook and his windows shattered, Richardson panicked and fired his shotgun into the crowd, killing 10-year-old Christopher Seider (1759–1770).

Seider’s death sparked outrage in Boston. The presence of British troops, who had arrived in 1768, did nothing to defuse tensions. By 1770, there was one Redcoat for every four of the city’s 16,000 inhabitants. Off-duty soldiers and civilians sometimes brawled in the streets, as on the nights of Friday, March 2, and Saturday, March 3. On Monday, March 5, Lord North (1732–1792), the new prime minister (1770–1782), introduced in Parliament a bill repealing most of the taxes imposed by the Townshend Acts. Yet this act, meant to improve relations between Britain and its colonies, would be overshadowed by the Boston Massacre, which occurred that same evening.

Taken together, accounts of the night’s events make clear the basic details of the “massacre.” Angry Bostonians surrounded a Redcoat sentry who stood at the door of the customhouse. They hurled snowballs, ice, and insults. He returned the crowd’s strong words. The crowd grew—and grew angrier. Church bells rang, summoning additional people, many of whom carried buckets because they thought the bells signaled a nearby fire. Captain Thomas Preston (c. 1722–c. 1798), who had been watching from a distance, marched with seven soldiers, bayonets fixed to their muskets, to rescue the sentry. Soon all nine of these Redcoats had their backs to the wall of the customhouse. In this chaos, Preston later testified, he ordered his men not to fire their half-cocked muskets. Meanwhile, people in the noisy crowd yelled “Fire!” One soldier, hit by a chunk of ice, discharged his musket. The other soldiers then fired as well. The soldiers wounded 11 members of the mob. Three died within minutes. Another died hours later. A fifth died after several days.

In October and November, in two separate trials, John Adams (1735–1826) served as defense attorney for Preston and his men. Presented with the testimony of multiple witnesses, a jury found Preston not guilty. Another jury found all but two of his men not guilty; the others were convicted of manslaughter, branded with an “M” between the thumb and index finger, and released. The British fared more poorly in the court of public opinion. A depiction popularized by the engraving of Paul Revere (1734–1818) showed Preston ordering his men to fire and the victims with their backs against the wall (see illustration). Meanwhile, merchant John Tudor (1709–1795), a deacon at the Second Church of Boston, recorded in his diary what he had seen and heard about the incident and its aftermath. As news of the massacre spread, more and more Americans wondered if the British government, entrusted to protect their lives, liberty, and property, in fact posed a grievous threat to those essential rights.

Source: William Tudor, ed., Deacon Tudor’s Diary …. (Boston: Wallace Spooner, 1896), 30–34. https://archive.org/details/deacontudorsdiar00tudo/page/n79

On Monday evening, the 5th current, a few minutes after 9 o’clock, a most horrid murder was committed in King Street before the customhouse door by 8 or 9 soldiers under the command of Captain Thomas Preston, drawn off from the main guard on the south side of the townhouse.

March 5 [Monday]

This unhappy affair began by some boys and young fellows throwing snowballs at the sentry placed at the customhouse door. On which 8 or 9 soldiers came to his assistance. Soon after a number of people collected, when the captain commanded the soldiers to fire, which they did and 3 men were killed on the spot and several mortally wounded, one of which died [ the ] next morning. The captain soon drew off his soldiers up to the main guard, or the consequences might have been terrible, for on the guns firing the people were alarmed and set the bells ringing as if for fire, which drew multitudes to the place of action. Lieutenant Governor [ Thomas ] Hutchinson, who was commander in chief, was sent for and came to the council chamber, where some of the magistrates attended. The [ lieutenant ] governor desired the multitude about 10 o’clock to separate and go home peaceable and he would do all in his power that justice should be done, etc…. The people insisted that the soldiers should be ordered to their barracks 1st before they would separate, which being done the people separated about 1 o’clock….

Captain Preston was taken up by a warrant… and we sent him to jail soon after 3, having evidence sufficient to commit him, on his ordering the soldiers to fire….

[March 6, Tuesday]

The next forenoon the 8 soldiers that fired on the inhabitants were also sent to jail. Tuesday A.M. the inhabitants met at Faneuil Hall and after some pertinent speeches, chose a committee of 15 gentlemen to wait on the lieutenant governor in council to request the immediate removal of the troops. The message was in these words. That it is the unanimous opinion of this meeting that the inhabitants and soldiery can no longer live together in safety; that nothing can rationally be expected to restore the peace of the town and prevent blood and carnage but the removal of the troops; and that we most fervently pray his honor that his power and influence may be exerted for their instant removal. His honor’s reply was, gentlemen I am extremely sorry for the unhappy difference and especially of the last evening, and signifying that it was not in his power to remove the troops, etc., etc.

The above reply was not satisfactory to the inhabitants, as but one regiment should be removed to the Castle Barracks. [1] In the afternoon the town adjourned to Dr. Sewill’s Meetinghouse, [2] for Faneuil Hall was not large enough to hold the people, there being at least 3,000, some supposed near 4,000, when they chose a committee to wait on the lieutenant governor to let him and the council know that nothing less will satisfy the people than a total and immediate removal of the troops out of the town.

His honor laid before the council the vote of the town. The council thereon expressed themselves to be unanimously of [ the ] opinion that it was absolutely necessary for his majesty’s service, the good order of the town, etc., that the troops should be immediately removed out of the town.

His honor communicated this advice of the council to Colonel Dalrymple [3] and desired he would order the troops down to Castle William. After the colonel had seen the vote of the council he gave his word and honor to the town’s committee that both the regiments should be removed without delay. The committee returned to the town meeting and Mr. Hancock, [4] chairman of the committee, read their report as above, which was received with a shout and clap of hands, which made the meetinghouse ring….

March 8 (Thursday)

Agreeable to a general request of the inhabitants, were followed to the grave (for they were all buried in one) in succession the 4 bodies of Messrs. Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, James Caldwell, and Crispus Attucks, the unhappy victims who fell in the bloody massacre. [5] On this sorrowful occasion most of the shops and stores in town were shut, all the bells were ordered to toll a solemn peal in Boston, Charleston, Cambridge, and Roxbury. The several hearses forming a junction in King Street, the theater of that inhuman tragedy, proceeded from thence through the main street, lengthened by an immense concourse of people so numerous as to be obliged to follow in ranks of 4 and 6 abreast and brought up by a long train of carriages. The sorrow visible in the countenances, together with the peculiar solemnity, surpass description; it was supposed that the spectators and those that followed the corps amounted to 15,000, some supposed 20,000. Note [ that ] Captain Preston was tried for his life on the affair of the above [ on ] October 24, 1770. The trial lasted 5 days, but the jury brought him in not guilty.

• 1. The barracks were located at Castle William (renamed Fort Independence in 1797) on Castle Island in Boston Harbor.
• 2. The Old South Church.
• 3. Colonel William Dalrymple (1736–1807), commander of the British troops in Boston.
• 4. John Hancock (1737–1793).
• 5. The fifth fatality, Patrick Carr, died on March 14 and was buried alongside the other victims on March 17

The Virginia Resolves of 1769

Report of a committee of the town of boston, see our list of programs.

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Coming soon! World War I & the 1920s!

The Boston Massacre: a Crucible of Revolutionary Sentiment

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. It also highlights the roles of John Adams, who defended the soldiers in court, and Paul Revere, whose engraving fueled anti-British sentiment. The essay underscores the massacre’s significance as a turning point that galvanized support for the American Revolution, illustrating how the actions and sacrifices of individuals contributed to the larger struggle for independence.

How it works

On a chilly March evening in 1770, the streets of Boston became the stage for a drama that would ignite the flames of revolution. The Boston Massacre was not merely a violent clash; it was a culmination of festering tensions and a critical turning point in the struggle between the American colonists and British rule. The participants in this bloody encounter were not just nameless figures in history; they were real people whose actions and experiences would reverberate through the colonies and beyond.

The British soldiers stationed in Boston were at the center of this storm. These troops had been sent to enforce unpopular laws and maintain order, a mission that placed them in direct conflict with the colonists. Captain Thomas Preston led the detachment involved in the massacre. Despite his attempts to quell the unrest, the situation escalated beyond control. The young soldiers under his command, many of whom were far from home and ill-prepared for such hostility, faced a populace that viewed them as symbols of oppression.

The colonists, on the other hand, were a diverse group of individuals united by their growing resentment towards British rule. Among the crowd that gathered on King Street were laborers, sailors, and apprentices, all feeling the economic and political pressures imposed by the Crown. Crispus Attucks, a man of African and Native American descent, emerged as a central figure that night. His death marked a significant moment, symbolizing the broad coalition of people from various backgrounds who were beginning to stand against British tyranny. Attucks’ life and death underscored the intersectional nature of the colonial struggle, where individuals from different walks of life united for a common cause.

The aftermath of the massacre brought John Adams into the spotlight. Known for his integrity and commitment to justice, Adams took on the controversial role of defending the British soldiers. His defense was not a betrayal of the Patriot cause but a testament to his belief in fairness and the rule of law. Adams’ legal acumen helped acquit six of the eight soldiers, with the remaining two convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. This trial highlighted the complexities of the colonial legal system and the ethical challenges faced by those who sought justice amidst political turmoil.

Propaganda played a crucial role in shaping the public perception of the Boston Massacre. Paul Revere, a silversmith and dedicated Patriot, created an engraving that dramatically depicted the event. This image, although not entirely accurate, showed British soldiers firing into a defenseless crowd, fueling anti-British sentiment and galvanizing support for the revolutionary cause. Revere’s engraving became an early example of how media and imagery can influence public opinion and mobilize a populace.

Samuel Adams, a cousin of John Adams and a fervent revolutionary, used the massacre to further the cause of independence. He organized public commemorations and leveraged the event to rally the colonists against British rule. His efforts transformed the tragedy into a powerful symbol of the struggle for liberty, highlighting the importance of narrative in revolutionary movements. Samuel Adams’ ability to harness the emotional power of the massacre demonstrated the strategic acumen of Patriot leaders who understood the significance of public sentiment in their fight for freedom.

The Boston Massacre was more than a violent confrontation; it was a microcosm of the larger conflict brewing between the colonies and the British Empire. The young soldiers caught in the crossfire represented the human element of imperial enforcement, struggling to maintain order in an increasingly hostile environment. Meanwhile, the colonists’ fierce reaction reflected their growing resolve to challenge British authority and assert their rights. This dynamic interplay of forces set the stage for the revolutionary actions that would soon follow.

The legacy of the Boston Massacre extended well beyond the immediate aftermath. Annual commemorations kept the memory of the event alive, reinforcing the collective resolve of the colonists. These gatherings served not only to honor those who died but also to remind future generations of the sacrifices made in the pursuit of freedom. The massacre became a touchstone in the collective memory of the American Revolution, symbolizing the costs and the necessity of resistance.

In examining the Boston Massacre, we see a convergence of individuals and ideologies that propelled the colonies toward independence. The actions of British soldiers, the sacrifices of colonists like Crispus Attucks, and the strategic maneuvers of figures like John and Samuel Adams collectively wove a complex narrative of resistance. This event underscored the power of unity and the impact of individual contributions in the broader struggle for freedom.

Reflecting on the Boston Massacre, we recognize its enduring significance in American history. It serves as a powerful reminder of the human elements within historical events— the decisions, sacrifices, and convictions that shape the course of nations. The massacre was not just a moment of violence but a crucible of revolutionary sentiment, where ordinary people made extraordinary choices that would lead to the birth of a new nation. The legacy of those who stood on King Street that night continues to inspire, reminding us of the enduring quest for liberty and justice.

Cite this page

The Boston Massacre: A Crucible of Revolutionary Sentiment. (2024, Jun 17). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-boston-massacre-a-crucible-of-revolutionary-sentiment/

"The Boston Massacre: A Crucible of Revolutionary Sentiment." PapersOwl.com , 17 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-boston-massacre-a-crucible-of-revolutionary-sentiment/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Boston Massacre: A Crucible of Revolutionary Sentiment . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-boston-massacre-a-crucible-of-revolutionary-sentiment/ [Accessed: 29 Sep. 2024]

"The Boston Massacre: A Crucible of Revolutionary Sentiment." PapersOwl.com, Jun 17, 2024. Accessed September 29, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-boston-massacre-a-crucible-of-revolutionary-sentiment/

"The Boston Massacre: A Crucible of Revolutionary Sentiment," PapersOwl.com , 17-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-boston-massacre-a-crucible-of-revolutionary-sentiment/. [Accessed: 29-Sep-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Boston Massacre: A Crucible of Revolutionary Sentiment . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-boston-massacre-a-crucible-of-revolutionary-sentiment/ [Accessed: 29-Sep-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Skip to global NPS navigation
• Skip to the main content
• Skip to the footer section

Exiting nps.gov

Boston massacre trial.

I had no hesitation in answering that Council ought to be the very last thing that [an] accused Person should want in a free Country. [1]

On March 5, 1770, British soldiers fired into a crowd of civilians, killing five people. Crispus Attucks , Samuel Gray, and James Caldwell died that night. Seventeen-year-old Samuel Maverick died the next morning. Patrick Carr died from his wounds nearly two weeks later. This event sparked outrage in Bostonians who later called this " the Boston Massacre ."

Shortly after the Massacre, the soldiers (William Wemms, Hugh White, Hugh Montgomery, James Hartigan, William McCauley, Mathew Kilroy, William Warren, and John Carroll) and their captain (Thomas Preston) were arrested and jailed. Royal government officials decided to delay the trial to let tensions in the town cool. Both sides doubted the soldiers would be given a fair trial. Loyalists feared that colonists would want vengeance; colonists feared that loyalists would arrange for charges to be dismissed. [2]

The Defense Prepares

The day after the Massacre, James Forrest, a loyalist merchant, approached lawyer John Adams on behalf of Captain Thomas Preston, who was to be tried separately from his soldiers. Forrest told Adams that Preston "wishe[d] for council, and [could] get none." [3] Lawyers throughout Boston had refused to represent Preston or his soldiers. Robert Auchmuty and Josiah Quincy both considered taking the case; however, they told Forrest they would only serve if Adams agreed to join the defense. [4]

John Adams, portrait, pastel on paper by Benjamin Blyth, circa 1766. Massachusetts Historical Society.

In his autobiography, Adams recalled his reply to Forrest's plea, saying:

I had no hesitation in answering that Council ought to be the very last thing that an accused Person should want in a free Country … And that Persons whose Lives were at Stake ought to have the Council they preferred … and that every Lawyer must hold himself responsible not only to his Country, but to the highest and most infallible of all Trybunals for the Part he should Act. [5]

John Adams firmly believed that everyone had the right to a lawyer and a fair trial, so he willingly agreed to represent the soldiers even if it meant risking his reputation. [6]

The Court scheduled Preston's trial first as it would influence the court case against the soldiers. If the jury found Preston guilty of ordering his soldiers to fire into the crowd, then the soldiers under his command would have only been following orders. If, however, the jury found that Captain Preston had not given the order to fire, the soldiers would be charged with murder and put on trial themselves.

The Trial of Captain Preston

Robert Auchmuty, John Adams, and Josiah Quincy led the defense of Captain Preston. Robert Treat Paine and Samuel Quincy served as the prosecution. Lacking physical evidence, both the prosecution and defense had to rely almost entirely on eye-witness testimony. [7]

Captain Preston's trial began on October 24, 1770. Lasting six days, this trial became the first in the American colonies with a duration longer than a single day. The prosecution argued that while Preston had not fired a single shot himself, if he had given the order to fire, Preston would have to take responsibility for the five civilian deaths. The defense argued that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Preston had given the fatal order.

“The Bloody Massacre perpetuated in King Stret Boston on March 5th 1770 by a Party of the 29th Reg.” Engraved by Paul Revere. Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.

As witnesses gave their testimonies, contradictions emerged. Some witnesses even disagreed over what Preston had been wearing. The contrary evidence made these witnesses seem less credible, which helped to sow seeds of doubt in the jury. The testimonies that ultimately saved Preston were from multiple witnesses who swore that they had seen the captain standing in front of the soldiers when they began to fire.

One of these witnesses was a free Black man, Newton Prince. Prince testified that he saw Captain Preston standing in front of the soldiers and "heard no orders given to fire." [8] If Preston had indeed given the order, he surely would have been wise enough to stand behind his soldiers.

On October 30, 1770, the jury delivered its verdict: Captain Thomas Preston was found not guilty. [9]

The Trial of the Soldiers

On November 27, nearly a month after Preston's acquittal, the court moved forward with its trial of the soldiers. Since the prosecution had been unable to prove that Captain Preston had given the order to fire, the question remained: did the soldiers open fire of their own accord? John Adams and Josiah Quincy stayed on the case, while Sampson Salter Blowers replaced Robert Auchmuty. For the trial of the soldiers, John Adams agreed to serve as the lead defense lawyer. The prosecution team, Robert Treat Paine and Samuel Quincy, remained the same.

From the beginning of the trial, neither side contested that one or more of the soldiers had discharged their weapons on that fateful night. To argue its case, the prosecution simply needed to prove two points: that the soldiers had been present the night of the incident, and that they had fired their muskets. The defense had a larger task ahead of it. The lawyers needed to argue that the soldiers fired in self-defense, which would justify their actions. [10]

"The Trial of William Wemms, James Hartegan, William McCauley, …" The Annotated Newspapers of Harbottle Dorr. Massachusetts Historical Society.

During the trial, the lawyers called more than forty witnesses to testify in court. One of the most interesting testimonies presented for the defense was that of Patrick Carr, one of the victims who had died nine days after the Massacre. John Jeffries, Carr's surgeon, testified on his patient's behalf, relaying Carr's dying declaration to the court. [11] Jeffries told the court that

[Carr] told me...he was a native of Ireland, that he had frequently seen mobs, and soldiers called upon to quell them...he had seen soldiers often fire on the people in Ireland, but had never seen them bear half so much before they fired in his life... [12]

Seemingly, Carr did not blame the soldiers for defending themselves. This testimony proved invaluable. [13]

In their closing arguments, both the prosecution and defense acknowledged that, without a doubt, the soldiers fired their weapons. However, they debated whether the use of deadly force had been justified. In his closing statement for the prosecution, Samuel Quincy argued that the soldiers could have fled the scene if they feared for their lives. Instead, the soldiers chose to use deadly force. Quincy said, "A person cannot justify killing, if he can by any means make his escape." [14] Therefore, the soldiers should be convicted of murder.

John Adams closed for the defense. He reminded the jury that their decision had to be based on the facts rather than their passions:

I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you.—Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defence; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offence of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated. To your candour and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause. [15]

After a nine-day long trial, the decision rested with the jury. They deliberated for two and a half hours before returning with their verdict. The jury outright acquitted six of the eight soldiers present the night of March 5, 1770. For the remaining two soldiers, Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy, the jury found them guilty of manslaughter. By invoking the Benefit of Clergy , an antiquated piece of English law that reduced sentences for first time offenders and could only be used by literate citizens, the defense successfully commuted their sentences from capital punishment to having their right thumbs branded. [16]

Years later, in 1786, John Adams remarked that the Boston Massacre laid the foundation for American Independence. However, the trials held after the Massacre arguably proved to be just as influential.

In the short term, the Boston Massacre trials in 1770 demonstrated to Great Britain that the American colonies could hold fair and just trials and justice could be served locally and administrated by one's peers. Despite this proof, in 1774, British Parliament passed the Administration of Justice Act, which prohibited the American colonies from conducting or deliberating in their own trials. Parliament passed this act as retribution for the Boston Tea Party, and it fomented further colonial mistrust of British leadership, escalating the already rising tensions that led to the American Revolution. [17]

National Archives. Click on the photo to see a transcript of the Bill of Rights.

Beyond the War for Independence, these trials have left a lasting legacy. The United States Constitution reflects John Adams' firm belief that every individual deserves the right to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [18]

This right has shaped and continues to shape the nation's legal system.

John Adams notes during the Boston Massacre trial shine a light on how he viewed his duty as a lawyer, a view that likely has influenced subsequent generations' pursuits of truth and justice:

It has become my duty, it shall therefore be my endeavor, to acquit myself in the course of this trial with decency and candour; reflecting that however interesting the question may be, the object of our enquiry is simply that of truth, and that this enquiry is to be conducted by the wisdom of the laws and constitution. [19]

[1] "[1770]," Founders Online , National Archives. Original source: The Adams Papers, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams , vol. 3, Diary, 1782–1804; Autobiography, Part One to October 1776, ed. L. H. Butterfield (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), pp. 291–296.

[2] Hiller B. Zobel, The Boston Massacre (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996), 221-222.

[3] "[1770]," Founders Online , National Archives.

[4] "[1770]," Founders Online , National Archives.

[5] "[1770]," Founders Online , National Archives.

[6] "[1770]," Founders Online , National Archives; Edith Belle Gelles, Abigail and John: Portrait Of A Marriage (New York: William Morrow, 2009), 32.

[7] Zobel, The Boston Massacre , 241.

[8] Zobel, 258

[9] Zobel, 258, 265.

[10] Zobel 242, 271.

[11] This was the first recorded instance of a dying declaration being an exception to excluding hearsay.

[12] Zobel, 285-286.

[13] Zobel, 285-286.

[14] "Samuel Quincy's Argument for the Crown: 29 November 1770," Founders Online , National Archives. Original source: The Adams Papers , Legal Papers of John Adams, vol. 3, Cases 63 and 64: The Boston Massacre Trials , ed. L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), pp. 144–157.

[15] "Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3–4 December 1770," Founders Online , National Archives. Original source: The Adams Papers, Legal Papers of John Adams , vol. 3, Cases 63 and 64: The Boston Massacre Trials, ed. L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), pp. 242–270.

[16] Zobel, 298.

[17] "To Matthew Robinson-Morris," Papers of John Adams, volume 18, Adams Papers Digital Edition , Massachusetts Historical Society, accessed July, 2024.

[18] "Constitution of the United State Sixth Amendment," Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov , accessed July, 2024.

[19] "To Matthew Robinson-Morris," Papers of John Adams, volume 18, Adams Papers Digital Edition .

You Might Also Like

• adams national historical park
• boston national historical park
• american revolution
• boston massacre
• crispus attucks

Adams National Historical Park , Boston National Historical Park

Last updated: July 25, 2024

Home — Essay Samples — History — Boston Massacre — The Role of the Boston Massacre in American History

The Role of The Boston Massacre in American History

• Categories: American History Boston Massacre John Adams

About this sample

Words: 757 |

Published: Sep 1, 2020

Words: 757 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1286 words

3 pages / 1526 words

3 pages / 1536 words

2 pages / 1035 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Boston Massacre

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 [...]

“Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” As one of the founding fathers, John Adams played a very important role in the journey to America’s freedom and its initial start as a country. As the second president, many expected big [...]

By the late 18th century, tensions in Colonial America were running high. Despite colonists coming to America to start anew and to escape from under British rule, the British Parliament still maintained a strong foothold over [...]

During the era of the Salem Witch Trials America turned into a bloodbath fueled by fear and greed. In Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible the puritan town of Salem and it’s people go through dramatic changes, especially the main [...]

The Industrial Revolution was a time between the 18th and 19th centuries that marked the industrialization and urbanization of Europe and America. Before the Industrial Revolution most manufacturing was done in people’s homes [...]

The media played a significant role in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 60s. In the past people could only use newspapers and radio to learn about news, however, suddenly, most people had televisions in their homes, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Can you pass the Citizenship Test? Visit this page to test your civics knowledge!

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

The Boston Massacre

By elizabeth berlin taylor, introduction.

In this lesson, students will be asked to learn the disputed and agreed-upon facts of the Boston Massacre in small groups and then discuss them and propose a website definition of the Massacre as a class. This lesson should not only provide students with an opportunity to look at disparate representations of so-called historical facts surrounding a very famous event that preceded the American Revolution, but will also teach them to deliberate with their classmates in a cordial fashion.

On the night of March 5, 1770, American colonists attacked British soldiers in Boston, which resulted in the soldiers firing on the crowd and killing five of the colonists. This event became known as the Boston Massacre, a rallying point for colonists against the stationing and quartering of British troops throughout the colonies, and against the Townshend Acts, which the British soldiers were deployed to enforce. Many different accounts of this encounter are extant as John Adams successfully defended the British soldiers in court and thus had to depose numerous witnesses.

Primary Sources

"The Bloody Massacre," by Paul Revere (PDF)

Deposition of Theodore Bliss , Boston Massacre Historical Society

Captain Thomas Preston’s Account of the Boston Massacre , Boston Massacre Historical Society

" The Soldiers Trial: October 24 to 30, 1770: Selected Testimony ," The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Famous Trials Project

Summation of John Adams , The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Famous Trials Project

Anonymous Account of the Massacre , The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Famous Trials Project

Secondary Source

Library of Congress "America’s Library" site for kids, which gives a brief overview of the Boston Massacre.

Essential Question

What really transpired on the night of March 5, 1770?

• Students will be able to read and understand primary documents that are key to understanding the Boston Massacre and the ensuing trials of the British troops and their captain.
• Students will be able to identify similarities and differences between primary source documents.
• Students will be able to discuss the Boston Massacre as a class to decide what they think actually occurred.
• Students will be able to propose and vote on a definition for the Boston Massacre for a history website for elementary school students.

Motivation: Give students five minutes to read over the information at the "America’s Library" site. After that time, ask students to close their computers, or, if using a print copy, collect that copy. Ask students to remember as many details about the Massacre as they can from the site. The teacher should record the facts on the board as they are announced by the students so that they are visible to the entire class.

After the motivation has provided a basic understanding of the events of the Boston Massacre, inform the students that for the rest of the class they are going to be history detectives and decide what they think really happened in the Boston Massacre.

Project the famous Paul Revere engraving "The Bloody Massacre," and ask students a variety of questions about what they see:

• What do you see in this engraving?
• How are the colonists portrayed?
• How are the British soldiers portrayed?
• According to this engraving, who is at fault in this Massacre? How do you know?

As students identify that the engraving seems to put the British soldiers at fault for the Boston Massacre, the teacher will inform them that they are going to read a variety of other documents and decide if Paul Revere was conveying the truth about the circumstances of the event.

Put students into eight groups of four. The members of each group will analyze the same document, as the primary sources are fairly challenging reading. Give each group a packet that includes copies of one of the following: the Deposition of Theodore Bliss, Captain Thomas Preston’s Account of the Boston Massacre, the Summation of John Adams, and the Anonymous Account of the Massacre. Students will read and analyze their group’s document, noting at the bottom of the handout five of the described events.

Students will jigsaw so that they will be in a new group in which each member reads a separate article. The students will fill in the attached worksheet that asks them to find events that were discussed in more than one source. Also, students will write a summary of what they think took place during the Boston Massacre. Each group will choose a spokesperson who will read a brief explanation to the class of what they think happened.

The teacher will request the input of up to three of the groups and then summarize the work that was done in that period.

(This can also be an optional extension of the prior lesson.)

Students will briefly review the facts that they think are true about the Boston Massacre, referring to their previously read articles and the worksheet they completed with their second group.

The teacher will then pose the question, "If we were going to make a website for elementary school students about the Boston Massacre, what should the site say?" The class will decide this question by having a whole-class discussion.

Each student will get two popsicle sticks. When the student wishes to speak, he or she will raise her stick and then turn it in as he or she speaks. Thus, each student will have at most two opportunities to speak during the discussion. The teacher will need to guide the discussion by asking the following questions (and by recording the answers where they can be seen by the entire class):

• Can we agree as a class upon what actually happened during the Boston Massacre?
• What seems certainly to be true? Why?
• What might be true?
• What do you think is certainly untrue? Why?
• How should we write our definition for a website?
• What should we include and what should we omit?

The teacher should stress that the goal of the class is to come up with a well-written and historically accurate definition of the Boston Massacre for a website.

Debrief the discussion. What are some of the benefits and drawbacks of that method of decision making in a piece of writing? Was it hard to come up with a definition? Are you pleased with the definition you wrote?

Students can create a podcast about the Boston Massacre that uses the class definition. Another extension would be to have students create a website on the American Revolution and use the class definition as a page in the site.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

• Pre-Colonial Mass
• 17th Century Mass
• 18th Century Mass
• 19th Century Mass

Boston Massacre: Primary Sources

The primary sources on the Boston Massacre offer a unique perspective on the events of that historic day .

These sources include news articles, pamphlets, diaries, official reports and trial notes on the Boston Massacre.

The following is a list of primary sources of the Boston Massacre:

The Boston Gazette and Country Journal News Article:

Published in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal on March 12, 1770, this newspaper story reports on the events of the Boston Massacre which occurred on March 5, 1770.

The article states that the event began when a soldier got into an argument with a group of boys in an alley near the State House.

The argument then became physical which attracted a crowd of people and it eventually spilled over into King Street where more soldiers arrived with Captain Thomas Preston.

The article states that the soldiers pushed back at the growing crowd with their bayonets and pricked some of them which prompted them to throw snowballs at the soldiers.

As the crowd continued to throw snowballs, the article states that Preston gave the soldiers the order to fire on the crowd multiple times, which they did.

The article also identifies and describes each of the dead and wounded victims and describes the gory nature of their wounds, probably to invoke an emotional response from the reader.

An image is published on the last page of the article which depicts four coffins of the first four victims of the massacre , Crispus Attucks, James Caldwell, Samuel Gray and Samuel Maverick. The coffins are engraved with the victim’s initials and a skull and crossbones on each coffin.

The article uses inflammatory language, describing the victims as “the unhappy victims who fell in the bloody massacre of the Monday evening preceding…” and describes King Street, where the Boston Massacre took place, as the “theatre of inhuman tragedy.”

The article was also published as a pamphlet, titled Account of a Late Military Massacre at Boston, or the Consequences of Quartering Troops in a Populous Town, on the same day the article was published in the newspaper.

Obituary for Patrick Carr:

Published in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal on March 19, 1770, this obituary is for the fifth victim of the Boston Massacre, Patrick Carr, who died of his injuries on March 14 and was buried on March 17.

The obituary depicts a coffin with Carr’s initials on it, describes how he was wounded in the hip with a musket ball and describes his funeral procession from Faneuil Hall to the Granary Burying Ground where he was buried with the other four victims.

This obituary also uses inflammatory language, describing Carr as the “fifth life that has been sacrificed by the rage of the soldiery…” and states he was buried in the same grave as “those who fell by the same hands of violence” the week before.

A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston:

Published in late March in 1770, this 128-page pamphlet is the official colonial report on the Boston Massacre.

The pamphlet consists of depositions of 96 witnesses taken between March 13 and March 19 and was compiled by James Bowdoin, Joseph Warren and Samuel Pemberton who were appointed by Boston colonial officials to prepare an official town account of the event during a town meeting on March 12, 1770.

In the first paragraph of the pamphlet it blames the British soldiers for the event, stating:

“It is true, that the minds of the people were greatly irritated, and that some individuals were abusive in their language towards the military. But whenever examination was carefully made, it appeared that the soldiers were the first to assault, to threaten, and to apply contemptuous epithets to the inhabitants…the people were provoked beyond endurance; and they can be justly accused only of resisting a fierce and vindictive soldiery, at the hazard of life.”

The pamphlet goes on to describe some of the events that led up to the Boston Massacre, such as arguments in the streets between the colonists and British soldiers the month prior to the massacre, stories about the soldiers harassing civilians on the street, and an altercation between a soldier and some workers at Gray’s rope walk a few days before the massacre, which the pamphlet states the British soldiers used as an excuse to seek revenge against the colonists in the days leading up to the Boston Massacre.

All of this, the pamphlet states, made the colonists feel threatened and agitated in the days leading up the massacre and may have prompted the colonist’s behavior on the day of the massacre.

The pamphlet also lists the dead and wounded victims and describes the nature of their wounds and the testimonies included in the pamphlet all corroborate the pamphlet’s claim that the soldiers were responsible for the Boston Massacre.

The Fruits of Arbitrary Power, or The Bloody Massacre, Engraving by Henry Pelham:

Created in mid to late March, this engraving by Henry Pelham depicts a line of British soldiers firing upon a crowd of unarmed civilians while their captain gives the order to fire.

The soldiers are standing in front of the State House and the Custom House and the wounded and dead are depicted lying on the ground while one wounded victim is being carried away by the crowd.

In the window of the Custom House a puff of smoke is depicted, suggesting a customs commissioner also fired on the crowd.

At the bottom of the engraving is a quote from the Ninety-fourth Psalm.

The Bloody Massacre perpetrated in King Street, Boston, on March 5 th 1770 by a party of the 29 th Regt:

Created in late March, this engraving by Paul Revere is essentially a copy of Pelham’s engraving.

The engraving depicts essentially the same image as Pelham’s with slight variations, such as the words “Butcher’s Hall” written across the front of the Custom House, a gun with a cloud of smoke sticking out of the window of the Custom House and a quote from an original eighteen-line poem at the bottom of the image.

It is believed that Revere copied the image when Pelham gave him his engraving in order to create a print from it sometime in late March.

Captain Thomas Preston’s account of the Boston Massacre:

Recorded in the Boston jail on March 12 and published in a British newspaper in London called the Public Advertiser on April 28, this account of the Boston Massacre was given by Captain Thomas Preston.

Preston was the commander of the regiment of British soldiers charged with shooting the victims of the massacre. Preston and the soldiers involved were immediately arrested after the incident and imprisoned while they awaited trial.

Hoping to gain support in England and maybe even a pardon from the King, Preston prepared his own account of the event which was then published in London in April.

In the account, Preston acknowledges that the colonists were already upset by the presence of the British soldiers in Boston and accused them of harassing, insulting and otherwise using “all means in their power to weaken the regiments,” including insulting and harassing a soldier at Gray’s rope walk a few days before the massacre.

Preston says the colonists then planned an attack on the British soldiers on March 5 th or 6 th and then carried out this plan on March 5 th when they surrounded the lone sentry standing guard outside the State House and began to throw sticks and snowballs at him.

Preston says he and 12 soldiers soon arrived to protect the guard and the State House and they used their bayonets to keep the crowd at a distance.

Preston goes on to explain that he stood between the soldiers and the crowd, which differs from the Pelham and Revere images of the incident where Preston is depicted standing behind the soldiers, while he talked to the crowd and tried to persuade them to leave but they refused and continued to throw things at the soldiers and himself.

After being repeatedly struck by objects, Preston says one of the soldiers stepped aside and fired and when he turned around to tell him to stop he was struck by an object, as were the other soldiers, while someone in the crowd yelled “Damn you Bloods, why don’t you fire?” which prompted the soldiers to fire.

Preston said he asked the soldiers afterwards why they fired without his order and they stated that they heard the word “fire” and thought it was a command from him, according to his account:

“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:’ In short it was scarce possible for the soldiers to know who said fire, or don’t fire, or stop your firing.”

Preston also explained that some of the colonists arrived to take away the dead but the soldiers thought they were there to attack them again and raised their guns to fire but Preston stopped them by pushing their guns away.

Preston said the crowd eventually dispersed and he and his soldiers were arrested shortly after.

It should be noted that Preston never uses the word “massacre” in the account and instead describes the event as “this melancholy affair” and the “late unhappy affair.”

A Fair Account of the Late Unhappy Disturbance at Boston in New England:

Published in London in May of 1770, this pamphlet was written and compiled by lawyer Francis Maseres and Lieutenant Colonel William Dalrymple of the British 29th Regiment and gives an account of the Boston Massacre.

The pamphlet included eyewitness accounts that corroborates the British soldier’s claim that they were attacked by an unruly mob. It contains a narrative and testimony from 31 people describing the incident.

The pamphlet acknowledges that tensions were high in the colony due to the unpopularity of the Stamp Act and the presence of the British soldiers and also states that the altercation between the soldier and the workers at Gray’s rope walk earlier in the week was a contributing factor.

Yet, the pamphlet states that the colonists used the rope walk incident to stir up an angry mob to attack the soldiers, which differs from the colonist’s claim that the soldiers became vengeful after the altercation and used it as an excuse to seek revenge against the colonists.

The pamphlet goes on to describe the events of the Boston Massacre and states that mobs of armed colonists were roaming the streets of Boston that night, before the massacre even took place, stating that they were going to fight the soldiers, which suggests that the colonists planned the event.

One deposition in the pamphlet, from William Davies, states that he saw colonists tearing apart a vendor’s stall to make clubs while shouting “Let us attack the main-guard” while others suggested they attack the soldier’s barracks instead.

The pamphlet went on to say that the colonists then started harassing the lone guard outside the statehouse while he politely asked them to disperse, which they refused.

It then states that as the colonists continued to harass the guard and began throwing snowballs and sticks, more soldiers arrived as reinforcements and they were also pelted with snowballs and other debris which prompted them to fire on the crowd without any order from Captain Preston.

The pamphlet states that Captain Preston immediately reprimanded the soldiers for firing on the crowd.

John Adams’ Trial Notes:

John Adams served as the defense lawyer for the British soldiers in October and November of 1770 and kept three separate sets of notes during the course of the trial.

Since Captain Preston was tried separately from the soldiers, in a trial titled Rex v. Preston, the first set of notes is for Preston’s tria l and consists of eight pages relating specifically to his trial.

The second set of notes are for the soldier’s trial, Rex v. Wemms et al, and consists of 10 pages and includes testimony of witnesses.

The third set of notes are also for the soldier’s trial and consists of 10 pages of notes on the testimony of the first twenty defense witnesses in the soldier’s trial.

Notes on Robert Treat Paine’s Closing Argument:

Robert Treat Paine served as the prosecutor during the Boston Massacre trial and an unknown note taker recorded notes of his closing argument for Captain Preston’s trial, Rex v. Preston. The notes are available on the Massachusetts Historical Society’s website.

Although most of the courtroom proceedings were recorded by a court stenographer and published, Paine’s closing argument was not recorded because the stenographer was fatigued that day so there is no official court record of his closing argument, which makes these notes all the more valuable.

Rough Draft of Paine’s Closing Argument:

Due to the stenographer’s failure to record Paine’s closing argument, Paine received many request from his friends and associates for a copy of his closing argument.

As a result, Paine wrote a rough draft of his closing argument from memory, which was later published in the Legal Papers of John Adams, Volume 3.

Joseph Belknap Deposition:

Joseph Belknap served as a witness during Captain Preston’s trial, Rex v. Preston, and provided testimony about the events of March 5, 1770.

In the testimony, Belknap described arriving on the scene of the event shortly after it happened and found the soldiers with their guns drawn and Captain Preston standing “upon the right wing of the soldiers.”

Belknap said that he told Preston he had no authority to do anything without a civil magistrate present to which Preston responded “I did it for my own safety.”

Belknap then told Preston that the soldiers should leave but Preston stated he had no authority to order them to leave and told to Belknap to go to the guard house and discuss it with them.

Benjamin Lynde’s Notes:

Benjamin Lynde was the chief justice of Massachusetts and served as one of the judges in the Boston Massacre trial of the eight soldiers, Rex v. Wemms et al.

Lynde took brief notes during the course of the trial but also took detailed notes summarizing the defense’s closing arguments.

Peter Oliver Notes:

Peter Oliver served as one of three judges on the Boston Massacre trials and took notes throughout the trials.

Samuel Quincy Notes:

Samuel Quincy was the solicitor general for Massachusetts and took detailed notes during the Boston Massacre trials during which he recorded the testimony of the various witnesses.

Proceedings of His Majesty’s Council of the Province on Massachusetts-Bay, Relative to the Deposition of Andrew Oliver, Esq:

Published in late 1770, this pamphlet is a reproduction of public official Andrew Oliver’s deposition when he was under censure by the council for his actions in the wake of the Boston Massacre.

The proceedings took place in October and November and the pamphlet includes the 12 supporting depositions, petitions, and testimonies from the proceedings.

Memorandum from Samuel Adams to Robert Treat Paine [29 November 1770]:

Samuel Adams sent Paine memorandum notes during the Boston Massacre trials which record some of the details of the Boston Massacre and also offer Adam’s own analysis of the evidence presented at the trial.

John Rowe Diary:

Boston merchant John Rowe kept a diary and recorded the events of the Boston Massacre on March 5, which he described as a “quarrell between the soldiers & inhabitants” and reported that five were killed and several wounded and, as a result, “the inhabitants are greatly enraged and not without reason.”

Rowe also mentioned attending the trial proceedings on December 4 and noted the outcome of the trial for the soldiers on December 5.

Samuel Savage Diary:

Samuel P. Savage kept a diary and on December 30 and 31 recorded that Captain Preston and all but two of the soldiers were found not guilty and described the punishment for the two soldiers found guilty of manslaughter.

Boston Gazette Article on Preston Trial:

Published on November 5, 1770 in the Boston Gazette, this article reports on the outcome of Captain Preston’s trial and reports that Preston was found not guilty on all charges.

Sources: “ Notes on the Boston Massacre trials, by John Adams, 1770, “Prisoners Witnesses. James Crawford…” Massachusetts Historical Society, masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=3039&pid=34 “ Notes on the Boston Massacre trials, by John Adams, 1770, ‘Captn. Prestons Case.” Massachusetts Historical Society, masshist.org/database/1744?ft=Boston%20Massacre&from=/features/massacre/trials&noalt=1&pid=34 “ Reactions and Responses.” Massachusetts Historical Society, masshist.org/features/massacre/initial “Case of Capt. Thomas Preston of the 29th Regiment.” Massachusetts Historical Society, masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=462&pid=2 “ The Massacre Illustrated.” Massachusetts Historical Society, masshist.org/features/massacre/visual A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston. J Doggett Jr, 1849 “ The Boston-Gazette, and Country Journal, 12 March 1770.” Massachusetts Historical Society, masshist.org/dorr/volume/3/sequence/101

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

John Adams, Mosaic Law and the Boston Massacre Trial Against the Backdrop of English Royal Revisions of New England Puritan Law, 1640–1800

• First Online: 24 September 2024

Cite this chapter

• R. Charles Weller 2  

11 Accesses

Having provided essential background and context in Europe, from the Reformation period on, this chapter opens with a personal glimpse of John Adams’ own views on Mosaic and broader biblical law as glimpsed through the personal reflections he offers in his diary as a young law student, some twenty years prior to the Boston Massacre Trial. The chapter then goes on to detail the debates over English royal versus Mosaic-based Puritan laws of capital punishment which erupted within the trial as part of the legal defense, in which Adams participated, and the pronouncement of the residing judges. With the particular points of debate within the trial in view, the chapter then delves into the historical outworking of the prior debates over Mosaic Law within the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the closely related colony of Connecticut, in comparison with Catholic Maryland and other select colonies, in order to elucidate the long history of struggle between Puritan Mosaic-based versus English Anglican-royal legal traditions from the mid-seventeenth century down to the Boston Massacre Trial debates. That history involves English religious-political history as it stood in relation to the history of struggles both with and within the Colony. With (1) Adams’s own personal reflections on Mosaic and broader biblical law in his youthful idealist days studying law, (2) his later participation in the Boston Massacre Trial debates, and (3) the New England legal history behind those debates all in the backdrop, the chapter closes with John Adams then writing a personal letter to the Massachusetts Bay Colony on the eve of the American Revolution in 1775, five years after the Boston Massacre Trial. At heart, the letter presents a hypothetical struggle among a community over proper understandings and applications of the Ten Commandments to their daily lives. The allegory appears to reflect and even draw from Puritan New England legal history. Regardless of how Adam’s allegory is interpreted, however, the history behind the trial, inclusive of Adams’ own personal participation in that history, remains etched in the American annals and serves as a foundational part of the present study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adams (1756), “[February 1756]: [from the Diary of John Adams].” Cf. John Fea ([2011] 2016), Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction , pp. 191–192.

See: Mark H. Danley and Patrick J. Speelman, eds. (2013), The Seven Years’ War: Global Views (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2013); Daniel A. Baugh (2021), The Global Seven Years War, 1754–1763: Britain And France in a Great Power Contest (Abingdon: Routledge).

See: Eric W. Weber ([2008] 2014), “Newport Family: “His Own Proper Negro Slave”: Amos Newport & his Descendants in Hatfield, Williamsburg & Amherst,” Freedom Stories of the Pioneer Valley (URL: https://freedomstoriespv.wordpress.com/newport-family/ ). Weber was president and genealogist of the Williamsburg Historical Society at the time. His article was first read to the Williamsburg Historical Society in May 2008. See also: Emily Blanck (2002), “Seventeen Eighty-Three: The Turning Point in the Law of Slavery and Freedom in Massachusetts,” The New England Quarterly , Volume 75, Number 1 (March 2002): 24–51; refs to the case involving Adams occur on pp. 27n8 and 28n9. See also: John Adams (1768), “Adams’ Minutes of the Trial: Hampshire Superior Court, Springfield, September 1768”; cf. Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature, Minute Books and Records in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court , Suffolk County, Suffolk County Court House, Boston.

Adams (1801), “From John Adams to George Churchman, 24 January 1801.”

Adams (1808), “From John Adams to John Quincy Adams, 8 January 1808”; Adams (1809), “From John Adams to Joseph Bradley Varnum, 9 January 1809.” For more comprehensive treatment of Adams’ views on Mosaic Law in relation to slavery, see Volume Two of this study.

John Adams (1769), “Adams’ Copy of the Information and Draft of His Argument: Court of Vice Admiralty, Boston, October 1768–March 1769.”

Trowbridge himself placed a footnote here referencing Sir Matthew Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronæ ( The History of the Pleas of the Crown ), which was an influential work covering the history of English criminal law.

Trowbridge placed another footnote here referencing “The Report of a Case Heard and Adjudged in the King’s Bench in Ireland, Tempore George I: Dominus Rex versus Dwyer” reported by “Gilbert.” (See The English Reports , Vol XXV, Chancery V, Edinburgh: William Green & Sons and London: Stevens & Sons, Ltd, pp. 183ff).

Trowbridge and Oliver (1770), “Trowbridge’s and Oliver’s Charges to the Jury.”

Cotton (1641), An Abstract of the Lawes of New England, as they are now established , p. ii.

Cotton (1641), An Abstract of the Lawes of New England , p. i; S.K. Green (2015), Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding , pp. 84–85.

Cotton (1641), An Abstract of the Lawes of New England , p. ii. Benjamin Franklin later (c. 1770) testifies to this fact as well, pointing out in marginal notes to a letter he critiqued that “[t]he first Settlers of Connecticut, for Instance, at their first Meeting in that Country, finding themselves out of all Jurisdiction of other Governments, resolved and enacted, That till a Code of Laws should be prepared and agreed to, they would be governed by the Law of Moses , as contained in the Old Testament.” Benjamin Franklin (c. 1770), “Marginalia in [Josiah Tucker], A Letter from a Merchant, [1770?].”

Cotton (1641), An Abstract of the Lawes of New England , p. 7.

Cotton (1641), An Abstract of the Lawes of New England , p. 9, citing Exodus 21.

Cotton (1641), An Abstract of the Lawes of New England , pp. 10–11.

Cf. S.K. Green (2015), Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding , p. 84.

Cotton (1641), An Abstract of the Lawes of New England , pp. 11–12.

Davis (1900), History of the Judiciary of Massachusetts , pp. 32–33. Davis notes here that “the Massachusetts Colony were of course believers that the Scriptures embodied the word of God and were infallible. Consequently they believed it their duty to make every offence capital which the Bible declared should be punished by death.” He then suggests that the Plymouth colony had milder laws because, although “[t]heir belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures must have been as thorough as that of their neighbors, …they had been shaped by their experience in Holland.” While the Holland residence helps clarify essential distinctions, the mere belief that “the Scriptures embodied the word of God and were infallible” does not itself explain the place and role of Mosaic Law in the New England colonies, since Anglicans and others shared this general belief. It is rather again to be located in their theological interpretations of the relation between “law and gospel” and “the Old and New Testaments.”

Richard B. Morris (1926), “Massachusetts and the Common Law: The Declaration of 1646,” The American Historical Review , Vol. 31, No. 3 (Apr 1926): 443–453, citing p. 444.

Noll (2016), In the Beginning Was the Word , pp. 119–122.

George L. Haskins (1954), “Codification of the Law in Colonial Massachusetts: A Study in Comparative Law,” Indiana Law Journal , Vol 30, No 1 (Fall 1954): 1–17, see esp. pp. 8–10; William H. Whitmore, ed. (1887), The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts (Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, with the supplements through 1686; Boston: City Council of Boston).

See e.g., C.M. Andrews (1907), “The Influence of Colonial Conditions, as Illustrated in the Connecticut Intestacy Law,” in Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History , ed. Ernst Freund et al., Vol 1 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company), pp. 431–466, ref’ing 436–7; see also the discussion of William Blackstone later in this chapter.

See Andrew J. Martin (2023), The Covenant with Moses and the Kingdom of God: Thomas Hobbes and the Theology of the Old Covenant in Early Modern England . Martin deals with the development of covenant theology in Hobbes and his contemporaries, including the Puritan and Presbyterian circles tied to the Westminster Assembly.

See Leo F. Solt, “The Fifth Monarchy Men: Politics and the Millennium,” Church History , Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep 1961): 316–17, who understands the Fifth Monarchist vision to include broader embrace of “the law of Moses,” beyond just the Ten Commandments. J.M. Zane (1907), “The Five Ages of the Bench and Bar of England” in Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History , ed. Ernst Freund et al., Vol 1, Boston: Little, Brown and Company) follows a similar view (see p. 700). George L. Haskins (1960), Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts: A Study in Tradition and Design (New York: Macmillan), likewise notes that the Puritan “attitude was not confined to the Massachusetts leaders but appeared also in England, particularly in the Interregnum, when Fifth Monarchists urged the abolition of the common law and the enactment of a simple code based upon the law of Moses” (p. 125). Haskins cites a late nineteenth-century source, Samuel R. Gardiner (1897), History of the Commonwealth and Procterate, 1649–1660, Volume 2: 1651–1654 (London, New York and Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co.). In tracing these views back to Gardiner, he then cites, from still another source, a 1654 sermon by one of the Fifth Monarchist preachers, John Rogers. Rogers claimed that “[t]he law of God (which is now slighted as imperfect, whiles men set up their own notions and forms in the stead, and prefer Gratian’s, or a Justinian’s law, and to make themselves as heathens without the law of God amongst them), this law lies in Deut. vi. i. These are the Commandments {i.e. the ten in two tables given Moses on Mount Sinai, Exod. xx.), the Statutes {i.e. the several cases depending on and arising out of each command)… Now this Law, Statute-book and Judgment-seat of God must be set up (and not man’s) in this Fifth Monarchy…” (Gardiner, pp. 265–266, incl. n3). The question here is what precisely Rogers means by “the Statutes {i.e. the several cases depending on and arising out of each command)”? Is he referencing the various cases covered in the broader Mosaic Law? Or does he intend a reference to Jesus’ New Testament exposition(s) (cf. “reinterpretations”) of the Ten Commandments? If the latter, then the vision is not as extensive as the Puritan vision. Cromwell understood the Fifth Monarchists as preaching the restoration of “Judicial law,” but this interpretation of Cromwell has been, as Gardiner notes, “controverted,” possibly politically motivated and perhaps simply ill-informed. Indeed, Gardiner’s defense of Cromwell’s view is based on his citation from Rogers and, thus, in my own view does not entirely resolve the debate. William Aspinwall, himself a Fifth Monarchist who had emigrated to the Massachusetts Bay Colony (1633–52), was among those caught up in the Antinomian Controversy, together with Anne Hutchinson and company. Although emphasis has been laid on issues of divine revelation, i.e., scripture vs. prophetic Spirit-guided utterance as the basis of divine authority, the heart of that controversy involved issues of “law vs. grace,” which is why it is called “Antinomian” (i.e., “against the law”). Aspinwall himself penned a pamphlet titled “A Brief Description of the Fifth Monarchy” (1653) in which he insisted that “they will have no Lawes, Statutes, or Rules of Government in the Church or Civil State, but what Christ hath given in his word” (p. 2). He offers abundant reference to biblical passages throughout his entire treatise, from both the Christian Old and New Testaments, but they are mostly eschatological; the only passages he cites from Mosaic Law are in comparative historical reference to the Jews and “their Statutes and Judicials, Deut. 4.5, 6, 7, 8.” And even these sections comprise mainly the heart of the repetition of the Decalogue. He wrote the work immediately after he left the American colonies and returned to England. To what extent then Fifth Monarchists intended “the law of Moses” to be incorporated into their vision of Christ’s kingdom on earth, and how this vision compared to the New England Puritan vision, remains, it would seem, debatable. Based on the evidence I’ve gathered here, I would currently hold that the Fifth Monarchists’ vision of “biblical law” was a predominantly New Testament-based vision, which included a Christian New Testament view on the Ten Commandments as central to that “law.” For further general treatment of this period, see: Jean Mather (1982), “The Moral Code of the English Civil War and Interregnum,” The Historian , Vol. 44, No. 2 (Feb 1982), pp. 207–228; cf. also Gerrard Winstanley, The New Law of Righteousness (1649); Winstanley led “the Diggers,” which Cromwell fiercely opposed and wiped out. That aside, Winstanley’s New Law of Righteousness took the position that the Law of Moses had been abrogated and displaced by the coming of Christ.

Avihu Zakai (1991), “Orthodoxy in England and New England: Puritans and the Issue of Religious Toleration, 1640–1650,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society , Vol. 135, No. 3 (Sep 1991): 424.

On Quaker Pennsylvania, see esp., Craig W. Horle et al., eds. (1991), Lawmaking and Legislators in Pennsylvania: 1682–1709 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press); cf. also Craig W. Horle (1988), The Quakers and the English Legal System, 1660–1688 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).

David T. Konig (1982), ““Dale’s Laws” and the Non-Common Law Origins of Criminal Justice in Virginia,” The American Journal of Legal History , Vol 26, No 4 (Oct 1982): 354.

Paul S. Reinsch (1970), English Common Law in the American Colonies (New York, NY: De Capo Press), pp. 42–43. On the general subject of English common law in America, see also: Elizabeth A. Cawthon and David E. Narrett (1994), Essays on English Law and the American Experience (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, for the University of Texas, Arlington).

E.J. McManus (1993), Law and Liberty in Early New England: Criminal Justice and Due Process, 1620–1692 (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press), p. 12.

Michael Dalton ([1618, 1715] 1746), The Country Justice: Containing the Practice, Duty and Power of the Justices of the Peace, as well as Their Sessions, ed. ATA (London: Henry Lintot), p. 6. Although I am drawing here from the 1746 edition, Dalton’s original text was kept intact, and simply appended with other various “helpful” legal precedents, cases, and other materials, in both the 1715 and 1746 editions.

Dalton ([1618, 1715] 1746), The Country Justice , pp. 329, 333 and 33 respectively.

Pirie (2021), The Rule of Laws , pp. 340–1.

Tamar Herzog (2018), A Short History of European Law: The Last Two and a Half Millennia , pp. 112–115 and 131–151.

Reinsch (1970), English Common Law in the American Colonies , pp. 22–25. The quotes are from Reinsch, but based on his descriptions of Randoph’s reports to England. With respect to broader church struggles, see James B. Bell (2004), “New England Critics of Imperial Church Policy,” in The Imperial Origins of the King’s Church in Early America 1607–1783 , pp. 166–85.

Winthrop S. Hudson (1964), “John Locke, Heir of Puritan Political Theorists,” Calvinism and the Political Order , ed. George L. Hunt (Philadelphia: Westminster Press), pp. 108–112.

Cotton Mather (1689), Memorable Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions (Boston: R.P.), pp. 7–8.

Mellon [1934] 1969:6.

Franklin 1730. See also Franklin [1791] 1916:14. Cf. also the ref. to “ something like a Bible” in the Salem witch trials (Roach 2013:166, emphasis in original).

Ferguson (2014), “Benjamin Franklin’s Satire of Witch Hunting.”

It is a curious question what connection the use of “the Books of Moses” within seventeenth- and (allegedly) early eighteenth-century American witch trials had with the later Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses which first appeared under that title in 1797, but “were the product of the second half of the eighteenth century” (Davies and Blécourt 2004:196; cf. Dégh 2001:263). 1730 is close to, but earlier than “the second half of the eighteenth century,” so Franklin’s reference seems to be the actual “Books of Moses” within the known Christian Bible rather than the later magical work, though a possible historical connection is again curious. Beyond this, regarding ideas of blessing and curse in general in relation to the Mosaic tradition, see Aitken 2007.

See esp. Noll (2016), In the Beginning Was the Word , pp. 151–158.

Cf. the C.M. Andrews, “Introduction,” in Francis Fane ([1741] 1915), Reports on the Laws of Connecticut , ed. C.M. Andrews (Connecticut: The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Press for The Acorn Club), pp. 1ff, who argues that the British crown had no such rights, citing, among other points, Jeremiah Dummer’s 1721 Defence of the New England Charters . A.T. Kronman, ed., History of the Yale Law School: The Tercentennial Lectures (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), p. 6, holds that it was British policy aimed at isolating Massachusetts from Connecticut and Rhode Island in particular which resulted in Britain turning a blind eye to the efforts of the latter to safeguard their own autonomy. Cf. J.H. Smith, “Administrative Control of the Courts of the American Plantations,” Columbia Law Review , Vol. 61, No. 7 (November 1961): 1210–1253; Reinsch (1970), English Common Law in the American Colonies , p. 58.

Andrews, “Introduction,” in Fane ([1741] 1915), Reports on the Laws of Connecticut , pp. 10–21. Cf. CTLC ([1702] 1901), Acts and laws of His Majesties Colony of Connecticut in New-England (Hartford: The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company). For an overall history of and links to Connecticut law codes, see: CSL (2021), “Connecticut Statutes & Acts: Revisions of the General Statutes of Connecticut, 1650–1958,” Connecticut State Library (URL: https://libguides.ctstatelibrary.org/law/statutes/1650-1958 )

Andrews, “Introduction,” in Fane ([1741] 1915), Reports on the Laws of Connecticut , pp. 21ff; Kronman, ed., History of the Yale Law School , pp. 6–7.

Solon Dyke Wilson (1908), “Courts of Chancery in the American Colonies,” in Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History , ed. Ernst Freund et al., Vol II (Boston: Little, Brown and Company), pp. 779–809, citing 790.

Fane ([1741] 1915), Reports on the Laws of Connecticut , pp. 63–65.

Fane ([1741] 1915), Reports on the Laws of Connecticut , pp. 65–67.

Kronman, ed., History of the Yale Law School , p. 7.

CTLC (1750), Acts and Laws of His Majesty’s English Colony of Connecticut, in New-England, in America , ed. Thomas Fitch (New London, CT: Timothy Green), p. 68 and CTLC (1784), Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut, in America (New London, CT: Timothy Green), p. 66.

CTLC (1750), Acts and Laws , p. 145; CTLC (1784), Acts and Laws , p. 136.

CTLC (1750), Acts and Laws , p. 40 and 202; CTLC (1784), Acts and Laws , p. 18 and 67.

CTLC (1750), Acts and Laws , p. 145. This reference was removed from the 1784 Acts and Laws . I would argue, based on the historical trend being established in the main text of the study, that this was most likely because they did not wish to even reference any dependence on “Divine Commands” by the Revolutionary period.

All quotes and biographical information on Swift to this point are taken from: SCJB (n.d.), “Zephaniah Swift’s First Legal Texts in America,” State of Connecticut Judicial Branch , Law Library Services. (URL: https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/history/swift.htm )

Zephaniah Swift (1795), A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut , Vol 1 (Windham, CT: John Byrne), pp. 190–1.

Swift (1795), A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut , Vol 1, pp. 281–2.

Adams (1775), “VI. To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay, 27 February 1775.”

Cf. Fernanda Pirie (2021), The Rule of Laws , p. 344, who says: “By the mid-1770s, John Adams was declaring that the laws of New England derived not from Parliament, or even from the common law, but from the law of nature.” Cf. also Noll, who notes that the 1772 Somerset decision, issued by the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench in England in favor the (former) slave James Somerset, not only sparked debates on both sides of the Atlantic which led to the eventual abolition of slavery in England in 1833, but “inspired a contingent of slaves” in the Boston area “to petition the royal governor and colonial legislature to end a practice that they described as clearly opposed to natural law, Britain’s common law, and natural rights,” though they ended their petition with the declaration that “we have a Father in Heaven, and we are determined…to keep all his Commandments.” Noll (2016), In the Beginning Was the Word , pp. 319–320, citing from Joyce L. Malcolm (2010), “Slavery in Massachusetts and the American Revolution,” Journal of the Historical Society Vol 10, No 4 (Dec. 2010): 424. Several points should be noted here. First, the declaration of the slaves regarding “the Commandments” of their Father, God, is semantically New Testament in domain (cf. “Father in Heaven”), so they more likely have in view the broader “Commandments” of Jesus (and his Apostles) as opposed to the distinctly “Ten Commandments,” though this obviously would include the latter in their re-interpreted Christian (New Testament) sense. That said, this raises the question of how often the Ten Commandments specifically were appealed to within various American court cases, particularly those of (direct or indirect) national import, such as those involving the question of slavery, and if and when they are, what precise role they may have played in shaping the decisions of the judges. That would require a detailed study in itself, some of which will be taken up in Volume Two of this project, which concerns, among other matters, Mosaic and Islamic law in relation to questions of slavery and segregation. In this particular case, the “contingent of slaves”—whose names are not given in either Noll or Malcolm—make their primary appeal based, not in the “Commandments” of their “Father in Heaven,” but “natural law, Britain’s common law, and natural rights” (the latter wording is Malcolm’s summary description). Their appeal to the “Commandments” is more about persuading the judge that they will live good, upright lives within society once set free, not that the law in this case is or should be based upon those “Commandments.”

Chapin (1983), Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606–1660 , p. 5.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

History, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

R. Charles Weller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Charles Weller .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Weller, R.C. (2024). John Adams, Mosaic Law and the Boston Massacre Trial Against the Backdrop of English Royal Revisions of New England Puritan Law, 1640–1800. In: Moses, Muhammad and Nature’s God in Early American Religious-Legal History, 1640-1830. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60188-0_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60188-0_3

Published : 24 September 2024

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-60187-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-60188-0

eBook Packages : History History (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research