The Boston Massacre brought about questions and arguments between Great Britain and the colonies that had been under surface for quite some time. Most people think of the Boston Massacre as some riled up colonists tormenting the invasive redcoats and then paying the price of antagonizing, but there was a much bigger meaning behind the killings. As in any war, there were two very different stories from either side trying to validate their actions. All of the Acts and restrictions placed upon the colonies had finally boiled to the point of explosion; there was much more behind the Boston Massacre than it seems on the surface. The massacre was the peak, not the start of the colonists’ rebellion.
On March 15, 1770 five Bostonians were shot dead in the streets of their hometown by British soldiers. British officer Captain Thomas Preston claimed that the colonists were throwing snowballs, tormenting the soldiers, and eventually even attacking them, and that the soldiers were merely protecting themselves. This excuse is a front on the more elaborate, ongoing power struggle that was going on between Britain and the colonies. Britain wanted total control of the colonies but they were faced with resistance; more than they could handle peacefully. The shots fired were actually Britain’s way of saying the colonies could surrender or die. The colonies also had ulterior motives behind their jeering and instigating; they were also sending a message. One that told Britain they would not back down in the face of war.
In every account the colonies blamed everything on the redcoats and their flaming desire for war while the British blame the colonist for goading them into violence. Both countries have plausible reasons for what they think. The colonists were upset with the British invading their privacy and monopolizing their trade and Britain was angry with the colonists and their reluctance to accept their rulings. The colonies were still part of Britain so they were...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document