Boston Massacre Opinion
Looking at how the British won the the trial about the Boston Massacre, it’s easy to say that American colonists were at fault for instigating the incident. The Boston Massacre involved armed soldiers against colonials. They had guns and superior weaponry. The colonists had clubs. Comparatively, aren’t guns the more lethal? Can the blame truly be laid at America’s feet? No; it is unreasonable to fault America for the massacre.
Analysis of the situation surrounding the Boston Massacre is necessary for determining who was at fault. Let’s look at the British redcoats’ points of view first. Preceding the ‘bloody massacre’ there were brawls. On Saturday, March 3, 1770 Private John Carroll and two other soldiers fought against the rope workers and James Bailey. These brawls were relatively small, and only few people were hurt. However, the fight angered both sides, and they were eager to fight. The Sunday directly after, a sergeant was missing. Rumors took that colonists had killed him. The British were even more paranoid and nervous. The rumor was proved false when they later found Sergeant Chambers at a ‘pleasure house,’ but the damage was already done- the British, paranoid of the Americans, had caused 11 casualties.
What about the colonial side of the days previous to the massacre? Boston was under the rule of the Navigation Laws. They were forced to house soldiers who enforced what were, in their eyes, unfair laws. The entire city felt as if it were in a war zone what with all the redcoats. The citizens had felt the tension under the ‘fog of war.’ Striking out against the enforcers of these rules were what any independent person would do under pressure. That the soldiers retaliated was not a problem- it was the extent of their retaliation that caused problems. Broken bones can be fixed, but the dead can never come to life again.
Finally, we must address the incident itself. Soldiers claimed to have fired because they heard a voice behind them call, “Fire!” Later
Analysis of the situation surrounding the Boston Massacre is necessary for determining who was at fault. Let’s look at the British redcoats’ points of view first. Preceding the ‘bloody massacre’ there were brawls. On Saturday, March 3, 1770 Private John Carroll and two other soldiers fought against the rope workers and James Bailey. These brawls were relatively small, and only few people were hurt. However, the fight angered both sides, and they were eager to fight. The Sunday directly after, a sergeant was missing. Rumors took that colonists had killed him. The British were even more paranoid and nervous. The rumor was proved false when they later found Sergeant Chambers at a ‘pleasure house,’ but the damage was already done- the British, paranoid of the Americans, had caused 11 casualties.
What about the colonial side of the days previous to the massacre? Boston was under the rule of the Navigation Laws. They were forced to house soldiers who enforced what were, in their eyes, unfair laws. The entire city felt as if it were in a war zone what with all the redcoats. The citizens had felt the tension under the ‘fog of war.’ Striking out against the enforcers of these rules were what any independent person would do under pressure. That the soldiers retaliated was not a problem- it was the extent of their retaliation that caused problems. Broken bones can be fixed, but the dead can never come to life again.
Finally, we must address the incident itself. Soldiers claimed to have fired because they heard a voice behind them call, “Fire!” Later