Pro Colonist View
There are two popular views of the Boston Massacre, the pro-colonist view and the pro-British view. Neither of the views are entirely accurate, the true events of that night are found in the ‘middle ground’ of the accounts. No matter how truthful one account is believed to be, it is impossible for it to be entirely accurate because they couldn't know the intent of the opposing side.
The popular pro-colonist view is that the colonists were completely innocent and that the British officers attacked them. Paul Revere’s etching popularized this view of the Boston Massacre, of Captain Preston ordering the officers to fire into a crowd of innocent colonists. “In about 10 minutes I heard the Officer say fire” (William Wyatt). The pro-colonist view …show more content…
Some colonists were harassing a British sentry that stood guard in front of the Customs House. Captain Preston was informed and sent 7-8 men to protect him and then proceeded to follow himself. The men stood in a half circle with charged bayonets and loaded guns, although according to Preston’s account, shouldn't have been loaded. The colonists would have seen this as a threat, regardless of what the British soldiers intents were, so, they defended themselves by pelting the officers with snowballs. When one man hit an officer over the hands with a stick (or a cane) his gun went off. The other officers took this as their cue to fire, even though Captain Preston never ordered them too. To add to the confusion of whether or not they were to fire, the colonists were challenging them to actually fire.
Both the colonists and the British are at fault for the Boston Massacre. The British saw the colonists attacking them with snowballs as they were trying to stop a riot, with their guns and bayonets readied in case of emergency. The colonists saw the officers show up with charged bayonets and (presumably) loaded guns aimed at them. As anybody who believed that they were in danger would, they defended themselves in the only way they could, not knowing that actually added to the problem.
Therefore, no party present at the Boston Massacre was completely innocent, whether they were aware of
The popular pro-colonist view is that the colonists were completely innocent and that the British officers attacked them. Paul Revere’s etching popularized this view of the Boston Massacre, of Captain Preston ordering the officers to fire into a crowd of innocent colonists. “In about 10 minutes I heard the Officer say fire” (William Wyatt). The pro-colonist view …show more content…
Some colonists were harassing a British sentry that stood guard in front of the Customs House. Captain Preston was informed and sent 7-8 men to protect him and then proceeded to follow himself. The men stood in a half circle with charged bayonets and loaded guns, although according to Preston’s account, shouldn't have been loaded. The colonists would have seen this as a threat, regardless of what the British soldiers intents were, so, they defended themselves by pelting the officers with snowballs. When one man hit an officer over the hands with a stick (or a cane) his gun went off. The other officers took this as their cue to fire, even though Captain Preston never ordered them too. To add to the confusion of whether or not they were to fire, the colonists were challenging them to actually fire.
Both the colonists and the British are at fault for the Boston Massacre. The British saw the colonists attacking them with snowballs as they were trying to stop a riot, with their guns and bayonets readied in case of emergency. The colonists saw the officers show up with charged bayonets and (presumably) loaded guns aimed at them. As anybody who believed that they were in danger would, they defended themselves in the only way they could, not knowing that actually added to the problem.
Therefore, no party present at the Boston Massacre was completely innocent, whether they were aware of