Who is at Fault for the Boston Massacre?

On March 5, 1770, conflict arose in Boston, Massachusetts between a crowd of American colonists and thirteen British soldiers. Both groups were armed, the colonists with clubs and the soldiers with rifles and bayonets. The colonists were shouting and throwing snowballs at the guards; in the commotion, a sentry, Private Montgomery, fired into the crowd of townsmen. Several others followed suit and fired their guns. Three of the townspeople were killed immediately, many others severely wounded. The British were arrested without hesitation, and when tried, they pled not guilty. They were acquitted of all charges except for two: Private Montgomery and Private Killroy were found guilty of manslaughter, sentenced with just a branding. The colonists that gathered in the streets of Boston on March 5, 1770, were the people that initiated the conflict between themselves and the British guard. This is evident from the way the colonists behaved, the differences between their recount and the captain's testimony, and the fact that only the colonists had a reason to initiate conflict.

The colonists gathered primarily on that day, rioting with weapons and shouting insults toward the troops. This had not been the first conflict; the news reported “frequent fights between colonists and soldiers quartered in Boston…on March 2nd and 3rd soldiers were very badly hurt” (Chronicle). On March 5, many different sources confirm, the Bostonians first provoked the British. “Striking their clubs and calling out” (Preston). Some colonists took it further, taunting, daring soldiers to fire, “fire, and be damned” (Tant). The first gunshot wasn’t commanded by their captain, Thomas Preston, it occurred as a result of a colonist’s punch thrown toward a sentry. Furthermore, the news article from the Boston Gazette was quite obviously a biased recount of the event, reporting that the British guards were attacking “unarmed persons” (Gazette). However, other more credible sources, such as eyewitnesses William Tant and Captain Thomas Preston, have stated otherwise, that the colonists were armed with clubs. Also, the British are made out to be completely immoral and heartless by the colonial news writers. “He asked them if they were going to murder people? And they said, “Yes, definitely” (Gazette). But that can’t be true, because the guards weren’t sent to murder people, they were chosen and sent to America to protect the colonists. The colonists’ behavior was not that of a group of innocent people.

The leader of the guard involved in the massacre was Captain Thomas Preston. He was tried separately, and in the testimony, he relates that “townspeople were gathering to attack the troops…with clubs and other weapons [the colonists] threatened to kill [a soldier]” (Preston), which confirms that the colonists started rioting first. Also, Captain Preston proves the first gunshot to be one of self-defense when he states, “one of the soldiers was severely hit with a stick and instantly fired his gun,” rather than the offensive murder-for-fun that the Boston Gazette journalist had implied the guards were doing. Further, Captain Preston had no plan to fire into the crowd of townspeople when his soldiers did so, “they heard the word fire and assumed it came from me...I gave no such order” (Preston). American colonist and eyewitness William Tant also admits that the giver of the command to fire was not discernable, that the troops who fired could just as possibly have responded to the colonists’ jeering as they could to an order from Captain Preston. He testified, “I heard a gun go off, and in the space of two or three seconds, I heard the word ‘Fire’ given, but by whom I do not know,” contributing more to the truth to Preston’s testimony. There are too many conflicting factors between the testimonies and the Bostonian news to ignore the probability that the colonists were blinded by their bias in their restatement of the event.

There were two sides to this fight: the American colonists and the British soldiers. However, the colonists were the only participants with a motive to start a fight with the guards. The colonists were being taxed without representation in Britain and the sentries were there to impose martial law. The king was violating more and more of their rights as humans. The quartering act forced the colonists to feed, clothe, and supply the troops against their will. Meanwhile, the soldiers were getting fed, clothed, supplied, and a place to board for free. They were just fine; if anything, the soldiers had reason to act even more cordial to the colonists. Suffering from the Intolerable Acts, the Proclamation Line, and other violations of their rights, the colonists had a fully justifiable reason to riot, so they did. The soldiers hadn’t started the fight.

The townsmen behaved in an acceptable way, though that admittedly made them guilty; the eyewitnesses’ testimonies disprove theirs; and they were the only side with a reason to rebel. All signs point to yes, the colonists initiated the Boston Massacre.

Works Cited

Testimony from Bostonian William Tant

Testimony from British Captain Thomas Preston

“The Boston Massacre -1- How It Began.” Private Tutoring, www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/milestone-events/boston-massacre/account-boston-massacre. 

"Boston Massacre: the Definitive Report in a London Newspaper...” Timothy Hughes Rare & Early Newspapers - Historic Newspapers, www.rarenewspapers.com/view/569662.