The "Boston Massacre" refers to a riot on King Street in Boston on March 5, 1770, in which British soldiers fired on an unruly mob that had been heckling them and throwing snowballs and ice chunks. At the end of the mayhem, five men, including Crispus Attucks, lay dead or dying and six others were seriously wounded. The "massacre" was the result of many months of tension between the people of Boston and the soldiers. That tension in part resulted from the opposition to the Townshend duties (1767), but it was even more the result of the fact that the townspeople viewed the redcoats as threats to their jobs, homes, and families.

The March 5 incident was not the first confrontation between the two groups, as many brawls had erupted on earlier occasions. The problems had begun in 1768, when the commissioners of customs, who were appointed in Great Britain but were paid with what they collected in the colonies, requested military protection against crowds opposing imperial regulations. The British government sent about 700 men to protect the customs collectors, and the people of Boston were outraged. At first, most of the troops were unable to find accommodations in town and so set up camp on the town common. Governor Francis Bernard had planned on housing the troops in local homes, but the city council would not allow it, stating that citizens did not have to provide quarters unless there was no space in local barracks. The council wanted to station the soldiers in a harbor fortification called Castle William, which had plenty of room for the soldiers. However, the governor opposed putting the troops in Castle William because it was too remote for the troops and it would be difficult for them to come to Boston to help quell mobs. Eventually the governor found some empty buildings in the city for the troops. Once the regulars were stationed in Boston, other problems arose. Many of the soldiers sought part-time work while off duty; since their housing and board were paid for, they could work for lower wages than civilian laborers. Moreover, the men in uniform were competitors with Boston's young men for the attention of local women. At times, too, soldiers would be rowdy and misbehave as they crowded local taverns and drinking establishments. Tension also remained from the French and Indian War (1754-63), when British regulars and local militia eyed each other with suspicion and mutual disrespect. From the point of view of many colonists, the British soldiers were outsiders who were vile and rude and should be kept away from their families. In turn, the British soldiers saw the Boston civilians as country bumpkins who shunned the law and refused to pay taxes.

Given this tension, it took very little to provoke serious confrontations. For several days leading up to March 5, street battles broke out between soldiers and civilians. One of the first episodes occurred a few days before the shooting, when a soldier inquired about a job at a ropewalk and was told he could clean the privy. The soldier decided this offer was an insult--as it undoubtedly was--and a scuffle ensued. Other fights followed. By March 5 passions had reached fever pitch, with gangs of soldiers and civilians cursing and brawling with each other. That evening a soldier of the 29th Regiment was on sentry duty in front of the Customs House when a young man began to shout insults at him. The sentry used the butt of his rifle to rap the boy on the head. The boy screamed and ran for help; someone rang the church bell, and soon a large, unruly crowd had gathered in the street. Now facing an angry mob of around 400 men, the sentry called for assistance, and Captain Thomas Preston of the 29th Regiment responded with six men. The Bostonians threw snowballs and chunks of ice at the soldiers, daring them to fire. The soldiers loaded their guns, but the crowd refused to back down, taunting the soldiers and striking at them with clubs and other weapons. No one will ever know who yelled "Fire," but someone did, and the soldiers shot into the throng. Four men were killed instantly; one other was fatally wounded. Thomas Hutchinson, who had replaced Bernard as governor, took swift action and arrested Captain Preston, the soldiers, and four men who were alleged to have fired shots from inside the Customs House. All troops were immediately removed from Boston.

Three lawyers--Sampson Salter Blowers, John Adams, and Josiah Quincy--defended the soldiers at their trials, which occurred between October 24 and December 5, 1770. The prosecutors called witnesses to testify to the soldiers' insolent behavior in the period leading up to the massacre and emphasized the troops' hatred for the citizens. However, the talented defense team focused their attention on the incidents of that night. None of the soldiers testified on their own behalf. The local press described the crowd as much smaller, comprising around 80 people, and denied that the mob had provoked the soldiers. Nevertheless, these statements were clearly contrary to the facts. Captain Preston and four other men were acquitted, but two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter. However, they were released after being branded on the hand, having claimed the medieval relic of benefit of clergy. (Originally a provision to protect clergy in civil courts, benefit of clergy allowed a person convicted of crimes such as manslaughter to avoid execution by proving clergy status through reading. By the 18th century this provision had been expanded to include any one who could read.)

Although the Boston Massacre has played a large role in the mythology on the origins of the American Revolution, its immediate impact in the colonies was not great. With the repeal of the Townshend duties in 1770--except for the symbolic tax on tea--the urgency of the resistance to imperial regulation decreased. Moreover, economic conditions, which had been poor in the late 1760s, improved in most colonies at this time. Within Boston the immediate cause of conflict--the presence of the soldiers--was removed, and many leading Bostonians felt relieved that the trial ended without any serious affront to the king and his soldiers. Men like John Adams had come to fear as much the unrestrained mob on King Street as the redcoats who had roamed the city's streets.

More radical leaders, however, sought to capitalize on the episode by labeling it a massacre. Paul Revere's engraving of the riot portrayed the soldiers as evil and their shooting intentional and malicious. He also depicted the threatening Boston mob as no more than innocent protestors who posed no threat to the soldiers. Other radicals, led by Samuel Adams, kept the memory of the massacre alive by commemorating the date with demonstrations every year thereafter. All of this propaganda had an effect, especially once war and independence loomed a few years later, for the Boston Massacre became an important symbol of the Revolution. In the early 21st century there is hardly a U.S. history textbook that does not included Revere's famous print as well as a discussion of how this incident, which was more about local conditions than larger issues, contributed to the defense of liberty and led to the independence of the United States.

Bibliography:

1) Dirk Hoerder, Crowd Action in Revolutionary Massachusetts, 1765-1780 (New York: Academic Press, 1977)

2) Hiller B. Zobel, The Boston Massacre (New York: Norton 1970)

Free term papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom written research paper, term paper, or essay on American Revolution at affordable price. CustomTermPapers is the best solution for those who seek help in writing term papers, essays, and research papers related to American Revolution and other relevant topics.