The Boston Massacre: What Really Happened?

The so-called “Boston Massacre” of March 5, 1770 is generally regarded by historians as a pivotal event leading up to the American Revolution later in the same decade. The incident became a rallying cry for the American colonists who claimed to be oppressed at the hands of the British. The narrative that spread among the colonists was that British soldiers (commonly referred to with the pejorative of “redcoats” due to their red-colored uniforms) had engaged in a largely unprovoked massacre of five Boston civilians after no more provocation than having snowballs thrown at them by mischievous young people.

Paul Revere’s well-known engraving of the event provides a vivid depiction of this popular narrative. The image in the engraving is one of a line of British soldiers firing their muskets at hapless Bostonians with innocent, unarmed civilians falling to the ground. Indeed, this is the view of the events of the Boston Massacre to which many Americans continue to subscribe more than two centuries later. But is this rendition of the events of March 5, 1770 accurate? Was it a substantial enough provocation to justify a full-scale rebellion of the colonists against the British crown? The evidence from the subsequent trial of the British officer who presided over the troops responsible for the “massacre” indicates that the situation was more complicated, and requires a more nuanced understanding than what the popular narrative would indicate.

What actually happened during the events of March 5, 1770? The case of the Boston Massacre really cannot be understood outside the context of the political situation in Boston at the time, widely chronicled by the various political cartoons of the time. Tensions had been building for years due to the resentments held by the colonists towards certain policies that had been enacted by the British. Not only had public demonstrations become common, but there had also been physical clashes between residents of the city and members of the British army, including tavern brawls and other comparable skirmishes. This already tense situation escalated in February 1770 when an eleven-year-old was killed by a British sympathizer who fired his musket towards a mob of angry British protestors who had been stoning his house. The Boston Massacre occurred only eleven days later.

The popular narrative suggests that the Boston Massacre occurred when a group of boys began throwing snowballs at “redcoats” who then fired in retaliation, killing five people in the process. However, the actual scenario that cannot be disputed by witness testimony indicates that a group of young men, not children but probably late teenagers, began harassing, taunting, and pelting British soldiers with snow. One of the young men was an apprentice who falsely accused a British soldier of reneging on a debt to his master. A British soldier was angered by the insults and harassment and struck one of the young men with his musket. This assault had the effect of not only provoking the young men into increasing their verbal assaults on the British soldier, but also attracted the attention of nearby townspeople. A much larger group began to gather around the soldier who had struck the apprentice, and the soldier summoned for help. Eventually, Captain Thomas Preston, his superior officer, arrived at the scene with additional British soldiers.

Witness testimony does not dispute that the crowd gathered around the British soldiers continued to grow larger and more unruly over throughout the evening, even if the precise size of the crowd and the specifics of their behavior are difficult to determine. Clearly, the crowd substantially outnumbered the much smaller group of British soldiers. Clearly, the behavior of the crowd was aggressive and unruly enough for the soldiers to have reasonable cause to fear for their own safety. It is also clear that many among the crowd were aggressive young men, and not older and more subdued citizens of Boston. Witness testimony provided by both the defense and the prosecution indicates that members of the crowd were consistently taunting the soldiers, and daring them to fire their muskets at their tormenters.

The criminal prosecution of Captain Thomas Preston and other British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre was based on claims concerning what actually happened next. According to the deposition later given by Captain Preston, many among the mob of people that were taunting the soldiers were armed with clubs and bludgeons. Not only did they display these weapons in a threatening way but they actually struck the muskets the soldiers were holding. Preston claimed he attempted to persuade the mob to disperse but was unsuccessful. The Captain claimed to be standing in front of these troops speaking to the crowd. He stated that not only would he not order his men to fire upon the crowd, but that doing so would be unbecoming of an officer. Further, he would be putting himself in the line of fire, thereby guaranteeing his own wounding or death.

The Captain claimed that the firing began when one of the soldiers was hit by a club and began shooting his musket in retaliation. The physical attacks on the soldiers by the club-wielding mob then escalated. The soldiers then had sufficient cause to fear for their lives. Someone called out urging the soldiers to fire and the firing began. Captain Thomas denied that he ever gave orders to fire. He claimed that when he asked the men why they had fired without order, they responded they had heard someone urging them to fire and assumed it was him. The Captain stated that he suspected that because individuals from the crowd had been taunting the soldiers and urging them to fire, they mistakenly confused some of the taunts with orders from him.

The key issue regarding the prosecution of Captain Preston is whether or not he actually gave the orders to fire, and if so, under what circumstances. The testimony of supposed eyewitnesses was confused. For instance, there was a considerable discrepancy between witnesses over whether the Captain was wearing a “surtout” (an overcoat) and, if so, what the color of the coat was. Witnesses also gave contradictory testimony as to whether Captain Preston actually gave orders to his men to fire their weapons. Two witnesses, Isaac Pierce and Joseph Belknap claimed to have heard Captain Preston confess to the Lieutenant Governor after the shooting that he had ordered the men to fire because he believed their lives to be in immediate danger. However, another witness, Edward Hill, claimed he observed Captain Preston reprimanding a soldier who had fired his weapon without orders after the shooting had occurred.

Captain Preston was acquitted of the charge of murder that was brought against him. This was a justifiable verdict. Witness testimony failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Captain had ever ordered his men to fire their weapons. Further, if he indeed ordered the men to fire, he would have had reasonable cause to assume that the lives of his men were in danger given the hostile crowd’s much larger numbers, their brandishing of clubs and other weapons, and their stated threats. For example, one prosecution witness, Benjamin Burdick, admitted to being armed with a sword and having threatening intentions towards the soldiers.

In light of this evidence, it would indeed appear that Paul Revere’s engraving is misleading. The British soldiers fired upon the mob, but only after substantial provocation involving clear and present danger to their own lives and safety. These were not peaceful or innocent protestors against unjust government policies, but an angry mob wielding weapons of their own, making credible threats of violence, and outnumbering the soldiers whom they were threatening by a tremendous degree.

Nor does the Boston Massacre by itself appear to be a justifiable reason for rebellion against the mother country. Rebellion may or may not have been justified for other reasons, such as genuinely oppressive government policies, or other acts of repression against the colonists. That is a separate question. But the Boston Massacre itself was the case of ordinary soldiers being threatened by an armed and angry mob. Even if it can be judged that the soldiers engaged in excessive force by shooting into the crowd, an element of severe provocation is certainly present. Such an incident by itself hardly justifies a political revolution.

Bibliography

“What Really Happened in the Boston Massacre? The Trial of Captain Thomas Preston.”Cengage Learning. 2010. PDF.