Justin Robinson
Dueling Documents Essay 1
4/2/2012
Who Was to Blame for the Boston Massacre?
In the book we see two documented accounts regarding the Boston Massacre. The first
document is the deposition of Captain Thomas Preston, March 12, 1770. Preston and six of his
men stood trial for murder (par, 1). The second document is the deposition of Robert Goddard,
sharing his account on what he saw and heard during the standoff. Both documents share
different perspectives as to what happened and who is to blame. However, Robert Goddard’s
deposition or account on the matter sounds misleading and not completely down to the truth. The
mob should be to blame for the outcome of the massacre because they initially started throwing
snowballs, shouted fire, and taunted the soldiers. As a result the soldiers were faced with a life or
death decision to fend off the angry Bostonian mob.
Snowballs and Clubs
When you first hear about the mob throwing snowballs it makes you think of it as not a
very threatening fight. You may think of it as something you did as a child on the playground.
Perhaps a snowball fight might seem rather friendly. However, looking in to the standoff of the
Boston Massacre it paints a very different picture of how threatening the riot really was. As
Captain Thomas Preston describes within the document, it was not just snowballs but clubs these
angry Bostonians were using (par, 2). The soldiers may have been able to fight off a mob easier
if they were just throwing snowballs. However, since they were using clubs it made the situation
more threatening for the soldiers themselves. The soldiers were put in a very bad situation and
the mob would not have relented or backed down had they not used excessive force.
1
Justin Robinson
Dueling Documents Essay 1
4/2/2012
Who shouted fire?
What I found interesting is what Captain Preston describes about the mob. To begin, this
mob was clearly angry and shouted many things, taunting the soldiers. As the standoff started to
get heated the mob called out, “come on you rascals, you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels,
fire if you dare, G-d damn you, we know you dare not,” (par, 2). Just by looking at that statement
we can see the mob was looking for a fight. But what struck me is that Captain Preston
repeatedly ordered his men to stand down and not fire. The confrontation escalated and Preston
stated that after being struck by snowballs and clubs a number of times, persons from behind
shouted fire, at which point three or four soldiers fired.
On the other hand, Robert Goddard stated that was not the case. He said Preston told his men to
fire. In this standoff I believe the soldiers got confused at who shouted fired (par, 3). I don’t
think Preston told his men to fire. All in all I think the reason why Captain Preston told his men
not to fire is because he knew the mob was unarmed. They merely had snowballs and club,
whereas the soldiers had guns that could and would kill people if used. If this thought went
through Preston’s mind during the standoff he would know that shooting a crowd of unarmed
people would most likely result in severe consequences following the attack. The soldiers had
the upper hand, so to speak. On the question of who shouted fire I think the Bostonians’ told
them to fire and provoked the soldiers to fire at them with their taunting, whereas Captain
Preston wanted to use guns as a last resort.
2
Justin Robinson
Dueling Documents Essay 1
4/2/2012
Faced with Life or Death
I believe at some point in the standoff, assuming the mob was larger in number than the
soldiers, the soldiers were faced with a decision of life or death. Getting hit repeatedly with
snowballs and clubs can get ugly. I picture the soldiers being straight up attacked by the angry
Bostonians to the point where they had no choice but to fire at the crowd to control the situation
and/or restore order. I suppose you may be able to consider the soldiers being in a no win
situation. They could either choose not to shoot and be injured or killed by the mob or shoot and
suffer the consequences and anger Bostonians even more. I don’t know everything that happened
that day, what was said, or how it exactly played out but based on the documents we have today
on this account that is how I see it.
In conclusion, I think a violent confrontation was inevitable. If you look at both accounts
I don’t think a massacre was a planned outcome on anyone’s part. Because the mob became so
violent it almost seems as if the soldiers had no choice but to defend themselves and fight off the
mobs by fire. I picture the standoff between the Bostonians and soldiers, like any other tense
situation, to all happen very quickly to the point where it could be hard to know who was at fault.
However, when it comes down to it, I don’t think the soldiers should have entirely been to blame
for the massacre.
Davidson, James et al., Experience History: Interpreting America’s Past, Salt Lake Community College ed., Vol 1,
page 152, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
3