Emma Kukuk
DeBruler
American Foundations 103-01
An Analysis of the Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre of 1770 was arguably one of the most important events in
American history: it created a sense of national unity, a mindset that was wholly American, and
rallied the nation to act on their growing antagonism against the British. During that time, British
troops were supposed to enforce imperial law, but since military pay was fairly insubstantial, offduty troops competed with locals for jobs, fueling the fires of antagonism.1 On March 5th, 1770,
a quarrel between a British soldier and a local citizen grew into a riot. Captain Thomas Preston
was the captain of the troops in Boston that day, and rallied a contingent of men to rescue the
soldier. The locals shouted obscenities at the soldiers, who became agitated and shot wildly into
the crowd. Five men lay dying from their wounds as the crowd dispersed. This local conflict
became an event of national importance, and was one of the first steps to American
independence.
The British monarchy frowned upon the American’s rabble-rousing ways; the national
debt must be paid, and the only way to do so was to tax the colonies—a move that Americans
distinctly opposed. Parliament sent British troops to enforce the needed taxes.2 According to
Thomas Preston, the British day officer stationed in Boston, the Bostonians did not have
legitimate reasons for being unhappy with the British troops. He said “[The Bostonians] have
ever used all means in their power to weaken the regiments, and to bring them into contempt by
promoting and aiding desertions, and with impunity, even where there has been the clearest of
the fact, and by grossly and falsely propagating untruths concerning them.” Captain Preston
accused the Bostonians of inciting and aiding desertions, and spreading lies about the regiments.3
The Bostonians, in turn, were sick of the overbearing British government, and though they may
have done the things Captain Preston charged them with, the British were not blameless.
“Sporadic fighting between soldiers and townsmen continued in the streets between the wharf
and the Common, where the soldiers were encamped.”4 There was obvious animosity between
the two groups, which sometimes erupted in violence from both sides. According to Ronald
Thomas Preston, “Historical Chronicle,” Gentlemen’s Magazine 40 (April 1770): 1
John Faragher, Mari Jo Buhle, Daniel Czitrom, Susan H. Armitage, Out of Many: A History of the American
People (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2012), 134.
3
Ibid., 1.
4
Faragher, One of Many, 135.
1
2
1
Emma Kukuk
DeBruler
American Foundations 103-01
Hatzenbuehler, in his article “Assessing the Meaning of Massacre: Boston (1770) and Kent State (1970),”
for the Peace & Change periodical, “Robbery, fighting, and verbal harangues were especially
common between local sailors/dock workers and the troops.”5 Captain Preston did not think the
Bostonians had justifiable reasons for disliking the British troops, and the Bostonians did not
hide their contempt well. Preston, however, was wrong. The Bostonians did have a legitimate
reason. The American Colonies had been getting along fine since their establishment up until
1763, which was the end of Salutary Neglect by Great Britain with the end of the Seven Years’
War. They began enforcing Navigation Acts—which were previously ignored by the Americans,
who saw them as a gross imposition of power.6
Power is responsibility. Captain Preston was responsible for the Boston troops, and he
would be inclined to present his and his men’s actions in the best possible light to minimize the
punishment from his superiors. However, there are certain things in his account that are
established facts, such as his order not to fire: “They [the British soldiers] then asked me if I
intended to order the men to fire. I answered no, by no means...”7 which matches with
established accounts of the massacre: “…colonists rapped upon gun barrels with sticks and clubs,
daring the soldiers to fire—which they did so without receiving an order from their commander
to do so.”8 Therefore, his account is somewhat credible. He was also likely to present his men in
a better light to gain sympathy from the government. The British were harassed in Boston, and
were clearly not happy with the situation: “…the soldiers found themselves hindered rather than
aided by the colony’s laws and courts…by the end of 1769, the 600 troops felt themselves ‘in
physical danger’ and ‘morally isolated’” from the Boston residents; Captain Preston most likely
wanted to be reassigned to a friendlier district.9 That, or he would have liked reinforcements to
help with the unruly and violent Americans.
The Americans were indeed violent; they protested what they saw as unjust taxation on
necessary goods to create revenue for a war they had not supported—such protests escalated to
Ronald L. Hatzenbuehler, “Assessing the Meaning of Massacre: Boston (1770) and Kent State (1970),” Peace &
Change 21, no. 2 (1996): 215. Academic Search Elite.
6
Faragher, One of Many, 132-135.
7
Preston, “Historical Chronicle,” 2.
8
Hatzenbuehler, “Assessing the Meaning of Massacre,” 211.
9
Ibid,. 211.
5
2
Emma Kukuk
DeBruler
American Foundations 103-01
dangerous levels with increasing frequency. When the Bostonians swarmed the British on March
5th, it is hardly a surprise that lives were lost. Tension between the two countries had been
building since the end of the Seven Years’ War; Britain needed revenue from the colonies to pay
its war debts, which the Americans wholeheartedly disagreed with as they were not supportive of
the war. So when those shots were fired in 1770, it provided the necessary ammunition for a fullscale revolution. The instigators used the event as a rallying cry: a massacre at the hands of the
British, take up your arms and fight against your oppressors! However, the term massacre may
not be appropriate. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a massacre is “the killing of
many persons under cruel or atrocious circumstances.”10 While any loss of life is a tragedy, only
five men died as a result of the riot. According to the same dictionary, “many” is defined as a
large but indefinite number.11 Others were injured in the fighting (around six), but even if they
had died, it is doubtful that their number would be classified as large.12 The term “massacre” was
used as a propaganda tool for inciting the greatest rebellion the budding country had ever seen.
The events of March 5th, 1770 were an important milestone for the American colonies; it
boosted the sense of national unity and pride that had been created during the Seven Years’
War.13 This new harmony would eventually be one of the deciding factors in helping the
Americans gain their independence from Great Britain. But from the British soldiers’ standpoint
during those stressful years leading up to the Boston Massacre, the Americans had no reason to
be unhappy with the stationing of the regiment in Boston. However, that does not mean that they
were blameless in the events leading up to the Boston Massacre; both sides were antagonistic of
each other. This, however, would not play a role in the report to the British monarchy; Captain
Preston made his men seem innocent and the Bostonians as vicious troublemakers with a violent
agenda. Both sides were to blame for the escalation of the riot, and both sides paid a price; the
British eventually lost their colonies, and the Americans lost many of their brethren in the war to
come. The Boston Massacre created a catalyst for the American Revolution, marking it as an
important event in American history.
10
Frederick C. Mish, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated, 2004), 441.
11
Ibid., 438.
12
Preston, “Historical Chronicle,” 2.
13
Faragher, One of Many, 129.
3