The Boston Massacre: Same Event, Different Viewpoints
The Boston Massacre was an incidence where five American men were killed by British troops Yet, because of various forms of media and propaganda, the ramifications and repercusssions of the Boston Massacre were felt throughout the colonies. When Paul Revere's horrific engraving of the events that occurred that day in Boston reached the doorsteps of colonists across the east coast, hundreds of americvans began to have negative emotions towards their British counterparts. As a result, Revere had accomplished his goal of widely circulating an effective piece of anti-British propaganda that would stir feelings of civic pride among the colonists and later lead to the campaign for national independence from England. On March 5, 1770 a small group of colonists were throwing snowballs and other items at a band of British soldiers. A crowd soon gathered throwing ice and making fun of the troops. Soon, the tone of the event went from cheerful teasing to anger and frustration. By many historical accounts there was a great deal of taunting that eventually lead to an escalation of hostilities. More specifcally, history tells us that a lone sentry was being seriously taunted by a group of colonists. Probably fearing himself in danger, he called for assistance from his fellow British soldiers. A group of soldiers led by Captain Thomas Preston came to the aid of the lone sentry. Captain Preston and his detachment of seven or eight men were qucikly surrounded. All attempts to calm the crowd and bring an end to the mayhem proved useless. The situtation developed into total chaos. At this point the accoutns of the event vary drastically. Apparently, a solider fired a musket into the crowd immediately followed by more shots. This action left five american men dead and several others wounded. The presence of Britsh soldiers in New Enlgand was always dreaded among Boston's citizens that were radicals against the British parliament. There was always an uneasiness between the British Royal guard and those colonists who opposed the British monarchy. It seemed as though the tension was seething beneath the surface. Paul Revere quickly took advantage of the situation and capitalized on The Boston Massacre to reinforce hatred towards the British. He also wanted to encourage colonial discontent with the crown of England. After the Massacre happened, Paul Revere immediately took action to bring to light the harsh way the British abused their power towards the colonists even though his intepretation of the Masasacre is for the most part inconsistent. He made color prints from his engraving and distributed them around Boston. The prints were very inaccurate and painted a falsified picture of the event. Historians and chroniclers alike recognized what Paul Revere did as political propaganda. In Revere's depiction of the Boston Massacre, he uses several examples of anti-British sentiment that take a visual form. Revere's engravure shows English troops standing in a straight line shooting at retreating colonists. In truth, the event was actually very chaotic. When the incident actually happened both sides were quarrelsome and riotous. Following the event, Paul Revere's print showed Captain Preston as the one who gave the command to fire upon the peaceful crowd. Many colonists were incited with anger when seeing the painting and believed that Captain Preston gave the order to shoot when, in reality, Captain Preston claimed that he was standing in front of the rifles, between his British soldiers and the crowd of rioters. The print gives the idea that the British army were in attack formation ready to attack the protesters. In fact, there was nothing organized about the episode and when the shots were fired both sides took a part the calamity. There were also several other errors in the print made by Paul Revere. The errors were done on purpose in orderto present the Americans in the most sympathetic light possible, and the Britsh in the most tyrannous. According to several historical texts, the event occurred at night in the dead of winter. Notice also that Revere's engraving shows a blue sky. Only a small moon in the left corner suggest that the riot occurred on a cold winter night. The absence of snow and ice on the street is noticeable in Revere's engraving. While Crispus Attucks was escaped African slave who was the first to be killed in the event, he shown to be a white man lying on the ground closest to the Britsh soldiers. In some ways, Paul Revere did achieve his goal of moving many former moderates to outspoken opposition to British policies. By using radicalized skillful propaganda, Revere may have created one of the strongest influences in molding a staunch anti-British public opinion among the colonies. Yet, some remained steadfast in their opinions and beliefs. One of them, was John Adams. Even though he never swayed in his loyalty to colonial rights and refused to change his position as a foe of British oppression, John Adams risked the dissapproval of his friends and neighbors by defending the British soldiers during the Boston Massacre trial. John Adams conservative approach and traditional values made him unyielding in his pursuit to give that the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre receive a fair and ethical hearing. He defended the soldiers at their trial and he also spoke out repeatedly against the violence of the mob and the other signs of social disintegration that descended upon the city of Boston that cold winter night. Although John Adams was loyal to the American fight for libertyhe may have supported the British troops in stopping a group of unruly colonists that night in Boston. John Adams logical approach to the situation made him realize that the rioters were belligerent and supported the British soldiers in keeping the situation under control. He stood behind the actions of the British brigade which was evidenced in his summation during the Boston Massacre trials. John Adams was not so easily caught up in all of the political propaganda of Paul Revere's engraving. He instead chose to rationalize what happened during the event. One should remember that Adams himself was a member of Boston's elite and a well respected man in New England. It was likely that he did not support all of the negative assumptions the lower class had for the British Parliament. When the Boston Massacre occurred, Adams may not have immediately taken the Americans side,but may have examined the evidence thoroughly and realized that the British were only attempting to diffuse a riotous situation and protect themselevs in the process. In fact, it is plausible that from evaluating historical accounts that John Adams did not support the opinion that the Boston Massacre was actually a massacre at all, but more of a riot. Several eyewitness accounts of what happened at the Boston Massacre were illogical and inaccurate. Such as the testimony of Robert Goddard who was by all historical accounts a common citizen. In Robert goddard testiomny he claims he looked Captain Thomas Preston directly in the face as ordered the British troops to fire on the colonists. Goddard's testimony could be a possible explanation of what happened during the event except that his eyewitness account is the completely opposite of Captain Preston's deposition. In Preston's point of view, he was in the center of the action with the soldiers and the protesters on opposite sides of him. He claimed that his soldiers were being viciously attacked and beaten by several members of the mob. He told the court that he did curse and use profanity during the Massacre, but he swore that he never commanded his troops to shoot. While the despositions of Robert Goddard and Thomas Preston appear to antagonize each other, the reader must realize that the men viewed the situation from two different perspectives. One man, Robert Goddard is a commoner of Boston who is probably not very wealthy. He most likely viewed the British as an enemy of the American colonies. He may have been one of the Americans that questioned the British idea of a monarchy and no longer wanted the colonies to be under any form of British control. His viewpoint of the Boston Massacre may have by influenecd by his political and social ideals. Alternately, Captain Thomas Preston is a high ranking officer of the English throne and loyal to the political philosophy of the British Parliament. In his position, he was in charge of an entire battalion of British soldiers in a chaotic situation. He may have ordered his troops to fire on the colonists to to stop them from attacking his soldiers. Besides, Captain Preston was thinking of the safety of his troops and not of the welfare of the protesters. Whether he gave the command to fire or not, he defended the actions of himself and his soldiers to the fullest extent at the trial. I think this shows our modern age that without extensive research a historian cannot conclude that any newly discovered historical information can be taken as pure fact. Another thing it teaches people is that historical information cannot always be considered concrete or believed as the bare truth. What is written down as solid history may have just been one person's interpretation or opinion of what happened in that time period. If an article of historical information is not examined any further, people that read it will believe it is turly what happened without knowing the actual truth. Ultimately, the colonists and the British sentries had their own reasons for viewing what happened at the Boston Massacre differently. What was considered the Boston Massacre may not have been a real massacre at all. One reason may be that the lasting effects of the Stamp Act may have added to some of the uneasiness and tension between the British and the Americans. Especially among radical colonists who disdained British control and may have felt bombarded by the British Parliament attempting to maintain dominance over the colonies. All in all, modern society can only take the facts we do know as truth of the Boston Massacre. Anything else is left to question.
No comments:
Post a Comment