Read the two following viewpoints of the Boston Massacre. How do they differ? Are there any points that they agree upon? How do you think this event will effect the future of English/ Colonist relations?
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/boston.html
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1751-1775/bostonmassacre/prest.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I found each account of what happened very interesting. Each would have many simlarties on what happened but also diffrences in who was the more innocent party. In the colonists account of the incident they would describe the British as being the instigators and more violent of the two. They would accuse the capatain of ordering his soliders to fire and it was his hat that hit his arm which is highly unlikely. The Captain's account of what happend would be more believable except to the point of where he described the colonist to be quite savage but his telling that he was bashed in the arm seems more true then him being hurt by his hat. He also would say the soliders were the ones who fired against his order. In the end I would say both of their accounts had been mostly true but also containing lies. In both documents you can see both the British and the Colonists do not get along and more trouble is destined to break out.
both stories have many similarities and differences throughout. in captain preston's account the inhabitants started the ruckus. he really didn't want to fight with the colonists according to his account. i can see why he was angry that he had to go to trial because he seemed to pretty much keep his cool. however, in the boston gazette story it was reported that soldiers started the quarreling and were the reason for loss of life. with the way the colonists disliked the english rule it is understandable that they wanted to make it seem as if the british had started the problem. from both accounts a feeling of foreshadowing can be felt. many little battles will accumulate into a bigger and bigger war.
In the colonists' account they make it seem like the soldiers are responsible for the whole thing. Like they attacked colonists unprovoked and it was very unfair because the colonists only had clubs. In the Captain's account, everything is pretty much the colonists' fault. He makes the soldiers out to be innocent. I think that both the soldiers and the colonists were at fault to some extent. The colonists obviously did not want the soldiers in their colony and probably provoked them in some way and the soldiers did attack the colonists. So, neither document is very accurate because they are both biased, but each does have a bit of truth to it.
In one doc the colonists said they were attacked by the soldiers and in the other doc, the captain said his soliers were attacked by the colnists. I have read about the Massacre before and and from what i remember reading the colonists were armed and out of control, though they did not have anything but clubs, so yes the soldiers were more heavily armed and i do agree with you Jamie but the colonists also knew that the soldiers were armed. i do remember reading about one shot being fired and then it kind of ended? is my memory a failure? The stories were pretty similar besides the whole who attacked who thing
in the document written by the colonists they belieeved that it was their right to protest to them they would seem it barbaric to fire upon a protest full of citizens but unfortunatly almost every citizen was armed does this justify as self defense? if the soldiers were struck first was it right for them to fire on the crowd? In the second document it seems that the captain was struck and then other soldiers were also beaten if u were a soldier what would u do??
These accounts were the similar in some ways, but very different, based on the bais of the writer like Jamie said. I love how on both points of view they make the other side seem at fault. the colonists did provoke them, by name calling and what not, but its funny how in the captian's account it was all about justifying the soldier's actions. you really couldn't use these documents in an essay or whatnot for factual information because of the bais, but you could use it in a point of view essay or something of that sort. both documents give a good depiction of the attitudes of both the colonists and the soldiers, which shows a lot.
I think that the Boston Massacre was an unnecessary event. The fact that soldiers had to fire upon civilians armed only with snowballs, is pretty pathetic. Maybe alot of people weren't killed, but it still happened. The first document said that one of teh young lads knocked a soldier down and allowed him to get back up showed that they weren't savage. And obviously the captain didn't care of the consequences, because he said "damn you and fire".
Both of the accounts thought that the problem was that the soldiers fired on the civilians. The Captains account tried to protect all of his soldiers by placeing some of the blame on himself. The other account made it seem like the soldiers just attacked the boys out of nowhere, just for fun. The true story is probably a mixture between both of them. Later the British kept with the opinion that they were attacked first, while the colonists thought that it was an unjustified assault on innocent boys.
I found both documents to be very interesting. Although, they concerned the same topic, I found the accounts of the soldiers and citizens' of Boston to be very different.
The Newspaper article was written by a Boston Citizen, so naturally his story would contain a great deal of bias. The article claims that the British soldiers attacked the inhabitants of Boston without any provocation. I find this hard ot believe. The soldiers were in Boston to keep an eye on the colonists, no attack innocent people.
The second document was the account of a Captain, British soldier, so this document also contained bias. The captain said that the Bostonians provoked the soldiers into attacking them. This was probably more the case as the Bostonians didn't approve of being watched by the soldiers. The Captain that wrote the article said that he stayed out of the way, not wanting to hurt anyone. This was probably not the case seeing as his men were involved. Although I find it unfair that he had to be tried and probably sentenced to death.
A lot of people are saying that the Boston Massacure, wasn't neccesary, I kind of think it was. It was one of the final pushes that made the 'New World' want to become the U.S. I know it was absolutly horrible, but I think it really convinced people, who weren't, that we should really become seperate from the mother land.
Both accounts seem to agree that the Bostonian peeps had weapons concealed and brandished everywhere. But I'm a little confused, in the second account, the one by the General, why were the troops out in the streets in the first place? The first account struck me that the soldiers were running down the streets and alleys capp'n b*tches left and right. The second account makes me feel that the soldiers were just walking along and the colonists were everywhere and they were threatening the soldiers.
And then after the commotion, the General is summoned to a court gets the finger pointed at him by most of his men.
With two different accounts such as these, it is abundantly clear that the possibility of future relations between the English and Americans is nonexistant.
Both articles were obviously pointing fingers at the other group. The first article claims a colonist was struck with a sword, while the Captain's account tells of the colonists "provoking and abusing" the soldiers. According to these documents, they persuade the reader into thinking that their groups didn't start the massacre, but I think they were both equally involved in starting it. This event most likely made the colonists feel that they were starting to turn their backs to England and the king. I bet their future relations will be separated with awkwardness...and they'll look down upon eachother.
I found these two documents to prove that the Boston Massacre was a serious misunderstanding. The colonists make it seem like the fight was provoked by the British, and that they were in their full right to attack the soldiers. However, according to the British Captain, the colonists were provoking him and his soldiers, and he didn't want to hurt them at all. It's hard to tell which story is more believable, since both sides would obviously want to make it seem like the other side's fault. I feel pretty bad for the Captain if in fact the colonists started the fight because he had to face trial in which he really didn't do anything wrong. The Boston Massacre, which ever side started it, had a definite impact on the relations because now everyone was shooken up after seeing how violent this could turn into.
Both of these documents make understanding the massacre confusing as to what happened. In one the colonists it was the colonists who started it and their fault, in the other it was the soldiers. Although it is intresting how you see the story from both sides. I think it is understandable that the colonists would want to riot against the soldiers for what they were doing. This was one of the pushes that started leading to breaking free of Britian and becomming an indepentend nation.
the colonists and British both did their share to start the Boston Massacre. i believe each article must have some facts and some exaggerations in them, seeing as they do have some bias opinions. Of course the captain would want to make he and the other British soldiers look good and the colonists would like to make them look bad.i think that the Captain sounds more believable than the article written by the colonists. Most of the things the colonist said in the article sounded far fetched like when they say the British attacked them for no reason. this is highly inlikely. from reading the documents it almost seems like the Boston Massacre was a miss understanding, though even if this event didnt happen there would be more violence to come.
Each of the documents have a very one sided view of what happened but both of them give a clear view on what they believe happened. The captain could very well be at fault for giving the order and beginning a lot of controversey. The soldier did not need to fire the shot and if he was not ordered to none of it would be a problem. Either side could be correct but trying to figure it out is very confusing
as basically everyone else has said, both documents have similarities but they both differ in the persepective that they are told in. In the colonists account they say that the soliders, unprovoked attacked for no reason which we know to be completely untrue. the colonists were horrible disrespectful to the soliders and incredibly mean. And in the officers account of the incident he shows more truth when he says that the colonists did in fact harass the soliders. I think that both groups are at fault to some degree and that in each document there was some truth.
There was some common ground in the documents. The injuries sustained by the British troops were consistent between the documents although the reason for this violence was different. Each side told the story the way they thought it happened. The colonist talked a lot about British soldiers threatening to kill innocent citizens and perusing them down the streets brandishing guns and swords. The British captain insisted that the colonists where giving his men death threats to his soldiers and concentrated on the "devastating" injuries he sustained during the skirmish. Both sides agree however that it was a British soldier that fired with out an order that started the slaughter. The colonists would not only argue that he killed innocent civilians but he also disobeyed an order. And the British argued that they were provoked and that the "savage" people where threatening their lively hood.
I find it absurd how exageratted these two accounts were. The first especially seems to portray the British as barbarians roaming the streets of Boston. These documents make wonder whether or not the revolution would have occured with the use of extreme propaganda.
This same kind of topic has arisen in out middle eastern studies class. Both sides of every issue in history, as long as their are two sides to tell, will have biased propaganda to elevate one side or the other. The fact of the time however was that the British were occupying a colony of colonists who didn't necessarily want them there and consequently tensions were extremely high. The boston massacre happened becuase each side was too scared about who was going to act first, about who was going to be the ones to kill first. the same thing happened in Concord and Lexington, except then a shot rang out that was unidentified but once it was heard, as a soldier when your hand is shaking and it's on the trigger it's only natural to try and defend ourself. No the British were probably not parading through the streets, and no the colonists were probably not beating the british soldiers down but the fact is simply that the British fired into an angry mob and when the dust cleared five people lay dead.
Oh and Alex, correct me if i'm wrong but Lively-hood is spelt with a hyphen, otherwise if it's two words your talking about a hood that's somehow lively. I think.
The first document is DEFINITELY biased towards the colonists. I have an incredibly hard time believing that a couple of innocent colonists were just wandering down the streets and encountered an angry British man brandishing a sword. Weird. I enjoy this part: "...and asked them if they intended to murder people? They answered Yes, by G-d, root and branch!" I laughed.
The second document is obviously biased toward the British soldiers, seeing as it was writen by a British Captain.
Each side claims to be the victim. Each side mentions the same number of gun shots and both sides reccount the Captain being hit on the arm.
Haha, Connor, I like your comment regarding Alex's spelling. I'm just picturing a hood that's lively now.
In the first document, the colonist point the finger at the british soilders and making claims in which innocent, wandering colonist were beat and quoted one of the british soilders claming they said that the british inteded to kill when asked. The Second document reveals the British soilders point of view in which the colonist provoked the massacre which led to the gun shots. The British captain also claims that he considered making peace with the colonist and that the colonist threatened the exsistence of the soilders. In similarite, both documents have colonist blaming the british and considering themselves the victims of the massacre and the british blaming the colonits and considering themselves the victims. I believe this massacre was a revolutionary movement which helped define America and what it stood for in the near and far future.
Post a Comment