The Boston Massacre (1 Viewer)

[XXXtraAnchovies]

all the history i ever needed to learn was in bill and teds excellent adventure. and yes, cesar was a salad dressing dude.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

all the history i ever needed to learn was in bill and teds excellent adventure. and yes, cesar was a salad dressing dude.

Ghengis Khan was a dude who, 700 years ago, totally ravaged China... and who, 2 hours ago, totally ravaged Oshman's Sporting Goods.

 

[Mamba]

Yeah this terrible event happened when a group of colonial protesters angering at the laws passed by Parliament under the direction of King George III(The Stamp Act, the taxes on tea, the very notion that the British Parliament could tax the American colonies). There was a small to perhaps moderately sized crowd of colonials throwing snowballs at British soldiers, rotten food, calling them lobster-backs. All of this happened at the royal perfect offices in Boston(sort of where the British conducted business affairs like mailing, or where most official business happened). Later that night, a group of British soldiers were standing firm against the taunts when someone heard a shot go off(who did it? There have been several different suspects I've looked at and still can't find one that really stands out most of all) But when this shot went off, the soldiers who were at there posts returned fire into the crowd, killing several people, one of them a free black sailor named Crispus Attacks, who had been involved with the Sons of Liberty(Sam Adams group of famed racketeers and rabble-rousers).

There was an immediate outcry over all of the colonies. The incident itself was eulogized by many upcoming Founding Fathers like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams as an act of tyranny in the enforcement of an unjust law. Heated rhetoric for sure, although Abigail Adams pretty much told her husband that the crowd in all likelihood provoked the soldiers into doing this action, therefore they were partly to blame at least. John Adams was a successful lawyer in Massachusetts and very committed to the colonial cause, but good prudence and foresight was paramount over his worst objections over British treatment. He defended the soldiers at their trial and did a damn fine job at proving that indeed those soldiers may have been provoked after all to shoot when they heard a gun shot go off and they didn't know at first where it initially came from.

You have to tip your hat to John Adams, he was far from being a fan of the British enacting unjust laws on the colonial governments without there consent, but the highest principle of his legal profession made him still see the law as the main arbiter, to give those soldiers the right to a fair and reasonable defense without letting the mob mentality take over.


IMO, the worst domestic incident in American History happened over the July 4th weekend of 1863 with the NYC Draft riots. That was the first time in American history where US Soldiers fired on its own citizens. Almost 100 years later from the Boston Massacre. Those Draft riots were in response to hard line nativists, hating the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves in the South, hatred of newly arrived immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, notably Irish immigrants. They burned black orphanages, attacked Union soldiers that were stationed on guards or at their posts, ransacked Horace Greeley's newspaper The New York Sun and personal materials. It was the 4th of July from hell if you lived in that vicinity, and it wasn't just expressed in NYC either, there were numerous Southern sympathizers in Washington DC right under the nose of the Federals, in fact a well known DC socialite named Belle Boyd(IIRC) was a notorious personality who employed prostitutes in her service to get information from well-placed Union officers in exchange for sexual favors. Using that to entice them, she'd gather what she had heard and then pass it on to a courier who then would relay to Confederate leaders.

Sure it was the mid 19th century and not exactly reaching Cold war espionage sex tactics, but no one can say that even back 150 year ago using the T and A approach wasn't an option for spying on your enemy behind enemy lines.

I like how you put "Yeah" at the beginning so people who don't know you didn't copy/paste from somewhere.

 

[St. Widge]

I have to wonder though. What was the relevance in naming only the black man who was killed of the 5?

Probably because for years the man's place in history was ignored. That an the fact that it gives some extra context to the history of race relations in America. Should they have named all five men? Yes, but that doesn't make naming one of them wrong. But, much like you, I wonder why you posted this thread? Was it to show the woeful state of history education in America or was it in hopes of getting someone to point out this issue about the black man that was killed?

 

[seagull]

The Boston Molasseccar killed more people.

 

[crosswatt]

.
I have to wonder though. What was the relevance in naming only the black man who was killed of the 5?

Simply, he was the first one to die, and became the first documented casualty of the Revolution.

Also, Crispus Attucks just sounds cool.

 

[Mojomajik9]

I seem to remember Mel Gibson saving the day and then blaming the Jews for conspiring to create more royalist sympathies.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

...killing several people, one of them a free black sailor named Crispus Attacks.....

This was a "wow" moment for me when first learning about it in my all-white, St. Bernard Catholic school in the '60s. Blacks were part of the American Revolution! Hardly a blip now but it was mind-blowing for me at the time.

John Adams was a successful lawyer in Massachusetts and very committed to the colonial cause.... He defended the soldiers at their trial and did a damn fine job at proving that indeed those soldiers may have been provoked after all to shoot when they heard a gun shot go off and they didn't know at first where it initially came from.

You have to tip your hat to John Adams, he was far from being a fan of the British enacting unjust laws on the colonial governments without there consent, but the highest principle of his legal profession made him still see the law as the main arbiter, to give those soldiers the right to a fair and reasonable defense without letting the mob mentality take over.

Still one of the great acts representative of the highest ideals for this country. Similar to how, despite the despicable nature of the act itself, the right to burn the flag is exactly representative of what this country should stand for.