The Boston Massacre Who Gave the Order to Fire

The Trial of Captain Preston

Introduction

The Trial of Captain Preston was a famous trial that took place in Boston, Massachusetts in 1770, following the Boston Massacre. Captain Thomas Preston was a British officer who was accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd of American colonists, killing five people. The trial was a highly charged political event, with tensions running high between the colonists and the British authorities. John Adams, who later became the second President of the United States, was one of the defense attorneys in the trial. The prosecution argued that Preston had ordered his men to fire on the crowd, while the defense maintained that the soldiers had acted in self-defense. In the end, the jury acquitted Preston, and based on the contradictory testimony of eyewitnesses, it was the right decision; this paper will explain why.

Preston’s Deposition

Deposition was given by Captain Thomas Preston on March 12, 1770, regarding the events leading up to the Boston Massacre. In it Preston describes how the arrival of the British troops in Boston had been very unpopular with the locals, who had been actively trying to weaken and undermine the regiments. “It is [a] matter of too great notoriety to need any proofs that the arrival of his Majesty's troops in Boston was extremely obnoxious to its inhabitants,” he notes in his deposition (Wheeler, 1990). He goes on to detail several disputes between the townspeople and soldiers, which had been escalating in the days leading up to the massacre. Preston then describes the events of March 5, when tensions boiled over and a mob of townspeople began attacking British soldiers. He then claims that he had been trying to defuse the situation and that the soldiers had not been ordered to load their weapons. He also reports that the mob had been using violent and threatening language towards the soldiers, and that they had been struck with clubs and other weapons. Preston's deposition provides insight into the perspective of the British troops during the Boston Massacre, and his account is often cited in discussions of the incident. However, it should be noted that his version of events is not the only one, and many people have disputed his account over the years. Nonetheless, he does offer a credible explanation for what happened—as opposed to the contradictory testimonies of the many different eyewitnesses. His credibility coupled with the discrepancies in what the eyewitnesses reported is enough to show that he deserved to be acquitted, since one could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did as he was accused.

The Eye Witnesses

Indeed, the eye witnesses gave contradictory testimony, casting doubt as to who was responsible for the shooting. For instance, there is a great deal of confusion as to whether the man who gave the order to fire was an officer or the captain, and whether he wore a surtout or no surtout. William Wyatt says the man wore a cloth colored surtout—not the captain, but the one speaking to him. John Cole says Preston wore no surtout but had on a red coat. Diman Morton says the Captain had on a surtout and that it was not red. Nathaniel Fosdick says the Captain wore a sword and was dressed in his regimentals. So just these discrepancies are enough to call into question the veracity of all their testimonies since they cannot even agree as to what the captain was wearing. Since there is no agreement on that matter, how can there be agreement beyond a reasonable doubt as to whether he gave an order to fire? Quite simply, there cannot be. The testimonies are obsolete.

Then there is the matter as to where the captain stood before, during, and after the firing. Again, there is no agreement among the witnesses. Some say he was behind. Others among. And others say he was in front when giving the order. For instance, Peter Cunningham alleged that “Captain came and ordered the Men to prime and load. He came before 'em about 4 or 5 minutes after and put up their Guns with his Arm. They then fired and were priming and loading again. I am pretty positive the Capt. bid 'em Prime and load. I stood about 4 feet off him.” But this is clear contrast to what Benjamin Burdick reported: “After the firing the Captain came before the Soldiers and put up their Guns with his arm and said stop firing, dont fire no more or dont fire again. I heard the word fire and took it and am certain that it came from behind the Soldiers. I saw a man passing busily behind who I took to be an Officer. The firing was a little time after.”

Likewise, Robert Goddard reported a different story: “The Capt. was behind the Soldiers. The Captain told them to fire. One Gun went off. A Sailor or Townsman struck the Captain. He thereupon said damn your bloods fire think I'll be treated in this manner.” But that is not at all what Richard Palmes reported—and he literally had his hand on the captain’s shoulder during the firing. He reports the following: “Found Theodore Bliss talking with the Captain. I heard him say why don't you fire or words to that effect. The Captain answered I know not what and Bliss said God damn you why don't you fire. I was close behind Bliss. They were both in the front. Then I step'd immediately between them and put my left hand in a familiar manner on the Captains right shoulder to speak to him. I had then my hand on the Captains shoulder. After the Gun went off I heard the word fire. The Captain and I stood in front about half between the breech and muzzle of the Guns. I dont know who gave the word fire. I was then looking on the Soldier who fired. The word was given loud.” Palmes was then asked, “Did you hear Captain Preston give the word Fire?” He answered, “I have told your Honors, that after the first gun was fired, I heard the word, fire! but who gave it, I know not.” If a man that close to the action and to the captain was doubtful about who gave the order, no one could say with absolute certainty that it was the captain who ordered the soldiers to fire. It was a chaotic situation, with tempers flaring on all sides, and violence already in the air.

Matthew Murray likewise reported, “I heard no order given. I stood within two yards of the Captain. He was in front talking with a Person, I don't know who. I was looking at the Captain when the Gun was fired.” At this point it should be clear that if the jury had convicted Preston it would have been a miscarriage of justice. Jane Whitehouse stated the same with confidence: “The Captain stood on the left about three yards. The man touched one of the Soldiers upon the back and said fire, by God I'll stand by you. He was dressed in dark colored clothes.... He did not look like an Of ficer. The man fired directly on the word and clap on the Shoulder. I am positive the man was not the Captain.... I am sure he gave no orders....” James Woodall is in agreement: “The Captain, after, seemed shocked and looked upon the Soldiers. I am very certain he did not give the word fire.”

Thus, for those claiming they heard the captain give the order, it is possible those words were from another. For those claiming they are certain the captain gave no order, it is possible they simply did not hear. None of it matters—for it is plain that there is no certainty on the matter regarding eyewitness testimony. The confusion of the scene was such that no one could say what exactly happened, and since that is the case no one can say with certainty that the captain ordered the massacre.