Captain Preston guilty or innocent

Captain Preston's Actions At Boston Massacre When it comes to American history, one of the most commonly cited periods that is focus on is the run up to the American Revolution and the aftermath once the United States was founded and the war was won. One of the specific events within that period that is commonly focused on is the Boston Massacre, which happened in 1870. There are a few names that come to the surface when it comes to that event.

Whether it be Crispus Attucks, Governor Hutchinson or others, there is no shortage of intrigue when it comes to the people involved. The biggest name in the eyes of many, however, would be Captain Thomas Preston. While the involvement of Captain Preston in the Boston Massacre is without doubt, his overall behaviors and guilt (or lack thereof) when it comes to the actions during the same is the subject of much debate[footnoteRef:1]. [1: Foner, Eric. 2011. Give Me Liberty! New York: W.W.

Norton.] Analysis When it comes to Captain Preston, there is not a lot about him that is not in debate. Even the years of his birth and death are disputed by many people. When it comes to his actions at the Boston Massacre, Preston was actually acquitted of all charges at a future point after the slaughter. However, there are many people that wonder aloud whether that was justified given what is known or is asserted to be known[footnoteRef:2].

Preston was among a group of men that were indicted by a grand jury a scant three weeks after the Boston Massacre happened. In total, Preston, his men and four civilians were all charged with firing at the window of the Customs House. All of them faced the death penalty for what they did. The rather brisk pace at which things progressed from the actual even to a trial is rather concerning. However, this does not mean that the wrong decision was made.

Another concerning matter is that the group had a hard time finding counsel. However, they eventually succeeded in finding a lawyer in the form of John Adams. To state the obvious, this was a fairly interesting choice for Adams given that he was defending men who were accused of murdering five people. Once things did get going, there was indeed a delay issued for the trial so that feelings and emotions were not at the high pitch that they were at in March of that year.

Indeed, the trial for Preston did not start until October and the soldiers had their trial in November. Everything was wrapped up by early December. Preston pled not guilty but never testified in his own defense. The overall strategy of the trial from the defense's perspective was to portray that Preston did not order the shooting and thus should not be convicted for the murders.

The prosecution did not help themselves all that well given that the fifteen witnesses called gave conflicting accounts as to whether Preston ordered the deaths or not. By contrast, the defense portrayed a picture where the soldiers were acting based on being harassed and intimidated by the crowd. Beyond that, the defense made it a point to center on who gave the "fire" order.

Preston ended up being acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt, which was the first time that term was ever used in an American court [footnoteRef:3]. [2: Bostonmassacre.net. 2016. "Boston Massacre Historical Society." Bostonmassacre.Net. http://www.bostonmassacre.net/players/preston-biography.htm.] [3: JAH. 2016. "The Boston Massacre Trials - John Adams Historical Society." John-Adams-Heritage.Com. http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/boston-massacre-trials/] The trial for the soldiers did not even start until late November and this was nearly a month after Preston was acquitted.

There was apparent and reasonable concern that the acquittal of Preston would lead to the soldiers being convicted for their own personal misdeeds. In the end, however, only two soldiers were convicted of anything and that was of manslaughter. The other soldiers were acquitted.

While one can argue or debate whether Preston gave the order or whether he should have been held liable given the totality of the circumstances, one thing that was absolutely clear from the trial was that John Adams put on a proverbial clinic when it came to the law and how he presented the case. In comparison, the prosecution did a rather shoddy job given the conflicting statements of the witnesses, the mishandling of the evidence involved and the handling of the jury.

Indeed, Adams made it a point to not antagonize or otherwise provoke people in the jury given the support that at least some of them had for the Sons of Liberty, who would obviously not support any idea of the soldiers acting properly [footnoteRef:4]. [4: JAH. 2016. "The Boston Massacre Trials - John Adams Historical Society." John-Adams-Heritage.Com. http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/boston-massacre-trials/.] Regardless of whether Preston (or anyone else) did indeed yell fire, there are some circumstances that are significantly mitigating for the troops that stood accused.

First, it is not in debate that the crowd as actively and intentionally taunting the soldiers when they were at the customs house. By many accounts, they were daring the soldiers to fire. They were apparently rather bold about this because they thought there was no way the group would fire since they had to have magistrate approval to do so. The provocation got so significant that there were rocks and other items being hurled at the soldiers.

Regardless of who it was, someone apparently did yell "fire" and this was followed by some soldiers doing precisely that [footnoteRef:5] [footnoteRef:6]. [5: O'Neill, Stephen. 2016. "Boston Massacre Historical Society." Bostonmassacre.Net. http://www.bostonmassacre.net/trial/trial-summary1.htm.] [6: History,. 2016. "The Boston Massacre - Mar 05, 1770 - HISTORY.Com." HISTORY.Com. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-boston-massacre.] Conclusion On the whole, the verdict against the prosecution and in favor of Preston and most of the soldiers seems to have been the right one.

Even if the prosecution fumbled their handling of the trial, the fact that disparate accounts existed is cause for.