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.…