Boston Massacre 1770: Unprovoked Attack or Self-Defense?

Introduction

On the evening of Monday, March 5, 1770, the event that many historians regard as a catalyst of the American Revolution took place in Boston, Massachusetts. Five colonists were killed as a result of the confrontation. British military troops had been occupying Boston, and tensions reached a breaking point when soldiers opened fire on civilians.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony had been occupied by British troops, who were tasked with suppressing rebellion against the Townshend Acts and maintaining peace and order. Things, however, did not go as planned. Intense frustration and outrage erupted, and fights broke out between British troops and civilians in the streets and public spaces of the city. The British soldiers were viewed by the colonists as enemies — perceived as job-takers and bullies — and a widespread feeling of hatred toward them grew among the civilian population.

A crowd gathered at the Customs House in Boston on March 5, 1770. The civilians began throwing objects and hurling insults at the soldiers to express their disagreement and resentment. In response, the soldiers opened fire on the mob. The five people who died as a result of the shooting were: Crispus Attucks; Samuel Gray, a rope maker; James Caldwell, a sailor; Samuel Maverick, a seventeen-year-old apprentice; and Patrick Carr, a leather worker and Irish immigrant. All five were killed in the incident (Kidder, 1870).

The following research objectives guided this paper:

1. To determine whether the attack was unprovoked or an act of self-defense.
2. To identify the underlying reasons for the massacre.

The purpose of the paper is to determine whether the British soldiers' actions constituted genuine self-defense or an unprovoked attack on unarmed civilians.

Research Objectives and Purpose

Whenever a conflict arises, there is a diverse range of opinions and conflicting viewpoints about who is right and who is wrong. Both parties in a fight tend to believe they are justified, and their perspectives rarely align. The truth is seldom as straightforward as either side claims. This paper explores those competing viewpoints in relation to the Boston Massacre. Numerous statements were made by eyewitnesses at the time, many of which directly contradicted the account offered by Captain Preston and his men:

Eyewitness statements opposed to Captain Preston's account:

Argument: Unprovoked Attack or Self-Defense?

Daniel Calef claimed that Captain Preston ordered his men to fire. Henry Knox claimed the soldiers had been hitting and pushing civilians with their muskets. Joseph Petty claimed he did not see any sticks thrown at the soldiers until after the firing had already begun. Robert Goddard claimed he heard Captain Preston curse his men for not firing when ordered. Several soldiers, including Hugh White, claimed they heard an order to fire and believed they were obeying Preston's commands.

Eight civilians were wounded and five were killed in total.

What is difficult to accept is how a group of unarmed civilians could have posed enough of a threat to justify lethal force. Self-defense, in any reasonable interpretation, should not have taken the form of shooting unarmed people. Verbally ordering the crowd to disperse, or arresting the most disruptive individuals, would have been a proportionate response.

Furthermore, after the assault, the soldiers were arrested and a trial was promised — in part as an effort to appease the outraged civilian population. Out of the eight men involved in the trial, six were acquitted and only two were found guilty. The guilty parties received a comparatively lenient penalty (Adams, 1774). This outcome seems deeply inadequate for soldiers who had taken human lives. Acquitting the majority and imposing a minor punishment on those convicted does not reflect the gravity of the misconduct.

The five deaths were unnecessary and unjustifiable by any measure. One cannot shoot someone for throwing objects. That soldiers could kill unarmed civilians over such provocations and face minimal legal consequences is difficult to reconcile with any standard of justice. The five civilians were not armed and did not possess any weapons at the time of the shooting. It is hard to understand how they could have posed a serious mortal threat to trained British soldiers.

Some writers, including Adams, labeled the killings as fair and placed the blame squarely on the civilians. Yet if the civilians were truly the aggressors, the logical response would have been to arrest and try them in court — the very right that was extended to the soldiers who had actually shot unarmed people.

In a speech condemning the incident, John Hancock labeled it a "planned event" and called the attack "unprovoked." He declared that it was "executed by the cruel hand of Preston and his sanguinary coadjutors."

Paul Revere, another well-known patriot, similarly described British soldiers mercilessly targeting a defenseless crowd of unarmed civilians who, upon hearing gunfire, simply backed away. According to Revere's account, there was no mob of angry attackers as the British soldiers claimed — the civilians were too frightened by the gunshots to react aggressively. Firing warning shots into the air would have been more than sufficient to disperse the crowd. Instead, the soldiers continued their assault, killing those who later became regarded as martyrs of the colonial cause (O'Neill, 2009).

The British army needed to be more understanding of the volatile situation they were operating in. A number of underlying causes made the violent outbreak foreseeable, and the soldiers should have been better prepared to handle tensions without resorting to lethal force (Linder, 2001).

First, a deep well of mutual distrust had been widening the gap between British soldiers and American colonists. There had been numerous incidents in which soldiers and civilians clashed physically in the streets and public spaces of Boston. At the same time, patriots also physically confronted British troops on occasion. The broader message being sent to the British was clear: their presence was unwelcome.

Second, the reduction in troop numbers contributed to an unstable atmosphere. Of the original four units of British soldiers stationed in Boston, two had been withdrawn. This created the general perception that the remaining forces were insufficient to maintain peace and order, while still being numerous enough to serve as a constant, unwelcome reminder of British military power.

Conclusion

To this day, the word "massacre" is still used in the same context as it was applied to the bloodshed of 1770. Following the Kent State shootings in 1970 — a tragedy that arose in the context of the Vietnam War and American military operations in Cambodia — four students were killed, nine were injured, and one was left permanently paralyzed. Even combining the casualties from both incidents, the Boston Massacre remains a relatively small event in terms of sheer numbers. Similarly, roughly one hundred years after the Boston Massacre, American troops killed Lakota and Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee, fearing an uprising; approximately 150 people were killed or went missing, with at least 50 wounded.