Today marks the 240th anniversary of one of the pivotal events of American history, an event which would put one of the greatest patriots, for the right reasons, briefly on the side of the British, against those Bostonians agitating against British oppression.
And while those patriots were right to protest the quartering of British troops in the heart of Boston, the citizens went overboard with their taunts. They began by taunting one sentry, standing guard outside the Custom House. Later the crowd grew; Captain Thomas Preston, then in charge of the British garrison, dispatched several soldiers to relieve the sentry.
Not content just to protest the soldiers, many patriots let their passions get the best of them and started pummeling the troops with snowballs and other objects. In a panic, the troops fired on the crowd, an event which became known as the Boston Massacre.
This is not to say that the soldiers conducted themselves appropriately. Some fired directly into the crowd instead of trying to use different means to respond. And while Preston did not issue the order to fire, he was not able to control his men. (Someone did yell, “Fire,” but the cry may have come from the patriots taunting the troops.) Three men died that day (with two dying later of wounds suffered that night), with Crispus Attucks being the first to fall. This man of mixed race (having both African and Native American Indian blood) is considered the first American to give his life in the American Revolution–even though he died five full years before Lexington and Concord.
When the soldiers were arrested, Preston, having trouble finding representation, asked John Adams, the aforementioned great patriot, to defend him. And reluctantly, that great man did. He argued that the soldiers fired in self-defense, provoked by an unruly and increasingly violent mob. Of the eight men indicted, only two were convicted, but on the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Even as Adams’ defense spared the lives (or at least ensured the freedom) of the soldiers and reminded Americans that the soldiers did not act out of malice, the incident still served to harden sentiment against the British. It reminded Americans that the British had stationed troops in the heart of the City of Boston, an unwarranted (or so it seemed to the patriots) assertion of royal authority.
Interesting its significance for the troops only reacted as human beings would in such stand-offs. That they had been stationed in the city was the real concern.
What happened that day, these twelve score years ago, should also serve as a reminder to those who denigrate the Tea Parties. For these patriots protesting today against the heavy hand of the state, while acting in the spirit of their Bostonian forebears, never rivaled them for the unruliness of their unrest.
And that unruly unrest which helped set the stage for the great battle for our freedom that would begin in earnest some five years, one month and 14 days hence.
Let us be grateful that the ideological descendants of the Boston patriots of 1770 have learned to be more civil in their disobedience. They don’t want to overthrow or otherwise seek independence from an oppressive regime, merely remove the causes of “oppression” and restore it to the principles our ancestors fought for those dozen score years ago.
I didn’t know that Adams defended them until I saw the mini-series (thanks Bruce!).
good website….thanks. And good post on Boston Massacre. This shows why History is important; it teaches us about today and, hopefully, tomorrow.
Consider yourself as the sentry. You are doing your job. Your rifle is loaded with one shot and you need to have a time out in order to prepare it to fire again.
The crowd has acted the bully. A show of force ensues. Soldiers following orders, the crowd following its passions.
I prefer to believe there is little, if any, association between the Boston Commons taunters and the TEA Party movement.
Certainly, the Boston Massacre is the precursor to the American Revolution. But it was not really a political act, so much as a case of lobster-back bashing.
Neither side (to the extent that there were sides) was prepared to start fighting one another on that occasion. But the incident warned the generals of the British army that they had to prepare for trouble that might ensue. To that extent, it was the spark that started the fire and from there the American Revolution began to unfold.
Good of you to remind your readers how one of our Founding Fathers provided legal counsel to someone whose political stance he opposed, and was actually prepared to go to war with. Especially now, at a time when the McCarthyite forces on the right are trying to demonize lawyers who provided legal counsel to the detainees at Gitmo.
Both sides having competent legal counsel is an absolute core principle of our legal system – to the extent that if no one were to provide counsel for any particular defendant, then that defendant could not be prosecuted.
Wow, #4….moral equivalence, it’s what’s for dinner.
You DO realize of course, in your faulty analogy, that BOTH the Bostonians as well as the Troops stationed there were both subject to the SAME laws, right? You know, what with both sides being English subjects and all.
How in the world can you equate what hppened in the Boston Massacre with terrorists from foreign countries, carrying out acts of war on foreign battlefields? It’s beyond any sort of reason or sanity.
Thanks for ruining an otherwise great post twisting history to fit your current-day meme.
You suck.
But you see AF_Vet, in the twisted mind of Tano and the Barack Obama Party, terrorists are justified in their actions of murder. Tano and Barack Obama both state that the Americans killed on 9/11 were “little Eichmanns” who deserved to die, and Barack Obama himself fully believes “God damn America”.
These leftist lawyers like Tano is talking about are outright aiding and abetting terrorists. They’ve already been caught doing so. Had John Adams been defending these British troops while passing along secret information and trying to facilitate the deaths of his fellow Americans, that WOULD be morally equivalent — but he wasn’t.
Epic history fail for the Tano fool. Next up, Tano will argue that Benedict Arnold was justified in turning traitor because George Washington was a slave owner and thus hated black people. After all, that’s what Barack Obama told him, so it must be true.
Especially now, at a time when the McCarthyite forces on the right are trying to demonize lawyers who provided legal counsel to the detainees at Gitmo
Oddly enough military lawyers are available at military courts. Did you not know there are actually lawyers in the military? Amazing, I know! They even had a popular tv show at one point.
Oddly enough, the civilian lawyers weren’t interested in defending the guests at Club Gitmo until they discovered they could make MONEY at it. Of course dumbass Fisters like Tano, who allegedly hate the rich, don’t care as long as money gets kicked back to their beloved party.