Let me catch you up to speed. People from Europe came to America for LOTS of different reasons. Some came for political asylum, some for religious freedom, some tried to escape their mounting debts back home and some came for the fun of it. Either way, as time passed and the colonies grew a certain "American Culture" began to develop. All these different cultures, living thousands of miles from home and across an entire ocean, began to develop a new identity. It's not that they considered themselves as "Americans". They did, however, begin to identify with their home colony (i.e. "I'm a Virginian" etc.) The confusing part is that while this new identity was being developed, the colonists were still fully recognized as British citizens. That meant the King and Parliament (England's version of Congress) were still in control. Some colonies had more self-government than others, but all answered ultimately to the Mother Country.
When the French/Indian War started, the colonists needed British troops help to defend their land. This arrangement worked because England A) hated France and B) wanted to see their colonies survive so they could continue to make a profit off them. So the war was fought and England won, and then the trouble started. William Pitt, the British Prime Minister (their version of a president) began taxing the colonies more heavily than they were used to in order to pay off the debt racked up by the French and Indian War. And who could blame him? England sent her troops across the ocean and paid for much of the war cost up front. You cannot blame them for wanting a return on their investment. Plus, the colonies belonged to England in the first place, so what's the big deal?
The problem was the colonists had basically been left alone for many decades leading up to the war with France. They had enjoyed the freedom this "salutary neglect" (fancy phrase :-) ) had brought. Now they resented England playing a more active role in colonial affairs. As the reins tightened, many colonists began to advocate more freedom. It is important to note that the original requests from the colonists were not for independence. That is a common misconception. What the colonists wanted, at least in the early years after the F/I War, was their rights as British citizens to be recognized. To be treated like they would be if they lived in England. The cries for independence rang out only after their requests for equal rights were ignored.
All of that background leads us to this week's topic: The Boston Massacre. In March of 1770 an unruly crowd of Bostonians were harassing a group of British soldiers who were guarding a local customs (tax) house. Heated words were exchanged, the colonists threw sticks, stones and snow balls at the soldiers and shots were fired. Five colonists were killed and the soldiers were put on trial. Ironically, John Adams (the cousin of Samuel Adams who was probably the most radical leader of the Sons of Liberty) was hired to defend the British soldiers against their charges of murder. Amazingly, Adams convinced the jury of the innocence of the soldiers and they were free to go.
First, read this story of the Boston Massacre from the perspective of the Captain of the British soldiers involved in this scuffle. Then, look at this portrayal of the events by Bostonian silversmith Paul Revere. Be sure to read the explanation as well as look at the image. There should be an option at the bottom of the page to view Revere's image in an enlarged view.
Is there any difference in the way the same incident was portrayed by the two sides? If so, why do you think that is? How could the same story be told two different ways?
On March 5, 1770, the colonists and the royal soilders were a part of this thing called the Boston Massacre. This started by the colonist saying something very rude and the soilder eating him in the face with his rifle. The fight lasted about twenty minutes. Paul Revere began selling his colored picture called the Bloody Massacre in King Street. Paul did it faster than anybody else. In the Boston Massacre four people died and later the fifth one. Also six were injured. Crispus Attucks would emerge as the most famous of all the black men to fight in the cause of the Revolution.(100)
ReplyDeleteThere was a short, yet significant list of differences.
ReplyDelete-The Patriots said that the Redcoats fired on them with no reason while they were helpless, but the Redcoats said the Patriots were attacking them and both prodding the soldiers to shoot and confusing them by telling them to fire
-Patriots said it was the Redcoats’ fault, Redcoats said it was the Patriots’ fault
-The scene made by Paul Revere was bloody and depicted a straight line of soldiers firing on unarmed colonists, making a bloody portrayal, while the soldier and the picture said that the soldiers were on either side and the fighting was mutual while being bloody, but not so dramatically
I think that the differences were caused by two headstrong opposing forces. The colonists thought that they were right in what they were doing while the British thought that they were right as well. These kind of emotions can blind to the truth and leave each side believing different things to add to their story.
I think a story could be told many different ways. Read the Gospels, for example. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John both remembered different aspects of the same stories, and they all had some things that they added that they alone remembered, but they add up to the same, yet different, story.
(218)
The things I concluded from these articles and this picture was that some people made these two exact same incidents become bigger / exaggerated things. For instance, the British made it seem so as the colonists were these horrid men that didn't want to pay taxes and threw boxes of tea into the ocean. Now, from Paul revere and the colonist stand point it would be that they want to get away from British government whom wanted them to pay taxes and just basically give England everything they had. So they were putting it as our colonists are so innocent and never do anything wrong. ( or that's the way I took it.)
ReplyDelete107
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between the article and the picture. Obviously they are biased to their own country but the picture that Paul Revere drew was a lie! He made it look like the soldiers were organized and ready to fire. The British troops didn't want to hurt anyone. The colonists were hitting them and yelling terrible things at them. And the troops were outnumbered.... by a lot! the colonists were daring them to fire! The soldiers said that they fired because they thought they had heard the leader command them to. But it was actually a colonist telling him to! In my opinion, the British were nice in giving them exactly what they asked for. (117)
ReplyDeleteWell, there is one thing for sure that both sides of the story told: the whole massacre was about 20 minutes long. Paul Revere’s picture made the British look bad, and the British soldier made the colonists look bad. Who is really telling the truth? The soldier said that the colonists were shouting horrible things at them and daring them to shoot. The British didn’t want to shoot, but some were confused and thought that they were told to fire, so they did. Now Paul Revere’s picture shows defenseless, innocent colonists against redcoats who are just firing away. His picture doesn’t match up at all with what the soldier said. The colonists had been taunting the soldiers, and they weren’t going to shoot unless it was absolutely necessary. Of course Paul Revere was trying to get support for the American side so he was going to make the British look terrible through his picture, and well, it worked.
ReplyDelete(158)
Both sides told the same story, but they told it in very different ways. Something both sides "agreed" on was that the Boston "Massacre" only lasted 20 minutes. The British told the story like the colonists were the bloodthirsty ones. They told it like the colonists gave them no choice. Paul Revere told it very differently. Revere told it and drew it like the soldiers were standing ready to fire. He told it like the colonists weren't doing anything wrong. It was like the soldiers just fired off for no reason. The sides were telling the same story but from two VERY different perspectives. The British felt they were being attacked. The colonists felt they were being slaughtered. Both sides could be right, or neither could be right. But the Boston Massacre (even though only five out of hundreds died) still had a huge impact on our history. (148)
ReplyDeleteThere were some similarities and differences in both of these accounts. The British said that they thought they were under attack, while the colonists felt like they were under attack. The British claimed that the captain yelled fire, but the colonists assumed a British officer yelled fire. It is believed that a colonist in the crowd yelled fire out of anger or distress. Also, both the British and the colonists agreed that the British shot first. This statement is without a doubt. However, the colonists agreed that Paul Revere's depiction of the "Bloody Massacre" was correct, when in fact it wasn't. (101)
ReplyDeleteThe two stories were interesting to see the thoughts form both sides. The British side saw it as it was the stupid Colonists fault for throwing rocks at them and screaming at them. They saw the colonists as the King's colonies (which they were). The colonists hated having them there in the colonies. They went and insulted the British and they shot them, but Paul Revere put it as they killed them in cold-blood. The British were put on trial for the massacre, and almost all of them weren't convicted and none killed. The Boston Massacre is still looked upon today as a horrible act by the British when the colonists started it.
ReplyDelete(113)
ReplyDeleteThe British perspective of the Boston massacre is much different from the colonists. The British captain in charge said that the colonists were threatening his men’s lives and attacked one of their soldiers. The men in the British Regiment thought they heard the word fire and fired upon the call and asked killing to immediately and mortally wounding 3. The colonists standpoint of this is represented through the engraving of Paul Revere. He drawls that a highly trained group of British soldiers fired simultaneously on an innocent group of colonists. It also depicts the colonists running in fear from the British soldiers. These 2 perspectives are very different. 108
ReplyDeletePaul Revere and other colonists wanted people to think that the British just decided to kill five of their people. That is not what actually happened. The colonists started the Boston Massacre by threatening to kill one of the guards and screaming at the soldiers to fire, which confused them and caused them to actually fire on the colonists. But regardless of what Paul Revers’s engraving shows, the British were defiantly not in a straight line. It was a big ball of massive confusion and mess-ups. The British were not planning on killing any of their “own” while they were there. (101)
ReplyDeleteOn March 5, 1770, In Boston a small but significant opposition occurred between the colonists and royal soldiers that eventually led to the start of the revolutionary war that was fought for our independence. A group Bostonian started bullying a small 13-man squad of British soldiers. The mob threw stones, snowballs, and anything else they could get their hands on. A soldier fearing for his life, as he was stuck fired his musket. The soldiers took it as a command for all to fire.
ReplyDeleteWithin three days of the conflict Paul Revere, a silversmith, made an engraving. This depiction showed the defenseless colonists being over shadowed by firing soldiers. Having primitive communications between colonies made this pictorial engraving distort the truth throughout history.
(124)
In Paul Revere’s painting, it shows the soldiers firing on a calm crowd. The story says that the British weren’t doing anything while the crowd was shouting horrible names at them and threatening them. The captain of the British said that his men were confused and panicked and thought he said fire. He also says that the colonists started attacking them with clubs that could destroy them. These stories are told so differently because both sides are trying to convince as many people as possible that they should fight because the enemy is extremely violent and could destroy them. Paul Revere wanted to make the colonists angry and make them believe that the British killed colonists because they just wanted to. The British didn’t fire on a calm crowd, but the captain over exaggerated what the colonists were doing. (139)
ReplyDeleteThere are either differences in the two stories or untold facts. Both stories tell that the colonist were taunting the British soldiers; however, the first one says that only three colonist were killed during the massacre and the other two were wounded badly. Plus, it says a colonist was insulting the British soldiers so a soldier used the butt of his rifle and smashed the colonist's head. Now in the second story, it say that the British soldiers shot four colonist to death and the fifth died a few days later; it also mentions six others were injured during this event. The second one talks more about how Paul Revere basically took someone else's painting and made it his own with a different caption. It mainly talks about the details to the painting rather than the story, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete[138]
The two opinions of the massacre were very interesting. They were very different. The British side made it sound like the colonists were acting terrible and taunting the soldiers. If that was true then the soldiers had all the right to shoot them. Also, if the men were yelling for them to fire at them then what do you think is going to happen? The British captain sounded like an innocent man. The colonists and Paul Revere’s side was exact opposite. Just from the picture it looks like the British captain is telling the soldiers to fire and the soldiers horrifically did. It looked gross. If other colonists saw that then they’d be in rage at the soldiers and captain. Really, it just depended if you were a colonist or a British citizen. (134)
ReplyDelete