The American Revolution started because Britain wanted the Americans to pay taxes for war. These Americans did not want to pay and said that Britain is not doing it for American's benefits. Britain decided to impose laws to get money from the colonists, making them dissatisfied. The Boston Massacre was one of the key events to happen due to British tax laws. Was the Boston Massacre truly a massacre despite five colonists being killed? No, the incident name was not actually a massacre and it was an accident.
The Boston Massacre contradicts the meaning of the word "massacre." According to Dictionary, "massacre is defined as the killings of a large number of usually unarmed people." The word usage gives the implication that many people were …show more content…
His troops were stationed to guard the Custom Houses and colonists accosted them furiously. More soldiers were ordered to be stationed there. Suddenly, one soldier fired his gun and the other soldiers started shooting too, killing five colonists. As a result, Captain Preston and soldiers were charged for murder in the Boston Massacre Trial. The trial of Captain Preston written in shorthand print of his testimony was demonstrated as: "Nay, so far was I from intending the death of any person that I suffered the troops to go to the spot where the unhappy affair took place without any loading in their pieces; nor did I ever give orders for loading them(Hodgson)," conveys his intent. Captain Preston never gave an order to the soldiers and never wanted blood to be spilled. Also, this eyewitness account of the British perspective, asking the soldiers is illustrated as: "On my asking the soldiers why they fired without orders, they said they heard the word fire and supposed it came from me. This might be the case as many of the mob called out fire, fire, but I assured the men that I gave no such order; that my words were, don't fire, stop your firing. In short, it was scarcely possible for the soldiers to know who said fire, or don't fire, or stop your firing (Charles Edwards and Richardson)," shows that it was misheard during the riot. There was confusion among hearing the word "fire" from the colonists and Captain
The Boston Massacre contradicts the meaning of the word "massacre." According to Dictionary, "massacre is defined as the killings of a large number of usually unarmed people." The word usage gives the implication that many people were …show more content…
His troops were stationed to guard the Custom Houses and colonists accosted them furiously. More soldiers were ordered to be stationed there. Suddenly, one soldier fired his gun and the other soldiers started shooting too, killing five colonists. As a result, Captain Preston and soldiers were charged for murder in the Boston Massacre Trial. The trial of Captain Preston written in shorthand print of his testimony was demonstrated as: "Nay, so far was I from intending the death of any person that I suffered the troops to go to the spot where the unhappy affair took place without any loading in their pieces; nor did I ever give orders for loading them(Hodgson)," conveys his intent. Captain Preston never gave an order to the soldiers and never wanted blood to be spilled. Also, this eyewitness account of the British perspective, asking the soldiers is illustrated as: "On my asking the soldiers why they fired without orders, they said they heard the word fire and supposed it came from me. This might be the case as many of the mob called out fire, fire, but I assured the men that I gave no such order; that my words were, don't fire, stop your firing. In short, it was scarcely possible for the soldiers to know who said fire, or don't fire, or stop your firing (Charles Edwards and Richardson)," shows that it was misheard during the riot. There was confusion among hearing the word "fire" from the colonists and Captain