Introduction

The trials of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre began on October 17, 1770 at the Queen Street courtroom. The trials happened seven months after the attack on March 5, 1770. There were five colonists who were killed, two others were injured by the end of the attack. This was of no surprise to the Bostonian colonists as the majority of them demanded justice for the lives that were lost that fateful day and those who survived with injuries. But in a different light, the British army had been summoned to court because they were forced to defend themselves after they claimed that the colonists had attacked them suddenly when they had brought out their weapons.

In the Boston’s Massacre by Eric Hindraker, the author claimed that because of what the British soldiers said about their view on how the massacre happened, it casted Boston in a negative view. This is proven in his chapter, “Four Trials” as Hindraker had mentioned that Adams told the court and the people of Boston that the massacre could happen in any populous city such as Boston and that it would happen there. He even added to what the British soldiers had witnessed and heard on March 5th when he cried out the threats of the colonists in the courtroom. He had even said “kill them” and “knock them over.”

Although Hinderaker’s view of the Bostonian colonists after what they had done to the British soldiers and had possibly gotten the view of Boston in a negative perspective, Serena Zabin’s The Boston Massacre stated that because of what happened in the Boston Massacre, the interactions between the British Empire and the Bostonian citizens would be never be the same. In her chapter “From Shooting to Massacre, October - December 1770”, as the lawyers presented their evidence and witness statements from both the defense and prosecution in court during the trials, it was clear that the idea of both the British and Boston integrating in each other would not be happening. In fact, the massacre itself would end Boston’s association to the British Crown.

In his book, The Boston Massacre, by Hiller B. Zobel had an interesting perspective of a radical colonist in Captain Preston’s trial. In her chapter, “Rex v. Preston”, a radical colonist named William Palfrey had brushed off the court proceedings concerning the British captain altogether and thought of it as nothing more than a situation that was bizarre to say the least. However, he had confessed that he was not so sure if Captain Preston had given the soldiers the order to shoot at all. At the end of his trial, the captain would be declared not guilty, much to the disappointment of the radical colonists who wanted him to pay for what his soldiers had done.

There are three questions that will be addressed throughout the entirety of this essay. The first is to understand how the Boston Massacre happened. This is important to keep in mind because there were several factors that had caused the colonists to become furious at the British soldiers that would lead to the Boston Massacre. The factors included taxations on goods such as tea and British soldiers illegally entering civilian homes. In the next section, it will go over the testimonial statements between the British soldiers and those of some of their higher ups such as Captain Thomas Preston. This is interesting that even though they were all there when the massacre happened, the perspectives between the soldiers and that of a captain differed in both their actions and what they had said. Last but not least are the colonists’ perspectives that had either matched with the testimonies of the British soldiers and or had not but revealed their side of what had happened in the Boston Massacre. The conclusion of this essay will reveal what happened to the British soldiers once their verdicts were announced in court.

In the perspective of the colonists who had witnessed the Boston Massacre that fateful night, the British army deserved to be declared guilty for the senseless violence upon their fellow citizens. In another perspective, the British army attacked the colonists in self-defense. They would later on proclaim their innocence in court to prove that they did not deserve to be declared guilty just because they had to protect themselves. By going to court, they would have the chance to prove their innocence in front of the jury and the colonists had been summoned to court because they were forced to defend themselves after they claimed that the colonists had attacked them suddenly when they had brought out their weapons.