The Boston Massacre: Inaccurate and Impactful
On 5 March 1770, a series of events would cause nine British Soldiers and more than one hundred protesters to face off in the streets of Boston. The result was British soldiers shooting into the crowd killing five civilians. This event that would come to be known as, “The Boston Massacre.” Everyone remembers hearing of this story as: Heroic everyday citizens uniting together against the ruthless killing of their fellow Bostonians. The picture perfect “American” scene of proud colonist standing up against their oppressors in a fight for justice and freedom. Many of us have believed these tales and for a variety of reason. Yet, the tale that these “heroic” Bostonians were shot at and killed indiscriminately by bloodthirsty Brits just is not true.
In fact, at the conclusion of the lengthy trial not a single soldier was found guilty of murder. But how can this be? How can a “massacre” of people take place, yet every soldier was acquitted of murder? After weeks sworn courtroom testimony, it was clear that the soldiers acted in self-defense. So where did the naming convention of “massacre” come from, and why has it survived for two hundred and fifty years?
Immediately following the death of the five Bostonians at the hands of British soldiers, the Sons of Liberty led an aggressive and successful political propaganda campaign vilifying the Red Coats. This tactic was brilliant because people everywhere could identify with the idea of being protected from maltreatment at the hands of a foreign presence. This was important because at the time there were limited mediums to receive news. It would take weeks or months for news to come from London supporting the soldiers’ version of the story. In Boston, however, it was easy to develop a political agenda and distribute it to the masses. This fact made it easy to manipulate the citizens of Boston to support the narrative disseminated by the Sons of Liberty. The narrative that aggressive Red Coats shot in to a crowd of hundreds of innocent people on the streets of Boston.
The engraving by Paul Revere titled, Bloody Massacre Perpetrated in Kings Street in Boston, was also expeditiously distributed far and wide. This iconic image is littered with falsehood and portrayed a massacre carried out by the British soldiers. The engraving included an image of Captain Thomas Preston raising his sword giving the command to shoot, which was proven in a court of law not to have happened. The engraving also depicts every soldier firing his weapon, which also was determined to be a complete fallacy. So why would the Sons of Liberty want to disseminate false information? The answer is quite clear. To garner the support of people who otherwise had no real grievances with the soldiers or their duties in Boston. By ingraining the notion that innocent civilians were “massacred” by British soldiers into the minds of everyday citizens, the Sons of Liberty ensured the only thing that would be “massacred” was Britain’s control over what would soon be known as America.
This would cause the more moderate colonist to fear and detest the British just as much as those politically motivated for their departure. This feeling was not exclusive to the colonist in Boston either. This feeling seemed to be mutual between colonies across the states. During a time when tensions between colonist and soldiers were unstable, the wide spread mislabeling of this event caused the tensions to reach an all time high. By now, an entire generation of young Colonist would increase their dissatisfaction with the soldiers and mount increasing forms of rebellions against the British government and their policies. The united defiance to British rule finally left the British no other choice but to pack their bags and head back to England.
The purpose of this paper is not to pursued someone towards a particular side regarding what happened during the Boston Massacre. But rather, the purpose is to inform the general public about the presence and impact of political propaganda. The dangers of political propaganda being accepted as truth over the actual facts are evident. If people are denied the facts and have to make decisions based on propaganda, they will ultimately become political pawns to help further an organization’s agenda and goals. On the contrary, by understanding what happened at the Boston Massacre and how political propaganda swayed the opinions of the colonist, people will be better equipped to recognized and avoid such schemes. Instead people will be afforded the opportunity to review the facts and make an informed decision. This will allow people to become participants in the political process rather than mindless drones flying through life with someone else holding the controller.
