By 1770 Boston was no longer Winthrop’s ‘city upon a hill’ whose citizenry had a covenant with God. Instead, Boston was the commercial and political epicentre of the Thirteen Colonies, and had been engulfed by a hot atmosphere of colonial discontent at the British, brought about by years of war, taxes and occupation. The discontent boiled over into riot on the evening of 5 March 1770, when Captain Thomas Preston and his seven guards arrived to relieve a Sentinel of his harassers amidst taunts of “you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare!” from an ever-swelling crowd of eighty. One of Preston’s men responded to being struck with a weapon by firing into the crowd. The ensuing chaos left five colonists dead, six more injured and the city inflamed. Whilst it is almost certain that Preston didn’t order his men to fire, he would have faded into the mists of history, had his innocence not been later challenged during the American Revolution. Patriots idolised and misconstrued the incident; John Adams claims it laid “the foundation of American independence” from their British tyrants. Their flawed imageries of the so-called ‘Boston Massacre’ reverberated across the Thirteen Colonies, and it’s the idealism they propagated more so than the incident itself which stirred colonists to revolting against the Crown.
The odds had never in Preston’s favour that faithful night, indeed it was a mixture of the provocative taunts from the ever-swelling crowd and the darkness that befell the pre-electric Boston streets that make faithful recollections difficult to obtain. However unfortunate the consequences of the incident, it is nearly certain that Preston hadn’t issue the command to fire. Whilst undisputed are the facts that the guards’ muskets were half-cocked and bayonets charged against the furious crowd, it would have betrayed Preston’s honour to fire. This is because as an experienced officer, like his comrade James Gifford, knew that “officers never give order to fire from charged bayonet”. Furthermore, Preston had a sense of destiny about him. When accosted by Henry Knox reminding him that his life was answerable should be issue orders to fire, he curtly acknowledged the fact. Knox’s remarks illustrate to us what Preston must have known at the time – that whilst rioting was not uncommon, it was unheard of for the British to fire on rioters.
Invariably, shots were fired as a response to the provocation of the crowd. Though disputed by many witnesses including Knox himself, the crowd was certainly armed, but not to the extent of the Guards. The crowd was pelting snowballs, many, like William Wyatt admit to having sticks and Benjamin Burdick admits to have carried a sword. Preston was situated between his men and the crowd receiving questions from Theodore Bliss and Richard Palmes in quick succession when a stick had struck down Private Montgomery whom responded by firing blindly into the crowd. In the ensuing chaos, some of the crowd had fled and some elected to fight on. There was a delayed second volley of fire as the other Guards joined in, but in the intervening period, men closest to, and hence with the best ability to hear Preston, like Bliss, Palmes and Matthew Murray whom saw Preston speaking all admit they heard no order given to fire. Preston managed to eventually reprimand his men, but the disgust and shock at his men that James Woodall witnessed in the aftermath further illustrates Preston’s innocence.
The boys that started the whole incident were simply products of years of British mistreatment of Colonists. Growing up in a post Seven Years War era, their experiences with the British varied little from being slapped with ever-increasing taxes such as the deeply unpopular Sugar Act of 1764, and Stamp Act of 1765. Indeed the Colonists were wronged, as both acts violated the rights of Englishmen as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Sugar Act funded the stationing of British forces in the Colonies. The Colonists saw it as an occupation and a threat to their liberties. The Stamp Act, effectively a direct revenue tax, angered Colonists, their grievances aptly summed up in the battle cry “no taxation without representation!” A rift had emerged, but it was repairable. The majority of Colonists were still loyal to the Crown. Surely the incident and Acts were too petty to warrant a rebellion against the Crown. However, several merchants began organising themselves into political groups, such as the Sons of Liberty and initiated uprisings which had the crowds of Colonists chanting for “liberty” from the injustices of the British Acts. Whilst the British were forced to repeal the Stamp Act, the Sons of Liberty had inadvertently steered the minds of Colonists down the road of liberty. Indeed, for the British it was a sign of what was to come. With the idea of liberty embedded, it was easy for patriot Colonists to antagonise the British for restricting their rights. Paul Revere, a Son of Liberty himself misconstrued the ‘Boston Massacre’ in a famous publication. It depicts the British guards firing in unison, acting as tyrants suppressing the idea of liberty, and clearly at odds with what actually happened that night. The ‘Boston Massacre’ whilst left five dead, was not a lasting grievance for Colonists. It exists in modern minds primarily due to a later revival by Revolutionaries, whom etched a strong association between the incident and liberty itself.
Clearly given the hostile environment Captain Preston encountered gave him many constraints. Aware of his destiny, his surroundings and experience as an officer, Preston would have no intention of ordering his men to fire upon the provocative crowd. Preston and his men were almost certainly victims of self-defence. It was also a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Boston had been slapped with several punitive and unpopular taxes which did nothing but anger Colonists to the point of protest. These taxes expose a rift founded on the belief that the British Parliament was violating their rights as Englishmen. The rift grew larger as the social contract between Crown and some colonists began shifting towards the idea of liberty. While most colonists remained loyal to the Crown, there were growing minority whom turned their back on the British, instead painting them as greedy tyrants. Whilst the five dead hardly constituted a massacre, it is the same colonists who successfully managed to misconstrue the nature of a forgotten and minor riot to what most people today call the ‘Boston Massacre’ and forever etching propaganda illustrating so-called ‘British tyranny’ into American memories.

Bibliography
Wheeler, William Bruce and Becker, Susan D., ‘What Really Happened in the Boston Massacre? The Trial of Captain Thomas Preston’, in Wheeler, William Bruce and Susan D., eds., Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence, Vol. 1, 3rd ed., Boston, 1994, pp. 135-149
Foner, Eric, Give Me Liberty! An American History, New York, 2012

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Deposition of Captain Thomas Preston, March 12 1770 (excerpt), in William Bruce Wheeler and Susan D. Becker, ‘What Really Happened in the Boston Massacre? The Trial of Captain Thomas Preston’, in William Bruce Wheeler and Susan D. Becker, eds., Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence, Vol. I, 3rd ed., Boston, 1994, p.77.
[ 2 ]. Epilogue, ibid., p.95
[ 3 ]. Cross-Examination of Captain James Gifford, in William Bruce Wheeler and Becker, p.89
[ 4 ]. Testimony of Henry Knox, in Wheeler and Becker, p. 82.
[ 5 ]. ibid
[ 6 ]. Testimony of William Wyatt and Benjamin Burdick, in Wheeler and Becker, p.80, 82.
[ 7 ]. Testimony of Theodore Bliss and Richard Palmes, in Wheeler and Becker, p.81, 85.
[ 8 ]. Testimony of Theodore Bliss, Richard Palmes and Matthew Murray, in Wheeler and Becker, p.81, 85, 87.
[ 9 ]. Testimony of James Woodall, in Wheeler and Becker, p.88, 89.
[ 10 ]. Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History, New York, 2012, p.187
[ 11 ]. Ibid., p. 189.
[ 12 ]. Paul Revere’s Engraving of the Boston Massacre., Wheeler and Becker, p.93.