Introduction
This essay, written in the first person, reflects the perspective of John Adams, the colonial lawyer who made the controversial decision to defend British soldiers after the Boston Massacre of 1770.
Background That Led to the Decision
There was tension between the British and the colonists, and violence was frequently witnessed. On one evening, or March 5, 1770, British soldiers faced a crowd that had pelted them with ice, oyster shells, and broken glass (Klein para. 4). The tensions seemed to reach a point beyond the optimum rate where the Redcoats had often feared for their lives under the then continuing.
I understand that Hugh White was assaulted by young boys who came throwing snowballs, stones, and clubs, among other things. After a short time, I am informed that Captain Thomas Preston arrived at the scene with other soldiers from the 29th Regiment (Adams seq.10). Within a twinkle of a minute, the soldiers surrounded White as one way to protect him, where Captain Preston stood in front of the entire team, a symbol of keeping the peace during that very moment. I defended British troops because I believed in the rule of law, that everyone needed defense, since the soldiers had acted out their military wisdom of self-defense.
Witnesses tell me that an unseen person who was not part of the crowd threw a club in the air that struck one of the military men in the head. The heavy strike made him lose balance and open fire due to the force that had hit him. The other soldiers assumed that Preston had given the go-ahead and discharged their muskets into the crowd (Klein para. 6). What I know at this point is that about five civilians were fatally hit on the ground, mortally wounded. Nine soldiers, including the captain, were arraigned in court, facing murder charges against innocent civilians.
The next day, on March 6, I heard a loud knock on my door. On opening, I saw a senior officer from the military with a few members who requested me to defend Captain Preston and the crew since no one else would do that. I was baffled for a moment since I did not perceive the endgame of the matter. Still, I did not hesitate to act because I believe in upholding the law and defending the innocent (Klein para. 15). As I thought about the issue, I listened to what was said that morning.
I was convinced that the soldiers had fired because they were in danger. Thus, before I embarked on the task, I told my mind that the beginning point of the verdict would be based on the soldier’s self-defense from the colonists’ rage (Cammiadep. 25). I felt everyone was entitled to the defense despite random actions that might lead to personal or group liability. The events were not clear enough, although some patriots wanted to make the matter lie at the expense of British soldiers. Various attorneys had committed to backing me in the case as long as I was in line.
The Happenings During the Case
The trial of the soldiers was a matter that saw public and private interests collide. Many wanted the members of the British military to be charged with murder, while others felt the case justified a need for an appeal regarding the matter. The soldiers were arraigned in court on September 7, 1770, but trials were delayed due to what was termed as political pressure surrounding the issue.
The governor then, Thomas Hutchison, had serious trust issues with the British government over taxation matters (Klein para. 6). The persecution judges who participated in the case included Benjamin Lynde, Peter Oliver, and Henry Trowbridge, among others (Adams seq.3). I was in the defense team alongside Josiah Quincy, Sampson Blowers, and Robert Auchmuty. The trials lasted longer than a day, which is uncommon in Massachusetts. Shortly after the trials, I argued over the expenses and wages paid to jurors, and the other defense team helped me.
The first person to face the trial was Captain Preston, the leader of the entire group. Preston had been jailed for seven months, and the trial began on October 24, 1770 (Cammidge, 26). Regarding Preston, I said that the soldiers acted in self-defense. I asked the jury to consider themselves in the same situation.
I challenged everyone in court that it was reasonable for any man to conclude there was danger during the confrontation, where the phrase ‘kill them’ was chanted. I remember one of my statements was that “Facts are stubborn…and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence…”(Adams seq.3). By that statement, I meant that the wish was to save lives and the passion to defend British military heritage was evident as well as the fact that the soldiers were risking death by a whisker.
To me, the judgment of death to these soldiers would be perceived as a stain on democracy, as we try to reflect on what was established by the ancient lawmakers concerning the freedom of action while on duty as a soldier. I was anxious and oblique while defending Preston and his soldiers since the prejudice of brutal murder was rampant among the prosecutor’s team (Adams seq.3). There was a view that innocent blood had been shed. Someone deserved to be hanged for that.
At first, Preston had not given any order to shoot and denied that in court, making him free from the concept of intentional killing. Additionally, the civilians had dared the soldiers to fire by chanting ‘fire and be damned’; hence, that was a provoking moment that might have provoked the soldiers to shoot them. I said, “Five guilty persons should escape unpunished rather than one innocent Person should die” (Cammidge p.25). In that statement, I reminded the juries that the law of nature calls for self-defense using Hale’s aspects in his Pleas of the Crown work.
In my verdict, I successfully argued that despite the occasion, the soldiers were not guilty because they had reacted to the law of nature in self-defense. I told them that the guilty defendants should simply be branded on the thumb as one way of punishing them (Klein para. 10). From the information I had from Crispus Attucks and Patrick Carr, the people of Boston were not responsible for the violence that night (Cammiadep.25). Thus, the provocation from the mob made the soldiers defend themselves against the attack.
The Aftermath of the Decision
Two soldiers who had been found guilty of manslaughter were branded on the thumbs, while Preston and six other soldiers were acquitted, making them not guilty. Samuel Adams made all the efforts he could manage to paint a negative picture of the redcoats, citing that they were the troublemakers who had started everything (Klein para. 4). The public interest groups reminded people about the brutal oppression that killed many people then.
Paul Revere changed an engraving by Henry Pelham, where he made it appear that the redcoats had taken pleasure in firing on people. The engraving also depicted Captain Preston standing behind the soldiers, commanding them to open fire. In other words, the controversy in law was witnessed, keeping in mind that Adams had defended the British despite being an American.
The Boston Massacre impacted a major rivalry between Britain and the Americans. Furthermore, the issue put the two parties in a cold war as the British were frequently accused of unfair taxation, which provoked a fight for independence. Over the next five years, the rebellion escalated further between the colonists and the British. They staged the Boston Tea Party, part of the Continental Congress. The colonists defended their arms race against the redcoats, which launched the famous American Revolution.
Conclusion
The Boston Massacre teaches the audience about the frames of law from British and American perspectives. I did not believe in British rule but saw it wise to defend the soldiers who had acted on their military intelligence. Many people expected me to protect the law by deciding fairly. That is where the liberty to follow the rule of law was seen to mark an epitome of a long journey that sparked revolutions that later came to the change application of legal factions in the contemporary world, a subject significantly evident in today’s criminal justice system. Today, Boston has a landmark at the intersection of Congress and State streets. That reminds historians about the event since it is a few meters from where the shots were fired.
Works Cited
Adams, John. “Notes on the Boston Massacre Trials by John 1770 ‘Captain Preston Case.’” MHS Collections Online: Notes on the Boston Massacre Trials, by John Adams, 1770, “Captn. Prestons Case”, n.d.
Cammiade, Audrey. “The ‘Boston Massacre.’” Franklin and the War of American Independence, 2020, pp. 25–26.
Klein, Christopher. Why John Adams Defended British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre. 2020.