Archer Brown

HIST 1301

2 Oct 2018

Finding the Truth:

What Really Happened at the Boston Massacre?

Through the examination of primary documents, historians are constantly attempting to

uncover the truth of historical events. In this way, the blurring of fact can be cleared in order to

“rewrite” history. A classic example of this is the legal case of Rex v. Preston, otherwise known

as the case of the Boston Massacre. Available to researchers are transcripts from court

testimonies; these can be used to find the corroborating evidence and try to find the truth of what

happened on 5 March, 1770. Also available are the closing statements of the prosecution and

defense. By reading these documents, the goals and main arguments of either side can be

recognized. If historians understand the basis of each side’s arguments, a greater understanding

of the bias and observation of fact can be found. Which of the two sides used facts and evidence

to declare their argument? In addition, who can not be trusted due to arguments based on

assumption alone? When analyzing the evidence, it is obvious that the shooting was not brought

upon by captain Preston’s order.

Upon examining the court testimonies of witnesses to the event, certain facts can be

proved by corroborating evidence. In this case, a majority of the witnesses brought to light that

the command to fire was indeed not spoken by Captain Preston. This is further proven by three

of these witnesses being for the prosecution. Because of this, bias can be proven as unlikely.

Consider the testimony of one Benjamin Burdick, who states that Preston “said stop firing, don’t

fire no more or don’t fire again”. Burdick was indeed called as a witness for the King (the
prosecution), but did not directly incriminate Cpt. Preston with his statement. Andrew, an

enslaved person at the scene, stated that he was “certain the voice came from behind [Preston]”.

While the evidence may not tell us who exactly gave the order, it can be decided firing was

called upon by someone in the crowd, and that person was most definitely not Preston.

Captain Preston was known to be a dutiful and respectful person with strong morals. The

accusations brought against him were not only unlikely, they were unlike his character. This is

shown to be true upon analyzing the background of Preston’s legal case. Josiah Quincy and

Robert Auchmuty elected to represent Preston, despite their patriotism towards the American

Colonies. This decision would not have been made if a mutual respect from all three parties was

present. Not only did these attorneys feel pity for the Captain, but the Captain treated them with

an equal amount of due respect, despite obvious differences. In addition, Lieut. Governor

Thomas Hutchinson described Preston as a man of “extremely good character”. Hutchinson also

makes clear that if deciding who he would choose to “guard against a precipitate action, [I]

should have pitched upon him as soon as any in the Regiment”. Preston was favorable amongst

members of the military, politicians, and the general public, as well as his soldiers. A man of this

character would not order anyone to fire at civilians if taunted by bare words, snowballs, and a

moderately sized crowd.

Another matter of the trial is important to analyze in this case: the conclusionary

statement for the prosecution. The statement is not only poorly written and unclear in many

regards, but it does not prove the prosecutionary argument. It consists of long, convoluted

statements that prove nothing. The principal arguments consist of assumed facts based on

individual testimonies and do not consider the corroborating evidence. They also judge the

soldiers as guilty due to their misconduct. “‘Tis absurd to suppose”, is written, “that their
situation could either justify or excuse their conduct”. Why, in a statement given during the trial

of Captain Preston, should the prosecution be making judgement of his soldiers? It is clear to all

who read the case that the soldiers are guilty for firing. This much is obvious. It is simply a

question of rather it was Captain Preston who gave the order (if there was any) to fire at the

crowd. In this regard, the prosecution’s concluding statement is highly flawed and should not be

read as truth. And if the prosecution themselves were either avoiding the truth intentionally or

there were simply no facts to incriminate Thomas Preston, it is clear that he is not guilty. This is

likely why the court reached their verdict. What matters is not the presentation given by either

side, but rather the facts described by the witnesses and those provided by context.

Observing the facts is an essential component of historical analysis. If historians

understand the truth behind legendary events, the greater public can learn about history more

accurately and effectively. In the case of the Boston Massacre, it remains unclear what truly

happened on the evening of March 5th, 1770. The court trials of Thomas Preston proved to be a

show of dishonesty and false witness, and many of the testimonies cannot be held as fact.

However, by examining the bits of evidence that the majority of testimonies agree upon, the truth

(or, the best idea of it) can be derived. According to corroborating evidence, the background

knowledge at hand, and the profiling of Thomas Preston’s character, it is unlikely that he was at

fault for the murder of civilians in the Town Square. He was a strong, dutiful man that showed

respect not only for the Mother Country, but for the colonial citizens he was assigned to protect.

He showed no desire to hurt people unjustly. In addition, the evidence suggests that it is unlikely

he gave the order. Multiple witnesses, including some on the side of the prosecution, told the

jury that the Captain did not give the order to fire. Third, the prosecution’s argument for putting

Preston in jail has little to do with the acts of the Captain himself, but rather a blatant blame
given to the British troops present that evening. In the end, the right decision was made by the

jury. Stories like these are not old historical events. They still occur in our modern society. Lies

and false truths are everywhere. With the rise of popular media, biased reporting, and “fake

news”, the truth is discerning. What people learn from studying history is how to move past the

bias of reporting and examine what truly matters: the facts.