0
Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre, the death of five civilians on March 5, 1770, helped spark the American Revolutionary War.
852 Questions
Boston Tea Party
Was the Boston Tea Party retaliation for the Boston massacre?
No. The Boston Tea Party was a protest of the lowering of the cost of the British tea by the government and the East India tea company who had gotten a bail out from the crown in 1773. The smugglers in the colonies found the Dutch tea that they sold was higher in price than the British tea, so they staged the Boston Tea Party and others in harbors in the colonies ( Hamilton was one of the largest smugglers in the colonies and a founding member of the Son's of Liberty). The cost of tea also went as far back as the Navigation Acts and the restricting of trade to and from the colonies passed from 1650-1733. Tea was also taxed in 1767 in the Townsend Acts. The Boston Massacre happened in 1770 and was a great propaganda tool for men like Paul Revere ( he drew the picture featured in the handbills of the time) who were trying to sway public opinion against the British. The actual events did not happen as were reported and John Adams defended the soldiers who were put on trial ( modern historians have proven the events were different than the myth. See History Channel programs). So, as you can see they were not connected except for the fact it all took place in the colonies.
How many adults were killed during the Boston massacre?
5 people were killed during the Boston Massacre.
Did the Boston massacre take place on breeds hill?
No, the Boston Massacre didn't take place on Breed's Hill. Battle of Bunker Hill took place on Breed's Hill
Who let the colonial militias at Lexington and concord?
The battles of Lexington and Concord were important because they were the first battles of the Revolutionary War. Lexington was not a full-fledged battle, but only a skirmish.
An advance guard of six companies of the British Regular Army entered the town at sunrise on April 19, 1775. About 80 Lexington militiamen under the leadership of Captain John Parker stood in ranks on the village common. No one is sure who fired the first shot. Eight Massachusetts men were killed and ten were wounded. None of the British soldiers was killed and only one was wounded.
Colonel James Barrett led the militia in the town of Concord. He first marched toward the British, but when he saw the colonials were outnumbered almost three to one, he wisely withdrew to a hillside outside of town, expecting that he would receive reinforcements as the day progressed. Militiamen from many nearby villages arrived until the colonials had a force of about 2,000. They routed the first group of British troops, who retreated down the road heading back to Boston. The militia continued to shoot at them along the way.
What act by custom officers began a series of events that led to the Boston massacre?
The Townshend Acts, a series of acts passed, beginning in 1767 were the acts that eventually led to the Boston Massacre. Anger over the Townshend Acts led to the occupation of Boston by British troops in 1768, which eventually resulted in the Boston Massacre of 1770.
What role did Thomas Jefferson play after the revolutionary war ended?
- Thomas Jefferson became Secretary of State during George Washington's Presidency. Alexander Hamilton was a Secretary of Treasury.
- After that , Jefferson became Vice President, and John Adams was a President.
- Later, Thomas Jefferson became the 3rd President of the United States of America.
Why you think the colonist described this event as a massacre?
The colonists described this event as a massacre so that the other colonies would join together to get the soldiers off their land.
Colonial leaders used the Boston massacre killings as?
Colonial leaders used news of the killings as Propaganda against the British.
Samuel Adams put up posters describing the "Boston Massacre" as a slaughter of innocent Americans by bloodthirsty redcoats. An engraving done by Paul Revere showed a British officer giving the order to open fire on an orderly crowd. Revere's powerful image strengthened anti-British feeling.
== ==
How did the picture of Boston Massacre distort the event?
Depends on who wrote it... Paul Revere's is the easiest for me.
1.The sky was baby blue, but this Massare happened at night.
2.Paul made it look as if the British fired on PURPOSE, and not accident.
3.And the building called Butcher's Hall, that isn't it's real name.
Thats the only ones I know, but there may as well be others!
Is Herod's Massacre of the Innocents historical Matthew 2 v6?
KINDAWELL, IT IS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, SO, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING YES.
Outside the Gospel tradition, there is no record of this. Further, it sounds like a midrash of the Moses event. Decide for yourself.
Not HistoricalWhen unable to discover Jesus what did Herod do?Matthew: "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under" (ii, 16).
If this statement be true hundreds of innocent babes (the Greek Calendar says fourteen thousand) must have perished, a crime the enormity of which is almost without a parallel in the annals of history. It is strange that Mark, Luke, and John make no mention of this frightful tragedy. Luke's silence is especially significant. It is passing strange that the Roman historians and Rabbinical writers of that age, who wrote of Herod, should be silent regarding it. Josephus devotes nearly forty chapters to the life of Herod. He narrates with much particularity every important event in his life. He detested this monarch and dwells upon his crimes and errors. Yet Josephus knew nothing of this massacre.
In this silence of Josephus Dr. Farrar recognizes a difficulty too damaging to ignore. He says: "Why then, it has been asked, does Josephus make no mention of so infamous an atrocity? Perhaps because it was performed so secretly that he did not even know of it. Perhaps because, in those terrible days, the murder of a score of children, in consequence of a transient suspicion, would have been regarded as an item utterly insignificant in the list of Herod's murders. Perhaps because it was passed over in silence by Nikolaus of Damascus, who, writing in the true spirit of those Hellenizing courtiers, who wanted to make a political Messiah out of a corrupt and blood-stained usurper, magnified all his patron's achievements, and concealed or palliated all his crimes. But the more probable reason is that Josephus, whom, in spite of all the immense literary debt which we owe to him, we can only regard as a renegade and a sycophant, did not choose to make any allusion to facts which were even remotely connected with the life of Christ" (Life of Christ, pp. 22, 23).
A more absurd reason than the first advanced by Farrar it is difficult to conceive. The second, that it was a matter of too little consequence to record, an explanation which other Christian apologists have assigned, is as unreasonable as it is heartless. The silence of Nikolaus, who wrote of Herod after his death, is also significant, and the excuse offered by Farrar that he omitted it because he was the friend of Herod, even if admitted, cannot apply to Josephus, who abhorred the memory of this monarch. The contention that Josephus purposely ignored the existence of Christ because he saw in him a menace to his faith is childish. Jesus Christ, admitting his existence, had made no history to record. His birth was attended by no prodigies, and there was nothing in his advent to excite the fear or envy of a king. Josephus mentions no Herodian massacre at Bethlehem because none occurred. Had Herod slain a single child in the manner stated the fact would be attested by a score of authors whose writings are extant. Herod did not slay one babe. This story is false.
Herod's massacre of the infants of Bethlehem and the escape of Jesus was probably suggested by Kansa's massacre of the infants of Matura and the escape of Krishna Pharaoh's slaughter of the first born in Egypt may also have suggested it.
For HistoricityAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This principle demonstrates the futility of trying to disprove something without any real contrary evidence. Many facts from our world have been shown to be true by science which previously were undiscovered.The often produced 'arguments from silence' prove nothing either. There are many reasons which could satisfactorily explain an event being omitted. Differences in the four Gospel accounts of Jesus' life do not equal disagreement. Many other events are not recorded by Josephus and other historians. This again proves nothing either way.
What we do know can point to something being likely or possible but cannot prove it. We do know that Herod was a cruel tyrant. We also know that he was suffering terribly from an incurable and painful illness which finally killed him. People tend not to be at their best in such circumstances. Most importantly, we know that the Bible has been repeatedly been shown by archaeological discoveries to be factually correct where it was previously thought to be in error.
There is a First-Century, Jewish, apocryphal, pseudepigraphic work called the Assumption of Moses which states that "An insolent king will succeed [the Hasmonean priests]… he will slay all the young." Inarguably, Herod was an "insolent king" who ousted the Hasmoneans as ruler of Judea. Therefore it seems likely the writer of the Assumption of Moses had knowledge of such a slaughter - though he falsely presented his document as if it were a prophesy that pre-dated the slaughter. This certainly constitutes independent documentary evidence indicating the existence of such a slaughter.
Thus, I have no doubt at all this event was historical.
See the Related LinkSee the link below for more information.What acts by customs officers began a series of events that led to the Boston massacre?
what was included in patrick henrys Virginia resolves
What was one step John Adams followed defending the British in the Boston Massacre trial?
one thing is that he remembered he could as very well get in ALOT of trouble if the patriots won and he did think that it wasn't fair to the British for defending themselves and their was a thing that said you could defend yourself if needed
How is a woodcut print different from engraving?
A woodcut print is different from an engraving in one major way. The woodcut print is printed like a rubber stamp with the design going outward, while the engraving is usually etched, with the design going inward.
Why were the Boston massacre uniforms red?
The uniforms of the soilders involved were not red only because they were in the massacure. At the time, battles could get confusing, so each Nation had a diffrent
color(s) for their uniforms. The British wore red.
What causes the intolerable act?
The Intolerable Acts, also known as the Coercive Acts, were passed because King George III wanted to punish Massachusetts colonists for the Boston Tea Party. the four acts were the Quartering act, the Boston port act, the Massachutts act, Quebec Acts, and the Administration act.
Was there any women in the Boston Massacre?
there was only one woman involved in the Boston massacre. her name was Abigail Adams. she was the wife of john Adams. she was the first lady.
