Boston Massacre

The Boston Massacre helped create the idea among American colonists that a Revolution can be possible

The Boston Massacre was a battle between Britain and American colonists.

8

The duration of Woodchipper Massacre is 1.5 hours.

he did not want john to get injured

The Boston massacre was not a battle or a war. It was a street fight between British troops and future Americans. There are two interpertations of the massacre, one is the British side which said that the future US citizens had attacked, the other is the American side which says that the British troops attacked the people on the street.

So there was no general leading the way, this was one of the events that led up to the reveloutnary war.

Yes, he did various things during the revolution. Even though Longfellow's poem named a poem after him as having warned that the British was coming he didn't do it. He met a British patrol and had his horse taken away. He did draw the handbills about the Boston massacre showing British soldiers firing at colonial people. His art for this was more propaganda than reality. He did take part in the Boston Tea Party and was a patriot leader, but his significance rests more as a craftsman and on his industrial perspicacity. He had a foundry and hardware business and had the first successful sheet copper mill. These were important because the navy could have copper bottoms on the ships.

No children were killed, only 5 men, one of which was African-American.

The first man killed at the Boston Massacre was a black man, Crispus Attucks. As far as who fired the first shot at the first BATTLE of the Revolutionary War- no one knows whether it was an American or a British soldier.

Boston Massacre

Historians have debated this, but generally, it is believed Boston was named after the town of Boston in Lincolnshire, England; it is located about 100 miles north of London. Some people have also said that Boston was actually a shortened version of St. Botolph's Town, which is the original name of the town in England.

The weather during the Boston Massacre was a little chilly and cold. There was a little wind. There was snow and ice on the ground from before. But colonists took advantage of that by throwing chunks of snow and ice at the soldiers. That is, if they didn't have weapons that the other DRUNK colonists had. Some of the, had clubs, wooden sticks, bats, knifes, and swords.

Ahkmenrah was not an Egyptian Pharaoh, he is a fictional king made for the movie Night At the Museum.

i think ahkmenrah existed but due to the evolving languages and cultures the name originated from ammen-re or ammun-ra but he was probably real

i think he didn't because his supposed to be " brother " is not real

I don't think he is real because I have a book on Pharaohs and his name isn't there. But he still might be but if he was he wasn't very important in history.

Actully you bunch of bozos he is real!!! if you dig down in history enough you will find that he was real he was once a Pharaoh and he may not of been that important but he was a real human being!!!! so yea get it right!!!!!

Hey, they are not bozos they are just trying to answer the question.Anyway, I think he is real because why would they put something in a museum that is not real? Plus, he probably was displayed @ Cambridge. And I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with the user that called the others bozos that he was once a pharaoh or a king. If you want to know more go on Google or something and look it up there because this website is not 100% accurate. And just remember, don't be rude like SOMEBODY here.

No he was a fictional character for the movie. He represents a time period more then a person.

actually pharaoh ahkmenrah was real i read on a book that he was not a berry important person i will go to the library and find that book again and put the information here

Let's see, colonists that needed to feed themselves, fight off the Indians and keep the wild animals away from their livestock and fields. Yes, every household had at least one gun, usually one per male.

The start of the war was when British forces were sent to arrest colonial leaders and seize their privately held weapons and ammunition. They marched on Concord where the British regular army forces numbering in the hundreds were met with about 70 colonists.

British officer Pitcairn ordered the colonists to disperse, they did not then he had his men open fire into the civilians and they were followed when they ran into their homes where the government forces murdered them in front of their families.

At Lexington many more colonists were behind a stone wall watching as the British spiked their cannons and threw their ammo into the pond, next they broke open their stored flour and other grains, then the Britsh cut down the Liberty pole and as they began to set fire to the town a minister leaped onto the rocks and cried out '

'Fire in the name of God Fire''

so yes the citizens were armed in spite of government restrictions.

Yes a valid argument can be made that this nation began as a Christian nation, and no the men there did not belong to a well regulated militia. Later at Bunker Hill the colonists were defeated only because of their lack of ammunition which was a direct result of the government attempts to disarm tyhem, that is why they felt so strongly about the freedom to own weapons, so that they never passed a law disarming tories after the war. This clearly shows we have current leaders who are ignorant or have an agenda different from our founding fathers. Yes, the citizens were armed with their privately owned firearms and ammunition.

Actually, they didn't boycott goods as much as it seems. They did what we would do and that is to look for the cheaper price. One of the goods involved was tea. Many goods the colonist bought were from colonial smugglers because they were cheaper. When the British lowed the price of the tea it made the Dutch tea higher in price so the smugglers were loosing money. Two of the biggest smugglers were Hancock and Hamilton . Hancock supported, organizesd and paid for the Son's of Liberty. This was an economic issue and the smugglers were fighting for their lives.

Pistol whipped

Nothing. George Washington was not involved in the Boston Massacre. However, Sam and John Adams were involved. Sam Adams organized protests and John Adams served as the British Soldiers' legal counsel.

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.

Hugh white, john goldfinch, thomas Preston, William wemms, James basset, Hugh Montgomery

The Boston Massacre ended with the deaths of five people and another six people who were injured. Eight British soldiers were charged with murder. Two of the soldiers were convicted of manslaughter, the other six ended up being acquitted. The defense lawyer was none other than the future President, John Adams.

In 1888, a monument was erected on the Boston Common to the men killed in the Boston Massacre, listing all their names, and to the cause of the American Revolution.

Stamp Act was first because it occured in 1765 and Boston Massacre was second because it occured in 1770

Yes, people threw vegetables during the events leading up to the Boston Massacre.