American History

The trial of captain Preston concerning the Boston massacre has over the years drawn mixed reactions. It remains in history as one of the trials which have attained a global attention. It involved issues of vigilante revolution and violence following the clash between the American colonists and the British soldiers in a manner that was equal and fair. The captain with his soldiers were tried in the court for allegations of manslaughter which saw the two of them convicted of the offence  and six of them acquitted (Encyclopdia Britannica). The following paper seeks to stand in support of the British soldiers in the case that followed after the warfare.

Background of the case
Captain Preston, the commander of the soldiers in the British side as at this time was tried in a court of law even without killing anybody. If the conviction was based on giving orders to his soldiers to fire, then he would be charged in the court of a murder case.  However, following several days of court hearings on the case, not much evidence was made available to convict captain Preston and thus was acquitted.  All the same, some of his soldiers continued on the trial case. Some were found not guilty at all costs whereas others guilty of manslaughter but not murder this time (The Boston Massacre, pp. 111-125).

Case Analysis
The proceedings and the ruling of this case should indeed have been in the favor of captain Preston and his group of soldiers. This is because the fight following the Boston massacre was not really their mistake. It was not true that the troops of Britain began the warfare. The warfare was started by the American soldiers, the colonists who came and attacked the British soldiers (Gwinn, pp.176-77). The records kept indicate that it was at about 8 oclock on a Monday night when two British soldiers were attacked and beaten by the American soldiers.

The occasion of the warfare was heated up when the British troops came in defense and thus was not really an offence they committed.  It is therefore not really an offense when they came out to defend themselves. Exercising self defense is not a crime not unless the methods used could be termed illegal.  As seen here, the British soldiers really did not have any prior plans of attacking the American troops. It was therefore not their responsibility that the situation became uncontrollable leading to the killing of many people. The case herein should be in the favor of the British side because their soldiers were not ready to fight any people.

The British soldiers were sent by captain Preston execute their duty in offering protection to the guard as well as the money of the King. It is with this argument that it can be said that nothing wrong emanated from the British side. The truth of the matter is that when the soldiers arrived at the place of action, the American colonists ambushed them by clubbing and yelling towards the direction of the British soldiers. In his defense, captain Preston says that they were helpless in deterring the fight. This was attributed to the fact that the mob was on the increase (Gwinn, pp. 246-48).

Having such a scenario, the British soldiers succumbed to the fight only with the aim of protecting themselves. On one occasion while addressing his troop, captain Preston says that one of his soldiers got a very harsh blow from the American colonist using a stick. This clearly shows that the attack was coming from the American side.  The American side was there to cause trouble which unfortunately caught up with the British troops. The more we look at the earliest impression of the Boston massacre, the more surprising the result comes. It becomes clear that the American colonists are to blame for what happened in the Boston massacre. The captain in loyalty to the British government expressed his opinion saying that the American troops were to blame (The Boston Massacre, pp. 111-125).

The events of this case present the Americans as barbaric animals who had to no signs of human nature by ruthlessly fighting the British soldiers. It is also alleged that the American soldiers were drunk by the time they began the fight. The British troops were intoxicated to fight and neither did they want to get into war with the common civilians. It is my own point of view therefore that much evidence is provided that highlights the British side of the case as an occurrence that was not in their intention. The ruling of the case based on the British soldiers of going past the directions that were required to maintain the American colonists who were drunk in line does not hold enough evidence to prove them guilty. It seems like the case was determined through analysis of the consequences of the war (Gwinn, pp.176-77).

The above is because it appears that more American members died than those of the British side. Because of their drunkenness, the American colonists were considered vulnerable and helpless which seems to be a driving factor in establishing the facts about the case.  The case which according to the court ruling seems to be weighty on the British side was mainly contributed by the allegation that it was the British side that fired the first shoot (The Boston Massacre, pp. 111-125). This should not be used as a determinant of the case. The issues addressed here are that their peace was threatened by the American colonists. All that happened from the British side was the fact that it was done in reaction to a situation that was initially provoked by the American colonists.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the fact that the American colonist began a fight and in one way or the other lost does not necessarily mean that they were innocent (The Boston Massacre, pp. 111-125). The response of the British troops to the American ill intention should not have been regarded as a mistake in any way. The start of the whole issue is what matters but not the events or consequences of the fight. It is with this view that I stand in support to the British side.