Tensions had been rising in the British colonial city of Boston for several years. Anger at British troops being positioned in the city and a wave of new taxes had set people against the British. On March 5, 1770, a cold day with snow covering the ground, a crowd amassed outside the Boston Customs House which was being guarded by British soldiers. One accidentally fired a shot causing his fellow soldiers to fire into the crowd. Within a few minutes five protestors lay dead. This was the Boston Massacre. Today we will look at the Massacre and, linking with our History Through Cities series, why Boston became such a focal point for anti-British activity.
Background to the Massacre

Events in both colonial America and Britain were shaping the scene in colonial Boston. Many of these we have covered on this series so for further details please see our previous posts. The Seven Years’ War and its aftermath was the bedrock from which issues would grow from as, despite British victory in the war, the British Empire had been left in serious debt, around £72 million. A series of new taxes were passed by the British parliament as a quick way to raise revenue which disproportionally impacted the new emerging capitalist class and the colonies. As the war had broken out due to Anglo-French conflict in the Ohio Valley, and resulted in the expulsion of the French from continental North America, the British parliament took the view that the war was for the colonials, so they should pay for it. A series of acts, commonly called the Townshend Acts, were passed enacting new taxes on goods entering the colonies and implementing the enforcement of these taxes. Popular anger crossed classes uniting the middle-class with the colony’s poor. An economic depression following the end of the war had impacted the lower classes who found access to coinage depleted and the cost of living in general rising.
The colonial elite began protesting the imposition of these taxes, and they began using the same language that was being used in Britain at the time. You may have heard of the phrase ‘No Taxation without Representation’ which was used by the colonialists, but this idea was also being discussed back in Britain. Much of the British population were barred from voting – only landed men over a certain age could vote and sit in parliament. American colonialists were in direct conversation with writers in Britain who were also excluded from parliamentary politics. In particular, the figure of John Wilkes who had been imprisoned over slander received a wide following on both sides of the Atlantic. One of the figures behind the newly formed group, the Sons of Liberty, William Palfry was in direct correspondence with John Wilkes. A clean break with Britain was not yet on the table – these merchants had economic ties to Britain and still viewed themselves as ‘British in America’ instead of ‘Americans’. As devoted Brits they should have representation in the British parliament, not simply the ‘indirect representation’ currently afforded to them.
By the late-1760s tensions had been rising across the colonies. This is mainly the case in the northeast Atlantic colonies who were reliant on trade and a growing manufacturing industry that was directly impacted by the new taxes. Of course resistance was not limited to the Atlantic cities – at the same time the Regulator movement had risen up in South Carolina. They protested unfair taxation, but were united for being tenant or landless farmers who were being pushed out by the large enslaved-labour based plantations of the south. While in the north the protests managed to cut across class, in the south the Regulator movement was a lower class movement. Certain cities became focal points for protest, and this brings us back to Boston.
Boston and the Crucible of Revolt

Boston was one of the major focal points of the protests and the eventual American Revolution. Of course, it was far from the only one with Philadelphia and New York also being major centres of protest, and later, revolt, but Boston was almost lightning in a bottle. Boston was disproportionally reliant on sea trade, from April to December 1720 about 428 ships docked in Boston harbour, most of whom came from other parts of the Thirteen Colonies. Trade and movement was key for Boston becoming a major centre of protest. The post-war depression had hit Boston hard and wealth disparity was growing rapidly – by 1770 49% of Boston’s taxable assets were owned by just 5% of the tax payers. Families of merchants had prospered from monopolising trade, insuring cargo, and ensuring the flow of goods across the colonies. The increasingly mobile and depressed working-class in Boston, of which included free people of color, could have led to a movement similar to the Regulators in Carolina, but what differed was a noticeable British presence. Boston’s mercantile industry was a key revenue source to be taxed so British agents were stationed in the city to ensure tax was collected. This ensured the British became the focus of popular anger instead that of the local colonial elite. Unpopular and conservative British-imposed governor Francis Bernard wrote in 1768:
Early the next Morning, the Shireff came to me to inform me that the Effigys of Mr Paxton and Mr Williams were hanging upon Liberty Tree. I had the Day before appointed a Council to meet, & I now sent round to get them together as soon as possible it might be. Before I went to Council I learnt that the Effigys had been taken down by some of the neighbours without any Opposition. At Council I set it forth in Strong Terms the notoriousness of this Insult, the Danger of it being followed by actual Violence and the Necessity there was of providing for the Defence of the Town. But all I could say made no Impression upon the Council: they persevered in treating the Affair as of no Consequence and assuring me that there was no Danger of any Commotion. After they had given their Opinion as in the inclosed Copy of the Minutes, I received a Letter from the Commissioners setting forth the Insults they had received, the Danger they apprehended, and desiring the Protection of the Government. I communicated this to the Council and proposed that they should reconsider their Business, but finding them not inclined to depart from their Opinion as before given, I adjourned the Reconsideration till the Afternoon. In the afternoon the Question being again put to them, They adhered to their former Opinion.
I should have mentioned before that under all the Assurances I had that there would be no Disturbances, it was never understood, that the Day, the Anniversary of the Repeal of the Stamp Act, should not be celebrated. Accordingly at Break of Day there were beating of Drums and firing of Guns heard, and the whole Town was adorned with Ships Colours: and to add to the Celebration, the Feast of St. Patrick being the Day before was postponed to this Day. However great Pains were taken by the Select Men of the Town & some other Gentlemen that the Festivity should not produce a Riot in the Evening, and so far it succeeded that it produced Terror only and not actual Mischief. There was a Number of Gentlemen dined at the Tavern near the Townhouse, upon the Occasion of the Day. These broke up in good Time, after which many of the same and other Gentlemen kept together at the Coffee House (one of the Taverns) all the Evening. These prevented the lighting a Bonfire in that Street, which was several Times attempted, and would probably have been a Prelude to Action. But the assembling a great Number of People together of all Kinds, Sexes and Ages, many of which shewed a great Disposition to the utmost Disorder, could not be prevented. There were many hundred of them paraded the Streets with Yells and outcries which were quite terrible. I had in my House Mr Burch (one of the Commissioners) and his Lady & Children, who had the Day before moved to our House for Safety. I had also with me the Lieut Governor & the Sheriff of the County. But I had taken no Steps to fortify my House, not being willing to shew an Apprehension of Danger to myself. But at that Time there was so terrible a Yell from the Mob going by, that it was apprehended that they were breaking in: but it was not so. However it caused the same Terror as if it had been so; and the Lady, a stranger to this Country who chose our House for Asylum, has not recovered it as yet.
Quoted in The Boston Massacre: A History with Documents
From this quote we can see how effective British overstepping was in uniting Bostonians against the British instead of the elite. The burning of effigies was a public display, one that created community juxtaposed against a common, and more importantly, distant figure. A domestic printing industry and the vibrant tavern system in Boston further cemented class solidarity as local people were integral to spreading ideas that could not be censored like the press coming from Britain. As protests against taxes and closing smuggling loopholes grew the British responded more forcefully, and thus created more resentment. To enforce the new laws parliament passed a further act which stationed troops in Boston and other cities, and even forced residents to house occupying soldiers in their homes. In 1768 local merchant John Hancock, one of the wealthiest and most prominent men in Boston, had his ship the Liberty seized by the British under accusations that it was engaged in smuggling. A Bostonian mob protested this and forced the customs officers to flee the city. This led to the British sending four regiments to occupy Boston. Future rebel leader Paul Revere would write about the arrival of the British regiments:
On Friday, Sept 30 , 1768, the Ships of WAR, armed Schooners, Transports, &c. Came up the Harbour and Anchored round the TOWN; their Cannon loaded, a Spring on their Cables, as for a regular Siege. At noon on Saturday, October the I the fourteenth & twenty‐ninth Regiments, a detachment from the 59 Reg and Train of Artillery, with two pieces of Cannon, landed on the Long Wharf; then Formed and Marched with insolent Parade, Drums beating, Fifes playing, and Colours ying, up KING STREET.
For many Bostonians this was their own countrymen coming to occupy them. Even more galling was that these regiments had been shiped from Halifax and Ireland – two colonies that had only just become British subjects for the former, or the Catholic rebellious colony for the later. Tensions were at a boiling point.
The Massacre
At the start of March 1770 tensions were high. On March 2 British soldiers had a scrap with rope-makers after rope-makers insulted a British soldier who was looking for extra work to supplement his pay. One of those soldiers, Matthew Killroy, was eager to get back at Bostonians who had just beaten him. On the evening of March 5 Killroy and several other British soldiers were stationed on King Street guarding the Customs House, one of the symbols of British taxation. King Street was a major centre of life in Boston including many taverns and stores, so it was not unusual that someone recognised one of the soldiers. A potentially drunk apprentice called Edward Garrick pointed out and began taunting Private Hugh White for refusing to pay a bill, a bill White had already paid. Then White did one of the worst things possible – he smacked Garrick across the face with his gun. The apprentice fell down and into the snow yelling he had been assaulted. The cries led to a crowd forming who were naturally angry. For months soldiers had been occupying their city and one had just smacked a boy across the face with a gun for insulting them.
The crowd was a cross-section of Bostonian society. Lawyer and future president John Adams wrote that they were ‘a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes, and mullatoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs.’ He wrote this as a way to disparage the crowd, but it reflected the cross-class unity that had been created through the anti-British protests. Soon snowballs, oysters, and trash were being hurled at the soldiers and Captain Thomas Preston yelled at the mob ‘Come on you rascals, you bloody backs, you Lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare, G-d damn you, fire & be damn’d.’ One figure in the crowd, potentially a man called Crispus Attucks, threw a snowball at Private Hugh Montgomery which caused him to accidentally fire his musket. Tragedy then ensued. The soldiers lost their nerve and fired into the crowd. Eleven people were hit of which five were killed. Three died instantly – Crispus Attucks, a rope-maker Samuel Gray, and a mariner called James Caldwell. Two would die in the week – 17-year-old apprentice Samuel Maverick who was hit by ricochet and died the next day, and Irish worker Patrick Carr who was hit in the abdomen and died a week later. There was one last fatality, an apprentice called Christopher Monk who would be disabled by the shot and would die in 1780 due to complications caused by the musket fire.
History Rhyming – Boston and Manchester
The position of the working-class in British society would continue long after the Boston Massacre, and for most of the nineteenth-century protests over the disenfranchisement of working-class men and women would shape British politics. In 1819 working-class men and women gathered in Manchester’s St. Peter’s Field to protest the lack of political inclusion, especially after so many working-class people had fought and died for Britian in the Napoleonic Wars. As the crowd was listening to the main speaker, Henry Hunt, an arrest warrant was issued and the head of the Yeomanry enacted this warrant with utmost violence. The Yeomanry charged into the crowd, sabres drawn, and by the time the crowd had dispersed the Yeomanry had killed 18 people, of which included women and children. The press soon named this the ‘Peterloo Massacre’, ‘Peterloo’ coming from St. Peter’s Field and Waterloo. The fight for enfranchisement would continue for another century when universal suffrage for everyone over the age of 18 was enacted in 1928.
Aftermath

The soldiers involved in the Massacre were arrested in the morning and sent to a jail outside of the city. There was a fear that a mob would rush into the prison and enact their own sense of justice. The shooting would divide Boston in two between the ‘Loyalists’ and the ‘Patriots’ where the printing press became an integral tool in the new political battle. Thomas Pelham had created an engraving depicting what he called The Bloody Massacre which gained more popularity through Paul Revere’s engraving, depicted above, that was widely reprinted. Revere added a feature to Pelham’s engraving, above the British soldiers was a sign reading ‘Butcher’s Hall’. Members of the Sons of Liberty began publishing turning the shooting into the Boston Massacre, most notably through A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre by James Bowdoin. This short piece turned the dead into martyrs of liberty cut down by British force. However, it was not only the Patriots publishing. As the crowd had assaulted the soldiers, and as the crowd was working-class and multi-racial, conservative elements of society portrayed the crowd as brutes. In particular, conservatives focused on Crispus Attucks. We will return to Attucks in depth later, and he has already made an appearance in this series – in one of our first posts we looked at how he escaped from slavery. Crispus Attucks was a mixed-race mariner who escaped enslavement, so his position among the crowd ignited colonial elite fears of working-class and black resistance to ‘law and order’.
This brings us to the trial of the soldiers. It was one of the most controversial trials to hit the colonies since the end of Bacon’s Rebellion a century earlier. Strangely enough it would be one of the future presidents of the US that would defend the British soldiers – John Adams. Officially, Adams defended the men under the grounds that everyone deserved a fair trial, later writing:
The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right. This however is no Reason why the Town should not call the Action of that Night a Massacre, nor is it any Argument in favour of the Governor or Minister, who caused them to be sent here. But it is the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies.
While Adams may have been driven by a liberal idea of fairness and equality as awarded to any Englishman his conservative ideology was also at play. He would be a noted conservative Founding Father who had opposed military action until it was unavoidable, so the appearance of a mob led by Irish migrants, free men of colour, and workers epitomised everything Adams opposed. During the trial, which began in November, he was keen to portray the crowd as unruly, who had provoked retaliation, and focused on Attucks as a ‘terrifying figure’. Captain Preston was trialed separately in October and was quickly acquitted as his troops had fired against his orders. The prosecution had argued that the troops had fired on an unarmed crowd and that several soldiers had wanted revenge following the fight with the rope-makers. However, Adams’s argument of self-defence against a mob won out, only two were found guilty of manslaughter whose punishment was to have their thumbs branded. The rest were acquited.
Crispus Attucks and the Boston Massacre

The Thirteen Colonies and future American republic were built on racialised slavery, one where black Africans and Native Americans were deemed inferior. The figure of Crispus Attucks, therefore, offered a problem for elite Patriots. He was a martyr, he had died by British bullets defending Bostonians of which one had just been assaulted. As a former enslaved man he knew what slavery was like, and what it meant to be free. Yet, his race and willingness to fight was unsettling for elites who relied on unfree labour of enslaved Africans and their descendants. Many of the future Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, owned men, women, and children as property. As Mitch Kachun and Stephen Browne have argued, Crispus Attucks would be intentionally buried and resurrected by American collective memory. The memory of Attucks was subsumed into a wider martyrdom in the early republic, even by free people of colour. After independence the Boston Massacre was sidelined in the wider memory of the Revolution as more positive events, namely the Boston Tea Party, were held up instead.
Things began changing in the 1840s and 1850s. The question of slavery was coming to ahead, and African-American thinkers and radical white abolitionists turned to Crispus Attucks for inspiration. In particular, black Bostonian William C. Nell pushed for the memory of Crispus Attucks in the 1850s to be an inspiration in the fight against slavery. Attucks had bled and died fighting the British, so how can Americans keep so many people who looked like him in chains? When the Civil War broke out Attucks’s memory crossed racial lines – white Republicans in Boston formed the Attucks Guard to perform at pro-Lincoln rallies, and African-American Bostonians enlisted as the Attucks Guard. The white supremacist resurgence following the end of the Civil War cast Attucks back into obscurity, but like the abolitionists a century prior the Civil Rights Movement used Attucks as a symbol. Schools, community halls, and parks were named after him. Writing in 2026 we may need to enter another fight to preserve the memory of Attucks. Trump’s war of public displays of ‘wokeness’ threatens casting black figures like Attucks out of public imagery, something we cannot let happen. Attucks died fighting against oppression, we have to take up his fight as well.
Other Events:
Other events happened in the first quarter of 1770. Here are some of them:
- February 1, Thomas Jefferson’s home would burn down in Shadwell, Virginia.
- February 14, James Bruce would arrive in Gondar in Abyssinia becoming one of the first Europeans to set foot in the kingdom.
- February 22, Ebenezer Richardson, a British officer in Boston, would kill 11-year-old Christopher Seider causing a wave of protests setting the scene for the Boston Massacre we have discussed today.
- March 21, the newly unified Kingdom of Nepal would shift the seat of power to the Basantapur Palace in Kathmandu.
- March 31, famous philosopher Immanuel Kant would gain a position at the University of Konigsburg.
Bibliography:
- Brooke Barbier, Boston in the American Revolution: A Town Versus an Empire, (Charleston, NC: History Press, 2017)
- Stephen Browne, ‘Remembering Crispus Attucks: Race, rhetoric, and the politics of commemoration’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85, (1999), 169-187
- Benjamin Carp, Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
- Jonathan Dull, The Path to the American Revolution: British-American Relations in Peace and War, 1721-1783, (New York, NY: Routledge, 2024)
- Mitch Kachun, First Martyr of Liberty: Crispus Attucks in American Memory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017)
- Mitch Kachun, ‘From Forgotten Founder to Indispensable Icon: Crispus Attucks, Black Citizenship, and Collective Memory, 1770–1865’, Journal of the Early Republic, 29:2, (2009), 249-286
- Jeremy Land, Colonial Ports, Global Trade, and the Roots of the American Revolution (1700-1776), (Leiden: Brill, 2023)
- Peter Messer, ‘“A scene of Villainy acted by a dirty Banditti, as must astonish the Public”: The Creation of the Boston Massacre’, New England Quarterly, 90:4, (2017), 502-539
- Serena Zabin, The Boston Massacre: A Family History, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2020)
- Neil York, (ed.), The Boston Massacre: A History with Documents, (New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2010)
- Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present, (New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2010)





















