24 v. 5

[unhappycamper]

From u-s-history.com:

British soldiers occupied the city of Boston for a tension-filled 18 months before mutual hatred turned to outright violence. The events of March 5, 1770, which resulted in the deaths of five Americans, were described as the Boston Massacre by patriot propagandists.

Incidents between citizen and soldier were frequent; the most incendiary was the so-called Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. On that day a single sentry was on duty at the Customs House on King Street, present-day State Street. An argument broke out between the soldier and a local merchant, who was struck by the butt of a musket during the confrontation. A crowd assembled quickly and began pelting the sentry with a variety of materials — stones, oyster shells, ice, and chunks of coal. Tensions were further heightened when the bells of the city’s churches began to toll, the traditional means of summoning help in fighting fires. Reinforcements under Captain Thomas Preston were rushed in to relieve the beleaguered sentry. The mob taunted the soldiers, daring them to fire, while remaining somewhat secure in the widely held knowledge that the soldiers could not discharge their weapons within the city without prior authorization from a civil magistrate.

At this juncture, someone in the crowd hurled a wooden club at the redcoats. Private Hugh Montgomery was struck and fell to the ground. As he regained his footing, someone — Montgomery, another soldier, or someone in the jeering mob — yelled, “Fire!” The redcoats did so; Preston, who clearly had not given the order, ended the firing and tried to restore order. By that time, however, three colonists lay dead and two others mortally wounded; six others would later recover from their wounds.

The Boston Massacre was, of course, not a “massacre.” Samuel Adams and other propagandists immediately capitalized on this incident, using it to fan colonial passions. Paul Revere assisted the effort by issuing one of his most famous engravings, possibly plagiarized, depicting the American version of the event.

~snip~

Historians tended for many years to regard the Boston Massacre as a watershed event. American opinion was radicalized by skillful propaganda, which moved many former moderates to outspoken opposition to British policies. More recent scholars, however, have found evidence of a more discerning Boston public that was appreciative of British restraint and disapproving of provocative mob actions. Evidence of the latter view was found in the relative quiet that descended on the community after the funeral. Further unpopular British actions would have to occur before a larger portion of the populace would embrace the radical view.




The slaughter in Haditha resulted in a death toll almost five times greater than the Boston Massacre. Haditha is just one 'incident' of many: Falluja, Ramadi, and Isahaqi to name a few. Is there anything to learn from this little history lesson? Anyone?