Effect of British Misgovernance on American Revolution: The Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Effect of British Misgovernance on American Revolution: The Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party

The Boston Massacre in March 1770 occurred a year on from the Townshend duties, and the colonies were growing increasingly unstable. The government of Massachusetts was asking other colonies to resist and boycott their goods at the same time that riots were occurring in Boston. These riots were over the ironically named boat liberty which was seized for smuggling. Before the Boston Massacre, the colonists were discontent but there were no real intentions to fight the occupation, action here created a surge of anti-imperial unrest10. The Boston Massacre occurred when a group of redcoats ( Soldiers) were surrounded by townspeople who attacked them with snowballs before turning to more violent weapons as they expressed their discontent, after they knocked over a solider, the group of soldiers fired, killing five, and injuring six10. The impact of the massacre initially depends on perspective, government called it an unfortunate accident whereas it was the colonists referred to it as a Massacre and the official title is the Boston Massacre despite the fact that 5 people were killed. The Massacre is often attributed to the start of the revolution however initially it made Lord North and Parliament withdraw the Townshend Act temporarily resolving the crisis. The Massacre had a huge impact as it had shown the level of brutality the government had sunk to in their desperate attempt to retain power and influence in the Americas. It is to this extent therefore, that this can be considered gross misgovernance as tensions had risen to the point the colonists clearly resented the soldiers to the point of attacking them in the street, and the fact that Britain instead of making proper concessions relied on the brute force which became no longer viable as the colonists gained external support. In addition, Boston proved to have high-profile links to the revolution as John Adams who was a prominent figure in the revolution and America`s second president after Washington proving just how much of an impact Boston had on the colonists.

The massacre was referred to by the Boston Gazette in their article published March 12, 1770 (printing articles from 1719-1798) and was considered one of the most influential newspapers in the first few years of American history, as attacking single and unarmed persons presenting an almost sick predatory obsession in hunting down colonists as they go further and say insulting all they met in like manner and pursuing some to their very doors 11. This view is typical of pro-separatist colonists who referred to the event as a massacre whereas referring to it as an accident, this is due to the propaganda on both sides, attempting to maintain their image and the colonists attempting to undermine it. The Boston Gazette is reliable for expressing the view of those who resented authority however it is unreliable in presenting the view of all who lived in Boston. Whilst the massacre certainly spawned outrage, not everyone was willing to completely separate from Britain as many Boston women were married to Irish soldiers. The events are portrayed very differently from the perspective of Captain Thomas Preston who was in charge of the squad that fired on the crowd, he and other members of the squad were tried for murder in Boston Courts, where he recounts the events in front of the court. The captain claims he sent a non-commissioned officer and 12 men to protect both the sentry and the King’s money after hearing reports the crowd planned to kill a guard and steal money from the king. The Captain expresses he did not order them to fire and that the guards were heavily abused by the crowd. The Captain claims the guards fired, not out of sick satisfaction but out of confusion over the shouts of the crowd thinking the captain ordered them to fire. This source is useful since it shows the perspective that the massacre was indeed an unfortunate accident that occurred when angry colonists caused chaos and, in the confusion, men were killed. In the Captain`s report and the Gazette`s article, it is clear to see the different viewpoints on the massacre however the fact remains that people died and this event spurred the revolution. The massacre also gave extremists an excuse to discredit the king and his government which exploded into a revolution. Figure 3, is also an invaluable source in understanding the extent to which the colonists vilified the actions of the soldiers. The source presents the colonists as peaceful with no weapons in non-threatening stances whereas the soldiers are undoubtedly aggressive, still shooting despite civilians dead. Whilst it is not useful in determining a non-biased view on the event, it is extremely useful in viewing the propaganda both sides used to further their cause. And in this case, the view of colonists who sought independence from Britain saw this attack as furthering the need to separate from the evil tyranny of King George III.

On December 16th, 1773, the most well-known protest of the colonists occurred; The Boston Tea Party began as thousands gathered to listen to Samuel Adams (a well-known radical) who was announcing his plans to attack a shipment of tea belonging to the East Indian Company that had at the time three ships docked on Griffin`s Wharf. His words were full of anger warning of a loss of liberty for the colonists stating Whoever supports the unloading, the vending, or the receiving of the tea is an enemy to his country. 13 His words were strongly influential on Boston as nearly half the population13 listened to his speech. This source is valuable in understanding the extent of enmity between the colonists and, however since within the source he is speaking to a disgruntled crowd and Samuel Adams was a well-known radical, it is an exaggeration to call his opinion the view of the people of Boston. The fact that Samuel Adams accused those unloading tea of traitors shows the extent of the hostilities between the English and the Americans. Whilst Samuel Adams is not having a balanced critical view of governance, his words are invaluable in understanding the perspective of those who wished to be independent. James M Volo argues that people liked tea, but the tax imposed on it by parliament had given offense to all but the staunchest friends of the Crown 13 arguing that the taxes had largely divided Colonists creating a sense of separation and destroyed any illusions of patriotism unity either side had. This increased tensions in the colonies. To an extent, Volo`s argument is valid as taxes were the most notable grievance of the colonists and caused fears of lording over the colonists and encroaching on their freedoms however the argument can be considered to be exaggerated since most of the people living in the American colonies at the time had little desire to separate from the empire viewing themselves as English since even Adams himself remarks how undecided the colonists were. One of the key causes of the Boston Tea Party was a tax in particular their lack of representation to the very institution to which they were sending taxes. The actual event itself consisted of a group of men dressed as Mohawk Indians joined with the Sons of Liberty and the Patriot Party13 (two rebel groups who were against control) boarding the ships smashed 342 chests of tea worth nearly £18,000 (or $2.2 million today)13 and tossed them into the water, each chest was worth around the annual income of an average working-class family13 and would deeply wound the company and its investors some of whom were members of parliament. Even today very little is known about those who participated in the tea party perhaps pre-empting the harsh measures imposed on Boston to punish those involved with the tea party. This event which saw extensive investment thrown into the sea in Boston was the first real strong opposition to rule however Volo13 argues that the revolution could have been prevented if has reacted to the tea party with concessions, not repression. The Tea Party was a direct result of taxation however it can be argued that it was not misgovernance since the tax levels were at reasonable levels for the empire and all measures taken so far were defensive i.e. the Boston massacre.

Most interestingly according to Volo13, most historians miss out on the tea party and its role in the revolution. Arguably the tea party was a huge inciting factor for the revolution as it was a clear stand of defiance against and marked the steep decline of English and American relations. The Boston Tea party was however not entirely effective since Adams himself writes privately to a friend that 13 of the colonists wanted independence, 13 were loyal to the crown and 13 were undecided or scared to make a stand13, it was quickly becoming a situation of staunch loyalists and separatists echoing civil war which occurred centuries earlier. The Boston Tea Party could be considered a result of misgovernance due to the fact that it could be argued that it was directly caused by hated imperial policies such as the previously mentioned Stamp Act as well as Townshend Act and the East Indian Company Act 173313, therefore it appears the tea party and therefore real opposition to the crown and rule resulted from the policy that was imposed on the colonists without direct consultation. This view is supported by Volo who argues that this was a direct consequence of increased interference stating that the Government took a relatively lax style of governing before 1764 and in the short term to the revolution became more oppressive, and is supported by J.P Greene who states empire was a composite state characterized by indirect governance, fragmented authority, an inchoate theory of national sovereignty and limited fiscal administrative and coercive resources 1. Showing that the revolution and unrest before the war were directly caused by increased interference and misgovernance of the empire.

Click Here To Order Now!