Yale University Library
39002002974245

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

*f*M

THE BOSTON MASSACRE.

A.. C. GOODELL,. JJR.

EEPEINTED FEOM THE BOSTON DAILY ADVEETISEB,

JUNK 3. 1887.

The discussion concerning the propriety of the
resolve recently signed by the Governor fox
erecting a monnment to Crlspni Attacks and
others who fell, under the fire of British sol
diers, in King street, now State street, March 5,
1770, hat thus far been conducted with consider
able asperity, but with too little regard to the
important principle involved in the issue be
tween those who favor and those who oppose
the building of such a monnment as the resolve
contain elates.
The original petition upon which the resolve
was fonnded set forth that in the Granary bnry-
ing-ground rest the remains of the victims men
tioned in the resolve, that they were the first
martyrs in the cause of American liberty, that
then* names appear on the records and history of
that time, bnt ''no stone marks their burial-
place," aid prayed that a suitable monument
might ue erected to their memory.
To such a petition there could be no objection ;
and probably no person who was askea to sign
it refused, or would ever object to the granting
the prayer thereof. To be sure there was affixed
to the gates of the burying-ground a bronze
tablet stating that "the victims of the boston
Massacre" were interred in that inclosore ; bat
there was nothing to indicate the precise spot.
The circumstances attending the death of these
persons are historic, and have ever been regard
ed as having a direct relation to the subsequent
events of the Revolution ; and it would be put
ting too fine a point on the matter to object to
the petition because, in describing the persons
over whose remains it was intended to erect '-a
suitable monnment," the petitioners used the
fieurative language applied to those victims by
contemporary orators, and repeated, over and
over again, in biter years, on public occasions-
Nor, seeing that none of the families of the de

ceased (probably by reason of their poverty) had
pnt up even the plainest headstone to either of
them, and that the result of the tragedj in King
street was not limited to the transient expedient
of withdrawing the soldiers adopted by the repre
sentatives of the crown in compliance with the de
mand of the citizens of boston, but was msmora-
ble to the whole people as constituting an epoch
in the earlier stages of the rise of a new and
mighty republic, would any one grudge the ex
penditure from the state treasury of a sum
sufficient to cover the cost of a suitable memorial
at or near their place of burial.
The report of the committee upon this peti
tion is dated April 19, 1887. It was accom
panied by a resolve which has now become a
law, providing for two distinct things ; first, "a
suitable memorial or monument to the memory
of" the victims, "to be erected in some public
Dlace in the city of Boston," and second,
"suitable headstones to be placed at the graves
of said persons," and authorizing the expend!-'
tore therefor of not more than $10,000.
Here is clearly a purpose to do something
more than indicate the "place of burial" of the
deceased or provide for an enduring epitaph to
the individuals named in the petition. The
large limit of appropriation shows an intention
not merely to settle a doubtful point in history
and gratify a very natural and proper desire to
Know precisely where the "martyrs" were
buried, but to erect a public monument which
can have no other purpose than to perpetuate
their fame, to hold np their deeds as worthy of
praise, and tp commend their example to
posterity. Considering this a departure from the proper
object of the petition, and believing it to be based
on a pernicious misconception of tbe purpose
for which the annual oration was Instituted by

The Boston Massacre.

tbe town of Boston in 1771, as soon as I was
Informed that such a resolve had been reported, .
which was not until it bad passed both branchss
and. bad reached the executive chamber, I
called upon the governor and upon tbe chairman
of each branch of the joint committee which re
ported the resolve, with the view to have It re
called and further discussed tefore It should
receive the executive approval.
With regard to the lateness ot the protest. It is
worthy ot notice that tbe Massachusetts Histori
cal Society took action upon the matter at lu
first meeting after the resolve had been reported ,
and as for my own action I can only say that I
do not regularly read tbe newspapers, on ac
count of impaired sight which makes It neces
sary for me to confine my reading largely to
my special work, and I had, therefore, seen noth
ing in print, nor had I received an intimation
from any source that any ot the petitioners con
templated the double purpose expressed in the
resolve. As for the appropriation, which mem
bers of the board of directors of tbe Stw Eng-
and Historic Genealogical Society have, as I
think, justly and properly described as
"disproportionate and extravagant, "the fact that
it was vastly more than would be required for
the kind of monument the promoters of tbe peti
tion had in mind appears from the confession
in Friday's Transcript of Mr. Jourdain, who is
understood to have acted as solicitor for the peti
tioners, that the committee gave them fite thou
sand dollars mart than they asked for .'
The two chairmen of the joint standing com
mittee which reported the resolve were called
upon at the suggestion of his excellency, and
they courteously agreed to hear what the com
mittee (of which I was a member) of the Massa
chusetts Historical Society bad to offer in favor
of reconsidering the resolve at its advanced
stage, at an interview appointed to suit their
convenience. At this bearing, besides what the
chairman and other members of the committee
urged as good reasons for reconsidering the re
solve, I felt it my duty to strenuously maintain
that the resolve, in departing from the evident
purpose of the petition, bad in a manner com
mitted tbe Commonwealth to a scheme for in
viting all living men and all posterity to ap
plaud the perpetrators of deeds which, of them
selves, were not only illegal bnt not even pal
liated by praiseworthy motives, and that it was
only fair to give those of the petitioners who
knew that this scheme was not contemplated by
them a chance to be heard on the question of
confining the memorial to be erected by the
Commonwealth to the single purpose of desig
nating the place of interment of the deceased,
aad to an inscription appropriate to that design.
I still feel that the petitioners had no good rea
son to expect more than they asked for, or to be

vigilant to prevent the legislature from author
izing an Imprudent expenditure of money — a
thing which the careful committee on expendi
tures bad never, to my knowledge, been Inclined
Io sanction.
I deem it one to Mr. Lewis Hayden, who was
Ihe originator of the petition, and who I am sure •
was actuated by commendable motives, to add
that he informs me that be called npon me to
explain the nature of the reported resolve, and
that, finding me busy, be withdrew, with the In
tention of calling again, bnt was prevented by
illness from so doing until after the resolve bad
reached the governor.
Mr. Hayden called upon me again before the
protest of tbe members ot the board of directors
of the New England historic Genealogical So
ciety bad been presented to the governor or
submitted to the legislative committee. He was
111 and could not stay ; but to several of tbe per
sons who came with him I read the draft of tbe
protest, explained its purpose, and pointed out
the difference between applauding the unlawful
action of rioters, and commemorating the first
lnstinee of bloodshed in boston by British sol
diers—which led to the withdrawal of the regu
lars, and was succeeded by a train of events
culminating in revolution and independence.
With your permission I shall here proceed to
give, as briefly as the subject will allow, a state
ment of the important distinction which I be
lieve the welfare of society, and a proper
appreciation of the lessons of history, alike re
quire sbould be pointed out, and its observance
Insisted upon, whenever a project like the pre
sent one, which admits of a double purpose, one
proper and the other improper, is likely to be
perverted. I shall also endeavor to show that
this distinction was recognized by the sober sec
ond thought of tbe public at the time of the
tragedy, by the boston orators and by contem
porary historians, and that among later writers
it has been approved as sound by those whose
opinions are most trustworthy.
In the first place, let ns remember what were
the points at issue in 1770 in the contest be
tween the people of the Province of the Massa
chusetts bay aud the home government, as it
was then called. The desire for Independence
was not then generally felt. Five years later,
even, Joseph Warren, in his 8th of March ora
tion, spumed the idea that such a thing was con
templated by the patriotic party which he rep
resented.* Neither was there at stake any question of per
sonal liberty. We had our own legislature, and
judicial tribunals presided over by our fellow-
citizens ; and as for negro slaves, what advan-
• "An Independence on Great Britain Is not our aim.
No, our wish Is that Britain and tbe colonies ma?, like
the oak and ivy, arow and lncreaae In strength together."
-rOratlon, March 8, 1775. . . .

The Boston Massacre.

tages had any of those unfortunate people who
were held in perpetual bondage under the laws
of tbe Province to expect to gain by siding with
their oppressors in a struggle with England ?
One of the charges made against these very
soldiers in the first narrative of the massacre
prepared by the town committee was that, Capt.
Wilson of the Fifty-ninth had been exciting the
negroes to leave their masters and to repair to
the army for protection ! »
We must not, therefore, fall Into the error of
attributing to anybody at that time, much less
to the mob in King street, the high motives and
aspirations which in our present advanced state
of freedom and civilization we conceive to be
the noblest and best incentives to patriotic ac
tion. Even the British soldiers were notob
jected to, as such. The legislature, if it had not
invited them, had prepared barracks for them
on Castle Island, under an act of parliament
which neither the legislature nor the' good
people of Boston repudiated or called in
question; and the only dispute concerning
them had been as to whether or not the act of
parliament required that they should be billeted
or quartered in the town, before the place pre
pared for them on the island was full. Under
neath the universal profession of deference and
the outward submission to law, however, there
was a deep-seated feeling that the people were
capable of governing themselves and of keeping
the peace without the aid of this detail from the
standing army, which, though it had scrupu
lously avoided interfering with the civil admin
istration, had been ordered hither to aid the
civil powers in the enforcement of the acts of
parliament relating to trade and navigation, to
preserve the peace and to prevent smuggling.
There was one political proposition, however,
which the leaders of tne people had recently
maintained with ardor and in which they had
been supported by men in high places of power in
England, although the courtiers were on the
opposite side. This was that taxation without
representation was tyranny,— that laws passed
to impose taxes without the grant or consent of
the tax- payers were unconstitutional and not
binding, and should be disregarded ana avoided
by every means that could be discreetly em
ployed. The colonists did not at first apply
this doctrine to the case of external revenue ; in
other words, to duties payable at the custom
nouses ; but after the repeal of the stamp act

* An illustration of the prevailing contempt in Boston
for negroes at that period appears in the confession of
Mr. John Hill, a Boston magistrate, whose deposition is
No. 8 in the appendix to tlie narrative above referred to.
The ''tall negro drummer." who, according to the testi
mony of two other deponents, headed the party which at
tacked the ropewalk on the Friday previous to the mas
sacre ("with a cutlass chained to his body," from which
one of the deponents received a cut on the head) was thus
accosted by Hill: "You black rascal, what have you to do
with white people's quarrels ':"'

two other acts were passed by parliament im
posing duties for ralsiuc money to Increase the
British revenues and to be applied to the pay
ment of the salaries of such officers in the pro
vince as were appointed by tho crown, in order
to make these appointees dependent upon the
crown and independent of the provincial as
sembly. To enforce the collection ot these
duties, a board of commissioners had been ap-
poliitod with authority from the commissioners
of customs in London. This led the people to
question the soundness of the distinction they
had been making between internal and external
taxes ; but they were not fully agreed on this
point aud so they manifested their opposition to
these acts, chiefly by signing pledges not to im
port English goods. And though it must be
confessed that there was a strong tendency to
look upon any evasion of the parliamentary
revenue laws as venial, to wink at smuggling,
and to consider "custom-nouse oaths" as mere
matters of form, no one questioned the consti
tutionality of the acts of parliament relating to
the disposition of the king's forces, nor the
propriety of employing the army to aid the civil
magistrate to suppress unjustifiable rebellion,
but they argued that the quartering the military
among them under pretextof enforcing the laws
and preserving order implied either that they
were wantonly factious, and so was an insult,
or that the laws requiring such an extraordinary
measure for their enforcement were contrary to
the will of his majesty's loyal subjects, and
ought to be repealed, and that at all times the
posse comitaius was adequate for the enforce-"
ment of all good and wholesome laws.
Perhaps in a few minds the thought was then
nourished that the almost absolute exemption -
from foreign control which our fathers had en
joyed under the colony charter might again be
attained, through the same exhibition of cour- •
age aud by resort to the same ingenious arti- •
fices which had been successfully employed
more than a century before ; and I am not pre
pared to deny that the deep, far-seeing mind of
Samuel Adams had penetrated to this result
through intervening clouds of war and scenes of -
carnage, and that he entertained the settled be- -
lief that separation was inevitable. But no one
openly avowed this intention and no one would
tolerate such a suggestion : on the contrary,
declarations of loyalty were everywhere made,
and evidently with the utmost sincerity. The
supposition, therefore, that the mob which con
fronted the soldiers on guard at the custom
house were swelling with high notions of inde
pendence and liberty, ajid had been aggravated
beyond endurance by the mauace which the'
presence of the hated red-coats implied, is simply
preposterous. However honestly entertained, It
can only spring_f rom a failure to accurately ob-'

The Boston Massacre.

6erve the order of events and the changes of
public sentiment which history records, and
which are clearly apparent to all who will 6tudy
it carefully and without prejudice.
The soldiers were finally quartered in the
town instead of at the island. Two regiments
(and some artillery) arrived from Halifax, Sep
tember 28, 1768, and two more, which had been
recruited in part at Cork in Ireland by drafts
on the people there, arrived on the 10th of No
vember following.
Disputes as to the meaning of the act of par
liament requiring accommodations for the sol
diers arose between the governor and the coun
cil, the selectmen and the military officers, and
increased the resentment provoked by the ap
pearance and bearing of the regulars, who had
been educated in a school oi morals and man
ners far different from the approved New Eng
land standard. The profanity, brawls, inde
cencies and rudeness at that time characteris
tic of Europsan army life shocked the better
class of citizens not less than did the military
parades on Sunday and the sound of drums and
fifes which broke the habitual stillness of tbe
great Day of Rest — the more perfect keeping of
which was one of the chief inducements to the
immigrationof the Pilgrims, and an important
desideratum with the sons of the Puritans.
I think it cannot be denied, too, that this pop
ular repugnance was strengthened by the knowl
edge that some of these soldiers, although
against their will, had been enlisted in a city
out of the realm, where the lower classes, from
which the soldiers were drawn, commonly used
a language unintelligible to New England ears,
and were generaUy of a religious faith totally at
variance with the traditional faith of New Eng
land, and, moreover, were the descendants of a
people whose adherence to James II. had led to
their subjugation by the forces of King William,
the great representative of the revolutionary
ideas of 1688 and of that policy of encourage
ment to the colonies under which Massachusetts
had derived her charter privileges, in 1692.
Bad people of all sorts took advantage of this
antipathy to the soldiers to foment quarrels
with the red-coats, under cover of which to
commit other crimes. Suspicious strangers
flocked to Boston from the outlying towns aud
neighboring colonies ostensibly to see and tease
the regulars, but in reality to rob and plunder.
The laws of the province against burglary had
been recently discovered to be defective, so that
a culprit convicted of that crime needed only to
plead the "benefit of the clergy" in order to be
discharged after being branded iu the hand, not
always with a very hot iron. This evil had so
increased that about three weeks after the
"massacre" the legislature deemed it necessary
to pass a law making burglary a capita,! offence,

without benefit of clergy, for the especial pro
tection of the citizens of Boston. Assaults.
iucendiary attempts and other criu.es seemed
to increase with the prolonged stay in th3 town
of the regulars, until all good citizens were
impatient at the longer continuance there of
this source of trouble. In deference to this
feeling two of the regiments had actually
departed before the date of the fatal encounter,
but enough still remained quartered in the town
to keep the community in a state of feverish
anxiety and to occasion the spreading of the
most damaging reports as to the character of
the inhabitants of Boston for love of order and
regard for law. Repeatedly, the council, the
selectmen of Boston and the citizens by their
committees and representati ves had denounced
these breaches of the peace in terms as strong at
least as were used by a convention of the rep
resentatives of the whole province in Faneuil
Hall, September 22, 1768, who then declared
their own loyalty and that of the people in
general and advised all, "not in an authorita
tive, but friendly manner, to compose their
minds, to avoid any undue expressions of resent
ment, and to prevent, as much as in them lies,
all tumults and disorders," and further pledged
themselves to yield every possible assistance to
the civil magistrate in suppressing disorders,
and recommended the employment of the
posse comitatus for that purpose, if necessary.
Notwithstanding these genuine expressions of
regard for law and order — a sentiment which
had been earnestly inculcated by the bast and
wisest patriots, and especially by John Dickin
son, the "Pennsylvania Farmer," whose views
were greatly applauded by the patriots of Bos
ton, the charge has repeatedly been made by
the patriots themselves, and never authorita
tively denied, that these broils between citizens
and soldiers were connived at if not actively en
couraged by designing men of influence in Bos
ton. It would take too much space to particu
larize on this point here ; and, however such
conduct may be considered at this distance of
time, it probably cannot be clearly shown that
in 6ome instances at least it was not inspired by.
the same patriotic motive which prompted the
famous exclamation attributed to Samuel
Adams at Lexington on the day of the conflict
of arms .between the British forces and the
"assembled farmers."
This was the state of commotion and alarm In
Boston, and such were the sentiments enter
tained by the respective parties concerned in
shaping events, in March, 1770. It is absurd to
suppose that tbe hot-hoaded men and boys who
had all along taken part in the combats with
the soldiers, and who were "spoiling for a fight,"
were anxious for the summary removal of the
objects Qf their vengeance, simply for the sake.

The Boston Massacre.

of the public peace. On the contrary. It is
quite probable that they were unwilling to lose
the chance of giving their antagonists in these
Affrays at least one more drubbing — and one
that they would remember. WhaS better time
for such an assault than when the soldiers were
on duty, and so unable without the command
of their officers to retiro or to break ranks in
¦pursuit of their assailants f No danger was to
be apprehended In thus attacking armed men,
since the acts of parliament forbade soldiers
situated as these were to fire upon citizens with
out express and special authority from the civil
magistracy, and it was easy to keep out of the
reach of the bayonets of the regulars, or to
ward them off by the use of clubs which were
readily obtainable. Then, too, the stronger and
more daring might hope to close with the
soldiers, to wrench their muskets from them,
and, if need be, to use them against their
owners. At the time of the fatal affray in King street,
fresh incentives to disturbance had baen fur
nished by recent events. On the 22d of February,
only 11 days before the "massacre," a lad 11 or 12
years of age, the son of a poor German named
Snider, was killed by a former inferior officer
of tbe customs, who, in firing upon a mob which
was endeavoring to force an entrance into his
house, hit the boy. The funeral of the child
had been attended "by young and old, some of
e.11 ranks and orders" "in a solemn procession
from Liberty Tree to the town house, and then
to the common bnryine-ground." Richardson,
who fired the shot, was seized by a mob and
threatened with lynch law. but was rescued and
committed to jail, where, while the tragedy was
enacting in King street, he was still incarcerated
on the charge of murder. He was subsequently
tried and convicted, though against the ruling
of the court, but was pardoned by the crown
and immediately left the province.
This brings us now to the consideration of the
particulars of the tragedy. Fortunately, the
important facts are beyond reasonable doubt.
However much a false pride or preconceived
theories may have warped the judgment
of later compilers of accounts of the
affair, and vague and conflicting as were the
earliest rumors concerning it, and untrustworthy
as are the one-sided narratives of the town com
mittee, even the statement of the latter iu their
report to Thomas Pownall, the active friend of
the colonists in England, which under the
circumstances has in this particular the full
weight of an admission, shows that the affair had
its origin in a personal combat a few days before
This is what the committee say : —
"On Friday, the 2d inst., a quarrel arose be
tween some soldiers of the Twenty-ninth and the
ropemakers' journeymen and apprentices, which

was carried to that length as to become danger
ous to the lives of each party, many of them
being much wounded. This contentious disposi
tion continued until the Monday evening follow
ing, when a party of seven or eight soldiers were
detached from the main guard, under the com
mand of Capt Preston, and by his orders
fired upon the inhabitants promiscuously in
King street, without the least warning of their
intention, and killed three on the spot;
another has since died of his wounds and others
dangerously, some, it is feared, mortally
wounded. Capt. Prestcn and his party now are
in jail. March 12, 1770." Signed, John Hancock,
Sam Adams, W. Molineaux, Joshua Henshaw,
Wm. Phillips, Jos. Warren, Sam Pemberton.
But the sworn evicence in the only trial of
which a full report has reached us, which need
not be recapitulated here, is conclusive to con
demn the assault and to justify the resistance.
Moreover, contemporary testimony of the
highest credit agrees substantially on that point.
The third volume of Hutchinson's History was
not given to the world until 1828 ; and then it
appeared that this author, himself lieutenant-
governor of the province at the " time of the
"massacre." and having no intercourse with
John Adams, or the others whom I shall here
after quote, had written out an account of the
affray differing in no essential particular from
theirs. The Rev. Alden Bradford, who, though but
5 years of age in 1770, was for 12 years secre
tary of the Commonwealth and held other
public stations, bringing him into intimate rela
tions with men who were cognizant of all the
earlier events of the Revolution. He was a
strong sympathizer with the ultra patriotic
party of the Revolution. His History of Massa
chusetts is almost the only authentic compila
tion we have concerninz many important
measures of the old state government and the
earlier administrations of the Commonwealtn.
It shows that he not only took an intelligent in
terest in all affairs of state, but understood
well the relative importance of events. He thus
sums up the story of the "massacre" : —
"The people were much agitated at the time
of the transaction ; but they had time for re
flection, and a more full and correct account
probably satisfied them that, though the bloody
deed could not be justified, tha soldiers were first
assaulted on the evening the firing took place ;
and that their acquittal was such as the law ful
ly sanctioned." (p. 211.)
Another authority to which I will refer is one
of the famous "Boston Orators." He was also
one of the founders of the Massachusetts His
torical Society ; — and here it may be observed in
passing that among the founders of that society
were two other of these orators ; that one of

The Boston Masi

these orators was afterwards recording secretary with u ii versal favor by the patriotic party. In

and librarian, aud two of them were succes
sively treasurers of the society, and that three
of them were members of important committees
in that body.
William Tudor, when in 1779 he delivered
his oration on the anniversary of the massacre,
kept the true lessou of the tragedy clearly
in mind,* and his son and namesake probably
only rdpre?ent:d the views of his father when,
iu hi j Life of James Otis (published in 1823),
he declared that Capt. Preston directed his
soldiers to firo in self-defence ; that after the
firing "all the leading patriots and respectable
inhabitants exerted their influence to the utmost
to prevail on the people to be quiet" ; and in ref
erence to the trial of Freston, that "still justice
held its course through this conflict of passions,
and Capt Preston was absolved by a jury
taken from among the citizens," and
that John Adams's defence of that officer "was
made successfully, and will ever hold a distin
guished rank among those causes that adorn
the profession of the law, in which a mag
nanimous, fearless advocate boldly espouses
the side of the unfortunate against the passions
of the people, and hazards his own safety or
fortune in the exertion."
1 ne3d refer to but one other contemporary
authority. William Gordon, the historian of
the rise and progress of our national Indepen-
denca, left England to join the colonists in their
contest with the ministry for their political and
civil rights and liberties. He arrived here the
very year in which ths tragedy in King street
took place, and remained here until three years
after the independence of the United States was
acknowledged, and a treaty had been concluded
on that basis with Great Britain, enjoying
during that period the intimate friendship
of the leaders in all the colonies of tbe opposi
tion to British policy and the coercive measures
of the British ministrv. He was very popular
iu Massachusetts, and was made chaplain of
the provincial congress. Aftsr the Declaration
of Independeuce, and while the War of tbe
Revolution was assuming its gravest aspect, be
conceived the design of writing his history with
the express encouragement of Washinston.
For this work all the patriots to whom he ap
plied furnished him materials, and the conti
nental congress by formal vote opened to him
Its journals and archives. The basis of this
work was the correspondence he had held with
friends in London, Rotterdam and Paris respect
ing contemporaneous events in America.
Upon its appearance his book was received
*'*Our citizens who fei! on that memorable ni.'ht, full
ing, bequeathed us this salutary lesron, written indelibly
with their blood. Confusion, murders and miser,/ must
evsrbelhe'consequcnce of mercenary slandinq armies
cantoned in free ci'ies" —[Oration March f», 1779. The
italics are in the prioted oration.

the list of subscribers are thu names of Wash
ington, Jefferson, Lafayette, John Adams; and
Samuel Adams and James Bowdoin — two of
the committee of Boston appointed to collect
evidence in regard to the massacre ; also of
three of the orators who delivered addresses
in commemoration of the massacre ; also of
John Dickinson, the "Pennsylvania Farmer"
whom I have already mentioned. The names
of the patriots, Thomas Cushing, Benjamin Lin
coln and Elbridge Gerry, are in the list The
favor with which tbe book was at first received
is still accorded to it by all who appreciate
the Importance of such a work, and who have
tested its accuracy and fulness and the candor of
its author. Of all the patriots who read it, I do-
not know tnat one ever objected to the truth of
a single part of the narrative ; and indeed the
only adverse criticism affecting its value as a
history appeared in the London Critical Review,
which declared "there arises some suspicion
that Dr. Gordon wrote under the influence of
American prejudice" — an objection which
surely will not impair his credit as a witness
against the mob of March 5, 1770. His descrip
tion of the proceedings of "the mob," as he does
not hesitate to call the assailants, agrees with
that given by John Adams and with the testi
mony upon which the accussd were acquitted.
I will, however, quote but one sentence here:
"But from the characters, principles and politics
of certain persons among the leaders of the op
position, it may be feared that they had no ob
jection to a rencounter, that by occasioning the
death of a few, might eventually clear t/te place
of the two regiments.''
This avowal, which coming from such a
source has all the weight of an admission, chills
us with its deliberate candor, and begets reflec
tions on the desperate means resorted to by
some of the leaders of the populace in those
trying times which historians generally have
shrunk from suggesting.
Much has been said of late to discredit the
statements of Adams and Quincy at the trial of
the soldiers, because they were acting as coun
sel for the accused. But, under the circum
stances, I tiink this is not just to Adams, at
least, because it appears from contemporary
sources that as counsel he suppressed evidence
in favor ot his clients, which was not absolutely
necessary for their acquittal, and would have
been damaging to some public leaders. * Quiucv
and he had some difference on this account. If,
however, we appeal from Adams the advocate
•From Quincy, if he had not bean cut off in the flower
oi his manhood, the events of the Revolution might have
come down to us with a different coloring than they have
received from those who have been in the habit of subor
dinating truth to high-sounding platitudes, "glittering-
generalities" and pleasing illusions: yet no sincerer pa
triot than he ever lived.

The Boston Massacre.

to Adams the statesman, the political philoso
pher, and, in a personal way, the historian, we
shall hear him, notwithstanding the statement
recautly made to the contrary in certain newspa
pers, discoursing thus of the incidents of the mas
sacre 30 years afterwards in his autobiography :
"Endeavors had been systematically pursued
for many months by certain busy characters to ex
cite quarrels, rencounters and combats, single or
compound, in the nigM, between the inhabitants
of the lower class aud the soldiers, and at all
risks to enkindle an immortal hatred between
them. I suspected that this was the explo
sion which had been intentionally wrought up
bv designing men who knew what they were
aiming at better than the instruments employed.
If these poor tools should be prosecuted for any
of their illegal conduct, they must be punished.
If the soldiers, in self-defence, 6houldkill any of
them, they must be tried, and. if truth was
respected, and the law prevailed, must bo ac
quitted. "To depend upon the perversion of law and
the corruption or partiality of juries woula
insensibly disgrace the jurisprudence of the
country and corrupt the morals of the people.
"It would be better for the whole people to rise
in their majesty and insist on the removal of
the army, and take upon themselves the conse
quences, than to excite such passions between
the people and the soldiers as would expose
both to continual prosecution, civil or criminal,
and keep the town boiling in a continual fermen
tation." [Life, vol.2, p. 229.]
These are all the authorities I purpose to
adduce on this head, although I might quote
from later writers, such, for instance, as
Chandler in his "Criminal Trials," an author
recently very warmly commended by The
Advertiser, but who repeatedly refers to the
assailants as "the rioters" aud "the mob," and
clearly shows it to be his opinion that the
soldiers were unlawfully and violently at
tacked, and were justified in, defending them
selves. Then there are the historians, David
Ramsay, Hannah Adams and Jedidiah Morse,
contemporaries of the Revolution, and Alexan
der Everett (in his Life of Warren in Sparks'
Biographies ) Hildreth, Charles Francis Adams,
LoriDg's Boston Orators, Drake's History of
Boston, Barry's History of Massachusetts, the
encyclopaedias and the editor of the Boston
Daily Advertiser of March 5, 1870 — all testify
ing to the same effect. In short, there is enough
of such corroborative material to till a volume.
There would seem to be hardly room for an
honest difference of opinion among attentive
readers of tbe above and other authorities as to
the unjustifiableness of the attack and the
responsibility of the assailants for the death of
those who fell.

Nothing, except perhaps the assurance of pro
tection by certain powerful managers in tbe
town, contributed so much to the display of
"courage" at the massacre as the confident as
sertion that firing by the soldiars was out of the
question,— a thing absolutely prohibited; so the
rioters were not intimidated by the familiar
sound of loading ; the ring of ramrods and the
click of the flintlocks. On the contrary they
derided these demonstrations as harmless
bravado, and they attacked the 6oldiers with
missiles of every description that they could
gather, knocked aside their muskets and b eat
them with clubs, and even used the broadsword
to some purpose, all the . while defying them
to fire, taunting them with cowardice
and filling the air with their howls*
shrieks and blasphemous objurgations, while
above all this din Attucks raised the blood
curdling war-whoop — the only legacy 6ave his
Indian surname, his strength and ferocity that
he is known to have received from his 6avaze
ancestry. All this was too much for human na
ture to endure without retaliation, and the first
soldier who had been knocked down recovered
his position and fired, killing one of the rioters.
This was unexpacted. ¦ Those of the mob who
were aware of the result of the discharge fell
back, but as soon as other discharges had fol
lowed, and it was found that the soldiers meant
business, the cowardly mob scattered in all
directions. As iu all similar casas, innocemt
passers-by and lookers-on suffered equally with
the guilty. So the unoffending Maverick and
Caldwell were killed outright, and other good
citizens were wounded ; but in the same category
with these are placed, with an absolute disre
gard to the totally different circumstances of
their deaths, for which there is no louser any
excuse. Gray, who was bent on vengeance,
and Attucks, to whom the narrative renders it
impossible to ascribe, with the slightest regard'
for historical truth, even so unworthy a motive
as revenge. It would be most gratifying to find
some evidence that he was trying to assist the*
patriotic fathers of the town to preserve the
peace, which the presenca of the so'.diers en
dangered, by stepping to the front in order to-
prevent a collision between them and the mob-;
but the starn, hard facts on record cannot be
tortured into such an interpretation of his in
tentions. Carr '.ived long enough to repant h is
rashness, to forgive the soldier who shot him-,
and to bear testimony that tha shooting was
justifiable. But it has been said that it must not be be
lieved that tbe assailants weie altogether in tha-
wrong, because the jury who tried the soldiers
did not acquit all of them and that two of them
were puuished. But all were acquitted of the
charge in the indictment ; i. e., murder. Two-

8

The Boston Massacn

ot them were brought in guilty of man
slaughter, but they were not punished for that
crime. They were simply branded (which was
not a punishment known to the laws of England)
to prevent their pleading the privilege of the
clergy a second time. This plea, wmcn was of
ancient origin, was originally permitted to the
clergy alone, who were not amenable to the
secular courts for certain crimes, but Were en
titled to be tried by their brethren in the
ecclesiastical tribunals. After a while, any
man who could read was presumed to be a
clergyman, for this purpose at least, and so it
happened that after the ecclesiastical tribunals
ceased to try such offenders, and in all places
where no such courts existed, the prisoner went
free after being marked on the "brawn of the
thumb" for future recognition. Even this mark
ing finally became a farce, for the iron applied
was sometimes quite cold.
This distinction, however, is more curious
than important. It is of less consequence in its
bearing upon the views of the jury than the
universal and obstinate belief at that time that
soldiers were by law absolutely prohibited from
firing except as I have heretofore stated. Al
though both court and counsel endeavored to
disabuse the minds of the jury of this error, it
is possible that they did not succeed, and all
their representations that as men, if not as a
part of the rank and file, ' the soldiers had a
right to defend themselves by all available
means, may have failed to convince the jury,
who, in criminal cases, were admitted to be
judges of the law as well as the facts. If this
hypothesis is not correct, there is still another
which is well supported by the history of the
times and the record of the trial. Some of the
killed were not proved to have been engaged in
.the assault, and as the law was then interpreted
it would take more than tbe combined authority
of the bench and bar to so far overcome tbeir
-traditional reverence for the command in
Genesis : "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by
man shall his blood be shed," as to satisfy the
consciences of the jury that they were doing
justice in permitting those who were the means
of the deaths of Maverick and Caldwell to go
free of all condemnation, however willing they
might have been to- acquit them of any crime
toward Gray and Attacks-
To one who knows only the simple narrative
of this demoniacal mtjlse, and has read it dis
passionately from beginning to end, it would
indeed be a matter of astonishment that Chris
tian men and women could annually commem
orate such an event by an oration, and that the
whole town should in a body attend the funeral
of four of the victims. There must have been
some other and higher purpose than merely to
do honor to tnese rioters who "died as the fool

dleth." Indeed, it is a scandalous reflection on
the good sense as well as good morals Of our
forefathers to admit the possibility of their
committing the folly which some are so ready
to ascribe to them.
What then was the purpose of tne annual
oration ? Let the town record of March 19,
1770, spoak for the patriots of Boston : "That
for the present the town make choice of a proper
Person to deliver an Oration at 6ucn Time as
may be Judged most convenient to commemo
rate the barbarous murder of five of our Fellow-
Citizens on that fatal Day, and to Impress upon
our minds the ruinous tendency of Standing
Armies in Free Cities, and the necessity of such
noble exertions in all future times, as the In
habitants of the Town then made [for the with
drawal of tbe troops] , whereby the designs of
the conspirators against the public Liberty May
be still frustrated."
To guard against the possibility of confound
ing au approval of the riot and the rioters with
a recognition of the significance of the great
event which followed the massacre — the retire
ment, on the instant demand of the citizens, of
a part of an arriiy whose proud boast it was
that it never retreated, ah article which had been
inserted in the warrant for this town meeting,
and which looked to the erection of a monument
"on the spot where the late tragical scene was
acted," was' not voted upon, although one of
the avowed purposes of the monument was to
serve as a memento of "the destructive conse
quences of military troops bemg quartered in a
well-regulated city."
To further substantiate this view I have to re
fer again to Gordon, who says, speaking of the
funeral of Attucks, Gray, Mavenck and Cald
well : —
"Thus are they distinguished and honorably
attended to the place of interment, with un
paralleled pomp, not on account of personal merit,
but to express the vehement indignation of the
inhabitants against the slaughter of tbeir
brethren by the British soldiery quartered
among them, iu violation, as they imagine, of
their civil liberties."
The orators at the anniversaries of the mas
sacre have been referred to as approving of the
riot. I think this a great mistake. We have
already seen how Tudor expressed the true pur
pose of the occasion in 1779; but a still stronger
confirmation of the disapproval of mobs and
violence, which, as we have seen, Bradford says
followed "a more full and correct ac
count" of the massacre than they had at first
received, appears in the oration delivered on the
first anniversary of that event iu 177L James
Lovell, the orator, was a trusted patriot who
subsequently suffered imprisonment by the
British for alleged treasonable conduct Son of

The Boston Massacre.

tho famous Boston schoolmaster, he was un
usually well educated, and had the calm, clear
perception which accompanies a trained mind
and a naturally sound judgment.
In Lovell's oration he studiously avoids men
tioning tne names of either of the victims, or
their sufferings or merits as iudividuals,
but alludes to the "shocking close of
one continued course of rancor and dis
pute from the first moment that the troops
arrived in town, ' ' only to condemn the practico
of "placing standing forces in the midst of
populous communities," and says "that whatever
were the causes which concurred to bring it on,"
"the bloody scene" commemorated "must lead
the pious and humane of every order to tome
suitable reflections," and then proceeds, in a
calm but earnest manner, to doprecate anzer
and violence ; to urge a steady and conscientious
regard to law "and to the worthy executors of
it." He quotes from Dickinson, "The cause of
liberty is a cause of too much dignity to be
sullied by turbulence and tumult," and then
adds : —
"The Right which imposes duties upon us, Is
in dispute ; but whether they are managed by a
Surveyor-General, v. Board of Commissioners,
Turkish Janizaries, or Russian Cossacks, let
them enjoy, during our time of fair try al , the
common personal protection of the laws of our
constitution. Let us shut our eyes, for the'pres-
ent, to their being executors of claims subversive
of our rights." He concludes with the following
exhortation : "Let us behave with the propriety
and dignity of Freemen, and thus exhibit to the
world a new character of a people which no
history describes. May the all-wise and benefi
cent Ruler of the Universe preserve our lives
ind health and prosper all our lawful endeavors
in the glorious cause of Feeepom."
The avowal that the purpose of the anniver
sary oration was in accordance with tne vote of
the town was expressly made by Warren,
Church, Thacher, Hichborn, Austin, Tudor
and Welsh, seven of the 13 orators. But, after
independence had been declared, this 60urce of
apprehension— a standing army— was no longer a
terror ; for there was no external power to which
we bore allegiance, and which could claim the
right to assert dominion over us by force.
Hence other subjects of immediate interest to
the struggling patriots took the place of this old
menace to liberty.
It is noticeable that, in the second oration,
March 5, 1772, the names of the victims were
again suppressed. In the third oration, by Dr.
Church, the only names mentioned were those
of the youth, Maverick, and of Caldwell— the
only persons among those fatally wounded who
were believed to ba entirely innocent.
In the 4th oration, indeed (1774) Hancock

appeals to the "bloody butchers" to know if the
6haaes of the departed five (mentioned by
name, with Maverick at the head of the list) do
not haunt them in tho midst of their "debauch
eries," — inflated language which would be
ridiculous if taken literally ; and to give some
tinge of sincerity to his hackneyed phrases he
calls attention to the pitiable condition of Chris
topher Monk, a youth who was permanently
crippled at the massacre by a stray shot His
whole oration is figurative ; but the burden of
his argument is that an organized militia is
preferable to a standing army.
In the 5th oration, Warren a second time
omits to mention the names of the victims,* as I
believe do all the succeeding orators. Though
reference is made more or less remotely to the
tragedy, in some of the subsequent orations, the
subject was treated perfunctorily, and it is evi
dent that the orators dwelt with keener relish
on the stirring events that were daily occurring
and on the heroes Warren and Washington. In
vain do we search through all the fervid sentences
of these orators for one clear, unmistakable
approval of the doings of the rioters, or one
serious proposition to erect a monument to com
memorate their meritorious ( ?) deeds. All that
appears to indicate such an intention is figura
tive. Minot's extravagant figure that the tomb
of the victims "shall ever stand a basis to the
stateliest pillar in the temple of freedom, must
not be taken literally. Indeed, it cannot be
realized without reinterring their remains, or re
placing the Tremont House, and appropriating at
least a part of the adjoining burying-ground fcr
the proposed "temple" in which to erect this
pillar. It has been currently credited of late, I under
stand, that a stone inscribed with the conclud
ing lines of a short poam which appeared in
Fleet's Post of March 12, 1770, was placed over
the victims, and this story has been printed for
truth in some of our newspapers ; but I know
of no good authority for it, and should be very
glad to be informed when 6uch a stone was so
placed, and when and for what reason it was re
moved. The event was commemorated by an inscrip
tion on one of the tablets on the dado of the
Beacon Hill Monument, erected by citizens of
Boston in 1790. This tablet is now embedded
in the eastern wall of the eastern corridor of the
state house, on the same floor with Doric Hall.
The Bostonian Society last year caused a
bronze tablet, suitably inscribed, to be placad
on a building in State street opposite the scene

* Although in this oration Warren suppressed the
names of the victims, he deemed it proper when the
oration was printed to append a marginal note explain
ing to his readers that the phrase. "Your feet glide on the
stones bespattered with your father's brains," applied to
the "orphan babes" of "Mr. Gray."

10

The Boston Massacre.

of the firing, and have also placed a stone in the
pavement to mark the spot where one of the
victims fell. These are all tho public monu
ments that have been erected or that the event
requires. It is simply preposterous for ,the
Commonwealth to erect a $10,000 monument to
the fame of these victims, when 6he has never
paid such a tribute to one or more of the noble
company of real heroes and patriots that crowd
the highways of h3r history.
In 1851 William C. Nell and others prayed the
legislature for a similar monument to Crispus
Attucks alone, for which they asked an appro
priation of |1500. A committee, of which the
late William A. Hawley was chairman, made
a report on the petition, in which they give
ihe historical evidence showing that Attucks'
conduct was not meritorious and that the claim
that he was the "first martyr" was unfounded.
The petitioners had leave to withdraw [Doc. No.
100, 1851, Housa.] That this was not the
result of race prejudice may bo inferred from the
fact that this was the first "coalition" legisla
ture, which elected Charles Sumner to the United
States senate.
To b3 sure, monuments of stone will not avail
to perpetuate au error of history. ' Witness the
monument erected to commemorate the great
fire in London. Tha inscription on that monu
ment, embodying a gross perversion of his
tory and an insult to the living in pro
claiming to all the world the falsehood that
the conflagration was the work oi Roman
Catholic incendiaries, was effaced in 1831 after
it had stood there a hundred and fifty years.
But the just resentment, the ill-feeling, the grief
and shame which it engendered during that
period, and the disgrace it brought upon the
nation, were evils of incalculable magnitude.
The inscription is gone, but to the thoughtful,
who know its history and its ulterior purpose,
that monument, in the imperishable words of
Pope, still —
Like a tall bully, lifts the head and lies.
Let us, therefore, be careful to avoid a similar
mistake. Let us build no monument to com
memorate any conduct in the past which we
would not be willing to repaat today under
similar circumstances.
If the only lesson that the popular mind has
derived from the disorderly doings which pre
ceded the Revolution is that they were tho right
things to be doue and worthy of perpetual ap
plause, it is high time that we adopt a rule
never to meutioh such events as the sanguinary
affray in King street and the destruction of the
tea without expressions of unqualified disappro
bation. Which of us would permit his sons to
engage in such reprehensible proceedings today ?
It has been sought to palliate or justify these
illegal proceedings by comparing them or con

necting them with the later organized resistance
to tyranny, as if they were in the same
category. There could not possibly be a greater
or mora mischievous error. After October,
1774, when the people, by their representatives
regularly called by the governor, had organized
the Provincial Congress, every step towards the
Revolution was orderly and according to law.
The people, deeming the alteration of their
charter by act of parliament an unconstitutional
proceeding, refused to acknowledge the board of
mandamus councillors appointed under that
act, and fell back upon tha letter of the charter.
The governor failed to meet the assembly ; and
aft:r waiting for him a reasonable time they
took his continued absence for abdication, and
joining with such of the old council as were
willing to serve, they toot control of the three
functions of government— the legislative, judi
cial and executive— /jrntiisioBa.'iy, and until
they could receive the advice of the other
colonies as to their future coarse. Agreeably to
this advice, the assembly was reconvened under
the charter, but without a governor; and the
two branches proceeded as the charter provided
in such an emergency, and according to prece
dent, to manage all the departments of state,
systematically and orderly, and to enact law3
some of which are in force today.
Not one thing was done by themtumultuously
or offensively. The affair at Lexington and the
battle of Bunker's Hill were proper corollaries to
the theory assumed and advanced by the people
in the most regular and6olemn form possible, —
indeed, in the only way in which the general
consensus could be satisfactorily manifested or
ascertained — that Gage was an intruder, and
that his offensive movements were unjustifiable
and an invasion, and they determined to
"expulse, repel, resist and pursue by force of
arms, as well by sea as by land, within or with
out the limits" of the province, the invader,
agreeably to the authority given in their charter.
Later, when revolution was - confessedly re
sorted to, they were still under law ; for they
not only maintained the authority of their legis
lature, but -then, ipso facto,- the law of nations
superseded the inoperative statutes of parlia
ment and the impotent fiats of the crown. Then
the whole civilized world became the umpire to
which both sides must eventually appoal. Then,
within certain limits, other nations than Great
Britain had a right to control both parties to
this struggle ; and accordingly, before the con
test was ended, they did interpose under the
supreme law which forbids one nation to un
fairly and revengefully exterminate or change
the status of another.
¦I trust, for the honor of our ancestors, that
the line which they recognized between lawless
ness and the highest duty of citizenship will

11

never be effaced or incorrectly marked by falso
monuments. The right a' revolatiou, tor sufficient cause,
which, ever jince the overthrow of tho Stuart
dyruwty, has been a fundamental part of the
British constitution, and was first successfully
promulgated and maintained by the Puritans of
Old England (who, at the same time, had the
courage to punish treason even by the decapita
tion of their sovereign) , was recognized by the
Puritans of New England, who transmitted it
to their posterity. Sedition and lawlessness
were neither inculcated nor sanctioned by our
fathers. Open, manly, courageous and united
action won for them more than cowardly as
saults under cover of darkness, aud mean depre
dations by reckless law-breakers in masks and
fantastic disguises, could ever accomplish. In
deed, there is reason to believe that the acts of
lawless violence which occurred about the time
of the Revolution alienated many persons, both
here and in England, whose co-operation would
have shortened the war and hastened the con
summation so devoutly wished for by all true
patriots. But there are many things in our history not
pleasant to dwell upon, which are still important
to be remembered as leading to nobler results.
Indeed, throughout our sacred annals there is
scarcely a person* or event in which the pu blic
have at any time been interested that does not
need to be more carefully studied, and concern
ing which more definite particulars will not be
eagerly sought for by posterity. It would be in
teresting, even, to know more about the troublers
of New England's peace. With what interest
should we not look upon a portrait, drawn with
all the fidelity of a Holbein, of Ann Hutchinson,
or of her descendant, the lieutenant-governor —
the great antagonist of the patriot party; of
Thomas Morton of Merry Mount ; of Randolph,
"the evil genius of New England"; or even of
Dr. Benjamin Church, one of the orators on the
Boston Massacre, and the first convicted traitor
of the Revolution ! It is a laudable curiosity
that leads us to wish that the spot on Boston
Common where the martyred Quakers were
buried could be appropriately and durably
marked, and that the place where the persons
executed for witchcraft swung upon the gal
lows could be certainly identified and pointed
out to posterity. Yet does this justify an ex
penditure from the state treasury for the erection
of a costly memorial of crimes and follies long
since repented of and condoned ?
On the other hand, the ancient arches of
Westminster Abbey protect from outward in
jury a sepulchral monument erected by Massa

chusetts to the historic dead. Let us avail our
selves of this precedent to give the victims of
the massacre, and the boy Solder, suitable
monuments in the seclusion of the buryiog-
ground whither their remains were followed by
Immense concourses of the people of Boston and
the neighboring towns, aud with tokens of
universal sorrow. Let the stone or bronze be
Inscribed with all that can be learned of their
history. And let us hope that it is not, even
now, too late to appeal to "sober second
thought" to stop there.
Above all things, let us do nothiug which
shall seem to imply that we believe, or that our
fathers believed, that a riot was ever anything
but a hideous crime : that wilful injury to the
person or property of another is not an assault
upon the peace of ail ; and that It should not be
the common aause of all to suppress the one, to
endeavor to prevent the other, and to redress
the wrong inflicted by both.
Let the new and strange doctrines that are
now bearing fruit in Canada, and that have
borne fruit iu Cincinnati and Chicago — and iu
other cities in Europe and America — no longer
receive encouragement from the alleged ex
ample of the Revolutionary patriots ; bnt let us
prove to the oppressed of all nations, who look
to us for guidance, that our history does not
bear such an interpretation ; that our ancestor s
stood upon the constitution and the common
law of England, and their own peculiar rights
under their charters ; that for 90 years they
contended for their rights on this basis, and by
their fortitude, their patience, their ingenuity
and vigilance they put their opponents in tlie
wrong, and so won the sympathy of mankind ;
and that, today, the interpretation of the British
constitution which they enunciated, and which
they maintained against the army and navy of
Britain, is the accepted doctrine of the states
men of England, and the established founda
tion of its colonial policy.
Let us show the world that history teaches
this important lesson, and that both the precepts
and examples of the heroas who transmitted to us
the blessings of the freedom we enjoy, and which
we desire to spread over the world, were in ab
solute harmony with the peaceful sentiment ex
pressed by our own loved New England poat :—
Not mine sedition's trumpet- blast
And threatening word ;
I read the lesson of the Past,
That firm endurance wins at last
More than the sword.

A. C. Goopell, Jr.

Boston, May 24, 1887.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39Q02 0 0 29 7 k2k 5b

ii