The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American RevolutionStark, James Henry
History
The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American Revolution
Stark, James Henry
American loyalists -- Massachusetts; Massachusetts -- Politics and government -- 1775-1783
John Adams, in his plea in defence of the soldiers, said: "We have been
entertained with a great variety of phrases to avoid calling this sort
of people a mob. Some called them shavers, some called them geniuses.
The plain English is, they were probably a motley rabble of saucy boys,
negroes, mulattoes, Irish teagues, and outlandish Jack-tars, and why we
should scruple to call such a set of people a mob, I can't conceive,
unless the name is too respectable for them."
Chief-Justice Lynde, eminent for his judicial integrity and
impartiality, said on the announcement of the verdict: "Happy am I to
find, after much strict examination, the conduct of the prisoners
appears in so fair a light, yet I feel myself deeply affected that this
affair turns out so much to the disgrace of every person concerned
against them, and so much to the shame of the town in general."
In 1887, at the instigation of John Boyle O'Reilly and the negroes of
Boston, the Legislature passed a bill authorizing the expenditure of
$10,000 for the purpose of erecting a monument to the memory of the
"victims of the Boston Massacre." The monument was erected on Boston
Common, notwithstanding the fact that the Massachusetts Historical
Society, and the New England Historic Genealogical Society, voted
unanimously against it. "That it was a waste of public money, that the
affray was occasioned by the brutal and revengeful attack of reckless
roughs upon the soldiers, while on duty, who had not the civilian's
privilege of retreating, but were obliged to contend against great odds,
and used their arms only in the last extremity; that the killed were
rioters and not patriots, and that a jury of Boston citizens had
acquitted the soldiers." A joint committee, composed of members of both
societies, presented the resolutions to Governor Ames, and requested him
to veto the bill. He admitted that "the monument ought not to be
erected, but if he vetoed the bill it would _cost the Republican party
the colored vote_." When the monument was erected and uncovered, it
presented such an indecent appearance that the City Council immediately
voted $250 for a new capstone. It now represents an historical lie, and
is a sad commentary on the intelligence and art taste of the citizens of
Boston. To be sure monuments of stone will not avail to perpetuate an
error of history, as witness the monument erected to commemorate the
Great Fire of London. The inscription on that monument, embodying a
gross perversion of history, was effaced in 1831, after it had stood
there one hundred and fifty years, but the just resentment, the
ill-feeling, the grief and shame which it engendered during that period,
had been evils of incalculable magnitude. The time will surely come when
the monument on Boston Common will be removed for the same reason.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account