As a young child I had a love of history, and became aware of the Boston massacre.  I recently decided to read up on it, and was surprised to find that only five people were killed.  Five people too many of course, but I'm not sure whether it justifies the use of the term massacre.  Also, the perpetrators - soldiers of the 29th Regiment of Foot - were provoked to open fire by a large and disorderly crowd which had hemmed them in.

The term massacre, which derives from a French word meaning a slaughter house, strictly refers to a situation where a large number of people are killed, and where this occurs with little or no provocation.

By contrast, the Hexham riots, which took place nine years earlier in 1761, saw fifty people shot dead by redcoats, and yet this is not recorded as a massacre.

Look into the "man in black" theory.

There were records of the event (which were mysteriously destroyed in a fire) that there were strong rumors in the area that George Bush and Dick Cheney were members of the British 29th Regiment.

     There were some evidence that a mysterious man in black (American)prompted the British soldiers to fire at the Boston massacre. It even came out in court that the man in black stood behind the soldier and said that he would "stand behind him all the way" if he would fire on the Americans.
     It was a certain fact that the secret societies fomented the American revolution, drummed up the war in order to take America away from Britain and set up thier own empire. It goes something like this:
Step 1...George Washington was instrumental in starting the French and Indian war of the 1750s that resulted in France being kicked out of North America. Thus, the colonies no longer needed British protection, and thus it was time to throw off the British authority.
Step 2...drum up public rable rousing at home in the 1760s and early 1770s, and use influence at home to provide pretexts for discontent and the intollerable acts. All of this leads up to the riotous behavior and the Boston Massacre. The man in black enters the scene, orders his man to fire, and thus the public outrage is done, just as planned.
Step 3...Secret society member John Adams agrees to take the case as the lawyer for the British soldiers who stand accused and responsible for the Boston massacre. It is all workd out before hand that these British troops will get off scot free. That is sure to raise public resentment to an even higher level, and fits in well into the plan.
Step 4...Another member of the secret societies rides across the land spreading the alarm about the British are comming. Lexington and Concord, and at Lexington, another mysterious figure can be found referenced that reminds us of the man in black from the Boston massacre a few years earlier. This is where the American militia actually fired first on the British regulars. This was the shot heard round the world.
Step 5...make Geo Washington the commander in chief, and later war hero, and then President.
Step 6...These secret societies rule America from the start, Right on up to where we are today.
     The crazy thing is that absolutely none of this stuff is hidden in any way. The revolutionary leaders who were members of the freemasons didnt try to hide it. Washington did the dedication of the capitol in full masonic regallia. Franklin, Revere, Adams, and many more were quite open about thier involvement with the freemasons, and it was no secret among most of the common people who were not freemasons.
    The fact is, few if any Americans would have cared if the freemasons were accused of starting the revolution. It was comming anyway due to British arrogance and corruption and the restraining hand that they placed on white settlers who wanted to go west. A sizeable number of Americans wanted the war, and they would not have cared whether it was the freemason, the KKK, the NAACP, or aliens from space who were leading the revolution. Americans were just too used to having a free hand in thier own affairs to let the British start to take up the reins of cracking a whip on them. Keeping them denied access to the Indian lands in the west was a bridge too far.
     Remember, Britain had used a more or less hands off approach (at least to some degree) to the American colonies since thier founding.It was after the French-Indian war that the crackdown began, but it was comming anyway. It was just the way that British policies were shaping up. The tide of white English settlers were no longer content to live along the Eastern seaboard, and they wanted to go west. The British government and their Indians allies didnt want this, and so was the seed of conflict sewn inevitably. All of the other events and issues were secondary to this one. In short, the Americans wanted to go west, ...period!
     Eventually, we can say that yes the freemasons were definitely involved with starting the war. But if it had not been them, then some other group would have done it. The war was comming, it was just time. So, if the freemasons added some organization to it, then OK, thats what they did. But as I say, if not them, then somebody else would have done it.
     It will be interesting to see who jumps on me over this here. Perhaps there will be scoffers and detractors, and even those who will make silly interuptions to cloud the issues, but thats OK too. I just find it interesting that so many Americans know full well today, as back then, about the involvement of the secret societies in the American revolution, and dont mind it a bit. As for myself, I dont think that it matters that they were instrumental in fomenting the war. After all, there could have been some far right wing leader like a Hitler or a Lenin who had started the war, and then where would we have been? A large portion of Americans were ready to follow somebody, ready to shed British blood, and they would have followed anybody who had the charisma to get something started. I see that America might have been ready to follow a Hitler type charachter, or even another man such as Oliver Cromwell. Somebody would have stepped up to the plate and organized the revolution, of that I am sure.
     If anyone is interested in researching this, it is wide open for one and all to see. Nothing is hidden, it is all publically available, so dont take my word for it. I might be wrong in a few things. Go and dig into it for yourself, that way you will know for sure.

The freemasons were a different group back then.

In Christ,
KP

If anyone hasn't seen it, I recommend watching the HBO series John Adams.  I have it on DVD.  The future 2nd President of the United States, John Adams, actually defended the British soldiers in court.  That series showed both sides of that issue pretty well, I thought.

It could be because we were mostly people of a similar culture and the same language instead of some place like India.

My dad grew up in Hillsborough, down in the eastern part of the state.  There's an inn there in town that my dad showed me where British generals, including Cornwallis, would sometimes stay before they finally learned their lesson.  The laundry ladies would keep folks informed who was there by the way they placed the linens over the bushes to dry after they were washed.

Anyway, if "The Madness of King George" was true, our leaving the empire on 7/4/1776 was something he never got over.

Well, we've heard the suggestion of the man in black.  Of course, all culturally literate people know that that is Johnny Cash.  Johnny Cash played country music.  George Bush likes country music.  Therefore, logic dictates that the order to fire in Boston came from Johnny Cash because he was a Bush henchman.