Christian Forums

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.

Are you implying that the Founding Fathers engaged in spin to influence people on the Continent toward freedom from royal rule? If you aren't you should be because it is true.

The Boston Massacre was seen as an escalating example of the ham fisted attitude of the monarchy toward the North American colonies and those incensed by it promoted it hard as an example of the problem.

Look into the "man in black" theory.

What does the man in black theory have to do with Boston Patriots exagerating a situation to provoke an emotional response to rally people to their cause?

Quote from: k-pappy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 - 01:47:51
exagerating a situation to provoke an emotional response to rally people to their cause?

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.

Quote from: Pokhara on Wed Feb 18, 2009 - 09:24:24
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.

But that didn't happen here in the US where some could spin it to such political advantage.

     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.

I often wondered why the British took a hands on approach to the US. The British empire was loosely governed ussually and the territories left to their own desires as long as they complied overall with the Empires. Any dissent could be then overwhelmingly crushed due to the large navy and minimal redcoat requirement of many territories.

Then again, this was before the height of the empire, so we may not have learnt our lessons, and clung to america as hard as we could.

Freemasons tend to be more open about it now adays as well. Maybe they feel they have nothing to hide.

The freemasons were a different group back then.

In Christ,
KP

Quote from: k-pappy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 - 19:24:56
The freemasons were a different group back then.

In Christ,
KP

I dunno. I KNOW some pretty insidious things about modern masons. not conspiracy nutjob know. I actually KNOW, sworn to secrecy though.:p

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.

I was about to mention that, DCR.  In the trial it was brought out that someone besides the commander on the scene may have yelled for the soldiers to fire.

One thing I never understood from the movie, though, DCR, is what Adams brought to the political market place.  The other characters, especially Washington and Jefferson were very moving and well acted.

Quote from: Howdyboyalan on Thu Feb 19, 2009 - 13:22:35
I often wondered why the British took a hands on approach to the US. The British empire was loosely governed ussually and the territories left to their own desires as long as they complied overall with the Empires. Any dissent could be then overwhelmingly crushed due to the large navy and minimal redcoat requirement of many territories.

Then again, this was before the height of the empire, so we may not have learnt our lessons, and clung to america as hard as we could.

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.

    And we see a similar pattern on the issue of the Lexington/Concord drama that was played out in 1775 which started the actual fighting. Who fired first? Who fired the "shot that was heard around the world"?

    The British were professional soldiers, and subject to the most severe and draconian measures should they do something as serious as start a war with unauthorized shooting. The Americans were a much looser organization, still, I dont think that they would have fired without orders. To do so might have meant that thier own officers would have to charge them with treason for firing on the kings troops.
    Both forces met on the green and words were exchanged. They were in battle formations, but no word from the Contenental Congress, which was a self-elected body of men anyway, had ever come to the American commander officially ordering him to fire on the British. The "committees of safety" and so on were never elected in general elections as the British would not have allowed it, or recognized it anyway. In short, there was no political organization which could have ordered the American militia to fire on the British anyway. So, the American officers were there on the green, trying to sort out what to do and keep control of thier men at the same time.

    And then, a mysterious shot just happened to ring out and the floodgates were thrown wide open to war. If one group had instigated the Boston massacre, then the shot fired around the world fits right in to the ultimate goal of starting the war. After all, if the Americans or British either one would have just said "OK" and withdrew, then the following events would have been anti-climatic and the whole war movement might have fallen apart.
    So, if an unnamed instigator had seen this about to happen, and didnt want it to, then the solution is simple. Just take out a pistol and shoot it into the air. Things would start "popping" pretty quickly then.
    "If they mean to have a war, let it start here" was one of the famous quotes of the day by the American commander. So, the issue is muddied. The evidence is conflicting and the conspiracy theories abound. One must draw thier own conclusions about these things?

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.

Or a secret opperative from Majestic 12? 

I thought it was "the man is black" theory, that Crispus Attucks, a Black man, was the sole target of the racist Redcoats, and the rest of the deaths was just collateral damage. 

I wasn`t aware that the CIA wore black.  Was there a grassy knoll nearby?  

And don't forget, Paul Revere was one of 3 who made the "Midnight Ride" to warn of the Redcoats.  He was also the one who made the engraving of the "Boston Massacre" that was printed in pamphlets and newspapers throughout the colonies = propaganda.

Quote from: Will Lee on Fri Mar 06, 2009 - 01:12:03
    And we see a similar pattern on the issue of the Lexington/Concord drama that was played out in 1775 which started the actual fighting. Who fired first? Who fired the "shot that was heard around the world"?

    The British were professional soldiers, and subject to the most severe and draconian measures should they do something as serious as start a war with unauthorized shooting. The Americans were a much looser organization, still, I dont think that they would have fired without orders. To do so might have meant that thier own officers would have to charge them with treason for firing on the kings troops.
    Both forces met on the green and words were exchanged. They were in battle formations, but no word from the Contenental Congress, which was a self-elected body of men anyway, had ever come to the American commander officially ordering him to fire on the British. The "committees of safety" and so on were never elected in general elections as the British would not have allowed it, or recognized it anyway. In short, there was no political organization which could have ordered the American militia to fire on the British anyway. So, the American officers were there on the green, trying to sort out what to do and keep control of thier men at the same time.

    And then, a mysterious shot just happened to ring out and the floodgates were thrown wide open to war. If one group had instigated the Boston massacre, then the shot fired around the world fits right in to the ultimate goal of starting the war. After all, if the Americans or British either one would have just said "OK" and withdrew, then the following events would have been anti-climatic and the whole war movement might have fallen apart.
    So, if an unnamed instigator had seen this about to happen, and didnt want it to, then the solution is simple. Just take out a pistol and shoot it into the air. Things would start "popping" pretty quickly then.
    "If they mean to have a war, let it start here" was one of the famous quotes of the day by the American commander. So, the issue is muddied. The evidence is conflicting and the conspiracy theories abound. One must draw thier own conclusions about these things?

Historical rumor is that Samuel Adams fired that first shot.  No hard evidence, though.  It's mentioned on THD's Founding Fathers series.

Quote from: Will Lee on Thu Feb 19, 2009 - 11:16:21
     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.

This is a pretty interesting look at what events were to transpire.  I do not even have to be a practicing historian to shoot holes in at least part of your theory.  To begin with, Washington's selection as Commander in Chief was not a forgone conclusion.  Ultimately, his appointment to the post was a very astute political move to ensure that the southern states joined the cause, something which was definately not guarenteed.  (His showing up in uniform did not hurt either, I think)  In addition, he and his supporters spent a fair amount of time (and no doubt money) to Keep him in the post.  Both Gates and Lee had some very strong support, at least until Monmouth.  In addition, to see that he was a war hero, and 1st president would have been a REALLY neat trick, considering that, early on anyhow, what victories we had were by Gates and yes, Arnold and others.  As to the president part, it was not even sure what type of government would be constructed by the colonies, assuming that they actually won the war.  And you cannot forget that Washington actually turned down the opportunity to be essentially "King George I".  That alone kind of puts a damper on the whole "Washington to assume power for the so called 'secret societies' thing.

Don't misundeerstand me.  I am one who definately believes that the Revolution, at least its begining, was a clear case of excellent propaganda and manipulation of the masses.  (And by the way, the 'masses' here is only about 1/3 (give or take a percentage point or two of the population).  But it wasn't so called 'secret societies' as much as it was very frustrated and angry businessmen and lawyers who were loosing big time jack by some of the crown policies concerning the colonies.