After reviewing the evidence, which side do you side with? Provide evidence and reasons of why you feel this way (at least 3). Comment your answers below with a partner.
i would be on the french and indian side because i dont think the british were fair. They treated the french and indians poorly and that wasnt right. They british also had wepons so that wasnt far to the french and indians either.
Jordyn Willwerth & Conner Kruse. Core: D I would go on the side of the british. I would do this because the british look like a stronger allience. I would also take this side because they have the guns and all of the wepons. Finnaly i would pick this side because they have line of soildersand have protection.
Brianna keeton and Allie grayson Core D I would side with the french because they actually treated the indians right and britsh used them for what they needed and then abused
Jordan and Matt --I would go with the boston revolutionarys. I say this because the british did not treat them fair, and went as far as killing the people. Also because the British started it when Edward on the british punched Garrick, then it got out of hand from there and they couldnt stop the mob
We would side with British. One reason is that they only had nine soldiers and the patriots had a big crowd. Another reason is that there muskets could only fire one shot and there were hundreds of patriots with clubs and knifes. The last reason is that they were only protecting their own lives when they fired.
British or Boston? Im gonna take Boston, because Boston didnt like the British. Also, the British redcoats were treated badly by their commanders. Being treated bad and having a thing like the Boston Massacre happening? I would never be a British soldier. And they never cared about the colonist. If you messed with them, they will shoot. I think thats why they killed that one black dude(whatever his name is).
faith+&casie core: d We would be the french and indians because the british wasn't fair. Also i think that the british weren't treating the british and indians right. Last i didn;t think it was right that they fought them when the french and indians didn't have weapons.
I would choose side of Paul Revere b/c him and the colonists did not start this war. The Brittish started the war harsly on the colonists. The Brittish want land. The colonists want to be free. Brittish also charged higher prices on stamps and tea and sugar. Sugar Act Stamp Act and Tea Act were these kind of high prices.
By Nick Schinkal Jared Seaman and Jarred Roland Core A We agree that the British had a right to shoot because they were out numbered by many colonist with weapons and rocks and other items were being thrown at them, so we feel the British had a right to shoot the colonist. The British might of thought there was no reason or the reason was stupid for rioting.
Tyler and keith (PYP) Core A we side with the french and the indians.We side with them because they were just protecting themselves with swords and clubs and shouldnt of been fired upon if they didnt kill any brithish. Also the french and indians didnt even kill anyone but the british had no right to fire if the french didnt have any gunpowder or guns to protect themselves.
i would choose John Bufurd side b/c it actully shows the true side of the Boston Massacre or the Riot that the coloinst just wasnt sitting there and doing nothing there sctully fighting back in the illistration.
Abby And Haylee We would side with the brittish. Even though the brittish wasnt fair, we wouldn side with them becasue we would not want to get killed.
Core A I choose to side with the colonist because they should be mad that they aren't allowed to move to the land they just won. The colonist died in battle winning that land for their king.The British soldiers are very rude yeah they might've had weapons but you have guns and probably attacked first.
i would be with the side of the colonist cause they have a right to be angry The british were taxing and taking money for the war.And just doing things llike that to make them mad.
We are Siding with the Birish. Our three reason for siding with them is one,they were just defending themselfs from the raging colonist. Two,the colonit started the whole massacre. And finaly, the colonist made them shoot, the British were trying to control the colonist so its pretty much the colonists fault that some people died.
We both side with the british because if you were in there shoes and it was 10 on 100 i think you would shoot those people to anothe reasons is because they were trying to act inicent and say that there all unarmed and didnt do any thing. another reason is the british didnt even want to shoot but they had to to defend them selfs Tyler Freeman and saige is amazing
We believe that both parties are guilty in this case. The colonist are the ones who started the fight. But the soldiers are the ones who shot. Though there were many more colonist than soldiers. there were one hundred colonist and only nine soldiers. The soldiers in a way were just protecting themselves. But the colonist were standing up for themselves. Although it is not the soldiers who started it, the soldiers brought it to more than it could have been. It is not the soldiers fault that the colonist are mad it is just there job to go and be there. Also they were stading up for themselves.
Cierra Bazeley and Hannah Masminster core B We would side with the British because we both felt that they were only trying to protect themselves. Also because they have there own beliefs and if they think they should raise the taxes then that's there choice. Also because the British started the massecure and they had no choice but to fight them.
I would side with the colonist because the british fired too protect themselves , the colonist were a threat to them and the colonist were throwing things at them
Jessica Wagner and Stephanie Price Core B We would side with BOSTON. We side with Boston because they just wanted the king to listen to them and they wanted to have a say in what they do. Also, they were not fighting back with guns, they were just trying to get what was right and fair.
Lexi Deinlein & Megan Ferneding Core: B. I would want to be a Redcoat because 1.) Boston was severly punished 2.)Their pay was miserable not that much of a pay. 3.) They were charged for food, supplies & uniforms they had to wear.
We side with the British for three reasons 1.The British had a hard life because they barely got payed and their commanders were hard on them. 2.The seven British soldiers tired to pickup private White but couldn't reach him so they defended themselves. 3. One of the English attackers threw a club at private Hugh Montgomery so private Montgomery was forced to point his gun at the attacker.
we side with the french and the indians.We side with them because they were just protecting themselves with swords and clubs and shouldnt of been fired upon if they didnt kill any brithish. Carrie miller,Jay Macklin
We believe that the "Boston Massacre" was actually a "Boston Riot" and that the British only fired to defend themselves.
We believe this because life was hard for the British Soilders, they had little pay, scarce food supplies, and were hated by the everyday colonists, the colonist would constently pravoke, taunt, and threaten the soilders.
We also believe this because (Reading off the British View) The colonist had been "asking for it." They had diliberatly found the soilders and threatened them with clubs, knives, ect. They had used "harsh" language, and began to become out of control.
We would side with the colonists. We think that it was out of line for the British to shoot at the colonists. Even though the colonists were causing a ruckus, and throwing rocks and snowballs at them. They had a reason to be mad. But the British had no reason for shooting at them. The colonists felt that they were not being heard and they were sick of it. The British were basically taking over the colonists lives.
I would go on the british. I would go with them because they have wepons while the people have clubs knifes and there fist. The british soldiers look alot stronger and could defent there selves better. They have a big line so nobdy could get by and attack from behind, Michael Savage Blake Schriewer
Carter Raleigh and Brent Wittich Core B I would have to side with the colonist because they were getting taxed and they were getting angry about his so they started to hell and throw snow balls at them. I think that it was very wrong of them to open fire because they werent really getting beat at hit with big clubs like they had. Also they shouldnt have fired in the first place because it was an order to not fire on the colonist. Some people even might say this whole thing started because one of the red coats didnt pay for a wig. This guy was vvery angry and started to get people to hell with him.
I'm on the colonist's side. Because I think that they had a right to be angry and attack the british, because: 1. The Brtitish were in the colonist's homeland, and the colonists didn't want them there. 2. The British put taxation without representaion on the colonists, and when the colonists tried to stop them they punished the colonists. 3. They closed down Boston Harbor, and that made many colonists lose their jobs.
We side with the British. We side this way because the British didn't do anything and the colonists came and attacked them. Also the number of people wasn't fair. The british soldiers were already mistreated by their commanders. The colonists made it worse.
We think that it was less of a massacure and more of a riot. That means that we are siding with the british. We are siding with the British becasue we feel that they fired more out of self defense from the crowd than just shooting to shoot. The crowd made the first move and until it got bad the british soilders restrained from shooting. By hiolding off from shooting until it seemed like their lifes were at stake it makes it self defense and not their fault. Becca Johnson and Beth Brockman Core C
We are going to go on the Colonists side becasue they where having an innocent get togeter protesting their right and then the britsh just start shooting. Also, the difference in paintings proved our points because Paul Revere's painting showed no colonists having weapons. Also, the British where on the colonists homeland. Another thing, The British closed down the Boston Harbor and the Colonists lost their jobs
Ashley Carter & Taylor Haynes would side with the colonists because they were treated badly because they were taxed without representation and they should have some representation before being taxed. Also the British treated the Indians wrong, they used them to learn about the land and good survival methods and then they abused them and made them slaves.
We side with the British because the colonists were provoking them by throwing snowballs and yelling at them. Also the Red Coats were only trying to defend themselves from the colonists. Lastly, because a colonist threw his club at the Red Coat and hit him in the head so there was confusion and anger, so they fired.
We are going to side with the colonists because the level of violance should have never reached the point to where a gun was fired. We believe that the Boston Massacre was partially the colonists' fault for angering the soldiers but the soldier should have known not to fire, especially under strick orders not to do such.
We side with the clonists. This is because 1.The british had weapons and all the clonists were doinging where throwing snowballs or walking their dog. 2.Also I side with the colonists because they were just protesting. 3.Last but not least Bitish were taxing and cheating the "holonists" with taxes and taxation without representation.
After thinking about both sides of the situations, we both came to the conclusion that it was really a riot, not a massacre. The British were just defending themselves from an angry mob of enraged colonists. The Americans started the fight by throwing snow and ice at the innocent soldiers. They were just patrolling the street, but the colonists got in a fight with them for no real reason. They didn't expect to get killed, but they irritated the soldiers to the point where they just snapped. Anyone put in that situation would've acted that way. The story was probably changed and twisted by the Americans in order to make it seem like a massacre.
Allie & Madison Core C EAH We think that there was a panicked vibe going on. The British weren't supposed to fire but one person just kind of freaked out and fired anyway. This probebly caused others to follow his lead. One reason we think this is that the soliders were under orders NOT to fire, if they were not under any pressure why would anyone have fired? Another reason is that the colonists basicly started it when they were throwing snowballs, the soilders may have been scared that the next thing thrown would be more dangerous. Our last reason is that there were more colonists than soilders, yes they had guns but in a crowd like that several people could have had guns too.
We think that the British were the victims in this specific predicament. We think this because the British have more evidence against the colonists, making there story more believable and more sensable than a random group of soldiers firing into a crowd of "innocent" people. The British would have no reason to massacre a crowd of people for no reason, but with the colonists past and present reactions leading up to the Boston Massacre, it seems like a likely thing that the colonists would outbreak on a group of British soldiers.
We would side with the colonists because they have a right to be angry because they are being taxed on things that shouldnt be taxed and they feel like they are being taxed with out representation in parliment. They felt like they were attacked first.
We would side with the colonists but both have very valid points. Our reasons to side with the colonist is that most all of pictures side with the colonists and the British took actions way to fast and should not have fired unless they were being attacked by colonialist with weapons. The British should have taken action but not in the way they did because it only lead to more trouble
I would pick the colonist. The reasons i would pick them is.. One reason is the bitish put taxation without representaion on the colonists. Another reason is the british made the colonist lose jobs and they woukldnt let them move to the land they fought for, and the last reason is that they had a right to attack and be angry at the british Carrie Miller,and Jay Macklin. Core-B.
47 comments:
i would be on the french and indian side because i dont think the british were fair. They treated the french and indians poorly and that wasnt right. They british also had wepons so that wasnt far to the french and indians either.
Jordyn Willwerth & Conner Kruse.
Core: D
I would go on the side of the british. I would do this because the british look like a stronger allience. I would also take this side because they have the guns and all of the wepons. Finnaly i would pick this side because they have line of soildersand have protection.
Anna core D
i think the biston massacre should of been a riot. I feel this way because it seems like it was more of an riot...
Brianna keeton and Allie grayson Core D
I would side with the french because they actually treated the indians right and britsh used them for what they needed and then abused
i would side with the french and indian because the british were cruel,unfair and stuck up.
Jordan and Matt --I would go with the boston revolutionarys. I say this because the british did not treat them fair, and went as far as killing the people. Also because the British started it when Edward on the british punched Garrick, then it got out of hand from there and they couldnt stop the mob
Zach Otten austin bazeley Core D
We would side with British. One reason is that they only had nine soldiers and the patriots had a big crowd. Another reason is that there muskets could only fire one shot and there were hundreds of patriots with clubs and knifes. The last reason is that they were only protecting their own lives when they fired.
British or Boston? Im gonna take Boston, because Boston didnt like the British. Also, the British redcoats were treated badly by their commanders. Being treated bad and having a thing like the Boston Massacre happening? I would never be a British soldier. And they never cared about the colonist. If you messed with them, they will shoot. I think thats why they killed that one black dude(whatever his name is).
faith+&casie core: d
We would be the french and indians because the british wasn't fair. Also i think that the british weren't treating the british and indians right. Last i didn;t think it was right that they fought them when the french and indians didn't have weapons.
I would choose side of Paul Revere b/c him and the colonists did not start this war. The Brittish started the war harsly on the colonists. The Brittish want land. The colonists want to be free. Brittish also charged higher prices on stamps and tea and sugar. Sugar Act Stamp Act and Tea Act were these kind of high prices.
By Nick Schinkal Jared Seaman and Jarred Roland Core A
We agree that the British had a right to shoot because they were out numbered by many colonist with weapons and rocks and other items were being thrown at them, so we feel the British had a right to shoot the colonist. The British might of thought there was no reason or the reason was stupid for rioting.
Tyler and keith (PYP)
Core A
we side with the french and the indians.We side with them because they were just protecting themselves with swords and clubs and shouldnt of been fired upon if they didnt kill any brithish. Also the french and indians didnt even kill anyone but the british had no right to fire if the french didnt have any gunpowder or guns to protect themselves.
Rodney and Noah
i would choose John Bufurd side b/c it actully shows the true side of the Boston Massacre or the Riot that the coloinst just wasnt sitting there and doing nothing there sctully fighting back in the illistration.
Abby And Haylee
We would side with the brittish. Even though the brittish wasnt fair, we wouldn side with them becasue we would not want to get killed.
Core A
I choose to side with the colonist because they should be mad that they aren't allowed to move to the land they just won. The colonist died in battle winning that land for their king.The British soldiers are very rude yeah they might've had weapons but you have guns and probably attacked first.
i would be with the side of the colonist cause they have a right to be angry The british were taxing and taking money for the war.And just doing things llike that to make them mad.
Lydia A. Katelyn E.
We are Siding with the Birish. Our three reason for siding with them is one,they were just defending themselfs from the raging colonist. Two,the colonit started the whole massacre. And finaly, the colonist made them shoot, the British were trying to control the colonist so its pretty much the colonists fault that some people died.
Kelsey Rankin & Rachel Reif
Core A
We side with the Red Coats because...
1.they were protecting themselves.
2.the colonists were the ones that were protesting.
3. they stopped the protesting before it got too out of hand.
We both side with the british because if you were in there shoes and it was 10 on 100 i think you would shoot those people to anothe reasons is because they were trying to act inicent and say that there all unarmed and didnt do any thing. another reason is the british didnt even want to shoot but they had to to defend them selfs Tyler Freeman and saige is amazing
Maria and Miranda
core a
We believe that both parties are guilty in this case. The colonist are the ones who started the fight. But the soldiers are the ones who shot. Though there were many more colonist than soldiers. there were one hundred colonist and only nine soldiers. The soldiers in a way were just protecting themselves. But the colonist were standing up for themselves. Although it is not the soldiers who started it, the soldiers brought it to more than it could have been. It is not the soldiers fault that the colonist are mad it is just there job to go and be there. Also they were stading up for themselves.
Cierra Bazeley and Hannah Masminster core B
We would side with the British because we both felt that they were only trying to protect themselves. Also because they have there own beliefs and if they think they should raise the taxes then that's there choice. Also because the British started the massecure and they had no choice but to fight them.
I would side with the colonist because the british fired too protect themselves , the colonist were a threat to them and the colonist were throwing things at them
Jacob Hamilton
core B
11/5/10
Jessica Wagner and Stephanie Price
Core B
We would side with BOSTON. We side with Boston because they just wanted the king to listen to them and they wanted to have a say in what they do. Also, they were not fighting back with guns, they were just trying to get what was right and fair.
Lexi Deinlein & Megan Ferneding
Core: B.
I would want to be a Redcoat because 1.) Boston was severly punished 2.)Their pay was miserable not that much of a pay.
3.) They were charged for food, supplies & uniforms they had to wear.
Ryan Frondorf and Chris Flinchbaugh
We side with the British for three reasons
1.The British had a hard life because they barely got payed and their commanders were hard on them.
2.The seven British soldiers tired to pickup private White but couldn't reach him so they defended themselves.
3. One of the English attackers threw a club at private Hugh Montgomery so private Montgomery was forced to point his gun at the attacker.
we side with the french and the indians.We side with them because they were just protecting themselves with swords and clubs and shouldnt of been fired upon if they didnt kill any brithish.
Carrie miller,Jay Macklin
We believe that the "Boston Massacre" was actually a "Boston Riot" and that the British only fired to defend themselves.
We believe this because life was hard for the British Soilders, they had little pay, scarce food supplies, and were hated by the everyday colonists, the colonist would constently pravoke, taunt, and threaten the soilders.
We also believe this because (Reading off the British View) The colonist had been "asking for it." They had diliberatly found the soilders and threatened them with clubs, knives, ect. They had used "harsh" language, and began to become out of control.
Lauren & Trevor
Core C
Sarah Keethler and Chris Adelhardt
Core B
11-5-10
We side with the British and the colonist...
1) BRITISH-because they were surronded by an armed angry croud and were defending themselves.
2) BRITISH-because they were out numbered.
3) BRITISH-because the colonist started the boston massacre.
4) COLONIST-because the soldiers were better armed and were trained.
5) COLONIST-because the british broke the order not to fire.
6) COLONIST-because the british made the colonist lose jobs and could not move to the land they fought for.
We would side with the colonists. We think that it was out of line for the British to shoot at the colonists. Even though the colonists were causing a ruckus, and throwing rocks and snowballs at them. They had a reason to be mad. But the British had no reason for shooting at them. The colonists felt that they were not being heard and they were sick of it. The British were basically taking over the colonists lives.
Mackenzie knapp and Kaylin Lother
I would go on the british. I would go with them because they have wepons while the people have clubs knifes and there fist. The british soldiers look alot stronger and could defent there selves better. They have a big line so nobdy could get by and attack from behind,
Michael Savage Blake Schriewer
Carter Raleigh and Brent Wittich
Core B
I would have to side with the colonist because they were getting taxed and they were getting angry about his so they started to hell and throw snow balls at them.
I think that it was very wrong of them to open fire because they werent really getting beat at hit with big clubs like they had. Also they shouldnt have fired in the first place because it was an order to not fire on the colonist.
Some people even might say this whole thing started because one of the red coats didnt pay for a wig. This guy was vvery angry and started to get people to hell with him.
brandon and daniel
I agree with the colonist peoplesside because the british shot when they were unarmed
and it was all over
I'm on the colonist's side. Because I think that they had a right to be angry and attack the british, because:
1. The Brtitish were in the colonist's homeland, and the colonists didn't want them there.
2. The British put taxation without representaion on the colonists, and when the colonists tried to stop them they punished the colonists.
3. They closed down Boston Harbor, and that made many colonists lose their jobs.
Parker Dennis and Susan Moore.
We side with the British.
We side this way because the British didn't do anything and the colonists came and attacked them. Also the number of people wasn't fair. The british soldiers were already mistreated by their commanders. The colonists made it worse.
We think that it was less of a massacure and more of a riot. That means that we are siding with the british. We are siding with the British becasue we feel that they fired more out of self defense from the crowd than just shooting to shoot. The crowd made the first move and until it got bad the british soilders restrained from shooting. By hiolding off from shooting until it seemed like their lifes were at stake it makes it self defense and not their fault.
Becca Johnson and Beth Brockman
Core C
Brittany Blaney & Andrew Hackworth
Core C
EAH
We are going to go on the Colonists side becasue they where having an innocent get togeter protesting their right and then the britsh just start shooting. Also, the difference in paintings proved our points because Paul Revere's painting showed no colonists having weapons. Also, the British where on the colonists homeland. Another thing, The British closed down the Boston Harbor and the Colonists lost their jobs
Ashley Carter & Taylor Haynes would side with the colonists because they were treated badly because they were taxed without representation and they should have some representation before being taxed. Also the British treated the Indians wrong, they used them to learn about the land and good survival methods and then they abused them and made them slaves.
We side with the British because the colonists were provoking them by throwing snowballs and yelling at them. Also the Red Coats were only trying to defend themselves from the colonists. Lastly, because a colonist threw his club at the Red Coat and hit him in the head so there was confusion and anger, so they fired.
Rachel Hesse and Audrey Hamilton
Core C
Brock Schubert and Michael Fox Core:C
We are going to side with the colonists because the level of violance should have never reached the point to where a gun was fired. We believe that the Boston Massacre was partially the colonists' fault for angering the soldiers but the soldier should have known not to fire, especially under strick orders not to do such.
We side with the clonists. This is because
1.The british had weapons and all the clonists were doinging where throwing snowballs or walking their dog.
2.Also I side with the colonists because they were just protesting.
3.Last but not least Bitish were taxing and cheating the "holonists" with taxes and taxation without representation.
JoHn WoDeTzKi
josh homolton
core c
Will Brueggemeyer and Tyler Wernke
Core C
After thinking about both sides of the situations, we both came to the conclusion that it was really a riot, not a massacre.
The British were just defending themselves from an angry mob of enraged colonists. The Americans started the fight by throwing snow and ice at the innocent soldiers. They were just patrolling the street, but the colonists got in a fight with them for no real reason. They didn't expect to get killed, but they irritated the soldiers to the point where they just snapped. Anyone put in that situation would've acted that way. The story was probably changed and twisted by the Americans in order to make it seem like a massacre.
Allie & Madison
Core C EAH
We think that there was a panicked vibe going on. The British weren't supposed to fire but one person just kind of freaked out and fired anyway. This probebly caused others to follow his lead. One reason we think this is that the soliders were under orders NOT to fire, if they were not under any pressure why would anyone have fired? Another reason is that the colonists basicly started it when they were throwing snowballs, the soilders may have been scared that the next thing thrown would be more dangerous. Our last reason is that there were more colonists than soilders, yes they had guns but in a crowd like that several people could have had guns too.
We think that the British were the victims in this specific predicament. We think this because the British have more evidence against the colonists, making there story more believable and more sensable than a random group of soldiers firing into a crowd of "innocent" people. The British would have no reason to massacre a crowd of people for no reason, but with the colonists past and present reactions leading up to the Boston Massacre, it seems like a likely thing that the colonists would outbreak on a group of British soldiers.
By: Andrew Wall & Megan Heis (:
Dominic & Kristen
We would side with the colonists because they have a right to be angry because they are being taxed on things that shouldnt be taxed and they feel like they are being taxed with out representation in parliment. They felt like they were attacked first.
Nate Evans and mason garrison
We would side with the colonists but both have very valid points. Our reasons to side with the colonist is that most all of pictures side with the colonists and the British took actions way to fast and should not have fired unless they were being attacked by colonialist with weapons. The British should have taken action but not in the way they did because it only lead to more trouble
I would pick the colonist. The reasons i would pick them is.. One reason is the bitish put taxation without representaion on the colonists. Another reason is the british made the colonist lose jobs and they woukldnt let them move to the land they fought for, and the last reason is that they had a right to attack and be angry at the british
Carrie Miller,and Jay Macklin.
Core-B.
Post a Comment