The Writings of Samuel Adams, volume II (1770 1773)

S >> Samuel Adams >> The Writings of Samuel Adams, volume II (1770 1773)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28

them any hurt, untill they were assaulted by them; which I am apt to
think is true; because Newtown Prince, another Negro, of whom for my
own part I conceive a better opinion than of Andrew, declared, that
the Soldiers planted themselves in a circle - their guns breast high
-and, the people crowded on, to speak with Capt. Preston - and
further, several of the witnesses swore that they themselves talked
with the Captain, and one of them caution'd him against firing
- Capt. Preston himself also in his printed state of his case says,
that he reasoned with "some well behav'd persons": To show that "as
he was advanced before the muzzels of their pieces, he must fall a
sacrifice if they fired " -and that his ordering them to fire "upon
the half cock and charged bayonets would prove him no officer"; all
which might be true, and yet in my humble opinion not quite so
"satisfactory" as the answer which he afterwards gave to the
Lieutenant Governor; for he might, I suppose, in an instant shift his
station, and the soldiers, by a proper word of Command, might
discharge their musquets without his falling a sacrifice or forfeiting
the character of a soldier - Such a manner of reasoning upon their
question, whether he intended to order the men to fire, was evasive;
and may serve to show Captain Preston's opinion, that however well
behav'd these gentlemen were, they were no Soldiers.

I shall now take notice of what the witnesses for the crown testified
concerning the behavior of the Soldiers, upon their first arrival at
the custom-house. Mr. Austin saw the party come down; the captain was
with them; McCauley, one of the prisoners, loaded his gun, push'd at
him with his bayonet and damn'd him - He did not observe the people
press on - Mr. Bridgham declared, that about a dozen surrounded the
Soldiers and struck their guns with their sticks: But he also said the
Soldiers were loading at the same time - He further added, that he did
not apprehend himself or the Soldiers in any danger by any thing he
saw, from whence it may be suppos'd, that as the people struck their
guns only, when they might as easily have have knocked them down,
their intention was not to hurt them, but rather to prevent their
loading - Mr. Brewer saw the party come down - told Captain Preston
that every body was about dispersing; in which he agreed with another
witness, who was of the opinion that the people would have dispers'd
if the Soldiers had not come down; Mr. Brewer added, that Killroi, one
of the prisoners, struck him with his bayonet before they formed, and
that he saw no blows and nothing thrown before the firing - Mr. Bailey
testified, that when the party came down, Carrol one of the prisoners
put his bayonet to his breast. Mr. Wilkinson stood at about two yards
distance from the Soldiers all the while they were there - He saw no
ice nor snow balls thrown; in which he agreed with Mr. Austin - Mr.
Fosdick testified, that he was push'd as the party came down - that
afterwards they wounded him in the breast - two different bayonets
were thrust into his arm - all this while there had been no blows that
he saw, nor did he know the cause of their firing - Mr. Palmes saw
Capt. Preston at the head of the Soldiers who were drawn up with their
guns breast high and their bayonets fixed; and Preston told him they
were loaded with powder and ball - I think I have mentioned all the
witnesses, who testified in court to what they saw upon the first
arrival of the party at the customhouse: And by their testimonies the
reader will judge, whether the Soldiers had just provocation to fire
upon the people; or whether they were in danger of their lives or had
any reason to think they were: On the contrary, whether they did not
themselves first assault the people as they were coming from the main
guard; and afterwards, by levelling their guns loaded with ball in an
exasperating manner at the people; pushing their bayonets at some of
them, wounding others and threatning all, even before any injury had
been offer'd to them.

I shall conclude what I have to say upon this interesting subject in
my next. In the mean time let me assure Philanthrop, that I am fully
of his mind, that a true patriot "will not from private views, or by
any ways or means foment and cherish groundless fears and jealousies":
But perhaps we may not be so well agreed in our determination, when
the fears and jealousies of our fellow citizens are groundless - It is
I believe the general opinion of judicious men, that at present there
are good grounds to apprehend a settled design to enslave and ruin the
colonies; and that some men of figure and station in America, have
adopted the plan, and would gladly lull the people to sleep, the
easier to put it in execution: But I believe Philanthrop would be far
from acknowledging that he is of that opinion. The fears and
jealousies of the people are not always groundless: And when they
become general, it is not to be presum'd that they are; for the people
in general seldom complain, without some good reason. The inhabitants
of this continent are not to be dup'd "by an artful use of the words
liberty and slavery, in an application to their passions," as
Philanthrop would have us think they are; like the miserable Italians,
who are cheated with the names " Excommunication, Bulls, Crusades,"
&c. They can distinguish between "realities and sounds"; and by a
proper use "of that reason which Heaven has given them ", they can
judge, as well as their betters, when there is danger of slavery. They
have as high a regard for George the III. as others have, & yet can
suppose it possible they may be made slaves, without "enslaving
themselves by their own folly and madness"; They can believe, that men
who "are bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, born and bred among
us," may, like Achan, for a wedge of gold, detach themselves from the
common interest, and embark in another bottom; in hopes that they,
"with their wives and children" will one day stand and see, and enjoy,
and triumph, in the ruins of their country: Such instances there have
been frequently in times past; and I dare not say, we have not at
present, reason enough for "exclaiming with the roman patriot, 0
tempora, 0 mores ". The true patriot therefore, will enquire
into the causes of the fears and jealousies of his countrymen; and if
he finds they are not groundless, he will be far from endeavoring to
allay or stifle them: On the contrary, constrain'd by the Amor Patrae,
and from public views, he will by all proper means in his power foment
and cherish them: He will, as far as he is able, keep the attention of
his fellow citizens awake to their grievances; and not suffer them to
be at rest, till the causes of their just complaints are removed. - At
such a time Philanthrop's Patriot may be "very cautious of charging
the want of ability or integrity to those with whom any of the powers
of government are entrusted": But the true patriot, will constantly be
jealous of those very men: Knowing that power, especially in times of
corruption, makes men wanton; that it intoxicates the mind; and unless
those with whom it is entrusted, are carefully watched, such is the
weakness or the perverseness of human nature, they will be apt to
domineer over the people, instead of governing them, according to the
known laws of the state, to which alone they have submitted. If he
finds, upon the best enquiry, the want of ability or integrity; that
is, an ignorance of, or a disposition to depart from, the
constitution, which is the measure and rule of government &
submission, he will point them out, and loudly proclaim them: He will
stir up the people, incessantly to complain of such men, till they are
either reform'd, or remov'd from that sacred trust, which it is
dangerous for them any longer to hold. -Philanthrop may tell us of the
hazard "of disturbing and inflaming the minds of the multitude whose
passions know no bounds": A traitor to the constitution alone can
dread this: The multitude I am speaking of, is the body of the people
- no contemptible multitude - for whose sake government is instituted;
or rather, who have themselves erected it, solely for their own good -
to whom even kings and all in subordination to them, are strictly
speaking, servants and not masters. "The constitution and its
laws are the basis of the public tranquility - the firmest support of
the public authority, and the pledge of the liberty of the citizens:
But the constitution is a vain Phantom, and the best laws are useless,
if they are not religiously observed. The nation ought then to watch,
and the true patriot will watch very attentively, in order to render
them equally respected, by those who govern, and the people destin'd
to obey " - To violate the laws of the state is a capital crime; and
if those guilty of it, are invested with authority, they add to this
crime, a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are entrusted:
"The nation therefore, the people, ought to suppress those abuses with
their utmost care & vigilance" - This is the language of a very
celebrated author, whom I dare say, Philanthrop is well acquainted
with, and will acknowledge to be an authority.

Philanthrop, I think, speaks somewhat unintelligibly, when he tells us
that the well being and happiness of the whole depends upon
subordination; as if mankind submitted to government, for the sake of
being subordinate: In the state of nature there was subordination: The
weaker was by force made to bow down to the more powerful. This is
still the unhappy lot of a great part of the world, under government:
So among the brutal herd, the strongest horns are the strongest laws.
Mankind have entered into political societies, rather for the sake of
restoring equality; the want of which, in the state of nature,
rendered existence uncomfortable and even dangerous. I am not of
levelling principles: But I am apt to think, that constitution of
civil government which admits equality in the most extensive degree,
consistent with the true design of government, is the best; and I am
of this opinion, because I agree with Philanthrop and many others,
that man is a social animal. Subordination is necessary to promote the
purposes of government; the grand design of which is, that men might
enjoy a greater share of the blessings resulting from that social
nature, and those rational powers, with which indulgent Heaven has
endow'd us, than they could in the state of nature: But there is a
degree of subordination, which will for ever be abhorrent to the
generous mind; when it is extended to the very borders, if not within
the bounds of slavery: A subordination, which is so far from conducing
"to the welfare and happiness of the whole", that it necessarily
involves the idea of that worst of all the evils of this life, a
tyranny: An abject servility, which instead of "being essential
to our existence as a people," disgraces the human nature, and sinks
it to that of the most despicable brute.

I cannot help thinking, that the reader must have observed in
Philanthrop's last performance, that a foundation is there laid for a
dangerous superstructure: and that from his principles, might easily
be delineated a plan of despotism, which however uncommon it may be,
for the laws and constitution of the state to be openly and boldly
oppos'd, our enemies have long threatened to establish by violence. If
Philanthrop upon retrospection shall think so, he will, like a prudent
physician, administer an antidote for the poison: If not, I hope the
attention of others will be awakened to that excellent maxim, "no less
essential in politicks than in morals", principiis obsta. It is
impolitick to make the first attempt to enslave mankind by force: This
strikes the imagination, and is alarming: "Important changes
insensibly happen: It is against silent & slow attacks that a nation
ought to be particularly on its guard."

VINDEX.
Jan. 15th.

ARTICLE SIGNED VINDEX."
[Boston Gazette, January 28, 1771]

To the PRINTERS.

In my last, I recollected the testimonies of the witnesses on both
sides, who related in court the behavior of the soldiers and the
people, on the fatal evening of the fifth of March last. The reader,
if he pleases, will judge; whether the people struck the soldiers
guns, or threw snow balls or any other thing, or offer'd them the
least violence, from their first turning out till they had march'd to
the custom-house, abused, threatned, beat and wounded the people,
loaded their guns with powder and ball, levelled them, and waved
them in an exasperating manner, and gave out that they would fire; for, if
Andrew is to be believed, he testified, that when one of the persons
talking with the officer, turn'd and said, "they are going to fire ",
the people shouted, and said "they dare not fire ", and then they
began to throw snow balls. If all these things were done by the
soldiers, before the people offer'd them any injury, I would ask, who
made the first assault? If there was an unlawful assembly, who were
they? Were the people the unlawful assembly, who were collected
together, some from an apprehension of fire in the town, and with the
necessary preparations, engines and buckets, to have extinguish'd it,
if there had been one; others from the more alarming apprehension,
that the soldiers had issued from the barracks, as indeed they had
done, and that agreable to their threatnings many days before, and
their correspondent behavior on that very evening, they were
massacreing the inhabitants? Were they, who bore all that insolent and
irritating language from the soldiers, as they march'd from the main
guard, and before they form'd at the customhouse; who were push'd at,
struck with bayonets and wounded, to be charg'd with being the
aggressors, because they finally, when they saw them bent upon firing
against repeated warnings, took such methods as their understanding
dictated to them, in the midst of such a scene, to prevent their
"committing so rash an act"? An act, which it was the duty as well as
the profess'd design of their officer to have prevented; and which, in
the opinion of some, he might have prevented if he would: And yet we
find a person of high rank and figure in this province, testifying in
court in the case of Capt. Preston, that such was his opinion of the
prudence of this same officer, that he should have chosen him out to
have commanded upon a like occasion.

I believe, that in ordinary times, if a banditti of men of violence
had been seen, with guns loaded and bayonets fix'd, trembling with
rage, and ready to fire upon a multitude in the street, it would have
been counted meritorious, in any man or number of men, at all events
to have disarm'd them; and if death had ensued in the attempt, perhaps
it would not have been adjudg'd excuseable homicide or manslaughter. I
am sensible it is said by some, that it was the duty of the soldiers
to maintain their post: It was sworn by a military officer in court,
that "the centinel at the custom-house, was station'd and appointed by
the commanding officer, Lieut. Colonel Dalrymple; that they could not
stir from their post, and it was at their peril if they did"; and
Capt. Preston in his state of the case says, "He sent a party to
protect the centinel": But this is military language; to be used in
camps and garrison'd towns, not in free cities; in courts martial, and
not in courts of common law: It is dangerous to adopt military maxims,
however pleasing they may be to some men, and to bring them into use
in civil societies: If the centinel had been in danger, as was
pretended, the law of the land, to which the most distinguish'd
officer in the King's army is subjected, would have protected that
centinel: Or, if there had indeed been a dangerous mob,
the law would have suppress'd it; and no soldier should have dared to
have interfered, as a soldier, without the command of a civil
magistrate.

Capt. Preston in his state has said, "The mob still increas'd, and was
more outrageous": And what did he say the mob did after they became
more outrageous? Why, "they struck their clubs or bludgeons one
against another: and called out, come on you rascals, bloody backs,
lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare, we know you dare not fire, and
much more such language": But surely it will not be said, that all
this would justify or excuse their firing: This was after the soldiers
had insulted and wounded the people, and had loaded their guns and
threatned to fire, as appears by the current evidence; and yet
hitherto, by his own account, we find no violence nor even threat
offer'd to the soldiers; nothing but hard names and daring them to
fire. He adds, "while I was parleying and endeavoring all in my power
to perswade them to retire peaceably - they advanced to the points of
the bayonets, struck some of them, and even the muzzels of the
peices"; which corresponds with the testimonies of some of the
witnesses in court before mentioned, who said that while they were
loading, the people struck their guns; very probably, however
indiscrete it might be, to prevent their firing. He further says "they
seem'd to be endeavoring to close in with the soldiers" : This was not
mention'd by any witness in court, nor does it seem to be likely:
Indeed, I cannot see how Capt. Preston could imagine, that they seem'd
to be endeavoring to close in with the soldiers: He says, "he was
talking with some well behaved persons, who had asked him whether he
intended to order the men to fire": Some of the witnesses mention'd
the people's pressing in, and more naturally accounted for it, viz,
from a curiosity "to know what was said ". Capt. Preston adds,
"while I was thus speaking (with the well behaved persons, and in all
likelihood at the very instant, when Andrew testified it was said,
they were going to fire) one of the soldiers having received a severe
blow with a stick, stepped a little on one side and instantly fired."
Upon this, says Capt. Preston, "a general attack was made upon the
men": So that there was no general attack, according to his account,
till after the firing; which agrees with Mr. Bridgham and other
unexceptionable witnesses in court, who declared, that "there was no
danger to the soldiers from any thing they saw " -- " no molestation,
nor any thing which they thought could produce firing": Indeed, one of
the witnesses for the prisoners, Mr. Nath. Russell testified, that
"the soldiers were in a trembling situation, and seemed to apprehend
themselves in immediate danger of death"; but being interrogated,
whether their trembling might not be the effect of rage, he replied,
perhaps it might proceed both from fear and rage. If there had been
such a general attack as Capt. Preston mentions, after one of the
soldiers had actually fired, and the others appear'd to be just ready
to fire (for they all discharg'd their guns in a few minutes
afterwards) it would have been such an appearance as might naturally
have been expected; and therefore Capt. Preston, who, as he says,
"followed" the party for that very purpose, should have taken more
effectual care than he did to have "prevented so rash an act " - There
was time enough for him to have at least prevented the continuance of
the firing after the first gun was discharg'd, and consequently to
have saved the lives of some of his Majesty's subjects ; for Mr.
Bridgham testified, that there was half a minute between the first
and the second gun.

It seems by the evidence, that Montgomery, one of the prisoners, was
the first who fired: It is probable that he was the man, whom Captain
Preston mentions, as having received a blow: The witnesses varied in
their testimonies concerning this fact: He was struck with a stick,
either flung from behind or otherwise: Some say he was knock'd down;
others, that he did not fall: Capt. Preston himself said, "he stepped
a little on one side": Mr. Palmes, who gave, I think, the clearest
account of this matter, declared, that he saw Montgomery struck; he
stepped or sallied back, he could not say which - he did not fall; he
was sure he was not knock'd down before he fired; he could not be, &
he not see it, for his hand was laid familiarly on Capt. Preston's
shoulder, and the soldier stood close to the Captain; he added, that
he himself knock'd Montgomery down, after they had all fired; and the
reason was, that because even then, he was going to prick him with his
bayonet. It seems, the rage of passion in the breast of this soldier,
like that in Killroi's, had not abated, after discharging his piece
upon the people: His thirst was not even then asswaged:' Upon his
attempt, after all the firing, and while numbers were dead on the spot
before him, to stab Mr. Palmes, he struck with his stick, and knock'd
his gun out of his hand; and then he struck the first man he could,
which happened to be Preston: A circumstance related by Preston
himself, with this difference; he says he received the blow, as he
turned to the man who fired, and asked him why he fired without
orders; Mr. Palmes said, it was after all the guns were fired: So that
if Mr. Palmes was not mistaken, Capt. Preston did not put that
necessary question, till after all the firing was over, tho' there was
half a minute's distance between the first and second gun! Mr. Palmes
spake upon oath in court; Capt. Preston did not: Which of them was the
more disinterested person, the reader will judge. Mr. Palmes mentioned
a further struggle between him and Montgomery; and the soldier, after
the third attempt to stab him, in missing him fell to the ground, and
he escaped with his life. - Mr. Danbrook saw Montgomery fire, and two
persons fall - Mr. Bass also saw the same soldier fire; was sure he
did not fall before he fired; he stood where he must have seen it; he
thought he fell afterwards, which co-operates with Mr. Palmes's
testimony. - Mr. Burdick went up to one of the soldiers, whom he took
to be the bald man (pointing at Montgomery); asked him whether he
intended to fire; he answered, yes by the eternal God! A soldier
push'd his bayonet at him, upon which he struck at him a violent blow
and hit the cock of his gun; he saw but one thing thrown, and that was
a short stick ; he heard a ratling, & took it to be the knocking of
the soldiers guns together; for the ground was slippery, and they were
continually pushing at the people; after the firing, while the people
were taking up the dead, the soldiers began to present and cock their
guns, and then the officer said don't fire any more. - Andrew
declared, that the soldiers were pushing with their bayonets
all the time he was there; and that the people (being advis'd so to do
before any gun was discharged) seemed to be turning away to leave the
soldiers : he gives a very minute account of three or four person's
coming round Jackson's corner, with a stout man at their head - his
throwing himself in and making a stroke at the officer - their paying
upon each others heads - and the soldiers paying upon the heads of the
people too; and concludes this part of his narrative, with the
soldiers firing: It seems however, to be the account of the contest
between Mr. Palmes and Montgomery, after all the firing was over, as
related by Mr. Palmes; and wro't up and embellished, in a manner in
which Andrew was said to be capable of doing, and sometimes to have
done upon occasions of mirth, and to divert company.

It appears from what has been said, that after the Soldiers had
repeatedly put the lives of individuals in danger, by pushing them
with their bayonets and stabbing them; and had loaded their guns and
threatned to fire upon the multitude indiscriminately, and the people
had reason to apprehend they were just about to put their threats into
execution, by a stick thrown as is most probable, Montgomery received
a blow: That this was tho't by him sufficient provocation to fire upon
the people, by which one of the witnesses said, two persons were
killed; that Capt. Preston, at so alarming a juncture took no method
to prevent the rest from firing, if what was testified, in court is to
be credited; or, if his own account must be rely'd upon, he exerted no
authority over his men, but used expostulations only: "I asked him
(who first fired and as soon as he had fired) why he fired without
order"; very faintly said indeed, by a gentleman in command, and who
had followed the party to "prevent their committing a rash act": What
ensued was enough to show, either that he had no command over the men,
or that they did not apprehend he was much adverse to their firing;
for they soon after fired, and as we are told, without orders - That
after they had all fired, Montgomery made three attempts to stab Mr.
Palmes, who defended himself, and with difficulty escaped with his
life - That the Soldiers had even at that time, again loaded their
guns and were then, ready to repeat the bloody "action", and fire upon
the people as they were taking care of the dead! Then, for the first
time, we hear of a positive order from Capt. Preston "don't fire
anymore": His order before should have been, "don't fire by any means
", or some other order equivalent to the last, and more regular
perhaps than either. - It further appeared by the evidence in court,
that when the first gun was fired, the people began to disperse: Mr.
Bridgham, whose testimony I presume, will not be disputed, said "they
retired after the first gun": Was it not then "such malignity as might
hardly have been expected from barbarians," to continue firing!
Astonishing as it may be to humanity, this they did: And being
resolved to do further execution, Mr. Williams, a person of known
credit, testified, that "they waved their guns at the people as
they ran": And what, if possible, is still more barbarous, the last
man that fired, as Mr. Bridgham testified, "level'd his gun at a boy,
and mov'd it along, with the motion of the lad"; which testimony, if
it needs it, is confirmed by that of Mr. Helyer: Both agreed that the
lad was not wounded.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28