Fact Check: Is it true that there was only 3 people killed in the Boston massacre?

The Boston Massacre: An Examination of Casualty Claims

Introduction

The claim in question is whether only three people were killed during the Boston Massacre, an event that took place on March 5, 1770. This incident is often cited as a pivotal moment leading up to the American Revolution, and the number of casualties has been a point of contention in historical discussions.

What We Know

The Boston Massacre involved British soldiers firing into a crowd of American colonists, resulting in fatalities and injuries. According to multiple sources, the commonly accepted number of deaths is five:

1. The U.S. National Park Service states that five individuals were killed and six were wounded during the incident, emphasizing the event's significance in escalating tensions between colonists and British authorities 34.
2. The Boston Massacre Historical Society corroborates this by indicating that while three individuals died on the scene, two others succumbed to their injuries later, leading to a total of five fatalities 9.
3. Wikipedia also supports this figure, noting the event's historical context and its role in galvanizing colonial opposition to British rule 1.

Conversely, some sources may misrepresent the number of fatalities. For example, the claim that only three people were killed could stem from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the immediate deaths versus the total fatalities over time.

Analysis

The sources cited provide a range of perspectives on the Boston Massacre, but they generally converge on the number of fatalities being five.

1. Reliability of Sources:

   • U.S. National Park Service: This source is a government entity dedicated to preserving historical sites and providing accurate historical information. Its accounts are typically well-researched and reliable 34.
   • Boston Massacre Historical Society: This organization focuses specifically on the Boston Massacre and aims to provide factual information. However, it is essential to consider that it may have a vested interest in portraying the event in a certain light, given its focus on historical interpretation 9.
   • Wikipedia: While generally a good starting point for information, Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, which raises questions about the reliability of specific claims unless they are well-cited 1.

2. Methodological Considerations:

   • The discrepancy in casualty figures may arise from how different sources define "killed." Some may count only those who died at the scene, while others include those who died later from their injuries. This distinction is crucial for understanding the claim that only three people were killed.
   • Additionally, the context of the event—growing tensions between colonists and British troops—may influence how different narratives are framed, potentially leading to biased interpretations of casualty figures.

3. Conflicting Narratives:

   • Some historical accounts may emphasize the immediate chaos of the event, leading to a focus on those who died on the scene. This could explain why some might assert that only three were killed without acknowledging the later deaths of two individuals 9.

Conclusion

Verdict: False

The claim that only three people were killed during the Boston Massacre is false. The evidence consistently indicates that five individuals died as a result of the incident—three on the scene and two later from their injuries. This conclusion is supported by reliable sources, including the U.S. National Park Service and the Boston Massacre Historical Society, which both affirm the total of five fatalities.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the confusion surrounding casualty figures may stem from differing definitions of "killed," as some sources may only account for those who died immediately at the scene. This nuance highlights the complexities involved in historical interpretations and the importance of context when discussing such events.

While the evidence is robust, limitations exist in the form of potential biases in historical narratives and the varying reliability of sources. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider multiple perspectives when examining historical claims.