American Martyr: The Story of Crispus Attucks

On a cold night in March of 1770 on King street in Boston, Massachusetts, a street brawl was brewing that would become one of the bloodiest slaughters in American history. For years, Boston colonists grew more and more discontent with the unfair treatment of the Royal British crown in Europe. With its 4,000 soldiers in a city with only 17,000 citizens, the military presence was... we'll just say, it was intense. Perhaps Britain thought if colonists couldn't be content, intimidation would work just as well.

Military occupations are always a strange state of affairs. I mean imagine soldiers surrounding your house. Sitting in the gray area between war and peace, occupations are also somewhere between conflict and resolution. Not quite either way, kind of see-sawing and tipping toward either side. For the colonists to look out their window daily and see these British troops, it caused a deeply hostile frustration. So that night, a riotous group of Bostonian dock workers led by Crispus Attucks made their way to the customs house. This was where King George's money was stored and there stood a single private.

His name was Hugh White and he was the only guard there. He may or may not have been surprised because large raucous groups approached him all the time. I mean, again, this was a situation where the soldiers were used to colonists being rowdy and hurling insults and everything else at them. Maybe he sensed something was different. This group wouldn't relent. They hurled insults. They threatened violence. Their voices grew from isolated insults to angry yells. Some of them are inches away. In all the commotion White cracks a colonist in the head with the butt of his rifle. They retaliate. Pelting him with tightly packed snowballs.

The town bells rang out, which were normally reserved for fires, but this time, it was a different emergency. More colonists rush out to view the spectacle. White panics and calls for reinforcements. Here comes captain Thomas Preston arriving with six other soldiers and they take up defensive positions with White. They shouldered their muskets along with the heavy burden that any soldier would feel who has to make a momentary life or death decision. There are all these colonists and they're armed with the sticks and clubs and cutlasses, and they're making threats and they're grabbing at the soldier's weapons. "Come on, you bloody backs.

You lobster scoundrels. Fire if you dare!" And then Crispus Attucks lunges forward. Some yell hold your fire. Then six or seven shots crack the night air like the sound of a leather whip snapping under a fast hand. When the smoke clears, there are five colonists dead. Six wounded and Crispus Attucks was among the first to die. In what some say was the first shots fired for the American revolution.

Welcome to The Humanity Archive where we fuse the historical, the philosophical, the intellectual, the curious. All in an attempt to navigate the past, archiving humanity to see how we can impact the present. I am your gracious host Jermaine Fowler. And today we're going to be talking about Crispus Attucks. Crispus Attucks will forever be known as the first casualty in the American revolution. Symbolized as a martyr, glorified as a patriot and held up as a standard for citizenship and sacrifice.

Ironic because, well, these are attributes that I don't often hear associated with a Black man born in the 18th century. What we don't know about Crispus Attucks, well, we don't know a lot, so I guess we should talk about a few things that we do know. His life story is unfinished. Kind of like one of those masterpieces. There's one by Leonardo DaVinci and it's like a half painted unfinished work. Wow! I wonder what that would look like completed. Well, that's kind of how Crispus Attucks' life is. We have bits and pieces and we're just going to fill in what we can based on the sources and the evidence that we have. And then at the end you draw your own conclusions about the man, his life and his legacy.

Some historians say that his father was descended from Africa and his mother of an Eastern Woodland Native American tribe. A lot of what we know about Attucks is from an escaped slave ad, as sad as that is and depressing as that is, that is a key piece of evidence that we have about his life, his description and who he was. And the ad says, "Ran away from his master William Brown of Farmingham on the 30th of September. A mulatto fellow, about 27 years of age named Crispus

Six feet, two inches high, short curled hair, his knees nearer together than common. Had on a light colored bearskin coat, plain brown fustian jacket or brown all wool one. New buckskin, breeches, blue yarn stockings and a check'd woolen shirt. Whoever shall take up said runaway and convey him to his above said master shall have ten pounds, old tenor reward, and all necessary charges paid. And all masters of vessels and others are hereby cautioned against concealing or carrying off said servant on penalty of law."

So there's a lot to unpack there. This isn't just a description of a man's clothing for a fashion line, when they talk about his bearskin coat and his buckskin breeches, right? This is an ominous ad to recapture, re-enslave, a man who ran away for his freedom. Before anything about liberating America for the revolution. If you will, before any of that, he decided to liberate himself. Free himself from slavery. An act of courage that he just took off, ran and got the hell out of the terrible situation that he found himself in. During the time that this was written, a lot of freed or escaped slaves would work at the docks.

They would work on a ship. That's why there's this part on the ad where it's cautioning vessels from harboring him saying, there'll be a penalty for this because that's probably where they expected him to go. Just for another reference, ten pounds today would have been about $2,300. A lot of people made a living out of tracking, hunting and capturing escaped slaves like animals. I often try to think about history in modern terms as well. And imagine if someone bought an ad and you saw that pop up in your Facebook and it was for the capture and return of a slave. Imagine how appalled we would be in the 21st century.

It'd be insane! This couldn't happen. This is mind boggling. Like you can't even fathom it. Sometimes it's very difficult to apply historical thinking to today when it comes to the things that we see as absolutely immoral and absolutely unfathomable in today's times. I thought that was interesting, but again, we don't know much else about Attucks. So again, we'll keep filling the gaps in. But we do know a lot about his legacy though. Imagine, he's said to be the first person to die for the American revolution. So imagine the feelings, whether it be of patriotism or whatever else that's going to swell, especially in African-Americans.

And it actually has and did. Now think about the abolitionists during that time. Those who wanted to free slaves. Well, they used his memory. They used his image to push for their cause. And then you go on into the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 70s, and they wrapped up his memory in the cape of universal freedom and civil liberty and they proudly proclaim that he was the first African-American to die for America. Almost as though his life was some evergreen example that, hey, we've always fought since the beginning. We fought for America. How dare you deny us our rights, our liberties, when we fought for the liberty of America.

So you can see how historical figures can be used and wrapped up and packaged in a way to push forward the agenda of whoever it is who was taking that person and using them. One person who did this was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and he says, "He is one of the most important figures in African-American history. Not for what he did for his own race but what he did for all oppressed people everywhere. He is a reminder that the African-American heritage is not only African but American. And it is a heritage that begins with the beginning of America."

And I thought it was interesting then to contrast this with someone who had a bit different look, perspective, and outtake, and this was a man by the name of Stokely Carmichael. He uses Attucks as well in one of his speeches and one of his lectures. This was a man who was not part of the Civil Rights Movement, as Martin Luther King sought, he was part of the Black Power Movement. A constituent of the Black Panthers and those people who were, we'll say militant, versus non-violent. So he says that Crispus Attucks was a fool. He was a sell out. He fought for a country that would reduce him to a slave.

I mean, are you serious? This was his take. And in a speech in 1967, he says, "The very first man to die for the war of independence in this country was a Black man named Crispus Attucks. The very first man, yes!" He gets an applause after this. He's in a crowded auditorium. He said "He was a fool yeah! He died for white folk country while the rest of his Black brothers were enslaved in this country. He should have been fighting white folk instead of dying for white folk. But that's been our history as black people. We've always been dying for white folk." So I thought it was very interesting to contrast these two views.

Let you see how the historical legacy of a person can be used or whoever is the one speaking about him is going to put their own perspective on it. What I see from this is that history is kind of like clay, and that can be molded, reshaped, reformed by new potters, every generation or within the same generation, molded, reshaped, reconfigured, re-conformed to a political movement. That is something very interesting to take note of and realize that that's a use or some people may say abuse of history, depending on which angle you look at. When people take historical figures and bend them to whatever agenda that they are trying to propose, use them as evidence for whatever agenda.

Doesn't just happen here. You can be the judge as I always like to say at the end of this. Whether you think Attucks was a freedom fighter and that he was an example to be followed, or whether he was a sellout or somewhere in between. So going back to the main story. You have tensions rising and as you can imagine things weren't going well in the years leading up to the Boston Massacre. This didn't just happen in a vacuum. This didn't just happen out of nowhere. Things brought it forward. So enough colonists had hated the imperial army, military occupation that they clashed with them regularly.

And wouldn't it foster some bad blood and some bad feelings if some foreigner was in your backyard with guns and their presence was just there, just always there. Imagine the tension. And I mean, this happens today with military outposts. Last I checked America has some 800 military bases around the world. So you can imagine the tension that causes within the local populations. A lot of them probably don't want them there. And the same thing with Britain. Here in America, they were unwanted by a great many. And there were a lot of clashes.

A lot of skirmishes. They were imposing what many thought were unfair taxes. And even greater, there were these impressment gangs. And this is where, to put it briefly, the British Naval Force just snatched up Americans on the docks and forced them to work for the British Imperial Naval ships. They needed some labor. They needed some men. We are just going to go and take some American labor. So they had these groups called impressment gangs. And there's really a lot of instances that are documented where they would just go kidnap people, basically.

Kidnap men, kidnap boys, kidnap youth and force them to work in labor for the British Naval vessels. So this really caused a very, very, very deep resentment with even the working class Americans with the British, as well as the wealthy who had their grievances as well with the taxes and everybody was on edge. We hear these impressment gangs, again, this was a legal practice, they forced this labor. These are wild times that we are living in. I mean there are gangs of men running around with clubs and knives and cutlasses, and many are assaulting soldiers and they're being kidnapped and forced into labor and there's civil disobedience going on all the time.

Boston is ground zero for revolution. And in 1675, there was a major riot. A kid named Christopher Cider was shot above the eye. He was killed. He was only 11 years old. Colonists against British loyalists because there were people in Boston at the time who were loyal to the British. People were disloyal, didn't like them. So that adds a whole other element to it. And they shattered the glass of the store. This is how it happened. The kid was shot for basically throwing a rock. So 5,000 Bostonians attend this kid's funeral.

It was paid for by none other than the very famous Samuel Adams. His death was used as propaganda to push for the patriotic cause and Attucks was a part of this world. There's no way that he wouldn't have seen this, heard this and been a part of this. So he was aware of the freedom and liberty talk I'm sure. And it may not be a stretch to say that he bought into it. And this led to his last fateful day. We can't say for sure, but it would make some sense that he was involved with this. And these could have been his thoughts and many have ascribed these thoughts to him as being a part of the patriotism and the revolutionary ideology and thought and action toward the British during this time.

Then we come to the day of the massacre. We have many firsthand accounts that can give us some insight into what happened that day. But first we have Benjamin Burdick. And again, just remember, this is the Boston Massacre. One you probably heard about in school. This is revolutionary times. This is British soldiers versus colonists. And this is one of their very first major, major clashes where shots are fired. People die. And many say that this is the pivotal moment that will swing the wrecking ball through the relationship with Great Britain in the newly forming America.

So Benjamin Burdick, he is an American. So think about this from an American perspective, by hearing his side of it. This is during a trial because the British soldiers, they did kill Americans. They were taken to trial, and these are the testimonies of the people who were there. So Benjamin Burdick says, "When I came in to King Street about nine o'clock, I saw the soldiers around the centinel. I asked one if he was loaded and he said, 'yes.' I asked him if he would fire, he said 'yes, by the eternal God' and pushed his bayonet at me. After the firing, the captain came before the soldiers and put up their guns with his arms and said, 'stop firing.

Don't fire. No more. Don't fire again.' I heard the word fire and am certain that it came from behind the soldiers. I saw a man passing busily behind who I took to be an officer. The firing was a little time after. I saw some persons fall before the firing. I saw a stick thrown at the soldiers. The word fire I took to be a word of command. I had in my hand the Highland broad sword, which I brought from home. Upon my coming out, I was told it was a rangle between the soldier's and the people. Upon that, I went back and got my sword. I never used to go out with a weapon. I had not my sword drawn till after the soldier pushed his bayonet at me.

I should have cut his head off if he had stepped out of his rank to attack me again. At the first firing, the people were chiefly in Royal Exchange Lane. There being about fifty in the street. After the firing, I went up to the soldiers and told them I wanted to see some faces that I might swear to them another day. The centinel in a melancholy tone said, perhaps, sir, you may." So again, this is the testimony of a colonist. You have a look at this like a lawyer, you're trying a case. So you have the different sides, different testimony from each side of the stand.

You have the defendants which are the British soldiers, Hugh White being one of them. And then you have the victim's or the plaintiffs, the accusers, whatever you would like to call them, which is the American colonists, their families, the dead, deceased Crispus Attucks being one of them. So now we get another testimony. And this is from the other side. This is from Captain Thomas Preston. He was the British soldier who arrived at the scene to offer backup to Hugh White.

So let's see what he has to say. Remember, he kind of comes in after the violence is supposedly already started. After the rockets and the ruckus start with these rowdy colonists. Almost they would make it seem drunkenly just coming upon Hugh White, who was just kind of standing there and just kind of at his post for the night. Here's what Thomas Preston has to say about the incident. "The mob still increased and more outrageous striking their clubs or bludgeons one against another and calling out, 'come on, you rascals!

You bloody backs! You lobster scoundrels! Fire if you dare, God damn you! Fire and be damned! We know you dare not. And much more such language was used. At this time I was between the soldier's and the mob, parlaying with and endeavoring all in my power to persuade them to retire peaceably, but to no purpose. They, the civilians, advanced to the points of the bayonets. Struck some of them and even the muzzles of the pieces and seemed to be endeavoring to close with the soldiers. On which some well behaved persons asked me if the guns were charged. I replied, 'yes'. They then asked me if I intended to order the men to fire.

I answered, 'No. By no means.' Observing to them that I was advanced before the muzzles of the men's pieces and must fall a sacrifice if they fired. That the soldiers were upon the half cock and charged bayonets and my giving the word fire under those circumstances would prove me to be no officer. While I was thus speaking, one of the soldiers having received a severe blow with a stick, stepped a little to one side and instantly fired. On this as a general attack was made on the men by a great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being thrown at them, by which all of our lives were in imminent danger.

Some persons at the same time from behind calling out, 'damn you bloods! Why don't you fire?' Instantly three or four of the soldiers fired. On my asking the soldiers why they fired without an order, they said they heard the word fire and supposed it came from me. This might be the case as many of the mob called out, 'Fire! Fire!' But I assured the men that I gave no such order. That my words were, 'Don't fire. Stop your fire!" Immediately the word that sticks out to me in Captain Preston's defense is imminent danger because if they are using the defense of self-defense, then you have to feel as though your life is threatened.

You have to fear death and imminent danger to be able to plead self-defense. So when he says that these crazily obnoxious, rowdy, violent, blood thirsty colonists were throwing snowballs, pelting them, they're grabbing their guns. They have swords on them, which was confirmed by the testimony of one of the colonists. They had weapons. Might not have been firearms, but weapons, nonetheless, weapons that can kill you. A sword can kill you. A club can kill. Heck, enough snowballs thrown at you could kill you. And if they were in Boston, I'm sure those snowballs were very hardly packed. It gets cold up there.

This is his side. They were in imminent danger. And then on the other side, so far, we have the colonists who were saying they felt threatened. They felt in danger. So again, two sides. This would have been the case of the century. This was the case of the century in America. The suspense. The tension. These two nations clashing against each other. This was the microcosm of the macro foreign relations between Britain and the United States. And this clash would send a shockwave over the Atlantic Ocean all the way to Great Britain.

So now we see someone else enter the story. Another famous player. If this was a movie and there was a list of actors, this next person would be like seeing Brad Pitt in the credits. His name was John Adams. A man who would be President of the United States later down the line. But at this point he is a person who was going to defend, yes, I did say defend. I will say one more time, defend. He was a lawyer for the British soldiers. Why? We don't know. The stories that I've read said that John Adams wasn't a loyalist.

He was not beholden to, loyal to, or in any way sympathetic with the British to where he would do this for that reason. But maybe he thought that, hey, there will be some severe retaliation if the soldiers don't get a fair trial. So maybe he was looking out for the best interest of America in his own way. From what I can tell, we don't know. His testimony, it's interesting to say the least. Again he has a unique perspective because he's an American defending the soldiers.

So his perspective would be one that is trying to get them this manslaughter plea, or the self-defense defense. He's trying to get them off from this, to not be hung or spend time in prison. So would they be proven innocent or would they be proven guilty? Did the colonists act in a legitimate claim to fight, or was this just some disastrous night out where they picked the wrong fight and ended up getting killed as a result of it? So John Adams makes his arguments and in them, he takes direct aim at Crispus Attucks.

And I can only describe the language that he uses, the tone of him looking at Attucks as some like Black buck stereotype. This man was seen as this irredeemably violent man who refused to bend to white authority, who led this mob. And he is the key sole reason for the violence tonight. Who would not have fired on this crazy Black man enraged and coming at them? John Adams says, "when the multitude was shouting and huzzaing and threatening life, the bells all ringing, the mob, whistle, screaming and rending like in an Indian yell, the people from all quarters throwing every species of rubbish they could pick up in the street.

And some who were quite on the other side of the street, throwing clubs at the whole party, Montgomery, in particular, smote with the club knocked down, and as soon as he could rise and take up his firelock, another club from afar has struck his breast or shoulder. What could he do? Do you expect that he should behave like a stoic philosopher lost in apathy? Patient is Epictetus while his master was breaking his legs with a cudgel? It is impossible you should find him guilty of murder. You must suppose him divested of all human passions if you do not think him at the least provoked, thrown off his guard and into the furor brevis, by such treatment as this.

Bailey saw the mulatto seven or eight minutes before the firing at the head of 20 or 30 sailors in Corn Hill. And he had a large cordwood stick so that this Attucks, by this testimony of Bailey compared with that of Andrew, and some others appears to have undertaken to be the hero of the night, and to lead this army with banners, to form them in the first place in Dock Square, and march them to King Street with their clubs. They pass through the main street, up to the main guard in order to make the attack. If this was not an unlawful assembly, there never was one in the world. Attucks with his myrmidons comes around Jackson's corner and down to the party by the Sentry box, when the soldiers pushed the people off, this man with his party cried, 'Do not be afraid of them.

They dare not fire. Kill them! Kill them! Knock them over!' And he tried to knock their brains out. It is plain the soldiers did not leave their station, but cried to the people, 'stand off!' Now to have this reinforcement coming down under the command of a stout mulatto fellow, who his very looks was enough to terrify any person. What had not the soldiers then to fear? And with one hand took hold of a bayonet and with the other knocked the man down. This was the behavior of Attucks, to whose mad behavior in all probability, the dreadful carnage of that night is chiefly to be ascribed.' Wow!

He pulls no prejudice punch because he is squarely placing the blame on Attucks. It wasn't the rest of the colonists. The spotlight is shining down on Attucks as the aggressor, as the person who started it. He is the person who should be on trial if not for him being dead. And this is the take that Adams has. So Adams is often praised as this progressive in his era because he is one of the founding fathers who never owned slaves. So it's a strange irony that he directly blames Attucks for all of this.

And not only does he blame Attucks, but he brings in this racist prejudice kind of language where he is saying who wouldn't be afraid of this tall Black or a mulatto person? Anybody would have fired on him if he was coming at them mad. So I couldn't help but see this in his language and reading his arguments, Attucks was made a scapegoat by him. So at the end of all this, the jury acquitted the six soldiers, including Hugh White, never found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter and they escaped the death penalty.

This is the story. This is the story of Crispus Attucks. There are some people who think he was the first to die for a revolution. Some people think that he should not have been there at all. That he should have been trying to meet his own ends, favoring other Black enslaved people, or maybe he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, or maybe he joined in with the wrong group and he didn't have any patriotism in his heart at all. He didn't have anything in his heart at all, other than just being with the group of dock workers and joining in with the ruckus and the fervor that was going on during that time and the rise of anger against the British troops for its own sake and not for anything revolutionary.

We may never know. But we do know that firsts are significant. Everyone loves firsts, right? Your firstborn. Your first love. Your first car. Crispus Attucks will forever be known as the first to die in what became the Revolutionary War. Was he a patriot? Was he challenging the British soldiers for the liberation of the colonies? We may never know, but we do know that he had to value freedom because he ran away for his own freedom. So it may not be too far-fetched to think that he saw a common bond between the liberation of Black people and the liberation of the colonies from British rule. We do know he was a major figure in American folklore, praised for his heroism.

His death is seen as a challenge to imperialism and to oppression.