John Adams dies in the Boston Massacre

What do you think would happen if John Adams died in the Boston Massacre?
What I'm thinking will happen first is that the British soldiers in the massacre will be judged guilty in an unfair trial. Maybe Britain itself will decide after that to have another trial in England? And that trial could be equally unfair. And I kind of want Samuel Adams to go to the Continental Congress pissed that the British killed his cousin, and asking for revolution.
But I want to hear what your input, especially in terms of the long term consequences for the revolution. The people on this forum are a pretty knowledgeable crowd.
 
well first, you would have to find a reason for John Adams to be there, as with most of the of the riots, they were staged by middle and lower class. I think you'd have a better chance of Sam Adams being there than John.

Once that is solved, you'd still have a Trail, In OTL the two soldiers were tried and found guilty of manslaughter, but that had a large part to do with John Adams being their Lawyer.

And you're correct, they would have been taken back to England for a retrial and probably (if found guilty there) pardoned by the king. The British Parliament had the authority to do that and probably would have in this case.

You'll likely see a HUGE increase in anti-British Sentiment and probably an earlier Revolution. It would defiantly inflame things in Massachusetts as John at that time was looking to run for office.
 
What do you think would happen if John Adams died in the Boston Massacre?
What I'm thinking will happen first is that the British soldiers in the massacre will be judged guilty in an unfair trial. Maybe Britain itself will decide after that to have another trial in England? And that trial could be equally unfair. And I kind of want Samuel Adams to go to the Continental Congress pissed that the British killed his cousin, and asking for revolution.
But I want to hear what your input, especially in terms of the long term consequences for the revolution. The people on this forum are a pretty knowledgeable crowd.

As marl said he had to be their first. Considering he lives in Braintree (about a days ride) he would need a reason to be there on that particular winter day. I am sure you could find one, but why I don't know.

As for Sam, he was one of the biggest revolutionaires of the whole ARW anyway, I don't know how he could become more revolutionary. I think you are overplaying their relationship a bit; they were 2nd cousins who barely knew each other. Adams had about 10 siblings and Adams' father had like 10-15 so I mean everyone was related to everyone, thats just the way it was back then. John and Sam never had a good relationship due to among other things their wholly different political opinions on the nature of govt and revolution.

As for the Boston Massacre Trial, John Adams was the only person who would take the case, it was shopped among his various friends in the Mass. Bar and he was the only one including some later loyalists including his friend Jonathon Sewall who would take it. This was not something that would have been popular in fact Adams was portrayed quite poorly in the press and was viewed wtih suspicion (like Hamilton, Burr, and Jay among others who did defended the rights of Loyalists) by revolutionaires like Sam.

Adams and elected office, before he was elected to the Presidency he was elected to one term in the state legislature under the British colonial admin. He was not running for office at the time and Adams characteristically distained politics and all it entailed. The position that I believe Marl is referencing, became available to him because of his stand at the trail , it was the equivalent of State Attorney General but it was a Royal Appointment (ironically it went to Sewall, this position is what made Sewall a true loyalist) and as such not elected. He passed it up because after the trail he became convinced that Revolution was inevitable.

Now if Adams dies in the Massacre he is missed only by his family and his friends he was not a well known figure to anyone outside of the Mass. legal establishment and his family. Sam probably didn't even know him. How does Adams affect things? He was the first person to agitate for a revolution and make a coherent argument for it. Before Adams took the floor at the first congress reapprochment was the dominant position EVEN after Lexington and Concord reapprochment was still preferred it wasn't until Adams made the argument that the pro-revolution faction started to win the debate. If Adams isn't there than the revolution might not go anywhere as the leading light at the Congress (john dickinson) wanted to send yet another Petition to the King. Adams made a long speech of IIRC 6-8 hrs arguing for it and voila the ARW had begun. Also, Adams was instrumental in appointing Washington as Commander of the Army; imagine if we still decide on revolution and someone like Gates or Richard Lee is in charge!!! It would be a disaster. While Adams was very much a country lawyer/farmer who got swept up in events; he is one of the indispensiable characters of the ARW. He was at almost every key decision or a negoitator at every key treaty during the ARW. Without Adams the whole thing is different. Now I am going on but I think you see my point.

If you doubt the importance of Adams or my statements I suggest Mcullough's John Adams. It is the IMHO seminal work on John Adams.
 
I was just going off what Wiki said, not a great source i know, but it says he was thinking about running for public office...doesn't say what he was looking at running for
 
John Adams

I believe John Adams did have a law office in Boston, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he could have accidentally been killed during the massacre, perhaps trying to bring calm to the mob.
 
I believe John Adams did have a law office in Boston, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he could have accidentally been killed during the massacre, perhaps trying to bring calm to the mob.

He did but IIRC his practice grew after his defense of the soldiers at the massacre and he added the office afterwards.

Osakadave- I don't know too much about Sam but if he dies at the massacre. He would be a martyr; he was one of the first people to demand full independence and was immensely popular throughout Massachusetts Bay Colony so he would have gone down as unjustly murdered.
 
I was under the impression that John Adams was a well-known lawyer who lived in Boston before he took the case, and while I knew that he and Sam didn't like each other, I forgot to take into account the fact that everyone was related back then.
Otherwise, it sounds like it's pretty much how I thought. I'm picturing a really chaotic revolution without a voice calling for law and reason, and that's why I thought it'd be better to kill John than Sam.
Now, if the colonies do somehow manage to become independent (if that's plausible) what kind of country would they have?
 
I was under the impression that John Adams was a well-known lawyer who lived in Boston before he took the case, and while I knew that he and Sam didn't like each other, I forgot to take into account the fact that everyone was related back then.
Otherwise, it sounds like it's pretty much how I thought. I'm picturing a really chaotic revolution without a voice calling for law and reason, and that's why I thought it'd be better to kill John than Sam.
Now, if the colonies do somehow manage to become independent (if that's plausible) what kind of country would they have?

While the difference between Boston and Braintree is semantics back then it was a day ride on a horse back so the difference is worth noting. I bring up the Braintree connection because Adams was a substantial farmer and would like Jefferson extolled the virtues of the small freeholder. This is often lost in the discussion about Adams everyone remembers the lawyer (as they should) but they forget the farmer (just as important). Adams was not the only person calling for Law and Reason; this was a call echoed most from men like Washington and Hamilton to Franklin and Madison. The idea of controlling the exigencies of the revolution are part of what spawned the new Constitution in 1787. Adams was just one of many voices (he was in Europe so he had actually nothing to do with the Constitutional Convention). I think the British influence on the new Revolution and new constitution is more than likely still there. We would probably end up with a similar Constitution. Without Adams' "Thoughts on Govt" than who knows; it was a very influential text in the makeup of the constitution so I think the Constitution ends up more conservative.

The big difference is the Dutch Loan IMO. John managed to secure several loans from the Dutch, these were crucial in funding the war effort at the crucial end stages. If Adams is not their to get those loans (I don't know how plausible it is that someone else could do this, he got on quite well with the Dutch) than it is possible that the revolution runs out of money or is in even worse financial shape than it was in OTL 1783. His biographer David McCoullough, said that he was present at every key event during the revolution and this was true so a revolution without Adams is completely different. So a revolution without Adams wouldn't necessarily be more obstinate but it could very well fail.
 
Top