The Fifth Of March: A Story of the Boston Massacre

Through Rachel’s search for what she calls her “inner truth,” John Adams’s decision to represent the British soldiers in court, and the overall attitude of the Patriots as events unfold, the novel explores the importance of independent moral judgment and how it is threatened by excessive group loyalty. From the beginning of the book, Rachel is aware of a desire among Boston’s Patriots to become “true Americans.” While this term of honor is never given a solid definition, those around Rachel theorize that it involves self-determination on both a political and a personal level. When Rachel tells Henry, the bookstore owner, that she no longer feels as though King George is her king, Henry congratulates her on becoming a true American. Though Rachel is pleased, she soon realizes that “life did not get any easier once I felt closer to my truth” (170). Rachel’s embrace of self-determination makes her life more challenging, rather than less, as she must confront the moral weight of her choices and hold to her values even when they conflict with those of people around her. When Patriots want to use the funeral of a local boy killed by soldiers as a protest march, Rachel is appalled, and this reaction makes her think, “perhaps I am not a true American at all” (182). Finding that her opinions do not align with those of her fellow Bostonians, Rachel’s first thought is to question her American identity, but she soon realizes that for her, being American means standing by her opinions and beliefs even when others disagree.

Like Rachel, John Adams must demonstrate personal integrity by holding to his values even when they prove unpopular. At the beginning of the book, John is reluctant to take sides in the conflict between the Patriots and Crown loyalists because he recognizes that there are good people and good arguments on both sides. However, after the events of the Boston Massacre, John is forced to reevaluate what he is willing to risk for what he believes is right. Having witnessed the violent anger of the Patriots toward the soldiers in past confrontations, John knows the soldiers have been provoked and are not entirely to blame for the massacre. As a citizen of Boston, he also knows he will receive pushback from the community if he defends the British soldiers in court, but his understanding of human nature and his belief that all people deserve a fair trial won’t let him leave the soldiers to hang. Despite the risk to his career and social standing, John defends the soldiers because he believes it is his ethical duty to do so. He also understands that his legal defense of the soldiers does not change his loyalty to the cause of independence. John can stay true to himself and support both the Patriots and Crown loyalists when it feels right, regardless of how others feel about him doing so.

By contrast, the attitudes of the staunch Patriots and Crown loyalists reveal what happens when loyalty to a cause trumps independent moral judgment. Rachel and John make choices and change over the course of the book, and this growth allows them to feel comfortable in who they are and what they do. In the early chapters, it seems the Patriots and Crown loyalists have similar attitudes—both choosing to support their beliefs (rebellion or loyalty) at great personal cost. However, as tensions in Boston rise with the arrival of the British soldiers, it becomes clear that both Patriots and Crown loyalists have become so devoted to seeing their side win that they are willing to suspend their own moral discernment. This “us versus them” mentality allows both sides to attack those they deem the enemy and destroy the livelihoods of anyone who opposes them, using their political ideologies to justify their actions. As a result, each side remains unable to understand the other’s perspective. This climate of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding leads to escalating violence.