The Fifth Of March: A Story of the Boston Massacre

Like Rachel, Matthew is based on an actual person from the time of the American Revolution—in this case, a soldier of the British Army’s 29th regiment, which was stationed in Boston in 1770. The Matthew of history was on sentry duty (though not outside the Adams house), went to work at Gray’s Ropewalk Works (which was a hotbed of violence in reality), and was one of the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. The Matthew of the story shares many parallels with Rinaldi’s fictional Rachel. He is also indentured (to the British Army as a way for his brother to pay off gambling debts), and he too struggles to find his place, though his journey is less complete than Rachel’s by the end of the book. From the moment Rachel meets Matthew, she is attracted to him, but she also thinks “there was a stubborn streak of pride in him that frightened me” (127). As the story progresses and Matthew becomes angrier at the treatment he receives from Boston’s people, this streak is revealed to be at least partly influenced by his military training. He wants to defend Britain and the Crown, but he is not allowed to do so, which leads him to go looking for fights to prove he is the soldier he believes he is.

Matthew’s internal arc represents the toll of the military on its soldiers and the harm of training individuals to view the enemy as “other.” On the night of the Boston Massacre, Matthew is primed to attack civilians. He has endured emotional abuse for months, and he is tired of not being allowed to stand up for himself. While this does not justify his violence, it contextualizes his actions as the result of pent-up aggression. In the aftermath, he recognizes that his actions were wrong. Matthew’s story makes clear that the Boston Massacre represented both physical and emotional conflict. British military training coupled with the psychological warfare waged by the Bostonians comes together to fuel the Boston Massacre. Matthew is predisposed to see the Bostonians as the enemy, which makes it easier for him to attack when provoked. Since the Patriots know this, they leverage it to inflame the conflict between Britain and America, making Matthew a pawn in a larger game, manipulated by both sides for their own benefit.

Jane is one of Rachel’s closest friends and a foil for Rachel’s desire to understand conflict from all sides. Jane is solidly on the Patriots’ side from the beginning of the book, and Rachel notes that Jane “always acted like she was privy to some secret that the rest of the world didn’t know about yet” (2). Jane also shows her Patriot loyalty throughout the novel by downplaying Patriot violence and supporting Patriot actions. For example, when Rachel objects to the use of a funeral as a political statement, Jane argues that the Patriots’ cause outweighs such moral considerations. Unlike Rachel and Matthew, Jane has no named historical counterpart. Instead, she is based on the real-life maid to Sarah Welsteed, who tried unsuccessfully to warn her employer about the Boston Massacre so it could be stopped. In addition to being a foil for Rachel, Jane is also a way for Rachel to measure her own growth and progress as she works through her character arc. More than once, Jane warns Rachel away from Matthew, arguing that he is the enemy, cannot be trusted, and will only lead Rachel to her ruin. At turns, Rachel heeds this advice, which leads to her more significant arguments with Matthew. Jane’s firebrand attitude and inability to bend her viewpoint cause Rachel strife when she chooses to adopt Jane’s perspectives, and this helps Rachel realize the importance of thinking for herself, rather than letting others think for her.