"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence... The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course." — John Adams, defense argument, Rex v. Wemms (Boston Massacre trial), 1770
Adams's choice to defend the soldiers, despite his Patriot sympathies, most plausibly reflects his belief that:
- A
The Townshend duties had been lawfully repealed before the shooting
- Bcheck_circle
The legitimacy of colonial resistance depended on demonstrating colonial commitment to impartial rule of law
- C
British soldiers retained sovereign immunity from colonial prosecution
- D
Massachusetts juries would inevitably acquit royal officials regardless of counsel
Explanation
Adams later argued that defending the soldiers was one of the best services he ever rendered his country precisely because it showed colonial protest was rooted in law, not mob passion. The other options misstate the legal context: the Townshend duties (except tea) were repealed in March 1770 but that is not Adams's argument; soldiers had no immunity; and the jury was actually skeptical of the soldiers.