Were Founding Fathers Terrorists?

[SFC Ollie]

During the war, about 50 military units were made up of Loyalists, many of whom had their lands or property seized. It is estimated that there were actually from 30,000 - 35,000, at one time or other, enrolled in regularly organized corps, but rebel tactics of attacking their homes deterred others joining, particularly in the southern colonies. Apart from those Loyalist families who took refuge in New York City and Long Island, others re-established pro-British colonial governments in Georgia and Florida.

Loyalist (American Revolution)


Our "revolution" was ALSO a kind of CIVIL WAR, kiddies.

Damned right there was, what today would be called were acts of TERROR committed.

Civilians WERE attacked. Homes were plundered and burned. People were driven from their homes and farms , their places of business, and they sent packing. Officials were tarred and feathered.

Civilians were attacked by both sides, homes were destroyed and property confiscated, again by both sides.

The British called the patriots terrorists and cowards because they fought from behind cover instead of standing in the open. Guerrilla warfare was unheard of in Europe.

 

[SFC Ollie]

One of the gripes of the British was that the colonists did not fight like real soldiers, they hid behind trees fences and fired from areas that were safe for them. One of the complaints we use today about the tactics of our enemy is that they don't fight like real gentlemen they use suicide bombers, children, and don't follow the rules of warfare. It was one of our gripes about the Japanese, the Indians and others. Add religion into the mix and you get some real ungentelmanly conduct.

To begin with this is historically wrong. The US rebels formed a regular army that met its enemy in regular battle.

And trying to throw everything in one heap is ridiculous and stupid.

Yes we had a regular army that did meet them as the Europeans were used to, but it was the guerrilla warfare that set them off........

 

[Intense]

Americans used the tactics that suited the conditions. They fought as irregulars and would snipe at British forces and disappear into the forrest. They would also target British officers over enlisted ......not proper fighting etiquette

So accoording to you the American War of Independence ended in 1775-76?

Not by a long shot

Yes, we had a standing army. But we also had irregulars that fought like special forces today. Much like the south used in the Civil War or the French Resistance

At times, I'm sure we crossed the boundaries of what would be considered terrorism. I don't consider clandestine attacks on armed forces to be terrorism. But Torries were attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered ....had their homes burned

Go ahead, you can say it, it won't kill you. .... M-I-L-I-T-I-A.

 

[rightwinger]

So accoording to you the American War of Independence ended in 1775-76?

Not by a long shot

Yes, we had a standing army. But we also had irregulars that fought like special forces today. Much like the south used in the Civil War or the French Resistance

At times, I'm sure we crossed the boundaries of what would be considered terrorism. I don't consider clandestine attacks on armed forces to be terrorism. But Torries were attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered ....had their homes burned

Go ahead, you can say it, it won't kill you. .... M-I-L-I-T-I-A.

Militia forces played a significant role in the Revolution.....hence the second amendment

 

[Artevelde]

Americans used the tactics that suited the conditions. They fought as irregulars and would snipe at British forces and disappear into the forrest. They would also target British officers over enlisted ......not proper fighting etiquette

So accoording to you the American War of Independence ended in 1775-76?

Not by a long shot

Yes, we had a standing army. But we also had irregulars that fought like special forces today. Much like the south used in the Civil War or the French Resistance

At times, I'm sure we crossed the boundaries of what would be considered terrorism. I don't consider clandestine attacks on armed forces to be terrorism. But Torries were attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered ....had their homes burned

Certainly, but attacks on civilians occur in every conflict. That doesn't make it terrorism.

 

[Unkotare]

It should be noted that the (in reality few) British tax collectors who had their homes burned and/or were tarred and feathered were not actually killed. The Americans generally took care not to let mob violence get out of control.

 

[Sallow]

So accoording to you the American War of Independence ended in 1775-76?

Not by a long shot

Yes, we had a standing army. But we also had irregulars that fought like special forces today. Much like the south used in the Civil War or the French Resistance

At times, I'm sure we crossed the boundaries of what would be considered terrorism. I don't consider clandestine attacks on armed forces to be terrorism. But Torries were attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered ....had their homes burned

Certainly, but attacks on civilians occur in every conflict. That doesn't make it terrorism.

It was happening prior to the Declaration of Independence..and after.

The idea that there are "clean" violent conflicts is myth making.

 

[uscitizen]

Today if they are not fighting under the orders of a recognized nation and in uniform they are terrorists.

 

[rightwinger]

So accoording to you the American War of Independence ended in 1775-76?

Not by a long shot

Yes, we had a standing army. But we also had irregulars that fought like special forces today. Much like the south used in the Civil War or the French Resistance

At times, I'm sure we crossed the boundaries of what would be considered terrorism. I don't consider clandestine attacks on armed forces to be terrorism. But Torries were attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered ....had their homes burned

Certainly, but attacks on civilians occur in every conflict. That doesn't make it terrorism.

I guess it depends on what you consider terrorism. Are mob attacks on civilians terrorist acts? They could be considered so

Were there organized terrorist groups attacking civilians? Not to my knowledge

 

[GHook93]

Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.

No

 

[GHook93]

Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.

Only when it suits the rabid left. The word 'terrorist' now means 'everyone who disagrees with Obama'.

LOL, so since Obama negates everything the Founders stand for, the left would probably call them terrorist!

 

[Artevelde]

Today if they are not fighting under the orders of a recognized nation and in uniform they are terrorists.

Not quite. Take for example the Karen rebels in Burma. They wouldn't be considered terrorists. They've been waging war for autonomy for the better part of 60 years.

 

[Intense]

Americans used the tactics that suited the conditions. They fought as irregulars and would snipe at British forces and disappear into the forrest. They would also target British officers over enlisted ......not proper fighting etiquette

So accoording to you the American War of Independence ended in 1775-76?

Not by a long shot

Yes, we had a standing army. But we also had irregulars that fought like special forces today. Much like the south used in the Civil War or the French Resistance

At times, I'm sure we crossed the boundaries of what would be considered terrorism. I don't consider clandestine attacks on armed forces to be terrorism. But Torries were attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered ....had their homes burned

Come on Man. If we fought like the French Resistance, we would still be flying the Union Jack.

 

[rightwinger]

So accoording to you the American War of Independence ended in 1775-76?

Not by a long shot

Yes, we had a standing army. But we also had irregulars that fought like special forces today. Much like the south used in the Civil War or the French Resistance

At times, I'm sure we crossed the boundaries of what would be considered terrorism. I don't consider clandestine attacks on armed forces to be terrorism. But Torries were attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered ....had their homes burned

Come on Man. If we fought like the French Resistance, we would still be flying the Union Jack.

French Resistance were good fighters. Did better against the Nazis than the French Army did

 

[Unkotare]

Today if they are not fighting under the orders of a recognized nation and in uniform they are terrorists.

No, in that case they are irregulars or enemy combatants. If they specifically target civilians for death in order to instill fear in the populace to further a political agenda, then they are terrorists.

 

[Unkotare]

[

French Resistance were good fighters. Did better against the Nazis than the French Army did

Well, if you're gonna set the bar that low...

 

[Intense]

Not by a long shot

Yes, we had a standing army. But we also had irregulars that fought like special forces today. Much like the south used in the Civil War or the French Resistance

At times, I'm sure we crossed the boundaries of what would be considered terrorism. I don't consider clandestine attacks on armed forces to be terrorism. But Torries were attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered ....had their homes burned

Come on Man. If we fought like the French Resistance, we would still be flying the Union Jack.

French Resistance were good fighters. Did better against the Nazis than the French Army did

True enough. Unlike the French Army there was no collaboration, it was indeed a True Resistance.

 

[Intense]

Today if they are not fighting under the orders of a recognized nation and in uniform they are terrorists.

No, in that case they are irregulars or enemy combatants. If they specifically target civilians for death in order to instill fear in the populace to further a political agenda, then they are terrorists.

USCit sees everything fuzzy.

 

[KissMy]

I would disagree.

Did they seek to assassinate leaders of the British Government? No.
Did they seek to blow up civilian targets in Britain? No.
Did they form a regulated army to meet the British forces in open battle? Yes.
Did they seek to assume the resonsibilities of a well-regulated government? Yes.

They wee certainly rebels against lawful authority. But they were not terrorists.

Today you are not allowed to try to form a regulated army to meet the USA forces in battle. You will be captured, imprisoned, tortured & killed just for attempting such. "Pre-Crime" planning or plotting.

In 2010, Nine Michigan militia members were arrested in what Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called an “insidious plan.” He accused them of Plotting War on U.S. Gov't. In an indictment against the nine the Justice Department said they were part of a group of apocalyptic Christian militants who were plotting to kill law enforcement officers in hopes of inciting an anti-government uprising, the latest in a recent surge in right-wing militia activity.

The British called the revolutionaries gorillas/terrorist.

 

[BluePhantom]

Looks like most of the points I was going to make have already been made; guerrilla tactics, Sons of Liberty, etc. I would say a few things on the topic:

1) I think it's a big stretch to try to define them using the modern definition of "terrorism". I agree with Intense that "Guerrilla warfare" is far more appropriate and accurate.

2) The times were way different so tactics such as sniping, tar and feathering*, etc would have been seen as radical and shocking back then as suicide bombing is to us today. The 18th century British would probably disagree with point #1 and from their perspective they could conceivably call it "terrorism".

*note: tar and feathering was a brutal practice. It wasn't just the humiliation of looking like a chicken. The tar had to be almost boiling to get it to a fluid enough state to pour and then of course it stuck to the skin. The victims would be burned severely and physically scarred for life.

3) There were a lot of reasons why the British lost that war, but point #1 is a major part of it. They were trying to fight a "gentleman's war" against an opponent that was refusing to fight like "gentlemen" and as a result the most powerful military force of their time ended up getting their asses kicked. Can anyone recognize any parallels to the present day?