Were Founding Fathers Terrorists?

[SayMyName]

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.

 

[sparky]

 

[Artevelde]

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.

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.

 

[California Girl]

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'.

 

[SayMyName]

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.

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.

Good points all.

It would be interesting to hear what the British might have said. I believe they did use the word terrorists at times.

 

[Artevelde]

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.

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.

Good points all.

It would be interesting to hear what the British might have said. I believe they did use the word terrorists at times.

There is no doubt that some of the pro-independence activists tried to terrorize loyalists living in America. But it's too much of a stretch to translate that into the Founding Fathers being terrorists in the modern sense of the word.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[sparky]

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.

I would disagree.

Did they form a regulated army to meet the British forces in open battle? Yes.

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

The Britts believed in open line confrontation

Americans were the first to engage in sniping, which was seen by the Britts as violating their rules of warfare>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Murphy_(sniper)

Timothy Murphy (1751–1818) was a sniper in the American Revolutionary War. At the Battle of Bemis Heights (Second Battle of Saratoga) on October 7, 1777, Murphy is reputed to have shot and killed Sir Francis Clerke and General Simon Fraser

~S~

 

[Sallow]

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.

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.

Oh gosh..they did much more then that. The Boston Tea Party..for example. They also, by even the "cleaned up" accounts, tarred and feathered tories and ran them out of town on rails. It all depends really, on where you sit. The Brits viewed them as traitors and de facto terrorists (Dunno if the term was around at the time). Americans view them as patriots and freedom fighters.

 

[sparky]

the Sons of Liberty come to mind.....~S~

 

[Unkotare]

using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?"

no.

 

[regent]

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.

 

[Artevelde]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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

 

[uscitizen]

The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.
they even dressed as Indians.

 

[Artevelde]

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.

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?

 

[Intense]

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.

Maybe you could name some non military targets they hit? You might be confusing the term with Guerrilla.

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare and refers to conflicts in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians (or "irregulars") use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately.

Guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[uscitizen]

What we call the war of independence was view as a rebellion of a legitimate government by the other side.
And theft of their lands and properties.

 

[uscitizen]

In a way the Civil War was a repeat with different roles.
The north was the "Crown" and the south were the colonies trying to gain independence.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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