From hat I see with the terrorism that goes on today, the main goal of a terrorist is fear. They strive to instill fear in their enemies, and to kill them. The goal Of the colonists was not to make the British fear them, or to kill as many British citizens as possible. Their goal was to defend their rights and their growing country.
Both of these things characterize a patriot, which is what they truly were. Based on what I believe a true terrorist is, not what the dictionary defines it as; I do not think that the men and women who fought against the British in the American Revolution were Terrorists, but true patriots.One instance of an act that some have considered terrorism was the Boston Tea party. The colonists were upset with the British for the new tax they had to pay with the Tea Act They were reacting to this as a child would react to an unjust punishment placed upon them by a parent.
They wanted to be noticed and they wanted to have their way. It was not an act inspired by malice but by resentment for unfair treatment by the British crown. They wanted to show the British that they were serious and would not stand to be treated in such ways.
Furthermore they were not aiming to kill or physically harm anyone; hey wanted to convince the government to repeal the unfair act. I cannot see how this is an act of terrorism especially when comparing it to other terrorist attacks we see in the world. For example the terrorists behind the 9/1 1 attacks were aiming to kill as many people as possible while causing our country to erupt into a state of panic and chaos. They were not simply dumping tea into a harbor; they were murdering and taking down buildings.By comparing these two events it is plain to see that the Boston Tea Party was not an act of terrorism. One might argue that because the colonists destroyed property that means hat it was an act of terrorism; however terrorism and vandalism are completely different things. The colonists did destroy the property of loyalists and British officials quite a lot.
One example was when a mob burned the coach and trashed the home Of Caterwauled Golden, the royal governor Of New York. This was an angry mob committing vandalism again as a reaction to the stamp act.While vandalism certainly not right, it is not an act of terrorism. Today we see vandalism happen all the time, whether it is by an angry mob or fans after an eventful sports match; but never do we consider these vandals restricts. If we consider the damage an angry mob caused back then to be terrorism, then surely we would have to consider it terrorism now as well should we not? While I do not agree with the finalization the colonists did, do not believe that it should be considered an act of terrorism.Another argument one might make in favor of the colonists being terrorists, is that they resorted to violence much to often; however the colonists only resorted to violence after their attempts to peacefully solve their problems did not work. The colonists made it clear to the British government that they id not like the way they were being treated, and asked for a solution to the problem.
They sent documents asking them to redress grievances to no avail. One example was the first continental congress.They met to come up with ways to redress the colonial grievances against the British crown. They weren’t even looking for independence yet, they just wanted to patch things up. They even had a second continental congress where they also asked the British to address grievances. The British refused to listen both times however, and it was after they were denied their rights that the colonists resorted to violent ways. Patrick Henry, a patriot, made a speech during the revolution in which he said “Give me liberty or give me death”.
This shows the undying devotion these people had to defending their rights, freedom, and county. All of the men who protested against the British oppression, fought back, and spoke up for what they believed in were true patriots. They had to go through very drastic measures sometimes, like they did at the Boston Tea party, but they did whatever they could in order to protect what they believed in. They are patriots because of the fierceness they had in their fight for liberty, although hat fierceness sometimes is mistaken for terrorism.Though the colonists did use acts of violence and destruction in their quest for independence, they were not violent enough to be considered on the same level of terrorism. They did not aim to create fear or to viciously kill the British, but to gain the freedom and rights they felt they deserved. They were completely devoted to obtaining and defending their rights and their country which is what earns them the name of patriots.
For these reasons, I believe that the colonists fighting in the American Revolution were patriots, not terrorists.