Were our Founding Fathers terrorists?

Danzig

New member
This is an interesting essay on the TRT website. I would have posted more than just the link but I'm not an adobe ranger..I can't figure out how to cut and paste from the .pdf file.

We would be viewed as terrorists by the U.S. government for doing a lot less than what the American patriots did in the 18th century.
 
Our founding fathers were traitors to England they didn't use terrorist back then. With todays laws they would have been terrorist long before the shots were fired.
 
From my experience in my own Sherwin Williams thread......

I DULY NOTE THE QUESTION MARK AFTER YOUR THREAD TITLE.:D

Yes, they were viewed as terrorists even if not called such.

To date no others have really "terrorized" in any way beneficial to anyone other than themselves.
 
I'd say no, if only because of the Declaration of Independence. It was very clear as to goals and reasons. It was a straightforward (for the most part) succession.

Did they use terroristic tactics? Yes.
 
Big difference in blowing up and killing innocent women, children and other men for that matter, than truly fighting for your own freedom and a country of your own.
NO! I don't believe they were terrorists.
 
I wouldnt say they were terrorists because they never purposely targeted civilians for the specific reason of terror but by they were considered traitors to english government and rightfully so.large groups of people have a funny thing about uprising and overthrowing goverments that they feel are unjust.Governments have risin and fallen through out time and they will continue to do so.I just dont understand what terrorists plan to actually accomplish.I will admit this whole concept is hard for me to work out due to conflicting feelings.there is the whole"why are they mad at us"thought,then there is the"I dont care why they are mad any more so **** it! lets fight!"
 
I wouldnt say they were terrorists because they never purposely targeted civilians for the specific reason of terror

Exactly. Criminals, traitors, yes. Terrorists, no.

Actually, another word in common use today (with a negative connotation) does apply to them...insurgents.
 
Here is a link:
http://www.trtnational.com/media/colonialterrorists.pdf

This passage really made me think:
If a group of people tried any of these things today, they would be squashed Just look at them, disobeying the government's laws? Meeting and conspiring against the government? Destroying Government wares? Forming armed militias to combat the government? Hit and run guerrilla tactics?... Our country was founded by terrorists, and now our government would sooner call patriots terrorists than listen to their calls for reform.

I agree with the idea behind that last sentence, but I am with JuanCarlos, they were definitely insurgents, but not terrorists.
 
The only act of terrorism they did would have been the boston tea party, by destroying property. They were a militia with by the way our government acts is terrorism. They actually did no different than the south when it ceded. The union (north) acted as england and fired first. Our government really only uses the constitution as symbol but in truth it only means what they want it to. Freedom is no such thing the truth is normal people are too busy surviving to notice. Think you spend all your life working for the greater good aka the nation, and paying bills. Do you remember that our founding fathers fought double taxation. Well what do you think is happening now. You pay taxes on your check, taxes when you buy, taxes when you sell and don't forget that if you get a federal refund then in some states you have to pay taxes on that the next year. what a crock. The only terrorists i see around here is our own gov. they scare the mass into thinking anything they want. I guess you also know that the founding fathers didn't have to go out and get a ccw permit.
 
I agree with the idea behind that last sentence, but I am with JuanCarlos, I think they should have been called criminals and traitors, not terrorists.

I think insurgents is actually a great word for the people that founded this country. Regardless, I think that last sentence is true...our current government would be very quick to apply the "terrorist" label to people who weren't really deserving of the name. If I formed a group that did nothing but attack military installations (specifically soldiers, not families) then it's not really terrorism; it's an insurgency. But I can guarantee the T-word could come out right off the bat.

My suspicion is that it's because it gets people scared which gives the government more power.
 
for the record.I am not involved in any group that wants to undermine the government and I love the usa.:) that was just for the NSA guy that is probably scanning my computer and pulling up my FBI file.I bet you think im kidding but big brother is watching for sure.
 
Not at all. They tried for years to come to a peaceful resolution to their grievances, always falling on deaf ears. Read the Declaration of Independence; it lists all of their gripes.

Never did they attack innocent women, children & civilians, and they did not use terror as a tactic to get what they wanted politically.

So NO, they were not even close to terrorists.
 
I hate to tell people this, but civilians were SPECIFICALLY targeted, sometimes quite violently, during the American revolution, and on both sides.

The clashes between those for independence and those who wanted to remain loyal to the crown got quite nasty. Often American leaders, both political and military, turned a blind eye to these issues because the Tories were considered to be such a threat in some areas.

Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty were nothing more than a gang of thugs. In the past I've compared them to Mussolini's black shirts, and in many ways the comparison holds. Not quite as violent, but more than willing to resort to violence, intimidation, and rhetoric as a means to an end.

In some ways the clashes between continentals and loyalists are very similiar to the clashes between Isralie and Palestinian or Sunni an Sh'ite civilians today.
 
It seems to me that King George was denying Virginians our chartered rights, and he kept a standing army here in times of peace to dominate us. When one man denies a people their chartered rights, tries to dominate them with military rule, and the people resist ... I think King George was more of a terrorist, and our Founders were more ... representatives.
 
I
hate to tell people this, but civilians were SPECIFICALLY targeted, sometimes quite violently, during the American revolution, and on both sides.

The clashes between those for independence and those who wanted to remain loyal to the crown got quite nasty. Often American leaders, both political and military, turned a blind eye to these issues because the Tories were considered to be such a threat in some areas.

Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty were nothing more than a gang of thugs. In the past I've compared them to Mussolini's black shirts, and in many ways the comparison holds. Not quite as violent, but more than willing to resort to violence, intimidation, and rhetoric as a means to an end.

In some ways the clashes between continentals and loyalists are very similiar to the clashes between Isralie and Palestinian or Sunni an Sh'ite civilians today.

Then I'm appalled at how you could consider staying here a minute longer on land procured by so many evil, vicious men.:rolleyes: I wonder what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You would think a group of thugs wouldn't have gave a damn about other peoples rights.
 
Terrorist (or "tearist" in Bushinese) is such a loaded word these days

Our founding fathers didn't strap bombs to themselves and walk into taverns and blow themselves up. Our founding fathers didn't take wagons or sailing ships and ram into buildings or harbor towns with people in them going "Jihad! LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!" The founding fathers didn't brutalize women and children.

They were men who were fighting to protect their God given liberties handed down to them by their ancestors. They were standing or law and principle. They were not cowards who cut the heads off foreign civilians to get things they wanted. YES, some of them, such as certain members of the Sons of Liberty did things like tar and feathering Tory officials and molested their property. Some of those things are inexcusable. But they were condemned by the leadership as a whole. Even the Boston tea party, as understandable as that was in my mind as an act of principle, was frowned upon by Geo. Washington and I think Ben Franklin too.

Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty were nothing more than a gang of thugs.
I think that's a little extreme to say. SA and his group during the Boston Tea party saw that no harm came to the crew nor other cargo on the ship except dropping the tea in Boston bay. There were elements of the Sons of Liberty (a secret organization that had groups all across the colonies) that did brutalize people. But to lump SA and the SOL as thugs compared to Mussolini is absurd
 
Uh, Mr. Welch?

Did I say I had a problem with it?

History is a funny thing, especially American history.

What most people are taught is that the American Revolution was based on only the highest ideals, conducted only by people of the most impecable character, and done free of all the baggage that normally accompanies a war.

Bull****.

Don't you find it both curious AND interesting at the same time that Thomas Jefferson wrote of all men being created equal, yet held slaves? That he stated, during debates on adoption of the Declaration of Independence that he had resolved to release his slaves, but yet never did?

That George Washington said that he never wanted command of the Continental Army, but yet every day showed up in Congress wearing the same suit of clothes -- his Major's uniform from the French and Indian Wars?

That George Washington was a military bungler who almost lost the Revolution several times, yet was very likely the only person who could have held the Continental Army together for 8 years of war?

That George Washington and John Hancock were probably the two richest men in the colonies, whose wealth derived and largely depended on the British Empire, yet they fully supported independence?

That the "crushing taxes" paid by Colonists were actually substantially less than those paid by people of the same class in Britain?

That the British tax on tea, which resulted in the Boston Tea Party, actually made tea CHEAPER in the colonies?

That Benjamin Franklin, an ardent supporter of independence, had a son who was Colonial Governor of New Jersey, and when William Franklin was arrested, Ben did absolutely nothing to help his son, and in fact totally cut him off?

That John Adams, ardent supporter of the concept of the equality of men, was an incredibly imperious prick who never failed to let people know, in action and word, that he was their superior?

That John Dickinson adamantly opposed the push for independence and refused to sign the Declaration but instead of joining the British army, where he would have become an officer, he joined a Delaware militia unit and fought AGAINST the British?

The history of the Founding Fathers are full of these kinds of "psychotic fugue" examples.

Over the past 200 years we've made the mistake as a nation of deifying these people -- converting them to marble statues and have virtually ignored what they really were -- men who were just as human and just a fallable (sp?) as any one else of the time.

It's inconvenient to look at the incongruities of our Founding Fathers, because it ruptures the little mythories that we've been taught about them and their motivations.

History, even American history, is sometimes pretty damned ugly. But to ignore the real history of these men in favor of some sanitized Parson Weemsistic version of "the truth" does them a great disservice. And to be sucked into that kind of does the "suckee" an equally great disservice.
 
"I think that's a little extreme to say. SA and his group during the Boston Tea party saw that no harm came to the crew nor other cargo on the ship except dropping the tea in Boston bay."

The Boston Tea Party was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only event perpetrated under the auspices of the Sons of Liberty in Massachusetts.

You'll note that I said Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty. Sam was the "leader" of the Boston branch, and I'm talking only about that group.
 
Back
Top