I found an article (posted below) which I find very interesting from an historical point of view. The similarities between Fallujah and Lexington is amazing. It confirms my view that: 1. All sides in any war fight for “freedom” 2. History labels the losers as “terrorists” and winners as “freedom fighters”. link
It would be advantageous for Americans to reach into our own national history for insight into the motivations of many opponents of the more grandiose and heavy-handed aspects of US foreign policy. Unfortunately, Americans have a notoriously superficial and sugar-coated relationship with our own past. Among the valuable insights available is the realization that the majority of residents of the colonies were not galvanized into fighting the Revolutionary War- Like most Iraqis, they just wanted to get on with their lives. Nevertheless, a seemingly rag-tag rebellion was highly successful in repelling a militarily superior foreign imposition. It doesn't take an ostensibly imposing foe to lose in a colonialist or neocolonialist venture- now more than ever. Both King Georges lost their political leverage early on in the rebellions we are comparing. The ensuing conflicts then only fulfilled the writing on the wall, in a senseless waste of lives and fortunes. Someday, Americans may be welcome in the Mideast again- But for the years immediately ahead, any American-branded government and corporate initiatives there are destined to sour, because Americans, failing to imagine Iraqis behaving like ourselves, foolishly duplicated the hubris and overextension of the British Colonists.
I say this all the bloody time, that by todays classification the American Revolutionaries were "terrorists".
Do you or anyone have any SPECIFIC examples (stories) of "terrorists" during the American Revolution? I'm very interested in this not for the purpose of bashing America but for the purpose of learning history.
England's anti-terrorism act, English attempts to paint the rebellion as criminal insurrection, and Loyalist/Tory attitudes toward the rebellion had parallels. These paralleled the tension in Iraq, in that the Revolutionary War was also our first civil war, and there were multiple foreign parties fueling the conflict, which segued right into French & Indian / frontier wars. Reprisals against Loyalists included killings, burning/destruction of homes and farms, and continued after the Revolutionary War. Many Loyalists were persecuted into leaving for Canada, the the Maritimes, and the Bahamas. Terrorism in the American Revolutionary War is little discussed in the general histories written. Even at the time, terrorism as we think of it today was notsuch a focus of policy on the part of English or American governments, apart from the characterizing by England of Patriot fighters as terrorists, that I already mentioned. But it did happen just as it happens today. What I've heard of terrorism is mostly from local-interest anecdotes. If you delve into the history of a particular local area that was involved, you can usually find tales of the more horrific side of the Revolutionary War/Civil War 1. Pan-national American history tends to gloss over the grim details, but the local knowledge stuff usually preserves the nitty-gritty better- So you can learn where/who the hot-spots/players were, and then search out the local lore and period journalism either online, or in person if you happen to be located in what were the American Colonies, you can visit places that have been the scene of viciousness much like fallujah and ramadi "terrorism". They didn't have car bombs then, but people jolly well did slaughter others' loved ones before their eyes, scalp, tie folks up alive with their intestines, they left thousands of men to die on anchored prison ships, and committed countless other atrocities on both combattants and civilians, for the purpose of political intimidation. In other words, terrorism was in use. But superficial histories seem to mostly ignore it. I'll edit in some vaguely-related links here for a few minutes: Bowles Sullivan Cobleskill Cherry Valley Oriskany The Patriot
On the tidying-up of popularly-held "history", specifically the consistent editing-out of terrorism in our past: History is also a modern battlefield. We are typically educated in the USA with heavily-adulterated versions of history, and many of us are quick to accept the notions transmitted. We Americans are told that terrorism is a vile new threat, that has never taken so many lives on American soil before, and that is the spawn of some radical foreign evil. Examining bits of history- especially eyewitness accounts- that are not so pre-packaged helps to separate such lies from truth. Like any other aspects of our "educations", history is worth studying for a lifetime, because more information is becoming available all the time, and it is extremely pertinent to our lives today.
There were some instances of terrorism (which I define as violence directed intentionally at non-combatants) committed during the American Revolutionary War by people on the side of the revolution, but not really at Lexington or Concord. Mostly such actions were against loyalists. In the fighting at Lexington and Concord, the American militia and sympathizers fought British regulars who had been sent from Boston. Furthermore, I don't believe there was anything that could qualify as terrorism that was sanctioned by George Washington, commander of the revolutionary army. The primary difference between the American Revolutionary government and military compared to the insurgents in Iraq are: 1. The American forces were seeking to institute a democratic republic, whereas the Iraqi insurgents appear to wish to avoid elections. 2. The Iraqi insurgents frequently target non-combatants as their primary intended targets, whereas the American revolutionary forces created by an act of congress and directed by George Washington were attempting only to defeat a military force. I do not recall anything in Washington's career similar to kidnapping civilians for ransom or sawing their heads off while they were alive and conscious. To the extent that non-combatants were targetted for murder by the American revolutionaries, I would condemn it, just as I condemn violence directed against civilians as the primary intended targets by anyone, including the Iraqi insurgents.
I agree with Brandon. While there were atrocities on both sides, most of the really nasty stuff was between the colonials, particularly in the Carolinas, between revolutionaries and Tories, and much of this stemmed from old hatreds and mistrust between Easterners, who were generally old, monied families, and those from the backwoods, newer, poorer immigrants. They basically were just continuing the War of Regulation, the revolution that had flared in the Carolinas around 1770 between the backwoods Regulators, who were mainly Scots-Irish, and the Eastern Moderates, who were mostly of English heritage, mainly over high taxes and failure of the two Carolina colonies' governments to provide services for those taxes (there were similar problems in Pennsylvania with the so-called 'Paxton Boys'). The Regulators had been defeated in 1771 by the militia at Almanance, and been forced to swear an oath to the Crown, which they did reluctantly. In actuality, this civil war re-erupted in the Carolinas while the Revolution was being conducted, and there were a lot of old scores to be settled. It was a very complicated affair in the Carolinas, for various reasons, such as ethnic, religious, and class differences.
"It was a very complicated affair in the Carolinas, for various reasons, such as ethnic, religious, and class differences." It was very complicated elsewhere around the colonies also (you could read the links to consider this). Very similar complications as are accompanying American attempts to mould the Mideast to our advantage. It's an interesting attempt at a doctrine of "purity of arms" looking back into the American revolution. But it doesn't hold up in light of the many stories of terrorism and insurrection.
Sure, there had been tensions within each of the colonies during the colonial period for various reasons, but as I noted, it was especially nasty in the Carolinas because tensions from the Regulator wars had not as yet ebbed (it only was put down in 1771) when the Revolution broke out so the same players involved in that civil war took sides against each other in the Revolution. The only link provided that discussed such complications was the one on Oriskany, and that very briefly mentioned the various ethnic groups in the neighborhood that fought on either side. The rest were about battles and massacres during the war, particularly by Native Americans, allied with the British and Loyalists. And of course, there was the link to the article on Patriot, possibly one of Hollywood's most historically inaccurate movies. And all that article did was basically dis the British for whining about their portrayal in South Carolina. While it's true that the British were guilty of some atrocities, they were really more guilty of not controlling the Loyalists, who were really the ones that committed most of the atrocities, and ultimately drove a lot of colonials into the Revolutionaries' camp because of it. But Gibson's version of the conflict in the Carolinas was rather puzzling indeed; after all, he tried to have us believe that a Carolina planter in 1780 was employing free blacks on the plantation as opposed to slaves, and was producing corn as a staple crop.
From: http://www.rocket-courier.com/Top Stories/topnews2.html Remembering Sullivan's March through Region 225 Years Ago This Summer "In the spring of 1779, George Washington faced a dilemma. While his Continental Army kept watch over the main British force based in New York City, he was forced to deal with the Indian and Tory threat to his rear. On July 3, 1778, an enemy force of approximately 1,000 Iroquois and Tories under the command of Major John Butler culminated a summer of terror along the North Branch of the Susquehanna River with an assault on the fertile Wyoming Valley. The Wyoming Valley Massacre claimed an estimated 160 to 320 lives. Washington’s solution was to split his force, sending nearly a third of his tiny army on a punitive raid into Iroquois country.....Urged to assault people of “every age, sex and condition,” the Iroquois were willing allies of the British.....Many of the captives were brutally murdered in captivity by the Iroquois leader Queen Esther. In the aftermath, Butler’s Indians claimed taking 227 scalps, while Col. Nathan Denison of the Connecticut militia reported 301 dead...."
Well, this would take some research to really evaluate, but at the very least, this was in direct retaliation for terrorist acts committed by the Iroquois against the European settlers first. From: http://www.rocket-courier.com/Top Stories/topnews2.html Remembering Sullivan's March through Region 225 Years Ago This Summer "In the spring of 1779, George Washington faced a dilemma. While his Continental Army kept watch over the main British force based in New York City, he was forced to deal with the Indian and Tory threat to his rear. On July 3, 1778, an enemy force of approximately 1,000 Iroquois and Tories under the command of Major John Butler culminated a summer of terror along the North Branch of the Susquehanna River with an assault on the fertile Wyoming Valley. The Wyoming Valley Massacre claimed an estimated 160 to 320 lives. Washington’s solution was to split his force, sending nearly a third of his tiny army on a punitive raid into Iroquois country.....Urged to assault people of “every age, sex and condition,” the Iroquois were willing allies of the British.....Many of the captives were brutally murdered in captivity by the Iroquois leader Queen Esther. In the aftermath, Butler’s Indians claimed taking 227 scalps, while Col. Nathan Denison of the Connecticut militia reported 301 dead...."
The point is that Sullivan's march was a terror campain (ordered by Washington). from your link: Now, whether or not it was justified terror.. well that's just depends on the perspective one chooses to look at it.
