Question Home

Position:Home>History> Did 'terrorism' result in the independence of America?


Question: Did 'terrorism' result in the independence of America!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
There were some acts that the revolutionaries engaged in which could be fairly described as terrorism--loyalists were abused and driven from their homes, and there were some killings--but there was no overall program of causing terror among civilians!. The war was essentially won by the colonists keeping it going until the British realized it was costing them more than they were willing to pay!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

While the 'patriots' engaged in acts that by today's standards could only be called terrorism, this did not result in independence!. Independence for the thirteen colonies resulted from French military intervention!. The acts of Campbell, Lynch, Marion, Pickens and Sumter, to name a few, merely served to depopulate the colonies without achieving any strategic decision!.

Without French intervention, the critical battle of Yorktown (1781), which reduced British military efforts in the colonies from success to stalemate, would either not have occurred or would have, in the absence of the French army and fleet, have pitted 7,000+ well-supplied British troops against 6,000 or so poorly-supplied Continental ones with little or no militia backup!. It is hard to see the Carolinas partisan groups lasting very long once Virginia had been taken (and Greene's army taken out)!.

The straight answer to the question is therefore: no!. French military success resulted in the independence of the Thirteen Colonies: most of the rest of America would have to wait until similarly sanguinary conflicts had evicted Spanish rule!. (Canada sensibly waited for independence in its own time, and seems to have had the happiest and least conflict-prone history of all the Americas!.)Www@QuestionHome@Com

it was the exact same type of warfare as the French used against the English in the French and Indian war!. The Guerrilla activities were exactly like those used by the Amerindians against anyone that they fought!.

No, the colonials didn't run into schools with explosives and kill little children as the primary target, they fought against soldiers!. Now, the British did do some things to the civilian population that would qualify as terrorism though!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Guerrilla warfare is how the redcoats got torn up!. Terrorism has been a tactic used by people for awhile!. Might not of been called the same but incite terror in the people as a form of resistance is old school!. Wiki says terrorism comes from the french world meaning "reign of terror"

Viva la Revolucion!
Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!.

Terrorism of today was far different than the conclusions you are drawing!. And the revolution was actually a war, hence 'The Revolutionary War'!.

This raises a larger philosophical question- is the difference between a noble war and an act of cowardly terrorism simply a matter of which side you are on!?

Well the answer is in the cause!. And that my friend, all comes down to what you believe!.

But no, it was a craftily fought war!.

Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!. The Revolutionary War was not an example of terrorism!. Terrorists main goal is to scare people into changing their lives or live in fear!. Our founding fathers were fighting for freedom not trying to scare people!.
With that said had we lost the Revolutionary war the men we now know as our founding fathers would have been killed for treason!. I will admit that throughout the war the Revolutionary Army was not very nice to the torry sympathizers!. I wouldn't call that terrorism though because that happens in every war and it has never before been described as terrorism so I believe that definition would be unfair!.

So Ultimately I would say that the United States was not founded on Terrorism!. It was founded on several aspects of freedom and the unalienable human rights that our founding fathers believed in!. This country was created to be a democracy and it has work pretty well so far!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

"The difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in the reason for which each fights!. For whoever stands by a just cause and fights for the freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, the settlers and the colonialists, cannot possibly be called terrorist"

but then that was said by Yasir Arafat, head of the PLO (November 1974)!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

,One mans terrorist is another mans patriot,
the British kept the best and surrendered the rest, take a look over the border to Canada, then look over your other border at whats coming, if you let carpet bagger's and exploiters run your country expect to be ruled by a closet Muslim, those carpets may well have to face east!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The difference between a terrorist and a patriot is a loser and a winner!.

America became independent so it was patriotism, not terrorism, which won the day!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

no!. independence came because the colonists were sick of being taxed and under the british rule!. so they fought for independence and won!. terrorists had nothing to do with it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes
The Boston and New York Tea parties which helped lead to the Revolution were acts of terrorism!.
Obviously they do not compare to the extremes of today, but it's the same idea!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes it did!.The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons!. pretty much sums it upWww@QuestionHome@Com

The independence of America was the reaction of the colonists to British tyranny!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

i would say yes, if u mean insurgency type warfare at least in the early part of american independence before Americans could really gather large armies, Www@QuestionHome@Com

The british armies burned cities like New York to the Ground so that is a definite YES! it was used!.Www@QuestionHome@Com