Was the American Revolution an act of Terrorism?

              Perspective is important when trying to decipher history. It is very important that we view the events of yesterday in a sense that leaves our biases out of the equation. There are many events in history that are clouded by the predispositions we have. The events are either too close to our hearts for us to be impartial, too far away to understand, or have our prejudices forced upon them. One such event that can be misinterpreted because it holds a special place in every American’s heart is the American Revolution. The American Revolution is taught in American schools as the thirteen colonies uniting and defeating a tyrannical king, but were the actions of the colonist’s terrorism by nature? To answer that question we must look at a different perspective on the American Revolution.

The first thing we must look at when determining if the colonists were terrorists is the British definition of terrorism. It is important to look at the British definition of terrorism in the 18^th century because we want to see if the actions of the colonists were considered terrorism in the eyes of the British and not our own eyes. The British did not have a definition of terrorism like ours today, but had a specific “code of conduct” to follow for civil and military affairs. Even though Britain didn’t have a definition of what a terrorist is there are parallels between what we do with terrorists nowadays and what the British did with deviant behavior during the American Revolution.

Deviance is defined by Robert Keel of the Sociology department of the University of Missouri as, “a negotiated order. Deviance violates some groups assumptions about reality (social order). It violates expectations” (Keel, 2007). There are many examples in which the British dismissed the actions of the American government as deviant. They viewed the acts as something that didn’t conform to the norms of society. Society’s norms are usually defined by the most influential people; in this case it’s Britain because it was the most dominant/powerful nation in the world. The question is: Do these acts of deviance constitute terrorism in the eyes of the British? There are two acts of deviance that were predominant in the American Revolution that are closely related to the terrorism that we are facing today: the privateering of vessels to act as the American Navy and the tactic of Asymmetrical warfare.

                 The act of privateering American vessels to fight the war was seen to the British as a violation of the norms of combat. As Jesse Lemisch of George Mason’s University says, “it compensated for that weakness at sea by engaging in a very effective form of legalized piracy called privateering. Privateers were denounced by the British in ways that resonate with the denunciation of terrorists that we hear these days” (Lemisch, 2002). Privateers were sanctioned pirates that were given authority by the Continental Congress. They would attack a British ship and steal its goods and split it amongst themselves as a way to deplete British supply lines.

This was America’s way to counter the British and their powerful Navy. The parallel situation that America faces today, and calls terrorism, is the Somali pirates that have attacked ships near Africa. Although different in practice because American privateers attacked British ships and not civilians, the same theory of deviance applies because of the nature of the atypical behavior. Americans also used another tactic which the British thought was deviant: Asymmetrical warfare.

                Asymmetrical warfare is a type of fight in which one side, usually the weaker side, uses an unconventional type of warfare. An example of unconventional warfare is the Viet Cong’s use of hit, run, and blend into the community.  The American Revolution was the first war in the modern era in which this style was used. This style was very different than the normal line formation that standard militaries used at the time. America used a combination of guerilla warfare and line warfare and was very effective. The hit and run of guerilla warfare was very demoralizing to the British Regulars.

Francis Marion aka The Swamp Fox

 Francis Marion was the figure head of this type of warfare. If you have ever seen the movie The Patriot, he was the basis for the character Mel Gibson portrayed. According to Amy Crawford of the Smithsonian Magazine, “Though often outnumbered, Marion's militia would continue to use guerilla tactics to surprise enemy regiments, with great success…Marion and his followers played the role of David to the British Goliath." Line formations were still the normal way of combat until WWI, so it is safe to say that Francis Marion was thinking outside the box. The guerrilla type warfare was labeled by the British as unconventional and they tried very hard to capture Marion. This is similar to the war in Iraq where American soldiers are attacked by Iraqi militias with unconventional means and are labeled as terrorists.

We cannot define the American Revolutionaries actions as terrorism but a deviant act. The connection between the American Revolutionaries and terrorism is not the acts themselves but the nature in which the British saw those acts. American Revolutionaries did not attack innocent British civilians; they attacked British combatants/supplies in a way that was contrary to the normal type of warfare for the period. Although there are parallels between the current terrorism situation and the American Revolution it would be unfair to judge the past based on our perception. 

References

Crawford, Amy. The Smithsonian Magazine (2007) The Swamp Fox. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/biography/fox.html

Keel, Robert. University of Missouri (2007) Introduction to the Sociology of Deviance. Retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/intrdev.html

Lemisch, Jesse. George Mason’s University- History News Network (2002). Privateering, the American Revolution, and the Rules of War: The United States Was Born in "Terrorism" and Piracy. Retrieved from http://hnn.us/articles/915.html