Liberty Bell

I had a discussion the other day with a friend (I’ll call him "Tom" to keep him apart) about terrorism. Tom was having troubles with a friend of his, "Jon", on the same topic. Jon was trying to convince Tom that early patriotic Americans had been terrorists, and because of that should not be hunting/killing Middle East terrorists. Tom ended up very confused and asked me a few historical questions ‘cause I’m the history geek. Most of them were covering the Sons of Liberty. Jon had used them as an example of American terrorism. 

Some historical information on the Sons of Liberty:

1. They took their name from a debate on the Stamp Act in Parliament in 1765. Charles Townshend, speaking in support of the act, spoke contemptuously of the American colonists as being "children planted by our care, nourished up by our indulgence…and protected by our arms." Then Isaac Barre, a Member of Parliament and supporter of the American colonists, responded by describing the Americans as "these Sons of Liberty" and warned that they would resist the new tax.

2. Although the origins are unknown, the Sons of Liberty was most likely started in 1765 by Samuel Adams

3. The first, and largest, branches were in Boston and New York City

4. The Sons of Liberty groups tended to meet late at night so as not to attract the attention of British officials and the American Loyalist supporters of the British Crown.

5. The Sons of Liberty worked with Committees of Correspondence. The "Committees" were colonial groups established for the purpose of formally organizing public opinion and coordinating patriotic actions against Great Britain.

6. Patriot mobs did attack gentlemen’s homes, Customs officers, East India Company tea, and vocal supporters of the Crown. They did not commit murder.

7. British authorities and their supporters considered the Sons of Liberty rebels, and referred to them as "Sons of Violence" and "Sons of Iniquity." Latter-day historians have called them terrorists, a word coined during the French Revolution gaining new meanings in recent decades.

Jon was saying (summarized version) that since the Sons of Liberty had used violence (unlawful) that harmed both British people and property they were terrorists.

In my opinion terrorism is: trying to intimidate or force people - usually for political reasons - by an unlawful use of violence harmful to people and/or property. Not a dictionary definition format and clarity, but I think it covers everything.

So a terrorist would be someone who: intimidates or forces people - usually for political reasons…

And that is why I do not agree with Jon’s statement that the Sons of Liberty were terrorists. They broke Britian’s rules. They harmed some people and property. For goodness sake, it turned into a WAR! But they fought for freedom. For freedom of religion and speech, in the hopes it would be handed down through generations. In a way, it was for the same freedom that allowed Jon to call them terrorists - because the freedom they handed down allowed the right to all viewpoints.