In a June 30, 2005 broadcast of “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams,” the topic of discussion was the recently-elected Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who correspondent Andrea Mitchell reported was possibly a revolutionary during the Iranian Revolution. Mitchell gravely told Williams that the U.S. intelligence would continue to investigate Ahmadinejad’s role in the Revolution, to which Williams queried, “And what would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today that the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called ‘terrorists’ at the time by the British Crown, after all.”

In a video supposedly showing a FEMA training session for firefighters and police officers in Oklahoma City, the trainer questions: “…Who was the first terrorist organization in the United States?...The Founding Fathers. You mean Thomas Jefferson? …George Washington? Paul Revere?... Did they try to scare people? They tried to intimidate the British. …Did they try to use acts of violence? Your Founding Fathers…my Founding Fathers were involved in acts of terrorism against British (unintelligible) because they systematically had British officials assassinated. The guys who we call our Founding Fathers…George Washington, Mr. Honest, who cut down a cherry tree and admitted it, is the same guy who signed death orders, if you will, on members of the British government…” During his “Terrorism: Theirs and Ours” speech at the University of Colorado, Hampshire College Professor Eqbal Ahmad relayed this piece of history: In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men in the White House. They were very ferocious-looking bearded men with turbans, looking like they came from another century. After receiving them, President Reagan spoke to the press. He pointed towards them …and said, “These are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.” These were the Afghan Mujahiddin. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire. They were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers! Finally, in 2004, M. Shahid Alam, a professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston, wrote in his essay “America and Islam: Seeking Parallels:” On April 19, 1775, 700 British troops reached Concord, Massachusetts, to disarm the American colonists who were preparing to start an insurrection. When the British ordered them to disperse, the colonists fired back at the British soldiers. This “shot heard ‘round the world’” heralded the start of an insurrection against Britain, the greatest Western power of its time. And when it ended, victorious, in 1783, the colonists had gained their objective. They had established a sovereign, yet slave-holding republic, the United States of America. … On September 11, 2001, 19 Arab hijackers, too, demonstrated their willingness to die and to kill for what they believed was their dream. They died, so they thought, because they wanted their people to live free and in dignity. The attacks of 9-11 were in many ways, a work of daring and imagination, too, if one can think objectively of such horrors. The explosion of 9-11 was indeed a “shot heard ‘round the world.’” The parallels between the American War of Independence and the global Islamic insurgency is not exact. The colonists did not deliberately target civilians, the 19 hijackers did. Nevertheless, this difference should not obscure the more basic fact, when viewed from the perspective of the protagonists in each case, that there exists a similarity of aims. Both insurgencies seek to overthrow what they perceive to be foreign occupations. If we choose to ignore this, as most Americans have done, we may fail to arrive at a correct response to this insurgency. As these examples illustrate, in recent years American academics, mainstream media reporters and government agents have taken to comparing our Founding Fathers as terrorists. Are they correct in their comparisons? Should our Founders be equated with suicide bombers and hostagetakers?  

Would the British government and citizens have classified Washington, Jefferson and Adams as dangerous “terrorists,” if such a word had existed then? This article seeks to clarify the British view of the colonists and, more specifically, those men who started us on the road to revolution. We will meet a few of the Founding Fathers and American citizens as they were seen by the British officials, writers, and public. Somewhat surprisingly, the British held George Washington in particularly high esteem, partially because of the reputation he secured as a hero in the Seven Years’ War. The Tory Publication, the Critical Review, called Washington “very respectable” and proclaimed “we have a high opinion of this hero.” Further, although it was quite disdainful of the “rebels,” Scots Magazine concluded of Washington: “His [sic] is a man of sense and great integrity; his [sic] is polite, though rather reserved; he is now in the prime of his life, an exceeding fine figure, and a very good countenance. There is much dignity and modesty in his manner.” Finally, the British response to one particular incident reveals their opinion of Washington perfectly: General John Burgoyne, who was defeated in Saratoga in 1777, was forced to appear before the House of Commons to defend his performance in the battle. In his own defense, Burgoyne produced a letter written by General Washington regarding Burgoyne: “Far from suffering the views of national opposition to be embittered and debased by personal animosity, I am ever ready to do justice to the merit of the gentleman and the soldier; and to esteem, where esteem is due; however the idea of a public enemy may interpose.” This letter was hailed by the British public as a preferable contrast to the treatment of Burgoyne by the Commons, which originally sought to deny Burgoyne even a court martial. As a response to Washington’s letter, “The Public Advertiser summarized the public mood in a comment after reprinting the letter: ‘Let every Englishman contrast the behavior of General Washington with that of the Junto [main advisors and leaders of the North government], since General Burgoyne’s arrival.’”1 Samuel Adams, the “Father of the American Revolution,” unfortunately suffered a much more negative reputation with the British than did General Washington. Samuel Adams was vociferously against the British Intolerable Acts and was associated with (though he didn’t officially belong to) the Loyal Nine, which later grew into the Sons of Liberty. While he did not openly participate in the more violent acts in Boston in the early stages of the Revolution, it seems as if he did at least turn a blind eye, which the British no doubt saw as tacit permission. Therefore, he was considered an instigator and troublemaker for the British administrators.  

British General Thomas Gage called Adams and his compatriots “arch-rebels” who were to blame for the commencement of the Revolution. Thomas R. Eddlem of The New American Magazine writes that Adams had “been at the top of the Crown’s most wanted list for more than a year by September 1776.” Further, Eddlem describes the British view of Adams’ rhetorical skills: Tory Governor of Massachusetts Thomas Hutchinson admitted that his archrival, Samuel Adams, had acquired a power to use his writing so persuasively that it was “beyond any other man I ever knew.” Hutchinson said bitterly of Samuel Adams that “I doubt whether there is a greater incendiary in the King’s dominions.” “Every dip of his pen,” Hutchinson’s predecessor, royal Governor Francis Bernard, wrote, “stung like a horned snake.”2 Adams’ horned pen dips actually led to the first arrival of the British military in America. After the Townshend Act was put into place, Adams wrote a series of resolutions on behalf of the Massachusetts General Court “denying that Parliament had taxing power over the colonies.” The British response to Adams’ resolves was to call them “the ravings of a parcel of wild enthusiasts.” Britain insisted that the resolutions be retracted, threatening to dissolve the Massachusetts legislative body if they were not. Adams and his compatriots refused, gained other states’ support for the resolutions, and defiantly convened the legislature. Governor Bernard, overwhelmed by the rebellious Adams, called in British troops. Adams’ resolution and, subsequently, the arrival of these troops, directly led to the Boston Massacre.3 Thomas Jefferson’s rise to infamy, in the eyes of the British, began with his first public post in the General Assembly of the Virginia House of Burgesses. In 1769, Jefferson’s Assembly vocally objected to the Townshend Act. As a response, Governor Botetourt dissolved the Assembly. The men moved their meeting to a local pub where they signed an agreement to boycott imported British goods. Partially because of this boycott, Britain repealed the Townshend Act. Several years later, as a reaction to the closure of Boston’s Ports as punishment for the Tea Party, Jefferson and others in the House suggested that “the day the act went into effect should be declared ‘a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer.’ Because of this resolution, the General Assembly was again dismissed, this time by Lord Dunmore,” Botetourt’s replacement. Jefferson then penned “A Summary View of the Rights of British 

America,” which strenuously opposed the Intolerable Acts.4 For having written the pamphlet, which was re-printed in many British media sources, Jefferson had, in his own words, “the honour of having his names inserted in a long list of proscriptions enrolled in a bill of attainder commenced in one of the two Houses of Parliament.” Shortly thereafter, Jefferson wrote a “Draught of Instructions,” a rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, the document that ultimately led to open war with the mother country. The Morning Post wrote a parody of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence: When in the course of human events, pride, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and ingratitude, stimulate a subordinate community to shake off the duty and allegiances which in honor and in necessity they owe the superiority from whence they derive their existence … It is a self-evident truth that all men, tho created equal, are not intended to remain so. That, without a resignation of part of our natural liberty, we should continue in a state of ignoble barbarism, unacquainted with that pure happiness, which flows from order.5 Criticism was not only leveled at those “dangerous and ill designing men” who led the Revolution, but perhaps even more so at the “angry mobs,” citizens who participated in the protests. The Critical Review “described Bostonians as a wretched people ‘used to tarring and feathering those who have been so unhappy as to offend them.’”6 In response to the Stamp Act, the citizens of Boston burned and beheaded an effigy of tax collector Andrew Oliver, burned parts of his coach, ripped down his fence, stripped his fruit trees and broke their branches, tore down his gazebo, and smashed all of his windows. On December 16, 1765, the Loyal Nine demanded that Oliver appear under the Liberty Tree, the same tree on which they had hung his effigy, the next day at noon.  

If he appeared, the letter said, he’d be treated with respect. The letter trailed off with, “If not…” Oliver smartly assumed that more violence would appear on his doorstep if he failed to arrive. Oliver indeed arrived and tendered his resignation as tax collector. The mob also attacked the home of Governor Thomas Hutchinson, enacted boycotts of British goods, and engaged in shouting matches that directly resulted in violence from both sides. The British saw the citizens’ Boston Tea Party and Boston Massacre as provocative actions, which severely worsened relations with Britain. One Tory paper in London wrote, “These yellow shades of men are by no means fit for a conflict with our troops.” The public called Sons of Liberty hypocrites for inflicting violence, while at the same time arguing that the king had no right to retaliate. After the colonists’ victory when the Stamp Act was repealed, the Tories in America condescendingly remarked that “Every dirty fellow, just risen from his kennel, congratulated his neighbor on their glorious victory over England.”7 In King George III’s “A Proclamation, For Suppressing Rebellion And Sedition,” he declared that the colonists were being “misled by dangerous and ill designing men” to an “open and avowed rebellion” by “traitorously preparing, ordering, and levying war against” Britain. He ordered all of his officers “to bring the traitors to justice.” If King George had had access to the word “terrorism,” there is little doubt that he would have referred to the Founders as terrorists, because he saw them as radicals, violent, rebellious traitors. When President Reagan referred to the Mujahiddin, who became al Qaeda in later years, as the “moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers,” it was because they were not yet considered to be terrorists in 1985; instead, they were funded and trained by the United States in Afghanistan’s quest to expel the Soviet Union. The example of the Mujahiddin, illustrates how the meaning of the word “terrorist” depends heavily on the goals of that person who is using the term. Since there is no universally accepted definition of the word “terrorism,” and since the status of those deemed terrorists changes so rapidly, it seems inappropriate to declare that anyone is a terrorist. If the term is used arbitrarily, how do nations ever use it appropriately?

Beth M. Srigley graduated from the University of Michigan with a major in English and a minor in Political Science. She is an English teacher in Chicago and the Communications Director for Cook County Campaign for Liberty.

1 Brickman, Troy O. “Sympathizing with Sedition? George Washington, the British Press, and British Attitudes.” The William and Mary Quarterly 59, no. 1 (2002): 101-122.

2 Eddlem, Thomas R. “Father of the American Revolution: Pious, Principled, and Passionate for Liberty, Samuel Adams Championed the Cause of Independence with His Unique Ability to Communicate, Motivate, and Organize.” The New American, July 29, 2002: 33+.

3 Ibid.

4 “Thomas Jefferson.” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. 2009. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570282_2/thomas_jefferson.html (accessed May 2009).

5 Langguth, A.J. Patriots: Men Who Started the American Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. 6 Brickman. 7 Langguth.

• Freedom-liberty
• Bushs Iran War
• Justice
• Go Back

Related in this Category