The way you phrased your comment can only lead to arguing semantics of the word “terrorist”. As risk to the establishment, a “subversive” can always be framed as a terrorist with a little bit of creativity.
Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?
I totally agree. These bloody modern terrorists, not sharing our views and customs. Bet they don't even play cricket. Very uncouth. You'd think that half of them had grown up in a war zone or something, the way they go on. Pass the gin.
Not like the old historic terrorists, no, those lot had style. They were on our side for one thing, made us a lot of money in the long run. And they look bloody good in paintings. Oh look, the gins run out. I'll go find some rum.
I don't think that Betty Williams or Mairead Maguire could be described as extremists, John Hume and David Trimble were not at the extreme end of their respective sides in the conflict either. 'Folk dancers', well if you feel happy about that comment thats up to you.
Yes it's odd how afterwards there were no terrorists, they had been no civil war and yet a few politicians an arms length from the Armalites all got Nobel Prizes for solving a problem that never happened.
There was the 20% of the population that actively opposed the revolution many of whom were attacked had their property seized and were eventually forced to move to Canada. As well as the majority who really just wanted everything to carry on peacefully
Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!
A partisan wouldn't find it hard to call what happened after the war as a sort of ethnic cleansing, though more on political lines than ethnic.
On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies.
This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause.
Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.
If 100% of the population was on-board, then who did they rise up against? Even if it's a single leader, he/she is still part of the population of a country.
