"What Was America's First Terrorist Threat?" Topic

"So great was the problem posed by the state-sponsored piracy that the Barbary nations are mentioned explicitly in the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, a 1778 pact between France and the United States [source: Yale]. The treaty calls on France to use its diplomatic powers to protect captured sailors and persuade the leaders of the Barbary nations to refrain from capturing American ships.

This treaty was hammered out largely by Benjamin Franklin. He served as one of the United States' first diplomats and was succeeded as America's ambassador to France by Thomas Jefferson in 1785 [source: National Archives]. The U.S. was deeply allied with France because its relations with another superpower -- England -- were shaky at best. It was from Paris that Jefferson began a campaign against the Barbary States…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

First terrorist threat was Indian raids.

I wouldn't class American Indians or First Nations peoples in North America as 'terrorists.'

War was their way of life, and it was being practiced long before the first Europeans landed in the Americas.

And they were fighting for the survival of their own tribes…

The citizens of Deerfield might beg to differ…

Terrorists? No. Native Americans were fighting for their homes against an implacable enemy who saw them as something less than human. I would consider them guerilla fighters, resisting in the only way they could.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I guess the Indians found out what happens if you don't defend your borders from foreign colonist.

The Native Americans were killing each other long before any Europeans showed up. And even after that they continued to kill each other. I'm not saying the Europeans were pure, but there was plenty of cruelty to go around on all sides.

Vikings, then?

Vikings were just a little earlier than the founding of the United States.

War…of course the Indians waged war against other tribes and against the colonists but the manner they waged that war is what is at issue. Attacking and either killing or taking women and children into slavery was deemed as much acts of terrorism in the 18th century as they are today.

The first truly American terrorists would've been the mobs led by the Committees of Safety that burned down the homes of government officials, threatened. assaulted or even murdered those that disagreed with the American rebellion and drove tens of thousands of Loyalist refugees out of the country.

One Fly Boy down…second RANT in a week from him…Enuff!

Brechtel, Extrabio and ONState have it just about right!

Well, I have to agree with Glengarry here – those rascals who dumped tea in the harbour and assailed the legally appointed representatives of their sovereign King were the first American terrorists – although they had the ultimate justification (i.e. they won)

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Terrorism tends to be the covert infliction of violence with a wider political objective beyond the military sphere, otherwise it is just bsd behaviour.

Were the Barbary pirates terrorists, or privateers and, well, pirates?

Although they were defending their land and I would not classify them as terrorists, I would not want to be captured by Indians in the 18th century nor be on the losing side of battles they were the victors in such as the Wabash or Monongahela.

The Indian threat was terrorist. They targeted the civilian population. Who cares if they were defending their land? They did it by raiding the enemy population, targeting women and children. Terrorists. Sorry if that is Poliitically Incorrect but it is the case.

That's true. Like I said I would not want to be on the losing side at the Monongahela or Wabash. Bad things would be coming my way if Indians got their hands on me alive.

The Indian threat was terrorist. They targeted the civilian population. Who cares if they were defending their land? They did it by raiding the enemy population, targeting women and children. Terrorists. Sorry if that is Poliitically Incorrect but it is the case.

Nope-that was the Indian way of war. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The study of history, however, does. And the Indians would attack anyone with the intent of annihilation and that was for self-preservation.

You cannot judge people who lived in an entirely different era by the norms of the twenty-first century. That is not only historically inaccurate, it is illogical.

You might want to take a look at a new Osprey by Rene Chartrand: Raiders of New France. It was recently published. Chartrand is an excellent historian and his work is a major contribution to historical scholarship.

link

Agree with Kevin…Europeans didn't target (Indian)civil population?… come on!.

Amicalement
Armand

The citizens of Deerfield might beg to differ…

The raids out of French Canada into the English colonies were usually, if not always, led by Frenchmen.

The Indian way of war was terrorist. I do indeed have Chartrtand's new book, and it is good. And I agree that "terrorist" is a modern term. But the threat was felt all along the frontier, and was incapable of being defended against by normal means. (Capturing Louisburg might have worked . . . .) American society developed in the face of a pervasive threat to the civilian population from raiders who did not respect the distinction between combatant and non-combatant. Terrorists.

You're using modern terms to define a method of warfare over 200 years ago. The Indians were not ideological and were not terrorists. They were also fighting for their own existence.

That was Indian warfare on the frontier and they waged a war of annihilation against their enemies. And the Indians also had allies among the Europeans who learned to fight as they did in a very hostile environment.

It wasn't terrorism it was their method of waging war. Again, you have to judge them by their own standards and mores-not those of the present day.

So do we judge every culture by its own standards and mores? I don't think you want to do that.

So when there is war between two cultures with incompatible customs and mores, who do we support?

Do we judge PolPot and the Khmer Rouge by their own customs and mores?

OR, do we in fact JUDGE their customs and mores. Like the British did when they suppressed suttee in India.

I would say it is not a question of judging, far less of support when we are discussing history. It's a question accurate analysis and identification.

The Native American violence against the European frontier settlements wasn't calculated and selected from a series of options.

Indian warfare wasn't always a question of annihilation; it could feature a strong ritual element and prisoners were taken, either to trade or to replace population losses, even to substitute lost family members.

It would seem, however, that in the face of unrelenting encroachment, or actual annihilation, attacks were more determined and remorseless but the spectrum of violence was as it had always been. There were elements of anger, fear and grief that might also determine the intensity of the violence. Mourning rituals in particular could produce particular ferocity.

To its victims the violence may have been terrifying and it did of course include a desire to terrorize but this might also be said of war paint and war cries. It does not mean that Native American warfare was 'terrorist.'

Terrorists knowingly and deliberately trangress accepted bounds of violence, to generate anxiety and dismay, in both the civil and miltary population, in order to draw attention to a cause and promote political decisions in favour of that cause.

The Native Americans were simply waging war as they had been doing for generations. The difference was the level of threat they faced.

Well, you write your definition and then find the Indians' warfare outside of it. I think your definition lacks a longer-term historical perspective.

The Native Americans were simply waging war as they had been doing for generations. The difference was the level of threat they faced.

Excellent summary-very well done.

Yes. The Indians faced an existential threat -- in fact their destruction as a culture was inevitable from the arrival of germs from Europe -- and so their normal mode of warfare, which made some sense against other tribes, was not just ineffective but counter-productive. Cultures can gain respect for one another through "fair fights." But a society that is so weak in comparison to its enemy -- it can USE advanced weapons but cannot MAKE them, like the Islamist terrorists and 9/11 -- can only win through subterfuge, surprise, etc. So quickly the enemy sees it cannot trust them, cannot really negotiate, can only exterminate. "The only good Indian is . . . ."

Of course the Europeans were guilty of much in their treatment of the Indians. But if every immigrant form Europe had been like St Francis of Assissi, the Indian culture would STILL have disintegrated.

That does not make them terrorists.

"you write your definition and then find the Indians' warfare outside of it."

Indeed.

Indeed.

They targeted the civilian population. Who cares if they were defending their land? They did it by raiding the enemy population, targeting women and children.

Well with a very Great Grandmother once being a captive of the Indians back during the French & Indian Wars oh her family (I.E. my relatives) were nearly all kill with only her older sister surviving along with her.

Were the Indians Terrorists? No they were not.

Now we are just arguing about words.

Indeed.

Of course the Indians were not terrorists.

Their method of warfare was raiding. A bunch of armed men turning up and doing a bit of looting, pillaging, and burning. A very old, established business. Look at the Vikings or the medieval chevauchee.

Having lived in London when the IRA were doing their stuff I can assure you that terrorism is different. Raiding lacks the covert aspect of terrorism for one thing…

Indians popping out of the woods seems pretty covert to me.

In any case, the key characteristic is the targeting of civilians. If your definition is different, to each his everlovin' blue-eyed own.

You can't tell the difference between terrorism and 18th century Indian warfare?

How many American Indians or First Nations people were willing to kill themselves in the name of their religion to achieve their goals?

I think the answer is none.

Generally speaking, they went to war for loot along with killing their enemies. That isn't terrorism.

Too many modern authors attempt to equate the historic past with what is occurring today and it isn't a logical connection.

The native First Nations records are filled with references to murder and sanctioned murder. One of the causes of the rift and civil war between the Upper and Lower Creek factions of the Muskogee tribes were the fact that towns would send out a sanctioned justice war party to kill a rival warrior. For example a war party ventures into Tenn and attacks a cabin and murder it's inhabitants. Then a rival town which had good relations with the victim s would issue a justice summons. Modern readers are pitiful in their knowledge of common practices. So no terrorist ratings for First Nations in my opinion.
A sanctioned kill warrant or cultural practice should not be considered terrorism.
So first terrorist action is almost impossible to determine. So bleeding Kansas in the 1850s would be in consideration. However the earlier extermination of Pro-French tribes in Florida by the Spanish would be a major terrorist action. As would any pirate raids on towns or ships.

J

Were the Indians Terrorists? Yes, without a doubt.

Sorry… Imho…I disagree… humans killed humans since day one… no difference between nations … no matter the Age of them….

The Indians were locals… they defend their land … same as those who beat them defend that land against other powers… who want it…

Terrorism is another thing as many fellow members point well here….

Amicalement
Armand

Also, the concepts of civilians as a protected sector of society exempt from military violence, and of war as a specialised zone of human activity governed by cultural rules or actual laws, did not really exist in tribal culture (They were fairly new in European culture).

This is interesting:

link

'Despite evidence of warfare and violent conflict in pre-Columbian North America, scholars argue that the scale and scope of Native American violence is exagerated. They contend that scholarly misrepresentation has denigrated indigenous peoples when in fact they lived together in peace and harmony. In rebutting that contention, this groundbreaking book presents clear evidence—from multiple academic disciplines—that indigenous populations engaged in warfare and ritual violence long before European contact. In ten well-documented and thoroughly researched chapters, fourteen leading scholars dispassionately describe sources and consequences of Amerindian warfare and violence, including ritual violence. Originally presented at an American Anthropological Association symposium, their findings construct a convincing case that bloodshed and killing have been woven into the fabric of indigenous life in North America for many centuries.'

'The editors argue that a failure to acknowledge the roles of warfare and violence in the lives of indigenous North Americans is itself a vestige of colonial repression—depriving native warriors of their history of armed resistance. These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life.'

This volume is more relevant to the discussion:

link

'This fascinating survey blends anthropology and military history to reexamine the European invasion of North America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Tracing conflicts beginning with King Philip's War in New England and ending with the conquest of Indians in the Old Northwest, Armstrong Strakey shows the evolution of both Indian and European warfare methods during this turbulent period.'

'Rather than considering military history as an isolated phenomenon, Starkey describes military encounters as only one aspect of a more fundamental conflict of cultures. Drawing on recent scholarship in ethnohistory, Starkey dismantles numerous stereotypes of Indian and European warriors and methods of warfare. He shows that Indians and Europeans were allies as frequently as they were enemies and that the most successful European fighters were those who adopted the Indian way of war as their own. Thus, according to the author, the story of European and Native American warfare is as much one of cultural exchanges as cultural conflict.'

From the book, page 19, Chapter Two-The Indian Way of War:

'[Indians] have no stated rules of discipline, or fixed methods of prosecuting a war; they make attacks in as many different ways as there are occasions on which they make them, but generally in a very secret skulking, underhand manner, in flying parties that are equipped for that purpose, with thin light dress, generally consisting of nothing more than a shirt, stockings, and mogasins, and sometimes almost naked.'-Major Robert Rogers.

'Indians did not need 'stated rules' such as those provided by eighteenth-century European military handbooks. The ability to exploit particular conditions was a hallmark of experienced warriors trained in the Indian way of war from as early as the age of 12 and kept honed by frequent participation in raiding parties. The rigid and inflexible discipline associated with the European armies of the era was a means by which inexperienced and unmartial peasants might be turned into soldiers. This was hardly necessary for Indian warriors who possessed the skills and discipline of modern commandos and special forces, and who were capable of adapting to whatever situation they encountered. They were masters of the 'secret, skulking' war: the raid, the ambush, and the retreat. As their clothing indicates, they were practical. Many whites came to realize that Indian clothing was superior to European uniforms and shoes. General John Forbes, leader of the march on Fort Duquesne in 1758, ordered many of his men to dress in the Indian fashion: 'I must confess in this country, wee must comply and learn the Art of War, from Enemy Indians or anyone else who have seen the Country and Warr carried on in itt.'

What should be studied is the manner in which British and American commanders emulated the Indian way of war in order to operate against them successfully, such as the Gorham brothers, Robert Rogers, Sir George Howe, and George Rogers Clark. And it went far beyond copying Indian and frontier dress.

Now we are just arguing about words.

This subject is not about semantics, but about historic fact and conclusions.

The idea that the First Nations were peaceful and were only violent due to the white man is not true. I wrote a series of articles for magazine which chronically the pre-Colombian and early contact wars with other First Nations.

First terrorist by the comments above were Americans.

I would say the subject is about semantics. Unless we have an agreed upon definition of what a terrorist or a terrorist act is applying facts to the argument is useless. It makes as much sense as knowing the operands in an equation but not the operators.

such thread is totally anachronistic
«terrorists» at the period concerned by the introduction were Parisians politicians or former French politicians…