Initial Thoughts On History

I forgot to include my original thought on history that led to all of this:

If we had people in an area controlled by the US that were fighting against the United States, what would we consider those people to be? (Think about areas like Puerto Rico - no representation that I can think of, but I'm pretty sure we don't tax them. That is our agreement, I think. We don't give them the authority we give states, we don't give them representation or allow them to vote, but at least we don't tax them. At least if my facts are straight.) Would we consider them an army, or does an "army" need to be the fighting force of a recognized nation other than the nation it is fighting? Would we consider them a militia, or does a "militia" require some specific organization or some specific recognition? At our specific point in history, I think we would consider them terrorists.

If I am true in my assumption, then how are we to view the origin of the United States? I was always taught that the "Colonists" (meaning the non-Loyalists) won because they weren't confined to fighting like an army. And, except for some specific battles, they weren't organized enough to call them a militia, if that requires organzization. The tactics that the Colonists used (take for instance the Boston Tea Party) would be considered acts of terrorism nowadays.

So, I must have something wrong. Maybe my facts are wrong. Maybe I'm missing some key piece of evidence. Maybe I have to admit some form of cultural relativism over time within the same culture. I hope these are the case. Otherwise we need to redefine "terrorism" or rewrite our history books so that George Washington is called a "terrorist" instead of a "hero." Maybe England has already changed its history books to say as much.