I would like to point out a quick note that things can get messy with terminology: as it was a ‘civil’ conflict at first, terms like ‘partisan group’ comes to mind. Then, after independence, anachronistic requisites would have it be that they were at war; I’d check out the letters between Germaine and Howe(authorized peace commissioner) to get a better idea of how the ‘rebels were viewed AT THAT TIME, both by the government and military of Britain.

Terrorism is in many ways a very modern concept, even if the ideas behind it are old. Its a hard term to match to 18th century ideals, where rebellion and Nationalism was fomenting all across the world.

We can stretch it, especially with the Boston Tea Party; the patriots would tar and feather loyalists, which is certainly a ‘fear’ tactic. But at no point did the British consider them to be anything more than ‘rebels’ - again, check correspondence between parliament and colonial military government, and between the king. They thought of them as upstarts, a few scruffly backwoods rebels out to seize power for themselves.

As for the patriots? They saw their actions as justified(as did many in Britain). While their techniques could be brutal - vandalizing Tory homes, ostracizing families who didn’t support the cause, aforementioned tar and feather - they had a specific goal in mind: freedom. Today, ‘terrorist groups’ and ‘freedom fighters’ are often mixed in as one. Furthermore, in some sense, terrorism has been enabled by the proliferation of a globalized world. Terrorists know and exploit that. So it’s really difficult to ascribe a term so laden with modern connotation to something from the 18th century, though it’s not impossible to see the similarities.