From the perspective of the Native Americans, the Loyalists, and the
uncommitted, the Revolutionists were certainly an "invading army".  But
that "invading army" did indeed represent the "grass roots" which is clear
from the post-Revolutionary efforts to set up the unique form of government
that fathered a world-leading nation.  And, that "invading army" did not
fire the first shot (or so it's said), nor did it take the battle to Great
Britain's soil, just the colonies in contest.

Seems to me that among the many revolutions in the many nations over recent
centuries, the American Revolution was unique in it's ability to establish
a stable, lasting government by and for the people. Historians may
disagree, but my perception is that most revolutions have resulted in
unstable governments that required another revolution or two to make it
work, and that would have been the likely outcome if the US Army had not
been successful in putting down the rebellion.

                                         Anne



At 01:32 PM 2/20/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Ahem. I think that what we colonists did in 1776 when we began to "secede"
>from England was also considered illegal.
>Were the fighting Revolutionists an "invading army"?
>Deane Mills
>York COunty VA

Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html