Were they peasants or land owning gentry?
Most of the enlightenment-era revolutions in Europe were the newly minted mercantile rich overthrowing the old medieval rich and the Church of Rome. The US revolution was the colonial rich throwing off the yoke of the British crown and its taxes.
Class turnover is often a good thing.
The results of the communist revolutions, especially in Russia, would beg to differ. Instead of being oppressed by the monarchy like they were before, the common people were then oppressed by the soviets. Whoop-de-do. You still have a gun to your head it's just who's behind the trigger that's different.
Would you also apply this logic today? As in, would like a new class turnover in the country you live in hopes to fix the rampant wealth inequality?
Because I don't think the poor would end up killing and robbing the likes of Trump, Biden, Zuckerberg, Bezos or Musk, but most likely the likes of you and me.
Getting new management isn't always a good idea. The rich have the resources to move their wealth and be welcomed somewhere safe like Switzerland or Monaco, while only the poor have to suffer the consequences of the uprising.
But anyways, the real point to be made is that it's not the peasants that revolted. But a bunch of merchants from NE that were unhappy about giving the crown money.