Legal Versus Illegal Revolution

It is absolutely astounding how many educated people do not understand the difference between the French Revolution and the American one. Edmond Burke, British Member of Parliament at the time of the 1776 American Revolution, supported the American cause. He saw it as just and legal. He likened it to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In that year, the leaders in England deposed the tyrant James II and replaced him with William and Mary. It was relatively bloodless and based on the law. The Stuart kings believed in the divine right of kings and violated the laws of Parliament.
Some of Burke’s friends in the Glorious Revolution Club began to support the French Revolution of 1789. Edmond Burke wrote a book explaining the difference and showed how it was a perversion of the Glorious Revolution. He accurately predicted the tyranny that would result from it.
Friends of justice need to make the distinction. “[W]henever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [life, liberty, and property] it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” Some would argue that the French mob had a right to rebel, but they should read Edmond Burke. Men duly elected by the various states led the American Revolution. They were mostly prosperous businessmen. The French Revolution was based on class envy. That is lawless.
The French Revolution, as it progressed, resulted in dictatorships starting with Napoleon and progressing to Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and others all based on class envy.