I see what you’re saying but IMO this sentiment is eurocentric and fails to understand the contradictions that drive class society in North America. It also implies that socialism requires genocide and ecocide in order to develop when in reality it is anti colonial, and the US unchaining itself from the throne absolutely was reactionary in that sense. In fact, it has ensured the survival of colonial society as it usurped the colonial powers, rendering the weakening of the British superfluous as its former colonies were again trapped into neocolonial conditions. It would have been better if it fell apart the way it was, without an independent, vigilante nation like the US to continue the colonial legacy of capitalist development. And yes, colonialism was a capitalist development already even with the British crown, thus framing it as a Aristocracy - - - > Bourgeoisie = Progress is oversimplified and idealistic.

This is not a moral statement either. The American revolution is only progressive if you dismiss the class societies of Indigenous peoples and contradictions driving their development for a more familiar and watered down eurocentric discourse.

The inadequacy of framing the American revolution as progressive can be seen in the class development that is fostered here as well. That being classes of embourgiousieified workers and colonizers that are parasites on humanity (this also is not a moral statement). IMO If this notion was correct then socialist revolution would have been more likely than it actually was historically, and than it is today.