It seems there are many rebellions in the modern age where the rebellions succeed in overthrowing the existing government and then fail to establish a stable government in the end which got me thinking: what caused america to turn a rebellion of colonies to one of the most influential superpowers of the last century? Was there any one thing or combination of things they did right or was it just dumb luck?
I started thinking about this because of the 4th celebrations and how it seemed most rebellions seem to end in either another dictator or more sectarian violence while the US just seemed to "make it" in terms of country status.
In On Revolution, Hannah Arendt contrasts the results of the French and American revolutions.
I think the centre of her argument are the following interrelated reasons:
She also emphasises the constitutionalism of the Republic's founders. They were greatly interested in historic examples of constitutions. This helped them write a fairly well-balanced constitution, and then allowed the constitution to be implanted as the fundamental source of legitimacy and authority for the new state (there's a strong element of 'founding myth' here).
By contrast, France had a huge, impoverished peasant class, plus a complex and overweening state and social hierarchy. The challenge of improving the standard of living and replacing this state was much greater. The revolutionaries also failed to create a stable source of legitimacy and authority - they ended up appealing to the 'popular will', which Arendt argues caused all manner of problems.
Arendt's argument probably makes sense, but I do find it dispiritingly conservative - essentially the American revolution succeeded because the country was already in a good position, and the revolution didn't aim to change all that much.
Some other things I'd add:
The American revolution was supported by France, one of the two greatest world powers. However after the revolution France was not, as far as I know, particularly able or interested in meddling in the US for its own ends.
Fairly soon after the American revolution, the French revolution and Napoleonic wars diverted British attention (edit: not that the Americas weren't a site of conflict, but North America was on the periphery). Contrast this with revolutions in the 20th century which have rarely been able to pass off without a strong and generally negative influence from at least one of the superpowers.
Many revolutions have land reform as a core goal. Land reform is almost always an extremely difficult and bitter process for a society, more so than industrial reform. In North America land was one thing that was available in abundance.