I think the best way to answer this question is actually to start with one one of your examples of revolution ending in "dictatorship," the English Civil War and the later Glorious Revolution (which are, importantly, two very distinct events, although they are certainly related), and challenge your premise a bit. First of all, Britain has had a Parliament since the Middle Ages, and while in its early centuries its power fluctuated quite a bit relative to the monarch, it did represent a real system of shared power between the executive and the legislative. Even leading up to the Civil War, then, one could not entirely discount the role of Parliament in governing Britain.

Second, while it is true that Cromwellian England was not by any means what one would call a democratic republic, the Civil War was fought to a great extent over the question of the power of Parliament in relation to the monarch, and indeed the Parliamentarians won the Civil War and executed Charles I (although as we all know the monarchy was restored to Charles II in 1660). Furthermore, most of the Parliamentarians, or Roundheads, weren't initially seeking the end of monarchy itself, mostly the end of Charles I, and Parliament even offered Cromwell the crown in 1657, although he rejected it. So yes, the war didn't result in the creation of a democratic republic or even a constitutional monarchy, but in context the temporary abolition of the monarchy in favor of republicanism–if in name only–is actually fairly significant in the long political story of power shared between the legislature and the executive.

The tension between Parliament and the Crown did not dissipate with the Restoration, and came to a head with the Glorious Revolution. The result of the Revolution, as you may be aware, was the English Bill of Rights, which established a constitutional monarchy in Britain. To say that the Revolution resulted in a dictatorship would probably be misleading. First of all, the terms "dictatorship" and "monarchy" are not perfectly congruent descriptive terms for political regimes. A monarchy may be absolute but it may not be accurate to call it a dictatorship. Second, as I've done my best to demonstrate, it wouldn't even be correct to call the monarchy in Britain "absolute." The British monarchy has been evolving and changing for centuries, with a trend of decreasing power relative to parliament, and some of the most important changes occurred during the seventeenth century.

But what does all of this have to do with the reason for why the fledgling United States did not become a tyranny? Well, to put it simply, there's a strong case to be made that the US owes much of its democratic legacy to British institutions. To be sure, American colonial institutional innovations preceded British ones in some respects. For example, the Virginia House of Burgesses–the first elected assembly in the colonies–was established in 1619 (ironically also the year that 20 Africans were forcibly brought to the shores of Virginia and sold into slavery for the first time in the colonies). The House of Burgesses, as Eric Foner notes, was hardly democratic (and the ultimate colonial authority was a governor responsible to the Virginia Company and then later the Crown, not the legislature), but, like Parliament, it meant something in terms of the separation between the executive and legislative powers. Legislative assemblies also developed in New England. When the English Civil War happened, some of the colonies sided with Parliament (in New England), some with the monarchy (in Virginia). This meant that the debate over parliamentary and monarchical power that arose in England likewise arose in the colonies, embedding certain ideas about government in colonial life. Around the time of the Glorious Revolution, the Crown tried (and in some cases succeeded) to impose colonial governors on the New England colonies, which had not had them up until then. The New Englanders, with their notions of self-government and liberty, were not very amenable to these Crown gestures. Foner suggests that while colonial assemblies were weak in the 17th century, and subject often to the will of colonial governors, they began to assert their powers more in the 18th century, taking some inspiration from the increasing power of the House of Commons.

In sum, the political institutions that developed in the colonies borrowed in many ways from the structure of the English government, and the political culture of the colonies was affected by changes that occurred in England. This all brings us to an important point, and I am moving from the field of history to the field of political science to help explain it––practice with self-government matters, and the longer a community works to develop stable democratic political institutions, the more likely such institutions are to be successful. Robert Dahl, a political scientist, theorizes in his book Polyarchy that the most successful path to democracy lies through what he calls "competitive oligarchy," which means rule by an elite that involves some form of legitimate public contestation for power. This was exactly what took place in the American colonies for nearly two centuries before the American Revolution. Land-owning local elites competed for office in elective assemblies that, while not democratic in themselves, were critical to the later development of democratic institutions after independence was achieved. Under the aegis of the British Crown, the American colonists practiced self-rule. Self-government in the fledgling United States did not emerge spontaneously. It was the culmination of a historical process of the political development of democratic institutions (although it is deeply important to remember that many political scientists agree that the US did not become a fully realized democracy until 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act).

In his work, Dahl places a strong emphasis on elite behavior, which is very useful here. He basically says that if elites behave in a way that suggests to the public that they are committed to democracy, then democracy has a better chance of flourishing. In other words, if the founders had ignored the words of the constitution, American democracy wouldn't have lasted very long. Because they valued what they thought of as democracy, the founders played (more or less) by the rules of the system they set up. This helped consolidate the (quasi-)democratic regime.

The answer to your question then, of why the United States didn't become a tyranny, is a combination of a historical legacy of separated powers, the development of legitimate public competition and the practice of self-government among a local elite, and that elite's commitment to democratic ideas after independence was achieved. In France, on the other hand, where there was much less history of separated powers (the estates-general had not met for well over a century before the Revolution), and little opportunity for local elites to practice self-government, it makes sense that there was an eventual slide back to absolute rule. There was a Republican constitution, but because the factors that lead to democratic consolidation in the colonies weren't there, it was little more than a piece of paper and was rewritten and suspended multiple times. It's also worth noting that the American colonists basically began from scratch when they landed on American shores, a unique historical circumstance where the colonists (who were often wealthy and educated) were able to write their own destinies (although we cannot ignore the genocide they carried out against natives in the process).

I hope this is of some help. It's my first answer for the subreddit and I hope it doesn't get taken down!

Edit: As a final note I should probably say this is by no means the singular answer to the question. The founders at least publicly were very concerned with tyranny (after all it was the main justification for rebelling in the first place!) so there may be supplemental answers to be found in their private correspondences or public statements. I do think, however, that the bird's eye view of the historical and political factors that lead the fledgling United States not to fall under absolutist or dictatorial rule (especially as compared with France) is of crucial importance.

Sources:

Tim Harris, "Revisiting the Causes of the English Civil War"

Beat Kümin, editor, The European World: 1500-1800

Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History

Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy

William Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution