Without exception, the lasting legacy and impact of these events was in pressure exerted on various US governmental agencies or the State governments. Not in their overthrow and replacement, which was not even the intention.
Shay's Rebellion is the literal reason the United States government exists in its current form, and John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was an attempt to liberate slaves and start an armed rebellion against the United States of America.
Yes. Pressuring politicians to enact policy, exactly. D'you actually understand what I was arguing?
I understood you perfectly. Not my problem you have to move the goalposts now that I've brought actual examples of historical rebellions, insurrections, and attempts of such against the US government that effected policy change. Because your argument was:
1. People never desire to actually rebel, but rather protest.
2. Protest has better success than violent rebellion.
Neither are actually correct, and even in the cases you
might employ to justify the second, there was still the implicit or explicit threat of violence forcing those in power to elect for non-violent reform. Everybody wants to remember Gandhi and King, but memory hole, co-opt memory of, or downplay the role of Singh, Hamptonm, or Malcolm X. Why might that be?
I'm unsure why you're asking me, to be frank, because it sounds to me like you've fundamentally misunderstood what I'm arguing, or written in your own stand-in to argue against.
No just sounds like you're trying to weasel around again.