'Forgotten' terms.

Sometimes, we can become 'more clear' about something, when we resurrect 'forgotten' terms like, 'revolution'. Its a known fact that America was established on the 'results' of a Revolution. The way we got to that 'position' was by way of 'founding' a 'New' Country in a 'new' Land.. Of course, some will say, the Indian already had possession of the 'New Land'. That's true, in a way, yet, I very much wish there was better historical data to clearly delineate the establishment of government in this new continent. It seems that the 'white settlers' were as 'heinous' towards the Indian as the Indian was to the 'white settlers'. Yet, the revolution was against the King, who was in Europe, and who wanted to govern the Colonies, not the Indian. America was a new Land; there was not an 'already established' government in the Land. It, the whole Land, was only occupied in part, but it was not governed as a whole. The early colonists wanted to establish a 'government' to govern the 'whole Land', and when the Articles failed because of quibbling between the States, they convened the Constitutional Convention. Once 'free' of the control of the King, America was free to establish Constitutional government over the 'whole' of the land;(at that time and after the Civil war), namely, a government "of People", "by People", and "for People". And here is the distinction that needs to be drawn; in todays world, there are no longer any 'ungoverned Lands'. Hence, the term "revolution" becomes problematic. But, the Constitutional Right of 'assembly' is allowed in a democracy. And, 'properly applied', this is just a rejuvenation of that 'forgotten' term, "revolution". The question is always, in those Countries where revolutions flourish, did they start as "assemblies"; if they did, they're legitimate.