Why? The US War for Independence did not include mass murder nor did the revolt that toppled the USSR. So why the ahistorical insistence that such revolts must end in mass murder?
Keep in mind that oppressive taxation is less evil than mass murder.
Gang rape is less evil than mass murder.
Murder is less evil than mass murder.
Torture is less evil than mass murder.
et al
So you're willing to submit to a totalitarian state that rapes, murders, and tortures so long as it doesn't commit mass murder because you'll bear any injustice to avoid your hypothetical strawman of 'mass murder'?
Here are some words from a violent rebel for you:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Mass murder was harder in 1775. The Iroquois raids in Cherry Vally were very cruel, and General Sullivan responded, and took a stab at mass murder of the Indians. Banastre Tarleton was pretty famous for his cruelty in the South. In response to that, many southern patriots became more cruel.
I still read comments from southern partisans who complain about what Sherman did in Georgia, though much of the damage was done by the southern army or southern deserters.
Soviet Union was all about mass murder state from day 1. Ending it was a good thing, as most people recognized at the time. I think their butcher bill was in excess of 50 million lives. That kind of thing squanders ones moral force for honest people.