The second two were tools (crucial ones, yes) that the armed, politically motivated citizen happened to have at his disposal by chance, not really the actors themselves of the political process. And Freemasons were a subset of those same politically motivated, armed citizens. Of course, they were responsible for a lot of the ideology that motivated them, but again, just as Freemasons, no, they were not the actors.
Needless to say, I wasn't restricting myself to the specific case of the US or even to the specific outcome that the US achieved. It could have gone the other way, and it would still be the case that it was the armed, motivated citizenry who had tried to uphold and defend those values and ideology, even if it failed.
The point is that it will never be a State agent the one who does it, because his loyalty is to the State, always.