Enlightenment is about thinking for oneself rather than letting others think for you, according to

What is Enlightenment? (8:35). In this essay, Kant also expresses the Enlightenment faith in the
inevitability of progress. A few independent thinkers will gradually inspire a broader cultural
movement, which ultimately will lead to greater freedom of action and governmental reform. A
culture of enlightenment is almost inevitable if only there is freedom to make public use of
one's reason in all matters.

Background of Kants Essay on Enlightenment

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

KANT and Hobbes on state of nature and rebel

(https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/7885/7587)

Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals (BOOK written by Kant)

In The Metaphysical Elements of Justice (trans. John Ladd, Bobbs-Merrill, 1965, p. 84)

Surprisingly, Kant, similar to Hobbes, rejected the right to rebel. It is quite strange that Kant,
despite all of his efforts to emphasize the freedom of human beings and despite the natural laws
that ensure the freedom and equality of all individuals in the state of nature (in the case of
Hobbes and Locke), these views did not allow him to recognize the right of people to rebel. Kant
believed that a good man can be a good citizen only in a good state. For Kant, the problem was
how to force man to be a good citizen, even if (he is) not morally a good person (Arendt, 1992,
p. 17). Moreover, he emphasized that a good constitution is not to be expected from morality,
but controversy, a good moral condition of a people is to be expected under a good constitution.

It seems that Kant, as Reiss noted, was a man of conservative disposition who refused to
countenance revolution in politics as a legitimate principle of action (Reiss, 1970, p. 3).

Kant argued that "all resistance against the supreme legislative power, all incitement of the
subjects to violent expression of discontent, all defiance which breaks out into rebellion, is the
greatest and most punishable crime in commonwealth, for it destroys its very foundations"
(Otteson, 2009, p. 396)
 .Whether as a historical fact an actual contract between them originally preceded the
submission to authority or whether, instead, the authority preceded it and the law only came later
or even is supposed to have followed in this orderthese are pointless questions that threaten the
state with danger if they are asked with too much sophistication by a people who are already
subject to civil law; for, if the subject decides to resist the present ruling authority as the result of
ruminating on its origin, he would be rightfully punished, destroyed, or exiledin accordance
with the laws of that authority itself.

In fact, Kant did believe that the French Revolution was legitimate, and a look at his argument
illuminates some of his complex terminology. The French king possessed sovereignty until he
convened the Estates General as representative of the people, at which time sovereignty passed
to the people even though the king had intended for the assembly to resolve specific problems
and then return the reins of power to him (6:3412). Further, the king could not have any power
to restrain the actions of the assembly as a condition for it being given the sovereign power, for
there can be no restrictions on this sovereign power.

Kant on obeying the govt

But there is an obvious problem here when we consider Kants claim that we are morally
obligated to obey every law of every government, including the unjust laws of tyrannical
governments. Even if we agree that people may properly be compelled to obey a rule of law, as
enforced by a just government, when laws are designed to protect the individuals right to
freedom, it does not necessarily follow that we are similarly obligated to obey the unjust laws of
a tyrannical government.

REVOLUTION

Nor does Kant always reject the actions of revolutionaries. If a revolution is successful, citizens
have as much obligation to obey the new regime as they had to obey the old one (6:323). Since
the new regime is in fact a state authority, it now possesses the right to rule. Further, in his theory
of history, Kant argues that progress in the long run will come about in part through violent and
unjust actions such as wars. Kant even takes it as a sign of progress that spectators of the French
Revolution had greeted it with a wishful participation that borders closely on enthusiasm
(7:85). Kant is not pointing to the revolution itself as a sign of progress but to the reaction of
people such as himself to news of the revolution. The spectators endorse the revolution not
because it is legitimate but because it is aimed at the creation of a civil constitution. Revolution,
then, is wrong but still contributes to progress.
This understanding of sovereignty shows the difference between a rebellion against authority and
peaceful transfer of sovereign power such as an election. In an election, sovereignty is passed
back to the people, so there is nothing wrong with the people replacing the entire government.
Without an election (or similar method of designating the return of sovereignty to the people),
any action aimed at replacing the government is wrong.