I respect your POV, which is at least a new take, but disagree."
But you can't disagree with the facts...
FRiends, everybody here knows of Samuel Adams & James Otis, right?, Adams: famous maltster, second cousin to President John Adams, with Otis "Sons of Liberty", early leaders of what became the American Revolution movement:
Do you also know of Robert Barnwell Rhett and others, like Louis Wigfall, William Yancey, William Porcher Miles, James DeBow & Mississippi Governor John J. Pettus -- they were the Southern Fire-Eaters who hatched the plot in 1858 to split the majority-Democrat party into two minority parties, South & North, the split which engineered election of minority Republican President Abraham Lincoln. 
My point here: there's a difference between colonial patriots like Saumuel Adams in, say, 1764 and Southern Fire-Eater secessionists in, say 1850.
Patriots in the 1770s began as loyalists, simply insisting on "constitutional rights" as Englishmen, especially including "no taxation without representation":
- "In the course of the 1760s and 1770s, William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, amongst other prominent Britons and colonial Americans, such as Joseph Galloway, James Otis, Jr., Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, the London Quaker Thomas Crowley, Royal Governors such as Thomas Pownall M.P., William Franklin, Sir Francis Bernard, and the Attorney-General of Quebec, Francis Maseres, debated and circulated plans for the creation of colonial seats in London, imperial union with Great Britain, or a federally representative British Parliament with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British Members of Parliament.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]"
These men only became revolutionaries when all such proposals were utterly rejected, and the opposite imposed: illegitimate, dictatorial military government, certainly from colonists' perspectives.
By sharp contrast, Southern Fire-Eaters began in the 1850s working for dis-union, hatching a plot in 1858 to split their own majority Democrat party in half (north & south), engineering the 1860 election of minority Republican Abraham Lincoln.
In 1860 Fire-Eaters already had stronger representation in Congress than their white populations supported, had as President a Northern Dough-faced Democrat, James Buchanan, who strongly supported the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott ruling.
In short, in 1860 Fire-Eaters already had everything the 1770s Sons of Liberty said they wanted.
Had the 1770s Sons of Liberty achieved representation as enjoyed by 1860s Fire Eaters, there is no way that such colonial elder statesmen as Benjamin Franklin would convert to support Revolution.
Only 1770s Brits resort to increasing military dictatorship converted men like Franklin to the Revolutionary cause.
But no such equivalent existed in November 1860, when Fire-Eaters first began to organize for secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.
So, how can you disagree with the facts?