DiogenesLamp: "What part is different?
The United Kingdom was a Union."
In 1776 the Brits were a dictatorial empire attempting to impose centralized rule over American colonies long accustomed to governing themselves.
In 1860 the US was a decentralized constitutional republic which had been effectively ruled over since the election of 1800 by Southern Democrats.
DiogenesLamp: "The Founders were all slave holders."
In 1776 nearly all Southern Founders and about half the Northerners were slaveholders.
By 1787 all Southern Founders and no Northerners were slaveholders.
DiogenesLamp: "The Union officers offered Freedom for any slave that would join them to fight against the Rebels."
This is a point where DiogenesLamp might begin to grasp what was really going on if, if he could understand the difference between 1776 and 1861.
In 1776 the Brits offered freedom for slaves who would fight against Americans and how did George Washington respond?
Washington responded by offering freedom to slaves who served the Continental Army.
All told, about 9,000 African Americans did serve as patriots such that it's reported, in Washington's army at Yorktown about one in four was black.
- For slaves, "Bounties were both monetary payments and the chance to be given freedom; they were promised to those who joined either side of the war."
"In the Revolutionary War, slave owners often let their slaves enlist in the war with promises of freedom, but many were put back into slavery after the conclusion of the war.[10]"
After Dunmore's Proclamation: "As a response to expressions of fear posed by armed blacks, in December 1775, Washington wrote a letter to Colonel Henry Lee III, stating that success in the war would come to whatever side could arm the blacks the fastest.[22]"
Both of whom at times expressed opposition to slavery and support for enlisting African Americans in their army.
DiogenesLamp: "The main difference is that King George III was not as fanatical or as willing to shed so much blood as was Lincoln."
Not at all true.
In fact King George III was just as willing to spend British blood & treasure, and did so during the Revolutionary War.
The real difference is that, of necessity, Britain's Georgie-boy had to spread his troops, ships and national treasure over a much, much larger battlefield than President Lincoln did.
King George had to fight not just Americans in American but also French, Spanish, Dutch and India-Indians, from the Indian Ocean to Africa, the Mediterranean, Caribbean & Atlantic Oceans.
As George's war dragged on, year after year, the territorial breadth and numbers of opponents grew ever larger.
By stark contrast, Lincoln had only one opponent, the Confederacy, only one region, the South, and as Civil War lasted, year after year, the territorial breadth and numbers of opponents grew ever smaller.
And that's the difference having a truly just cause and willing allies makes.
Our Founders had them in spades, Confederates not so much.