[arthurus]

It would not be "another" civil war if you count the Unpleasantness of 1862-5 as the "first" civil war. That was not a "civil war" in that two or multiple parties were not contending for rule of the same nation. It was the last expression of and brought the end of the States as sovereign entities. It would be the second "civil war," however, if the revolution were counted as the first one. That was a war of indigenous people for control and rule of the same system and territory. The King had more recruits among the colonists than the patriots did.

[BroJoeK]

arthurus: "It would not be "another" civil war if you count the Unpleasantness of 1862-5 as the "first" civil war.
That was not a "civil war" in that two or multiple parties were not contending for rule of the same nation.
It was the last expression of and brought the end of the States as sovereign entities."

Obviously, your mind is muddled by myth.
Yes, the first definition of Civil War is: "A war between factions or regions of the same country."
But other definitions include: "The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865.
Also called War Between the States."

So let's focus on that first definition, for sake of your confusion.
Do you remember that:

• Every state of the Confederacy supplied white troops to the Union army, over 100,000 all told.
  Doesn't that sound like a "war between factions"?

• The Confederate government sent military forces into every Union state and territory near the Confederacy, including: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
  Doesn't that sound like "two parties contending for rule of the same nation"?

arthurus: "It would be the second "civil war," however, if the revolution were counted as the first one.
That was a war of indigenous people for control and rule of the same system and territory.
The King had more recruits among the colonists than the patriots did."

Sorry, but that is not even close.
First of all:

"Historians[17] have estimated that approximately 40 to 45 percent of the colonists supported the rebellion, while 15 to 20 percent remained loyal to the Crown" -- about 500,000 men, women and children.
"The rest attempted to remain neutral and kept a low profile."

"At least 25,000 Loyalists fought on the side of the British. Thousands served in the Royal Navy":

The number of patriots who served the American military was 217,000 of whom about 50,000 were killed or wounded.

Bottom line: Revolutionary War Patriots outnumbered Loyalists overall by two or three to one, and served in the US military by more than five Patriots to every one Loyalist.

As for the Revolution being a "Civil War", of course, the Brits considered it that, and would have hung our Founders like common rebels had our guys been defeated.
But the dictionary definition of "Revolution" is replacing the previous government with something radically new and different.

Such decidedly was the case in 1776, but not in 1861.
Rather, secession in 1861 was precisely for the purpose of preserving the Southern Democrats' "peculiar institution" in the face of Northern radical Republican abolitionism.

So the Revolutionary War was a Revolution,
And the Civil War was a, well, Civil War.