BTW, thank you for so systematically reminding me how similar the AmRevWar was to this. Yet 1 is OK and the other is not. Hmmm.
Well, you're quite welcome, but it's obviously a case of people seeing just what they want to see.
I'd say that, except in the fact of war between opposing forces, there is no comparison between the American Revolution and Civil War, for examples:
By stark contrast the Southern Slave Power was vastly over represented and had dominated Federal Government since the founding of the republic.
Indeed, Lincoln was the first mildly anti-slavery president ever elected.
By stark contrast, in 1860 Federal tariffs on slave-states imports were the same as in 1792, and had been reduced by over half since 1830.
By stark contrast, the Confederacy did formally declare war on the United States (May 6, 1861) after fully six months of assaulting and seizing Federal armories, arsenals, forts, ships, mints, etc.
By stark contrast, the first secessionists documents list only one major reason for secession: their fear of what newly elected mildly anti-slavery Republican President Lincoln might do some time in the future to slow the growth and expansion of slavery.
Indeed, their only major actual complaint was the Federal government hadn't done enough to enforce Federal fugitive slave laws.
This list goes on and on, so the bottom line is: the only way to compare the starts of Revolution and Civil Wars would be to give the Confederacy the part of the Brits, and the Union that of our long-suffering Founding Fathers.
Then it might make a little sense... ;-)