I disagree about the “Union”. It was really all the same principle. Not that it would be any easier - as it was not for Lee, despite the glib speak of haters here.
Sounds like you read the great Freeman books.
No, there wasn’t as much fighting, and there weren’t nearly as many troops as the CW. Perhaps this lack of excitement is part of the problem. The RevWar gets no respect, nor Washington. It’s as if it was a blip and a foregone conclusion.
Washington had much less strengths to build upon. MUCH less. He basically had no professionals - except the blessed foreigners who came to fight for him. He had hardly any troops, none whom were really professionals except maybe more after von Steuben came to “regulate” them. And virtually always starving and always naked. Along with almost no equipment.
People speak like the Confeds were in this position but they had much better base to build on. There were indeed problems with supply but they had their own mills as well as cotton, and already had a normal societal network of food to use. Especially since it was basically region-based, and not truly “civil war” as the Revolution was - mixed in everywhere, rebels and redcoats everywhere. Never mind many West Point graduates.
One thing about the Freeman Lee bio: he wrote it with the "fog of war" in mind. Most of the histories I read describe battles as if the commanders of both sides know as much about the disposition of all the forces as we do. Freeman would tell us Lee's plans and actions based solely on what Lee thought was in front of him. It wasn't until the summation that he would explain the details of what was on the other side.
The Flexner books were similar. In the first volume, when Washington had not gone very far afield from Virginia, he only describes Washington's view of the world as a Virginian. We forget that people in those times were less familiar with the other states than we are today.