I've always wondered, because it seems like a lot of Puritans supported Parliament over the King in the English Civil War. Could them living in America also be the reason American colonists were so quick to rise up against King George and the people who owned slaves in the South?
A slight problem with this theory is that the Puritans supported parliament against the Stuart kings. King George III was of the Hanoverian line, which was brought in by parliament because George I was the only relative of Queen Anne who wasn't a Catholic. Also, though George III gets scapegoated a lot for causing America to declare independence (such as by, you know, being called a tyrant in the Declaration of Independence), the various tax acts that angered the colonists and drove them to revolution were enacted by parliament.
The book Albions Seed by David Hackett Fischer addresses this. The first part of the book addresses 4 different English groups who settled and created America. (Puritans in New England, Cavaliers in Virginia/coastal south, Quakers in Pa/De/Md and Scotch Irish in Appalachia.)
The lmast part of the book is about their interactions with one another throughout history. Puritans from New England actually went back to fight for Cromwell, and Virginia had an influx of royalists after Cromwell took over.
This doesn't play out the same during the Revolution. New England famously played start to the revolution and summarily kicked out the British from Boston. It was less about establishing some sort of commonwealth and more about protecting what they had. (Fischer has a passage between a historian and an old New England war veteran in which the veteran admits he hadn't heard of Thomas Paine nor cared about the Declaration but rather wanted to just keep England from interfering with their affairs)
The Southern Gentry/Cavaliers, who would have been royalists in the 1660s, formed the bulk of intellectual and military leadership against England. (Jefferson and Washington in particular).
Loyalists came from other groups, such as lower New Yorkers and Highland Scots.
The Civil War could be seen more as an extension of the first revolution. High minded Puritan moralism contrasting with the Southern landed gentry elite. You can see the embodiment of aggressive Puritan moralism in Lincoln.
In your title are you also asking if the American Civil War can be seen as a continuation of the English Civil War?
Or is it just the sentence structure fooling me.
This is know as 'waxing poetic' or 'getting carried away'