It seems like nearly every revolution has a period of extremely intense instability where the group that seized power consolidates power by eliminating its enemies, real or perceived. France had the Reign of Terror, Russia had the Red Terror, China had the Cultural Revolution, England had Oliver Cromwell. Yet, AFAIK, there was nothing comparable to this in America. There were of course political struggles between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, but these never resulted in Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton declaring their opponents traitors to the revolution the way Robespierre or Lenin might have handled it. I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion, but that was quelled rather quickly, and most or the Founding Fathers were unanimous on suppressing it.
So what conditions in the American Revolution made it possible for the aftermath to be so relatively peaceful?
Most of the revolutions you mentioned were revolutions that were either totalitarian (Communist revolts, Oliver Cromwell) or, very extremist (French Revolution... Many French rebels at first were very fine with a constitutional monarchy, and didn't support the sentencing of death of Louis XVI). The Americans, however, had been able to create a government that attempted at first to give sovereignty to the states, and then eventually settled on giving a lot of rights to the people of America. While there was a lot of feuding going on, as you mentioned, between Federalists/Anti-Feds, Abolitionists/Slavers, States Rights vs Central Government, etc. each section of America had different issues to focus on, instead of one. For example, the South had to focus on the fight against tariffs, and pro-slavery, so by allowing the states to retain some autonomy, despite having to answer to the Federal government, it led to civil prosperity, because some states could just abolish slavery if they settled on it, and others keep it. Some states could keep certain civil rights that were vaguely laid out in the constitution, and fight for them if the federal government decided to protest.. In the courtroom, and not on the battlefield. Marbury vs. Madison (1803), for example, established an early basis for judicial review, hence this precedent would allow individual states to interpret the constitution as well in their own way and form their own laws. Now of course, I think we should realize that the Civil War was only about 75 years after the constitution was ratified. And there was a lot of violence in between the times, including the caning of a US senator in Congress, Bleeding Kansas, the Trail of Tears, suppression of the Seminole tribes in Florida, and some slave revolts, most famously Nat Turner's Revolt in Virginia. In short, the American government had been able to supply a Constitution and Bill of Rights that were able to give concessions to both the Federalists, and Anti-Federalists, while also leaving it to open interpretation, and giving the states autonomy, allowed for the Americans to prosper without any counter-revolution or oppression of a different political group. There was just a different way of going about it; instead of openly oppressing a different political group they would possibly go behind eachother's backs, such as the 'Corrupt Bargain' between Henry Clay and Quincy Adams, though I should note that it was only called that by pro-Jacksonians. Early Americans thoroughly enjoyed their republic Union, and what it represented, and were willing to go through great obstacles to keep it intact, such as the Nullification Crisis, and, much later, the Civil War.
hi! there's lots of room for more analysis of the various revolutions, but you'll find some previous discussion in this post, which includes links to a few more