The problem with your question is you are using the term "revolution" as the commonality between those four events rather than any actually commanility in the individual situations or outcomes. Now I'm not sure about the rest of Europe but in Britain the "American Revolution" is refered to as the "American War of Independence" and is not really considered a revolution in the same brush as that defining revolution, the French. It certainly does not contain the same civil wars of ideological differences subsequent revolutions would have. Britain also believed in democracy, no taxation without representation, the difference was Parliament was detirmined that they were that representation.

I have never seen the American Civil War referred to as "revolutionary" but it is not my area of expertise. If someone has more information of how this qualifies I'd be interested to hear.

The French and Russian Revolutions cannot really be compared to with either of those American wars, they were a root and branch change of the whole of their societies through violence. The people who found themselves suddenly in positions of power were the formerly oppressed. This plus the violent means is going to create a level of instability from which more violence will erupt. The Mexican revolution has similar aspects though is not as violent as pop culture makes out.

Of course there are a number of other "revolutions" that you have missed out. Probably the best one to compare to the American wars is the English Civil War. In Britain this isn't deamed a "revolution" either, mainly because the clocks are turned back so thoroughly in 1660. There is no further civil violence once this ends and the King returns in 1660 peacefully. Likewise the so called "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 in Britain has no violence whatsoever.

In summary comparisons between historical events need to be linked by the events themselves and not through the use of historical terms. Otherwise we end up looking for parallels that don't exist.