The difference between a revolt and a revolution is success. If the American revolution had failed, it would be referred to as something along the order of the "Colonial Revolt of the late Eighteenth century."

If the Southern insurrection had succeeded, it would have been referred to with terms that described its finality/success: the Southern War of Independence or something along that line, and millions of African Americans would have continued to live under the brutality of slavery. Edit: although the contrary is not implied by the statement provided, of course all sorts of brutality toward African Americans continued after the war.

Because the insurrection failed, it is referred to as a civil war - a war within a nation that existed both before and after the rebellion. The insurrection could have been referred to with any number of terms, but not one like "the war of independence," which implies independence was achieved. Independence was not achieved, so it is designated with a term that describes the complete failure of the effort.

Titles of events have long been used to advance an agenda, push a point of view. The American Civil War is no exception. It has been called The War of the Rebellion, the War of Northern Aggression, the War Between the States, and , now that Confederate monuments are coming down everywhere, there will likely be a push to call it something like The Slaveholders' Revolt. To call it a civil war just differentiates it as an internal war, as opposed to a war against external enemies, and is fairly neutral, just like "barroom fight" ascribes no particular blame to anyone in the bar. To call it a war of independence would give it connotations of liberty, freedom- like the War for American Independence- that many would say it does not deserve. But, more importantly, it would not really be accurate. The Confederacy did not give up the idea of re-joining the Union, and would negotiate to do so. It hoped to force the North to come to terms and abandon all efforts to abolish slavery. In this it was supported by a lot of people in the North- Whigs and many Democrats- and if Lincoln had capitulated to this demand ( or lost the 1864 election and McClellan had done so) the South would have almost certainly re-joined.

Well a major aspect of why is going to be the general reality of what happened, and then I would argue there are also some moral considerations involved.

Historically, the American Civil War, unlike the Revolution, was not actually a "Revolution" in the same sense of fighting against oppressive government tyranny, but was more a response to the growth of Republican party and the growing resentment and favoritism of the Abolitionist causes. The Confederate states left the Union not because they were fighting against government tyranny, but actually to protect their own tyrannical institution of slavery. The idea that, had they been left alone, they would have just stopped enslaving people is actually ludicrous, because the South had realized that even though industrialism would overtake them, they could just reapply slavery to the industrial system, having a free labor source, which they could abuse and exploit.

So there was a key difference there. The American Revolution was fought specifically to release, particularly landowning white cis het, men from the confines of the British king, who was attempting to extract more resources and wealth from the colonies, and impose greater and greater militaristic control over them.

Next, we also have the case that there were somewhat different circumstances of government. Typically, we refer to a Revolution as an attempt to overthrow one government and replace it with a new system. The Confederacy was not promoting a Revolution but was actually fighting to preserve antiquated institutions. As such, arguably it was the North that was actually more revolutionary, given the Emancipation Proclamation was motivated by strong abolitionist pressures as well as militaristic ones, and had the prospect of reshaping Southern economy (though, as we know, this did not happen because the Southern white supremacists ended up ending Reconstruction).

Next, unlike in the British-America situation, where we were a colony separated by an entire ocean, and so qualifying us as a unified singular nation is, in reality, a bit of a stretch, the United States and Confederacy shared borders and were the same nation before, on the same singular continent. In short, there is a geographical and communal reasons to consider this more a Civil War than a Revolution.

Lastly, throughout the entire war the North always viewed the South in terms of states in rebellion, rather than a separate entity, whereas in Britain the colonies were viewed as extensions. Furthermore, there are ethical reasons. It seemed and still is very ethically irresponsible to refer to pro-slave insurrectionists as somehow being... "revolutionaries" because it affords them prestige, the opportunity to be remembered as anything but the traitors that they were. So the North also had those reasons as well.