http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=263

Some excerpts from the link above, I don't have time to transpose links from some relatively new historical texts that provide what is a relatively new view (at least compared to the common view) that a social and political revolution already took place in the Colonies long before the war started. It was very much a true revolution, but a war between kings.

The American Revolution was much more than a war for national independence. The American Revolution was truly the first modern revolution. It enjoyed widespread popular support and marked the first time in history that a people fought for their independence in the name of certain universal principles of human rights and civil liberties.
The American Revolution touched off an "age of revolution."
The ideas fought for were popular sovereignty, equality before the law, and rule of law.

The Revolution was, in part, the consequence of long-term social, political, and cultural transformations. Between 1680 and 1776, a distinctly American society emerged, a society that differed significantly from Britain. In the course of a century, the colonies had diverged markedly from Britain. A variety of long-run trends gave the 13 American colonies certain common characteristics which made them very different from England.

The absence of a titled aristocracy
Widespread ownership of property
Religious diversity
Relative absence of poverty
Lack of urban development
Relative lack of deference to authority
Presence of slavery
Unlike many modern revolutions, the American Revolution was not rooted in economic deprivation or in the struggle of an oppressed class against an entrenched elite.

The Revolution was the product of 40 years of abuses by the British authorities that many colonists regarded as a threat to their liberty and property. But people do not act simply in response to objective reality but according to the meaning that they give to events. The Revolution resulted from the way the colonists interpreted events.

The American patriots were alarmed by what they saw as a conspiracy against their liberty. They feared that the corruption and the abuses of power by the British government would taint their own society.
Contrary to the arguments above, I think an argument can be made that the American Revolution was a true revolution that created something new. It was waged largely by citizens of England who developed a separate culture and ideas. Most of what we tend to call revolutions today are often post WWII anti-colonial movements were less a revolution and more about ousting foreign occupiers.

There are a lot of gray areas that can be argued either way in many revolutions, which points to our lack of understanding and simple COIN/political/revolution models that RAND and others want to promote to facilitate understanding, often act as blinders that lead to misunderstanding because they lead to cherry picking pieces of history that support the model, while ignoring the rest. This form of arrogance is a human trait that we'll unlikely overcome, but we should at least beaware of it so we minimize decisions based on our hubris views that convince us that we know the real underlying causes of conflict and worse then assume we have the solution.