To answer Michy's question, I'm not sure why fewer "failsafes" seem to come to mind for the Revolution than perhaps the Civil War. It's probably because the Civil War is more heavily trodden ground to begin with. And as for the reasons for that, it's a discussion for another whole thread, but it seems to encompass movies as well as fiction. My guess is the causes of the Revolution are a bit more abstract - taxation without representation - than those of the Civil War - slavery and the right of states to set their own policies or secede. Also, although the United States was "born" in the Revolution, it arguably did not become a true nation until the Civil War. Before the Civil War, "United States" typically was a plural noun in common usage. Afterward, it became singular. Before, it was more of a loose confederation (culturally if not governmentally); after, people increasingly began to think of themselves as Americans first and citizens of a particular state second. And, of course, the issues at the root of the Civil War continued to roil the country for over a century, well into the personal experience of many readers alive today.
Part of the problem here, I think, is the seeming obligation to write about the American Revolution from a patriotic American perspective which never questions the rightness and greatness of the Revolution, enshrining it in a haze of rag-tag majesty and sacrifical glory. This sort of thing tends to quash true literary depth. I'd love to see a Wolf-Hall style treatment of the Revolutionary War that would plunge us back into the time period so effectively that, while reading, we might almost forget who ultimately prevailed. Taxes, I think, were just one of many issues that upset American colonists, but then as now, anger tends to crystallize over money as one of the more concrete symbols of oppression, real or imagined. I think many colonists felt disrespected by the English government over a broad range of issues, and disrespect can often arouse a fury that would seem out of proportion to the actual monetary impact of a tax. Anytime an issue arouses enough passion to lead to a war, there should be the potential for a humdinger of a good novel - if a writer approaches it with the freedom to portray the characters and the issues unhampered by what amounts to a hallowed origin myth.
With the Civil War, by contrast, Americans continue to have differing perspectives over the war, so writers are to a great extent freed from having to hew to a particular standard in how the war "ought" to be interpreted - which opens the field wide for interpretations that discard the hallowed myths of both sides.
One potential candidate for a Revolutionary War failsafe list might be Edward Rutherfurd's New York
which, although it's a time-sweep that covers the city's history right into the 21st century, largely focuses on the Revolutionary period and includes the perspective of both British loyalists and American rebels. (See review
I agree with Annis that it will be interesting to get Bernard Cornwell's take on this period. As a transplanted Englishman who has lived in the U.S. for many years now, he's liable to have a more objective perspective than many American writers.