The fact that the Revolution was so decentralized has a huge impact on this. Without anyone really trying to assert more authority than they should have, the kinds of power that could allow for that kind of action to make the Revolution that bloody could not happen. The only one who could have wielded centralized American power would have been Washington, and even for him, there were limits to his influence.
You'd also need for a truly bloody revolution to occur for it to be more than what it was, a political revolution in the context of anti-colonial struggle. It would have needed to be a social revolution, like in France, and American society was not nearly as divided as French society was. In the South, you had slaves, sure, but slavery was never a huge thing at this point in time (at least in the US; the West Indies are different) due to its lack of true profitability. Slavery never really offered the kinds of conditions, at least at this point in time, for a social revolution to come along with the political, mostly because many slaveholders who themselves were ambiguous about the institution joined the political revolution. As for the North, the Tory Colonial Administrators were indeed targets of social frustration, but a mostly agrarian society with an urban artisan class and mercantile class that did not lend itself to true class power flexing did not allow for a social revolution either. The American concept of personal property and landholding also did not lend itself to the kinds of struggles over land and the means of production and power that France did.
Basically, the American Revolution was too spread out and willfully weak, partially for reasons of self preservation of a contentious union, to allow that kind of bloodshed to occur.