No, we didn't change the rules. President Washington himself put down some rebellions.
The rules have always been the same. There are existing governments. If you want to challenge or overthrow an existing government, expect a fight. You may win, but you may lose.
And, if you'd like, accompany your attempt with a nice letter explaining your reasons. Have a "decent respect" for the opinions of others. The secessionists did all that. The difference is that they lost the subsequent fight.
The Whiskey rebellion is the equivalent of 11 states voting to secede from the Union? You don't even believe that yourself. Why would you put forth such a silly argument?
The rules have always been the same. There are existing governments. If you want to challenge or overthrow an existing government, expect a fight. You may win, but you may lose.
Your argument is still just an "appeal to force." I understand why you find this fallacy appealing, because you are seemingly not making any headway on the "reason" side of the argument.
The rules have always been the same until *we* changed them. We put new rules into effect, and we were the first beneficiary of the new rules.
Apparently we believed in them just long enough to benefit ourselves, and thereafter reverted back to the British rules.