Which is what it was. The War of Southern Rebellion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. In your post #150 you said in 1848 when Lincoln approved of rebellion, rebellion was not the same as secession. When I pointed out to you that Lincoln (and pretty much everyone else in the North) considered the Confederacy “in rebellion,” you then must necessarily have agreed that rebellion and secession were, indeed, synonymous. You can’t in one post say they were not the same, and then in a subsequent post say they are. (Well, you can say it, but it destroys the basis of your argument.)
There was no "rebellion". There was no "insurrection". There was secession -- and then a carefully-prepared attack by Lincoln, and total war, to accomplish the revolution outlined by John Quincy Adams 20 years before.
Before he dreamed up all that evil, though, and lawyer-talking wordsmiths and propagandists had "discovered" a novel "theory" of the Union that forbade the States their reserved powers and made the People the servants of whatever faction "owned" the federal government, Adams had also said this:
“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.”
And I would add furthermore, Non-Sequitur, that Alexander Hamilton saw you coming:
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
-- Hamilton, Federalist No. 84