There was no right for a state to leave the Union unilaterally. So since their acts were illegal, that made them a rebellion.
“There was no right for a state to leave the Union unilaterally.”
Show me where in the US Constitution, as it existed in 1860 and 1861, where states were precluded from seceding.
“There was no right for a state to leave the Union unilaterally.”
This was untested at the time. States power wasn’t so limited, and under the 10th amendment, federal power was. The argument was settled fairly clearly though.
But to go back and say that states needed a specifically enumerated “right” in the Constitution to secede is sort of ridiculous.
“So since their acts were illegal, that made them a rebellion.”
A matter of perspective, and perhaps a distinction without a difference. History calls it “Civil War” southerners proudly called themselves (and some still do) “rebels”. I presume that term of endearment has something to do with “rebellion”.
If you are arguing that southern heritage is somehow diminished by referring to the Civil War as a rebellion then you’d be wrong - but I’m not sure you are. In fact, I’m not sure why anyone on either side of the Mason-Dixon line should care about the Civil War being also called a “rebellion”.
My only regret about the Civil War outcome is the gradual loss of the 10th Amendment - which has allowed the government to grow unchecked ever since the Civil War. I suspect it will take something every bit as traumatic as the Civil War to eventually restore the 10th amendment to it’s original intent, if it were to ever happen at all.