Sorry, you have it wrong.
Secession is the legal separation from the union. That is your neo-reb argument: Secession would be legal for the states, and your argument is that it was legal as practiced in 1860. If it was not legal in 1860, then the rebels were traitors when they made war against the US.
Neo-Rebs need to conflate the 1776 colonies that were (with royal charters and with royal governors) with the states (with elected governors and new constitutions) that they became to support the pretense that the states created the Union. So, when were these independent states independent? Name the year. Rather, it was an act of the union that published the Declaration of Independence. The colonies were not independent of the British Crown prior to that. Despite not being independent, the British Crown sent soldiers to occupy Boston in response to the Boston Tea party. English parliament had what they thought was a good scheme: They would collect the tax in England, and then the British tea company would sell the tea in the colonies at a price that was cheaper than the competition. Due to the unfairness of the tax, in most ports, the tea was not unloaded. In most ports, the tea was not unloaded, or was not distributed after unloading. Only in Boston was the tea destroyed. In response to the destruction of the tea, the British Crown sent soldiers, and Gage used them to hold Boston hostage until compensation was collected. When compensation was not forthcoming, Gage sent those soldiers on an extended raid to seize weapons not owned by the Crown, but rather by the local militia. Such military operations turned into a battle, and into a war. Further military operations occurred at Bunker Hill/Breed’s Hill. The Declaration of Independence was written in response to that war begun by the British crown.
It may be we both agree that secession could be legal. I hold legal secession could be possible by constitutional amendment, and might be legal by successful federal court case or perhaps even by federal law. Such legal secession would not be rebellion, being agreed to by the Union. None of those legal means were attempted by the rebels of 1860, as they recognized that they would fail. It was the rebels of 1860 that appealed to the sword, and they lost utterly.
Successful rebellion would also be theoretically possible, but in my lifetime, with the federal government deploying nuclear weapons, I see that as unlikely. Your mileage may differ.
That difference between secession and rebellion is not of my invention, but rather is well documented. Your inadequate education or tedious misrepresentation is no reflection on me.
“That difference between secession and rebellion is not of my invention, but rather is well documented.”
Then it should be easy for you to produce a source making the distinction that you say is “well documented”. So far you haven’t produced anything.
Unlike you, donny, I don’t find it difficult to produce documentation showing that secession and rebellion are but two words for the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion
“Throughout history, many different groups that opposed their governments have been called rebels. Over 450 peasant revolts erupted in southwestern France between 1590 and 1715. In the United States, the term was used for the Continentals by the British in the Revolutionary War, and for the Confederacy by the Union in the American Civil War. Most armed rebellions have not been against authority in general, but rather have sought to establish a new government in their place.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
“Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity. Threats of secession also can be a strategy for achieving more limited goals.”
“Types of secession
“Secession theorists have described a number of ways in which a political entity (city, county, canton, state) can secede from the larger or original state.”
“Secession from federation or confederation (political entities with substantial reserved powers which have agreed to join together) versus secession from a unitary state (a state governed as a single unit with few powers reserved to sub-units) Colonial aka “wars of independence” from a “mother country” or imperial state”
A distinction you could have argued that would have been valid is that secession, unlike rebellion, isn’t necessarily accompanied by violence. So you see, donny, it isn’t that tough to produce evidence. At least when the point being argued is valid. When your point is make-believe, well then you are reduced to just insisting that you are right because it’s convenient to your argument to pretend that there is a difference. Good luck with that one, donny.
“Your inadequate education or tedious misrepresentation is no reflection on me.”
The only “reflection on you” is your own writing, which reveals that you think ad hominem is a compelling argument in your favor. Bears a distinct similarity to the monkey cage whose residents regard poo throwing as a sign of cleverness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
"Beyond improving their existing association, the records of the Second Continental Congress show that the need for a declaration of independence was intimately linked with the demands of international relations. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee tabled a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent; at the same time he also urged Congress to resolve “to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances” and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly-independent states. Congress then created three overlapping committees to draft the Declaration, a Model Treaty, and the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration announced the states' entry into the international system; the model treaty was designed to establish amity and commerce with other states; and the Articles of Confederation, which established “a firm league” among the thirteen free and independent states, constituted an international agreement to set up central institutions for the conduct of vital domestic and foreign affairs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
The committee appointed to draft the Articles in June 1776 met repeatedly and sent their draft to the individual states in November 1777, for their ratification. There were long debates on such issues as sovereignty, the exact powers to be given the confederal government, whether to have a judiciary, and voting procedures. In practice, the Articles were in use beginning in 1777. The ratification process was completed in March 1781. Under the Articles, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the national government.
The Articles were created by delegates from the states in the Second Continental Congress out of a need to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States." After the war, nationalists, especially those who had been active in the Continental Army, complained that the Articles were too weak for an effective government. There were no president, no executive agencies, no judiciary and no tax base. The absence of a tax base meant that there was no way to pay off state and national debts from the war years except by requesting money from the states, which seldom arrived. In 1788, with the approval of Congress, the Articles were replaced by the United States Constitution and the new government began operations in 1789.
Congress began to move for ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1777:
"Permit us, then, earnestly to recommend these articles to the immediate and dispassionate attention of the legislatures of the respective states. Let them be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities, under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength, to maintain and defend our common liberties... The document could not become officially effective until it was ratified by all 13 colonies. The first state to ratify was Virginia on December 16, 1777.
Even though the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were established by many of the same people, the two documents are very different. The original five-page Articles contained a preamble, 13 articles, a conclusion, and a signatory section. The preamble states that the signatory states "agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union" between the 13 states. The following list contains short summaries of each of the 13 articles. Establishes the name of the confederation with these words:
"The Style of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government, i.e. "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."
Not being sovereign, it does not call the United States of America a "nation" or "government," but instead says, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."