The above question being evidence of an unfortunate combination of binary thinking and poor reading comprehension, it falls to me to point out that secession and rebellion are obviously not mutually exclusive. Imagine, if you can, that there was once a controlling authority which did not sanction withdrawl from its influence. In fact, it expressly forbade it! To secede in spite of a directive to not do so would be, necessarily, an act of rebellion against the issuing authority.
How could the colonies have been in a 'political union' with the Crown when they were denied any representation in the legislative body?
The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation. The same way the conquered states were forced back into a political union actually called "The Union" during reconstruction without representation. The history of the world beyond your echo chamber is full of examples of non-represenative governments controlling people.
But are they synonymous, yes or no? If not, what is the difference?
The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.
Examples please?
Remember this: our Founders in 1776 declared neither secession nor rebellion.
Instead, they declared their "United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States."
Free from British imperial military rule, Independent of oppressive British laws.
The word "secession" was not used, because it did not apply.
And the American War of Rebellion had long since started -- started by the British.
In 1776 there was no Declaration of War by either Brits or our Founders.
By stark contrast, in 1861, Slave Power secessionists both started war (at Fort Sumter) and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
Brass Lamp: "most people in this world today are in some political union without representation."
Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate.
Brass Lamp: "The same way the conquered states were forced back into a political union actually called "The Union" during reconstruction without representation."
States which had previously been in rebellion against the United States were required to meet certain standards (i.e., slavery abolished) before being fully readmitted after the war.
By the way, FRiend Brass Lamp, your arrogant and condescending comments such as this:
Comments like that don't improve your own argument.
They don't make you appear more brilliant, really, just the opposite, they make you sound stupid -- as if you don't really have a good argument to make, and so just throw out condescending insults instead.
I say: if you have a real argument to make, then make it, but first go through it and delete the unnecessary insults, then re-read to see if your case still makes good sense, even to you.