Then what's wrong with my notion, since it complies to the criteria you've laid out of defined area and majority of voters?
Your reply simply tells me you have no intention of discussing this topic like an actual adult. The foundation for those "Natural law" ideas were laid out by numerous writers of natural law, such as Locke, Wolfe, Burlamaqui, Puffendorf, Vattel, Rutherford and Grotius.
Your ability to spout names still doesn't tell me why some rebellions can be put down and some can't, and what the criteria for doing so are. After all, the Constitution makes mentions suspending habeas in case of rebellion and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection. Were they hypocrites from the start? Do insurrectionists and rebels need only control a defined area, win a majority of voters (and who decides who can vote?), and invoke "self-evident natural law" in order to make it illegal and immoral to suppress them?
That you refuse to actually address these questions, preferring to simply spout "that's ridiculous" tells me that you really aren't prepared to answer them. That or you don't like where the answers take you.
If you think suggesting a few blocks or the voices in your head constitute a reasonable effort to address the question, you are fooling only yourself. What point do you hope to score by precisely defining the threshold criteria? Suffice it to say, the group that consisted of the Confederate states easily qualifies. It had more than three times the population of the Original Thirteen Colonies.
What do you possibly hope to gain by pouncing on this trivial point? It seems like you are just intent on wasting both of our times.
Your ability to spout names still doesn't tell me why some rebellions can be put down and some can't, and what the criteria for doing so are.
This is more of your effort to keep the argument in the weeds. If I thought you really wanted an answer, i'd endeavor to define the criteria for you, but you and I both know you don't want an answer. You want your side to be right, and in an effort to make it right, you want to argue about "criteria."
Again, if three times the population of the Original Colonies isn't enough, then no reasonable criteria will satisfy you as to the difference.
After all, the Constitution makes mentions suspending habeas in case of rebellion and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection. Were they hypocrites from the start? Do insurrectionists and rebels need only control a defined area, win a majority of voters (and who decides who can vote?), and invoke "self-evident natural law" in order to make it illegal and immoral to suppress them?
Whatever the Founders meant by "Insurrection" and "Rebellion", It is pretty self evident that they didn't see it as applying to what they did. As what the Southern states did is EXACTLY ALIKE what they did, I must therefore conclude that whatever it is they meant by "Insurrection" and "Rebellion" must refer to something less. My guess is regions or cities defying State or Federal authority, and without popular support from the majority of the affected populace.
As a matter of fact, I think the difference between a natural right to independence and a Rebellion or Insurrection is that one is a consequence of the majority of folk being in favor of a divorce, and the other is a consequence of minority factions attempting to force their way into power against the popular will.
But this is another "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about Pornography. "Pornography is hard to define, but I know it when I see it."