A revolution is the act of overthrowing or usurping power from the current government.
Castro was a revolutionary, as was Lincoln; the Founding Fathers and the Confederates were secessionists."
OIFVeteran: "The founding fathers disagree with you.
- 'As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar perhaps singular.
What do we mean by the revolution?
The war?
That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it.
The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.'
— John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 24, 1815"
As per usual, our Democrat Kalamata is here doing what Democrats by their nature naturally do -- redefining words to suit his own purposes, hoping to make counter-argument impossible on his terms.
So the first important response is: we don't accept his definitions, ever.
In this particular case, the English language provides us with two words for the same thing, but with an important distinction:
- Rebellion -- "An act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler."
- Revolution -- "A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system."
But the distinction is: a rebellion becomes a revolution when it is successful.
So we can say that all revolutions begin in rebellion, but not all rebellions end in revolution.
And secession? "the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state."
Civil War: -- "a war between citizens of the same country."
Notice in "secession" the key word, "federation", an example of which today is "Brexit" -- a formal legal & political action, having no necessary resort to, or implication of, violence or physical force.
So, in 1860 there was a similar federation which Confederates attempted to secede from formally.
If such attempts were legitimate, then they can claim to be a separate country and "Civil War" was something else.
What about 1776?
A totally different situation, beginning with: no federation to secede from, but rather a British Empire established & maintained by military force, from which disunion could only happen by superior military force.
In 1776 there was no possibility of lawful secession, not even a concept of such a thing.
In 1776 disunion meant one thing only: rebellion / revolution = violent overthrow of the military-backed empirical rule.
So, was there a rebellion in 1861, or was it simply a war between two nation-states?
That depends partly on whether you consider secession in 1860 legitimate or not.
If 1860 secession was not legitimate then Civil War was simply a War of Southern Rebellion -- not "revolution" since it failed.
But if 1860 secession was somehow legitimate, then you might claim Civil War was really a war between two nation-states.
The problem is, it wasn't that simple because even some of the original seven Deep South Confederate states had huge regions of strong Unionist loyalties, people who themselves did not feel their state's secession was legitimate.
In the Upper South these regions grew to 1/3 or 1/2 the state's territory, and in Border Slave States Unionists were the vast majority.
And yet Confederate armies invaded & occupied not just Unionist regions of Confederate states, but also Southern Union states.
Clearly, Confederate military invasions of slave-states were civil war within the Slave Empire.
Bottom line: in 1861 no Unionist, not even Democrats like President Buchanan, considered Deep South secession to be legitimate, and when war started at Fort Sumter, the vast majority supported Union Civil War against Southern rebels.