But a 'rebellion' is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. By that definition then "War of Southern Rebellion" is the most accurate term.
The Southern States exercised their lawful and reserved Powers to withdraw from the Union. Once they passed their secession acts in convention assembled, or once their peoples ratified the acts by plebiscite, those States were no longer party to the Union and their People were no longer responsible to the Peoples of the other States in the Union; and individually, they were no longer citizens of the United States of America.
There was no rebellion. Italy doesn't rebel against France by telling France to stick it. The Southern States were free to withdraw without asking anyone's opinion, just as the original 13 States ratified the Constitution and joined the Union by individual sovereign acts unreviewable by anyone not named Y_H_W_H.
Hope that clears up your picture for you.
But then, you need it dark and muddy, if you're going to rob and rape someone in an alley, right?
Such a "power" never existed.
By ratifying the Constitution [of 1787], the states agreed that they would no longer be separate as they had been with respect to the laws of their common government. Yet the government would still not have jurisdiction over what from the beginning had been regarded as "internal police." The states would remain separate in all those matters with respect to which the Constitution did not delegate powers to the United States nor deny powers to them. Thus was created a system of government that has come to be called "dual federalism," but which might as well be called "dual sovereignty" - a system with no precedent in human history, but one that was essential to the empire of freedom the United States was destined to become ....[T]he Constitution of 1787 became the government of the United States in virtue of the right of revolution proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. It is impossible to understand the quarrel over the right of secession that Lincoln addresses on July 4, 1861 - as it is impossible to understand either the American Revolution or the Civil War - without understanding the divergent interpretations of this doctrine of the Declaration as applied to the transformation of the Union from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution....
Fully aware of this, the [Philadelphia] convention deliberately set in motion a ratification process that would ground the constitution on a more authoritative source than that of the government it intended to replace. In providing for a "more perfect Union," it transformed the Union itself. When a state ratified the Constitution of 1787, its people consented thereby to become, for certain specified purposes, fellow citizens subject to a common government,... these citizens now formed a single political community, acting and being acted upon without the intervention of state government authority." Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom
Once the people of the states had formed a "single political community," to break that bond they had but two alternatives: the natural right of revolution, or the consent of the other states which were party to the agreement. That is what the Calhounian apostasy denied. They argued they had novel "legal" rights, where none existed.
If your southern "revolution" of 1860-61 was based on natural law, and that they sought to protect themselves from tyranny and oppression, then it could be similarly argued that millions of African slaves had the equal right to overthrow their oppressors.
Otherwise, the southern position is philosophically and politically untenable, and the northern response to the rebellion was both proper and just.
You've been hanging around with stand watie too long.
The Southern States exercised their lawful and reserved Powers to withdraw from the Union.
They had no such unilateral powers.
There was no rebellion. Italy doesn't rebel against France by telling France to stick it.
France and Italy are both sovereign nations. The confederacy was not.
Other than the original 13, states did not join anything. They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the other states.
Hope that clears up your picture for you.
Nope, the picture remains as fuzzy as it always has been.