You are really talking in circles and repeating yourself w/o responding directly to the issue at hand.
All rebellions, ours included, are deemed illegal by the governing authority and then deemed to be either justified or criminal by the victor.
Such is the case here. The Colonists deemed the repressive regime of the British to be such that they justified a rebellion by declaring issues and rights that previously did not exist, consent of the governed being one.
The Colonists are praised for their heroism, judgment and righteousness. But how did they differ from the Confederates, who essentially followed the same guidelines and principles established a mere 80-90 years earlier?
Recall, slavery was Constitutional, so one cannot condemn them for defending their Constitutional rights, while simultaneously arguing that the Consitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and then use that argument to deny them their Rights.
What I am denying is the claim that the Southern acts of unilateral secession were legal. You seem to support that same viewpoint with your constant comparisons with American Revolution.
I explained the difference to you earlier in post 25.
Recall, slavery was Constitutional, so one cannot condemn them for defending their Constitutional rights
The Confederacy did not secede because the federal government threatened their legal privilege of owning slaves. President-elect Lincoln was very clear on this point.
The Confederacy seceded because the South no longer had enough seats in Congress to prevent a Congressional majority from refusing to admit any new slave states.
Some people say that the Civil War was not about slavery - they are only half-right: the Civil War was about the South's frustration at not being electorally able to expand slavery beyond the South's borders.
Which underlines my original point: the colonists were denied their basic right to representation. The King of Great Britain held his throne pursuant to an act of Parliament - an act of Parliament that conditioned the King's jurisdiction upon his agreement to maintain representative government. The King violated his obligation to allow the colonists representative government and when the colonists formally sought redress from King and Parliament, both entities conspired against the colonists to deny them the basic rights that the whole post-1688 government of Great Britain was built upon.
The federal government jealously guarded all of the rights of Southerners and even extended to them special privileges other Americans did not have - the right to count non-citizens as citizens in their territories for electoral purposes, in order to give them almost 50% more Congressional representatives than they would have merited if they had been allotted on the basis of citizen population alone.
The colonists were insisting on their most basic rights.
The Confederates were upset that they were not given their own special privilege of vetoing any constitutionally-passed legislation they didn't like.