Sure there was. A insurrection is defined as 'an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." That is an accurate description of what happened.
Davis would not even allow Stonewall to attack Washington following Manassas I, because, "all we wish is to be left alone."
You should read your history. In his biography "Jefferson Davis, American", Davis is described as being very insistent that the troops move on Washington from Masassas. His two commanding generals, Beauregard and Johnston, finally convinced him that is was impossible because the confederate army was just as disorganized after the battle as the Union army was.
As for slavery...
Slavery was never the primary reason why the Lincoln administration pursued the war that the south had forced on them. The single overriding goal was preserving the Union, and neither Lincoln or any other Northern leader pretended otherwise. Steps taken against the institution of slavery were taken because they supported the war effort. The Emancipation Proclamation, for example, overruled the various fugitive slave laws and allowed slaves fleeing confederate territory to remain in Union territory. Free blacks didn't need to be returned to their owners, and it removed hundreds of thousands of slaves from supporting confederate war efforts. There was nothing altruistic about it. Most Union soldiers thought no more of blacks than did confederate soldiers, and were no less racist in many ways that the southerners.
Wrong again. There was no rebellion at all. There was completely peaceful secession -- unitil Lincoln notified the South that he would reinforce Sumter (the tax collection house), and he refused to meet with Confederate emmisaries.
All after many federal properties had peacefully been returned to Southern states under Lincoln's predecessor, who sought a PEACEFUL resolution....
Your previous quotes by Stephens mean nothing. What politicians have to say (in general) means very little, and Southern politicians were not above saying what was required to get the response they wanted at the time any more than their northern counterparts. What matters is ACTIONS:
1) The Southern States seceded (using slavery as one of their excuses
2) The (now northern-controlled Congress) passed a Constitutional Amendment GUARRANTEEING SLAVERY FOREVER---it could have NEVER been revoked--- and Lincoln PUBLICLY STATED that he AGREED with it. The northern Declaration of War also stated that slavery was NOT the reason for the war.
Non-Sequitur, you make the same error as so many others. To you, secession must necessarily = war.
But if Lincoln had followed the concept of the Declaration, the Southern states could have, and WOULD have, left in peace.
Instead, like every other tyrant, he used force to FORCE a government on Southerners that they no longer wanted.
Much like a marriage, where the husband has been abusing his wife. She tries to escape, but he captures her, ties her to the bed, and beats her almost to death. But HURRAH! The union is SAVED!
Same concept.