This is an incorrect analysis. Secession simply is, in this case, a breaking of the political bonds which binds people. There is a revolutionary process that takes place to create an environment compatible with secession, but that is primarily in the hearts and minds of the people. That revolution is WELL underway my friend.
Secession is: "I hate everything about you. I am leaving and unless you want to kill me over this, its over. your free to live your life how ever you want without me".
Revolutionary war is: "I hate everything about you and I am going to force us to live together but this time under MY rules. That is, if I don't decide to kill you"
The justification for each is very different. Its all about what your goal is and what people will agree to do.
No, that's revolution. Literally, a return to the state of nature from which a new social contract can be drawn. If your revolution takes place in an orderly, legalistic fashion, leaving the old order diminished but still in place, you might call it secession. You might call it being granted independence. Seccession is a subset of Revolution.
Secession is: "I hate everything about you. I am leaving and unless you want to kill me over this, its over. your free to live your life how ever you want without me".
Revolutionary war is: "I hate everything about you and I am going to force us to live together but this time under MY rules. That is, if I don't decide to kill you"
My first reaction is that by that definition, the American Revolution is misnamed. My second is to wonder what the magic words are that turn my insurrection into a secession that, if I understand you correctly, the government has no moral authority to resist. If I say that I'm only claiming California, or Texas, or the entire south, does that mean by definition that I'm not rebelling?