Oh please, Chief Justice Chase dealt with what was permissible under the Constitution.
The main difference between 1776 and 1861 is that in 1861 there wasn’t a rival superpower willing to shovel money and supplies and guns at the secessionists and lend them troops and lend them their navy.
The main difference is that in 1776 the Founding Fathers wanted their independence enough to win their rebellion while in 1861 the Confederates did not.
The other main difference is that the states were sovereign and had the right to secede while the colonies were not and did not have a legal right to secede.
Please do not confuse a right to secede with rebellion. States in the U.S. do have a right to secede, we just disagree on the method. You would have us believe that the Constitution only provides protections for those states leaving while I believe the Constitution protects both those wishing to leave and those wanting to stay.
Oh please. Chase was one of the parties involved. His is hardly a dispassionate objective reading of the constitution we are bound to respect.
Your second statement is nothing more than a might makes right argument. The Founding Fathers were only able to gain their independence because the rival superpower of the day backed them heavily.
I do not agree with the false distinction you are trying to draw between rebellion and secession. Furthermore nowhere did the states surrender their sovereignty rather than delegate certainn powers. Allowing themselves to require the permission of others instead of their right to unilaterally secede would have been surrendering their sovereignty. They were no more going to agree to that than Maryland would agree it needed the permission of Kent or Connecticut agree it needed the permission of Sussex to secede from the British Empire.