When there is a rebellion, maybe so. There was no rebellion in 1861. States don't "rebel" against themselves, and the People of the State don't "rebel" against themselves or their State when they act as a People in convention assembled.
Kings cannot "rebel" against themselves no matter what they do, by definition. Neither can a People.
Your insistence that there was a "rebellion" is a flat denial of the sovereignty of the People, and of their ownership of the United States.
You've admitted that the People are sovereign, right here on this board. It took me weeks to beat that out of you, because you don't WANT the People to be sovereign -- you want a faction to be sovereign, a cabal, a club, a sodality of Non-Sequiturs to be sovereign. But you despise the People and call them in the wrong all the time, and say that they "rebelled" -- because they are Americans, and not a bunch of weenified hand-lickers.
Which is what you want them to be. Subordinate, yielding, teachable, pliable, malleable, docile, and above all, compliant.
We've been over this before. Merriam-Webster defines rebellion as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. The confederate defiance was open, it was armed, and it certainly was unsuccessful. Considering that their acts of unilateral secession were also illegal then 'rebellion' is an accurate term.
Which is what you want them to be. Subordinate, yielding, teachable, pliable, malleable, docile, and above all, compliant.
That seems to be your preference, as well as other Southron types around here. You want us to be meek and mild and accept your opinion as fact and not argue the truth with you. And it really, really pisses you off when people don't roll over like that.