You certainly have a unique (and malleable) definition of rebellion that doesn’t seem to match the whole rest of the world’s.
The definition of “rebellion” in Merriam-Webster (certainly not a fringe publication) states that rebellion is:
1: Opposition to one in authority or dominance
2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance or
resistance to an established government
2b: an instance of such defiance or resistance
By this definition the Civil War was a rebellion, as was Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion, to use just a few examples from American history.
You still have not stated why the Merriam-Webster definition was wrong and yours is correct.
In addition, your definition of rebellion is very changeable. You had previously stated, and I quote, that a “rebellion is an effort to take control of an existing government”. The American War of independence, BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, was therefore also not a rebellion.
So, how are you going to change your definition this time?
I often find myself at odds with the rest of the world. Most of them think socialism is a good idea, and it does not bother me at all to be correct when the vast majority of everyone else is wrong.
The definition of “rebellion” in Merriam-Webster (certainly not a fringe publication) states that rebellion is:
1: Opposition to one in authority or dominance
2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance or resistance to an established government
2b: an instance of such defiance or resistance
The premise which you assert, but which is incorrect, is that the Federal government in Washington DC represents the "authority" in question. Once secession has taken place, that government is no longer the authority. For proof of this, I point out the nation's founding document which clearly states:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We have a built in methodology for "disestablishing" an "established" government. It's part of our core structure. Therefore you definition doesn't apply, because it doesn't recognize this unique characteristic of America's foundation principle.
By this definition the Civil War was a rebellion, as was Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion, to use just a few examples from American history.
The Whiskey rebellion and Shay's rebellion do not compare to holding statewide democratic elections, and therefore implementing the express will of the people of the states involved. It is clearly recognized that these states had the right to do so in 1776, and so therefore they had this same right "four score and seven years" later.
You still have not stated why the Merriam-Webster definition was wrong and yours is correct.
Just did. Didn't think I needed to, but some people need things spelled out for them.
In addition, your definition of rebellion is very changeable. You had previously stated, and I quote, that a “rebellion is an effort to take control of an existing government”.
It certainly is in our society. As I mentioned, we have a built in methodology for going our own way, so doing that cannot be "rebellion." It's in accordance with our legal framework, not contrary to it. In such a system, the only way to "rebel" is to usurp the rightful authority, and attempt to force your control on other states which do not want it.
Lincoln "rebelled."