Do you normally fish with just a hook? Not a southerner, so I don't have a dog in the fight you're picking.
I do however think words have meaning, and the term "revolution" does not apply to what happened in the 1800s, i.e. "the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed." The southern states did not renounce or overthrow the constitution, nor did they dissolve. They remained intact and formed a different union. Lincoln called that a revolt, and that was the argument he used in the north - send troops to quell the revolution. But our consitution doesn't technically grant the President or congress sufficient power to be revolted against. There would have to be a revolt against the constitution itself, as it is the only thing that legally has power in our government. Haven't met anyone here that would want that; may be unhappy with the management, but not the constitution.
Some have said that the historical significance of the civil war is that it marks the beginning of a soft revolution to slowly replace our previous consitutional government with something unconstitutional - larger federal government, less state sovereignty. That would be a 2nd revolution perhaps, but not as obvious. Like the white revolution in Iran. So then if the governed should in the future decide to throw off the unconstitutional model and go back to constitutional, that might be a 3rd, as you suggested.
