"Without slavery, the rebellion could never have existed. Without slavery, it could not continue."
Abraham Lincoln, December 1, 1862, Message to Congress.IN 2007, They split from the Black Sox and decided to call themselves the "Rebels".
Opposition to team names and logos such as the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians is documented and understandable, both Native Americans and white people fall on either side of the issue. I don't really care, but I'm not the one whose culture is being marketed, and sold as though it were a bottle of moonshine wrapped in Smallpox infested blanket.
Oddly, I can't remember hearing about any protests against UNLV or Ole' Miss for naming their teams "The Rebels", at least not to the extent of the "tomahawk-chop" issue on which Sports Center or Outside the Lines inevitably does an annual filler piece during the slow months of the sports year. I'm not trying to be some kind of anti-free speech, PC douche bag, teams have every right to chose any name and logo they want, even one relating to the pro-slavery side of the American Civil War, it's just not what I would do.
Anyway
It is a bit nationalist to view the term "Rebels" strictly in terms of the American Civil War. In many cases, throughout world history, rebel armies were the "good" guys. However, when your logo is this guy,


Not a fan of Che Guevara, go the Sandinista route:

looking for something less controversial and "leftist"? How about this:



To be fair I won't discount entirely the outside possibility that Rebel management is operating on an elite level of triple-reverse-irony that is over my head, but I doubt it.

Go Ducks.