Does threatening to revolt to win concessions ever work?

Another thread inspired by mention of the The Olive Branch Petition. Offhand, I can’t think of any example where threatening to revolt (as opposed to going ahead and doing it) ever achieved anything useful. The seemingly inevitable reaction of authority is to stomp the would-be rebels, hard.

Labor unions?

Consider the numerous compromises between the North and the South prior to the US Civil War. I wouldn’t be surprised if the concessions won from the North were due in part to the threat of Southern rebellion.

Threats are the mainstay of diplomacy. Otherwise we’d be at war with everyone.
Simple threats like recalling an ambassador often brings people around, as the local business community realize that trade wars hurt the smaller country most and pressure the offending government.

Yeh but that’s between two sovereign powers. I was thinking of a group of people threatening to rebel against their government’s authority. Even the pre-Civil War threats mentioned by Tyrrell McAllister were made by quasi-sovereign states. (Or at least it was genuinely debatable whether states had a right to secede.)

By “revolt” I take it you mean violent uprising, not striking or boycotts, yes?

I can’t easily think of any offhand. Even the Velvet Revolution was actual protest actions, not just threats. But it was non-violent. Same with Gandhi.