For a fraction of a second I wondered if there was a court case of the two guys.
Really, all of them up against the wall? I seem to remember that the last time this happened, not even the very highest of the rebel leaders found themselves prosecuted, let alone executed, for their treason.
It was a 100,000 - 28,000 decision. 
psychonaut - That was a big mistake. We should have strung up every single one of the traitors. Not the military leaders, but every politician who voted for secession and every single one that served in a Confederate government in any policy-making fashion. (This is, of course, a personal opinion. YMMV.)
In addition to the aforementioned “Grant v. Lee” there was an actual judicial decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court after the war, Texas v. White, which held that the Constitution does not permit a state to unilaterally secede .
No one has ever addressed what procedure there would be to allow a state to peacefully secede from the Union–Congress votes to admit states, so perhaps a simple vote by Congress would allow one to leave. What sort of procedures Congress would adopt (a simple vote by the state legislature; a popular referendum; a popular referendum with a supermajority needed for secession and/or some minimal level of participation in the vote) and what sort of procedures would be worked out in the event of a successful pro-secession vote (disposition of Federal property within the newly independent country; assumption of some part of the U.S. national debt by the new country; the rights of residents of that state who wish to remain U.S. citizens; conceivably even that some part of that state might wish to split off from the secession and form a new state within the Union)–in a peaceful, non-violent secession, those would all be political questions, to be negotiated on by Congress and the pro-independence government elected by the people of the state in question.
Conceivably, Unionist citizens of the state in question might sue in federal court that their rights as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment were being jeopardizedby this proceeding, and that Congress does not have the authority to allow a state to secede, in which case who knows how the Supreme Court would wind up ruling.
Texas was a independent sovereign country before joining the US. The Republic of Texas.
Thats different from the US territories that became states.
Is the law on Texas really firm? They joined the US voluntarily. Why couldn’t they vote to leave?
What do you mean by “intergral”? IIRC Crimea was part of the Russian Empire from the late 1700s and Byelorus from the 1600s or maybe even 1500s.
There is no legal or constitutional difference between Texas and the other 49 states, and yes, the law on Texas is really firm. (See above on Texas v. White.)
So were California and Hawaii.
After California seceded from Mexico, a group of American businessmen declared the Bear Flag Republic (giving us the flag that, substantially, is the one we have to this day). As I’ve understood it, their new little nation was quickly recognized by the United States. They then quickly applied for admission to the United States as a new state (which, of course, everybody tacitly knew they would) and California was quickly admitted. California never went through a territorial government phase.
This was also one of the jolts to the status quo that helped spark the Civil War. It had been previously the tradition that new states would be admitted only in pairs, one free and one slave. California, being positioned on the southern border, “should have been” a slave state; possibly with either Oregon or Washington being the corresponding free state. But the people voted to become a free state (due to Gold Rush politics – The miners who were here working claims with their own hands didn’t like the idea of a bunch of rich landowners coming in and bringing a crew of slaves to work their claims for them).
In Hawaii, the sovereign Hawaiian government was overthrown and Liliuokalani was deposed, by a cabal of American-leaning businessmen (basically, the Dole people, and maybe also the C&H sugar people). They, likewise, quickly applied for admission to the United States, and a territorial government was established; Hawaii eventually became a state much later.
In all the discussions I’ve seen over the years about the idea of Texas seceding, there’s another point that often gets mentioned: Allegedly, Texas entered the United States with a specific proviso that they could subsequently secede if they ever decided they didn’t like it.
Does anybody here know if that’s true? Can somebody find a cite? Even if so, I can’t imagine such a provision would ever be respected today if they tried to secede.
(That’s too bad, really. I’m of the camp that says: Let them go, and good riddance.)
Texas, or Maine, or any other states may never be allowed to secede anytime in the foreseeable future, but I did read some articles about 15 years ago, in which a professor (of Geography? History? Economics?) predicted the likely future trajectory of the Union.
He predicted that, while the Union would remain intact, it would break up into several large economically semi-autonomous regions, based on regional economies.
Anybody else here remember that? Can anybody find some cites?
Okay, here’s what I found: This was predicted by a Russian analyst. I’m not sure if this is what I was thinking of; I sort of think there were some American academics suggesting something similar. According to this cite, it sounds like the Russian was predicting a complete break into four separate nations. (And it was supposed to happen by 2010.) But the discussions I recall reading seemed to suggest somewhat autonomous economic spheres, rather than an all-out break-up, and I don’t recall the prediction being as imminent as 2010 – more like in the next 50 years or whatever.
As if Things Weren’t Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. (Wall Street Journal, December, 2008).
(Scroll down to see a map of the predicted regions.)
There was no such provision. Congress passed a Joint Resolution on March 1, 1845 offering to annex Texas; and then another Joint Resolution of December 29, 1845, which specifically stated
The resolution of March 1845 is the source of the notion that Texas has the right to divide itself into up to five states:
Note that this is totally bound up in questions of slavery and the balance of free states and slave states in the Union, and is now essentially moot; and as Snopes points out, it’s also kind of redundant, since the Constitution explicitly allows states to be divided (with the consent of both the state legislature and of Congress), which is how we got Maine (from Massachusetts) and (more messily) West Virginia.
Previous thread on the topic. However according to Texas itself;
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/15march1866.html
A related question on whether Texas can split into multiple states any time it wants;
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/annexation/part5/question7.html
for that matter, paper and previous agreements are worthless. At that point it is a matter of military might and strong wills.
It’s ludicrous to predict that the US would split into economically autonomous units, because in the modern world, there is and can only be exactly one economically autonomous unit. The economies of the entire globe are all inseparably intertwined, and especially so for near neighbors like the portions of the US.
And it’s conceivable that a US state could peacefully secede from the Union, but it would require at the very least the agreement of both Congress and the seceding state. In the real world, one side or the other is almost certainly going to impose conditions on the secession which will be unacceptable to the other side (such as requiring the seceding state to pay off its share of the national debt).
Texas hates the Federal Government but we like ICE, big military bases, defense contractors, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, federal highway funds, federal education funds, agricultural subsidies, NASA, open borders for trade and transportation, NOAA, Federal flood insurance, if the rest of you m effers knew how much gravy we were sucking up you’d kick us out! And who’s gonna start and lose wars for you? Huh? We gave you LBJ and W!
That’s recent history. Before that Ukraine and Byelorussia had been incorporated into the Russian Empire before 1800, much longer than most of the other component republics of the USSR. Both had been part of Russia much longer than they were SSRs.
The US did a large land grab from Texas in creating four Oklahoma countys. A lot of Texans suddenly found themselves in another state. Somewhat similar to todays current news events.
Anything can happen in the USA, if it is the will of the people, constitutionally expressed. There are several ways Texas could legally secede: By an act of Congress, by a Supreme Court decision, or by a constitutional amendment. If it became the will of the majority of the people in Texas and a majority of the people in the United States, legalizing a secession would be a simple matter to carry out. Absent that collective will, it would not and should not happen.
It seems very dubious to me. Why would independant states be any less able to survive than random 1st world countries of similar size? Some adaptations would be required, certainly, but I’ not seeing that as an unsurmontable hurdle.