C@LAg said:

---

the supreme court ruled on this.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

---

Only tyrannical regimes keep people from leaving.

C@LAg said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

the supreme court ruled on this.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

---

Only tyrannical regimes keep people from leaving.

---

you as an individual are entirely free to give up your US citizenship whenever you want.

the US government cannot stop you

---

The Soviet Union wouldn't let any SSRs leave, either...

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

C@LAg said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

And roe v wade made it legal to murder babies in the womb.

---

yet it was the law for 50 years.

and T vs W is still the law at this time.

so until such time as the law is overridden, it is the law that states cannot secede.

---

But isn't the whole point of secession that you no longer view the federal law as legitimate?

Why would US Supreme Court rulings apply at all to a new foundational government established by a local populace that specifically liberates itself from the previous government?

Without this, there wouldn't have been a Constitution. This is the entire basis for the validity of the US.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

normaleagle05 said:

---

This is an eye opening thread. The legal framework of political separation has for millennia been based almost entirely on warfare. The idea of independence based on the outcome of court pursuits is pretty novel and then mostly based on the aftermath of victory on the battlefield.

The 2nd amendment wasn't a new concept at the end of the 18th century. It was the codification of the natural order of things that living beings are, and should be, dangerous. The rattlesnake neither seeks nor requires a permit for fangs and venom. Nature allows it.

Millennia of human history are the stories of war victors. Kill the men, rape the women, sell the children as slaves. Right, wrong, or otherwise, that's just how it was done. The idea that the separation of polities in the 21st century should be based on any principle other than military force and violence is ignorant of the history and nature of humans.

If we decide to be politically independent from the rest of this Union, rest assured, it will involve violence.

---

This is a great post and I cant believe i am the first to star it. Having never been a part of something like that, I dont think most folks discussing this have thought of it in the context your discussing.

C@LAg said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Without this, there wouldn't have been a Constitution. This is the entire basis for the validity of the US.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

---

DoI is not law.

---

The law comes from the Constitution, which is premised on the Declaration. It is the nexus to any Constitutional Laws and has precedent. The Declaration explicitly states people cannot be forcefully bound to others for perpetuity. Man made laws can't rightfully supersede natural laws or God given rights.

As someone else stated, it wasn't "lawful" for the US to leave England. Just as it wasn't "lawful" for Texas to leave Mexico.

Ask yourself:

1. Do you support the South's right to succession?
2. Do you support the people of eastern Oregon, northern Calf, and eastern Washington to succed and join Idaho?

If you answer "no", then ask do you celebrate the 4th of July?

If you answer "yes", you are a hypocrite.

C@LAg said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

The law comes from the Constitution, which is premised on the Declaration. It is the nexus to any Constitutional Laws and has precedent. The Declaration explicitly states people cannot be forcefully bound to others for perpetuity. Man made laws can't rightfully supersede natural laws or God given rights.

As someone else stated, it wasn't "lawful" for the US to leave England. Just as it wasn't "lawful" for Texas to leave Mexico.

---

The OP asked:

This thread is addressing the fundamental question of whether a state or states CAN leave and if they cannot, why not?

I answered that.

Sure, any state can try to leave, regardless of whether they might succeed . But it is not "legal" and there is no "right" for a state to do so.

Individuals already have the right to leave any time they desire to do so.

---

It is illegal to do a lot of things, yet people still do them. Sometimes with punishment and sometimes with no punishment.

If a state secedes, what is the punishment in your opinion?

That is the ultimate question as others have tirelessly said that contracts in abusive relationships can be broken. You don't ask, you do. Then deal with whatever punishment comes from leaving.

Our country is not divided by state lines. That was 150 years ago. Today, the Civil War would be divided by urban vs country, by income level and by education among other things. In Texas, that means the Austin's and Houstons vs the College Stations, Wacos and Tylers.

C@LAg said:

---

the supreme court ruled on this.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

---

This line of thinking was a major component of the Emancipation Proclamation. Because Lincoln refused to recognize that seceding states were actually a new nation, the EP was applied liberally as Grant and Sherman moved through.

Lincoln was very careful not to push the idea that the Confederacy was its own nation and got the Republican party in lockstep about it.

et98 said:

---

I encourage all of you to study the "Copperheads" of the north during the Civil War era. They were northerners who supported states rights, specifically the sates' right to leave the union. Regardless of wether they supported slavery or not (some did, some did not), they agreed that states leaving the union was no differnt than wives leaving husbands.

Can you hold a gun to your wife's head and force her to stay? Can you physically beat her into submission with your fists and weapons until she submits? Abraham Lincoln believes you should.

According to to Copperheads, if you support the Civil War, you support spousal abuse, domestic violence, and the most exreme of extreme levels when it comes to white men owning women, blacks, and anyone else who cannot vote.

Copperheads include a wide array of beliefs that did not always see eye-to-eye. Slavery was one thing upon which they passionately disagreed. But the right to peacefully secede was something they agreed upon, and one state's (or nation's) ability to tell another state or nation what to do was something they simply did not possess under basic understandings of soveriegnty.

---

If you ever read McPherson's Pulitzer-winning Battle Cry of Freedom, the copperheads play a significant part in stirring up northern dissension. The idea that the anti-slavery, pro-war movement in the Union was some super-popular idea is not the case. Like the Revolutionary War, it was a slight majority (at best) that supported this notion, although it strengthened as the war went on.

Copperheads, for the most part, were harmless; however, some of its more extreme members worked with Confederate spies to sabotage Republicans (some of whom had to flee to Canada when the Union found out about it).

Some of the more optimistic copperheads also hoped that by ending the war peacefully and reinstating slavery, the Confederacy would come back. The Confederates played up this notion with Union sympathizers, although internal letters and hindsight make it clear they were getting played and had no intention of returning.

Frankly, in my amateur opinion, the Civil War was destined to happen from Day 1 of the Union. In the Pulitzer-winning Founding Brothers, there's a whole section on Jefferson and Washington trying to find a way to abolish slavery by gradually phasing it out over twenty years. The reasoning was that they realized the Union would die quickly if slavery was outright banned in the late 18th century. So, they devised a way to phase it out. The problem was that the southern states didn't phase it out but made it a core component of their economy.

This was made even worse when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, a device he thought could end slavery because of its efficiency. All it did was make slavery worse.

In the end, a fight was going to happen. It was just a matter of when and if the Union could be saved.

We should financially (and otherwise) support the movement of Washington counties to join Idaho.

I would rather they establish a new state and gain the vital two senators. House numbers wouldn't change much no matter how you slice it, but the two senators could make for a much more significant change.

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

Liberals think its okay to burn cities down when a thug ODs in the street and call for then support the assassination attempts and harassment of SCOTUS justices over their claimed right to kill unborn children. So yea, we know at least one side is absolutely prone to violence, death and destruction.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

People aren't going to war over secession but they might vote for it. The US is not going to go to war with Texas if the people of Texas vote to leave. It's not 1860.

The shame in what Lincoln pushed for in his desire to make the union of the states ironclad and permanent is that it ignored the reasons the "union" was formed… which it was formed on the basis of confederacy.

There were very strong positions taken during the Continental Congress to preserve the rights of individual states and to establish an overall weak federal government. The people of each state should be free to determine the best course for their state. If that is consistent with its neighbors and friends in other states, great. When those differences become so untenable with other states, it's time to recognize the right to leave or "secede".

People should rejoice that concept, not fear it nor try and oppose it, certainly not oppose it violently. But Dems/Libs have shown they will always result to violence and terror when they do not get their way.

Has there been a poll on the number of people in TX who want to secede?

fka ftc said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

Liberals think its okay to burn cities down when a thug ODs in the street and call for then support the assassination attempts and harassment of SCOTUS justices over their claimed right to kill unborn children. So yea, we know at least one side is absolutely prone to violence, death and destruction.

---

The leap from riots and abortion to war is a very large one. Burning Fergusion or throwing Molotov cocktails at PD headquarters in Portland is nothing compared to a modern war between the states in both scale, death, and outcome.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

Liberals think its okay to burn cities down when a thug ODs in the street and call for then support the assassination attempts and harassment of SCOTUS justices over their claimed right to kill unborn children. So yea, we know at least one side is absolutely prone to violence, death and destruction.

---

The leap from riots and abortion to war is a very large one. Burning Fergusion or throwing Molotov cocktails at PD headquarters in Portland is nothing compared to a modern war between the states in both scale, death, and outcome.

---

I consider the leap from megaphones and misspelled poster boards of people picketing outside believe headquarters to burning the building down, killing officers and blinding / maiming others to be the bigger of the leaps.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

Liberals think its okay to burn cities down when a thug ODs in the street and call for then support the assassination attempts and harassment of SCOTUS justices over their claimed right to kill unborn children. So yea, we know at least one side is absolutely prone to violence, death and destruction.

---

The leap from riots and abortion to war is a very large one. Burning Fergusion or throwing Molotov cocktails at PD headquarters in Portland is nothing compared to a modern war between the states in both scale, death, and outcome.

---

So you believe if a state secedes that the U.S. would go to war with that state, even if that states chooses to leave peacefully?

Seems like a pretty strong case that states are correct that it is an abuser vs abused relationship.

aggie93 said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

People aren't going to war over secession but they might vote for it. The US is not going to go to war with Texas if the people of Texas vote to leave. It's not 1860.

---

Honestly, the U.S. would likely ignore it. A vote is just a vote. There aren't any teeth behind it. If Texas started setting up its own government, pulled its representatives from Washington, and forcibly evicted the military from its bases within the state (not sure how possible that would even be), then you'd get America's attention.

And I have no doubt if the case got that severe, which despite talk we are nowhere close to (especially with 60% of the state opposed to it), the U.S. military would be heavily involved. I imagine it would go much like Jackson marching the military into South Carolina in 1832. The Union has to remain strong, lest it not just break, but splinter.

The South's confederation of states had little chance of survival had it won the war. The new nation would have quickly split into numerous nation-states (Jefferson Davis had to put these fires out while the Confederacy was trying to secede).

Tea Party said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

Liberals think its okay to burn cities down when a thug ODs in the street and call for then support the assassination attempts and harassment of SCOTUS justices over their claimed right to kill unborn children. So yea, we know at least one side is absolutely prone to violence, death and destruction.

---

The leap from riots and abortion to war is a very large one. Burning Fergusion or throwing Molotov cocktails at PD headquarters in Portland is nothing compared to a modern war between the states in both scale, death, and outcome.

---

So you believe if a state secedes that the U.S. would go to war with that state, even if that states chooses to leave peacefully?

Seems like a pretty strong case that states are correct that it is an abuser vs abused relationship.

---

There are many aspects of history up for debate. I believe this one is crystal clear. You can't just sever a nation and then say, "Yeah, but we're doing it peacefully, so we're cool."

Predmid said:

---

I would rather they establish a new state and gain the vital two senators. House numbers wouldn't change much no matter how you slice it, but the two senators could make for a much more significant change.

---

To me, the establishing new precedent is more important than gaining seats in congress. If they tried to establish a new state, then the libs in Washington state and DC would fight tooth and nail. And there is a damn good chance they would win in court or the ballot box (as they would cheat).

But if they were to split off and join Idaho. Then Washington state libs might say "good riddance" and be more likely to let them go and DC to not interfere. But at that point, the precedent is set. The notion that "states can't split anymore" would be gone.

And if the people of East Washington are happier, then that may make fence conservatives here wake up to more possibilities.

fka ftc said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

Liberals think its okay to burn cities down when a thug ODs in the street and call for then support the assassination attempts and harassment of SCOTUS justices over their claimed right to kill unborn children. So yea, we know at least one side is absolutely prone to violence, death and destruction.

---

The leap from riots and abortion to war is a very large one. Burning Fergusion or throwing Molotov cocktails at PD headquarters in Portland is nothing compared to a modern war between the states in both scale, death, and outcome.

---

I consider the leap from megaphones and misspelled poster boards of people picketing outside believe headquarters to burning the building down, killing officers and blinding / maiming others to be the bigger of the leaps.

---

War is war. There is little comparable to it.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

Liberals think its okay to burn cities down when a thug ODs in the street and call for then support the assassination attempts and harassment of SCOTUS justices over their claimed right to kill unborn children. So yea, we know at least one side is absolutely prone to violence, death and destruction.

---

The leap from riots and abortion to war is a very large one. Burning Fergusion or throwing Molotov cocktails at PD headquarters in Portland is nothing compared to a modern war between the states in both scale, death, and outcome.

---

So you believe if a state secedes that the U.S. would go to war with that state, even if that states chooses to leave peacefully?

Seems like a pretty strong case that states are correct that it is an abuser vs abused relationship.

---

There are many aspects of history up for debate. I believe this one is crystal clear. You can't just sever a nation and then say, "Yeah, but we're doing it peacefully, so we're cool."

---

I never said it would be peaceful. I'm saying if the leaving state tries to leave peacefully and clearly states their reasons why they feel the relationship is abusive, then any violent conflict would be the fault of the abuser.

aTmAg said:

---

Predmid said:

---

I would rather they establish a new state and gain the vital two senators. House numbers wouldn't change much no matter how you slice it, but the two senators could make for a much more significant change.

---

To me, the establishing new precedent is more important than gaining seats in congress. If they tried to establish a new state, then the libs in Washington state and DC would fight tooth and nail. And there is a damn good chance they would win in court or the ballot box (as they would cheat).

But if they were to split off and join Idaho. Then Washington state libs might say "good riddance" and be more likely to let them go and DC to not interfere. But at that point, the precedent is set. The notion that "states can't split anymore" would be gone.

And if the people of East Washington are happier, then that may make fence conservatives here wake up to more possibilities.

---

I also believe you'd see enormous pushback from U.S. Republicans as well. If Texas secedes, it would have to do so in a way that gained a vast amount of U.S. congressional support for recognition and commerce because there's no way the U.S. would recognize the legality of such a move and would heavily pressure its allies not to recognize it either. A Texas-less union would severely hamper Republicans in the U.S. It's the largest Republican state in the Union. Its loss would be political suicide for Republicans.

This dream where the U.S. says, "Awesome bro, have a good time!" is not a realistic scenario.

Secession is not explicitly forbidden in the US Constitution.

Regardless of previous court decisions or our previous civil war.

Tea Party said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

Liberals think its okay to burn cities down when a thug ODs in the street and call for then support the assassination attempts and harassment of SCOTUS justices over their claimed right to kill unborn children. So yea, we know at least one side is absolutely prone to violence, death and destruction.

---

The leap from riots and abortion to war is a very large one. Burning Fergusion or throwing Molotov cocktails at PD headquarters in Portland is nothing compared to a modern war between the states in both scale, death, and outcome.

---

So you believe if a state secedes that the U.S. would go to war with that state, even if that states chooses to leave peacefully?

Seems like a pretty strong case that states are correct that it is an abuser vs abused relationship.

---

There are many aspects of history up for debate. I believe this one is crystal clear. You can't just sever a nation and then say, "Yeah, but we're doing it peacefully, so we're cool."

---

I never said it would be peaceful. I'm saying if the leaving state tries to leave peacefully and clearly states their reasons why they feel the relationship is abusive, then any violent conflict would be the fault of the abuser.

---

When it comes to war, "fault" is almost irrelevant. Who starts a war rarely matters. All that matters is who has the will and resources to get to the endgame and the fortitude to withstand the emotional and physical loss. We're not talking about kids fighting in a schoolyard. Blaming someone or saying it's someone else's fault doesn't matter unless you win. Because if you lose, all the righteous justice or good intentions in the world doesn't matter.

It's one thing to say you want to secede. It's another to believe so deeply in the cause that you'd send your kids off to die for it.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The last time a 1st World country had to go to war to secede was probably Ireland 100 years ago. If the voters want to leave it's virtually impossible to stop it. No one wants to have Americans killing each other over a state wanting to be independent, not really. Manifest Destiny has been over for a long time.

---

Secession talk is just that: talk. Whether it's Texit or Calexit, I find it really hard to believe that people hate modern Republicans/Democrats so much they'd be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over it...again.

---

People aren't going to war over secession but they might vote for it. The US is not going to go to war with Texas if the people of Texas vote to leave. It's not 1860.

---

Honestly, the U.S. would likely ignore it. A vote is just a vote. There aren't any teeth behind it. If Texas started setting up its own government, pulled its representatives from Washington, and forcibly evicted the military from its bases within the state (not sure how possible that would even be), then you'd get America's attention.

And I have no doubt if the case got that severe, which despite talk we are nowhere close to (especially with 60% of the state opposed to it), the U.S. military would be heavily involved. I imagine it would go much like Jackson marching the military into South Carolina in 1832. The Union has to remain strong, lest it not just break, but splinter.

The South's confederation of states had little chance of survival had it won the war. The new nation would have quickly split into numerous nation-states (Jefferson Davis had to put these fires out while the Confederacy was trying to secede).

---

Once again this is not the 19th Century. Back then countries went to war over this stuff, they don't now. Quebec and Scotland both came very close to seceding in the recent past. Most Texans also have ties to family in other states and vice versa, it's just very different culturally.

If Texas voted to secede people would look at a peaceful option to allow that to happen and stay allied with the US in many things, that is by far the most likely outcome. The way it gets violent is if it isn't done by vote and popular opinion. I'm in favor of secession but only in a peaceful way and I think that's very possible and certainly highly preferable. If it does get violent everyone loses.

C@LAg said:

---

the supreme court ruled on this.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

---

Texas vs White is a joke of a ruling from a SC that had literally no one from the South on it and was necessary to justify the War by Lincoln appointees. It has no basis in the actual Constitution by any sane reading. The 9th and 10th clearly give States the right to secede.