Secession would create a bunch of new impoverished countries in the world.

[Skidmore]

Interesting article on this issue.

http://www.glittersnipe.com/2012/11/12/aftermath-a-distorted-view-of-america-and-why-seceding-cant-succeed/

And now they want to secede.

Currently over 11,000 Louisianans have signed an online petition at Whitehouse.gov requesting secession so they can create their “own new government.” The Bayou State is the forty-ninth poorest in the union (Mississippi is also petitioning to secede and it ranks fiftieth) and in terms of receiving federal aid, Louisiana ranks sixth in the country. Citizens of thirteen other states (Oregon, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, New Jersey, Texas, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia) are currently plugging in their information for online petitions with the hopes of separating from the United States and forming their own countries.

Arguably, however, only the Republic of Texas can secede from the Union. Its defenders point to Texas v. White and to loopholes within the state’s Constitution and that Texas was a republic prior to being absorbed into the United States. (The latter is a weaker argument since Hawaii, California, and Vermont were also republics). Whether Texas can secede constitutionally is a debate that rages on in courtrooms, law schools, and most angrily by white men in trailer parks every election season. That said, Texas is one of only a few states that could possibly strike out on its own and survive.

Of course any of the other aforementioned states could, in an act of treason, secede by force to become the world’s newest impoverished nations. Not only are the majority of blue states the most populous, they are also the states with the most wealth, and with that comes the most taxes. And those blue states’ taxes pave their roads, turn on their street lights, run their schools, and make their water drinkable.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Arguably, however, only the Republic of Texas can secede from the Union.

An American friend here in London mentioned that to me long ways back. When I mentioned it here I was told that's a fairy tale. Is it true or not ?

[hobbit709]

2. False

A myth perpetuated by the idiots.

[HereSince1628]

3. Only if you believe that a pre-civil war agreement still means anything.

I think most Americans outside of Texas believe the US civil war reset all the agreements when Texas came back into the Union without special provisions at the close of the war

[Lasher]

4. There is no law forbidding or allowing secession.

The US Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. There is no provision in the Texas Constitution (current or former) that reserves the right of secession, but it does state that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States" ... not to the President of the US or even the Congress of the US.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_union

[TreasonousBastard]

7. That's not quite true...

the Supremes addressed secession and said it can only be be mutual agreement, if at all.

About 150 years ago a lot of people died when a few states decided they had a right to secede, and were shown they were wrong.

Legalities aside, should the few dozen Texas Republic assholes get their way through some magical means they will immediately notice every penny of US money drying up with the military, NASA, and pretty much everything else moving out, along with the US companies who moved there over the years. They will have to start their own State Department and set up embassies around the world, issuing passports to a lot of people who don't want Texas passports when the ones they had were good enough, set up a Texas Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and Army, issue a currency and prove to the world it's stable, pay for their own highways, figure out how to continue Social Security payments...

I just ain't gonna happen.

[Lasher]

8. Texas v. White didn't prove secession is unconstitutional.

That decision was not based on any precedent or anything in the Constitution and was in direct conflict with the actions of the then-President Grant who had to sign an act to "re-admit" Texas into the Union and allow them to send Representatives back to Congress.

The Civil War didn't prove it either. All that war actually "proved" is that a state or group of states can be militarily forced to continue being a part of a group.

I agree with the rest of what you said. Our discussion here is purely academic.

[HereSince1628]

5. This is what the US gets at the intersection of teahadists rebelliousness and southern heritage

Americans love rebels, we were founded in rebellion and have had a number of them (among which I think the Whiskey Rebellion has the most entertaining name).

[GreenStormCloud]

6. They would join together to create one or two new countries.

Such a new country could probably make it own their own, if all the red states left and reunited. They would control much of the farmland and most of the oil and gas reserves, and there is a good bit of industry in the red states. They would disavow their share of the national debt, dumping it on the remaining blue states, so they would start out debt free.

I don't think that Texas has the legal right to secede, however they can divide themselves into five different states if they so choose. No chance of that happening as the original reason for that provision is obsolete. It took a long time for horseback communications to travel from the far reaches of Texas to the capitol and back.