[donmeaker]

A state can secede, by constitutional amendment, perhaps by mere federal law, or by successful supreme court case.

No state can by itself secede. The Union wrote the declaration of independence, the union was made perpetual by the articles of confederation, and the union was made more perfect by the current constitution, to include its provisions for amendment.

The precedent denying secession by state action alone is Texas v. White.

[MrChips]

Under the Articles, no state could secede lawfully unless all states seceded simultaneously. But the Constitution—which Lincoln had just taken an oath to uphold—did not contain that clause (or any other like it); so any state could secede lawfully at any time. And the Southern states did secede lawfully. Honest Abe flat-out lied when he said that was not so in his inaugural address; and he subsequently used his blatant lie to slaughter 623,000 people and wage war on women and children whom, in his view, were his own people.

[Nowhere Man]

The precedent denying secession by state action alone is Texas v. White.

Law does not really matter, force does or the threat thereof. Robert A. Heinlein said in "Starship Troopers" where "the use of naked force has decided more issues" than any other method in history. Well, I guess it decided the Civil War when the Confederacy lost. Still there might be a time that if a group of State woulds secede, there might be a debate on whether force should be applied to make them stay or not and if it woulds be worth it to use such force. I am sympathetic to the Confederacy, if I was around then, I would have supported the South. I am also sympathetic to the idea of secession if all else fails such as going by the 10th Amendment and so on.

I guess if in today's or in the world of nearly tomorrow, if a group of States want to break away, they must be able to cash the checks they write, either by showing the ability to stand up well enough to make the other party say, "well, let 'em go, the fight will not be worth it" or if needed, to be able to fight and throw off the unionists or at least wear them down enough to where they would say uncle. Two other plusses, if you get a great power nation or two to recognize you such as a Russia, Japan, France, etc. as a separate nation and if you can score some nukes.

I suppose there is the guerrilla route too like the Afghans, Algerians, Vietnam (until the NVA came in) East Timor and so on where asymmetrical warfare comes into play where over time the underdogs get their point across by grinding down the bigger power. We are having loads of trouble in Afghanistan so we need to remember not even the mighty USSR could tame that place nor even Queen Victoria's finest.

The big thing is you got to be strong enough to beard the lion in his den.

Just an academic discussion here.