[EthanHeilman]

I do not buy the argument that unilateral secession is clearly forbidden in the US and I don't think the American Civil War settled that point. The Confederates stood a decent legal chance to secede from the Union. It was a constitution crisis. Instead the Confederates choose to throw constitutional avenues away and engage in a war of aggression against the North. The South didn't need to raise armies and launch an attack on Fort Sumter. However personally I'm grateful for their gross incompetence both in starting the war and their conduct throughout the war because it brought about the end of Chattel Slavery in North America.

Furthermore I would argue there is a large legal and ethical difference between:

1/ a largely peaceful movement for secession which is suppressed and then responds with riots

2. and a landed gentry rising up in open war and invasion because they lost an presidential election and they want to preserve their right to strip freedom from their countrymen.

[billiam]

I'm sorry but your misreading of American history is substantial. Texas v. White in 1869 made official that which Shay's Rebellion, the annexation of the Texas Republic, and the Civil War had established by actions--that secession in the US is illegal.

[EthanHeilman]

Illegal and forbidden are not synonyms. Political actions especially with respect to territorial integrity can both be illegal and allowed to happen i.e. not forbidden.

>Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue."

My main point was reacting to your statement above. A particular set of wars does not settle those issues.

What prevents a secessionist legal action to be heard by the Supreme court and for them to overturn the Texas v. White decision?