| >The fact that the US has indivisibility in it's constitution is a weird historical wrinkle, and one I find hard to reconcile given that they chose to separate from Britain. How they didn't recognise a general right for self determination is beyond me. But then I am a Brit. This is incorrect. The US Constitution doesn't mention indivisibility [1]. The Tenth amendment provides some Rights to self determination: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. --- So while the constitution doesn't address succession by a state, the historical context of our Civil War, and court cases in its aftermath ended most of the debate on if and how states could succeed from the Union. From Texas v. White [2]: >When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. That establishes that succession must have the consent of the States, which is a similar bar to amending the Constitution. But its interesting that the case cited pre-constitutional law, i.e. the Articles of Confederation. [1] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White |