LOL. That train left the station 150 years ago.
The Southern states exercised that perogative ... didn't work out too well for them. Texas was among them.
Actually, the train is STILL present for that station and was not exercised fully since. And can STILL be used again
Here is part of the
Ordinance of Annexation passed July 4th, 1845 by the Texas Convention. Emphasis mine.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union. 2nd. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other government, --and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action on, or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited."
Yes, Texas could be drawn and quartered to become 5 total states within the Union. But Texas as a state, nor any of those subdivided states may secede from the Union. But even with that being the case, it doesn't take away from the fact that Texans often feel they are free to do as they wish. Even if U.S. law says Texas cannot secede from the Union, the whole point of declaring independence is to free yourself from such laws. Nations never declare independence from within the framework of existing national laws - it only happens in the face of current laws. People are free to change the course of their lives at any time, in violation of any existing law, if they find the courage and the popular support necessary to achieve sufficient recognition among their own people. For all revolutions take place under precisely such a structure: When the will of the People shifts, old laws crumble away and new laws take their place.
There's validity in others noting how the United States of America has not acted with any real respect for the Law in a long, long time. From domestic surveillance to federal income taxation, the kidnapping of foreign nationals and the operation of secret prisons using government-approved torture methods, the U.S. government has demonstrated quite convincingly that it respects no law other than "might makes right" while still speaking of the Constitution.
As
said best elsewhere:
Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?
A: This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1] (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")
Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"including Abraham Lincoln himselfmay have ever said).
Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."
Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]