Can voter anger lead to secession?

In 2009 and again this year, candidates I'll call extremists are trying to capitalize on voter anger have floated the idea of having their state go through secession and separate from the union. Surprisingly they've been very successful in the primaries.
If a candidate supporting that position won the general election do you think the legislatures in those states would actually follow through with it? Would the citizens of the state allow them to follow through?
If they were successful think of the consequences -- checkpoints on the interstates on the state('s') borders (not being allowed to leave the state(s) without a passport), flights from the state(s) being classified as international as opposed to domestic, the number of seats in Congress being reduced (or at least in the Senate, the House can always reapportion how many seats each state gets). The savings in Federal dollars of not having to send any money to the state(s) would be offset by the loss of income tax revenue from the state(s).
Last time I posted this specifying which party floated the idea it got deleted before any responses were posted (or in less than 10 minutes, whichever came first).
So now I'm taking partisan politics out of it and just floating the idea, is this a realistic thing for politicians to even mention in a campaign? I think it's not.

 

Not even the slimmest chance.

First, the U.S. military would stop it.

Second, and more importantly, there are only a few states that have a handful of people who would seriously consider it. And all of those states have more people who realize that those states depend heavily on federal dollars.

 

This country fought a war over this.

The Rebels still fighting the Civil War would love it, but they are too slow to realize that the tax base of the North supports their sorry asses.

Oh, as soon as well do it, China will be plotting their eventual takeover.

 

Of course it will never happen, but the fact that politicians in some states are having primary success with the idea is astounding.

Rick - I don't know about the US Military stopping it, but I like the idea of needing a passport to leave the territory (since it's no longer a state) that seceeds. I also like the idea of having the taxes in those territories skyrocket when they stop receiving their federal dollars.

 

Hypothetically speaking, of course, if it ever got to the stage where a state actually voted to secede, I doubt one state could go it alone. Or very few could. Texas has the infrastructure, natural resources and geographical position that it might be able to pull it off. If California wasn't so screwed up politically and financially it could, too, for the same reasons. Minnesota has enough natural resources that it might be able to do it, but it would be tougher.
The other states would have to bring two or three neighbors along to have any kind of leverage. If, say, Mississippi were to secede (again) it would be suicide. However, if it could somehow convince Alabama, Louisiana and Texas to join it you might have some issues. They could lock up the oil in the Gulf and the means to transport it to shore. That might give them enough leverage to avoid being crushed by the U.S. military.
Bottom line, only border states or blocs of states near a border could even think about this. Anywhere else and they'd just be embargoed and starved out. Kansas and Missouri ain't forming a world-dominating alliance anytime soon. You don't have to worry about the Republic of Utah forming, either.

 

Jesus, it's scary how much this hypothesis reminds me of the current state of college football.

 

Not a chance. Too many fat people in every state.

 

I don't know if Texas could go it alone. They produce plenty of meat, but I'm not sure they could support themselves on plant-based food crops, which they'd have to import. If they secede, I wouldn't think they'd get those from the U.S. and they'd be at a disadvantage trading with Brazil and Argentina, neither of which needs the main commodities Texas produces (cotton and beef). They could trade with China, but that presents a whole 'nother set of problems.

 

If Texas secedes, the first thing we should bomb is Cowboys Stadium.

 

I'm sure Texas could find somebody to trade with, especially since they're also an oil producer. I could see them having a relationship with several European countries (France springs immediately to mind; it'd be odd, but this is an odd hypothetical), Mexico and Cuba (a new market for the cotton and beef).
And this might be a stretch, but I could also see a scenario where an independent Texas gets an invitation to join OPEC as a way of sticking it to the U.S.

 

A state cannot secede from the Union. From stason.org/TULARC:

In Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700). Chief Justice Chase, writing
for the court in its 1869 decision, said:

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."

The entire decision is available on the Web at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/historic.htm

So, if a state tries to secede, it's illegal, and anything the state tries to make it stick (passports, checkpoints, etc.) would be as illegal.