The election outcome has triggered a rash of petitions to the federal government for approval to secede from the union. Texas got the most signatures the fastest but there were a couple of dozen other states which had similar petitions.
That of course has gotten the mouth-breathing political class, unencumbered by logic or information, to broadly brush the entire activity as "sour grapes" and failure to deal with the outcome of the election. No debate on the merits of the question are necessary. You are simply a foolish non-progressive with a warped sense of history if you ask to debate the question of secession.
This is the movement taken to the extreme, but it forces a consideration of a simple question:
Please no citations of 1869 Supreme Court cases which were dealing with the aftermath of the civil war. This simple question is whether compulsory membership of a union against your will is a good thing. Does the union gain a benefit if members no longer want to be a part of it?
For a twentieth century example of a union which had members seeking secession and in which they were compelled to remain captive politically, let us look here:
Or maybe this example:
Velvet Revolution 1968
Or maybe the collapse of a confederation here:
East Germany 1989
Hopefully you can see the examples offering a parallel. No, I'm not saying we are YET similar to a Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union. But what I am pointing out is that when the members no longer want to attend the party, then you had better pay attention and not simply dismiss the concept. A club in which members don't want to be there is more than a Groucho Marx punch line.