They did, and they did.
After secession they were forcefully re-united along with several other southern states, and that clause, along with the ability to divide into 5 states went to the ash heap.
The next secession will have the same results. Federal troops will mobilize in about 5 minutes after declaration.
The Union could not allow Pantex Nuclear weapons plant to fall into ANY other government's control.
Loss of 50% of the nations refining capacity, 90% of the petrochemical productions, and a major sea port would cripple the rest of the states.
I would love to see it, but I wouldn't love the war that would result from it.
You forgot the part where Uncle Sam would have to borrow trillions to finance said war. You also forgot to mention the fact that the American public has either lost their stomach for the type of real war that would be necessary for the U.S. to ensure a quick victory or that modern technology has simply allowed less of an escape from the hellishness. I'm not saying that Texas could win such a hypothetical war, but they just may be able to pull it off. After all, they don't need to "win" per se, but only need to hold off until America loses its will to fight. If they were going to do something like secede (which they aren't) now would be the perfect time. They'd start off with a better credit rating, more valuable currency, and an economy with a sounder foundation than their foe. They'd also do it at a time when their adversary's military was already stretched dangerously thin around the world.
Given, the whole discussion is a tin foil hat fantasy, but I wouldn't automatically assume that the U.S. would be smashingly successful if a conflict were to ensue. Heck, the writers of the linked article may just be on to something by saying that the rest of the U.S. may simply shrug their shoulders at the departure of a conservative state.