That was about secession, though, not misbehavior. In fact, arguably it proves the point; after the US civil war there was a period of 'reconstruction', which largely failed, and then the southern states carried on doing pretty much whatever they felt like for the next century.

EDIT: As mentioned below, desire to misbehave was certainly at the root of the secession, but in practice even after the war was won the federal government wasn't able to impose its will particularly effectively.

No it was not. The Civil War was about states wanting to abolish federal laws they didn't support such as those that impinged upon the right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wanted to(see Western Expansion.) How could that be considered anything but "misbehavior"? Secession was simply the byproduct of this.

Oh, sure, but afterwards, the federal government wasn't able to impose its will particularly effectively. It's really hard to see reconstruction as anything but a failure.

I don't disagree however my posts were in context to the OP's assertion of "what would US of A do with a rogue Texas? nothing." And clearly the US did something. Also as disappointing as Reconstruction was it was in fact responsible for creation of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution aka the "the Reconstruction Amendments."[1] The important of which can not be overstated. Surely those should be factored in to any judgement of "failure", no?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Amendments

Again, though, the 15th in particular just wasn't enforced for about a century in the states concerned. The civil war probably provided impetus to pass these very important amendments, and that, as you say, shouldn't be understated, but they weren't particularly effective in a reasonable timescale. Going back to the original point, more or less the entire south were rogue states to a much greater degree than Hungary, for a very long time.

The war started well after states started seceding and even then only in response to a military attack by the south. So it's not quite the example you portray it to be.

The secession convention meeting in Charleston, South Carolina occurs on December 20, 1860. Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Let's see that's 3.5 months later. And for 3 of those 3.5 months the US has a lame-duck President in James Buchanan whose cabinet was also famously split oh the issue. Lincoln isn't inaugurated until March 4, 1861. Further, the attack on Fort Sumter is just the "official" start of the war. It's not like nothing was being done by the Union in the interim. Far from it. As early as January 5th of 1861 hundreds of troops and provisions were sent to fortify the Sumter garrison. Lastly on April 4th Lincoln tells his southern delegates that he intends to attempt to resupply Fort Sumter. This is understood by the Southern states to be a declaration of war. So yes I think this is exactly the example I portray it to be.