If the Southeast US were to try again to secede would you fight for its right to do so?

Question

I am secretly hoping that the results of the US presidential election, whoever wins, will be so divisive along clear geographical lines that the Union will be torn apart and several smaller autonomous regions will assert themselves. I'm not joking. The situation is tense on the ground. An anarchist would naturally oppose the use of force to hold the US together, right? Would you get involved? (to be clear, I haven't lived in the US for many years and don't feel particularly concerned, but it is a challenging what-if for me.)

Comments

"I am secretly hoping that the results of the US presidential election, whoever wins, will be so divisive along clear geographical lines that the Union will be torn apart and several smaller autonomous regions will assert themselves."

HA! No, with hillary clinton in the white house it will be business as usual for sure, which is why she's going to win, not saying i think donald trump would help pull the US into a revolution.

If people in the south wanted to secede, i would not try to stop them or help them. There's no "right" to secede because any state would have to do it on their own behest, and i don't think some sort of traditionalist utopia has anything to do with anarchy.

---

yeah, i also find myself rooting for the u.s. presidential election to cause more people to get riled up, perhaps to the point of questioning their faith in the state and political process....of course, i don't know what that would mean in my daily life, but i imagine it as exciting, a little dangerous, as an opening of space and thought, as unpredictable...

more likely though, as Nihlist pointed out, people will carry on as usual.

---

There was a huge build up of a variety of issues surrounding slavery for why the south left back in the 1860s. This election shares nothing in common with that. It will be business as usual no matter who elected. Only around 8% of the population votes and people generally don't care about the election. I really don't see anything that'll cause some states to succede from the union and why the southeast, bible belt?

Would I fight along side of them in the unlikely situation of them leaving? No.

---

there's an argument that two weaker states are better than one stronger state. but i can't say i buy it. plus there's no guarantee they would be weaker, instead of differently strong.

---

Why would any anarchist welcome the creation of another state?

---

bornagainanarchist is on my wavelength; that's what excites me: an opening."  an opportunity.

Why the SE? while slavery is no longer an issue, there is a combination of lingering resentment of "northern agression," marginalisation, and forced submission to the will of an "other." Kind of like Brexit. If the South were to simply stop participating in national politics and stop respecting national laws, it would set an example for smaller regions within the South. If the SE can secede from the Union, it can hardly stop, say, Appalachia from seceding from the Confederacy; and Appalachia could hardly argue against the total independence of, say, Polk County, Tennessee. Then couldn't any individual in said county secede from that tiny nation? just by calling up her President at home and saying, "I declare my independence."

It's the idea of self-government and that any participation in any society is purely voluntary. If it got started, there is a possibility it couldn't be stopped.

---

the southeast has to be one of, if not the, largest concentration of boot-lickers and warvangelicals singing always in tune to 'support our troops,' counting football rosaries to 'U!.S!.A!' when the feeling of the Lard overtakes them  while watering the grasses of law-n-order in front of max-pen full of those...um...er...'criminals' and 'thugs' overwhelmingly with roots ripped up from the 'dark continent' (slavery's not issue? who you kiddin' bro?)

stereotype? sure. but given i have roots there, was born there, and within the last five years returned there and ran like hell out of there when the opportunity arose...fuck it...i'm cool with having a bit of prejudice toward what i encountered over and over and over.

p.s. and if you wanna question my roots down yonder, my great, great fought in toombs/benning's brigade all the way through.

edit: typo

---

"It's the idea of self-government and that any participation in any society is purely voluntary."

Why self-government? If you're self-governing, that means there are two selves, it's not healthy to have a mind that's split in two.

Plus, that's not true, seeing that none of us choose to be born.

---

You make it seem rather simple, but as AF pointed out, southerners, mainly the white ones, are all about 'Murica, meth, pabst blue ribbon, white jesus, and the earth is flat and surrounded by giant ice walls or it's 5,000 years old. Chattel slavery isn't gone, they just call it chain-gangs or something else now. Southerners are pretty much over of their loss and only really bring it up when mentioned specifically. This is your average southerner. :P

warvangelicals lol. I'm going have to remember that term.

---

i don't care if the pacific northwest was seceding to form ecotopia; i would not support any state, regardless of location, origins or size.

"autonomy" and "state" are absolutely contradictory, in my world. they can only be not so when the individuals that constitute the state are melded into an abstract mass with the false unity that leftists are so desparate for.

---

I like the fact that Funkyanarchy took the discussion out of the south -- the actual region was not really the point of the what-if exercise. I find the general question challenging: fight to break up a state if the immediate result is two smaller states?

dot, lawrence and funkyanarchy would not support the creation or causes of new states -- wholly understandable. But what if to do nothing was to support the existing state? ie the Union? Wouldn't that be support of oppression by a state on people who no longer want to be a part of it?

Meanwhile I'll be thinking about Nihlist's philosophical challenge. self-government? voluntary participation in society? Maybe Nihilist is right and these are impossible. Hmmm.

---

"But what if to do nothing was to support the existing state?"

the idea that "doing anything is better than doing nothing" is severely flawed imo. voting is one thing many people "do", and i'd say that is worse than doing nothing, especially in terms of supporting a state. and then, what does one mean by "do nothing"? the impact of one's actions on the existence (and strength) of a state is usually negligible at best.

"Wouldn't that be support of oppression by a state on people who no longer want to be a part of it?"

it is up to the people who no longer want to be a part of it, to figure out how to change their lives so that they are no longer part of it, or at least minimizing their part in it. if bringing down the state is the only option they can see, i wish them luck. but we all know how successful that has ever been. meanwhile, individuals (including groups of friends/comrades/allies) can choose to live differently - in ways that minimize the impact of the state on their own lives.

i reject the activist/liberal concept of representing the "oppressed" and acting on their behalf. we are all oppressed (to varying degrees), and it is up to each of us to fight that oppression in whatever ways we choose. including gathering allies when it makes sense.

here's to unmediated life and relationships! fuck states and every other abstracted system of power and control.

---

i would support this response as an answer, f@. just sayin.

Answer 1

No, the southern tendency would be Statist as well. I don't support Statist causes, therefore, I answer with a no.