Every other westernized country eliminated slavery without resulting to war. Lincoln's main goal was to establish his beloved American system which was very similar to Hamilton's British mercantillist system model. The Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans wanted a heavily centralized national government, a national bank, high tariffs, pecuniary bounties (corporate welfare), heavy governmental debt, and so-called internal improvements which turned out to be giant subsidies for politically favored businesses. This system was proposed at the Constitutional Convention but was rejected by the large majority of the Founders. The Jeffersonian position was one of decentralized power, localism, low or no governmental debt, hard money, laissez-faire capitalism, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution to "bind the government tightly." Hamilton, conversely, represented the northern patrician class, and understood very well that laissez-faire would mean constant class movement upward and downward. There would be just too much danger in that system for static class positions. His solution was to copy the British mercantilist system--something we had just fought a war to escape. The Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian debate wasn't settled by reason, but by the point of a gun by the Civil War.

We have lived under Hamilton's and Lincoln's neo-mercantilist system ever since. This centralized corporatism was greatly sped up during the Progressive and New Deal eras.

Lastly, the states would have never entered into the compact with the central government if they thought that they wouldn't be able to secede from the Union should it ever becoming opressive or counter to the member states' interests. The "eternal union" is a myth created by those who advocated a heavily centralized national government.

This is exactly the same type of irrelevant blabbity-blah that Paul and his acolytes spout.

The Confederacy violently resisted any attempt at abolition, insisted on seceding, and attacked the North. They insisted that they had the right to own slaves. Therefore, unlike other countries who voluntarily abandoned slavery, it couldn't happen here.

Ron Paul...

One of the only people that continually and consistently has opposed the United States' immoral, illegal 'war on terror'. The same war which has resulted in countless innocent civilian deaths, the torture of suspected enemy combatants, and nearly a billion dollar/day price tag for a jobless broke country.

He, Nader, Kucinich et al. will be remembered kindly by history for that reason. Not so kooky to me. Unrated.

Welfare, what was the French Revolution....

Ron Paul's philosophy is a bad recipes for our country. He thinks less regulations on how business operate is good for the country. As you know, the purpose of doing business is producing profits. The more businesses reduce cost the more profits they can get selling their products. If companies are not regulated they would destroy the planet sooner than later, and their workers would work in a no safed environment. That is because providing safety gears to workers, for example, and running extra steps to protect the environment increase the cost of producing goods. If restaurants were not afraid of sanitation inspectors their kitchen would be always dirty and public's health would be at risk. That is because having a clean kitchen cost more, and business have the natural tendencies to avoid cost in order to increase profits. The idea of having one social class, the rich and their corporations, controlling the rest of us with absolute power is absurd, unfair, and destructive. I think is better to have a strong government ran by the people, and with lots of regulations to protect all of us and the environment. What we have now is big weak government ran by big strong corporations.