Perhaps you two have picked up a bad habit from Walt.
It used to be that newspapers and magazines employed "fact checkers" to ensure the accuracy of their publications. Prof. Williams could have used one. Rather than reprint the whole article, highlighting the unsubstantiated opinion and factual errors, I'll just point out a few of the whoppers. (The point of posting this piece was not for the editorial content, but to show that econoimist Williams is a weak historian, and as such, how can one judge the quality of his arguements when he makes so many errors?)
"The problems that led to the Civil War are the same problems today — big, intrusive government." - This is Willaims thesis sentence and the first in the article. He provides no additional support that the Federal government was "big" in 1860, or intrusive, for that matter.
"The reason we don’t face the specter of another Civil War is because today’s Americans don’t have yesteryear’s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply." - More unsubstantiated opinion, and as any reader of FreeRepublic should know, wrong. This website and its tens of thousands of viewers maintain the "spirit of liberty and constitutional respect" bemoaned by Prof. Williams.
"Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government." - Williams definition of a "civil war" is debatable, and has been debated in this thread. At least he tried to explain himself.
"History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves." - Serious histories of the War discuss the several fundamental causes. Prof. Willaims comment is pabulum and shows his lightweight approach to serious history. A truer statement would be, "... the war was fought to keep slaves."
"Lincoln’s intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates." - Neither Lincoln nor Douglas participated in presidental debates! The quote comes from one of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates when both were candidates for the office of Senator from Illinois. In those days, the Senators were elected by the legislature of the State, so Lincoln and Douglas were not only expounding their own political views, but they were trying to get their supporters elected as well.
"Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders. Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed." - It is incorrect to say the previous quote represented "Lincoln's vision." It is Douglas' (mis)representation of Lincon's vision, if Lincoln ever had one along those lines. The last part of the excerpt defies logic - let me rephrase - his vision has gone beyond his vision. This is just libertarian psycho-babbling.
"Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs." - The House passed their version of the bill prior to the Presidental election of 1860. It then stalled in the Senate.
"That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government." - This is the next sentence. The Senate was able to pass the Tariff bill after several Southern Senators walked out, because their states had already seceded. The Bill was signed into law by president James Buchanan. Lincoln had nothing to do with it. The timing of the events is very "germane" to Williams arguments.
"Their (CSA) constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures." - I am not sure, after reading the CSA's constitution where the "business handouts" section is, but what is interesting is what Williams does not note. The CSA proposed to expand to institution of slavery into any all new territories they acquired. At the time of its adoption, the CSA clearly had eyes on western territories (such as Arizona and New Mexico, as well as Texas (not yet seceded) and "Indian Territory." I think there is a hidden point in his comment about a 2/3rds majority for spending measures, but he (again) doesn't explain his position.
"The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery." - This is not even true from a strictly southern perspective. Volumes have been written on the military and medical technology coming from the War. Williams comment is less factual, than it is editorial.
"The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of-the governed" was overturned by force of arms." - From the perspective of the rebel, that may be true, but it is certainly false from the perspective of the winning side. Lincoln's election, and re-election, were valid constitutional exercises. Secession was not (my turn to editorialize). Williams really sticks his foot into it with the follow on sentence ...
"By destroying the states’ right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined." - I can just imagine Prof. Williams foaming at the mouth as he spoke these words. Despotic? Really Prof. Williams? How so, in a multi-party republican democracy? And, as has been discussed throughout this thread, where was the "right" to secession spelled out? If this supposed right existed in 1860-61, why doesn't it exist today? If, as in Texas v White, the right to secede never existed, then what was destroyed?
"States should again challenge Washington’s unconstitutional acts through nullification." - State-sponsored nullification hasn't been tried since the Civil War. The US Supreme Court has opined that "nullification" is unconstitutional. Basically, it is anarchical. When states such as South Carolina could threaten nullification or secession, they could try to blackmail the rest of the country. It would not work today, not because of an arrogant or despotic Federal Government, but rather, because such an act would lack popular support.