Lincoln and state’s rights is a very old debate, and Rep. Paul holds a very defensible, intellectual point of view on the matter. He does not advocate dissolution of the Union, he points out the overreach of the federal government in having done what it did at that time.
Cruise missiles in Europe represent foreign entanglements, it’s foreign aid and it’s on shakey ground Constitutionally. I happen to agree with Reagan regarding their deployment in Europe, despite this. That does not prevent me, however, from understanding exactly why Rep. Paul opposed them. His is a voice of Constitutional conscience, and we need that now more than ever.
As I have understood his argument, it is that the slave states would have freed the slaves for compensation, which is demonstrably false. It also overlooks the fact that several (7?) states had seceded before Lincoln's inauguration.