I'll buy that. My issue with most Lincoln-haters is their somewhat irrational assumption that if Lincoln hadn't resisted secession that somehow limited government would have survived in its pre-1860 form.
This seems highly unlikely to me. IOW, I believe those who attempted secession killed the pre-1860 Republic dead. Lincoln and Grant (and a couple million others) succeeded in resuscitating it to a limited extent.
The 1865 to 1900 Republic was also quite remarkably limited compared to the general and almost continuous trend since 1900 of increasing government power. It seems to me irrational to assume that this general trend would never have happened without Lincoln's precedent of expanding government power temporarily to deal with an existential crisis.
You seem like someone with whom a civilized discussion can be had on this matter. So let me respectfully disagree.
The right to secession is a critical element in limiting the powers of the central government. And it is what ultimately underlies the sovereignty of the States. The ability to withdraw from the Union is in the final analysis the only peaceful way for a State or a group of States to deal with the inevitable trend towards usurpation by the central government. A careful reading of the Federalist Papers reveals even Hamilton and Madison to be amenable to this view.
What is forgotten is that permanent secession need not have been the final outcome of the profound disagreements of the 1860s. One can never know the path not taken. But it seems reasonable to me that had Lincoln not resorted to war that the the Southern States would have eventually rejoined the Union, but on the terms defined at the founding.
But forget the 1860s. Look at where we are today. Worse yet, look at where we are heading. Only the foolish or the deluded can fail to see that both national parties have completely abandoned Constitutionally limited government. I argue that this outcome was inevitable once the sovereignty of the States was destroyed.
Please note, I argue this not because the States are less susceptible to corruption. They are not. But the great genius of the founding was to harness the principle of divide and conquer to keep the wolves at bay. Lincoln's "preservation of the Union" destroyed the primary check and balance in the system which was not the separation of powers between the departments of the Federal Government as taught in the government schools but the sovereignty of the States. Once this was lost, the separation of powers between the various branches of the Federal Government was doomed to fail for the obvious reason that all three branches of the national government are basically on the same side. They all benefit from the concentration of power in Washington. And that puts them at odds with the interests of the people. It is as simple as that.