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.
Sounds more to me like what you’re proposing is a liberum veto by the states. Any single state could prevent any federal action, even one supported by all the other states, by threatening or carrying out secession unless it gots its way.
The Poles had this. They called it their “Golden Freedom.” And it was, for the nobles and gentry. It resulted in the complete destruction and partition of Poland, and its disappearance as a state for more than a century.
No polity can continue long if subdivisions are allowed to break away whenever they feel like it.
More critically, I think you missed my main point. The world has changed dramatically since 1787, even since 1861. I find it very difficult to imagine a world in which the pre-1860 government of the United States continues to function effectively in 2009. I can’t see such a government fighting and winning two world wars, three if you count the Cold War.
Such a vision is attractive, I think a government of the minimal nature of that in 1860 would be great. It just isn’t very realistic.
For instance, the Progressive movement in the late 1800s, early 1900s, with wings in both parties (Teddy and Woodrwo were both members), was very explicitly opposed to the limited government of the time and even to the US Constitution as such. Your thesis seems to be that if Lincoln had not fought to preserve the Union, then no such tendencies would ever have developed in this country.
This seems to me an example of the “after the fact” fallacy. “Lincoln (temporarily) increased government power. Today the government is too powerful. Therefore, had Lincoln not done as he did, the government today would not be out of control.”