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.”
You can assert that the resort to secession would be trivialized, but there is no evidence for this. Then again, we will never know.
"I can’t see such a government fighting and winning two world wars, three if you count the Cold War."
Had we not intervened in the First one (thanks Woodhead) there may very well not have been a Second or a third (cold) one for that matter. Seriously, what difference would it have made to the United States if the German monarchs had prevailed over the English monarchs in the early twentieth century? From my point of view, none. People forget that the Kaiser as corrupt as he was was not Hitler. And Hitler's rise to power can be traced directly to the post WWI armistice as well as the global economic disruptions brought about by our own stupid economic policies designed and executed in Washington.
"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."
Wrong! My thesis is precisely the opposite. The tendency towards tyranny was always and will always be there. The Founders were well aware of this and that is why they constructed the government as they did. What Lincoln did was destroy the mechanisms put in place to resist the tendency towards tyranny.
"“Lincoln (temporarily) increased government power."
As I stated before he did much more than this. He destroyed the Sovereignty of the States. And this is what has allowed the power of the central government to grow unchecked. And that is why we are in the fix we are in.