I think it was less corrupt in the early years when everyone was filled with a sense of idealism. I think most of the corruption started sneaking in with Hamilton's machinations.
Sure, we took down rivals to out power in WWII, but that doesn't mean that crushing our economic competition was the reason we were involved in that war.
WWII was initiated for very different reasons than the Civil War. Also, 3/4ths of the federal budget didn't come from the Germans and the Japanese the way it did in the Civil War. There is no clear monetary advantage to us from involving ourselves in WWII.
When there's more at stake -- more money, more power, more people, more things to control -- there is more corruption, but you attack other people and claim that they think there was no corruption the Civil War, and go on yourself to claim that the years before that were somehow corruption-free. It wasn't that people were more idealistic so much as it was that there was less to steal and it was harder to get away with it.
WWII was initiated for very different reasons than the Civil War. Also, 3/4ths of the federal budget didn't come from the Germans and the Japanese the way it did in the Civil War. There is no clear monetary advantage to us from involving ourselves in WWII.
Clearly, destroying Germany and Japan made us wealthier, more powerful, and more involved globally than we were before. I'm not saying that's why we did it any more than that's why we fought the Civil War, but if you want to see the pursuit of monetary advantage as the reason for the one, it's hard to miss seeing that someone equally cynical could see it as the reason for the other.
And no, the Germans and the Japanese didn't provide us with 3/4th of our federal budget during the Civil War, and the South didn't provide us with 3/4th of our federal budget before that war either. If you understood economics better, you'd understand history better.