Based on what I have read of his interview on this topic, I don’t think he addresses the sectionalist issues in the united states in the early and mid-19th centuries at all. This was a much more complex topic than he is making it out to be, and I am not sure there was any logical reason to expect the southern states not to break away at some point, if not in 1860/61.
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
He had a chance to make whatever point he wanted, and he chose to characterize Lincoln as a blood-drenched tyrant ( sounds like an endorsement of the Booth position), in spite of the fact that South Carolina and several other states had seceded prior to his inauguration, and in his first Inaugural he bent over backward to be conciliatory.