well, you seem to have pretty much debunked his theory with your apparent confident knowledge of history.
the article appealed to me by way of an unstated comparison of Lincoln to King George, and an American Revolution/civil war that grew out of taxation.
The entire US budget for 1860 was $60M, which, if I remember correctly was something like 2% of the national economy.
Does that sound like overwhelming taxation that forced those crushed by the rates into opposition? For that matter, does it sound like an out of control massive federal government machine?
OTOH, tax rates in America prior to the Revolution were also very low, but in that case the Patriots were, or claimed they were, fighting for the principle of no taxation without representation.
But of course the South was represented, indeed had held representation and power since the Founding disproportionate to their population.
The article, like everything by Di Lorenzo, uses all kinds of verbal tricks, like claiming people have been taught that slavery was the one and only reason for secession and war.
Well, the actual fact is that I have never known anybody to make that claim. It’s a straw man argument. As with every war, there were many causes for the conflict. But every single one of them could have been compromised except slavery.
Southerners became more and more adamant that it be accepted and celebrated as a positive good (remind you of any modern day cause?), while northerners became increasingly unwilling to allow it to spread. IOW, the minimum the South would accept was far beyond anything the North would agree to, and vice versa. That’s the original recipe for war.
dilorenzo is a lost causer with an agenda. His is not what one would consider thoughtful analysis.