It upholds some of your arguments but rebuts others.
Okay, I read it, and he doesn't quite get to my point. The closest he approaches it is near the end of the article and then he spins it in Lincoln's favor. (That Lincoln's sleigh of hand was a good thing.)
I didn't see anyplace in the article that I would regard as a rebuttal of my point.
The author seems to imply that misleading the public about the Declaration is a good thing, but I don't think it's a good idea to cover up ugly parts of history.
Also he seems to keep conflating the Declaration with the US Constitution, and it makes me wonder if he grasps the distinction between the two things.
The Declaration is the Mother document from which all their inherited authority flows. The Declaration establishes a new government. The Articles of Confederation establishes some rules and some powers, and so does the US Constitution, but the source of all their power is the fundamental principle established by the Declaration as "consent of the governed."