Your supposition is a red herring, and merely indicates that you have no interest in learning or discussing this topic in anything other than an antagonistic way. Therefore, this volley will be my last; you can keep to whatever surreal fantasies you wish from here.
DiLorenzo has put quite a bit of research into his book, and certainly has quite a bit more PRIMARY EVIDENCE (i.e., newspaper articles from BOTH the North and the South, from the TIME PERIOD) in his book than anything Al Franken and company would provide. Ever. Heck, he's even got more documentary evidence than people such as Ann Coulter. The fact that you don't recognize documentary evidence when you see it reflects very poorly on your stature. Sometimes that means reading books you don't agree with at first. You may find out that the documentary evidence is crap, but at least argue the EVIDENCE, rather than the emotions. Emotions are for liberals, not reasoned Conservatives.
Good day, and good luck.
Dilorenzo is a Libertarian zealot who found a profitable little niche with Crown Rights book club. No distortion is too low for him or his gullible fans. If he floats your boat, you are obviously not interested in understanding US history.
Try this one. Go see the latest George Clooney movie and give us the definitive report on the history of the McCarthy hearings. That would be the same as relying on Dilorenzo for Lincoln's history. But Clooney will make a lot of money, and many will believe what they see on film is what really happened.