...as if I hadn't seen that before???
Nothing you can say would make me support the polemicist, DiLorenzo. As far as I am concerned he is entirely disreputable. His work is superficial and lacks any greater understanding of the pre-civil war political situation, any understanding of the Founder's era, lacks an understanding of the Constitution and is wholly free of any understanding of the social mores and feelings of the common American of the era.
In short, Dilorenzo is an utter failure.
I have read a lot of what he has written and at first was excited by his works.... until I began to check his points out with other history. And I am NOT talking just about other writers. (I own the entire 8 vol set of Lincoln's writing, for instance) I have no respect for Dilorenzo at all. I also disagree with the "Jaffaites" who imagine Lincoln walked on water, by the way.
The problem with DiLorenzo is that he simply starts with the premise that all war is bad.
This is the Libertarian view of the Mises Institute.
This pacifist view, by the way,was not held by Mises himself, who defended the war against Nazism as justified and held that those who claimed to be neutrals in WW2 were pro-Nazi by default.