My point had to do with Lincolnolotry. Most of the criticism of DiLorenzo that is substantive has to do with interpretation. Leaving interpretation aside, probably the best broad criticism of DiLorenzo is that the book just compiles a number of negative things about Lincoln that have been in the literature for a while, which is true. The overall points that Lincoln was, for example, generally a merchantilist and assumed extra-constitutional powers powers are correct, however.
The idea that Lincoln's economic policies were somehow in opposition to what had come before isn't true. When you look back to the Founders -- Washington, Hamilton, Madison -- you can certainly find "mercantilist" ideas. Tariffs and subsidies would have worse results in a fully industrial environment than in a largely agricultural country, but Lincoln wasn't outside the American political and economic tradition on that score, whatever DiLorenzo says.
As for extra constitutional powers: Lincoln exercised them, so did Davis, so did other war presidents. Governments always excede the powers given to them in wartime. One test is that Lincoln wasn't more tyrannical than Davis was. Another is that the power of the federal government and the Presidency weren't that much greater when after Lincoln than before. In other words, he didn't leave a tyranny behind when he died.