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.
I think you raise some interesting issues.
From almost the beginnning there was a conflict between Hamilton’s economic views and those of Jeffersonians (I am using these figures as a shorthand for what were more complex groupings). Initially, Hamilton’s wider views got relative little traction, in part because of his early death. But the conflict between the groups began to intensify in the second decade of the 19th Century. That conflict centered around three issues - money and banking, tariffs, and internal improvements. The conflict between the groups over these central economic issues continued up to the War (and beyond, of course).
So, I agree that Lincoln’s views weren’t by any means unprecedented. His policy views simply fell on one side of the divide. I don’t agree, however, that tariffs and subsidies would have worse results in a fully industrial environment than in a largely agricultural country. But I don’t think that that is the real issue.
The indisputable fact is that industrial, financial, and other commercial interests clearly favored central banking, subsidies, and and the use of the tariff beyond simply raising revenue for normal government operations.
The regime of tariffs and subsidies, in particular, that came to dominate the 19th Century was strongly favored by and manipulated by politically powerful industrialists and allied interests (and it continues today, although tariffs are less a part of the problem). The less powerful industrial and commercial interests were often harmed by these policies, as were agricultural intersts generally.
These forms of economic interventionism have led to massive misallocations of capital. One of the best 19th Century examples was the distorting effect on capital allocation of railroad subsidies, which led to enormous waste and scandal. In fact, the scandals of the Grant administration were a direct result of the absolute triumph of these interests as a result of the War (No, I don’t think that Grant was personally corrupt. I think that he simply didn’t fully realize soon enough that politicians and the rent seekers who flocked to D.C. (some of whom he thought were friends) were a completely different breed from the relatively straight-forward military men that he was accustomed to deal with.)
Lincoln exceeded his lawful powers from the beginning of the War. I don’t agree that other governments have always done so in time of war or that even if it were true that it would in any way justify Lincoln’s actions. I do agree that Davis attempted to exercise similar powers later on in the War, although I think most agree that his government tended to function like slightly organized chaos. Whether, and the extent to which, Davis exceeded his powers under the CSA’s constitution is an issue I will leave to others.
I do emphatically disagree that the power of the federal government was not substantialy larger after the War than before, and we continue to suffer from that expansion. Lincoln did leave a tyranny behind that took decades to mellow. I believe, however, that had Lincoln survived the War, the post-War federal tyranny would have been far less and would have diminished far more quickly. But without Lincoln to withstand them, the Radical Republicans were able to seize control of the government unchecked and held on to it for over a decade.