There is not a topic in American history in which the location of one's birth has a greater influence on how one sees the past. There are exceptions on both sides, but being born north or south of the Mason-Dixon tends to determine how one views that conflict, and thus, its progenitor, Abraham Lincoln.
As dispassionately as I can say, Lincoln was a great politician, but not a great statesman. He looked after the interests of his party, above and beyond the interests of his country. He was one of America's greatest rhetoricians, but not its greatest political philosopher. The man could turn a phrase.
On the other hand, he launched the war which killed more Americans than all others put together. He ran roughshod over the limits the Constitution placed on the Federal government. One of his leading motivations, in his own words, was to protect Federal revenues and northern Republican business interests. He ordered the arrest of members of a state legislature before they could even commit the crime of voting the wrong way. He ordered the arrest and banishment of a (northern, US) political opponent for what he said. He ordered the closing of newspapers because of what they printed. He committed these acts in order to preserve the Union, which is not a bad thing, but his means do not justify his ends. I tend to agree with John Randolph of Roanoke, who said "It was always my opinion that Union was the means of securing the safety, liberty, and welfare of the confederacy, and not in itself an end to which these should be sacrificed."
The bottom line is that Lincoln's legacy in not an unmixed one.