There are many things that are different from what the "offical state version" is. Gulf of Tonkin, Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, JFK, etc....
As for Lincoln, I really haven't done much research on him, so I'll probably purchase "The Real Lincoln" by DiLorenzo. It's gotten some good reviews on amazon.com.
That's a good starter book especially if you're just beginning to discover Lincoln.
There are many people out there in the historian profession and many on this forum who will tell you otherwise and trash the book constantly. It's more or less the same crowd that trashes Thomas Woods' book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to History." They do it all for the same reason: both books challege the conventional "official" version of history and the attackers all tend to have a vested interest in that version. The bad part is that crowd is hypersensitive, hyperdefensive, and outright vicious when it comes to smearing people who challenge their myths. They quite literally attacked DiLorenzo over typographical errors in his footnotes and 2-3 minor mistakes in the first print run of 100-something page book that are corrected now. They're starting to do the same with Woods, but if you look closely at the negative reviews of both it's always heavy on namecalling with very little substance.
Official Myths die hard, but they die nonetheless.
The book has a lot of interesting stuff in it, but DiLorenzo is a biased author, to be fair.