Silly Bear. Robert E. Lee has been presented as the "end all be all to the holy cause" of the South. Take Lee as some kind of spotless hero, and you can't attack Lincoln for having agreed with him at some point about colonization.
And this "Lincoln: Saint or Demon" thinking is shallow and stale. Lincoln clearly did care about slavery -- in large part because he cared about freedom, but also because he wasn't deaf to the injustice done to the slaves. He wasn't a 21st century egalitarian or welfare state coddler, but he was fully aware of the evil of slavery.
Nor is it the case that Lincoln was a "big government thug." He supported protective tariffs, federal currency, and public support for railroad construction. So did many Americans of his generation and the next. That's hardly a recipe for tyranny or leviathan. If you look at things honestly, you are probably in favor of more big government, whether at the state or federal level than Lincoln was. Most Americans today certainly are. When it came down to it, the Confederate government was as well.
Nor is conservative respect for Lincoln some "exception." We also respect Washington, though he advocated the replacement of the loose Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, which increased the powers of the federal government. Joe Sobran and others have expressed a preference for the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution, but it's not clear that retaining the Articles would really have made us freer, happier or more secure. Indeed, it's also doubtful that the success of the Confederacy would have left most of us freer than we are now, though mythology makes many think so.
I would have to disagree. Ideas have consequences that are often unseen or transparent in their simplest of forms. As a perfect example, one need only look at the horrific conclusions of David Hume to see the problems of his seemingly benign predecessor John Locke, who is often very appealing to conservatives on first glimpse.
Years after the fact, that which is built upon earlier precedents can emerge as a beast of untold size and horror. In those respects, Lincoln's actions were a recipe for what we have today.
If we can design taxes for the purpose of giving unfair advantages to a certain few at the expense of the rest, what is to stop us from simply allocating policy to advantage acertain few? If we can appropriate interventionary funding to the advantage of a certain economic entity over its competitors, what is to stop wider scale economic management and intervention by the government later? It may sound like a slippery slope because it is, but more so the policies such as those favored by The Lincoln allowed a foot in the door, which was incrementally pried open over the century that followed.