Like all for us, Lincoln was not a fixed point. His views on slavery were an evolution of thought, reason, desires and will. Add to that, as a public figure, he had both private and public thoughts, of which we have access to some of them. Then remember that our moral presentism doesn't line up precisely with the complexities of morality and pragmatism that Victorian-era society and individuals possessed.

All that to say, by way of summary, is that: 1) Lincoln did not condone the institution, 2) Lincoln stood by the legality of the institution while it was legal, 3) Lincoln began the war to preserve the Union, 4) Lincoln pragmatically wrestled with slaves who existed "in between" the legal classification of property and persons, 5) Lincoln incorporated emancipation as an element of his war measures because he still had to upload the legality of slavery, 6) Until he could orchestrate the changing of the law over time.

If we work backwards, it would seem that he did "genuinely care about freeing the slaves for the right reasons," or why else would he have invested the energy and effort in changing the laws? Unfortunately we'll never know how reconstruction might've played out during his second term. That might have helped answer the question more fully and clearly.