I'm sorry too have insulted you then.
You see, I know some of these guys. Not McPherson, but some in his circle and with nearly the same standing. Obviously I cannot name names. But I have been told face to face, following a class where I commented that the winners write the history, by someone with standing: "You know that is still true. If I tried to write about some of the things you said today, it wouldn't be good for my career."
Regarding the Baltimore Plot, I see you too omitted any mention of Mrs. Lincoln and the children. And BTW, it wasn't Pinkerton detectives. It was Pinkerton himself.
ML/NJ
I have a degree in History, a masters in Southern History, and I never came across a professor who felt that way. In fact, for most of them, finding a different angle on any historical event, as long as it was based on solid research was a good thing.
The problem with anti-Lincoln research is that it must ignore overwhelming evidence that often refutes it. The Baltimore plot is a prime example. There were plenty of Lincoln detractors when he was president and many of them wrote very negative things about him when he slipped into Washington wearing a felt hat. The assumption was that he wore it as a disguise when there is no evidence to back that assumption. They tried to paint him as a coward when in fact he was simply, and reluctantly, following the advice of Pinkerton. So, if one uses periodicals of the time and nothing else, one is led to believe Lincoln was a coward and wore a full disguise to avoid being recognized, when if fact he was in a train that no one knew had the new president on board. Likewise, one cannot depend on Pinkerton's writing on the subject since he was likely going to be self serving both because his reputation was at stake and he liked Lincoln.
There is nothing wrong with writing negative things about Lincoln, and no president is immune from it. But, the anti-Lincoln writings by secession apologists always place motives for his actions that can't be supported by the evidence. They take things he did out of context of what his options were in order to paint him as a tyrant with no morals. His motivation was to save the union and everything he did, right or wrong was to that end.
As to Mary Todd and the children I don't know what you are referring to. She was not on the trip with Lincoln, so not sure what she has to do with the issue. There were reports that she was ashamed of what he did, but that is totally without foundation. She was so terrified of plots against him she was more likely to want him to do whatever it took to avoid assassination.