LOL ! I'd give the degrees back; or at least never talk about them again.
Pushing back the frontiers of ignorance, as Dr. Williams likes to say ... Mary and the children were left to continue on on the train that "Honest" Abe feared would be attacked.
See, the problem for people like you is that people like me have actually researched this stuff. I have copies of the primary accounts of the day. I am making one such account available to you written by a guy who rode on the train with Mary. This is from page 8 of the New York Times of February 26, 1861. And you should note that this is what lawyers call an admission against interests. The Times reporter was a strong Lincoln supporter. The stuff you should read begins at the first new paragraph at the top of the second column ("Mrs Lincoln did not seem in the best of spirits ...") and continues for most of the column. The stuff in the first column is important too, but does not deal with Mrs. Lincoln.
Let me know whether any of this makes an impression upon you.
ML/NJ
“Mary and the children were left to continue on on the train that “Honest” Abe feared would be attacked.”
You are correct she rode on the train without Lincoln. I have not read into the finer details of the event because in the scheme of things it is of little relevance. You are of course researching anything that helps shed a bad light on Lincoln and if that is the best you can do, well, it’s the best you can do. Lincoln had to be convinced by Pinckerton and and aides to switch trains, so the implication he was afraid is your take on it.
What you do is start with a point of view, then accept anything you read that supports that view, and reject anything you read that goes against it. It’s dishonest research. The fact you always refer to Lincoln sarcastically as “Honest” Abe is pretty much a giveaway that for you history is about supporting an agenda and not discovering any truths.
