[ml/nj]

Your source is suspect.

Actually the NY Times was a pro-Lincoln paper and the Times reporter was one of five people who knew about Lincoln's plans in advance. He was there. He was a witness. Donald is some guy who wrote a sugar coated history, apparently without footnotes, in 1996.

And the issue isn't whether Lincoln sneaked off a train in disguise. It is that he abandoned his wife and children letting then continue on on a train he believed might be attacked.

ML/NJ

[Genoa]

Believe whatever you wish. David Herbert Donald was a distinguished American historian with impeccable credentials. He specialized in the Civil War era and was a Pulitzer Prize winner twice. The Times reporter was a known writer of fables.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Donald is some guy who wrote a sugar coated history, apparently without footnotes, in 1996.

"Apparently without footnotes"? Now you reveal yourself to be either ignorant or an out and out liar. The book has over 80 pages of footnotes, most of which you can see at Google books preview.

[mac_truck]

Actually the NY Times was a pro-Lincoln paper and the Times reporter was one of five people who knew about Lincoln's plans in advance. He was there. He was a witness.

It turns out your 'witness' was a known hoaxter who ended up in prison. Why should anything he wrote be believed, much less relied on for accuracy?