Not according to any of the participants' accounts I've seen.
Lincoln also sent her word of his safe arrival.
Isn't that nice?! She was riding on a train that he thought might be attacked and he sent her word that HE was okay!
Sure. I'll drop everything and do it.
Afraid of what you might find?
Far better to go with the myths that the losers write. Is that it?
No. But it might be better than to believe in legends. When faced with contradictions in historical accounts, those who care seek out source material. Others accept one side of the story on faith. As I said previously, ignorance is bliss, for some.
ML/NJ
Then read Herbert's book and the accounts given there.
Isn't that nice?! She was riding on a train that he thought might be attacked and he sent her word that HE was okay!
Can you point out a source that says the train was the target? And while you're at it describe how a train could receive a telegram while traveling.
Afraid of what you might find?
No, mild curiosity. I've already seen sources that contradict your version, based on the accounts of people who were actually there when the decision was made.
No. But it might be better than to believe in legends. When faced with contradictions in historical accounts, those who care seek out source material. Others accept one side of the story on faith.
Especially when the legends support your agenda. When faced with contradictions in historical accounts I prefer to go with that version that has the most supporting evidence. And the body of evidence supports the fact that the assassination attempt was to be made between trains and not against the train itself, that Mrs. Lincoln was aware that her husband left early, and that she was never in any danger herself. However, if you prefer to accept on faith the opposite side based on a single source that you can't produce then so be it.
As I said previously, ignorance is bliss, for some.
Obviously.