And of course you neglect to mention the two pieces of evidence I have previously provided you regarding this claim.
That historians have left something out of the story is not at all new regarding the Civil War. I have found it to be incredibly common, especially if the books are published in the North East, as most such books are.
Perhaps they left it out because it reflected badly on Lincoln? CNN was doing that for the last 9 years regarding anything negative about that other Liberal Lawyer from Illinois who became President.
Cut the crap for a change, will you? "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession and the President's War Powers" by James F. Simon - a man who has written five books on Supreme Court justices. "Life of Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court" by Bernard Christian Steiner. "Thunder on Capitol Hill: The Life of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney" by Alvin L. Schumacher and Dirk Gringhus. "Roger B. Taney" by Carl Brent Swisher. Four biographies of the Chief Justice. Not a single one makes the claim that Lincoln tried or even talked about arresting Taney.
So are you honestly saying that you believe that all these men conspired to suppress the evidence that Lincoln planned on arresting Taney? That they all plotted to protect Lincoln at the expense of the central figure of their biographies? Is that what you are honestly saying?