Untrue and unproven do not mean exactly the same thing, though in context there is a lot of overlap.
And my recollection is that you dismissed the whole body of their work merely because they found nothing to support the claim of the Taney arrest warrant.
I have come to regard the Civil War histories written by Northeastern scholars to be akin to "news" provided by CNN. A lot of unconscious bias creeps in and they are oblivious to their own inherent bias.
Also, i've seen at least one other corroborating source from near the same era.
Then by all means provide it.
If it didn't work the first time, I doubt it will work the second time.
I don't believe the BS Taney arrest story because professional historians, people who spent considerable time researching Taney for their biographies of the man, and who stake their professional reputations on the accuracy of their work, have not found enough evidence of the arrest warrant to include it in their books.
I consider the "professional reputations" of some of these historians to be not unlike the "professional ethics" of CNN "journalists."
We're not talking one biographer who did include it and one who didn't. If that were the case then you're half-baked claims of bias might actually hold water. But none of them did. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I have never been moved by argumentum ad populum. I've seen hosts of people be wrong before. Too many times to count. The current Covid19 hysteria is a good example. These "professionals" have been wrong every step of the way.
Same thing with all these military "experts" who have now created the disaster in Afghanistan, and for that matter who created the disaster in Iraq.
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) is fond of citing the "death of expertise."
That a bunch of experts agree on something may simply mean that all the fools are on the same side.
" After dinner I visited my brother Judges in Georgetown, and returning home between half past seven and eight o’clock found an armed sentinel stationed at my door by order of the Provost-Marshal. I learned that this guard had been placed at my door as early as five o’clock. Armed sentries from that time continuously until now have been stationed in front of my house. Thus it appears that a military officer against whom a writ in the appointed form of law has first threatened with and afterwards arrested and imprisoned the attorney who rightfully served the writ upon him. He continued, and still continues, in contempt and disregard of the mandate of the law, and has ignominiously placed an armed guard to insult and intimidate by its presence the Judge who ordered the writ to issue, and still keeps up this armed array at his door, in defiance and contempt of the justice of the land. Under the circumstances I respectfully request the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court to cause this memorandum to be read in open Court, to show the reasons for my absence from my place upon the bench, and that he will cause this paper to be entered at length on the minutes of the Court . . .W.M. Merrick Assistant Judge of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
The claim has been made that Stephens did say what he has been quoted as saying. In other words, claims he did are untrue.
I have come to regard the Civil War histories written by Northeastern scholars to be akin to "news" provided by CNN. A lot of unconscious bias creeps in and they are oblivious to their own inherent bias.
Oh be honest. You consider anything written by any scholar that you do not agree with or which does not fit your agenda as being biased and fake news. You show that all the time.