Put another way, you would need to demonstrate that each southern arrest averaged at least ten times more abusive than each northern arrest. Since, as Bensel notes, the majority of the southern arrests appear to have been for a single minor offense in which an arrest was legitimate - selling alcohol to the troops on camp grounds - you are going to be extremely hard pressed to meet that threshold at which the severity of southern habeas corpus abuses surpasses northern abuses. And that goes without factoring in Lincoln's less-than-constitutional use of unilateral suspension for the first two years of the war.
In short, contrary to your claims, the raw numbers DO matter. If, for example, it was 5000 arrests to 4000 you may have a point. But we're talking 38000 arrests in the north to 4000 in the south, and demonstrating that every southern arrest was 10 times as bad as every northern arrest is a statistical impossibility given everything we know about those arrests. Just a word of warning before you embarrass yourself further.
You threw out some numbers.
I said that the numbers were not the entire issue.
In fact, had the numbers been reversed, and the South's arrests were still on the trivial side, then the numbers would have been totally irrevelant.
As it is, it is clear (according to Bensal) that the Writ was used more by the North then the South and for more severely.
Yet, that is still not the entire story (I know you love simplistic arguments).
It may have been that the South did not use the Writ enough and that was a factor in losing the war.
It may have been that the North was totally justified in most of those who were arrested, hence negating the large number by the justification of their arrests.
So far you have the North arresting more people with the Writ and dealing with them more severely.
What has to also been shown is that the use of the Writ was greatly abused.
From what I have read, although there were abuses, they were not that many and most were justifiable.
Yet the triumph and the irony of his administration resided in Lincoln's commitment to the Constitution; without that there would have been no promises to keep to 4 million black Americans. Because so many Americans cherished the Union that the Constitution forged, they made war on slave masters and their friends, on a Government that Alexander Stephens claimed rested 'on the great truth that the negro is not the equal of the white man; that slavery...is his natural and normal condition. Without the president's devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time, in all probablility the Union would have lacked the capacity to focus its will and its resources on defeating the Confederacy. Without Lincoln's unmatched ability to integrate equalitarian ends and constitutional means he could not have enlisted the range of supporters and soldiers necessary for victory. His great accomplishment was to energize and mobilize the nation by affirming its better angels, by showing the nation at its best: engaged in the impertative, life-perserving conversation between structure and purpose, ideal and institution, means and ends. (p.318-19)