[Tzfat]

Walker Lewis and neither biographer even mentions a plot to arrest the Chief Justice. I had never even heard of the accusation until I wandered into the Civil War threads here. So you would have us believe that not one, but two biographers deliberately left such an important part of Taney's history out of their books?

I had not heard of it either (history is written by the winner) until 20 years ago when I heard the Ft McHenry Park Historian discuss famous prisoners and "almost prisoners." Since that time, I have heard several US Park/Battlefield historians discuss it as well.

But, having said that, you read a book one time that did not mention it, so I suppose you think that settles it.

On the suspension of habeus corpus, you cited the Constitution, but what you failed to cite was the Constitutional authority for Lincoln to suspend it. Chief Justice Taney ruled that Lincoln was ex-Constitutional in his arrest and imprisonment of Maryland legislator John Merryman, which is why Lincoln arranged for Taney's arrest. In 1866, the Supreme Court of the US ruled (again) that only Congress can suspend habeus corpus.

What you Lincoln worshippers fail to realize is that unless you worship Obama too, your inconsistencies are writ large. Obama's lawlessness is best paralleled by Lincoln's lawlessness.

If you are truly a conservative (which is very much in doubt), you would be first in line to denounce it if Obama imprisoned an elected official of a State, without charge and without trial.

If Texas were to take over border duties, and expel federal agents from their border with Mexico, and Obama sent federal troops to fire on said Texas officials, I hope a true conservative would not only be outraged, but defend the sovereign State of Texas. But, we know Federal sycophants who view the 19th century through the Progressive glasses of the John-Dewey-approved history books will never see how foolish they look calling themselves "conservative."

[DoodleDawg]

history is written by the winner

Myths are written by the losers.

But, having said that, you read a book one time that did not mention it, so I suppose you think that settles it.

Two books by men who spent considerable time researching Chief Justice Taney and who wrote detailed accounts of his life and career and neither of which placed any credibility to your charge. You troll a couple of Reb websites and suddenly you're the expert.

On the suspension of habeus corpus, you cited the Constitution, but what you failed to cite was the Constitutional authority for Lincoln to suspend it.

Article I, Section 9 as I said. That clause does not say who had the authority to suspend it, and jurists as recent as William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Conner have said that whether or not the president can suspend habeas corpus has never definitively been decided.

Chief Justice Taney ruled that Lincoln was ex-Constitutional in his arrest and imprisonment of Maryland legislator John Merryman...

He was not a member of the legislature. Just the militia.

...which is why Lincoln arranged for Taney's arrest.

And yet Taney was never arrested.

In 1866, the Supreme Court of the US ruled (again) that only Congress can suspend habeus corpus.

Really? What case?

What you Lincoln worshippers fail to realize is that unless you worship Obama too, your inconsistencies are writ large. Obama's lawlessness is best paralleled by Lincoln's lawlessness.

And it's truly sad that you Lincoln haters can't see just how idiotic that statement is.

If you are truly a conservative (which is very much in doubt), you would be first in line to denounce it if Obama imprisoned an elected official of a State, without charge and without trial.

Now you're just being silly.