Replies

Semantics. There are number of excellent biographies and one memoir of Taney.

Your raising the question of why Taney did not mention the warrant in his autobiography was not semantics. There was no autobiography. What little Taney wrote was included in Tyler's memoir as the first chapter. Your point questioning why Taney did not mention the 1861 warrant falls to the fact that Taney died when his unfinished memoir had only advanced to 1801. Also, what is known on the warrant indicates Taney never claimed to see any warrant, but only claimed to have heard that his arrest was being considered. Taney was the alleged subject of the warrant, not a party to creating or serving the never executed warrant.

The principal named parties were Lincoln and Lamon. There is the primary evidence of the memo relating the existence of the warrant, that Lincoln signed it and gave it to Lamon; and its incorporation into a manuscript by Lamon.

That Taney's arrest was was under consideration is supported by the writings of Lamon, Curtis, Brown, and Tyler, among others.

And not a single one of them mentions the arrest warrant. So either there is a grand conspiracy among Taney biographers to suppress the information or else each biographer analyzed the evidence during the course of their research and none of them found the evidence credible enough to include in their book.

The only primary evidence is the memo and Lamon's manuscript which remained unpublished and not available to the public until 2010. Taney never saw the unserved warrant, and the only people alleged to have done so are Lincoln and Lamon. While it was known that Lamon had been writing a manuscript, its content was not public knowledge. As it was not something that Taney did, witnessed, or related, those writing about Taney could do little more than report that Taney and others felt Taney and others were in imminent danger of arrest at the time of the Merryman case.

However, the warrant is mentioned by biographers of Lincoln, who is alleged to have signed the warrant.
The biographer, singular, in question is the same man that is the primary source for the claim - Ward Lamon. His book as been subject to its own scrutiny and has been found wanting.

There was an unpublished manuscript by Lamon, supported by a memorandum relating the story of the arrest warrant which is the prmary evidence. The memorandum was not written by Ward Hill Lamon, but is in a secretarial script.

The claim that "his book ... has been found wanting" is vacuous at best. It cites nobody and nothing. Who found what wanting, and why? How is the memorandum found to be fictitious?

An 1872 biographical work ghostwritten by Chauncey Black, published as being written by Lamon came under scrutiny. The events of that book ended before Lincoln became President.

In any case, claiming something is unproven does not establish it as discredited. An absence of evidence is not evidence. Citing that people before 2010 did not cite that which was not publicly available is not evidence of anything.

While the evidence of the warrant is not verifiable proof, neither is there any evidence which disproves it.

That various officials in Washington contemporaneously heard that Taney's arrest was under consideration by the administration is abundantly demonstrated. Contemporaneously, newspapers called for Taney's arrest, impeachment, and/or prosecution; the New York Times among them. Certainly, judges of lower courts, to include Judge Merrick the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, were arrested, and a sitting Congressman, Vallandigham, was tried by a military court and expelled into Confederate territory. Under the Lincoln administration, a tenth justice was seated on the Supreme Court, bringing the total of Lincoln appointees to five. The (non-existent) executive power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was delegated to General Cadwalader in Virginia, with further power to delegate the power down the military chain of command. General Cadwalader delegated his (non-existent) power to General Keim in Pennsylvania. General Keim exercised his (non-existent) power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland, for the purpose of effecting the military arrest of John Merryman. Following that line of legal ridiculousness, arose the case Ex parte John Merryman. It is not unthinkable that Lincoln would have considered the arrest of the Chief Justice. In the Merryman case, Taney acted as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, at chambers, i.e, it was the opinion of a single justice on a motion brought while the full Court was not in session. The Lincoln administration could have appealed but did not. The administration chose to ignore the Court and rely on the fact that the order of the Court could only be enforced by the Executive.

As was made clear later in Ex parte Milligan, there is no power to ever suspend issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, neither executive nor legislative. The Constitution recognizes only the power to suspend the privilege of the writ. Under all circumstances, the writ shall continue to issue from the Court, and a reply to the writ is mandatory. If the privilege of the writ has been properly suspended by proper authority, that fact can be argued to the Court and sustained as a completely satisfactory reply to the writ.

George Tichnor Curtis expressed the noteworthy opinion that Lincoln "came near to the commission of a great crime," writing of Lincoln's purported intent to arrest the Chief Justice. These Massachusetts brothers were not Confederate sympathizers, but a lawyer for Dred Scott, and a Supreme Court justice who dissented in the case of Scott.

The absence of a document is not evidence that the document did not exist. It is a notorious matter of public record that Chief Justice Taney had a copy of his opinion in the Merryman case served upon the President. It is equally a matter of record that said copy of the Opinion has not been found to exist in White House or other government records. In the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, the Merryman Opinion is a non-event.