We have. And I have also pointed out that none of Taney's biographers found any credible evidence supporting the arrest warrant claim so none included it in their works. And I'll add the most credible biographer of all - more credible than Newmeyer, Schumacher/Gringhus, Steiner, and Simon and that is Taney himself. In his own written memoir, edited and published by Samuel Tyler in 2018, Taney doesn't mention any plot to have him arrested. Why do you think that all these biographers, and Taney himself, didn't mention it?
As for Jefferson Davis, he trampled on civil liberties FAR less than Lincoln did. Even chief PC Revisionist James McPherson admitted that....as the cited quote I already provided before showed.
Others would disagree on that, Mark Neely for example. People were arrested for political reasons from literally the first day of the rebellion until the last. Based on percentage of the population one was more likely to be arrested under Davis as under Lincoln. And, of course, they didn't have a Supreme Court to provide protection.
We have. And I have also pointed out that none of Taney's biographers found any credible evidence supporting the arrest warrant claim so none included it in their works. And I'll add the most credible biographer of all - more credible than Newmeyer, Schumacher/Gringhus, Steiner, and Simon and that is Taney himself. In his own written memoir, edited and published by Samuel Tyler in 2018, Taney doesn't mention any plot to have him arrested. Why do you think that all these biographers, and Taney himself, didn't mention it?
And the article I posted answered why that was. Here it is again.
The account of the warrant to arrest the Chief Justice cannot be found in any of the innumerable Lincoln biographies or accounts of the early days of the Civil War. Since it only recently surfaced, Lincoln historians and biographers have never mentioned the story, probably because it has been outside the main stream of historical information, and hence has not been known. Once it surfaced, Lincoln apologists and Civil War gatekeepers, have been quick to attack the account as a fabrication, because Lincoln would never have done such a thing; and, it would have set off "a political firestorm," so they say; and hence, it is just too preposterous to be true.
And it was then that the plan was hatched to arrest and silence old Justice, who just wouldn't shut up. Lincoln sent a letter to Taney following his decision in the Merriman case, but the letter has never been found. (New York Herald, June 2, 1861). But that could explain why Taney told others, "The government had considered the possibility of arresting him." Someway, he got the word.
The near-arrest of the Chief Justice is not just found in the history of the United States Marshal's Service. Until recent research, there was a second account supposedly corroborating the story of the Federal Marshal Laman. This second account was in a footnote in Professor Harold Hyman's A More Perfect Union (1973), p. 86, n. 15, citing the private papers of Frances Lieber, also at the Huntington Library.
Unfortunately, for Lincoln's apologists, research recently unearthed two other solid sources to corroborate the account set forth in the private papers of the Federal Marshal, Laman.
In 1887, George W. Brown, the mayor of Baltimore, later a Supreme Court judge for Baltimore, wrote in his book, Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861: A Study of War, (John Hopkins University, 1887) p. 90, of a conversation he had with Taney following the Merryman decision:
"Mr. Brown, I am an old man, a very old man, (he had completed his 84th year) but perhaps I was preserved for this occasion." I replied, "Sir, I thank God that you were."
He then told me that he knew his own imprisonment had been a matter of consultation, but the danger had passed, and he warned me from information he had received, that my time would come.
It did.
Eight years before in 1879, The Memoirs of Benjamin Robbin Curtis's were published. Justice Curtis was one of the most prominent lawyers in that period. He represented President Johnson in his trial before the Senate following his impeachment. Most important, he served as a Justice on the Supreme Court. He wrote the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott, which Lincoln carried in his pocket while debating with Stephen A. Douglas. He resigned from the Court after a dispute with Taney over that case. Yet he admired the Chief Justice for his Merryman decision, and makes reference to the plan to arrest Taney, calling it a "great crime." https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/charles-adams/lincolns-presidential-warrant-to-arrest-chief-justice-roger-b-taney-a-great-crime-or-a-fabrication/
Others would disagree on that, Mark Neely for example.
LOL!
People were arrested for political reasons from literally the first day of the rebellion until the last. Based on percentage of the population one was more likely to be arrested under Davis as under Lincoln. And, of course, they didn't have a Supreme Court to provide protection.
Lincoln arrested far FAR more people in his war of aggression which he started. As for having a Supreme Court, that did not help those pour souls - up to 38,000 of them - arrested without charge or trial and sometimes tortured in federal gulags since the tyrant Lincoln just ignored and intimidated judges when they issued rulings he did not like.