Well said, as usual.
Art
I think that the argument that their would be the "wish to erase uncomfortable parts of history" combined with "cancel culture" makes no sense at all.
It is usually brought forward by those, who argue closer to the political positions of those people from past like Taney. For them, this part of the history could/should be uncomfortable. It is "their" past.
In contrast, those, who think that these people (like Taney) from the past should not longer be honoured, have usually political positions, which are diametrical to these people like Taney. It is not "their" political past.
It is a big difference, if someone should not longer be honoured or if these actions are erased from history. Their actions are more erased from history, if they are still honoured - because someone, who is honoured, has done something positive. To name a ship or keep a monument does not point to their crimes, mistakes, wrongdoings. It pointing to something positive, it is whitewashing them. It would require something obvious to turn e.g. a monument into something pointing to the crime of the one depicted.
Erasing history would be e.g. to force teachers to teach that slavery had also positive aspects (as it is done by the state in Florida). That is clearly motivated by the "wish to erase uncomfortable parts of history".
In case of a museum ship, I think it should be done differently - there should be an exhibition on the ship and on the website explaining the naming of the ship and explaining what Roger B. Taney had done. That he defended the rights of slave owners, that he tried to maintain slavery. If someone want avoids to explain this that would be a kind of "wish to erase uncomfortable parts of history". But that would be no "cancel culture", but an attempt to avoid uncomfortable discussions.
Responses