+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Abraham Lincoln - The White House Years (/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 (/thread-1036.html)
"Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - David Lockmiller - 07-07-2013 07:09 PM
I am hoping that someone will be able to help me to locate a purported letter written by Secretary of War Stanton to Abraham Lincoln in 1862. The letter (allegedly found in the 1990’s in the Library of Congress) is referenced in the NY Times Op-Ed Published July 5 and appearing in the NY Times July 6 (Saturday) electronic edition.
I do not believe that such a letter as described in the Op-Ed piece actually exists in the papers of the Library of Congress. I have already sent a “question” request to the librarian at the Library of Congress, since I could not find the item in an online search of the site.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Lincoln's Surveillance State
By DAVID T. Z. MINDICH
"The N.S.A.'s data-mining has a historical precedent in the federal government's monitoring of the telegraphs in 1862."
[The highlights of the Op-Ed piece are as follows:]
“Many commentators have deemed the government’s activities alarming and unprecedented. The N.S.A.’s program is indeed alarming – but not, from a historical perspective, unprecedented.”
"In 1862, after President Abraham Lincoln appointed him secretary of war, Edwin Stanton penned a letter to the president requesting sweeping powers, which would include total control of the telegraph lines. By rerouting those lines through his office, Stanton would keep tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal. On the back of Stanton's letter Lincoln scribbled his approval: 'The Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the matter within mentioned.'"
Professor Mindich added: "I came across this letter in the 1990's in the Library of Congress while researching Stanton's wartime efforts to control the press . . . ."
I did some of my own research to find a reference to such a letter and came up blank.
1. "Abraham Lincoln: A Life" Vol II, by Professor Michael Burlingame, The Jonh Hopkins University Press, 2008
2. "Mr. Lincoln's White House" at http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org (telegraph)
3. Smithsonian Civil War Studies: Article - "In the Original Situation Room - Abraham Lincoln and the Telegraph" The Smithsonian Associates Civil War E-Mail Newsletter, Volume 8, Number 8. (2006)
I think that this is some sort of bizarre hoax. In the first place, to think that it was technologically possible to “reroute” at that time all the telegraph lines in the United States through to the office of Secretary of War Stanton is an absolute ABSURDITY.
In fact, according to the referenced article immediately above - "In the Original Situation Room - Abraham Lincoln and the Telegraph" -
“When Lincoln arrived for his inauguration in 1861 there was not even a telegraph line to the War Department, much less the White House. Storm clouds were brewing, but when the US Army wanted to send a telegram they did like everyone else: sending a clerk with a hand written message to stand in line at Washington’s central telegraph office.”
In the reference above labeled “2” ( "Mr. Lincoln's White House"), the subsequent centralization of telegraphic communication for the war at Stanton’s office and Mr. Lincoln’s routine for checking telegraphs are laid out. There is no mention in this article of any journalistic or any other non-governmental communications being “monitored” in the telegraph office.
“In March 1862 Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton insisted in centralizing all telegraph communication for the war at the War Department's old library next to his office. The President therefore had to go to the telegraph office there to read war dispatches and send his own. (The telegraph office had previously been located in two other locations in the same building, but General George McClellan had his own telegraph service at his headquarters in 1861-1862.)
“The office gave Mr. Lincoln an opportunity to write and think in peace as he waited for telegrams to arrive and be deciphered - as well to socialize in a way that was impossible elsewhere in Washington. Telegraph operator Albert B. Chandler reported the President said: ‘I come here to escape my persecutors. Hundreds of people come in and say they want to see me for only a minute. That means if I can hear their story and grant their request in a minute, it will be enough.’
“One telegraph operator, Homer Bates, later recorded Mr. Lincoln's routine:
“When in the telegraph office, Lincoln was most easy of access. He often talked with the cipher-operators, asking questions regarding the dispatches which we were translating from or into cipher, or which were filed in the order of receipt in the little drawer in our cipher-desk.Lincoln's habit was to go immediately to the drawer each time he came into our room, and read over the telegrams, beginning at the top, until he came to the one he had seen at his last previous visit.”
In fact, according to this article, President Lincoln used the peace and quiet of his time at the telegraph office to write the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation in the summer of 1862. Major Thomas Eckert, head of the telegraph office, reported:
“I became much interested in the matter and was impressed with the idea that he was engaged upon something of great importance, but did not know what it was until he had finished the document and then for the first time he told me that he had been writing an order giving freedom to the slaves in the South, for the purpose of hastening the end of the war. He said he had been able to work at my desk more quietly and command his thoughts better than at the White House, where he was frequently interrupted. I still have in my possession the ink-stand which he used at that time and which, as you know, stood on my desk until after Lee's surrender. The pen he used was a small barrel-pen by Gillott - such as were supplied to the cipher-operators."
If anyone can find a copy of this letter written by Stanton to Lincoln, please post a location reference in reply.
In the meantime, I shall send an email to the editors of the New York Times and request that they also check thoroughly as to whether a hoax has been perpetrated upon them in this manner. If so, the NY Times should retract this Op-Ed on page one of their paper as soon as possible with a complete explanation as to how the NY Times was so easily bamboozled into providing to its millions of dedicated and trusting readers a false representation of “Lincoln” history as a “precedent” to justify the National Security Agency’s data-mining programs in the United States and the rest of the world. Having the governmental “means” to an “end” do not, in and of themselves, justify governmental “ends.”
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - My Name Is Kate - 07-08-2013 03:01 AM
Not at all sure if this is helpful, but I googled "The Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the matter within mentioned." and came up with this info:
A letter dated January 24, 1862 from Stanton to Lincoln, with the above endorsement by Lincoln on the back of it, on page 118 (Abraham Lincoln; Complete Works, Comprising His Speeches, State ..., Volume 1):
"In my opinion the success of military operations and the safety of the country require some changes to be made in the Bureau of Ordnance, and perhaps some others, in order to secure more vigor and activity; and I desire to have your sanction for making them.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, EDWIN M. STANTON"
http://books.google.com/books?id=P3saAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22The+Secretary+of+War+has+my+authority+to+exercise+his+discretion+in+the+matter+within+mentioned.%22&source=bl&ots=0wW1ICg3aN&sig=abVQY3gZPYoKAi2VTV_-7BjQlWs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P1zaUZ7pJ8agywGxpoDQBw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Secretary%20of%20War%20has%20my%20authority%20to%20exercise%20his%20discretion%20in%20the%20matter%20within%20mentioned.%22&f=false
And this apparent alteration of the above, on page 190 (The Civil War and the Press, edited by David B. Sachsman, S. Kittrell Rushing, Debra Reddin Van Tuyll) The sources given in the footnotes are Dana, "Recollections", p. 5, Stanton Papers, Library of Congress, Washington D.C., and Thomas and Hyman, "Stanton", p. 152.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y2KUTBvNTusC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=The+Secretary+of+War+has+my+authority+to+exercise+his+discretion+in+the+matter+within+mentioned.%27&source=bl&ots=lqUhIJ-_JV&sig=eHpyB7StKgNal_4fTBnOFKUeQew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VVraUYCwBqeqywHumoCgAg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=The%20Secretary%20of%20War%20has%20my%20authority%20to%20exercise%20his%20discretion%20in%20the%20matter%20within%20mentioned.%27&f=false
Here is a book by David T. Z. Mindich, "Just the Facts: How "Objectivity" Came to Define American Journalism" with the same (mis)information, on page 79, as the above book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=546ccpTkP5cC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=%22The+Secretary+of+War+has+my+authority+to+exercise+his+discretion+in+the+matter+within+mentioned.%22&source=bl&ots=ym787PjZmY&sig=7wuXU3cdfMzm2GqyeFSRPGlkaIA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZmnaUZDWKeaqywHJkYDwCw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Secretary%20of%20War%20has%20my%20authority%20to%20exercise%20his%20discretion%20in%20the%20matter%20within%20mentioned.%22&f=false
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - RJNorton - 07-08-2013 04:56 AM
Here is another link to Basler's 1953 edition of the Collected Works.
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - David Lockmiller - 07-08-2013 01:39 PM
(07-08-2013 03:01 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote: Not at all sure if this is helpful, but I googled "The Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the matter within mentioned." and came up with this info:
A letter dated January 24, 1862 from Stanton to Lincoln, with the above endorsement by Lincoln on the back of it, on page 118 (Abraham Lincoln; Complete Works, Comprising His Speeches, State ..., Volume 1):
"In my opinion the success of military operations and the safety of the country require some changes to be made in the Bureau of Ordnance, and perhaps some others, in order to secure more vigor and activity; and I desire to have your sanction for making them.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, EDWIN M. STANTON"
http://books.google.com/books?id=P3saAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22The+Secretary+of+War+has+my+authority+to+exercise+his+discretion+in+the+matter+within+mentioned.%22&source=bl&ots=0wW1ICg3aN&sig=abVQY3gZPYoKAi2VTV_-7BjQlWs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P1zaUZ7pJ8agywGxpoDQBw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Secretary%20of%20War%20has%20my%20authority%20to%20exercise%20his%20discretion%20in%20the%20matter%20within%20mentioned.%22&f=false
And this apparent alteration of the above, on page 190 (The Civil War and the Press, edited by David B. Sachsman, S. Kittrell Rushing, Debra Reddin Van Tuyll) The sources given in the footnotes are Dana, "Recollections", p. 5, Stanton Papers, Library of Congress, Washington D.C., and Thomas and Hyman, "Stanton", p. 152.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y2KUTBvNTusC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=The+Secretary+of+War+has+my+authority+to+exercise+his+discretion+in+the+matter+within+mentioned.%27&source=bl&ots=lqUhIJ-_JV&sig=eHpyB7StKgNal_4fTBnOFKUeQew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VVraUYCwBqeqywHumoCgAg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=The%20Secretary%20of%20War%20has%20my%20authority%20to%20exercise%20his%20discretion%20in%20the%20matter%20within%20mentioned.%27&f=false
Here is a book by David T. Z. Mindich, "Just the Facts: How "Objectivity" Came to Define American Journalism" with the same (mis)information, on page 79, as the above book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=546ccpTkP5cC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=%22The+Secretary+of+War+has+my+authority+to+exercise+his+discretion+in+the+matter+within+mentioned.%22&source=bl&ots=ym787PjZmY&sig=7wuXU3cdfMzm2GqyeFSRPGlkaIA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZmnaUZDWKeaqywHJkYDwCw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Secretary%20of%20War%20has%20my%20authority%20to%20exercise%20his%20discretion%20in%20the%20matter%20within%20mentioned.%22&f=false
Thank you very much for your very able assistance in this matter. You do very good research work.
I sent an email yesterday to the executive editor of the NY Times on the subject of the false information contained in the 7-6-13 Op-Ed "Lincoln's Surveillance State." I followed that up today with the exact wording of Stanton's original letter. Hopefully, these observations will not be ignored by the NY Times in the interest of covering up their misfeasance to their millions of readers (the paper readership and not necessarily the article).
This subject is too important to be ignored. It almost looks like a National Security Agency "plant" in the most trusted newspaper in the United States in order to "justify" the NSA's misdeeds.
I will make a posting if I get any kind of response from the NY Times.
(07-08-2013 04:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Here is another link to Basler's 1953 edition of the Collected Works.
Thank you, Roger, for your very able assistance (as usual).
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - Liz Rosenthal - 07-08-2013 10:54 PM
I may be able to shed some light on this issue. I happen to be reading "With Lincoln in the White House: Letters, Memoranda and Other Writings of John G. Nicolay, 1860-1865," and just now came across this journal entry by Nicolay, dated Feb. 25, 1862:
"An order was issued today by the Sec of War and telegraphed all over the Union, forbidding the publication of intelligence concerning military operations, whether received by telegraph or otherwise - papers violating the order to be debarred from using the telegraph entirely."
This is qualitatively different than what was stated in the New York Times op-ed piece to which David Lockmiller refers. Stanton prohibited the publication of highly sensitive military intelligence on pain of being denied access to the telegraph for any violators. This does not appear to be an order for government review of journalists' communications, although it does limit freedom of the press. However, this was wartime, and not just any war, but a battle for the survival of the nation. There were very serious limitations on the freedom of the press to publish military strategy, intelligence and operations during the Second World War, also, but I doubt that anybody would argue that it would have been worth giving up this information to the Axis Powers via a free American press so that the First Amendment could be preserved. But the important point here is that the op-ed writer seems to have gotten his facts twisted.
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - RJNorton - 07-09-2013 04:56 AM
(07-08-2013 10:54 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote: But the important point here is that the op-ed writer seems to have gotten his facts twisted.
I sure agree with you, Liz, and will be most interested in seeing if David receives a reply.
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - L Verge - 07-19-2013 05:55 PM
I had never heard of Dr. David Mindich in the history field, so I did a little digging.
David T. Z. Mindich, Ph.D.
Professor
Media studies, journalism & digital arts
Saint Michael's College
Colchester, VT 05439
Note that there is no mention of "history" in that introduction. From what I could find without a lot of detective work, Dr. Mindich does serve as a "historian" in reference to the history of journalism. Since I am sure by now that most of you know my blunt views on a variety of subjects, suffice to say that I am not a fan of many of the current journalists and their practices - rather liberal or conservative - in their attempts to control public minds.
I can only suspicion that Minchin may have deliberately twisted his facts (substituted words for others) in order to prove a point that he knew few others would investigate. Maybe he needs a reminder to "Beware the Educated Lincoln Public?"
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - brtmchl - 07-28-2013 10:47 AM
This is just another attempt to sell something to the people, who wuite frankly know no better. If Lincoln did it then, it should be ok today. Failure to realize that Marshall Law was in effect, there was a war, and a massive spy ring in Maryland at this time. None of which are occuring today. IT is absolutely not the same situation for one. And second, citizens should be outraged. Lincoln, himself would find monitoring American's disgraceful. Then again, who grows up now actually being taught about our nation's history, and the great men and woman that have created it. When taught about the American Revolution they learn of Paul Revere or the Boston Massacre and when taught about the Civil War it is all about the eveil South bitterly hanging on to slavery. There is no more, who, what , when , where , and most importantly why's anymore. There are no more debates in the classroom.
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - David Lockmiller - 08-02-2013 11:38 AM
On July 7, I ended my post: " I shall send an email to the editors of the New York Times and request that they also check thoroughly as to whether a hoax has been perpetrated upon them in this manner. If so, the NY Times should retract this Op-Ed on page one of their paper as soon as possible with a complete explanation as to how the NY Times was so easily bamboozled into providing to its millions of dedicated and trusting readers a false representation of “Lincoln” history as a “precedent” to justify the National Security Agency’s data-mining programs in the United States and the rest of the world."
For the last month, I have engaged in the Sisyphean task of trying to have this work of fiction, "Lincoln's Surveillance State," removed from the pages of the NY Times the only way possible once it has been published and that is by means of retraction. In this regard, I have sent emails to the Executive Editor (Jill Abramson), a Deputy Editor of the Op-Ed section, and the Public Editor (Margaret Sullivan) of the NY Times. In these emails, I presented a "mountain" of historical documentary evidence thoroughly discrediting the claim made in the Op-Ed that upon President Abraham Lincoln's written approval, Secretary of War Stanton took "total control of the telegraph lines [b]y rerouting those lines through his office." In doing so, "Stanton would keep tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental, and personal." [In other words, the creation and operation of "Lincoln's Surveillance State" upon President Lincoln's written approval for Secretary of War Stanton to do so.]
I have been either ignored or stone-walled in my efforts to have the Op-Ed "Lincoln's Surveillance State" retracted by the NY Times. On Monday, July 27, I sent copies of my emails to the Publisher of the NY Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and Andrew Rosenthal, Editorial Page Editor of the NY Times. As of today, I have note received either an acknowledgement of the receipt of my email or a response.
On July 19, Laurie (I hope that I have the name right) Verge wrote: "I can only suspicion that Minchin may have deliberately twisted his facts (substituted words for others) in order to prove a point that he knew few others would investigate. Maybe he needs a reminder to 'Beware the Educated Lincoln Public?'"
If you throw paint on the statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial, it makes national news on all of the major television networks. If your print in an Op-Ed in the NY Times that incorrectly states "The N.S.A.'s data-mining has a historical precedent in the federal government's monitoring of the telegraphs in 1862," it is not worthy of notice or correction. I disagree.
There is a story involving the telegraph, Secretary of War Stanton, and President Lincoln as told by the reporter Henry E. Wing of the New York Tribune. A locomotive was sent down to pick up this reporter to meet with the President and the members of his cabinet at the White House at two o'clock in the morning. I repeat only a few of the last paragraphs of that story in order to make a point:
Then, as the company was dispersing, I turned to Mr. Lincoln and said: "Mr. President, I have a personal word for you."
The others withdrew, and he closed the door, and advanced toward me. As he stood there, I realized, as never before, how tall he was. I looked up into his impassive face and delivered Grant's message. He took a short, quick step toward me, and stooping to bring his eyes level with mine, whispered, in tones of intense, impatient interest: "What is that?"
I was so moved that could hardly stammer: "General Grant told me to tell you, from him, that, whatever happens, there is to be no turning back."
The vision that opened through those wonderful eyes, from a great soul, glowing with a newly kindled hope, is the likeness of Mr. Lincoln that I still hold in my memory, and ever shall. And that hope was never to be extinguished. Others had "turned back." Every other one had. But there had come an end of that fatal folly.
Mr. Lincoln put his great, strong arms about me and, carried away in the exuberance of his gladness, imprinted a kiss upon my forehead. We sat down again, and then I disclosed to him, as I could not do, except in the light of that pledge of the great commander, all the disheartening details of that dreadful day in the Wilderness. But I could assure him that the Army of the Potomac, in all its history, was never in such hopeful spirit as when it discovered, at the close of a day of disappointment, that it was not to "turn back."
I am really, really tired of all of these recent, important, and fictional distortions of "Lincoln" history to serve the hidden agenda of those making such false claims. "Beware the Educated Lincoln Public" should really mean something substantive.
I think that the "Lincoln" army should take a stand and not "turn back" on this issue, even if the opponent is the NY Times. Accordingly, in chronological order of my emails to the NY Times, I intend to present in separate posts which follow my documentary evidence discrediting the NY Times Op-Ed "Lincoln's Surveillance State."
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - Liz Rosenthal - 08-02-2013 11:49 AM
David: I know that you wrote to the editors of the Times, but did you write a Letter to the Editor for publication? And/or submit your own essay on the subject for publicaton? A Letter to the Editor would have a much greater chance of being published, of course, although there's no guarantee. In any case, there are all sorts of things that appear in the Times, and other newspapers and magazines, every day, that need rebutting. To me, the best way to do it is not to ask for a retraction but to put the facts out there for your fellow readers to read.
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - Gene C - 08-02-2013 11:54 AM
David, I commend you for your efforts in writing to the NY Times.
I take everything I read there with a grain of salt. (which may be why my blood pressure is so high)
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - David Lockmiller - 08-02-2013 12:09 PM
The following is the email that I sent to the Executive Editor of the NY Times on Sunday, July 7, 2013. I did not receive either an acknowledgement by her of the receipt of my email or a response.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that such a “President Lincoln approved” letter as described in the Op-Ed piece actually exists in the papers of the Library of Congress. I have already sent a “question” request to the librarian at the Library of Congress, since I could not find the item in an online search (I’m a novice).
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Lincoln's Surveillance State
By DAVID T. Z. MINDICH
The N.S.A.'s data-mining has a historical precedent in the federal government's monitoring of the telegraphs in 1862.
The highlights of the Op-Ed piece are as follows:
“Many commentators have deemed the government’s activities alarming and unprecedented. The N.S.A.’s program is indeed alarming – but not, from a historical perspective, unprecedented.”
"In 1862, after President Abraham Lincoln appointed him secretary of war, Edwin Stanton penned a letter to the president requesting sweeping powers, which would include total control of the telegraph lines. By rerouting those lines through his office, Stanton would keep tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal. On the back of Stanton's letter Lincoln scribbled his approval: 'The Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the matter within mentioned.'"
Professor Mindich added: "I came across this letter in the 1990's in the Library of Congress while researching Stanton's wartime efforts to control the press . . . ."
I did some of my own research to find a reference to such a letter and came up blank.
1. "Abraham Lincoln: A Life" Vol II, by Professor Michael Burlingame, The John Hopkins University Press, 2008
2. "Mr. Lincoln's White House" at http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org (telegraph)
3. Smithsonian Civil War Studies: Article - "In the Original Situation Room - Abraham Lincoln and the Telegraph" The Smithsonian Associates Civil War E-Mail Newsletter, Volume 8, Number 8. (2006)
I think that this is some sort of bizarre hoax. In the first place, to think that it was technologically possible to “reroute” at that time all the telegraph lines in the United States through to the office of Secretary of War Stanton is an absolute ABSURDITY.
In fact, according to the referenced article immediately above - "In the Original Situation Room - Abraham Lincoln and the Telegraph" -
“When Lincoln arrived for his inauguration in 1861 there was not even a telegraph line to the War Department, much less the White House. Storm clouds were brewing, but when the US Army wanted to send a telegram they did like everyone else: sending a clerk with a hand written message to stand in line at Washington’s central telegraph office.”
In the reference above labeled “2” ( "Mr. Lincoln's White House"), the subsequent centralization of telegraphic communication for the war at Stanton’s office and Mr. Lincoln’s routine for checking telegraphs are laid out. There is no mention in this article of any journalistic or any other non-governmental communications being “monitored” in the telegraph office.
“In March 1862 Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton insisted in centralizing all telegraph communication for the war at the War Department's old library next to his office. The President therefore had to go to the telegraph office there to read war dispatches and send his own. (The telegraph office had previously been located in two other locations in the same building, but General George McClellan had his own telegraph service at his headquarters in 1861-1862.)
“The office gave Mr. Lincoln an opportunity to write and think in peace as he waited for telegrams to arrive and be deciphered - as well to socialize in a way that was impossible elsewhere in Washington. Telegraph operator Albert B. Chandler reported the President said: ‘I come here to escape my persecutors. Hundreds of people come in and say they want to see me for only a minute. That means if I can hear their story and grant their request in a minute, it will be enough.’
“One telegraph operator, Homer Bates, later recorded Mr. Lincoln's routine:
“When in the telegraph office, Lincoln was most easy of access. He often talked with the cipher-operators, asking questions regarding the dispatches which we were translating from or into cipher, or which were filed in the order of receipt in the little drawer in our cipher-desk.
Lincoln's habit was to go immediately to the drawer each time he came into our room, and read over the telegrams, beginning at the top, until he came to the one he had seen at his last previous visit.”
In fact, according to this article, President Lincoln used the peace and quiet of his time at the telegraph office to write the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation in the summer of 1862. Major Thomas Eckert, head of the telegraph office, reported:
“I became much interested in the matter and was impressed with the idea that he was engaged upon something of great importance, but did not know what it was until he had finished the document and then for the first time he told me that he had been writing an order giving freedom to the slaves in the South, for the purpose of hastening the end of the war. He said he had been able to work at my desk more quietly and command his thoughts better than at the White House, where he was frequently interrupted. I still have in my possession the ink-stand which he used at that time and which, as you know, stood on my desk until after Lee's surrender. The pen he used was a small barrel-pen by Gillott - such as were supplied to the cipher-operators."
To the editors of the New York Times: I respectfully request that you check thoroughly as to whether a hoax has been perpetrated upon the NY Times in this manner. If so, the NY Times should retract this Op-Ed on page one of the NY Times as soon as possible with a complete explanation as to how the NY Times was so easily bamboozled into providing to its millions of dedicated and trusting readers a false representation of “Lincoln” history as a “precedent” to justify the National Security Agency’s data-mining programs in the United States and the rest of the world. Having the governmental “means” to an “end” does not, in and of itself, justify the governmental “end.” Lincoln’s alleged authorization of governmental intrusion into the affairs of ordinary citizens and journalists in time of war by “wire-tapping” all telegrams every day within the United States is a hoax (i.e., a mischievous trick by means of a made-up story) and it should be clearly recognized in the NY Times as such in a page one story.
Yours truly,
David Lockmiller
The following is the email that I sent to the Executive Editor of the NY Times on Monday, July 8, 2013. I did not receive either an acknowledgement by her of the receipt of my email or a response.
____________________________________________________
To whom it may concern:
Yesterday, I sent an email on the same subject matter. With the assistance of a Lincoln scholar friend of mine, I now have the original letter words from Stanton as published in the “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,” Volume 5:
To Edwin M. Stanton [1]
[January 24, 1862]
The Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the matter within mentioned. A. LINCOLN.
Annotation
[1] NH, VII, 88-89. Lincoln's endorsement is on a letter from Stanton, January 24, 1862, reading as follows: ``In my opinion the success of military operations and the safety of the country require some changes to be made in the Bureau of Ordnance, and perhaps some others, in order to secure more vigor and activity; and I desire to have your sanction for making them.''
It’s time to get busy, Horns! Please keep me posted as to what actions you are taking in this matter.
Yours truly,
David Lockmiller
The following is the email that I sent to the Public Editor of the NY Times on Thursday, July 11, 2013. I did receive an automatic acknowledgement of the receipt of my email.
_________________________________________________
Dear Margaret Sullivan,
It is my understanding:
“The public editor’s office also handles questions and comments from readers and investigates matters of journalistic integrity. The public editor works independently, outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper; her opinions are her own.”
The following is a quote from the NY Times David Shipley’s “Op-Ed” submission article to the NY Times, published on February 1, 2004, which may be accessed today from the NY Times Op-Ed submission instructions page:
“Before something appears in our pages, you can bet that questions have been asked, arguments have been clarified, cuts have been suggested - as have additions - and factual, typographical and grammatical errors have been caught. (We hope.)”
I have sent the following two emails to the Executive Editor of the NY Times (executive-editor@nytimes.com) regarding the Op-Ed submission appearing in the July 6, 2013 electronic edition of the New York Times titled “Lincoln’s Surveillance State“ and written by Professor David Mindich of Saint Michael’s College. I have not received any response to either email.
[I then copied and pasted to the two letters that I sent to Executive Editor of the NY Times on Sunday July 7 and Monday July 8.]
[I then added these words to this email to the Public Editor of the NY Times.]
Here’s a “bottom line question” for anyone interested in finding out the truth about Professor Mindich’s motives in writing the Op-Ed piece for the NY Times: How is that Professor Mindich was able to quote all of the exact words used by President Lincoln to grant his authorization of actions to be taken by the Secretary of War, but was unable to quote any of the words used by the Secretary of War describing the actions which the Secretary intended to take? Lincoln’s authorization was written by Lincoln on the back of Stanton’s letter.
As it turns out the immediate problem being addressed by President Abraham Lincoln and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was with the Bureau of Ordnance, and was not the control of any telegraph lines, but rather mortars that were supposed to have been delivered to General Grant in support of his military movement up the Tennessee River.
In the form of secondary proof, later, that same day (January 24, 1862), President Lincoln wrote the following letter to Secretary Stanton:
“My dear Sir: On reflection, I think you better make a peremptory order on the ordnance officer at Pittsburg to ship the ten mortars and two beds to Cairo instantly, and all others as fast as finished, till ordered to stop, reporting each shipment to the department here. Yours truly, A. Lincoln.”
On the previous day (January 23, 1862), President Lincoln had written the following telegraph message to Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote which was sent by Henry A. Wise of the Navy Bureau of Ordnance:
“The President wishes the rafts with their 13 inch mortars and all appointments to be ready for use at the earliest possible moment. What can we do here to advance this? What is lacking? What is being done, so far as you know? Telegraph us every day, showing the progress, or lack of progress in this matter.” [Source: “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, editor, Rutgers University Press, 1953, Volume 5, page 108.]
Professor Michael Burlingame wrote of this military campaign by Grant in his work “Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Volume II, pages 291-92:
“On February 6, U. S. Grant, with the help of gunboats under the command of Navy Captain Andrew Hull Foote, took Fort Henry on the Tennessee River, a victory that Lincoln considered extremely important. And, on February 16, [ ] Grant captured a Rebel army at Fort Donelson on the Cumberland . . . . This successful joint operation represented the first major Northern victory in the war; it not only opened the South to invasion along two rivers but also forced the rebels to forsake their positions in Kentucky and much of Tennessee. . . . Despite his [Lincoln’s] best endeavors, however, the mortar flotilla was not ready in time for Foote and Grant’s campaign.”
Conclusion: I consider myself to be a defender of the reputation of Abraham Lincoln. President Lincoln once counseled a general by quoting these words of the poet Alexander Pope: “Act well your part, there all the honor lies.” This email is my attempt to “act well my part.” Anyone genuinely interested in maintaining the integrity of the reputation of Abraham Lincoln should be outraged by the Op-Ed piece written by Professor Mindich, “Lincoln's Surveillance State,” and published by the NY Times on Saturday, July 6, 2013.
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - L Verge - 08-02-2013 12:28 PM
Excellent suggestion, Liz.
Interestingly enough, I just learned this week that the founder of the NY Times was Henry Jarvis Raymond. Even more interesting is the fact that, together with Francis B. Carpenter, he wrote a book with the world's longest title (that I can't remember). It is a compilation of Lincoln's letters, messages, telegrams, speeches, etc. If interested, I can get you the full title.
Perhaps a little mention that the founder of the NY Times was an expert on Mr. Lincoln and could well have disputed Dr. Mindich's "quote" if he had seen it published in HIS newspaper might help?
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - David Lockmiller - 08-02-2013 12:51 PM
The Public Editor of the NY Times then forwarded the entire email that I had sent to her on Thursday, July 11. Mr. Sewell Chan, a Deputy Editor of the Op-Ed section of the NY Times responded to me early morning on Friday, July 12 . As shown below, Mr. Chan stated: "I work on the NYT op-ed page and this is the first time I've seen your complaint. We are giving it a thorough review and will respond to you shortly."
I did not hear from Mr. Chan "shortly" and so I sent the following email to him on Tuesday July 13.
___________________________________
Mr. Chan:
I have not heard from you.
This is a matter of journalistic integrity of very high importance in terms of both substance and time for response.
There is no evidence whatsoever that even Washington’s central telegraph office line was rerouted through Stanton’s office to enable him to “keep tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal.” President Abraham Lincoln would have noticed: “Lincoln's habit was to go immediately to the drawer each time he came into our room, and read over the telegrams, beginning at the top, until he came to the one he had seen at his last previous visit.” So, unless Professor Mindich has come up with conclusive evidence that Washington’s central telegraph office line was rerouted to somewhere else in the War Department building, unbeknown to Lincoln, I would suggest that either the NY Times immediately retract “Lincoln's Surveillance State" -- NY Times Op-Ed Published July 6 (Saturday) electronic edition, or, Margaret Sullivan, the NY Times public editor, should report to the NY Times readers of NY Times management’s refusal to do so.
I am working on an analysis of Senate Bill 169 “An Act to authorize the President of the United States in certain Cases to take Possession of Railroad and Telegraph Lines, and for other Purposes,” and will report to you shortly.
But, in the meantime, I will report this much as is written in the “Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606 – 1926,” edited by William MacDonald, The MacMillan Company, page 444:
“In his report of July 1, 1861, the Secretary of War, Cameron, stated that the resistance to the passage of troops through Baltimore, the destruction of bridges on certain railroads, and the refusal of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company to transport government forces and supplies, had made it necessary ‘to take possession of so much of the railway lines as was required to form a connections with the States from which troops and supplies were expected;’ and an appropriation for the construction and operation, when necessary of railroad and telegraph lines (emphasis added) was recommended. Further specific recommendations for construction were made in the annual report of December 1. A bill in accordance with the earlier recommendation was reported to the Senate, January 22, [1862] by Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio, from the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, and passed with amendments on the 28th by a vote of 23 to 12. The next day, by a vote of 113 to 28, the bill passed the House, and on the 31st the act was approved. An order taking military possession of all railroads was issued May 25.” References. – Text in U.S. Statutes at Large, XII, 334,335. For the proceedings see the House and Senate Journals, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, and the Congressional Globe. The debate in the Senate is of most importance. Cameron’s report of 1861 is in the Globe, Appendix.
Yours truly,
David Lockmiller
From: Chan, Sewell [mailto:sewell@nytimes.com]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:10 AM
To: davidlincoln@msn.com
Subject: FW: Lincoln's Surveillance State" -- NY Times Op-Ed Published July 6 (Saturday) electronic edition
Mr. Lockmiller:
I work on the NYT op-ed page and this is the first time I've seen your complaint. We are giving it a thorough review and will respond to you shortly.
Best regards,
Sewell Chan
--
Sewell Chan
Deputy Editor
Op-Ed/Sunday Review
The New York Times
(08-02-2013 12:28 PM)L Verge Wrote: Excellent suggestion, Liz.
Interestingly enough, I just learned this week that the founder of the NY Times was Henry Jarvis Raymond. Even more interesting is the fact that, together with Francis B. Carpenter, he wrote a book with the world's longest title (that I can't remember). It is a compilation of Lincoln's letters, messages, telegrams, speeches, etc. If interested, I can get you the full title.
Perhaps a little mention that the founder of the NY Times was an expert on Mr. Lincoln and could well have disputed Dr. Mindich's "quote" if he had seen it published in HIS newspaper might help?
The title of Raymond's book is: "The Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln, Sixteenth President of the United States; Together With His State Papers, Including His Speeches, Addresses, Messages, Letters, and Proclamations, and the Closing Scenes Connected with His Life and Death." (Derby and Miller, Publishers, 1865)
On Tuesday, July 16, I also wrote an email to the Public Editor because of an automatic response that I received from Mr. Chan to my email of the same day (see below)
____________________________________
Dear Margaret Sullivan,
It looks like you and I will have to wait for quite a bit of time before Mr. Sewell Chan will respond to the subject matter (see subject line of this email) that you forwarded to him. See below Mr. Chan’s automatic response to my follow-up email today.
You forwarded to him the email that I had originally sent to you last Thursday.
Mr. Chan’s response to me on the subject last Friday was:
Mr. Lockmiller:
I work on the NYT op-ed page and this is the first time I've seen your complaint. We are giving it a thorough review and will respond to you shortly.
Best regards,
Sewell Chan
Do you have any suggestions as to what to do at this point?
Yours truly,
David Lockmiller
From: Chan, Sewell [mailto:sewell@nytimes.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:19 AM
To: David Lockmiller
Subject: Out of Office: Lincoln's Surveillance State" -- NY Times Op-Ed Published July 6 (Saturday) electronic edition
I will be working on a project in Paris from July 14-20 and checking e-mail less frequently than usual.
Later, that same day, Tuesday, July 16, I received a reply from Mr. Chan as shown below. I responded to his reply with the three words shown immediately below.
________________________________
I disagree completely.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chan, Sewell [mailto:sewell@nytimes.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:31 AM
To: davidlincoln@msn.com
Subject: FW: Lincoln's Surveillance State" -- NY Times Op-Ed Published July 6 (Saturday) electronic edition
Dear Mr. Lockmiller:
Please pardon my delay in responding. I'm out of the office for a work assignment but I have not forgotten your concern.
The sentence in question reads: "In 1862, after President Lincoln appointed him secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton penned a letter to the president requesting sweeping powers, which would include total control of the telegraph lines."
The claim that Stanton requested "sweeping powers" is supported by the letter from Stanton requesting the authority to make unnamed changes "in the Bureau of Ordnance, and perhaps some others." Lincoln granted this request.
The claim that those powers "would include" control of the telegraph is supported by the fact that, a month later, Stanton wrote an executive order, approved by Lincoln, taking control of the telegraph.
(For the executive order, see here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=69797)
We recognize that it was a two-step process by which the powers were requested. I also have immense respect for President Lincoln -- he is my favorite president -- and appreciate your enthusiasm for defending his reputation, but we carefully checked this essay and stand by its accuracy.
Thank you.
Sewell Chan
Dear Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of the NY Times,
As the Public Editor for the NY Times, the ball is in your court once again on the issue of the NY Times retracting Professor Mindich’s Op-Ed “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” (July 6, 2013). Mr. Sewell Chan and I have reached an impasse. On Tuesday, July 16, 2013, Mr. Chan ended his email to me with these words: “[W]e carefully checked this essay and stand by its accuracy.” I disagree completely. The issue is a matter of journalistic integrity for the NY Times and, therefore, falls within your jurisdiction.
Later, the same day, Mr. Chan sent another email with the suggestion I write and submit a letter to the editor arguing that “Mindich's reading of history is totally wrong and an unfair besmirchment of Lincoln's reputation.” But he followed this suggestion with an admonishment that I should “just focus on the interpretive differences [I] have with this scholar instead of using words like hoax.”
For the additional reasons stated below, I believe now even more so that the Op-Ed was a hoax (i.e., a mischievous trick by means of a made-up story) and that the NY Times should retract the Op-Ed for that reason. In my first email to you on Thursday, July 11, I concluded with these words: “Anyone genuinely interested in maintaining the integrity of the reputation of Abraham Lincoln should be outraged by the Op-Ed piece written by Professor Mindich, “Lincoln's Surveillance State,” and published by the NY Times on Saturday, July 6, 2013.”
The following NY Times quote was also contained in my email to you.
“Before something appears in our pages, you can bet that questions have been asked, arguments have been clarified, cuts have been suggested - as have additions - and factual, typographical and grammatical errors have been caught. (We hope.)” (Quote from the NY Times David Shipley’s “Op-Ed” submission article to the NY Times, published on February 1, 2004, and accessed from the current NY Times Op-Ed submission instructions page)
You appropriately forwarded my email to Mr. Sewell Chan, Assistant Editor for the Op-Ed section of the NY Times, to obtain his considered response on the issues raised by me and the supporting documentary evidence that I provided. I presume that you wanted from him assurances in some form that the NY Times vetting process for publication of Professor Mindich’s Op-Ed proposal had been followed.
Prior to sending my first email to you, I sent two emails to the Executive Editor of the NY Times on Sunday, July 7 (the day following the publishing of the Op-Ed) and on the following day. (Copies of both emails were contained in the body of the email that I sent to you. Therefore, Mr. Chan had the advantage of considering the arguments and supporting evidence presented in these two emails, as well.) I never received a response from the Executive Editor to either email.
I began my July 7 email to the Executive Editor with pertinent quotes from the NY Times published Op-Ed:
“The N.S.A.'s data-mining has a historical precedent in the federal government's monitoring of the telegraphs in 1862.”
The highlights of the Op-Ed piece are as follows:
“Many commentators have deemed the government’s activities alarming and unprecedented. The N.S.A.’s program is indeed alarming – but not, from a historical perspective, unprecedented.”
"In 1862, after President Abraham Lincoln appointed him secretary of war, Edwin Stanton penned a letter to the president requesting sweeping powers, which would include total control of the telegraph lines. By rerouting those lines through his office, Stanton would keep tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal. On the back of Stanton's letter Lincoln scribbled his approval: 'The Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the matter within mentioned.'"
I followed these article quotes with a logical statement of my own:
“I think that this is some sort of bizarre hoax. In the first place, to think that it was technologically possible to “reroute” at that time all the telegraph lines in the United States through to the office of Secretary of War Stanton is an absolute ABSURDITY.”
At the time (Sunday, July 7), I did not think any evidentiary support would be necessary to demonstrate the veracity of this conclusion. Now, I present the requisite evidentiary support and accompanying argument.
According to “The Library of Congress – Civil War Desk Reference” (Wagner, Gallagher, and Finkelman, Editors, Simon & Schuster, publisher), the following is factual information regarding the Railways and Telegraph Act itself:
“[U]nder the Railways and Telegraph Act, passed January 31, 1862, the president was given authority to impress any telegraph or railroad and all equipage, make regulations for the maintenance and security of these lines, and subject all railroad and telegraph officers and employees to military authority.” p. 350
“The Civil War was the first conflict in which the electric telegraph played a major role. Private telegraph companies had been operating in the United States since the 1840s. When the war began, more than 50,000 miles of wire were in place, there were more than 1,400 stations, and nearly 10,000 people were at work as telegraph operators and clerks. A transcontinental line was completed in the fall of 1861. As with existing railroad mileage, the preponderance of existing telegraph service was in the North; only some 10 percent was located in the Confederate States. During the war, the Union constructed and then operated 15,000 miles of new telegraph lines [for the military operations, mostly], compared with about 1,000 constructed by the Confederates. Both sides, however, used the telegraph to great advantage during the war.” p. 353
“[I]n October, 1861, the Union established the U.S. Military Telegraph Service and placed Stager in charge. Though it was attached to the Quartermaster’s Department, the Telegraph Service was, in fact, a civilian bureau, and its operators were all civilians throughout the war (though their supervisors were granted commissions). These operators included a number of women (telegraphy being one of the first technical professions open to females), at least three of whom were cited in various publications for conducting themselves heroically under trying circumstances.” p. 354
Professor Mindich’s Op-Ed states in his Op-Ed: “Edwin Stanton penned a letter to the president requesting sweeping powers, which would include total control of the telegraph lines. By rerouting those lines through his office, Stanton would keep tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal.”
Such a feat of accomplishment most certainly would encompass “vast amounts of communication.” Assuming for the moment, for the sake of argument, that Stanton was able to have the 45,000 miles of commercial telegraph lines throughout the North physically “rerouted” through to his office, there are still a number of almost insurmountable problems with this new “Lincoln surveillance program” allegedly implemented by Stanton that have to be considered. An army of telegraph operators, numbering in the thousands, would have been necessary to write down the tens of thousands of messages sent each day over these 45,000 miles of Union commercial telegraph lines. Since there were no computers at that time in which to enter all of this information into huge databases, all these thousands of messages would necessarily have to be written down on paper. Then, supposedly, Stanton would read each message each day in order to “keep tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal” (as Professor Mindich in his Op-Ed so quaintly described this surveillance task of Secretary of War Stanton). Poor Stanton! He probably regretted the fact that he did not have database software to do keyword searches as the NSA does now.
Now, let’s return to the question of how the 45,000 miles of commercial telegraph lines throughout the North were physically “rerouted” through to Stanton’s office to accomplish Stanton’s goal of “total control of the telegraph lines.” I don’t have an answer as to how this was possible. Perhaps Professor Mindich has the answer to this question and has divulged already this information to Mr. Sewell Chan.
I was doing a Google search recently on the term “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” and I was able locate a live interview conducted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 by Vermont Public Radio with Professor Mindich on this very subject. The hyperlink to this 8 minute interview is http://digital.vpr.net/post/surveillance-lincolns-time.
Surprisingly, the very first question asked of Professor Mindich by the Vermont Public Radio interviewer, Jane Lindholm, was this: “Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, was monitoring all telegraph communications during the Civil War throughout the country. Can you explain how this program worked?”
In response to the interviewer’s question, Professor Mindich began with a 30 second reference to the actual “rerouting of telegraph lines” from General McClellan’s office to the War Department offices. This was the only statement he made in his answer regarding the “rerouting” of telegraph lines.
In my last communication from Mr. Chan on Tuesday, July 16, he wrote:
“Mr. Lockmiller, email is a terrible way to communicate. I wish we could talk by phone but I'm in Paris. If you want to write a letter to the editor saying that Mindich's reading of history is totally wrong and an unfair besmirchment of Lincoln's reputation, I will absolutely forward it to our letters editor - we welcome alternate views. But please just focus on the interpretive differences you have with this scholar instead of using words like hoax. This guy's just an academic with one reading of one episode in history. Doubtless there are other compelling interpretations. Why do these emails sound as if you're shouting? Harold Holzer is a longstanding friend of mine. I love Lincoln. We fact-check these essays really carefully. (Emphasis added) And our Civil War series, Disunion, has received acclaim from historians and popular writers alike. For goodness' sake, just please write a letter. If you send it to me I will make to flag the attention of the relevant editors.”
I wrote at the end of my email to the Executive Editor of the NY Times on the day following publication of the Op-Ed “Lincoln's Surveillance State” on Saturday, July 6:
“[T]he NY Times should retract this Op-Ed on page one of the NY Times as soon as possible with a complete explanation as to how the NY Times was so easily bamboozled into providing to its millions of dedicated and trusting readers a false representation of “Lincoln” history as a “precedent” to justify the National Security Agency’s data-mining programs in the United States and the rest of the world. . . . Lincoln’s alleged authorization of governmental intrusion into the affairs of ordinary citizens and journalists in time of war by “wire-tapping” all telegrams every day within the United States is a hoax (i.e., a mischievous trick by means of a made-up story) and it should be clearly recognized as such in the NY Times in a page one story.”
My opinion has not changed regarding what I feel is the duty of the NY Times in this matter.
The issue is a matter of journalistic integrity for the NY Times and, therefore, falls within your jurisdiction.
Yours truly,
David Lockmiller
RE: "Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013 - David Lockmiller - 08-02-2013 02:05 PM
I did not receive a reply to my email of Thursday, July 18, to the Public Editor of the NY Times and so I wrote the following email on Monday, July 29 to the Publisher of the N Y Times, with a copy to the Editorial Page Editor of the NY Times. I also attached a Word file entitled "Additional Research on Lincoln in the Telegraph Office and the Railway and Telegraph Act of 1862 (which is copied, following the email below). I have not received a reply to this email.
________________________________
To: Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Publisher of the NY Times
cc: Andrew Rosenthal, Editorial Page Editor of the NY Times (I’m sorry I could not find his email address on the website. Please forward for me.)
Subject: Request for Page One Retraction of NY Times Op-Ed “Lincoln’s Surveillance State”
Hoax perpetrated upon the NY Times and the readers of the NY Times: “The N.S.A.'s data-mining has a historical precedent in the federal government's monitoring of the telegraphs in 1862.”
Dear Mr. Sulzberger:
As the Publisher of the NY Times, you have the ultimate responsibility for fictional work that appears in this publication dedicated to the truth. I have been trying to have a work of fiction, the Op-Ed “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” removed the only way possible once it has been published and that is by the means of retraction. Thus far, I have been unsuccessful in my efforts to do so with other NY Times personnel.
I am copying Mr. Andrew Rosenthal on this email because it is my understanding that the responsibilities of the editorial page editor of the NY Times include management of the opinion pages, both newspaper and online. In addition, Mr. Rosenthal “oversees the editorial board, the Letters and Op-Ed departments, as well as the Editorial and Op-Ed sections of the NYTimes.com.” Because of the importance of the subject matter of this email and the fact he reports directly to you, I am copying him on this email, as well.
It is important to me that the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln not be unjustifiably impugned at any time, as was done with the publication in the NY Times of the Op-Ed “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” on July 5, 2013. For almost a month now, without any success, I have been trying to convince three people at the NY Times to authorize the retraction of the Op-Ed piece “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” by Professor David Mindich.
I have sent emails on this subject matter to the NY Times Executive Editor (Jill Abramson), the Public Editor (Margaret Sullivan), and a Deputy Editor of the Op-Ed division (Sewell Chan). Please find attached copies of those email communications that I have had on this subject. In response, I have been either ignored or stone-walled by the responsible NY Times personnel. I have concluded, at this point, that not admitting a mistake and maintaining the illusion before its readers that the NY Times is “infallible” in the publishing of its Op-Ed pieces is the paramount objective of these NY Times personnel.
I ask that you now disavow this decision. Heretofore, it has been my understanding that truth is of paramount importance at the NY Times, according to the words of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger – former Publisher for three decades of the NY Times, Jill Abramson – current Executive Editor of the NY Times, and Margaret Sullivan – current Public Editor of the NY Times:
1. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger: “The business of America is freedom. For the journalist, that means the freedom to get to the root of the truth, the freedom to criticize, the freedom to goad and stimulate every institution in our society, including our own.” (“The Times Pays Tribute to a Publisher Called Punch” by Clyde Haberman, quoting the words of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, October 5, 2012)
2. Jill Abramson: “In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If the Times said it, it was the absolute truth.” (Jill Abramson - NY Times biography)
3. Margaret Sullivan: “I’m glad to be hearing more from readers about avoiding false balance. Nothing is more important in journalism, after all than getting to the truth.” ( “Just the Facts – No ‘False Balance’ Wanted Here’” by Margaret Sullivan, NY Times Public Editor’s Journal, July 17, 2013)
In the October 5, 2012 NY Times article, “The Times Pays Tribute to a Publisher Called Punch,” the story was told of Mr. Sulzberger’s agreeing in 1971 “to publish the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the American descent into a deepening Vietnam War.” Clyde Haberman wrote: “That decision, considered his finest moment by many journalists and historians, led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the primacy of a free press over government’s desire to preserve secrecy.” The story continued as follows:
“A personal reminiscence involving the Pentagon Papers was provided by one of Mr. Sulzberger’s daughters, Cathy. Her father feared that a prison cell might well be in his future for having published classified documents. He cut short a trip to England to deal with the legal fallout.
“The night he returned, he cooked dinner on a grill, but burned everything to a crisp. “We dined that evening on salami sandwiches,” Ms. Sulzberger said, ‘as he contemplated what prison food might be like.’”
Considering now both the composition of the current U. S. Supreme Court and the Obama administration’s predisposition to prosecute reporters for failing to disclose their sources in the publication of government secrets, what is the probability in your estimation that a similar case brought now before the U. S. Supreme Court would result in the reversal of this U. S. Supreme Court precedent in which the then Publisher of the NY Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, played such a crucial role?
Safeguards against abuse of government power have not always been enough to prevent abuse of government power as the history of this democracy has proven time and time again. The age old question remains: Who watches the watchmen?
The NY Times has had a long and honored traditional role to play in this democracy as “the guardians of the truth.” Sometimes, it has not been altogether successful in this purpose (Tesla story – the previous latest incidence). The publication of the Op-Ed Lincoln’s Surveillance State” on July 5, 2013 is another one of those failures.
The NY Times management should not continue to permit the fiction of “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” to be considered as a precedent for universal government surveillance of United States citizens and thereby improperly influence public opinion on this important subject matter. “Fiction can create History.” (author, Colum McCann) The first line of the “fictional” Op-Ed reads: “The N.S.A.'s data-mining has a historical precedent in the federal government's monitoring of the telegraphs in 1862.” The public interest requires the retraction of the Op-Ed fiction “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” with an explanation from the NY Times on page one of its daily publication, at its earliest convenience.
For your edification, in addition to the email communications that I have had on this subject matter with NY Times personnel, I have also attached to this email important additional research that I have done on this subject matter since my last communication with any NY Times personnel. If you have any questions of me, please do not hesitate to ask.
Please inform me of your decision on this important matter.
Yours truly,
David Lockmiller
Lincoln in the Telegraph Office
The following quotes from Lincoln in the Telegraph Office, by David Homer Bates (Manager of the War Department Telegraph Office and cipher-operator, 1861-1866), describe in detail the creation and operation of the War Department telegraph lines during the Civil War:
“At the outbreak of the Civil War, the writer was employed in the telegraph department of the Pennsylvania Railroad at Altoona, Pennsylvania. . . . Andrew Carnegie was then superintendent of the Pittsburg Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, but at that time was in Washington, acting as assistant to Colonel Thomas A. Scott, who had just been appointed general manager of military railroads and telegraph-lines by Secretary of War Cameron.” (pages 15-16)
“This message and its answer are reproduced from memory, as follows:
Washington, D. C., April 22, 1861.
David McCargo, Supt. Telegraphs, Penna. Railroad Co., Altoona, Pa.
Send four of your best operators to Washington at once, prepared to enter Government telegraph service for the war.
(Signed) Andrew Carnegie
Altoona, Pa., April 23, 1861
Andrew Carnegie, War Department, Washington, D. C.
Message received. Strouse from Mifflin, Brown from Pittsburgh, O’Brien from Greensburg, and Bates from Altoona, will start for Washington immediately.
(Signed) David McCargo, Supt. Telegraph.” (pages 14-15)”
“The four boy operators, heretofore mentioned, reached Washington on Thursday, April 27, 1861, and after securing rooms at the old National Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street where the New York Seventh, recently arrived, were quartered, proceeded to the War Department and reported to Thomas A. Scott, who had just been commissioned colonel of volunteers, and who, on August 1, 1861, was appointed Assistant Secretary of War.
“The telegraph instruments were in Chief Clerk Sanderson’s room, adjoining that of the Secretary of War (Cameron). Upon entering, we could see through the open door two very tall, slim men, President Lincoln and Secretary Cameron, and General Winfield Scott, the old Mexican hero . . . . This, then, was the beginning, and the four young operators I have named, formed the nucleus of the United States Military Telegraph Corps.” (page 26)
“The United States Military Telegraph Corps was a special organization, and its members were not considered an integral part of the army (excepting only ten or twelve holding commissions, to enable them officially to receive and disburse funds and property), nor were we under military control proper, our orders coming direct from the Secretary of War.
“Our first superintendent was David Strouse. . . . James R. Gilore succeeded Strouse, and he in turn was succeeded by Thomas T. Eckert, Gilmore having resigned.” (page 27)
“There was no government telegraph organization before the Civil War. In the month of April, 1861, the American Telegraph Company, whose lines reached Washington from the North, extended its wires to the War Department, Navy Yard, Arsenal, Chain-Bridge, and other outlying points.” (page 35)
“In October, 1861, the telegraph office [in the War Department] was moved to the first floor room west of the rear entrance, opposite the Navy Department. The final change was made soon after the Monitor-Merrimac fight in March, 1862, when Secretary of War Stanton directed the office to be located in the old library room, on the second floor front, adjoining his own quarters . . . .
“Not long after the instruments had been moved to the library room, Secretary Stanton gave up the adjoining room for the use of the cipher-operators. We remained in these quarters until after the close of the war.
“From January [13], 1862, when Stanton entered the cabinet, until the war ended, the telegraphic reins of the Government were held by a firm and skillful hand. Nicolay and Hay, in their Abraham Lincoln (Vol. V, pp. 141-142), say that Stanton ‘centered the telegraph in the War Department, where the publication of military news, which might prematurely reach the enemy, could be supervised, and, if necessary, delayed,’ and that it was Lincoln’s practice to go informally to Stanton’s office in times of great suspense during impending or actual battles, and ‘spend hour after hour with his War Secretary, where he could read the telegrams as fast as they were received and handed in from the adjoining room.’ He did not always wait for them to be handed in, but made the cipher-room his rendezvous, keeping in close touch with the cipher operators, often looking over our shoulders when he knew some especially important message was in course of translation.” (pages 38–40)
There is no indication or evidence, whatsoever, in the work, Lincoln in the Telegraph Office, that Secretary of War Stanton kept “tabs on vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal” as claimed by Professor David Mindich in his Op-Ed, “Lincoln’s Surveillance State.”
Furthermore, Professor Mindich does not provide any documentary support reference for this claim in his Op-Ed.
In my opinion, the Op-Ed was a successful hoax perpetrated upon the people at the NY Times responsible for the Op-Ed publication and then upon the readers of the NY Times, who implicitly trust the NY Times to be their guardians of truth.
Railways and Telegraph Act
It has also come to my attention that Professor Mindich has raised the issue of a letter from Secretary of War Stanton sent to Senator Wade Wilson on January 27, 1862 regarding the immediate need for passage of pending legislation before Congress on the legal right of the government to take over the railroad and telegraph lines of this nation, as needed, in time of war. I look upon this issue of legislation regarding the control of railroads and telegraph lines in much the same manner that President Lincoln sought passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 was to insure that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation would not be effectively overturned by an act of Congress or an adverse constitutional ruling of the U. S. Supreme Court. Correspondingly, immediate and unimpeded access to the public railway and telegraph lines, when necessary in time of war, by Union military forces was imperative.
“In January 1862 the US Congress passed the Railways and Telegraph Act, giving President Lincoln sweeping powers over all railroads in the United States. Under this Act the government could requisition for military use any line and any piece of railroad or telegraph equipment in the country, and could impress any railroad or telegraph employee for service in a war zone.” American Civil War Railroad Tactics, by Robert Hodges, page 7.
Fear of having their railroads confiscated forced the executives to abide by the legislation. Section 4 of the Act reads in its entirety as follows:
“And be it further enacted, That the transportation of troops, munitions of war, equipments, military property and stores, throughout the United States, shall be under the immediate control and supervision of the Secretary of War and such agents as he may appoint; and all rules, regulations, articles, usages, and laws in conflict with this provision are hereby annulled.”
The purpose of the Railways and Telegraph Act was not to facilitate the creation of “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” as Professor Mindich argued, but rather to facilitate the war efforts of the Union forces in the use of public railway lines or telegraph lines.
One example of the Act’s true purpose is President Lincoln’s July 11, 1862 “Order Extending the Pacific Railroad,” as published in the “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,” Volume 5, pages 315-316:
“Whereas, in the judgment of the President, the public safety does require that the Railroad line, called and known as the South West Branch of the Pacific Railroad in the State of Missouri, be repaired, extended and completed, from Rolla to Lebanon, in the direction to Springfield, in the said State, the same being necessary to the successful and economical conduct of the war, and to the maintenance of the authority of the government, in the South West. Therefore, under and in virtue of the of Congress entitled “An act to authorize the President of the United States, in certain cases, to take possession of Railroad and Telegraph lines, and for other purposes” Approved January 31, 1862, it is -
“Ordered that the portion of the said Railroad line which reaches from Rolla to Lebanon, be repaired, extended and completed, so as to be made available for the military uses of the Government, as speedily as may be. And in as much as, upon the part of the said line from Rolla to the stream called Little Piney, a considerable portion of the necessary work has already been done, by the Railroad Company, and the road, to this extent, may be completed at comparatively small cost, it is ordered that the said line, from Rolla to and across Little Piney, be first completed, and as soon as possible.
“The secretary is charged with the execution of this order. And, to facilitate the speedy execution of the work, he is directed, at his discretion, to take possession and control of the whole or such part of the said Railroad line, and the whole or each part of the rolling stock, offices, shops, buildings and all their appendages and appurtenances, as he may judge necessary or convenient for the early completion of the road, from Rolla to Lebanon.”
Done at the City of Washington, July 11th. 1862.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN