(08-02-2013 10:49 AM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  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.

Mr. Chan of the NY Times did offer the opportunity to submit a Letter to the Editor, with one specific limitation: "please just focus on the interpretive differences you have with this scholar instead of using words like hoax."

I have argued all along that the Op-Ed was a hoax (i.e., a mischievous trick by means of a made-up story). All my communications to the NY Times were in the form of a proof that it was a made-up story, based on Lincoln historical documentation.

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."

The NY Times has specific limitations for publishing "Letters."

"Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days."

The Op-Ed was published July 5; Mr. Chan's offer was made July 16.

The following is my best effort "Letter" without using the word "hoax" and it is exactly 150 words in length:

The author writes, “In 1862, after President Abraham 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.”

Here is what the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln says Stanton actually wrote: "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.'' [Letter from Stanton, January 24, 1862]

Lincoln's endorsement is on the letter from Stanton: “The Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the matter within mentioned. A. LINCOLN”

Obviously, there is a huge difference between the implications of what was written in the Times and what is in the Collected Works.

Liz, do you think that this proposed Letter to the Editor adequately discredits the Op-Ed "Lincoln's Surveillance State" as written by Professor Mindich and published by the NY Times?

David: I think the 150-word limit is more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule. I've seen longer letters and shorter letters in the NY Times, although I'm sure the editors prefer shorter ones. They're easier to get through, edit and fit on the op-ed page.

One of the problems I see with the approach that you've taken with the NY Times is your heavy reliance on long quotations. Unless the quote is extremely memorable or precisely on point, I wouldn't bother with the quote. For one thing, you're going to lose your audience - in this case, the person who is reading your letter - with long quote after long quote.

My suggestion is to summarize, in your own words, the substance of the research you've done. But before doing that, in a letter to the editor, I would begin with the assertion made by Minchin (is that his name?) that you believe is erroneous. Then I would indicate why you believe it's erroneous, in a succinct manner, and at this point identify the correct fact or facts by way of briefly summarizing the research you've done to support the fact or facts. Finally, you could end with something like, "It's unfortunate that Mr. Minchin felt the need to misrepresent the facts in order to support his argument that the N.S.A. spying program is nothing new."

One last thing - I am confused by the information about the Bureau of Ordinance and how that relates to control of the telegraph system. I would have thought that the censoring of reports of military movements would be more relevant and might be what Minchin was thinking of. But he may have decided to rely on a faulty memory rather than double-check the facts. Unfortunately, prominent columnists, bloggers and authors acquire, in the course of their prominence, a certain amount of hubris, which can lead to carelessness in what they offer for public consumption.

(08-04-2013 08:01 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  David: I think the 150-word limit is more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule. I've seen longer letters and shorter letters in the NY Times, although I'm sure the editors prefer shorter ones. They're easier to get through, edit and fit on the op-ed page.

One of the problems I see with the approach that you've taken with the NY Times is your heavy reliance on long quotations. Unless the quote is extremely memorable or precisely on point, I wouldn't bother with the quote. For one thing, you're going to lose your audience - in this case, the person who is reading your letter - with long quote after long quote.

My suggestion is to summarize, in your own words, the substance of the research you've done. But before doing that, in a letter to the editor, I would begin with the assertion made by Minchin (is that his name?) that you believe is erroneous. Then I would indicate why you believe it's erroneous, in a succinct manner, and at this point identify the correct fact or facts by way of briefly summarizing the research you've done to support the fact or facts. Finally, you could end with something like, "It's unfortunate that Mr. Minchin felt the need to misrepresent the facts in order to support his argument that the N.S.A. spying program is nothing new."

One last thing - I am confused by the information about the Bureau of Ordinance and how that relates to control of the telegraph system. I would have thought that the censoring of reports of military movements would be more relevant and might be what Minchin was thinking of. But he may have decided to rely on a faulty memory rather than double-check the facts. Unfortunately, prominent columnists, bloggers and authors acquire, in the course of their prominence, a certain amount of hubris, which can lead to carelessness in what they offer for public consumption.

You make two principal points that I wish to address: 1) "I think the 150-word limit is more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule." and 2)"I am confused by the information about the Bureau of Ordinance and how that relates to control of the telegraph system."

I presume that the following information that I copy from NY Times resources will serve as adequate and incontrovertible explanation.

Point 1

How to Submit a Letter to the Editor
Letters to the editor should only be sent to The Times, and not to other publications. We do not publish open letters or third-party letters.
Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please.
We regret we cannot return or acknowledge unpublished letters.

About Letters
Thomas Feyer, the letters editor, gives tips for getting your letter published.

FROM THE LETTERS EDITOR
Our Compact, Updated
By THOMAS FEYER
Published: May 23, 2004

Last September, as letters editor of The Times, I used some of this space for an essay called "To the Reader," introducing myself and outlining the mission and the mechanics of the letters page.

But readers, new and old, send in questions (and even complaints!) about the letters page almost every day, and so a refresher course may help. This is an attempt to answer some frequently asked questions.

Your suggested length for letters is about 150 words. Why so short? (Or, as one writer put it after I cited the brevity of the Gettysburg Address, "Why does Lincoln get 250 and the rest of us a measly 150?")

Ideally, the letters page should be a forum for a variety of voices, and that means letting a lot of readers have a turn. With our limited space, we have room for letters that make their case with a point or two, but not for full-length articles. (For those, try our neighbors at the Op-Ed page.)


Point 2

-----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


I was not trying to write a Letter to the Editor; I was not trying to write an Op-Ed; I was trying to convince the authorities at the NY Times to retract the Op-Ed "Lincoln's Surveillance State" already published and provide an explanation to its readers as to how the NY Times was so easily "bamboozled" into publishing the Op-Ed in the first place.

Yesterday, the NY Times printed another article on Obama's Surveillance State entitled "Other Agencies Clamor for Data N.S.A. Compiles." Comments by NY Times readers followed and you can arrange these in order by the number of other NY Times readers recommending the comment for reading. The most popular commentary with 176 recommendations was Ken Belcher from Chicago. He made the following pertinent observation in his third paragraph: "Thirty years ago it did not matter that the data existed - and could be accessed without a warrant - because the capability to process the data to build a database of all our relationships did not exist."

David: Concerning the 150-word-limit, I don't think the info you provide says anything different from what I said. Believe me, if you penned a letter of 160 words, it would not get thrown out simply on that basis. Plus, I have seen significantly longer letters in the Times; these seem to appear in instances where the letter-writer has expertise in an area relevant to the issue being addressed and keeps the letter focused on the issue. Additionally, it helps to write the letter in your own words rather than including extensive quotes. You use up a lot of space with the quotes that you could be using instead to make your point.

I am aware that you didn't set out to write a letter to the editor, but, in my opinion, that should have been your first step. The letters section is the basic way that misinformation and misrepresentation is corrected in the Times. Sometimes, a letter will be singled out by the editors for a letter "discussion" to appear in the Sunday edition, wherein readers are invited to comment on the letter, after which the original letter-writer has the last word. On the other hand, retractions of factual statements made in the Times are fairly rare.

In reading Stanton's order, which I somehow missed until now, and then re-reading one of your earlier posts that quotes from the enabling legislation, probably all that needed to be said in response to Mindich's column was something like: "While it is true that Secretary Stanton did issue an order requiring military control of the telegraph lines, and that Lincoln approved the order, Professor Mindich mischaracterizes the purpose of the order by claiming that all communications were to be 're-routed' through the War Department. In fact, Secretary Stanton issued the order pursuant to the Railways and Telegraph Act, whose purpose was to ensure the efficient movement of troops and munitions via the railroad. Telegraphic communications were central to railroad operations. As you can see, then, Secretary Stanton's order did not require surveillance of public communications but the efficient operation of railroads and communications for military needs during the biggest emergency this nation has ever faced. It is unfortunate that Professor Mindich feels compelled to point to a particular measure of the Lincoln Administration taken during a cataclysmic war as precedent for the overly broad, unending surveillance being conducted by the N.S.A. of American citizens." This comes to 155 words.

Mr. Lockmiller,

I think that Liz has supplied you with the perfect wording for any further submission to the NY Times. I'd take it and run! Nothing beats a[nother] trial but a failure, they say.

Thanks to this discussion, I have spent the last two days educating myself on the many issues related to the history and role of the telegraph in the civil war. It's a interesting and complex subject to which I never gave much thought. Oh how ill-prepared we were to fight this war.

David Lockmiller is correct. The Op-Ed piece is misleading and irresponsible but what if they don't print a retraction?

Liz's Rosenthal's suggestion of an essay correcting the record is a great educational opportunity. I hope someone does it.

(08-06-2013 08:44 PM)Anita Wrote:  Thanks to this discussion, I have spent the last two days educating myself on the many issues related to the history and role of the telegraph in the civil war. It's a interesting and complex subject to which I never gave much thought. Oh how ill-prepared we were to fight this war.

David Lockmiller is correct. The Op-Ed piece is misleading and irresponsible but what if they don't print a retraction?

Liz's Rosenthal's suggestion of an essay correcting the record is a great educational opportunity. I hope someone does it.

If the NY Times does not print a retraction, then all of the NY Times subscribers who read the Op-Ed "Lincoln's Surveillance State" will not know that the NY Times was wrong in its statement of "truth."

I also thought that you might be interested in the following history:

The words of the original letter from Stanton as published in the “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,” Volume 5 appears in the annotation immediately below:

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.''

In his NY Times Op-Ed, 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 he did not 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; the only thing that Professor Mindich needed to do was to turn the letter over to obtain those words for his Op-Ed publication.

As it turns out, the immediate problem being addressed by President Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton was with the Bureau of Ordnance specifically, and the problem 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 proof to this statement, 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 (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Volume II, pages 291-92) wrote of the importance of this military campaign by Grant, and specifically references the mortars problem with the Bureau of Ordnance:

“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, 1862, 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.”

In essence, Professor Mindich has argued in his Op-Ed that President Lincoln granted his newly appointed (two weeks earlier) Secretary of War to do anything he wanted to do, including the creation of "Lincoln's Surveillance State." If anyone thinks that this is probable, then they should read President Lincoln's response letter dated April 1, 1861 to Secretary of State Seward's paper to Lincoln the same day: "When a general line of policy is adopted, I apprehend there is no danger of its being changed without good reason, or continuing to be a subject of unnecessary debate; still, upon points arising in its progress, I wish, and suppose I am entitled to have advice of all the Cabinet."

(08-05-2013 03:06 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  David: Concerning the 150-word-limit, I don't think the info you provide says anything different from what I said. Believe me, if you penned a letter of 160 words, it would not get thrown out simply on that basis. Plus, I have seen significantly longer letters in the Times; these seem to appear in instances where the letter-writer has expertise in an area relevant to the issue being addressed and keeps the letter focused on the issue. Additionally, it helps to write the letter in your own words rather than including extensive quotes. You use up a lot of space with the quotes that you could be using instead to make your point.

I am aware that you didn't set out to write a letter to the editor, but, in my opinion, that should have been your first step. The letters section is the basic way that misinformation and misrepresentation is corrected in the Times. Sometimes, a letter will be singled out by the editors for a letter "discussion" to appear in the Sunday edition, wherein readers are invited to comment on the letter, after which the original letter-writer has the last word. On the other hand, retractions of factual statements made in the Times are fairly rare.

In reading Stanton's order, which I somehow missed until now, and then re-reading one of your earlier posts that quotes from the enabling legislation, probably all that needed to be said in response to Mindich's column was something like: "While it is true that Secretary Stanton did issue an order requiring military control of the telegraph lines, and that Lincoln approved the order, Professor Mindich mischaracterizes the purpose of the order by claiming that all communications were to be 're-routed' through the War Department. In fact, Secretary Stanton issued the order pursuant to the Railways and Telegraph Act, whose purpose was to ensure the efficient movement of troops and munitions via the railroad. Telegraphic communications were central to railroad operations. As you can see, then, Secretary Stanton's order did not require surveillance of public communications but the efficient operation of railroads and communications for military needs during the biggest emergency this nation has ever faced. It is unfortunate that Professor Mindich feels compelled to point to a particular measure of the Lincoln Administration taken during a cataclysmic war as precedent for the overly broad, unending surveillance being conducted by the N.S.A. of American citizens." This comes to 155 words.

First of all, I must apologize to you about my firm conviction that Letters to the Editor were limited to 150 words. In my defense, I want to say that I was convinced that the warnings printed on the Op-Ed page about acceptable word length were true. What really got me was the anecdote about the Gettysburg Address.

And, to convince you that the limit was strict, I was going to do an Excel sheet analysis covering the last three weeks, showing that this "hard" rule was strictly enforced. I was going to copy and paste the individual letters into a separate word document (Word files show the word count at the bottom). Then, I would transcribe the total word count into my Excel sheet. I thought then that the numbers would convince you.

I do not read Letters to the Editor very often at all. [I do read a lot of comments on specific articles, in NY Times readers picks preference order.] And, I was completely unaware of what you wrote above: "The letters section is the basic way that misinformation and misrepresentation is corrected in the Times. Sometimes, a letter will be singled out by the editors for a letter "discussion" to appear in the Sunday edition, wherein readers are invited to comment on the letter, after which the original letter-writer has the last word."

Yesterday, before I got started on my time-consuming (which I was not looking forward to doing) Excel project, I thought I would do a sample test of my procedure. I accessed the letters section of that day's electronic edition, and copied the first letter into a blank Word file. Answer: 166 words.

In short, I apologize for not believing you. I should have realized beforehand that you can't always trust the NY Times to print the truth all of the time. I hope that this has not been TMI (too much information) on this subject.

On to a second subject which you covered in your posting - "Lincoln's Surveillance State," I have the following to say:

The reason that the NY Times "bought" Professor Mindich’s “story” and published it as an Op-Ed is that they actually believed that it happened. “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” thus became in their minds a precedent for acceptance by all Americans that the Obama administration/N.S.A. surreptitious achievement to “keep tabs” on “vast amounts of Americans’ personal communications” without the knowledge or permission of U. S. citizens was acceptable.

The major problem regarding the “Lincoln’s Surveillance State” was that the underlying story was a hoax (i.e., a mischievous trick based upon a made-up story). Do you actually believe that it was technologically possible to “reroute” in 1862 all of the 45,000 miles of commercial telegraph lines in the United States through to the offices of Secretary of War Stanton? Would not Lincoln have noticed the thousands of telegraph operators in the War Department building that it would have taken to write out each and all of the tens of thousands of messages each day? Do you think anyone in the press would have noticed and questioned what the thousands of telegraph operators were doing at the War Department? And, who knows, there may have been whistle-blowers among them like Edward Snowden, even in 1862.

It is the fact that Secretary of War Stanton did not "keep tabs" on "vast amounts of the personal telegraph communications" of American citizens that should be the focus of any Letter to Editor of the NY Times, because it did not happen.

Any suggestions? I think that I am persona non grata at the NY Times on the subject of "Lincoln's Surveillance State."

(08-06-2013 08:44 PM)Anita Wrote:  Thanks to this discussion, I have spent the last two days educating myself on the many issues related to the history and role of the telegraph in the civil war.

Anita, do you maybe have one of your great links again? Some time ago I tried to research this and the pre-war history as well, but the outcome wasn't really satisfying.

(08-09-2013 04:39 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 08:44 PM)Anita Wrote:  Thanks to this discussion, I have spent the last two days educating myself on the many issues related to the history and role of the telegraph in the civil war.

Anita, do you maybe have one of your great links again? Some time ago I tried to research this and the pre-war history as well, but the outcome wasn't really satisfying.

For reliable information on the telegraph in the Civil War, I would suggest the book "Lincoln in the Telegraph Office" (Recollections of the United States Military Corps during the Civil War) by David Homer Bates, Manager of the War Department Telegraph Office and Cipher-Operator, 1861-1866.

(08-10-2013 11:47 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  For reliable information on the telegraph in the Civil War, I would suggest the book "Lincoln in the Telegraph Office" (Recollections of the United States Military Corps during the Civil War) by David Homer Bates, Manager of the War Department Telegraph Office and Cipher-Operator, 1861-1866.

Eva, you can find Lincoln in the Telegraph Office online at Internet Archive.

http://archive.org/search.php?query=linc...h%20office

Thank you so much, Linda, I had it on my Amazon wishlist, now I can spend the money on another book and have both!

Today, the NYTimes presented me another opportunity to make a comment about the July 5, 2013 NYTimes Op-Ed, "Lincoln's Surveillance State." Andrew Rosenthal wrote in his Editorial Page Editor's Blog today a short piece entitled "Clapper and Carney Get Slippery on Surveillance." (Andrew Rosenthal was one of the NYTimes personnel to whom I wrote regarding the NYTimes Op-Ed.)

Mr. Rosenthal began his piece with this question: "Does anyone still believe anything the Obama administration has to say about surveillance?"

And, he ended his piece with the following statements:

"Sadly, this is not the first time we’ve had this problem of obfuscation, misdirection, cover up and even outright lying about surveillance.

In June, when The Guardian first began publishing Edward Snowden’s leaks, President Obama assured everyone that there were so many safeguards in place that nobody’s rights could possibly be violated even if the N.S.A. was collecting metadata on every phone call and email from every American every day.

Later, through more leaks, we found out that those safeguards are entirely internal (and of course, secret) and that they have frequently been violated.

If this administration wants to provide “the most truthful or least untruthful” answers, it might consider simply telling the truth."

The following is the comment that I have submitted to this Editorial Page Editor's Blog piece today. But, there is an extremely strong probability that my commentary will not see the light of day for any NYTimes readers. (After submitting any commentary, the following message from the NYTimes appears: "Thank you for your submission. Your comment will appear once it has been approved." If the comment is not approved by the NYTimes, it does not appear.) However, I hope that the NYTimes will now admit its own "truth" about publishing the Op-Ed "Lincoln's Surveillance State," even at this late date, to wit, it has unwittingly, but falsely, disparaged the reputation of President Abraham Lincoln. And, thereafter, the NYTimes should retract the offending Op-Ed on page one for this stated reason.



On July 5, 2013, the NYTimes ran an Op-Ed entitled "Lincoln's Surveillance State," which may have been a NSA planted story to befuddle the American public.

"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 M. 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."

This was a successful hoax perpetrated upon the NYTimes and it was printed as the "truth" about government surveillance of all Union citizens' telegraphic communications being authorized by President Lincoln during the Civil War, and thus serves as a precedent for all the current NSA secret programs.

On Sunday, July 7, I sent an email to the Executive Editor of the NY Times, Jill Abramson. I wrote: "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 the Secretary of War Stanton is an absolute ABSURDITY."

I was stonewalled by Jill Abramson and all of the other NYTimes personnel to whom I presented irrefutable proof of this hoax.

(08-02-2013 11:09 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  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.

Many thanks to David for sending these images. He was able to obtain images of the actual messages written by both Stanton and Lincoln from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.

Many thanks to David for sending these images. He was able to obtain images of the actual messages written by both Stanton and Lincoln from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.




Laurie Verge recently reported:

It took 150 years, but a Pennsylvania newspaper said Thursday it should have recognized the greatness of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address at the time it was delivered.

The Patriot-News of Harrisburg retracted a dismissive editorial penned by its Civil War-era predecessor, The Harrisburg Patriot & Union.

The president's speech is now considered a triumph of American oratory.

The retraction said the newspaper's November 1863 coverage was wrong when it described the speech as "silly remarks" that deserved a "veil of oblivion."



Correspondingly, I would like to see a full retraction of the NYTimes Op-Ed "Lincoln's Surveillance State" (published July 5, 2013) on page one of a NYTimes Sunday edition, at the NYTimes earliest opportunity, and with a complete and fully candid explanation of how this successful "Lincoln hoax" was perpetrated upon the editorial staff of the NYTimes. The "Lincoln hoax" was based upon the words penned by Secretary of War Stanton and President Lincoln in reply on January 24, 1862 (as shown above).