"Lincoln's Surveillance State" Op-Ed NYTimes July 6, 2013

[David Lockmiller]

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."