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

[David Lockmiller]

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