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

[David Lockmiller]

(08-05-2013 04:06 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."