Lincoln's Surveillance State

An anonymous reader writes "The N.S.A.'s program is indeed alarming — but not, from a historical perspective, unprecedented. And history suggests that we should worry less about the surveillance itself and more about when the war in whose name the surveillance is being conducted will end. 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. 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.'"

Comments

It was wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was just as wrong then as this is now. Of course, people back then couldn't even dream of having such advanced surveillance technology.

Re:It was wrong.

[gmuslera]

Today is different. Is not just surveillace on a small portion of the people of US. We are talking about basically everyone in US, plus most of the rest of the world population, intruding in places/people that have diplomatic immunity, and hacking/sabotaging foreing companies and institutions, while claiming that hacking are acts of war. But i suppose that i could compare the Everest with a pebble, saying that is just a bit bigger.

Re:It was wrong.

[westlake]

It was just as wrong then as this is now.

It is 1862.

Fort Sumter surrendered in 1861. Washington DC borders on Virgina facing off against the Confederate capital a bare 100 miles away. You are an idiot if you don't secure the only means of communication in the world that moves reliably at speeds greater than a normal walking pace,

Re:It was wrong.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It was just as wrong then as this is now.

It is 1862.

Fort Sumter surrendered in 1861. Washington DC borders on Virgina facing off against the Confederate capital a bare 100 miles away. You are an idiot if you don't secure the only means of communication in the world that moves reliably at speeds greater than a normal walking pace,

That is, of course, the other pernicious implication of any civil war comparisons: from the perspective of the US Government, the civil war actually was most of the emergencies and exigencies that people like to invoke when demanding expanded powers. At no time since the revolutionary war(which actually might have ended fairly quietly, had the rebels lost, with a bunch of executions of notable rebels, followed by pragmatic write-off of the rest and a canada-like trajectory) had things looked nearly so dire. Even the world wars were basically Europe's problem, with us intervening at arm's length as our interests dictated, and the Cold War could have gone hot and really fucked up everybody's day; but unless it actually did, things were mostly quiet.

Anybody who, implicitly or explicitly, asserts anything even close to contemporary threats of Civil War gravity needs a smack with the cluebat.

Re:It was wrong.

[jaymzter]

Be it a grain of sand or a rock, in water both sink

Re:It was wrong.

[thomasw_lrd]

Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?

Peasant 1: Bread.

Peasant 2: Apples.

Peasant 3: Very small rocks.

Re:It was wrong.

[dkleinsc]

At no time since the Revolutionary War ... had things looked nearly so dire.

I can think of a point when things looked nearly so dire: 1814, the British (Canadian mostly) Army invaded, captured Washington D.C., burned the White House and Congress's meeting buildings to the ground, leaving President James Madison on the run in the face of a vastly superior force desperately trying to round up militia units to repel them.

But yes, anyone who doesn't think the Civil War was a serious threat to the US needs to have their head examined. Yes, the USA was in a superior strategic position to the CSA, but the CSA put about 10 times the troops in the field than the USA had ever faced before.

Re:It was wrong.

[Colonel Korn]

Anybody who, implicitly or explicitly, asserts anything even close to contemporary threats of Civil War gravity needs a smack with the cluebat.

Except that Lincoln could have ended the war at any time by just letting the South go their own way. We have no "easy out" with Al Qaeda. Unlike the Confederacy, they want more than to be left alone.

But there are hardly any of them and they have no money and have never directly caused significant damage to any nation. They're like five hundred times less dangerous than the tobacco industry. We have no "easy out" with a few angry two year olds in Bermuda, either, but that doesn't really matter. Just put a reasonable amount of resources toward fixing the problem, and not through mass killings that just lead to another generation of Al Qaeda, and stop spending hundreds of billions every year to fight a few hicks with a budget ten thousand times smaller than that.

Re:It was wrong.

[The Grim Reefer]

But there are hardly any of them and they have no money and have never directly caused significant damage to any nation.

Are you fucking kidding? They've probably cost the US (and other countries as well) more money than any other single entity. The stock market had to be shut down for three days following 9-11. Air traffic was halted and the nation was at a standstill for a week. After everyone finished shitting their pants we got the "Patriot Act", the Iraq war and the TSA. We've lost more freedoms than I could count, the TSA is a huge money sink. Not to mention that 9-11 was the single biggest loss of civilian lives in an attack on American soil in the history of the US.

That being said, I do agree with you. Way too much money has been spent(wasted) in the name of "stopping terrorists". But I'm sure you're aware it has nothing to do with this any longer. It's just an excuse for a massive ongoing power-grab. Even so, they still dealt the US a more significant blow to the civilian population than Germany or Japan ever did on our own soil. And with considerably less resources. Don't ever trivialize that.

Re:It was wrong.

[SuricouRaven]

All those things didn't happen because Al Quida attacked. They happened because people overreacted to the attack.

Compare 9/11 to, for example, the July bombings in London. Look at what the UK government did: Grumbled, cleared up the wreckage that was obstructing roads, and got things back to normal. Within a couple of days the city was running as normal again. A criminal investigation was launched, the surviving conspirators charged, and the issue done with. That's the appropriate response to a terrorist attack: Clean up and get over it.

The death toll from 9/11 was equal to approximately one month of traffic accident fatalities in the US. Even 9/11 just didn't manage to kill enough people to be statistically noticeable. It was the panic that did the real damage - overreaction cost far more in every way than the attack itsself.

Re:It was wrong.

[oobayly]

I think it needs to be said that cleaning up a few Tube stations and and exploded bus is a little bit easier than the mess left over after the Twin Towers collapsed (as well as the hole in the Pentagon).

However, you are absolutely correct - the overreaction has been insane (the UK hasn't been as bad, but then we started off with less rights in the first place).

Compare the most recent attacks in the US & UK:
US: Two (clearly sub-par intelligent) men decided to bomb the Boston Marathon - they managed to kill only 3 people because the set the bombs up right where all the medical staff were. Instead of the Government portraying them as a pair of bumbling loners, they cast them as Uber-Terrorists by leveling a WMD charge.

UK: Two men attack Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Their job is then completed for them by some people (who want their 15 minutes of fame) who ensure that the reasons for the attack are broadcast to the world*. The Government charges them with murder, plain and simple.

* Somebody asked "are you telling me nobody should be told why they did it", and my answer is "absolutely, yes". Why do people need to know the reason for the attack, what possible reason could they give that would make you think "yes, running a man over and then beheading him in the street was a rational thing to do?" The attack wouldn't have taken place if the two men knew that they would be arrested and charged with murder without anyone knowing their reasons - as far as I'm concerned, terrorism is a form of attention seeking, and the way to deal with attention seekers is to ignore them.

Re:It was wrong.

[kermidge]

"Even the world wars were basically Europe's problem..."

World War II cannot, I think, be fairly considered a basically European problem. Take a gander once at the parties involved, where they were involved, and the scope of that involvement. Factor in the economic interests in the several geographical areas. I believe it safe to say that WWII was the first truly global war in all aspects. While there were areas of relative quiet - South America, except for arms, ores, and espionage - and several nations claimed neutrality, that in no wise diminishes the scope of that war.

One thing to keep in mind is that at the time the parties to our civil war expected that there would be some sort of resolution, an ending. Ditto for WWII.

For decades, the only presumed end to the Cold War was a hot one. That it ended with such a marvelous whimper is a first in history given the extent of the global entanglements, and keeping always in mind the staggering level of forces arrayed. Even towards the end, with the hopes attending the various nuclear force restrictions and later reductions, for instance, a peaceful end to it was hardly a foregone conclusion. While most nowadays credit Reagan for outspending the Soviets, I suggest it was as much the close-run accidental loosing of the nukes on several occasions that sobered up the generals like nothing else, coupled with the simple fact that we were also bankrupting ourselves - we just were better able to cook the books using credit float.

Even with the huge profits throughout the military-industrial complex, amidst planners' requirements to be able to fight 2 1/2 land wars, the bleakness of most forecast ends to the Cold War (including our own impending bankruptcy) forced the complex's acquiescence to that end. So other outlets were needed - the largest arms selling the world has seen, and, just in the nick of time, Sandbox I and II and the side jaunt into Afghan land.

While our economic woes and structural weaknesses preclude Cold War-level spending, we do now at least have two wars without end: The War on Drugs, which has been a steady source for contracts and votes, and The War on Terror, which is a gold mine for many of the players. And, because the second especially is so serious, the requirements for intel are also serious - and so the latter day passing of all comms through NSA in lieu of Stanton's office.

We have always been at war with Eastasia. For those in power, what's not to like?

Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Anonymous Coward]

With an actual conclusion eventually reached. An ambiguous war on terror doesn't really have any sort of end date, unless we can somehow wipe out terror on Earth.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[SJHiIlman]

In the case of that war, yes, it was okay.

No, it wasn't.

It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others.

Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) in order to defeat the bad guys; cowards do that.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Intrepid imaginaut]

It's not hard to wipe out terror. I mean what, did you think people just sat down on a Friday afternoon and said, hey I'm bored, let's blow up a building? Let's strap a vest packed with fertiliser based explosives to our chests and go take a last ride on a bus?

Terrorism is created when people are cornered and feel they have no other option, vastly outgunned and outmanned. Oh there's a great hue and cry that the dishonourable terrorists aren't standing there getting mown down on a field of battle like proper upstanding folk, but they chose to win rather that die. It was the same in Ireland, the same in the Middle East, the same in Vietnam, the same everywhere some farmer puts down his plough and picks up a sword after his last child steps on a mine. If you want to stop terrorism stop going out there fucking with other countries. Simples!

This is not a type of war any advanced country can win. Find another way to live or accept the price. Leave them alone and let them stand or fall on their own merits.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a nit.

For the north, the war wasn't about slavery and the north certainly wasn't fighting to free four million slaves. The north was fighting to prevent the south from leaving. That's all. For the north, the war wasn't some moral crusade to free slaves - it was simply to prevent the south from leaving. (For the south, on the other hand, the notion to leave the union was driven by slavery although nearly everyone who fought in the war was not a slave owner - less than 2% of southern soldiers were part of families that owned slaves). There were a number of northern states that continued to support and allow slavery during and after the civil war until the 14th amendment was passed.

Lincoln essentially weaponized abolitionism. He used abolitionism as a strategic tool to help defeat the south by depriving them of their economic and logistical infrastructure. Painting the Union as moral crusaders freeing the slaves is revisionism at its best, and it's every bit as wrong-headed and dishonest as painting the southern motivation as purely states rights.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[artor3]

As you said:

For the south, on the other hand, the notion to leave the union was driven by slavery

That part's right. Now, why did the South feel it was necessary to leave the union to preserve slavery? It was because the North was fighting to end slavery. The North was going to end slavery through peaceful means, and the South tried to secede to avoid that, which is what led to the war.

The simple fact is that, had the North lost, or not fought, millions of people would have been doomed to a life of slavery. It was a war worth fighting, and very different from this War on Terror nonsense we have now.

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[causality]

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. We (the U.S.) left Afghanistan alone until they were invaded by the Soviet Union. Then we gave them weapons which would help them to get their country back. We they did, we left them alone to sort out the aftermath for themselves.

Afghanistan is the perfect choice for an indefinite perpetual war. Look at the history. No one, and I mean no one, has ever been able to conquer those people. The Afghans simply will not surrender and it's impossible to annihilate them short of nuclear weapons. The Soviets couldn't do it and the USA couldn't do it. They have lots of experience at wearing down superior opponents.

It's the perfect choice for a controlled war that doesn't touch your own home soil and lasts as long as you need to pass whatever legislation you want. After all, "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".

Re:Except, in that case there was an actual war

[bill_mcgonigle]

The simple fact is that, had the North lost, or not fought, millions of people would have been doomed to a life of slavery.

Complete and utter propaganda, entirely contradicted by the facts. The facts are that slavery was being abolished all over the world before the Civil War as mechanism replaced slaves, and economists have determined that slaves would have been unprofitable by 1890 without a war. Slavery ended in the rest of the world for that reason, not because they had bloody civil wars all over the world. Lincoln himself said that he would keep slavery if it would hold the Union together - his only concern was of keeping the economy of the North going by forcing the South to provide it with raw materials for its factories.

And those million people did die - the old estimates of 600,000 war casualties have been revised up over 900,000 based on recently discovered data.

And that's not counting the additional millions killed in subsequent wars by the all-power central government that arose from the end of the Republic of Republics and the beginning of the Corporate Empire.

The America I believed in never existed

[kheldan]

Do I really need to say anything more?

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[hedwards]

That's why I'm a progressive. The America that the conservatives want never existed. But, the America that the progressives want at least is theoretically possible to some degree.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[AuMatar]

If we're realistic, we'll never get there either. But we can push as far as we can in that direction, rest and recover, then push again. That's the history of the progressive movement- massive wins for a few years/a decade until society has had enough change, then a period where society pushes back. Happened in the 1910s, happened in the 1930s, happened in the 1960s. We're in the push phase now.

Re:The America I believed in never existed

[93 Escort Wagon]

Values shouldn't be chosen based on a pragmatic look at what's realistically possible - they should be derived from a conviction regarding what is right and just.

aka the ends justify the means

[nadaou]

And history suggests that we should worry less about the
surveillance itself and more about when the war in whose name the
surveillance is being conducted will end.

In other words, the ends justify the means, and historical
precedence makes it ok to do commit whatever crime you like.

I wonder if the author feels the same about the WWII internment
camps for Japanese? We won that war, so it's all ok, we can do that
again, right?

Or the way the Native Indians were treated? We eventually grew a
great nation on the land so that was all ok too, and we are
justified in doing the same in future for other lofty goals?

We define our nation by the society that we create through our
actions. Don't try to feed us this apologist bullshit two days after
the 4th, we have it in our power to be better than this.

Re:Telegraphs were not private ...

[KGIII]

Yes, our principles are indeed our suicide pact. I can think of nothing greater to die for. I'd rather die for them then live without them.

Who was Lincoln?

[emil]

Most people find this enlightening:

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate1.htm

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

Lincoln was a lawyer, and a politician. People attribute something profound to him. I have doubts.