--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, Aurelie1999@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/31/2002 1:53:11 PM Central Standard Time,
> dmsmith001@y... writes:
> > I'm confused, Connie, how Thomas could know enough about Keim to
> > finger him and recommend him for execution, but then afterwards
> > plead "ignorance." Is it a semantics thing that I'm not
> > understanding? :-)
> > Dave
> I guess, but what do I know. I thought if a man is willing to
> and recommend the ultimate sentence, it is incumbent on him to
know who and
> why at the very minimum. I suppose some march to a different
drummer and I
> haven't been told the tune.
Ms. Boone and Mr. Smith:
Your criticism of Thomas is founded on Thomas' "ignorance" of Keim
after he was able to "finger" Keim and then "recommend" execution.
Thomas' statement that "I did not know anything about him" came
exactly one day after identifying him. As he did not write, "I *do*
not know anything about him," than it stands to reason that he was
speaking about his knowledge at a past point in time--let's say two
days before. Please read Thomas as he wrote; he didn't even make a
poitive ID, merely stating that the article was "written, or
pretended to be written" by Keim.
Besides ignoring those facts, you make two, even more obvious
mistakes. Thomas identified Keim through the article in the New
York Herald. A lowly corporal serving in the Army of the Potomac
could have "fingered" Keim in this respect just as well as Thomas
did. In truth, *everyone* who read the article could have
Secondly, if that corporal was even somewhat astute, he could also
have recommended execution for a reporter who divulged what was
obviously an important military secret. It doesn't take a very high
IQ to recognize that.
It's too bad that Sherman and McPherson didn't take "every
precaution to prevent [the breaking of their code] being known to
the rebels." I recommend that you take some of your high dudgeon
for Thomas and transfer it to those two, instead.