Francis Lieber to Major-General Henry W. Halleck, June 13, 1864

New York, June 13,1864.

. . . In reply to your letter of yesterday, the following: I was informed by Major A. Bolles that my opinion would be very acceptable to General Dix, as well as to himself, on the following question, “Can any military court or commission, in a department not under martial law, take cognizance of, and try a citizen for, any violation of the law of war, such citizen not being conneeted in any wise with the military service of the United States?” I answered, that undoubtedly a citizen under these conditions can, or rather must, be tried by military courts, because there is no other way to try him and repress the crime which may endanger the whole country; it is very difficult to say how far martial law extends, or in what degree it extends, in cases of great danger arising out of war; and that it must never be forgotten that the whole country is always at war with the enemy; that is to say, every citizen is an enemy to the opposing belligerent, and that there is in case of war — especially in a free country where no “cabinet wars” are carried on — by no means that distinction between soldier and citizen which many people either believe to exist or desire, — as though the citizen could quietly carry on all possible mischief with reference to the army, which is in fact his own army, and with reference to the war, which is as much his war as that of the army. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 347-8

Francis Lieber to Senator Charles Sumner, June 11, 1864

New York, June 11,1864.

A passing thought. You, my dear Sumner, have read Mr. Seward's communication on the globe-encircling telegraph, no doubt with the same reflections and feelings in every respect with which I perused it, the globe by my side. Do you remember that an agreement existed between the United States and Great Britain, when the Atlantic Cable was laying, that the Sub-Atlantic Telegraph should be protected, even in case of war between the two powers? It struck me as a noble item in the history of the Law of Nations. Could not the United States, Great Britain, and Russia agree upon something of the kind regarding the Pan-spheric Telegraph, or however the encircling wire may be called? Of course the interruption of messages cannot be prevented; but the destruction of the telegraph might be placed beyond the war, as the Greek communities swore by all the gods never to cut off each other's water-pipes — their Croton aqueducts — even should they go to war with one another. I write this on the supposition that Congress will readily respond to Mr. Seward's letter. It would be noble to do such work in the midst of a vast civil war. How is the telegraph to be preserved those many thousand miles in distant and semi-barbarous countries? I suppose, pretty much as ours to California. “Go ahead and trust,” does a good deal in bringing about the desired state of things. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 347

Francis Lieber to Senator Charles Sumner, June 1, 1864

New York, June 1, 1864.

I think I wholly agree with you, dear Sumner, as to your resolution that no members of rebel States ought to come back without the consent of both houses. The very fact of your being judges of the qualification of each member, &c, would almost alone prove it. Who else should decide? Certainly not the President alone. Of course you will have all theorists against you; and every political wrong-doer in America is a theorist. Nothing is easier, and it is necessary for the ignorant masses whose votes are wanted. Men of a certain stamp become always more abstract the more they are in the wrong and the lower their hearers. The whole State-rights doctrine, the very term doctrine, in this sense is purely American. It struck my ear very forcibly when, in 1835, General Hamilton of South Carolina said to me, “Such a man was an excellent hand at indoctrinating the people of South Carolina with nullification.”  . . . I did not agree with you some time ago, when you said in the senate that the Constitution gives dictatorial power to Congress in cases like the present war. God and necessitas, sense, and the holy command that men shall live in society, and have countries to cling to and to pray for, and that they shall love, work out, and sustain liberty, and beat down treason against humanity — these may do it, but the Constitution? The simple fact is, the Constitution stops short some five hundred miles this side of civil war like ours. . . .

The last half of your letter, telling me about Chase's desire to see the Winter Davis resolution brought forward, surprised me a little. Not that he is for the Monroe doctrine, &c. That has become an almost universal American fixed idea — that is to say, the misunderstood Monroe doctrine; for President Monroe only held to a declaration that colonizing or appropriating unappropriated portions of America is at an end. What then is to be done? I believe the answer, with reference to you, is simply one of wisdom. You have done all you can to stem this business. If you find you cannot, let it go before the senate. You cannot throw yourself single against a stream. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 346-7

Francis Lieber to Senator Charles Sumner, May 8, 1864

New York, May 8, 1864.

While the great battle is deciding, or when it may just have been decided, I, who must “stand and wait,” will say this one word to you: that since I wrote last I have read Goldwin Smith's letter to a Whig member of the Southern Independence Association. You have doubtless received a copy, but you may not have had time to read it; I write, therefore, to beg you to take a copy to the President and beg him to read it, — to find time for reading it. I believe that so honest and, almost throughout, so sound a paper, by an Englishman, against the manifesto of the Southern Independence Association, should be read by the chief magistrate of our commonwealth, even at this anxious period, when his time must be occupied with the highest aflairs. The last two thirds of this small publication are peculiarly straightforward for an Oxford professor. I heartily wish I knew some way of having our acknowledgment expressed to that manly advocate of ours.

I observe that you have brought in your bill, which may be designated as the Anti-Jackson-rotation measure. I wish you joy for having made the first step. I dare say you will not carry it this time, but possibly you remember what I said on perseverance in my “Political Ethics,” and of the history of nearly all great or searching measures, such as the Reform Bill, or the Catholic Emancipation. A beginning must be made, and it is always a great gain when first a principle has been boldly pronounced, if that principle pricks one of the most cherished and widely favored traditions or modes of action. I recollect how John Quincy Adams was fiercely attacked by the Democrats because one postmaster had been removed. It was just when I first landed here; and I remember, too, how we were shocked when President Jackson announced his rotation doctrine. Your measure involves great difficulties. ...

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 345

Francis Lieber to Judge Thayer, March 23, 1864

New York, March 23, 1864.

. . . If you will pardon a purely conversational letter, I would take the liberty of asking you whether there is any truth in the statement that the question whether our Cabinet ministers ought to have a right to sit in either house, as the French ministers had under Louis Philippe, is assuming a somewhat practical character? I believe that a truly representative government requires that ministers should be on the spot, to be questioned and to defend the cabinet. You will remember the state of things at one period under General Jackson. Indeed, I think that in our system, in which the President is for four years as unassailable as a hereditary monarch, the presence of ministers in Congress is imperatively necessary. The English, who can change the administration by a vote of the Commons, are in this respect more republican. Mr. Clay, with whom I corresponded on the subject, was in favor of ministers having a seat. The topic ought to be gravely considered, and a thorough report should be made. Are you aware that Napoleon III., who has always pronounced himself strongly and officially against the responsibility of ministers as an impediment to good ruling (he means, of course, centralism), pointed on one occasion to the United States, where “the ministers are entirely amenable to the President and simply his servants, and where, nevertheless, a republic exists.” A Bonaparte inherently hates representative liberty.

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 344

Francis Lieber to the Managers Of the Fremont Campaign Club, March 17, 1864

March 17, 1864.

To the Managers Of the Fremont Campaign Club:

Gentlemen, — In reply to your favor of yesterday, informing me that it is desired “I shall take the presidency of the Fremont Campaign Club,” to be established “for the purpose of bringing forward the name of General Fremont in connection with the presidency,” I desire to say that I am simply for the country with my whole soul, and would disown my own brother were he in any way to disturb the unity of the National Men, or Country Party, whatever name may be used; that I am convinced that every personal-election movement at this time can only tend to weaken us, when, in proportion to the greatness and the breadth of our struggle, our whole undivided physical and moral strength is necessary to bring it to an end, — and it must be brought to an end soon, if ever; and lastly, that I believe the nomination of General Fremont can have no other effect than the division of our forces, but not his election. All of us ought to remember the letter of the patriotic Chase.

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 343-4

Francis Lieber to Major-General Henry W. Halleck, March 20, 1864

New York, March 20, 1864.

. . . You have observed that the Fremont men have held their first meeting. Did I tell you that I was called upon to become president of the Fremont Campaign Club; and, if I should decline, that I would at least preside at the first meeting, which was held on March 18 in the Cooper Institute? It would have been a fine celebration of my birthday had I done so! I shall copy the letter which I wrote in reply. It will show you what I think about it. . . . Are you going to move on the everlasting Potomac? . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 343

Francis Lieber to Senator Charles Sumner, March 5, 1864

New York, March 5, 1884.

I send you a copy of the amendments which I think, and many of which I have long thought, ought to be engrafted on our Constitution. I have endeavored to show the perfect propriety of making amendments, — the necessity of doing so; that our Rebellion arose out of two elements, slavery and State-rights doctrine, and that the points which we now must consider as settled and past all discussion are: that the integrity of our country and our nationality shall not be given up; that slavery must be extinguished. I have tried to show that no one within the American polity is sovereign, and that the word ought never to have slipped in, as Coke declared in the House of Commons, when the Bill of Rights was discussing, — that the English law does not know the word sovereign. I then showed that in a constitution we cannot get at this sovereignty except through the subject of allegiance. You will also find there the reason why I use the expression “plenary allegiance,” which, accurately speaking, is a pleonasm, since all modern allegiance is plenary, and double allegiance is nonsense. There you will also see why I bring in the crime of sedition. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 342

Francis Lieber to Senator Charles Sumner, March 6, 1864

March 6.

When I wrote to you yesterday, in great haste, I omitted mentioning the historic act — the, to me, great symbolic fact — of the presentation of colors to the regiment of blacks in Union Square by our Club. There were drawn up in line over a thousand armed negroes, where but yesterday they were literally hunted down like rats. It was one of the greatest days of our history, — at least, of the history of this city. A few months ago the question was put to us whether a Massachusetts colored regiment might march through New York to embark. It was decided, and justly so, that it could not be done without being prepared for bloodshed. That was shortly before the riots; and now, within half a year, a colored regiment is cheered, and kerchiefs wave from every window. I was deeply, deeply moved. It was for once a visible step forward. . . .

. . . Is the law of Massachusetts, or amendment of the constitution of Massachusetts, giving to soldiers and sailors abroad in war the right of sending home their votes in State elections, separately printed? If so, could I have a copy? I want it for a grave purpose; at least, the writing an addition to that passage in my “Civil Liberty” where I have treated of the voting of armies appears sufficiently grave to me. I have to make this distinction, of which I never thought before: namely, the voting of soldiers as soldiers, that is to say, by companies and battalions, — en bloc, the French way, and which is unconditionally to be condemned, — and the voting of soldiers as citizens sending home their votes to their respective election districts. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 342-3

Francis Lieber to Senator Charles Sumner, February 12, 1864

February, 12, 1864.

Yes, my dear Sumner, that vote of which you write me — namely, thirty-one out of thirty-nine for your death-blow to slavery — is wonderful. It amazes and rejoices me. Still, I say we want four, perhaps five, amendments; we want them not by way of theoretic perfection or publicistic symmetry, but for plain common-sense adjustment of the Constitution to the state of things, and by the great behest of history.  . . . You know I am not given to extravagance; on the contrary, I consider the constant tendency of over-doing and over-saying things one of our most developed and least manly characteristics; nevertheless I boldly state that, calmly reflecting and keenly remembering the whole course of human affairs, I cannot bring to my mind any change of opinion, conviction, and feeling, as by an afflatus, equal to the change that has been wrought in the American mind concerning slavery within the last one year. I stand amazed. I, for one, would never have dared to believe it possible that but yesterday a Taney could give his opinion boldly and an Abolitionist was treated like a leprous thing, and that to-day a Winter Davis can declare in Congress that the Constitution of the United States never acknowledged man as property. I rub my eyes, and say, “Where are we?” . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 341

Francis Lieber to Judge Thayer, February 3, 1864

New York, February 3, 1864.

. . . You will be pleased to consider what I am going to write as strictly confidential; not that I ever hide my thoughts, but I speak out only when called upon, or where necessary. As to the war-power of the President to abolish slavery, I have not yet been able to understand it. As I have stated in the little Code (General Order No. 100, of 1863), a commander may declare servitude abolished in a conquered territory; and thus the President, I think, could abolish it in a territory occupied by our troops (following in the Rebellion the general laws of war); but to declare slavery abolished in territories where we are not, would require legislative power (within the Constitution), and the President has not this power. When Napoleon was urged to declare all Russian serfs free, at the beginning of the Russian campaign, those who urged him could of course only mean that he should hold out to the serfs their freedom in case he should conquer, and thus befriend the serfs. Nevertheless, slavery must be abolished. What then? The whole Rebellion is beyond the Constitution. The Constitution was not made for such a state of things; it was not dreamt of by the framers. We must cut and hew through the thicket as best we can, and see how, later, we can adjust matters, either by amending the Constitution — which I think we must do at all events — or by silently adopting what was done at the period when not the President but the people had assumed dictatorial power. I know very well how dangerous such a power is; but the life of the nation is the first substantive thing, and far above the formulas which very properly have been adopted. . . . In all struggles of long continuance, some points must be considered at certain periods as settled and past discussion. Without it, no progress is possible. No astronomer could pursue his science if he had to prove over again, at every single step, the correctness of the multiplication table. What are the things settled at this period of our struggle? I think these: The people are conscious that they constitute and ought to constitute a nation, with a God-appointed country, the integrity of which they will not and must not give up, cost what it may, — blood in torrents and wealth uncounted; that at this period nothing can decide but victory in the field. The more efficient, therefore, the army is made, and the more unequivocally the conquest of the South, the better for all, North and South.

That slavery must be extinguished, either absolutely, or so crippled that it must perish within a lustre or two; that the State-rights doctrine, understood as it is by the men who follow the mischievous theory of Mr. Calhoun, must perish. No one whatever, and no body of men, is sovereign within the United States. The word does not exist in our law. We in America know of sovereignty only in its international sense. The United States are sovereign with reference to other independent or sovereign States, and that is all. I speak of this advisedly, having repeatedly lectured on it in the law school, and consequently dug deep into the subject. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 339-41

Francis Lieber to Senator Charles Sumner, February 2, 1864

New York, February 2,1864.

. . . You ask me what is my view about introducing the system of competitive examinations. I reply that it is most desirable, and at the same time, doubtless, in our country, most difficult. But is it not one of those cases in which the mere breaking the ice is of importance? There are many things in which it is practically very important not to make an attempt without certain success; there are others in which it is important to pronounce the thought and form the first speck of generative life, even though non-success at the time is certain, — cases in which the public mind must be familiarized with the idea; cases which I would call battering-ram cases, — trying again and again, — like the Reform question in England, like Christianity in history. Is not the Civil-Service Examination such a question? The life of every active man furnishes many instances of this kind. There is now a plan of mine probably to be realized in Columbia College, for which I have written, spoken, worried, for five years. Yet my general rule in life is to ask for nothing but what I am pretty sure to get. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 339

Francis Lieber to Judge Thayer, February 1, 1864

New York, February 1, 1864.

. . . Did you observe that the “Intelligeneer” quotes a passage of my “Civil Liberty,” where I speak of the unmanly state of things when a people loses the energy of enduring an opposition. I spoke of France, and had at the same time South Carolina, where I was then living, in my mind. A portion of the passage renders the substance of a long and grave conversation I had with the lamented Petigru. South Carolina suffered no opposition on any important subject. “I go with my State” was the stereotyped phrase, no matter whether that State went for treason or not. It was one of the most anxious endeavors of Mr. Calhoun to prevent any issue whatever that might lead to the formation of two opposing bodies in South Carolina. I have had many conversations on that subject with Mr. Preston. And now, to apply my remarks to those who are in favor of Rebels! If we were at war with England, would I call traitors who should do their best to aid the enemy, a party, and claim for them all the consideration due to a loyal opposition? Would any one do it? And this Rebellion is ten times worse than a foreign foe.

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 338-9

Francis Lieber to Charles Sumner, January 6, 1864

January 6,1864.

. . . As to your question concerning the “Alabama,” I have not. studied all the details. Nevertheless, I have no doubt whatever that it is one of those cases in which a ponderously stronger power would make the offender pay for the damages, the fairness and international equity being so decidedly against England. All her excuses can only rest on little quibbles, supported by the power which can make good “I won't.” . . .

How can we free ministers from the draft? Every Methodist class-leader would be free. We should free some hundred thousand men in the lustiest age. If the Catholic priest resists, because ecclesia non sitit sanguinem, they may fight with the club, as the Capuchin did who fought with Andrew Höfer. . . .

Will the exemption clause, passed by the senate, pass the house? Will the President sign it? It seems to me the greatest error, and, as far as I can judge, very unpopular. I was amazed when I found the statement of its passage through the senate. Would to God we had the pen of a Burke or the voice of a Paul to impress the people with the truth that the nearer the end, the greater the army. The effort of the Secessionists next spring will be immense, and should we be beaten once or twice, it would galvanize again all the abundant, though latent, Copperhead influences. That unfortunate “in three months all will be over” has cost us very dearly.

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 337-8

Francis Lieber to Judge Thayer, January 2, 1864

New York, January 2,1864.

. . . The constitutionality of the conscription is one of those footballs of which we have had sundry in our history.

No man, I venture to say, Copperhead or not, would be so bold as to assert that the government had not the power or the solemn duty of raising an army by conscription, if need be, should an English or French army march into our country to the tune of some two hundred and fifty thousand men. The question, therefore, of raising an army by conscription in the present case, is simply one of the magnitude of the danger, and of the hearty sincerity in those who desire, or pretend to desire, to carry out the war successfully. If a man thinks that anything else than victory in the field can now decide our great question, let him say so. The issue will then be on quite a different ground. If a man thinks that we want an army of five hundred thousand, and to keep it up, but that volunteering will be the best method of raising such an army, let him say so, and the question will be one of expediency; but to say that the Constitution prohibits this nation from doing that which Nature commands every creature to do, man or beast, — to defend its own skin, — would be simply laughed at were such folly uttered by any one not backed by party power. Suppose I had said so in one of my books, without reference to any pending and existing question, every reviewer would have set me down as a fool. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 337

Francis Lieber to Major-General Henry W. Halleck, August 2, 1863

New York, August 2, 1863.

My Dear General, — Doubtless you agree with me that now, the Mississippi being cleared, we shall have prowling assassins along its banks, firing on passengers from behind the levees. You share, I know, my opinion, expressed in my Guerilla pamphlet, regarding these lawless prowlers. Will it not be well to state distinctly, in a general order, that they must be treated as outlaws? Or would a proclamation touching this point —and the selling or massacring of our colored soldiers, as well as the breaking of the parole — be better? I cannot judge of this from a distance, but it reads very oddly that a rebel officer who has broken his parole was among the prisoners that recently arrived at Washington, as all the newspapers had it. I hope it is not true; and if not true, Government should semi-officially contradict it. That Government has too much to do, would be no answer. Napoleon even wrote occasionally articles for the “Moniteur.”  . . . I have pointed out a most important military position, near my house, in case of repeated riot. It is the highly elevated crossing of Fourth Avenue and Thirty-fourth Street. It has been adopted. Did I tell you that I, too, patrolled for three nights during that infamous, fiendish, and rascally riot. To be sure, wholly unprotected as we were, our patrolling was hardly for any other purpose than to take away in time our wives and children. The one good feature in this riot was that no blank cartridges were fired. The handful of troops we had — invalids and full combatants, as well as the police — behaved well, I believe, and did what was possible. My son Hamilton was in the midst of it during the whole time with his invalids. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 335-6

Francis Lieber to Major-General Henry W. Halleck, August 10, 1863

August 10.

. . . I have the pleasure of sending you a copy of the Memoir to Mr. Secretary Stanton, of which I spoke in my letter of yesterday. Mr. Petigru has always been acknowledged, by friend and foe, to be the most accomplished lawyer of the South. He was a decided and efficient Union man in the times of Nullification. He is now seventy-five years old, and remains unmolested, as the “only Union man of South Carolina,” on account of his age and almost complete retirement, he has always been a good friend of mine. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 336

Francis Lieber to Dr. Daniel Coit Gilman, July 6, 1863

New York, July 6, 1863.

I thank you, my dear sir, for your information concerning the paper in the “Law Register.” I wish people would glance at what I have said on voting and debating armies in my “Civil Liberty,” and wonder that Governor Seymour (New York) did not quote that when, in his Message, he quoted me on the danger of Executive influence on elections. It is all a mistake to let armies vote, — an essential mistake; and it is a great mistake in our friends to try to give the vote to armies because it galls us now and works very hard against us. Tables are constantly turned in history. Nothing worse and more ruinous than to get power over opponents for the time being, instead of by permanent legislation. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 335

Francis Lieber to Major-General Henry W. Halleck, June 2, 1863

New York, June 2,1863.

. . . Is the threat of General Burnside true, that he would hang ten Confederate officers for every Union officer hung by the Confederates? Whether true or not, you are aware that this is the spirit which generally shows itself when a barbarous outrage is committed, but which it is very necessary promptly to stop. The wanton insolence of our enemy has been growing so fast, and is so provoking, that I am plainly and simply for quick and stern retaliation; but in retaliation it is necessary strictly to adhere to sections twenty-seven and twenty-eight of General Order 100, to the elementary principle which prevails all the world over, —tit for tat, or eye for eye, — and not to adopt ten eyes for one eye. If one belligerent hangs ten men for one, the other will hang ten times ten for the ten; and what a dreadful geometrical progression of skulls and crossbones we should have!  . . . You will decide what the general-in-chief has to do in this matter. Some distinct expression of the essential character of retaliation, whether by general order or by a proclamation of the President (intended for our side as well as for the other), or by a general letter of yours addressed to all generals, — I do not presume to decide.  . . . President King read yesterday to me a letter from Mr. Lawrence, in whieh he informs him that Broekhaua in Leipzig has made him a very liberal offer to publish in Germany a French translation of Lawrence's new edition of Wheaton. So we shall have a European edition of this secessionized American “Law of Nations.” It worries me. These two large volumes in French will be the universal authority in Europe concerning us.  . . . A first-rate work should be written as an antidote; but it would require a long time of absolute leisure for a great jurist, — as Halleck, if he had not the sword in his hand, taking Heffter as his basis, as Lawrence takes Wheaton. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 334-5

Francis Lieber to Major-General Henry W. Halleck, May 20, 1863

New York, May 20, 1863.

My Dear General, — I have the copy of General Orders 100 which you sent me. The generals of the board have added some valuable parts; but there have also been a few things omitted, which I regret. As the order now stands, I think that No. 100 will do honor to our country. It will be adopted as a basis for similar works by the English, French, and Gcrmans. It is a contribution by the United States to the stock of common civilization. I feel almost sad in closing this business. Let me hope it will not put a stop to our correspondenee. 1 regret that your name is not visibly connected with this Code, You do not regret it, because you are void of ambition, — to a faulty degree, as it seems to me.  . . . I believe it is now time for you to issue a strong order, directing attention to those paragraphs in the Code which prohibit devastation, demolition of private property, &c. I know by letters from the West and the South, written by men on our side, that the wanton destruction of property by our men is alarming. It does incalculable injury. It demoralizes our troops; it annihilates wealth irrecoverably, and makes a return to a state of peace more and more difficult. Your order, though impressive and even sharp, might be written with reference to the Code, and pointing out the disastrous consequences of reckless devastation, in such a manner as not to furnish our reckless enemy with new arguments for his savagery. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 333-4