Arkansas true Democrat., 1861-07-18
FOREIGN SYMPATHY.

ligent sons of the Emerald Isle to sym
 pathize with all upon whom an attempt is
 made to place the iron heel of oppression,
 and quick and generous in their impulses, as
 they are, there soon wells up from their
 hearts expressions against tyranny wher-
 ever it may be found advancing its front
 In this, the following from the Dublin
 .Ndiion of the Sth June has its origin, and
 we invite special attention to this expres-
 sion from the land of EMMETT, and CURRAN,
 and GRATTAN, in favor of the southern
 cause and denunciatory of our abolition
 prosecutors:
 TIE FRATRIcIDAL WAR.-As the news
 from America flows in, the language of the
 northerners and of their journals tends more
 and more to disgust and outrage all who
 hold the sacred faith of human freedom,
 and to make them weep in poignant mor-
 tifcation and deep despair. Well may we
 despair of popular liberty in presence of the
 s;cht the world sees to-day. A republi-
 can people, whose liberties were won by a
 rebellion, whose independence was achiev-
 ed by a secession, parrot as Slbly as any
 minions of old world tyranny, "the rebels, ''
 and the rebellion" as phrases of odium
 and reproach! Those who profess to hold
 sacred the popular will, to reverence the
 desire for sef-governmcnt, proceeding to
 drown the popular will in blood, and to
 answer the desire for self-government by
 butchery and slaughter!
 Jfwhat is now passing in America took
 nla ce in any of the old world empires, it
 woul,1 be at least ineligible. If the citi- zens of nearly half of an empire five times aS laroe as all Europe, with an unanimity never surpassed and rarely equaled, declar- ed by free poll, in open day, by universal snferaoe that their interests and their feel inos demanded tie substitution of the i'm perial government by one ot thelr own choice: and the imperial government marcbcd it's armies to crush the demand in the blood of the "rebels," it would be noth- ing new among the dcspotic systems. But in a great confederation of republican States. in system based on Me 'oiH of Me 0eoD7e-based on Me right ct re6el(ton- that all this should happen that we now see-that no tyranny or despotlsm of old Europe ever drew the sword more savage lv to put down "rebellion" and trample on the voice of the people, than the same central government of a republican con- federation-it is enough to wiring the heart of any man who believes in the greater humanity and toleration of popular gov ernments. Well may the advocates of desnotic monarchy laugh in bitter mock cry at those who believe that a people ruling themselves would never spill blood in popular subiugation, and that such murders were done by kings and despots of old Europe!
 It is hideous sarcasm of republican, ism to hear the journals of the Northern States yelling for the blood of the "rebels," for their utter subjugatiOn and destruction! " We mean to conquer thcm,' says the New York Tribune, "not merel y to defeat, but conquer, to subjugate them. But when the rebellious traitors are overwhelmed in the field and scattered like leaves before the angry wind, 1t must not be to return to peaceful and contented homes. They must find poverty at their firesides and see privation in the anxious 'eyes ofmothers and the rags of children" Was ever a more hellish sentiment uttered? Where in the annals of despotism or the records of it's butchcries, shall we seek for Q parallel to this? Where-cven against rebels who have not a particle of justification? If the subjects of the most legitimate sovereign that ever held a sceptrc had acted as the Southern States have done, would these sentiments not be nfamies if uttered on his ,nrt? Yet infamy of infameis are they when uttered by republicans against bro r,r epublicans-uttercd by the descend an1 of the rebels of 16, against men who wit h far greater unanimity,, now demand the ,elf same right those rebels claimcd-selG- government.
 We shall be told that the South had no fight to seccde. therefore, war upon 1t IS ustifable. When England made war ,n her rebellious American colonies, she aid they had no right to secede," and hat, therefore, that war was jnstIiable. We sh all be told the South can exhibit no vrong, to justify rebellion. The same was lcld b, those who sought to crush the colo lies in their struggle for self-government. But why should we be called upon by re- ,ubIicans to consider these points at all? Have we not been told as the republican ,rincip le, that the subjects of State them selves, and no one else, are to be judges whether they have provacation, justification )r right.
 Yet, let us consider that the case of the South, as regards it's right to secede, is far stronger than was that of the American colonies to rebel. Under the monarchical systems no such right was ever tolerated. no such principle ever heard of-as " the voice of the population" determining the justice, legitimacy or duration ofa govern ment. The American colonies originated under that monarchical system. They had never claimed or possessed the attributes of /" independent sovereign States;' norhad their connection with the English crown originated in compact having for its object mutual benefit and defence.
 What, on the other hand, is the position of the southern States in the present case? They are not mere colonies, counties or dis tricts of any state, kingdom or empire. They are number of sovereign independ- ent States" so styled in law, and so prov ed in fact. Their political system-the political system of the whole United States of ofAmerica-isbased on the fundamen- ta, principle of the right of rebellion deter 'ninable by the voice of the people. These several independent sovereign States, of their own free choosing, and for the pur- pose of their own and the common welfare, and protection, federate with certain others to this end. A number of these States declare that faith has not been kept with them in the compact of confeder- ation; and that the cause and purpose of their federal association with certain others no longer urge its continuance, but on the contrary demand its termination. Whether they possess the right so to terminate the connection, is neither asserted nor denied by the deed of union. This silence is claim ed by each side in the quarrel as favorable to its own case. Upon which side this con struction may hn said to woirh is no