Northern inconsistency.[From the Aberdeen (Scotland) People's Journal June 22] The risk of any collision with the North on account of our recognition of the belligerent character of the embattled Southerners is infinitesimally small. When reflection succeeds to passion the Federalists will see and be ashamed of the ridiculous position they have taken. They are in reality decrying their own principles, and are abusing us for measuring their corn in their own bushel. They are enraged at the truth of the text which says, ‘"with whatsoever measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again."’ Their whole history is one continual protest against the doctrines they now lay down. Their nation began in secession, and Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, were only illustrious as seceders. To the recognition of their belligerent character by France, and to the aid they derived from the fisets and land forces of the French nation, they were indebted for that independence of which they boast so loud. We, on the contrary, propose to bring the South neither aid nor sympathy. We desire to observe scrupulous neutrality.--But we recollect that when Greece revolted, the United States were among the first to recognize the belligerent rights of the revolted Greeks. Last year, when the King of Naples attempted to blockade his ports, the United States took sides with the Revolutionists and rendered the Seceders then threatening Naples no small aid by their remonstrances. We take no side; we are no partisans. The sympathy we have shown has been for the Union, and for this forbearance — a forbearance diametrically opposed to our trading interests, and as directly "inimical to our commercial friends in America as to our manufacturers at home — we are coarsely calumniated and rudely menaced. Our Federalist friends are out of temper, and well they may be. The certain man who ‘"digged a pit, "’ and fell into it himself, was probably not in an amiable humor when caught and kept in the trap of his own making. ‘ "No rogue e'er felt the halter draw,
With good opinion of the law."
’ Because one day our cousins say one thing and another day another, and because we do not follow them through the mazes of their mad dance of inconsistency, we are charged with the meanest of motives. It is the same with respect to the liberty of privateering — The liberty of privateering is the handiwork of the United States. Last year the statesmen at Washington, as a thing preserved by them for their own advantage. Glowing pictures were drawn of the golden harvests that Yankee clippers would reap in the future, whenever America and Britain might go to war.--To-day this golden apple of American diplomacy turns out to be an apple of Sodom, mocking the palates of Washington statesmen with dust and ashes, instead of pleasant juices; and so, because their own apples, of their own ‘"preserving,"’ is bitter, they turn round and furiously abuse us! We, who, against our own interest — we, who could put a hundred steam privateers to sea for every one the United States could send — pressed the American President to agree to a general giving up of the right to privateer. The President refused. American interest, it is said, would suffer by such an arrangement Privateers, we were told, were not pirates, but the legitimate defenders of States which, like the Republic, looked less to their regular navy than to the volunteer navy which they could, in time of war, improvise and get to sea in the form of a great fleet of privateers. Now, the politicians of Washington are on the horns of a dilemma. When the last mail left, no less than sixty ships of the North were lying as prizes at New Orleans. This unexpected application of American doctrine has created quite an explosion of opinion, to the effect that President Davis' letter-of-marque men are just so many pirates and malefactors, who ought to dangle at the yard-arm, and that John Bull must be as John Ketch, to hang them, and must decline at his peril. John smiles at the ‘"peril,"’ and does decline. We wonder what would satisfy the North. If we, at the bidding of Mr. Cassius Clay, shut our eyes to plain truths, and decide that the American war is no war at all, but a riot, and that the belligerents are not belligerents, but simply an insurgent crowd, why then, we must, in accordance with international law, refuse to acknowledge any right of blockade — a refusal which, we fear, would suit Mr. Clay and his masters worse than our present position. But can our Government take such ground? Can we say that where the clergy, magistrates, Senators, and all classes of the people, are of one mind for separation, and where an army of 100,000 men, an active aggressive navy, and a President and Senate, are ready to enforce the general wish, that there is, notwithstanding such facts, no secession, no separation, and no recognizable belligerent? We see a new Government organized; we see a vast army occupying strong posts, daily increasing in numbers, and so strong that President Lincoln is in hot haste to attack it; we see the ships of the North carried captive into the ports of the South; we see a strong for besieged in military form and captured by the South; we see a Confederation of States, in which the people are as one man in support of the new Government, and we are told, forsooth, to leave out of mind all these facts, and say that there are no such facts, and no such belligerents.--We do not choose to say the manifest untruth dictated to us, and because we will not say it, we are assailed with a tempest of uncomplimentary epithets."