Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1851-10-02
AVIS late letter to the people of Edgeiield. Dis

The Co-0pefatfOnrSlS; as party, " leSuiuIo 'ho
Convention of the State. by lettering
we shall respectfully deprecatc the
effort as an unfortunate and illtimed, though hon
est step. They who propose it, would not them
selves wish it. under these circumstances to e1er-
else any controlling influence: II seems to lis to
be evident that before the adoption of this policy
by our friends of the Cooperation party could
take place, another fruitful source Of division and
distraction would be discovered 10 exist in the
new issue then brought before the State-whether
or not it will be expcdent for the delegates to the
Convention to be controlled by instructions
Many, who doubt the wisdom of separate action,
would doubt still more the. policy Of attempting to
annul the authority of body regularly clothed
with tile highest power which any free people cnn
impart to their agents. For what would be the
tendency of this new discussion! Most assuredly
this to draw the public mind from the main and
all-important question of our dire wrongs and the
remedy..-to plunge the State into abstract dis
putaton as to the final resting place Of sovereign
ty, its divsibility, inherency, &;c-and to awaken
Il storm Of popular excitement OIL some collateral
question of State-reform, which skilful dema-
gogues might conduct not only to the absorption
of the present struggle with Federal oppression,
but to the destruction of our present admirably
arranged and notwithstanding system of State
polity. For these reasons, and others to which we
may allude hereafter, we cannot (until some more
widely diffused expression Of the popular will
reaches us) approve the manner in which the Ex-
POSITION under consideration proposes to liarrass
and retard the free action of our Convention. If
it be said that we are contrarening the wishes Of
the people VIC ask it to be considered, in passing,
that we, and those with whom we think, are also
the people-and while others are protesting, we
also propose to protest, and "most solemnly" too,
against being in anywise bound to support sug-
gestions cmanating from moiety of what we be-
lieve to be minority party. We respect their
differences of opinion, and yet, at the same time
would advise every one to ponder we'll the conse-
quences of their present proposition, before es-
pousing it.
But this proposition to instruct our Convention
Delegates, seems to its authors themselves, to need
some excuse and one is accordingly given, which
we are surprised to see grnvely put forth in the
U0cUnent DeIOTc us, lOE Lllc uuIluIeulH hiiiC.
"Your Convention of Delegates, which met in
Charleston in May last, set us the example-they
passed resolution OF instructions-why not we !"
Now to set the matter Mt rest more, let us see
the resolution spoken of. Here it is:
f. " Rcsoloed. That this meeting looks with
confidence and hope to the Convention Of the peo-
pie, to exert the sovereign power of the State in
defence Of its rights at the earliest practicable
period, and in the most effec,uul manner; and to
the Legislature, to adopt the most speedy and
effectual measures towards the same end.''
"Thc confidence and llopc," that certain
measures will be carried ont, is clearly expressed
but where are the instructions! Where is the
specific measure mentioned, which either The Con-
vention or the Legislature is instructed, or even
requested to do, or not TO do! In resolution in
tended to instruct very different language is al
ways used-and to see this, we need 60 no further
than the resolution appended to the Exposition
under discussion. Let US read tina. also:
IS Rql.efal- -Fhse be- ana IRE Hereby in
struccd, that prior to the first day Of January,
1853, they give no vote for, or cuuntenance to any
ordinance or measure, which has for its object the
separate secession Of the State of South Carolina
AOlh tiS NoilSlCi0SS'
There is the cooperation resolution--the other
was the secession resolution. What n difference
The first is, in tone, temper and expression, the
language rather of an inferior to superior-and
yet the meeting which adopted it, was, eqnally
with the late cooperation meeting, an assemblage
of sovereign citizens of South Carolina and quite
as intelligent The second has the air and style
mandate, upon the disobedience ofwhich
another mandate might be forthcoming. This is
the master speaking to the servant-and this is in
the other, according to all the rules Of
construction by which we have learned language,
is the ultcrance Of n mere hope, sentiment, 4
thought, without single essential requisite of IN
sructions. But it is said that more than this was
fiom the fact that certain resolution Of
fered by Mr. Orr. was voted down in that Conven-
tion. Now the attentive observer of the political
in our State. will remember that re.
solution offered by Mr.. Carroll at the Charleston
cooperation meeting, was rejected in the same
although it was afterwards urged that
the sentiment of said resolution was in no degree
It was thought that it might have
the effect Of producing unnecessary confusion in
the meeting. Why not allow the Convention of
Delegates the same ground ofohicction to Mr.. Orrs
In all such assemblies, it is invaria-
bly, the practice to arrange some regular plan Of
proceeding, to save time and avoid the necessity
Of proix explanations. Such plan was submit
ted to most, if not all of the Delegations present at
the Charleston Convention, shortly previous to
their introduction to the meeting 1t met their al.
most unanimous sanction. The address and reso-
uons were expressive of the feelings of the body,
Is was fully proved by their adoption after mature
discussion. 1t was supposed that Mr.. Orr and his
o-adutors knew this to be the case. Their at.
empt then to throw aside the other resolutions by
substitute, was regarded somewhat in the light
n which Mr.. Carroll's resolution was by the
Charleston cooperation meeting. 1t was set aside
rom no opposition to the views it contained, fur
her than that it did not contain quite all they de-
ired to express. Least of oil, can the conclusions
e fairly drawn that its rejection proceeded from
ny desire to dictate TO or instruct any one, or to
i've prominence to any particular party. II any
hing of the sort had been really thought of, would
here not have been concerted movement to pro-
ure the stantapproval ofthe Conventions course
y the different associations 1t could have been
one with ease at that time, and would have given
,uch greater power TO its action But this was
ot even attempted.-It is insisted by some, that
n ,cholo q ,r;ol, ,o IL, |