The Abbeville banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1847-1869, 1851-05-10

The WArr-A-Brr PARTY" Separate
State action" was the first bug-bear of the
ultra co-operationists, hut now to give rcint
to their pointless arguments, they speak of
immediate separate State action" We do
not like either phrase, as both are cumbrous,
and involve tautology or solecism. A State,
according to our judgment, is necessarily
separate, sovereign and distinct, and any ac-
tion adopted bv a State as such, must be
based on this individuality and sovereign
personality. The action of any State, whe-
ther looking to resistance or submission, must
be separate State action" or it will not rep
repsent the judgment and opinion of the
State-hence we regard the first phrase as
unnecessary, as it certainly is cumbersome
ard awkward.
AS to immediate separate State action"
when any of those who use tile term 80 fire.
quen,ly and familiarly, condescend to define
1t, we can be able to give our views OH it; as
matters now stand however, not knowing
what it means, or what margin of time is
allowed by the word Immediate" we can
not say whether we are for or against it.
We certainly are for "action"-of that we
trust that none of our readers can now en-
tertain doubt; we are for effectual and de-
cisive action if possible, we would have that
action adopted at the earliest possible day,
and with no delay beyond that required by
the relations of the State, and by the die
tates of a sound policy, that would so order
the action as to time and manner, as to make
it efficient. On all these points we have en-
deavored to define our position beyond all
possibility of misapprehension, but still We
cannot tell, for the reasons above stated,
whether we are for or against what is called
immediate separate State action" Will
any one tell us what thislong and hard name
does mean9
We think an accurate definition of these
phrases would be of service in many respects,
and we therefore earnestly request one from
competent source. 1t may enable many
who, in reality, are aiming at the same ob-
jcct, to understand each other better, and to
overlook in consequence of substantial agree
ment, minor points of difference which time.
and the progress of events will rapidly re-
move. 1t will prevent the submissionists
from claiming too, as they are fond of do
ing, the sanction and authority of men who
differ from them cardinally-of men who
are earnestly in favor of action definite and
efficient, and only oppose what they regard
as premature action. If the body vested
with authority to decide the question was
now charged with tiff the Convention was
in session and resolutions looking towards
secession were before it awaiting q vote, we
could understand the application of such
phrases as immediate secession" or s'imme-
diate State action" of any kind.
As it is, however, We are at a loss, and
deem it useless 70 argue the question whe-
ther it would be better to secede to-day or
tomorrow, when it is impossible that the
question can be decided either way, on eth
er day. The main question now is: "Shall
South Carolina submit" answer to which
in the affirmative, might well curdle the
blood in the veins of those whose heads
have bIosso,ned like the Almond tree, and
whoee hearts have long since lost the tran
sient heat and fury Of youthful impulse and
passion. An answer in the negative leaves
us at liberty to select that mode and meas
ure of redress, which the light before tss
may indicate as the best, when we are called
upon to carry the answer into action.
81 ''.t - Columbia Telegraph.