The Sumter banner. [volume] (Sumterville, S.C.) 1846-1855, 1851-09-23

proceedings of it's party, or its Dictators,
which still more palpably proves that the
Separate secession party have no idea that
the State shall "settle tho question for
herself" We might remind it of their se-
cret and mysterious moyements-their OK
act and studied care in suppressing discus-
sion among the people-and their rejecting
the nomination Of Cooperation candidates
for Southern Congress. In this Congress-
onal District Messrs. PRESTON and CHEs.
NUT, avowedly and no,oriously belonging
to the Cooperation party have been drop.
ped, although nominated on that very
ground by a secessionist, and member |
Of the Legislature, and Messrs. BARNES
and OWENS, extreme action mon, "Inen,
who,' in the language Of the address of
the Richland Southern Rights Association,
"go for dissolution of the Union, by mo-
wing in fron,"-,hcse are :hcr men. and
'hcs' are the principles they arc to carry
with them i'll Congress Of equals, who
have been nominated in the place Of Co
operationists. They wish the people to
send men who will threaten and dictate,
and not such men as will conciliate and
reason and persuade. Does not all this
look as if the Dictators desired to settle the
question IN their oscn ,pay' And is there
moi much in it too, which "is unworthy
and degrading in its tendency ~ Pray,
tell US what ia there in this game OF the
Separate secession party calculated to ele.
vnlc State character, pride and hm,or,"
The Cdrolinidn ngain, among other
"faliacious and sophis,ical' objections,
charges the Cooperation party with mis-
representing the opposing doctrine Of the
States Rights and State action party, by
asserting that this las, party repuJ,ates
Cooperation"
If the party to which the Carolinian be-
longs, favor Cooperation, why do they op-
pose operation candidates!
Blu, still further, some leading Co-opcra-
tionisi having denied that the doctrine of
States Rights was involved in the present
controversy in this State, the Carolinian
breaks out in the following exclamation Of
nmazencnt, States Rights not involved.
Look to the facts. Did Georgia, when
her convention was elected, base her ac-
ton on the attitude or position OF any other
State, Did Virginia ~
VIII the Carolinion inform US whether
there was in either of those States, or in
any other State in tie Confederacy, an ir-
responsible body Of pirate men, who under
took 'ro settle the question" for those States?
and TO differ with whom was treason
But the Cdrolinian finds fault with the
Co-opcration party, because thy have the
authority Of Mr. GALnous for their support.
Very wrong this. The Co-operut;ln par
~ ought not 10 be blamed for this. But
the Caro1fnfdn charges tho Cooperation
party with using the name Of Mr.. CNLHouN
as deception. 1t is bu, lost labor for the
Carohnian or anybody else to attempt SO
TO pervert or to bolster up their scheme
OF Separate action upon the non.express.
ION OF opinion on tho part Of Mr.. CAL.
noUS IN favor of this measure 1t is enough
for tie CdroIinian TO know, and for every
body else, that he has said, I'm nv view.
concert is the one thing ncedful" But he
has never been known to utter one word,
that we know of, favoring State secession.
In conclusion the Carolinian honestly
believes tina, tho success OF the Co.opera-
ton party will be PROCLAMATION TO the
world. that South Carolina las surrendered
the doctrine of States Rights forever. The
reasons for this daring declaration we will
recaPiiulate that their merit may be mani
fest. l, believes all this then:
lst. Because the doctrine Of the Co.
operation party merges the Stale into n
section"
This we have proved to be very strange
and nnaccountabIe mistake for the intcli.
gent Caroli~ian. No body ought to know
better, that il is not true.
I'd. because Cooperation doctrine is
unworthy and degrading IN its tendency "
THIS we have shown not only to be a
fudge. hut we have fastened the charpe
upon the party TO which the Carolinian be-.
longs.
3rd. Because the Cooperation doc
'rne msrcprcsents the opposing doctrine of
Statcs's Rights and State action party,
ny asserting that this last party repudia,ed
Co-opcra,ion."
We have shown beyond any reasonable
doubt ny the acts OF tho secession party,
that Cooperation is hateful thing TO them.
4ih' Because The doctrine OF States
lights is involved in this controversy"
AS between tho partie, in this State, we
have shcwn that the doctrine is not inyoly.
cd in the present controversy.
9Th and last. "Because Mr.. CAIHous ;s
on the side OF the Co-operatonis,s."
As this was the last reason given by The
C"rohni0n, we suppose it intended this az
the climax. But we think every body will
1 IN hot