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

mind the Cdro!inidn Of the subsequent
proceedings Of its party, or its Dicta,ors,
which still more palpably proves that the
Separate secession party have no idea that
the State shall "settle the question for !
herself" We might remind Il Of their se-
cret and mysterious moyements--their OK
act and studied care in suppressing discus
sion among tho people-and their rejecting
the nomination Of Cooperation candidates
for Southern Congress. In,his Congress-
ional District Messrs. Preston and CHEs-
NUT, avowedIy and notoriously 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, "nen,
who," in the language Of the address OF
the Rchland Southern Rights Association,
"go for dissolution of the Union, by mo-
wing in front"-,hcse are their men. and
these are the principles they arc to carry
with them in Congress Of equals, who
have been nominated in the place of Co
operationists. They wish tine 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 o,cn ray, And is there
not much in it too, which "is unworthy
and degrading in its tendency!" Pray,
tell us what is there in this game Of the
Separate secession party calculated to elc.
vatc a" State character, pride and hnor,"
The Carolinian again, among other
"fallacious and soplislical" objections,
charges the Cooperation party with mis-
representing (" the opposing doctrine Of the
States Rights and State action party, b,
asserting that this last party repuJ,a,es
Cooperation"
II the party 10 which the Ca,olinian be
longs, favor Cooperation, why do they op
pose Cooperation candidates!
Blu, still further, some leading Co-opera
tionisi having denied that the doctrine o
States Rights was involved in the prescn
controversy in lhis State, the Carolinia,
breaks out in the following exclamation o
nmazement, States Rights not involved
Look to the facts. Did Gcorgia, wheI
, her convention was elected, base her ac
, ton on the attitude or position of any othe
! State! Did Virginia? %
VIII the Carolinian inform US whcthe,
there was in either Of those States, or ir
any other Stale in tie Confedcrscy, an ir
responsible body Of pirate men, who under
took 10 settle the question" for those States
and TO differ with whom was treason!
But the Carolinian finds fault with tn,
Cooperation party, because thy have III,
;, authority Of MIR. CALHOUN for their suppor,
,, Very wrong this. The Jo-operati.n par
! " ought not 10 be blamed for this. Blu
the Carorintdn charges tho Co-operatIo
!, party with using tho name of AIR. C&Lnou,
as deception. 1t is bu, lost labor for tn
Carolininn or anybody else to attempt S
4 to pervert ; or to bolster up their schem
OF Separate action upon the n.express
), ion OF opinion OF tho part OF Mr.. CAL
HouS in favor Of this measure 1t is enoup
=, for tie Carolinian TO know, and for ever
!, body else, that he has said, "ln my yiey
;, concert is the one thing needful." But h.
i has never been known 10 utter one wort
=. that we know OF, favoring State secession
;. In conclusion the Carolinian hones,l
. believes that the success OF the Co.opera
q ton party will be reclamation TO tn
:, world, that South Carolina has surrcndere
r the doctrine of States Rights forever. Tn
h reasons for this daring declaration we vii
y recapi'ulate that their merit may be mani
!, fest |, believes all this then:
lst. Because the doctrine of tho Co
!. operation party merges the State into
section"
4 This sc have proved to be a very strang
aud unaccountable mistake for the in,clli
= gent Carolinian. No body ought to know
), better, that II is not true.
/. Cd Because Cooperation doctrine :. j
= unworthy and degrading IN its tendency
), This we have shown not only to be
fudge, but we have fastened the charr
upon The party TO which the Carolinian be
longs
3rd. Because the Cooperation doc
h lr'nc m'srcpresents the opposing doctrine @
, Statcs's Rights and State action party
by asserting that this last party repudia,e
Cooperation"
We have shown beyond any REASONABLE
doub. by the acts OF tho secession party
that Cooperation ia hateful thing 10 them
!, 9TH. because the doctrine OF States
, Rights is involved in this controversy"
AS between tho parties in this State, w
have shcwn that the doctrine is not inyoly
ed in the present controversy.
, 9th and last. because Mr.. CALHOUN i
on the side OF the Co.operationis,s."
As this was ,he last reason given BY tn
Carol'nion, we suppose it intended this
, the climax. But we think every body vii