The Sumter banner. [volume] (Sumterville, S.C.) 1846-1855, 1851-09-23
What the CafOIinfan ahimIks
8bOnt C0.ODerutiOln.

SVMNt thc SakOIInbah anRMAB
about Co-operation.
1t thinks that Corporation doctrine is
politically unsound, and is antngonis,cto to
that Of States Rights, because il merges the
State-a distinct and sovereign political
body-into q section. 1t is not only false
in theory, but it is 80 practically, because it
requires an impossible condition even to tho
action proposed under it."
We say that the reason which the Caro-
linian gives for, lho unsoundness Of Co.
operation doctrine is IN fact untrue, because
Co.opera,ionists have uniformly maintained
the doctrine Of States Rights in the sense
in which its enlightened expoundcrs under
stand it. They no more seek to merge
the Distinct and sovereign existence Of
South Carolina " into section," than they
would the distinct personal existence and
identity of one Co-opcra.onist into that of
the Cnrolinian. AS party, the Co.opera.
tionists have for their Object the assertion
and maintenance Of the Rights OF South
Carolina as distinct member ol this Com
fcderacy. They have never ailcd so TO
assert and so to maintain them. And this
the CarViinidn might very well know, and
must know if II had the candor to say SO.
But The Go operation doctrine "is not
only false in theory, but it is so practically,
because it requires an impossible condition
even to the action proposed under it," We
have shown that the CdrOlinian has mis-.
stated the theory Of the Cooperation doc
lrine, und that the doctrine of States Rights
being its very basis, it's theory cannot be
false, the Carolinian itself being judge.
But how is it practically false ! because
II requires an impossible condition even to
the action proposed under it," Now the
Can Gilman IS doiig itself great injustice in
concealrg the fact, that from the com
menccmcnt OF the present agitation, the
leaders oi the Cooperation party recon-
mcndcd uniou "0f The Southern States or a
large nnnber N Men,,' which of course
is the impossible condition" referred TO-
not AS condition upon which South Caro-
lima held her right of seeding, but as the
,cisc and practicable condition, upon which
she was to exercise that right. Neither
the leaders Of the Cooperation party, nor
the party itself, have ever held that the
| right oi Secession depended upon the JOIN,
action OF two or more States but they
have uniformly con,ended, that untcl
Secess.o OH of the Slaveholding S,a,cs or ,
large nn'nbcr oi them," was the only wise
and practicable remedy. This has eve
hec" 'hr poi'"y o the Cooperation party
the fr,te 'esisiInce party.
They adopted this policy upon III,
/. Neisl,ty and lInpregHaJle consideration,
that South Carolina has sustained no iniu
ry----rio oppression OF any kind or in a,
4 dearee----whirh has no, heen equall,
! shared ny hc1 Sister Southern States: ant
o that she is lhren,ened by no danger, imme
c "latc or remote, which does not cauail,
e threaten the other Southern States
n Our injuries and dangers being com
mon, our redress and line OF defenc. shoul,
J. he onc.
;, The Cooperation party have neye
heard one satisfactory reason from the Sc
a parate Secession party to change the.
: policy. In the absence therefore of nj
: reason for diiftrcn, course, they mus
still be permitted TO pursue the one adop,c.
IN the beginning, and to urge upon the pco
pie OF South Carolina and the other South
ern States that ii is the true policy. The
think that there is an obligation res,in.
upon them as rational and considerate men
!, TO defer much 10 their neighbors, and I,
:, abstain from the exercise of right whcl
. they believe would bring disaster no, onl
to themselves, but to that cause which al
!, par'lcs regard rs common one.
The Carolmian having designated con
cert among the Southern States as "ai
4 impossible condition." must be presume,
!. IN have abandoned the idea Of whipping
, them INTO the traces 10y the Scparal,
Secession of South Carolina. II mus
Therefore advocate The Separate National.
Eoi South Caroline. THIS inference q
Clearly warranted from what il adds, iha
The other >ouihern !Siai,s haze settled n,
question for themselves"
/, Having taken lheir position then, conce
, ding TO them the tirmncss only OF ordinar,
8 men, the Separate secession OF Soutf
, Carolina will not make them rcccdc from
that position.
: But this gives the CaroIinian another op
. Poriuni,y OF expressing it's thoughts abou
Cooperation doctrine. For it says, that the
; prcscn, Cooperation doctrine,i in repudiatine
State action, is unworthy and degrading r
its tendency. And why! Because i,
: would prohibit South Carolina from doing
what her sister States have done-,hat il
settling the question for herself, and ir
view OF her own State character, pride and
honor" Can the Carolinian be in earDes,
when il uses such language1 In what
single instance has the Cooperation party
shcwn an unwlllngness for "he Stale "a