The Sumter banner. [volume] (Sumterville, S.C.) 1846-1855, 1851-09-23
What the CarolininM thinks
about CO.OperntiOn.

aDOut CO.Opcrnt1On.
1t thinks that Corporation doctrine is
politically unsound, and is antagonstic to
that Of States Rights, because it merges the
Statc-a distinct and sovereign political
body-into section. It 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 say that the reason which the Caro-
Hmian gives for, tho unsoundness Of Co.
operation doctrine is IN fact untrue, because
Co-oprratonists have uniformly maintained
the doctrine Of States Rights in the sense
i'll 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-opcratIonist into that Of
tho Cdrofn'an AS party, the Co.opera.
lionists hive Tor their object the assertion
and maintenance Of the Rights oi South
Carolina as distinct member o! this Con
fcderacy. They have never Iailcd so TO
assert and so 10 maintain them. And This
the Carolnidn might very well know, aud
must know If II had the candor to say So
But the Go operation doctrine ais no,
only false in theory, bu, it is SO practically
because it requires an impossible condition
even TO the action proposed under it," We
have shown that the Carolinian has mis-.
stated the theory Of the Cooperation doc.
irInc, und that the doctrine OF States Rights
being its very basis, it's theory cannot be
false, the Cdrolinian itself being Judge.
But how is II practically false Because
!, requires an impossible condition even to
the action proposed under H." Now the
Cn otinian rs don itself grca, injustice in
concealing the fact, that from the CON.
menccmcnt OF the present agitation, the
leaders oi the Corporation party recon-.
mcndcl union "yj he Southern STATES or Il
large number nf Mcnl," which of course
is the "impossblc condition" referred 10,
not .s condition upon which South Caro-
) lima held her right Of seeding, but rs the
,cisc and practicable condition, upon which
shc was to exercise tha, rish, Neither
the leaders Of the Cooperation party, nor
tho party itself, have ever held ,lla, The
right OF Secession depended upon the JON,
action oi two or more States but they
have unIIornly cunlcndcd, that united
Sccesso on o' the Savcl,olding States or
large nu'nber oi ,hen," was the only wise
and practicable remedy. This has ever
hec" ,tr roi'"y OF the Cooperation party
tie tr &c 'esisiInce party.
Thy adopted this policy upon the
. weIshty and ,mpregnaLlc consideration,
that South Carolina has sustained no iuju
ry-no oppression OF any kind or in Al ,
deGree--which has no, been equal,
shared ny hcs sister Southern States: ant
'ha, she is threntened by no danger, ume
{ late or remote, which does not cquall,
1. threaten the other Southern States.
n Our injuries and dangers being com
mon, our redress and line OF deienc: shuul,
: tc one.
), The Cooperation party have ncvc
heard one satisfactory reason from the Sc
u paratc Secession party 10 change the.
: policy. In the absence therefore of al
reason for Il different course, they mus
still be permitted TO pursue the one adoptc,
IN The beginning. and to urge upon the pco
pie OF South Carolina aud the other South
crn States, that ii is the true policy. The
'hnk that there is an obligation resting
upon them as rational and cumsidcrate men
, to defer much 10 their ncighbors, and I.
abstain from the exercise OF a right whicl
, they believe would bring disaster not onl,
to themselves, but to that cause which al
, par'lcs regard AZ common one
The C0roiinian having designated con
cert among the Southern States as "a.
impossible condition." must be presumed
IN have Abandoned the idea Of whipping
them INTO the traces by the Separate
Secession of South Carolina. Ii mus
therefore advocate The Separate National!
ty OF South Carolina. This inference !.
Clearly warranted IRON what ii adds, "ha
The other Southern States haze scui,d II.
question for themselves"
, Having taken Their po>il,on then, conce.
l ding 10 them the tirnncss only OF ordinary
} men, the Separate secession of South
! Carolina will not make them rcccdc from,
that position
But this gives the Carolinian another on.
p"rtnn'ty OF expressing it's thoughts abou,
Co-operaion doctrine. For it says, that the
Prescn, ,Cu-operatom doctrine,n repudating
State action, is unworthy and degrading in
ITS tendency. And why' Because i,
would prohibit South Carolina from dojDo
what her sister States have done-,hat *.
settling the question for herself, and in
view "i her own State character, pride and
honor" Can the Caroiinian be in earnest
when II uses such language In what
single instance has the Cooperation party
shcwn an unwl!ingncss for "Me Slaie 10