league; and whether it be formed by compact between the States or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly upon the people individually, not upon the States—they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not from policy possess any right to secede; because secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation; and an injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result in the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation; because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without morally committing any offensive secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they make a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure."
Again, in his message of January, 1832, after fully discussing the issues forced upon the country, he adds:
"The right of a people of a single State to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations and to hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted, and to the object which it is expressly formed to attain."
This great man of the people has been gathered to his fathers. Over his grave at the Hermitage let the American nation declare in his own emphatic language:
"The Union—It must and shall be preserved,"
These are not all the mighty names which can be arrayed in behalf of the Union, and against the doctrines of secession. When did the ardent and enlightened mind of Henry Clay, when his attention was drawn to the subject of the Union, fail to offer his tribute to its worth, decline to render the most scathing rebuke to those who dared for one moment to depreciate its value? Nor am I disposed to close this message, without citing another illustrious name, who, without regard to party, boldly planted his feet on the platform of the Constitution and the Union—a man who faced all the fury of the fanatical passions of his own section in behalf of the compromise measures of 1850, which guaranteed the equality of the South under the Constitution. I allude to Daniel Webster. He was a man whose heart was great enough to embrace the whole Union, and whose intellect could span the globe.
The sentiment which he leaves on record I repeat:
"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable."
With such teachings and such lights from those of the past and of modern time, can Texas forget her duty to herself? These were the men who formed the first structure of perfect liberty and self-government in the world. We have the exposition of the principles upon which this sublime structure of selfgovernment was based. Are we to cast them all away? Are we to quit our
