Friday July 26, 2013 marks 150 years since Sam Houston's death ! (Austin, Richmond: sales, home)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with his stance on the Confederacy/anti-secession. They should have listened to him.
I'm not happy about how he treated the Alamo defenders, so it's a very mixed bag. He was a very flawed human being, just like most of the rest of us.
LOL I luvs you sis, and we have been over this one before. To say "we should have listened to him" is to argue from result (i.e. the North won), not from the realities of the time. It was actually Houston who was out of step. And he later almost admitted such.
Contrary to what is often implied/presented from the "argue from results" history books, Houston was a Southern Unionist not a northern sympathizer, nor even Unionist in terms of the northern definition of the term. There is a big difference. Houston was an unabashed and vocal supporter of Southern rights; he simply believed those rights could be best secured, at that time, within the Union as it existed. He thought secession to be "rash action" at the time Texas took it up...but he also assured his fellow Texans that he would personally lead the state out of the Union should future northern action justify such measures.
There were three choices available for Texans at the time, as former governor Francis Lubbock spelled out (paraphrased):
1. Remain in the Union and thereby align with the "avowed enemies of the South" (i.e. Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, etc). As Lubbock said, such a course was not to be thought of. And it wasn't.
2. Secede, and revert once again to an independent Republic. This is the course Houston favored. But, as Lubbock said, while this course might have some appeal, it would have been extremely unrealistic. Reason being, among others, if the Lincoln administration was determined to "preserve the Union" with military force, there is no reason to think they would have spared the new Republic of Texas from the same fate. At the very least, to maintain its sovereignty, Texas would have had to ally with a Southern Confederacy.
3. Thus? Texas took the only realistic option it could. It aligned itself with its sister states of the Lower South with which it had complete ties of history, blood, soil, institutions, an customs. And sense of destiny. As Lubbock put it (again paraphrased): "As naturally as a needle on a compass turns to its pole."
And Houston himself? Here is the totality of his feelings on the matter (the main link, along with a passage):
So long as there was a hope of obtaining our rights, and maintaining our institutions through an appeal to the sense of justice and the brotherhood of the Northern people, I was for preserving the Union. The voice of hope was weeks since drowned by the guns of Fort Sumter. It is not now heard above the tramp of invading armies. The mission of the Union has ceased to be one of peace and equality, and now the dire alternative of yielding tamely before hostile armies, or meeting the shock like freemen, is presented to the South. Sectional prejudices, sectional hate, sectional aggrandizement and sectional pride, cloaked in the name of government and Union, stimulate the North in prosecuting this war. Thousands are duped into its support by zeal for the Union, and reverence for its past associations, but the motives of the Administration are too plain to be misunderstood.
The time has come when a man's section is his country. I stand by mine. All my hopes, my fortunes, my affections are centered in the South. When I see the land for whose defence my blood has been spilt, and the people whose fortunes have been mine through more than a quarter of a century of toil, threatened with invasion, I can but cast my lot with theirs, and await the issue.
So yes, I would give my vote to Sam Houston as being the most important figure in Texas history...but with the qualification his positions be clearly brought out in all their entirety and importance. God Bless Texas!
LOL I luvs you sis, and we have been over this one before. To say "we should have listened to him" is to argue from result (i.e. the North won), not from the realities of the time. It was actually Houston who was out of step. And he later almost admitted such.
Contrary to what is often implied/presented from the "argue from results" history books, Houston was a Southern Unionist not a northern sympathizer, nor even Unionist in terms of the northern definition of the term. There is a big difference. Houston was an unabashed and vocal supporter of Southern rights; he simply believed those rights could be best secured, at that time, within the Union as it existed. He thought secession to be "rash action" at the time Texas took it up...but he also assured his fellow Texans that he would personally lead the state out of the Union should future northern action justify such measures.
There were three choices available for Texans at the time, as former governor Francis Lubbock spelled out (paraphrased):
1. Remain in the Union and thereby align with the "avowed enemies of the South" (i.e. Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, etc). As Lubbock said, such a course was not to be thought of. And it wasn't.
2. Secede, and revert once again to an independent Republic. This is the course Houston favored. But, as Lubbock said, while this course might have some appeal, it would have been extremely unrealistic. Reason being, among others, if the Lincoln administration was determined to "preserve the Union" with military force, there is no reason to think they would have spared the new Republic of Texas from the same fate. At the very least, to maintain its sovereignty, Texas would have had to ally with a Southern Confederacy.
3. Thus? Texas took the only realistic option it could. It aligned itself with its sister states of the Lower South with which it had complete ties of history, blood, soil, institutions, an customs. And sense of destiny. As Lubbock put it (again paraphrased): "As naturally as a needle on a compass turns to its pole."
And Houston himself? Here is the totality of his feelings on the matter (the main link, along with a passage):
So long as there was a hope of obtaining our rights, and maintaining our institutions through an appeal to the sense of justice and the brotherhood of the Northern people, I was for preserving the Union. The voice of hope was weeks since drowned by the guns of Fort Sumter. It is not now heard above the tramp of invading armies. The mission of the Union has ceased to be one of peace and equality, and now the dire alternative of yielding tamely before hostile armies, or meeting the shock like freemen, is presented to the South. Sectional prejudices, sectional hate, sectional aggrandizement and sectional pride, cloaked in the name of government and Union, stimulate the North in prosecuting this war. Thousands are duped into its support by zeal for the Union, and reverence for its past associations, but the motives of the Administration are too plain to be misunderstood.
The time has come when a man's section is his country. I stand by mine. All my hopes, my fortunes, my affections are centered in the South. When I see the land for whose defence my blood has been spilt, and the people whose fortunes have been mine through more than a quarter of a century of toil, threatened with invasion, I can but cast my lot with theirs, and await the issue.
So yes, I would give my vote to Sam Houston as being the most important figure in Texas history...but with the qualification his positions be clearly brought out in all their entirety and importance. God Bless Texas!
Like Houston, I would have favored secession and becoming an independent republic once again--not realistic at all. Better than that, would have been neutrality, but that wasn't a realistic option, either.
So yes, I do understand why Texas felt it had to join the Confederacy, but I will always wish they had not. And yes, there is a huge difference between being anti-secessionist and being pro-Union.
It would also have been better had Texas been a free state from the beginning. Even Austin told Mexico that Texas couldn't grow and thrive without slave labor--at least at first.
I will always wonder--if there had not been a WBTS, would the south (or even Texas to a far lesser extent) ever have given up its slave-based economy?
LOL I luvs you sis, and we have been over this one before. To say "we should have listened to him" is to argue from result (i.e. the North won), not from the realities of the time. It was actually Houston who was out of step. And he later almost admitted such.
Contrary to what is often implied/presented from the "argue from results" history books, Houston was a Southern Unionist not a northern sympathizer, nor even Unionist in terms of the northern definition of the term. There is a big difference. Houston was an unabashed and vocal supporter of Southern rights; he simply believed those rights could be best secured, at that time, within the Union as it existed. He thought secession to be "rash action" at the time Texas took it up...but he also assured his fellow Texans that he would personally lead the state out of the Union should future northern action justify such measures.
There were three choices available for Texans at the time, as former governor Francis Lubbock spelled out (paraphrased):
1. Remain in the Union and thereby align with the "avowed enemies of the South" (i.e. Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, etc). As Lubbock said, such a course was not to be thought of. And it wasn't.
2. Secede, and revert once again to an independent Republic. This is the course Houston favored. But, as Lubbock said, while this course might have some appeal, it would have been extremely unrealistic. Reason being, among others, if the Lincoln administration was determined to "preserve the Union" with military force, there is no reason to think they would have spared the new Republic of Texas from the same fate. At the very least, to maintain its sovereignty, Texas would have had to ally with a Southern Confederacy.
3. Thus? Texas took the only realistic option it could. It aligned itself with its sister states of the Lower South with which it had complete ties of history, blood, soil, institutions, an customs. And sense of destiny. As Lubbock put it (again paraphrased): "As naturally as a needle on a compass turns to its pole."
And Houston himself? Here is the totality of his feelings on the matter (the main link, along with a passage):
So long as there was a hope of obtaining our rights, and maintaining our institutions through an appeal to the sense of justice and the brotherhood of the Northern people, I was for preserving the Union. The voice of hope was weeks since drowned by the guns of Fort Sumter. It is not now heard above the tramp of invading armies. The mission of the Union has ceased to be one of peace and equality, and now the dire alternative of yielding tamely before hostile armies, or meeting the shock like freemen, is presented to the South. Sectional prejudices, sectional hate, sectional aggrandizement and sectional pride, cloaked in the name of government and Union, stimulate the North in prosecuting this war. Thousands are duped into its support by zeal for the Union, and reverence for its past associations, but the motives of the Administration are too plain to be misunderstood.
The time has come when a man's section is his country. I stand by mine. All my hopes, my fortunes, my affections are centered in the South. When I see the land for whose defence my blood has been spilt, and the people whose fortunes have been mine through more than a quarter of a century of toil, threatened with invasion, I can but cast my lot with theirs, and await the issue.
So yes, I would give my vote to Sam Houston as being the most important figure in Texas history...but with the qualification his positions be clearly brought out in all their entirety and importance. God Bless Texas!
You didn't mention this was not the full speach
"The Houston Telegraph publishes the following extract from a late speech of Gen. HOUSTON at Independence:"
I highly suspect an old fashioned edit
Something tells me the Houston telegraph cherry picked the content of this speech to support their agenda knowing that Houston would have the ear of their readers.
If he was such a supporter of the Confederacy why didn't he just sign the oath of loyalty to the CSA ?
His vision for Texas after independence was for statehood, not independence, it was Lamar, who led the keep Texas independent movement. And after all he had done to get Texas into the Union I doubt he would take to secession very well.
Once the war started he may have hoped for a Confederate victory, which is another reason you have to place whatever truth there may be in this excerpt, into perspective, it was post Sumter and everybody passions were running high. His own son was fighting for the CSA.
Did Francis Lubbock speak for Sam Houston ? How is his position relevant ?
When it counted he took a stand against secession and was removed from office less than 2 years after being elected Governor of Texas from the "Unionist" party.
I'm afraid it may be your Historical perspective that may need revision.
Like Houston, I would have favored secession and becoming an independent republic once again--not realistic at all. Better than that, would have been neutrality, but that wasn't a realistic option, either.
So yes, I do understand why Texas felt it had to join the Confederacy, but I will always wish they had not. And yes, there is a huge difference between being anti-secessionist and being pro-Union.
Texas' course was sorta like that chosen by the second state to secede (after South Carolina), which was Mississippi. The governor of MS stated something like "Mississippi will not go first, but will follow if others do." What prevented Texas from being second or third was that Houston refused to call the legislature into special secession to take up the issue, knowing full well what the outcome would be. He only relented when it became clear Texans were prepared to act without him if necessary.
In any event, what you say is true, and my point as well. There was no realistic option but for Texas to ally with its natural allies of the Lower South, from where the majority of its settlers had come from.
Quote:
It would also have been better had Texas been a free state from the beginning. Even Austin told Mexico that Texas couldn't grow and thrive without slave labor--at least at first.
It would have been better if the northern slave shipping ports had not existed to begin with, sis. It would have been better if Africans had not sold their own into slavery. There is just no telling what would have been if we trace what should have been back to the dawn of time.
Quote:
I will always wonder--if there had not been a WBTS, would the south (or even Texas to a far lesser extent) ever have given up its slave-based economy?
Of course we would have...unless one believes that we Texans/Southerners are somehow immune to the "laws" of history and economics and morality. Already in the South there were many who wanted to gradually eliminate slavery.
It has to be kept in mind that none of the northern states ever outright abolished slavery. Instead, they did it in such a way as to not cause northern slave-holders any financial hardship. And the reason was it just really wasn't profitable anymore, up there. It was much easier to hire "free" workers who were bound by labor contracts and to the "company store" for what amounted essentially to life, and be tossed out into the street if they were hurt on the job or got too old and/or sick to work.
Yet all the while, the northern slave-merchants made a killing off the slave-trade itself. Hell, nobody ever said Yankees weren't shrewd in business dealings and hypocricy!
"The Houston Telegraph publishes the following extract from a late speech of Gen. HOUSTON at Independence:"
I highly suspect an old fashioned edit
Something tells me the Houston telegraph cherry picked the content of this speech to support their agenda knowing that Houston would have the ear of their readers.
You do? (bolded part), then by all means provide something which disproves it. Yes, back in those days men spoke in windy and lengthy phrases. But that doesn't mean -- assuming there was any edit at all -- that his basic thoughts/feelings were not there. But again, provide something which would dispute that the missive is intentionally "edited" in order to slant his meaning and intents. If you can, then I will gladly engage again on this and admit it deserves more discussion. Fair enough?
Quote:
If he was such a supporter of the Confederacy why didn't he just sign the oath of loyalty to the CSA ?
Keep in mind something. At this point in time, only the seven states of the Lower South (South Carolina thru Texas) had seceded. It was only when the North decided to use military force against a people (our ancestors) who had done them no wrong, that the Upper States of the South joined up (prior, the four had voted against secession). Houston was a native of Virginia and former governor of Tennessee, both Upper South states. Naturally, he would be inclined, initially, to oppose secession. And he did so, and very persuasively and with some very prophetic words:
"I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South with ignoble defeat.”
But when it came down to brass tacks? Houston's real -- and obviously emotional feelings -- were laid out in the letter presented. Again:
His vision for Texas after independence was for statehood, not independence, it was Lamar, who led the keep Texas independent movement. And after all he had done to get Texas into the Union I doubt he would take to secession very well.
And that might well be correct. But it is irrelevant given the circumstances which later presented itself. Of course Texas entered the Union with the wish and expectation it would be permanent. BUT? Conditions changed, due to Northeastern hostility toward the Southern states. The course? Well, go back above to Lubbock's options that the citizens of Texas had...
Quote:
Once the war started he may have hoped for a Confederate victory, which is another reason you have to place whatever truth there may be in this excerpt, into perspective, it was post Sumter and everybody passions were running high. His own son was fighting for the CSA.
Again, you seize upon the term "excerpt". Provide something in the way of entirety -- if you have it at all -- and we can take it from there. Until then, to use the term "except/extract" means very little.
Of course he hoped for a Confederate victory. Houston was a Southerner and made no bones about it. He told his son and name sake along the lines of "Texas has chosen her course and if she demands your service or your life, then honor and our family name demands you give it..."
Quote:
Did Francis Lubbock speak for Sam Houston ? How is his position relevant ?
LOL You evidently don't get the point. No one said Lubbock spoke for Houston. What Lubbock, in his memoirs (Six Generations in Texas), brought up were the options Texas was faced with and why she took the course she did. And where it applies to Houston? Well, it is the missive you dismiss as simply an "except". So again? Refute it with something of better quality. Not your own opinion of it being an edit. Hey, I have some journalistic experience too!
Quote:
When it counted he took a stand against secession and was removed from office less than 2 years after being elected Governor of Texas from the "Unionist" party.
He opposed secession, yep. And was deposed from office for declining to take an oath of alliegience to the Confederacy. So what is your point here? We all know this. However, later on, once hostilities got started (by the north making an aggressive move), he made clear which side he took.
Quote:
I'm afraid it may be your Historical perspective that may need revision.
Here is another eye-roller, and one to grow on!
Sorry, but serious students of history don't make a case by "rolling eyes". Not impressive in the least. Anyway, please come back with a refutation of what you claim is an "edit". Do you honestly think Sam Houston would have done any thing other than fully support the South once things got going?
You do? (bolded part), then by all means provide something which disproves it. Yes, back in those days men spoke in windy and lengthy phrases. But that doesn't mean -- assuming there was any edit at all -- that his basic thoughts/feelings were not there. But again, provide something which would dispute that the missive is intentionally "edited" in order to slant his meaning and intents. If you can, then I will gladly engage again on this and admit it deserves more discussion. Fair enough?
Keep in mind something. At this point in time, only the seven states of the Lower South (South Carolina thru Texas) had seceded. It was only when the North decided to use military force against a people (our ancestors) who had done them no wrong, that the Upper States of the South joined up (prior, the four had voted against secession). Houston was a native of Virginia and former governor of Tennessee, both Upper South states. Naturally, he would be inclined, initially, to oppose secession. And he did so, and very persuasively and with some very prophetic words:
"I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South with ignoble defeat.”
But when it came down to brass tacks? Houston's real -- and obviously emotional feelings -- were laid out in the letter presented. Again:
And that might well be correct. But it is irrelevant given the circumstances which later presented itself. Of course Texas entered the Union with the wish and expectation it would be permanent. BUT? Conditions changed, due to Northeastern hostility toward the Southern states. The course? Well, go back above to Lubbock's options that the citizens of Texas had...
Again, you seize upon the term "excerpt". Provide something in the way of entirety -- if you have it at all -- and we can take it from there. Until then, to use the term "except" means very little.
Of course he hoped for a Confederate victory. Houston was a Southerner and made no bones about it. He told his son and name sake along the lines of "Texas has chosen her course and if she demands your service or your life, then honor and our family name demands you give it..."
LOL You evidently don't get the point. No one said Lubbock spoke for Houston. What Lubbock, in his memoirs (Six Generations in Texas), brought up were the options Texas was faced with and why she took the course she did. And where it applies to Houston? Well, it is the missive you dismiss as simply an "except". So again? Refute it with something of better quality. Not your own opinion of it being an edit. Hey, I am a published journalist too.
He opposed secession, yep. And was deposed from office for declining to take an oath of alliegience to the Confederacy. So what is your point here? We all know this. However, later on, once hostilities got started (by the north making an aggressive move), he made clear which side he took.
Here is another eye-roller, and one to grow on!
Sorry, but serious students of history don't make a case by "rolling eyes". Not impressive in the least. Anyway, please come back with a refutation of what you claim is an "edit". Do you honestly think Sam Houston would have done any thing other than fully support the South once things got going?
Actually I think it is incumbent upon you to produce the full text of the speech you base your argument on. Does the NY Times vouch for its accuracy and or authenticity ? How do we know this speech was ever even delivered by Houston ?
The Texas State historical association disputes your claim that Houston encouraged his son to join the Confederate cause "After leaving the Governor's Mansion, Houston at least verbally supported the Southern cause. Against his father's advice, Sam, Jr., eagerly joined the Confederate Army and was wounded at the battle of Shiloh."
This article also states that Houston was such a avid supporter of the Union he was nearly nominated for President of the USA and at least was a nationally recognized figure as being pro Union.
I have never heard that Houston was influenced one way or another by the actions of Virginia or Tennessee while in Texas. Wasn't Houston basically laughed out of Tennessee?
You base your postings on reprinted extracts and conjecture and call me lame come again?
Actually I think it is incumbent upon you to produce the full text of the speech you base your argument on. Does the NY Times vouch for its accuracy and or authenticity ? How do we know this speech was ever even delivered by Houston ?
No, it is incumbent upon you to refute it by providing what you imply is an edited version of a speech. I await. And again, do you honestly think Houston felt any different? What evidence can you provide otherwise? Hell, I can't give a video tape recording of it. LOL But I have at least provided the best historical sources available, and those which I dare say sound remarkably like those of Sam Houston in terms of vocabulary, tone, content, wording, etc. Do you argue with that?
Houston was a Southern Unionist. He thought the course of the Lower South (of which Texas was part) was "rash action". And well it may have been. But when it came down to it, he took his stand with Dixieland. Just like most all of us would have had we lived back then. The alternative was to fight for the other side.
Quote:
The Texas State historical association disputes your claim that Houston encouraged his son to join the Confederate cause "After leaving the Governor's Mansion, Houston at least verbally supported the Southern cause. Against his father's advice, Sam, Jr., eagerly joined the Confederate Army and was wounded at the battle of Shiloh."
I never said Houston encouraged his son to join the Confederate side at the outset. What I said was (and I need to provide this source), was that he told his son that Texas had chosen its course (which was with the South), and that honor and the family name required he give his service and even life, if necessary.
I really would like to see the source where you say Sam Jr. was discouraged from this course. It makes no sense that his father would say anything different, given his own feelings...
Quote:
This article also states that Houston was such a avid supporter of the Union he was nearly nominated for President of the USA and at least was a nationally recognized figure.
Yes, this is true. BUT...it was prior to the WBTS. That is, Houston was a candidate for the Constitutional Union Party prior to the War (John Bell of Tennessee eventually got the nomination). And yes, he WAS a supporter of the Union. BUT...he was a Southern Unionist; and cannot be confused with a northern sympathizer. Many prominent leaders of the South were "unionists". Robert E. Lee is the premier example of one, and by definitions of the day, even Jefferson Davis was considered a "moderate".
Quote:
I have never heard that Houston was influenced one way or another by the actions of Virginia or Tennessee while in Texas. Wasn't Houston basically laughed out of Tennessee?
No, he wasn't laughed out of Tennessee. He left Tennessee because of something involving his marriage that has always been a point of historical speculation, which many say had something to do with that his wife may have been unfaithful.
But the point is, Houston was a product of the Upper South and very likely influenced by the attitudes of the same. Which, once again, absolutely turned down secession until the incident at Ft. Sumter made the situation either/or.
Quote:
You base your postings on reprinted extracts and conjecture and call me lame come again?
I call it lame because it is a lame come-back when you make a conjecture which you do not back up with sources proving the source I provided was an edit/excerpt/extraction in the sense of it being taken out of context and/or re-arranged to suit a particular point of view.
I want to say that I am not intending any personal offence here. I always enjoy a good exchange with a worthy opponent. It is obvious which side of the historical question you go with, and no problem with it.
No, it is incumbent upon you to refute it by providing what you imply is an edited version of a speech. I await. And again, do you honestly think Houston felt any different? What evidence can you provide otherwise? Hell, I can't give a video tape recording of it. LOL But I have at least provided the best historical sources available, and those which I dare say sound remarkably like those of Sam Houston in terms of vocabulary, tone, content, wording, etc. Do you argue with that?
I'm afraid we may be at a stalemate here. Can you post a second source of sentiments similar to the ones in the speech you referenced?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Houston was a Southern Unionist. He thought the course of the Lower South (of which Texas was part) was "rash action". And well it may have been. But when it came down to it, he took his stand with Dixieland. Just like most all of us would have had we lived back then. The alternative was to fight for the other side.
Again I point to his refusal to sign the oath of loyalty to the CSA. So when it came down to it , he did not stand with Dixie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
I never said Houston encouraged his son to join the Confederate side at the outset. What I said was (and I need to provide this source), was that he told his son that Texas had chosen its course (which was with the South), and that honor and the family name required he give his service and even life, if necessary.
I really would like to see the source where you say Sam Jr. was discouraged from this course. It makes no sense that his father would say anything different, given his own feelings...
I was quoting from the Texas Historical Societies website which I did paste the link too. I found this letter written to Sam jr. obviously before he went to war. I would characterize the tone of the letter as solemn and permissive but not encouraging either.
Do you my son, not
let any thing disturb you, attend
to business, and when it is proper,
you Shall go to war if you wish
to do so. It is many mans duty to defend
his Country; and I wish my offspring
to do so, at a proper time, and in a
proper way.
But the point is, Houston was a product of the Upper South and very likely influenced by the attitudes of the same. Which, once again, absolutely turned down secession until the incident at Ft. Sumter made the situation either/or.
I want to say that I am not intending any personal offence here. I always enjoy a good exchange with a worthy opponent. It is obvious which side of the historical question you go with, and no problem with it.
No offence taken (or at least not much) But Houston did spend the last couple of years of his life rejected by the state he created. After his removal from office he was not accepted back into Texas society and that alone would indicate that they did not see him as pro CSA at anytime before his death.
P.S. I'm puzzled by your vote of undecided in the poll attached to this thread
I'm afraid we may be at a stalemate here. Can you post a second source of sentiments similar to the ones in the speech you referenced?
LOL I agree indeed we are (at stalemate, that is!).
I will look for one, but I am not sure exactly what you are really asking for. That is, the speech was published originally by the Houston Telegraph, then re-printed by the New York Times. That would appear to be two sources. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to see if anything remains of the Houston Telegraph to explore it all.
But main thing is, as noted earlier, the whole content has the metaphorical "signature" of Sam Houston in terms of wording, tone, pace, etc. Can you provide a source which says this was all bogus?
Keep in mind as well, that even your own source provides that Houston "at least verbally" supported the Southern side. That in itself would seem to give credence to that the words quoted in the HT and NYT were in tandem with his true sentiments.
Quote:
Again I point to his refusal to sign the oath of loyalty to the CSA. So when it came down to it , he did not stand with Dixie.
That, I concede on a certain level, is definitely a good jab on your part. I have thought about it before. The way I figure it -- by taking all his later stances into play -- was that at the time the question was considered, he simply didn't consider the Southern Confederacy (which was not actually even in full formation at the time) a viable or legitimate nation...based on his fundamental belief that secession was "rash action." Thus, would not take the oath.
However, once it was a "done-deal"? That is, when the South was invaded? Then he supported the Confederacy. As he said, it was now his country. He didn't have to pledge at that time, because he had retired from public life. But his later words, I believe, speak as to where he stood.
Quote:
I was quoting from the Texas Historical Societies website which I did paste the link too. I found this letter written to Sam jr. obviously before he went to war. I would characterize the tone of the letter as solemn and permissive but not encouraging either.
Do you my son, not
let any thing disturb you, attend
to business, and when it is proper,
you Shall go to war if you wish
to do so. It is many mans duty to defend
his Country; and I wish my offspring
to do so, at a proper time, and in a
proper way.
Thanks for providing this. And yes, I would agree that while not encouraging, it gives tacit approval for the course his son was going to take. It is also noteworthy that Houston used the phrase "his country"...which I would think obviously indicates his acceptance of that Texas was a charter member of the CSA and therefore, now the country to which he belonged and accepted. Which, in turn, would give authenticity to the original "Houston Position" speech.
Quote:
No offence taken (or at least not much) But Houston did spend the last couple of years of his life rejected by the state he created. After his removal from office he was not accepted back into Texas society and that alone would indicate that they did not see him as pro CSA at anytime before his death.
Again, I am sorry if I gave any sort of offense. I admit I can be a little feisty and hot-headed at times, but I don't take disagreement personal, and I don't like to come across that way. I will stick by what I say, but unless the other party makes it personal, I try not to. I will apologize for the way I sometimes say things, if I really think I am wrong. And yes, I have done so in the past. OK?
Now then? As to what you say about accepted back into public life? What do you mean by that? Houston retired from public life, but that isn't the same as being rejected from "polite society." He was a frequent and accepted visitor to Confederate "camps" and I really don't recall ever reading anything that said he was considered a "leper" by former peers in the sense of being shunned. They might not have liked his earlier stance, but not necessarily outcast him.
Quote:
P.S. I'm puzzled by your vote of undecided in the poll attached to this thread
LOL. To explain? I was originally going to go with "yes". In fact, upon further consideration I would even change my vote to just that. But my reason for undecided at the time was that I was thinking of other figures in Texas history that would rival. But to regress again? I would vote Yes if I had to do it all over again. For better or worse, for right or wrong or whatever, Sam Houston was -- IMHO -- the most important figure in Texas history!
Last edited by TexasReb; 07-28-2013 at 08:37 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
come again?
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to see if anything remains of the Houston Telegraph to explore it all. 
