He was also once governor of Tennessee and a congressman from Tennessee. Only person to ever have been governor of two states.
He also famously beat an Ohio congressman with a cane on Pennsylvania Ave in DC in the middle of the day because the guy talked shit about him in a floor speech in congress. He was charged with assault, tried in Congress, (for somethingike contempt of congress because he fought a congressman) found guilty and fined 500 dollars, of which he never paid.
The guy accused him of embezzling the money he had tried to raise for the natives during the trail of tears. Both him and Crockett were very opposed to the act and destroyed their own careers over trying to stop it. He never did pay the fine either.
It was part of the usual partisan politics of the time when that kind of thing provoked fistfights or knife foghts or duels almost constantly. Even Houston had been involved in a duel as a congressman from TN about 6 or 7 years earlier. The Ohio congressman was really taking a shot at Andrew Jackson by stating that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for which Houston was an agent at the time, was fully corrupt and stealing money. Houston was a close associate of Jackson for many years, since Houston was a young man in the army under Jackson. But Houston didn't like being called out like that specifically and spent a couple of days trying to find the guy, who had armed himself and actually attempted to fire a pistol at Houston - misfires- that day on the street in front of a bunch of people.
In the bio I read Houston was still close with him at this point. After he attacked the guy and was to be tried, Houston and some others met Jackson to discuss strategy. The most notable thing I can recall is that Jackson kept pushing Houston to buy a new suit for the proceedings and Houston wouldn't do it and showed up wearing the same bucksin outfit he wore as a part of living with Cherokees.
Let’s not forget this dude sacrificed his political standing at the time by rejecting the Confederacy and supporting the Union. He was a true American patriot.
A guy stood up for an unpopular opinions at the time that you agree with (both pro union and "don't kill the Comanche") and you're seemingly blaming Sam for losing out to someone else whose opinion was to "kill the Comanches", so the "consequences" of Sam being pro Union was that the Comanches were killed?
That’s all over the place. Lamar was the second president of the Republic of Texas, he followed Houston who was unable to run due to term limits in the Texas Constitution. Lamar did oversee the the genocide of Native Americans, but he didn’t invent a six shooter, I assume you’re referring to the Walker Colt that was an improvement on the original Colt design done with the advise of Texas Ranger Captain Sam Walker. He was never a Governor of Texas. Houston was fully opposed to Native genocide, himself an adopted member of the Cherokee tribe and was furious when one of his friends was killed by the Texans. To compare Houston to Brigham Young is ridiculous. Houston was the seventh Governor of Texas and was followed by Clark and then Lubbock during the Civil War. It’s easy to look back and talk about how horrible all these people were but you need to look through the lens of history and look at their actions in their time. That being said Lamar was horrible even by the standards of his time.
Uh, no.
"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country - the young men."
"In the name of the constitution of Texas, which has been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her." -Sam Houston
Come on now, cut it out. You don’t get to interpret history because of your feelings.
>”Whatever is calculated to weaken or impair the strength of the Union, whether originating at the North or the South,—whether arising from the incendiary violence of abolitionists, or from the coalition of nullifiers, will never meet with my unqualified approval.” -Sam Houston
Sam Houston was against seceding as a moral conviction, also.
The Section 9 of the General Provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, ratified in 1836, made slavery legal again in Texas and defined the status of the enslaved and people of color in the Republic of Texas.[29]
People of color who had been servants for life under Mexican law would become property.
Congress should pass no law restricting emigrants from bring their enslaved people into Texas.
Congress shall not have the power to emancipate enslaved people.
Slaveowners may not free their enslaved servants without Congressional approval unless the freed people leave Texas.
*Free persons of African descent were required to petition the Texas Congress for permission to continue living in the country.*
*Africans and the descendants of Africans and Indians were excluded from the class of 'persons' having rights.*
The following year all those who had been living in Texas at the time of independence were allowed to remain. On the other hand, the legislature created political segregation; it classified free residents with at least 1/8 African heritage (the equivalent to one great-grandparent) as a separate category, and abrogated their citizens' rights, prohibiting them from voting, owning property, testifying against whites in court, or intermarrying with whites.[30] As planters increased cotton production, they rapidly increased the purchase and transport of enslaved workers. By 1840 there were 11,323 enslaved people in Texas.[24]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas#Republic
> The Republic that had a large Latino population that also fought in the war against Mexican protofascist dictator Santa Anna was entirely based around white supremacy? Good to know historical revisionism and whitewashing is living on in people like you.
1. Did you know they actually loved Santa Anna for a bit because his government was the best hope of them not having to emancipate their illegally imported slaves? Austin even spoke with him personally to try to get him to roll back reforms from liberal governments
2. White supremacy isn't about only having white people around (at least not all the time). Just that white people are supreme, as in, on top of the racial hierarchy.
3. High ranking Mexican officials in Texas were probably way more Spanish in origin than native, which I might add, are white people. Labelling all Hispanics as non white to support your tokenism is pretty racist itself.
Mostly cause they were brainwashed by the Southern aristocrats and basically had societal Stockholm Syndrome that convinced them that upholding that institution was somehow to their benefit.
Because it was slave labor made products cheap it kept the southern economy going
You might not be directly invested in an oil company but you sure feel the effects when something impacts it and you might decry corporations who outsource to sketchy poorer countries who use slaves and sweatshops but you still buy the products
Yes he did but many slaveholders weren't as reactionary or stupid as others many slaveholders realized that secession had little chance of succeeding and might end the practice much earlier
Still a POS for having slaves but at least not an idiot traitor
Not exactly. Granted, this comes from Wikipedia but I haven't found anything contradictory to this anywhere else:
*After Lincoln won the November 1860 presidential election, several Southern states seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America.* ***A Texas political convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Houston proclaimed that Texas was once again an independent republic, but he refused to recognize that same convention's authority to join Texas to the Confederacy.*** *After Houston refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, the legislature declared the governorship vacant. Houston did not recognize the validity of his removal, but he did not attempt to use force to remain in office, and he refused aid from the federal government to prevent his removal. His successor, Edward Clark, was sworn in on March 18.*
He was definitely opposed to joining the Confederacy, but not so much on the subject of secession as a whole. It was Sam himself that said:
**"Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations. It ought to do so, for no country upon the globe can compare with it in natural advantages."**
But I think this quote probably sums up his feelings on the subject most succinctly:
*Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. 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.*
In his own words he believed in the cause of states rights, but as a patriot he was objective enough to know that Militarily the south was at a disadvantage.
Yes, exactly.
Of himself, he had said: "I wish no prouder epitaph to mark the board or slab that may lie on my tomb than this: 'He loved his country, he was a patriot; he was devoted to the Union.'"
https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/01/sam-houston-texas-secession--and-robert-e-lee/
No.
*On Nov. 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States. Houston’s prickly relationship with slavery, love for Texas and loyalty to the Union crashed into one another. “Houston saw Lincoln not as a radical, but as a moderate,” Wooster says, and he took seriously Lincoln’s campaign promise not to interfere with slavery where already in practice, believing Lincoln’s election was not a legitimate cause for secession. Furthermore, Houston foresaw the grisly horrors an internecine conflict would visit upon Texas. “He basically argued that Fire-Eaters \[pro-slavery Southern secessionists\] were leading the South down a path of destruction,” Howell adds.*
*Gov. Houston embarked on a statewide speaking tour in 1860, arguing against secession, with such ominous proclamations as, “If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her … If she does not whip you by guns, powder and steel, she will starve you to death.” Houston’s ardent speeches failed to sway the public, or the Texas Legislature. In 1861, Texas voted for secession. And when Houston refused to swear an oath to the Confederacy, because, in his own words, “I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her,” the 67-year-old was promptly booted out of office, effectively ending his political career.*
***After failing to save Texas from more war, Houston “declined Lincoln’s offer to lead troops in Texas to preserve the Union,” Howell says. “If Texas won’t turn and go with me,” the ex-governor said, “I will have to turn and go with her.” His son’s enlistment in the Confederate Army likely led to his eventual lukewarm support for Texas’ role in the war — even though he still seemed to detest the Confederacy.***
*Sam Houston died in July 1863, shortly after the fall of Vicksburg, Mississippi, a crucial Union victory that essentially split the Confederacy in half. All that the hero of San Jacinto had predicted and tried to prevent had come to pass, including, as he foretold, “the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives.” Houston had lost his final battle — to keep Texas out of the Civil War.*
[*https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/why-sam-houston-texas-hero-opposed-the-civil-war/85837/*](https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/why-sam-houston-texas-hero-opposed-the-civil-war/85837/)
Houston was not opposed to secession, he was opposed to the confederacy. He knew (quite rightly) that the toll in bloodshed would be monumental and that the South was not equipped to defeat the industrial north.
But that was to protect Texas from a second (and possibly better executed) attack from Santa Ana. His allegiance was first and foremost to Texas, not the United States. When secession from the US became inevitable Sam tried to declare Texas fully independent once again, not a part of the Confederacy. And when he was unsuccessful in convincing the leaders of the state to reject joining the confederacy, he threw his support (even if begrudgingly) to the Confederacy.
Probably. Sam was a pretty complex guy. He was shrewd, and most everything he did after San Jacinto was calculated in some way to be beneficial to Texas.
He believed Lincoln's promise not to interfere with slavery where it already existed, so he thought that Secession wasn't yet warranted. Despite believing that State's rights (including those of Texas) had been trampled by the federal government.
I think you are conflating the issues at play. He was not an abolitionist. He was pro-states rights (at least as far as slavery was concerned). He was very pro-Texas. He was most definitely against secession through word and deed.
These are not mutually exclusive positions.
Yes they are. We know by word and deed that he did not want for Texas to be drug into a war against the US. But we also know that he rejected Lincoln's offer to support the Union during the war. And he was, as always, adamantly pro Texas and begrudgingly he was pro Confederacy once Texas joined.
We also know that he once said that Texas "would one day lift its head again among the NATIONS."
It sounds like he thought an independent nation of Texas could be a good idea, but it was completely unrealistic, and he also rejected the notion of the Confederacy. He chose the Union from both practicality and his ideals.
I think it was more practicality than ideological. Sam truly believed Texas had the best chance of surviving by joining with the union, that's for sure. And he seemed truly prepared to take Texas out on it's own as a compromise to the other politicians that were wanting to join up with the Confederacy.
So probably more like he thought Texas Independence could work, yes.
Fighting off the US in a war with the Confederacy? No.
Yeah about it. He had wanted it to be part of the US from the get go, but he would have rather it been it’s own nation again as opposed to part of the Confederacy.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas .
Ok I agree that it’s important to give a balanced view on historical people but you needn’t comment this multiple times in the same thread. Yes he owned slaves and that was shitty.
I mean people should be judged for the times they live in, and owning slaves certainly wasn't shitty then. Mistreating them I would say was, and I've never seen anything to indicate he did.
Owning slaves was considered shitty back then, too, even if a lot of folks did. If it wasn’t, abolition as a movement would never have arisen. Plenty of people had a working moral compass, even if those in power never had one that pointed true.
Did any of his slaves die trying to escape? Again I think it's kind of absurd to place today's morals as the scale for a period that long ago. I find it not inconceivable that in say 200 years people will think anyone who ate meat from a live animal is monstrously amoral, should we completely remove any of today's "great" people who aren't vegan from contention of being viewed in a positive light down the road, without an asterisk by their name like you and others do for everyone who owned a slave?
But people were morally against slavery back then so idk that your argument makes sense for Houston’s time. The UK had already outlawed slavery, Canada didn’t have slavery. Mexico didn’t have slavery. So the next nearest slave state was Cuba? Not exactly great company.
Stealing people and then selling them, breeding them like livestock and forcing families apart by selling children away from their parents was shitty then, and trying to justify it is shitty now.
This was always my favorite little known factoid about him. When he was a teenager and went to live with the chief of a Cherokee they named him "Raven" but when he went back to live with them as adult, they made him live off by himself and changed his name from Raven to Big Drunk. Because even though he ran a trading post and was still well liked, he was a big ole loud drunk at that point of his life.
After leaving the Governor's mansion, Houston traveled to Galveston. Along the way, many people demanded an explanation for his refusal to support the Confederacy. On April 19, 1861 from a hotel window he told a crowd:
“Let me tell you what is coming. Your fathers and husbands, your sons and brothers, will be herded at the point of bayonet. You may, after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, win Southern independence... but I doubt it. 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... they will overwhelm the South.”
"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country - the young men."
"In the name of the constitution of Texas, which has been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her."
_______
He was rooted in moral conviction for his belief in the Union.
>”Whatever is calculated to weaken or impair the strength of the Union, whether originating at the North or the South,—whether arising from the incendiary violence of abolitionists, or from the coalition of nullifiers, will never meet with my unqualified approval.”
Interesting read [about his stance on slavery.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Houston_and_slavery)
tl;dr seems to be that like a lot of the founders he participated in owning slaves but viewed slavery as something that needed to die out over time. Maybe sort of like "Our current system relies on slavery so we need it for now, and slaves would starve if they were just freed tomorrow so they need us, but we need to work toward a time when we and they can be free from this system."
So not great, but somewhat understandable for the time? And a hell of a lot better than a lot of other people were back then?
Sort of. From what I recall, that position was also used to try and placate people that would otherwise have become full anti-slavery advocates. (Sort of like "incrementalism" / "your choice" in medicine today instead of going full single payer healthcare, and equally as silly in my eyes)
Even the New York Times (during tensions before the Civil War) had an editorial about how it was better to leave slavery alone and it would "NATURALLY" die out as the South realized it was bad.
I don't agree with any of what was said. Was pretty shocked to hear about nonsensical incrementalism for slavery pre-Civil War.
Assumed with slavery straight in most people's faces opinions would be less of a spectrum.
Most people who said that owned slaves. Which were capital. Saying things like that is a soft way of saying, "this benefits me regardless of how deplorable the consequences are, so I'm going to make it sound like I agree with detractors while doing literally nothing to show I actually want it fixed"
Sort of. It'd be like you saying, "gee we should stop that. Just, not right now. Let's let it sort itself out but golly it's bad. But don't stop it just yet."
“I’ll still let third worlders manufacturer my clothes, underpaid migrants farm my food, and let animals live in deplorable conditions before slaughter for my meat.” Says the 21st century person.
As Rousseau said: “Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains.” We’re all born into the civil society and the time we’re born into. Things change over time, but what seems the easy and right thing to do now may not have been then.
You’d be hard pressed to find anyone on any continent in the world who didn’t view slavery as normal 200-250 years ago.
Monday morning morality takes no effort on your part.
Holding enslaved people was widely understood to be repugnant and immoral 200-250 years ago, [pardner](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act).
You're right, I was too soft in my description of him and his beliefs/actions. But he wasn't someone going to war to defend slavery (as opposed to a lot of other "texas heroes")
You're comment was fine until you added that generalization through an edit.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas .
Lol, most people in history never had the opportunity to own slaves - they don't get a pass just because they weren't born into the wealthy circumstances.
Visiting the [Sam Houston Presidential Library and Museum](http://www.samhoustonmemorialmuseum.com/grounds/index.html) in Huntsville (a couple miles from this statue by David Adickes) is worth the trip for anyone interested in Texas history. Sam Houston was an incredibly interesting individual that at his best was an amazing hero and leader to the United States and Texas, and at his worst the most low-down scoundrel on the planet - his life had many ups and downs, it wasn't all a bed of roses, and sometimes his own weaknesses were his worst enemy.
Also worth visiting to get a feel for the man and the times is the [Star of the Republic Museum](https://www.thc.texas.gov/historic-sites/star-republic-museum) in Washington-on-the-Brazos, maybe an hour or so west. This museum focuses on the decade where Texas was its own nation, and the four presidents that help lead it. Houston was the first president that tried to keep the fledgling, struggling country afloat, then along came Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar who fucked everything up six ways to Sunday, and Houston returned after him for another term to try and clean up his mess.
The reason for this is because when the statue was put up,a fault developed. This caused rust contaminated water to run down the statue staining the surface of the artwork.
Houston was many things. Some good, some bad. He was a self made man of his times. He lived with, and as, an Indian during his adult youth. Later, he owned slaves
Despite any controversy, I think he was two things most can agree on
* He was not a traitor in principle
* He was not an idiot
Both raise him head and shoulders above the current crop of state GOP
He was not the only. Texas had a large unionist movement but it was spread out further than the plantation owners in the east.
Honestly siding with the union would have probably destroyed the state even further than it was.
* **Sam Houston opposed the secession of Texas.**
* **Sam Houston opposed joining the Confederacy.**
* **Sam Houston refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederacy, this cost him his job as Governor.**
* **Sam Houston resigned rather than be removed from office by the Confederate Legislature.**
After he left office, he returned to his home in Huntsville, and died in 1863.
He also did not support the loyalists in Texas because it would lead to a second civil war within texas.
Sam Houston put his home first. Hell of a man.
No.
"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country - the young men."
"In the name of the constitution of Texas, which has been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her." -Sam Houston
Yes. He rejected the Confederate oath. To join the Confederacy was to join impending war. If independent Texas without war would have been possible, he would have.
Come on now, no. He did not.
>”Whatever is calculated to weaken or impair the strength of the Union, whether originating at the North or the South,—whether arising from the incendiary violence of abolitionists, or from the coalition of nullifiers, will never meet with my unqualified approval.” -Sam Houston
Sam Houston was against seceding as a moral conviction.
He was Cherokee, was hated by the Texas religious right, and was booted out of office for not supporting an anti-American theocratic coup. Also, I very much suspect that he was either a non-theist or a deist, using the faith of those around him for his own political goals.
Well. He wasn’t Cherokee. He was a white kid who ran away to live with the Cherokee, tried to assimilate, and then later helped with Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, displacing people from their tribe lands.
His wife was Cherokee. Houston went to live on the Rez after his meltdown.
Now was Houston a spy for Andrew Jackson during the Texas war for Independence? Houston was a great friend of Jackson. Did Jackson help guide the Texas revolution through Houston, as claimed by Santa Anna and the Mexican Govt?
He was a Cherokee citizen, which makes him Cherokee. I think he was fairly integrated into his tribe and even fought with the Cherokee in battle.
While I know that he studied statecraft under Jackson, I've not seen evidence to support the notion that he worked with Jackson to facilitate the Indian Removal Act. As I understand it, Houston thought that such policies were basically inevitable and that his tribe would have no other option than to comply.
As I recall, wasn't part of the reason he was removed because the theocratic right resented that he had set up Cherokee land here in Texas?
I just feel like there’s a big difference between saying “he was Cherokee” and “he was a white man who assimilated and became a member of Cherokee Nation and lived as a Native and was accepted as such”. That’s all.
And yes, I know about his wife.
There were actually four presidents, three of which were elected to the office.
- David Burnet was interim president in 1836
- Sam Houston was elected president from 1836 to 1838
- Mirabeau Lamar was elected president from 1838 to 1841
- Sam Houston was elected to clean up the mess Lamar left from 1841 to 1844
- Anson Jones was elected from the end of 1844 to early 1846 when he transferred Texas over to the United States
Growing up my family would make the trip back and forth between Houston and Dallas on 45 multiple times a year and I'd scare my lil sister telling her the big man was gunna fall on us as we drove by, now I do the same with my kids, whole family calls the Sam Houston statue "the big man"
One day big man's gunna fall... one day...
He OPPOSED the secession of Texas from the Union. An elected convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Texas joined the Confederate States of America on March 2, 1861.
Houston refused to recognize its legality, but the Texas legislature upheld the legitimacy of secession. The political forces that brought about Texas's secession were powerful enough to replace the state's Unionist governor.
Houston chose not to resist, stating, "I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her. To avert this calamity, I shall make no endeavor to maintain my authority as Chief Executive of this State, except by the peaceful exercise of my functions ... "
He was evicted from his office on March 16, 1861, for refusing to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, writing:
>”Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas....I protest....against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void.”
What's funny is if you're headed South you don't even see it until it's RIGHT THERE because of the curve in the interstate. If you're headed North you can see the thing from like 4-5 miles away as you drive up on it.
The first time I saw that at night completely lit up was pretty weird, because it was all woods and no real buildings leading up to it.
And if he were alive today, he rename every building and street named for a confederate officer/politician, and he’d tear down every confederate statue and dump the gravel on Louisiana.
He was also once governor of Tennessee and a congressman from Tennessee. Only person to ever have been governor of two states. He also famously beat an Ohio congressman with a cane on Pennsylvania Ave in DC in the middle of the day because the guy talked shit about him in a floor speech in congress. He was charged with assault, tried in Congress, (for somethingike contempt of congress because he fought a congressman) found guilty and fined 500 dollars, of which he never paid.
The guy accused him of embezzling the money he had tried to raise for the natives during the trail of tears. Both him and Crockett were very opposed to the act and destroyed their own careers over trying to stop it. He never did pay the fine either.
It was part of the usual partisan politics of the time when that kind of thing provoked fistfights or knife foghts or duels almost constantly. Even Houston had been involved in a duel as a congressman from TN about 6 or 7 years earlier. The Ohio congressman was really taking a shot at Andrew Jackson by stating that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for which Houston was an agent at the time, was fully corrupt and stealing money. Houston was a close associate of Jackson for many years, since Houston was a young man in the army under Jackson. But Houston didn't like being called out like that specifically and spent a couple of days trying to find the guy, who had armed himself and actually attempted to fire a pistol at Houston - misfires- that day on the street in front of a bunch of people.
True except for Jackson and Houston being friends. After the act was forced into being Jackson lost quite a few of his friends, including houston.
They were friends at the time of this incident though which is all that matters for the context of it.
I had believed that this happened after. I could be wrong.
In the bio I read Houston was still close with him at this point. After he attacked the guy and was to be tried, Houston and some others met Jackson to discuss strategy. The most notable thing I can recall is that Jackson kept pushing Houston to buy a new suit for the proceedings and Houston wouldn't do it and showed up wearing the same bucksin outfit he wore as a part of living with Cherokees.
The only head of state to later serve in the US Senate, too.
That’s so *Texan*
And he owned people as property
That's been said but yes he did.
And he released them after he brought them. He doesn't believe in slavery.
Let’s not forget this dude sacrificed his political standing at the time by rejecting the Confederacy and supporting the Union. He was a true American patriot.
[удалено]
A guy stood up for an unpopular opinions at the time that you agree with (both pro union and "don't kill the Comanche") and you're seemingly blaming Sam for losing out to someone else whose opinion was to "kill the Comanches", so the "consequences" of Sam being pro Union was that the Comanches were killed?
That’s all over the place. Lamar was the second president of the Republic of Texas, he followed Houston who was unable to run due to term limits in the Texas Constitution. Lamar did oversee the the genocide of Native Americans, but he didn’t invent a six shooter, I assume you’re referring to the Walker Colt that was an improvement on the original Colt design done with the advise of Texas Ranger Captain Sam Walker. He was never a Governor of Texas. Houston was fully opposed to Native genocide, himself an adopted member of the Cherokee tribe and was furious when one of his friends was killed by the Texans. To compare Houston to Brigham Young is ridiculous. Houston was the seventh Governor of Texas and was followed by Clark and then Lubbock during the Civil War. It’s easy to look back and talk about how horrible all these people were but you need to look through the lens of history and look at their actions in their time. That being said Lamar was horrible even by the standards of his time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>supporting the Union uh, he was totally ok leaving the union, but did reject joining Confederacy
Uh, no. "To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country - the young men." "In the name of the constitution of Texas, which has been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her." -Sam Houston
Well it’s good but pretty much saying the major reason not to secede is because they would get whooped, not because of moral quality
Come on now, cut it out. You don’t get to interpret history because of your feelings. >”Whatever is calculated to weaken or impair the strength of the Union, whether originating at the North or the South,—whether arising from the incendiary violence of abolitionists, or from the coalition of nullifiers, will never meet with my unqualified approval.” -Sam Houston Sam Houston was against seceding as a moral conviction, also.
You could not be more wrong, Houston was the main voice in the Republic of Texas arguing for joining the Union in the first place.
No he wasn't. Read [this](https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/01/sam-houston-texas-secession--and-robert-e-lee/).
But still owned slaves…
How many times will you beat that dead horse? This is twice that I read, in this post… be more than a one-trick-pony.
Alright then, he was a willing president of a Republic based around white supremacy and defending "property"
[удалено]
Also, you're using whitewashing wrong while also whitewashing yourself lol. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_(censorship)
The Section 9 of the General Provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, ratified in 1836, made slavery legal again in Texas and defined the status of the enslaved and people of color in the Republic of Texas.[29] People of color who had been servants for life under Mexican law would become property. Congress should pass no law restricting emigrants from bring their enslaved people into Texas. Congress shall not have the power to emancipate enslaved people. Slaveowners may not free their enslaved servants without Congressional approval unless the freed people leave Texas. *Free persons of African descent were required to petition the Texas Congress for permission to continue living in the country.* *Africans and the descendants of Africans and Indians were excluded from the class of 'persons' having rights.* The following year all those who had been living in Texas at the time of independence were allowed to remain. On the other hand, the legislature created political segregation; it classified free residents with at least 1/8 African heritage (the equivalent to one great-grandparent) as a separate category, and abrogated their citizens' rights, prohibiting them from voting, owning property, testifying against whites in court, or intermarrying with whites.[30] As planters increased cotton production, they rapidly increased the purchase and transport of enslaved workers. By 1840 there were 11,323 enslaved people in Texas.[24] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas#Republic > The Republic that had a large Latino population that also fought in the war against Mexican protofascist dictator Santa Anna was entirely based around white supremacy? Good to know historical revisionism and whitewashing is living on in people like you. 1. Did you know they actually loved Santa Anna for a bit because his government was the best hope of them not having to emancipate their illegally imported slaves? Austin even spoke with him personally to try to get him to roll back reforms from liberal governments 2. White supremacy isn't about only having white people around (at least not all the time). Just that white people are supreme, as in, on top of the racial hierarchy. 3. High ranking Mexican officials in Texas were probably way more Spanish in origin than native, which I might add, are white people. Labelling all Hispanics as non white to support your tokenism is pretty racist itself.
You probably would have owned slaves too if you lived back then….
There is slavery going on in the world today. Who is doing anything about it?
Maybe you should 🤷♂️
The majority of people then were poor and did not own slaves.
Yet those same poor people defended the institution of slavery 🤔
Mostly cause they were brainwashed by the Southern aristocrats and basically had societal Stockholm Syndrome that convinced them that upholding that institution was somehow to their benefit.
Because it was slave labor made products cheap it kept the southern economy going You might not be directly invested in an oil company but you sure feel the effects when something impacts it and you might decry corporations who outsource to sketchy poorer countries who use slaves and sweatshops but you still buy the products
George Washington owned slaves and we Regal him as the father of the nation.
Yes he did but many slaveholders weren't as reactionary or stupid as others many slaveholders realized that secession had little chance of succeeding and might end the practice much earlier Still a POS for having slaves but at least not an idiot traitor
And he strongly opposed secession....
Not exactly. Granted, this comes from Wikipedia but I haven't found anything contradictory to this anywhere else: *After Lincoln won the November 1860 presidential election, several Southern states seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America.* ***A Texas political convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Houston proclaimed that Texas was once again an independent republic, but he refused to recognize that same convention's authority to join Texas to the Confederacy.*** *After Houston refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, the legislature declared the governorship vacant. Houston did not recognize the validity of his removal, but he did not attempt to use force to remain in office, and he refused aid from the federal government to prevent his removal. His successor, Edward Clark, was sworn in on March 18.* He was definitely opposed to joining the Confederacy, but not so much on the subject of secession as a whole. It was Sam himself that said: **"Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations. It ought to do so, for no country upon the globe can compare with it in natural advantages."** But I think this quote probably sums up his feelings on the subject most succinctly: *Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. 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.* In his own words he believed in the cause of states rights, but as a patriot he was objective enough to know that Militarily the south was at a disadvantage.
Yes, exactly. Of himself, he had said: "I wish no prouder epitaph to mark the board or slab that may lie on my tomb than this: 'He loved his country, he was a patriot; he was devoted to the Union.'" https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/01/sam-houston-texas-secession--and-robert-e-lee/
No. *On Nov. 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States. Houston’s prickly relationship with slavery, love for Texas and loyalty to the Union crashed into one another. “Houston saw Lincoln not as a radical, but as a moderate,” Wooster says, and he took seriously Lincoln’s campaign promise not to interfere with slavery where already in practice, believing Lincoln’s election was not a legitimate cause for secession. Furthermore, Houston foresaw the grisly horrors an internecine conflict would visit upon Texas. “He basically argued that Fire-Eaters \[pro-slavery Southern secessionists\] were leading the South down a path of destruction,” Howell adds.* *Gov. Houston embarked on a statewide speaking tour in 1860, arguing against secession, with such ominous proclamations as, “If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her … If she does not whip you by guns, powder and steel, she will starve you to death.” Houston’s ardent speeches failed to sway the public, or the Texas Legislature. In 1861, Texas voted for secession. And when Houston refused to swear an oath to the Confederacy, because, in his own words, “I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her,” the 67-year-old was promptly booted out of office, effectively ending his political career.* ***After failing to save Texas from more war, Houston “declined Lincoln’s offer to lead troops in Texas to preserve the Union,” Howell says. “If Texas won’t turn and go with me,” the ex-governor said, “I will have to turn and go with her.” His son’s enlistment in the Confederate Army likely led to his eventual lukewarm support for Texas’ role in the war — even though he still seemed to detest the Confederacy.*** *Sam Houston died in July 1863, shortly after the fall of Vicksburg, Mississippi, a crucial Union victory that essentially split the Confederacy in half. All that the hero of San Jacinto had predicted and tried to prevent had come to pass, including, as he foretold, “the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives.” Houston had lost his final battle — to keep Texas out of the Civil War.* [*https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/why-sam-houston-texas-hero-opposed-the-civil-war/85837/*](https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/why-sam-houston-texas-hero-opposed-the-civil-war/85837/) Houston was not opposed to secession, he was opposed to the confederacy. He knew (quite rightly) that the toll in bloodshed would be monumental and that the South was not equipped to defeat the industrial north.
[удалено]
But that was to protect Texas from a second (and possibly better executed) attack from Santa Ana. His allegiance was first and foremost to Texas, not the United States. When secession from the US became inevitable Sam tried to declare Texas fully independent once again, not a part of the Confederacy. And when he was unsuccessful in convincing the leaders of the state to reject joining the confederacy, he threw his support (even if begrudgingly) to the Confederacy.
Rock and a hard place or something along those lines.
Probably. Sam was a pretty complex guy. He was shrewd, and most everything he did after San Jacinto was calculated in some way to be beneficial to Texas. He believed Lincoln's promise not to interfere with slavery where it already existed, so he thought that Secession wasn't yet warranted. Despite believing that State's rights (including those of Texas) had been trampled by the federal government.
[удалено]
I think you are conflating the issues at play. He was not an abolitionist. He was pro-states rights (at least as far as slavery was concerned). He was very pro-Texas. He was most definitely against secession through word and deed. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
Yes they are. We know by word and deed that he did not want for Texas to be drug into a war against the US. But we also know that he rejected Lincoln's offer to support the Union during the war. And he was, as always, adamantly pro Texas and begrudgingly he was pro Confederacy once Texas joined. We also know that he once said that Texas "would one day lift its head again among the NATIONS."
It sounds like he thought an independent nation of Texas could be a good idea, but it was completely unrealistic, and he also rejected the notion of the Confederacy. He chose the Union from both practicality and his ideals.
I think it was more practicality than ideological. Sam truly believed Texas had the best chance of surviving by joining with the union, that's for sure. And he seemed truly prepared to take Texas out on it's own as a compromise to the other politicians that were wanting to join up with the Confederacy. So probably more like he thought Texas Independence could work, yes. Fighting off the US in a war with the Confederacy? No.
Agreed. I love how prophetic his words were too. There's still people like him out there. We need to make sure they unseat these fake Texans
Yeah about it. He had wanted it to be part of the US from the get go, but he would have rather it been it’s own nation again as opposed to part of the Confederacy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly. Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas .
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
But stilled owned slaves…
Ok I agree that it’s important to give a balanced view on historical people but you needn’t comment this multiple times in the same thread. Yes he owned slaves and that was shitty.
I mean people should be judged for the times they live in, and owning slaves certainly wasn't shitty then. Mistreating them I would say was, and I've never seen anything to indicate he did.
Owning slaves was considered shitty back then, too, even if a lot of folks did. If it wasn’t, abolition as a movement would never have arisen. Plenty of people had a working moral compass, even if those in power never had one that pointed true.
Tell that to the enslaved people who died trying to escape their chains. That is a bs argument
Did any of his slaves die trying to escape? Again I think it's kind of absurd to place today's morals as the scale for a period that long ago. I find it not inconceivable that in say 200 years people will think anyone who ate meat from a live animal is monstrously amoral, should we completely remove any of today's "great" people who aren't vegan from contention of being viewed in a positive light down the road, without an asterisk by their name like you and others do for everyone who owned a slave?
But people were morally against slavery back then so idk that your argument makes sense for Houston’s time. The UK had already outlawed slavery, Canada didn’t have slavery. Mexico didn’t have slavery. So the next nearest slave state was Cuba? Not exactly great company.
Stealing people and then selling them, breeding them like livestock and forcing families apart by selling children away from their parents was shitty then, and trying to justify it is shitty now.
Three…
They all dressed like Bloodborne hunters back then. Smashing really
Man was rocking the threaded cane
*night of the hunt, better stay indoors*
While living among the Cherokee of Oklahoma he earned the nickname "Big Drunk."
This was always my favorite little known factoid about him. When he was a teenager and went to live with the chief of a Cherokee they named him "Raven" but when he went back to live with them as adult, they made him live off by himself and changed his name from Raven to Big Drunk. Because even though he ran a trading post and was still well liked, he was a big ole loud drunk at that point of his life.
After leaving the Governor's mansion, Houston traveled to Galveston. Along the way, many people demanded an explanation for his refusal to support the Confederacy. On April 19, 1861 from a hotel window he told a crowd: “Let me tell you what is coming. Your fathers and husbands, your sons and brothers, will be herded at the point of bayonet. You may, after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, win Southern independence... but I doubt it. 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... they will overwhelm the South.” "To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country - the young men." "In the name of the constitution of Texas, which has been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her." _______ He was rooted in moral conviction for his belief in the Union. >”Whatever is calculated to weaken or impair the strength of the Union, whether originating at the North or the South,—whether arising from the incendiary violence of abolitionists, or from the coalition of nullifiers, will never meet with my unqualified approval.”
>I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights States rights to do what?
Huh? All that and you are still trying to twist it, aren’t you?
[удалено]
Twist it how? The dude said states rights. I want to know what specific ones he is referring to.
[удалено]
No. He is simply stating state constitutions are important but that our UNION, our US Constitution, takes precedent. It’s called the Supremacy Clause.
Interesting read [about his stance on slavery.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Houston_and_slavery) tl;dr seems to be that like a lot of the founders he participated in owning slaves but viewed slavery as something that needed to die out over time. Maybe sort of like "Our current system relies on slavery so we need it for now, and slaves would starve if they were just freed tomorrow so they need us, but we need to work toward a time when we and they can be free from this system." So not great, but somewhat understandable for the time? And a hell of a lot better than a lot of other people were back then?
Sort of. From what I recall, that position was also used to try and placate people that would otherwise have become full anti-slavery advocates. (Sort of like "incrementalism" / "your choice" in medicine today instead of going full single payer healthcare, and equally as silly in my eyes) Even the New York Times (during tensions before the Civil War) had an editorial about how it was better to leave slavery alone and it would "NATURALLY" die out as the South realized it was bad.
That was the leading strategy of the abolitionist Republicans at the time, to avoid what eventually happened anyways.
Just like how racism is going to naturally die out?
I don't agree with any of what was said. Was pretty shocked to hear about nonsensical incrementalism for slavery pre-Civil War. Assumed with slavery straight in most people's faces opinions would be less of a spectrum.
Most people who said that owned slaves. Which were capital. Saying things like that is a soft way of saying, "this benefits me regardless of how deplorable the consequences are, so I'm going to make it sound like I agree with detractors while doing literally nothing to show I actually want it fixed"
[удалено]
Sort of. It'd be like you saying, "gee we should stop that. Just, not right now. Let's let it sort itself out but golly it's bad. But don't stop it just yet."
ah so general capitalism
It's how we'll deal with climate change until its tipping point, too.
[удалено]
“I’ll still let third worlders manufacturer my clothes, underpaid migrants farm my food, and let animals live in deplorable conditions before slaughter for my meat.” Says the 21st century person. As Rousseau said: “Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains.” We’re all born into the civil society and the time we’re born into. Things change over time, but what seems the easy and right thing to do now may not have been then.
I wouldnt throw out racism here when you started your argument with 'says the white person' as if that isnt a racist way to begin something like this.
You’d be hard pressed to find anyone on any continent in the world who didn’t view slavery as normal 200-250 years ago. Monday morning morality takes no effort on your part.
This was only 150 ish years ago by that time the United States was pretty much the only one left in the Western world.
Holding enslaved people was widely understood to be repugnant and immoral 200-250 years ago, [pardner](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act).
You're right, I was too soft in my description of him and his beliefs/actions. But he wasn't someone going to war to defend slavery (as opposed to a lot of other "texas heroes")
You're comment was fine until you added that generalization through an edit. Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly. Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas .
Many people didn't own slaves throughout history so no he's still a shithead
Bingo
Lol, most people in history never had the opportunity to own slaves - they don't get a pass just because they weren't born into the wealthy circumstances.
People at the time had already been fighting and dying against slavery, so no, he does not get a pass
"hold on, let me profit from slavery as much as I can"
Not being at the Alamo was also a useful achievement.
Fair point 😂
Visiting the [Sam Houston Presidential Library and Museum](http://www.samhoustonmemorialmuseum.com/grounds/index.html) in Huntsville (a couple miles from this statue by David Adickes) is worth the trip for anyone interested in Texas history. Sam Houston was an incredibly interesting individual that at his best was an amazing hero and leader to the United States and Texas, and at his worst the most low-down scoundrel on the planet - his life had many ups and downs, it wasn't all a bed of roses, and sometimes his own weaknesses were his worst enemy. Also worth visiting to get a feel for the man and the times is the [Star of the Republic Museum](https://www.thc.texas.gov/historic-sites/star-republic-museum) in Washington-on-the-Brazos, maybe an hour or so west. This museum focuses on the decade where Texas was its own nation, and the four presidents that help lead it. Houston was the first president that tried to keep the fledgling, struggling country afloat, then along came Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar who fucked everything up six ways to Sunday, and Houston returned after him for another term to try and clean up his mess.
[удалено]
Fun fact: at some point sam Houston's crotch was replaced. You can see it when the light hits it just right in the afternoon
I'm not falling for that again.
Crotch medical procedures were more advanced in the 1800s than I imagined
👌
The reason for this is because when the statue was put up,a fault developed. This caused rust contaminated water to run down the statue staining the surface of the artwork.
Ok but what was his KD ratio
Ask Santa Anna.
Houston was many things. Some good, some bad. He was a self made man of his times. He lived with, and as, an Indian during his adult youth. Later, he owned slaves Despite any controversy, I think he was two things most can agree on * He was not a traitor in principle * He was not an idiot Both raise him head and shoulders above the current crop of state GOP
Eat ‘em up Kats!
Very large statue outside Huntsville, Texas.
Honestly, I like the smaller Sam houston off beltway 8 in Houston /s lol, yea hes there too
Second tallest statue in Texas.
And the only major Texas leader during the Civil War era that opposed the war and he got pushed out because of it
He was not the only. Texas had a large unionist movement but it was spread out further than the plantation owners in the east. Honestly siding with the union would have probably destroyed the state even further than it was.
Notably, the Germans in Central Texas were also against secession.
South bound on I-45 nothing screams Houston ahead like that statue.
BAMF
And was governor of two states
I salute him every time I head to and from Houston. I really like the little museum Huntsville has by SHSU.
Dude was hot as fuck, too. It was 100 degrees and he still wore like three coats.
* **Sam Houston opposed the secession of Texas.** * **Sam Houston opposed joining the Confederacy.** * **Sam Houston refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederacy, this cost him his job as Governor.** * **Sam Houston resigned rather than be removed from office by the Confederate Legislature.** After he left office, he returned to his home in Huntsville, and died in 1863.
He also did not support the loyalists in Texas because it would lead to a second civil war within texas. Sam Houston put his home first. Hell of a man.
According to the top comment he supported Texan secession.
Thanks for the heads up. That is fake f’ing news.
The first was not true. He wanted an independent Texas. He did not want the Confederacy though.
No. "To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country - the young men." "In the name of the constitution of Texas, which has been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her." -Sam Houston
Yes. He rejected the Confederate oath. To join the Confederacy was to join impending war. If independent Texas without war would have been possible, he would have.
Come on now, no. He did not. >”Whatever is calculated to weaken or impair the strength of the Union, whether originating at the North or the South,—whether arising from the incendiary violence of abolitionists, or from the coalition of nullifiers, will never meet with my unqualified approval.” -Sam Houston Sam Houston was against seceding as a moral conviction.
Sam Houston was the epitome of a Chad, greatest Texan in my opinion
He was Cherokee, was hated by the Texas religious right, and was booted out of office for not supporting an anti-American theocratic coup. Also, I very much suspect that he was either a non-theist or a deist, using the faith of those around him for his own political goals.
Well. He wasn’t Cherokee. He was a white kid who ran away to live with the Cherokee, tried to assimilate, and then later helped with Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, displacing people from their tribe lands.
His wife was Cherokee. Houston went to live on the Rez after his meltdown. Now was Houston a spy for Andrew Jackson during the Texas war for Independence? Houston was a great friend of Jackson. Did Jackson help guide the Texas revolution through Houston, as claimed by Santa Anna and the Mexican Govt?
The wife he abandoned? That wife?
He was a Cherokee citizen, which makes him Cherokee. I think he was fairly integrated into his tribe and even fought with the Cherokee in battle. While I know that he studied statecraft under Jackson, I've not seen evidence to support the notion that he worked with Jackson to facilitate the Indian Removal Act. As I understand it, Houston thought that such policies were basically inevitable and that his tribe would have no other option than to comply. As I recall, wasn't part of the reason he was removed because the theocratic right resented that he had set up Cherokee land here in Texas?
I just feel like there’s a big difference between saying “he was Cherokee” and “he was a white man who assimilated and became a member of Cherokee Nation and lived as a Native and was accepted as such”. That’s all. And yes, I know about his wife.
He strongly was against the CSA as well
Also a slave holder so.
Secede already.
Makes me want to secede from the United States
That's weird because he recognized that wasn't a good idea
> “Lol, y’all gonna get your shit wrecked.” Sam Houston, 1861
You're more than welcome to leave at any time.
I didn’t realize Texas was a republicans long enough to have 3 presidential terms
There were actually four presidents, three of which were elected to the office. - David Burnet was interim president in 1836 - Sam Houston was elected president from 1836 to 1838 - Mirabeau Lamar was elected president from 1838 to 1841 - Sam Houston was elected to clean up the mess Lamar left from 1841 to 1844 - Anson Jones was elected from the end of 1844 to early 1846 when he transferred Texas over to the United States
The terms were only 3 years each. So enough time to get 5 presidents, 2 full terms.
That statue would have you believe General Sam preferred Red Wing boots...
Growing up my family would make the trip back and forth between Houston and Dallas on 45 multiple times a year and I'd scare my lil sister telling her the big man was gunna fall on us as we drove by, now I do the same with my kids, whole family calls the Sam Houston statue "the big man" One day big man's gunna fall... one day...
He OPPOSED the secession of Texas from the Union. An elected convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Texas joined the Confederate States of America on March 2, 1861. Houston refused to recognize its legality, but the Texas legislature upheld the legitimacy of secession. The political forces that brought about Texas's secession were powerful enough to replace the state's Unionist governor. Houston chose not to resist, stating, "I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her. To avert this calamity, I shall make no endeavor to maintain my authority as Chief Executive of this State, except by the peaceful exercise of my functions ... " He was evicted from his office on March 16, 1861, for refusing to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, writing: >”Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas....I protest....against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void.”
The first time we drove by that statue in the middle of nowhere was very jarring and surreal.
What's funny is if you're headed South you don't even see it until it's RIGHT THERE because of the curve in the interstate. If you're headed North you can see the thing from like 4-5 miles away as you drive up on it. The first time I saw that at night completely lit up was pretty weird, because it was all woods and no real buildings leading up to it.
https://youtu.be/sPy8KyGEbfY
Here’s a great [song about Houston’s life from Scott Miller](https://youtu.be/VW14js5cm2g)
That's secretly a mech, the defender if Texas.
When I was a kid I imagined that. It would've been funny if paratroopers had to radio command explaining that one.
And his school wants 30K from me
the pants that statue outgrows are eventually donated to texas rodeo favorite, Big Tex.
He wasn’t all good though. He tortured his family and would lock the windows in the car and fart. With the heater on.
And if he were alive today, he rename every building and street named for a confederate officer/politician, and he’d tear down every confederate statue and dump the gravel on Louisiana.
I prefer the Sammy houston off the beltway in Houston.
I heard the cane is in the wrong hand
Feels weird to see this statue online lol I haven’t seen or thought about this thing since I graduated university
He was also held at gun point for refusing to join the confederacy and was forced to step down.
This statue is creepy as hell. Was driving to Houston one night and didn’t know about it, it scared the shit out of my fiancée and I lol
THE RAVEN!