The Crossing

Yesterday marked 190 years since Sam Houston crossed the Red River, entering Texas for the first time and ending his three-year self imposed exile among his Cherokee friends (with whom he had also lived for three years earlier in his life), after abruptly resigning as governor of Tennessee in 1829.

Houston is one of the most fascinating and instructive figures in American history during the period after the first generation of Founders and before the Civil War, emerging into the spotlight as a hero of the War of 1812 and protege of General Andrew Jackson and, in his last public act, resigning of governor of Texas after refusing to take an oath to the Confederacy in 1861, and during those decades embodying actions, principles, and beliefs that don't fit neatly into 20th and 21st century categories; that, indeed, seem baffling at times.  And not just today.  Reading Texas history of that era it is hard to find anyone who didn't either love or hate Houston.  There was no in between regarding the man.

Houston was governor of two states (Tennessee and Texas); Congressman from Tennessee; Senator from Texas; and President of the Republic of Texas.  Chronologically, Sam was an American citizen, an official citizen of Cherokee Nation (and his second wife was Cherokee), a citizen of Mexico, of the Republic of Texas, and finally, once again, an American.

A slave owner; the only Southern senator to vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854; opposing secession as Governor of Texas in 1861; and, in 1856, having the support of the most ardent abolitionist in the Senate (Charles Sumner of Massachusetts) if he chose to run for the Presidency.

A man who lived with the Cherokee for six years over the course of his life, spoke their language, became a member of the tribe, befriended those from many other tribes, representing the interests of those tribes in Washington, and who gave possibly the most impassioned speech heard on the Senate floor during the 19th century regarding the rights and humanity of the Indian tribes (1), yet whose political mentor and friend was Andrew Jackson, author of the most unjustified American government action against peaceful tribes.

It is the Jackson connection that looms over Houston's decision to go to Texas.  Sam had been in Washington earlier in 1832, lobbying on behalf of the tribes exiled to the Arkansas Territory.  It was during that trip that Houston, feeling he'd been insulted by Ohio congressman William Stanberry who'd accused him of graft regarding an Indian rations contract, upon encountering Stanberry on the street beat him with a hickory cane.  Houston was brought up on charges by the House, convicted, reprimanded and given a $500 fine, which he left D.C. without paying.  But before leaving he met with his friend, President Andrew Jackson.  The contents of their conversation is unknown but subject to much speculation, mostly around Jackson's interest in acquiring Texas for the United States.  Was Houston urged to go to Texas to pave the way for that acquisition?  We don't know for certain but some of Sam's actions four years later, during the Runaway Scrape, when Houston may have been luring the Mexican army into a confrontation with the American army just across the border in Louisiana, lend some credence to that idea.

I've written quite a number of posts on Houston which you can find here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)

"The honorable Senator from Indiana says in substance that God Almighty has condemned [the Indians], and made them an inferior race, that there is no use in doing anything for them. . .  Sir, it is idle to tell me that.  We have Indians on our western borders, whose civilization is not inferior to our own . . .  The Indian has a sense of justice, truth and honor that should find a responsive chord in every heart.  If the Indians on the frontier are barbarous  . . . who are we to blame for it?  They are robbed of the means of sustenance; and with hundreds and thousands of them starving on the frontier, hunger may prompt to such acts as prevent their perishing  . . .

We should be careful if it were with a power able to war with us; and it argues a degree of infinite meanness and indescribable degradation on our part to act differently with the Indians, who confide in our honor and justice, and who call the President their Great Father, and confide in him."