Sam Houston as a Senator ca. 1858

Today is the 150th anniversary of Texas Gov. Sam Houston's refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the CSA and his subsequent removal from office.

I admit, through the eyes of 2011, one might look at his support of the principles of the union and the dignity of the republican process and note it for its absence of principle with regard to slavery. Sam Houston was a slaveholder himself and at least a stated supporter of states rights.

He took a more pragmatic approach in the US Senate, supporting the bill to ban slavery in Oregon, the Compromise of 1850 and opposing the Kansas-Nebraska act which would have allowed near unchecked state sovereignty, all in the name of keeping the union stable. Those actions lost him the support of the proslavery crowd, and the last one led to his formal rebuke by the Texas Legislature.

But principles of pragmatism, unity, and respect for process are often the allies of peace when other principles have become its enemy. And Gov. Houston knew that. Lincoln offered troops (reportedly 50,000) to put down the insurrection in Texas and restore Houston, but Houston refused, certain such an act would bring violence to Texas soil.

A month after being removed from office defying the Secession Convention and refusing to take the oath (denying the Convention's authority and declaring their actions null and void), he presciently explained his position as follows:

Sam Houston Wrote: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.

There were rumors that he would again seek to lead Texas as governor. But Houston died in 1863, never to see the conclusion of what the Secession Convention began, and never to see the reunification of his native Virginia, his early adulthood home of Tennessee, or the state born of his own hand Texas with the United States.

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

Below is an article from Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report describing the recognition of this historic sesquicentennial at the Capitol.

The Quorum Report Wrote:ON THIS DAY IN TEXAS HISTORY...

The House today honors the 150th anniversary of Sam Houston's refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederate States of America at the expense of his political career

On this day 150 years ago, Sam Houston -- hero of Texas independence, president of the republic and governor of the state -- refused to compromise his pro-Union stance and refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederate States of America.

He did so at the expense of his political career. After his refusal, delegates to the Secession Convention declared the office of Governor vacant.

The House this morning approved HCR 150 by Rep. Dan Branch (R-Dallas) honoring the anniversary. In the resolution, it's noted that "Sam Houston never again held public office ... he died on July 26, 1863; as he had predicted, the North blockaded southern ports, and the greater manpower and industrial resources of the Union contributed heavily to its ultimate victory."

It is one of those interesting twists of Texas history that the man most identified with the creation of the independent republic of Texas would end his time on the political stage making a stand for remaining in the Union.

Six months earlier, Houston explained in a speech his stance, a portion of which is quoted in HCR 150. "When ... in 1836, I volunteered to aid in transplanting American liberty to this soil, it was with the belief that the Constitution and the Union were to be perpetual blessings to the human race -- that the success of the the experiment of our fathers was beyond dispute, and that whether under the banner of the Lone Star of that many-starred banner of the Union, I could point to the land of Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson, as the land blest beyond all other lands, where freedom would be eternal and Union unbroken."

The resolution goes on to reference a historian who made this assessment of Houston's decision. "The tragedy of Sam Houston," wrote the historian, "was that he told his era what its will should have been and it cost him everything."

In a day where "states' rights" and "secession" are tossed around with seemingly little consideration of the real consequence of those sentiments, it is interesting that lawmakers took the time today to hearken to a time when those consequences were written in blood and treasure and, also, what a real example of principled statesmanship looked like.

By John Reynolds
Copyright March 16, 2011, Harvey Kronberg, http://www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved

There were decent, honorable men and women on either side of the Secession issue. Governor Houston was one of them.

(03-16-2011 01:59 PM)texd Wrote:  
Sam Houston as a Senator ca. 1858

Today is the 150th anniversary of Texas Gov. Sam Houston's refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the CSA and his subsequent removal from office.

I admit, through the eyes of 2011, one might look at his support of the principles of the union and the dignity of the republican process and note it for its absence of principle with regard to slavery. Sam Houston was a slaveholder himself and at least a stated supporter of states rights.

He took a more pragmatic approach in the US Senate, supporting the bill to ban slavery in Oregon, the Compromise of 1850 and opposing the Kansas-Nebraska act which would have allowed near unchecked state sovereignty, all in the name of keeping the union stable. Those actions lost him the support of the proslavery crowd, and the last one led to his formal rebuke by the Texas Legislature.

But principles of pragmatism, unity, and respect for process are often the allies of peace when other principles have become its enemy. And Gov. Houston knew that. Lincoln offered troops (reportedly 50,000) to put down the insurrection in Texas and restore Houston, but Houston refused, certain such an act would bring violence to Texas soil.

A month after being removed from office defying the Secession Convention and refusing to take the oath (denying the Convention's authority and declaring their actions null and void), he presciently explained his position as follows:

Sam Houston Wrote: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.

There were rumors that he would again seek to lead Texas as governor. But Houston died in 1863, never to see the conclusion of what the Secession Convention began, and never to see the reunification of his native Virginia, his early adulthood home of Tennessee, or the state born of his own hand Texas with the United States.

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

Below is an article from Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report describing the recognition of this historic sesquicentennial at the Capitol.

The Quorum Report Wrote:ON THIS DAY IN TEXAS HISTORY...

The House today honors the 150th anniversary of Sam Houston's refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederate States of America at the expense of his political career

On this day 150 years ago, Sam Houston -- hero of Texas independence, president of the republic and governor of the state -- refused to compromise his pro-Union stance and refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederate States of America.

He did so at the expense of his political career. After his refusal, delegates to the Secession Convention declared the office of Governor vacant.

The House this morning approved HCR 150 by Rep. Dan Branch (R-Dallas) honoring the anniversary. In the resolution, it's noted that "Sam Houston never again held public office ... he died on July 26, 1863; as he had predicted, the North blockaded southern ports, and the greater manpower and industrial resources of the Union contributed heavily to its ultimate victory."

It is one of those interesting twists of Texas history that the man most identified with the creation of the independent republic of Texas would end his time on the political stage making a stand for remaining in the Union.

Six months earlier, Houston explained in a speech his stance, a portion of which is quoted in HCR 150. "When ... in 1836, I volunteered to aid in transplanting American liberty to this soil, it was with the belief that the Constitution and the Union were to be perpetual blessings to the human race -- that the success of the the experiment of our fathers was beyond dispute, and that whether under the banner of the Lone Star of that many-starred banner of the Union, I could point to the land of Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson, as the land blest beyond all other lands, where freedom would be eternal and Union unbroken."

The resolution goes on to reference a historian who made this assessment of Houston's decision. "The tragedy of Sam Houston," wrote the historian, "was that he told his era what its will should have been and it cost him everything."

In a day where "states' rights" and "secession" are tossed around with seemingly little consideration of the real consequence of those sentiments, it is interesting that lawmakers took the time today to hearken to a time when those consequences were written in blood and treasure and, also, what a real example of principled statesmanship looked like.

By John Reynolds
Copyright March 16, 2011, Harvey Kronberg, http://www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved

Of course, Reynolds is stealing a rhetorical base here. No serious person today who refers to "states' rights" means what people who used that term in 1861 meant, and that error essentially vitiates his final paragraph.

It wasn't hard for Houston to foresee what would happen. The North entered the Civil War with sizeable advantages in manpower, industrial production, and railroad mileage. Union victory was inevitable. The South only managed to survive as long as it did because of poor generalship on the part of the North initially, as Union generals seemed more interested in not losing rather than winning. Once Lincoln found guys like Grant and Sherman, it was just a matter of time before it was all over for the South.

(03-23-2011 02:26 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Union victory was inevitable.

No. History, perhaps especially military history, is almost never inevitable. As Wellington said of Waterloo, "it was a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life." And few things in our American national life were more near-run than bloody Antietam (in the election year of 1862), Gettysburg, and any number of events that could easily have gone the other way. Certainly, the United States started with considerable material advantages over the Confederate States, managed to use some (e.g. the U.S. Navy) quite well, and managed to not squander all of the rest. But inevitable - no.

Read this a few years ago:

April 1865 (the Month that Saved America) by Jay Winik.

http://www.amazon.com/April-1865-Month-S...0060187239

His thesis is that we tend to think that given historical outcomes were the only ones that could have occurred. As he documents, this was far from the case.

(03-24-2011 09:30 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-23-2011 02:26 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Union victory was inevitable.

No. History, perhaps especially military history, is almost never inevitable. As Wellington said of Waterloo, "it was a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life." And few things in our American national life were more near-run than bloody Antietam (in the election year of 1862), Gettysburg, and any number of events that could easily have gone the other way. Certainly, the United States started with considerable material advantages over the Confederate States, managed to use some (e.g. the U.S. Navy) quite well, and managed to not squander all of the rest. But inevitable - no.

I read somewhere, long ago, that the battle of Midway turned on a broken radio and some cloud cover. I have also heard that when it is regamed by computer it nearly always is a japanese victory. Clearly a change in that one battle changes the War in the Pacific, WW II, and all subsequent history. Other historical battles and wars have also been decided by small things - a message not received, expected help that arrives too late, , etc. I think little in history was inevitable.

One thing you learn in casinos is that even if something is 99% certain to happen, it does not have to happen that way.

I love thinking about the various what-ifs in history, especially the ones that seem so pivotal. Gettysburg, in particular, probably would not have happened had Stonewall Jackson not died 2 months earlier. Jackson would have pushed his advantage against a relatively small foe that was at Gettysburg (though reinforcements on both sides wound up making it more even, not that it helped the Union, who made several blunders in deployment and got pushed back quite a bit), but AP Hill and Ewell (who each split what was Jackson's corps) did not push their advantage on the first day, allowing the Union to set up on Cemetary Hill and the rest of the "natural" defenses afforded to them and make their defense.

And if you've ever been to the battlefield, it's amazing to consider the fighting in Devil's Den. That rock formation and close quarters necessary for the fighting and firing is crazy. Probably not unlike modern urban warfare.

For want of a nail...

(03-24-2011 02:38 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I love thinking about the various what-ifs in history, especially the ones that seem so pivotal. Gettysburg, in particular, probably would not have happened had Stonewall Jackson not died 2 months earlier. Jackson would have pushed his advantage against a relatively small foe that was at Gettysburg (though reinforcements on both sides wound up making it more even, not that it helped the Union, who made several blunders in deployment and got pushed back quite a bit), but AP Hill and Ewell (who each split what was Jackson's corps) did not push their advantage on the first day, allowing the Union to set up on Cemetary Hill and the rest of the "natural" defenses afforded to them and make their defense.

And if you've ever been to the battlefield, it's amazing to consider the fighting in Devil's Den. That rock formation and close quarters necessary for the fighting and firing is crazy. Probably not unlike modern urban warfare.

If the South would have had just one more fresh battalion, they would have rolled the flank on Little Round Top on the Second Day at Gettysburg.

If Jackson were still alive at Gettysburg, he and Longstreet would have talked Lee out of the folly of Pickett's Charge and instead moved to the flank and cut Meade off from Washington. It would have been Chancellorsville all over again, but on a larger scale.

Things would become interesting then.

Warfare is always more the study of lessons of mistakes than study of tactical brilliance. Desert Storm in 91 was the closest thing to Total Victory that you could imagine, and yet Schwarzkopf's screw ups let the Republican Guard get out the back door in the final hours of the ground war. That was the only thing that saved Saddam.

If Saddam would have been deposed in 1991, then many of GW Bush's F'ups would have never happened.

(03-24-2011 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2011 09:30 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-23-2011 02:26 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Union victory was inevitable.

No. History, perhaps especially military history, is almost never inevitable. As Wellington said of Waterloo, "it was a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life." And few things in our American national life were more near-run than bloody Antietam (in the election year of 1862), Gettysburg, and any number of events that could easily have gone the other way. Certainly, the United States started with considerable material advantages over the Confederate States, managed to use some (e.g. the U.S. Navy) quite well, and managed to not squander all of the rest. But inevitable - no.

I read somewhere, long ago, that the battle of Midway turned on a broken radio and some cloud cover. I have also heard that when it is regamed by computer it nearly always is a japanese victory. Clearly a change in that one battle changes the War in the Pacific, WW II, and all subsequent history. Other historical battles and wars have also been decided by small things - a message not received, expected help that arrives too late, , etc. I think little in history was inevitable.

One thing you learn in casinos is that even if something is 99% certain to happen, it does not have to happen that way.

It always helps when you have broken enough of the Japanese Naval Communications Code to determine his strength and intentions.. but still when an uncoordinated attack results in 3 Dive Bomber groups launched from two Carrier Task Forces arriving over the Japanese Carriers at the same time, I think you have to believe in miracles to some extent.

It looks like channel 8 started rebroadcasting "The Civil War" last night.