|
Houston
May 29, 2007 8:32:53 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on May 29, 2007 8:32:53 GMT -5
Someone ought to count the number of "eccentric" or odd people who were major achievers in history. Having just read "1066" I might put William in that group. I found his cruelties intolerable, but his achievement in pulling off the invasion was nothing short of stunning.
Anyone want to recommend a "best" bio of Houston? I think I've got a very battlered, old, old edition of "The Raven" on a shelf somewhere, but weren't there some more recent ones? I think Jeff Long wrote a novelization, but I'd just as soon avoid Long if possible.
There is no denying Houston's perseverence and refusal to quit or be cowed. I think he was willing to do some underhanded things and he does seem to have had a propensity to leave himself an "out" on a lot of his decisions. He didn't back off though; he obviously had some goal that he refused to give up on was persistent. After reading Stuart's book I'm more convinced that his goal was a quick annexation and his "runaway scrape" seemed designed to get to the border as soon as he could to bring Gains in and create a U.S.-Mexico confrontation. Events overtook him, but ending up president of a republic, and gaining annexation 10 years later, wasn't bad. Unless you're Mexico, of course.
AW
|
|
|
Houston
May 29, 2007 9:16:58 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 29, 2007 9:16:58 GMT -5
Jeff Long's novel about Houston is "Empire of Bones". If you can imagine, a more unflattering picture of the Alamo defenders than depicted in "Duel of Eagles". I read "The Raven" years ago, but I'd guess the research is outdated by now. I have an interesting book published by the Tennessee Historical Commission, "Houston and Crockett: Heroes of Tennessee and Texas, an Anthology", which contains numerous essays about both men. It's worth seeking out. It includes the three excellent Folmsbee essays on the various stages of Crockett's career as well. Houston is a bit of an enigma to me. He seems a very emotional man, at times almost incapacitated by depression. Jim
|
|
|
Houston
May 29, 2007 11:59:12 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on May 29, 2007 11:59:12 GMT -5
Houston was more politician than a general at this time. He had to be sneaky due to crafty Texican adversaries. Allying himself with General Gaines and seeking future annexation obviously wasn't Houston's goal alone. Key officials in the Texas government were advocates of both actions. Things just worked out differently. I would read James Haley's biography on Houston. I found it very insightful.
|
|
|
Houston
May 29, 2007 12:19:35 GMT -5
Post by TRK on May 29, 2007 12:19:35 GMT -5
I would read James Haley's biography on Houston. I found it very insigtful. Ditto that. Haley's bio was published five years ago and is state of the art.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 4, 2007 7:40:48 GMT -5
Just ordered used copies of both Haley's book and the Houston-Crockett book that Jim mentioned through bookfinder.com, which led me to Biblio.com. Dismayed to learn that delivery takes 3-6 weeks! Oh, well, it ain't like I don't got a whole bunch of unread books piled up around here.
AW
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 5, 2007 12:27:47 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Jun 5, 2007 12:27:47 GMT -5
It seems to me, that the central over-riding drive for Houston was the Union. In this he was totally a Jackson man. I think a lot of Houston's actions become clearer when you look at them through this prism.
I think Haley discussed the possibility that in 1860 then Texas Gov Houston, was trying to start a war with Mexico to head off the crisis that led to the South's secession.
Most are familiar that Houston was removed from office for opposing secession, but what he was really removed for was not swearing allegiance to the Confederacy. Ever the politician, when Houston realized that he could not prevent secession, he shifted his efforts to an attempt to have Texas once more become an Independent Republic, to avoid union with the Confederacy and to avoid the upcoming war with his beloved Union. It was this failure, that caused his feelings about his life being a failure, when he died in the midst of the Civil War.
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 5, 2007 22:20:05 GMT -5
Post by elcolorado on Jun 5, 2007 22:20:05 GMT -5
Hey guys. Thanks for starting this thread on Houston. I have some questions for the group if I may. In the latest Alamo movie, Houston and Crockett appear early in a scene where Houston is trying to sell the idea of Texas to Crockett. The two are portrayed as friends which I'm very skeptical of due to the fact that Houston was Jackson's pet, whereas Crockett was the attack dog of the Whig party and would never miss an opportunity to slam Jackson. So my feeling is that Crockett and Houston probably didn't have a whole lot to say to each other. Now...my questions are: Do you think Houston was unhappy when Crockett showed up in Texas? Do you think Houston felt threatened politically by Crockett's presents. And...lastly...the big one. Do you think Houston's reluctance to relieve the Alamo had anything to do with Crockett? Yep...I know what I'm implying but I need to ask.
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 5, 2007 23:04:07 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 5, 2007 23:04:07 GMT -5
Houston and Crockett were friends, at least for a while. I've wondered myself about their relationship after Crockett was so vehement about Jackson. There are at least two documents that link Crockett and Houston, one is a guest book entry they both signed while attending a party together in Washington. They were obviously friendly then. There is also a Crockett letter where he mentions Houston's resignation as Tennessee Governor, and has obvious compassion for him, wishing him well. Another thing to keep in mind that is something of a common misconception is that Crockett was in opposition to Jackson very early in his political career; he didn't just come around to that position after the Whigs courted him. James Shackford's Crockett bio promotes that theory, but Crockett was running against Jackson's hand picked candidates (and relatives) when he was in state politics. Crockett paid lip service to Jackson, knowing he was popular with the home crowd, but Crockett was rarely on the same page with Jackson politically. He made it sound as if he'd been a staunch supporter, but I think what it really comes down to is he came to oppose him more later, when he saw Jackson trying to consolidate power in the executive branch, promote Indian removal, seize the Second Bank's deposits, etc. Whether or not his opposition carried over to antagonism toward Houston is open to question. To my knowledge, he never said so, but he was pretty steamed at the way he was treated by the Jacksonians in his last election. Sorry for the long answer that really doesn't answer your query! Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 6, 2007 1:00:38 GMT -5
I'm pretty well reliant on Davis for mt knowledge of Crockett, but that's pretty much how I read it. As for the possibility that Houston held back from going to the Alamo because Crockett was there; I'd say that was a non-starter. He certainly expressed a dislike for rushing to the aid of Travis, who at the time was a much more important figure in Texan terms, but really it came down to him dragging his feet whenever he was ordered to get into a situation he didn't like or figured was going to be a loser, whether it was trying to stop Grant or trying to relieve the Alamo with just 300 men.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 6, 2007 7:58:46 GMT -5
Stuart, how do you think the whole Indian treaty business played into this? A distraction of Houston's devising, or a legitmate governmental task? Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 6, 2007 8:34:18 GMT -5
Jim is right in saying that Crockett found himself at odds with the Jacksonians in his own state from the beginning. I think he tried his best to play along with them for a while, but he was never the candidate of their choice. Once his land bill became his only real priority, and he found himself at odds with Polk and the other Jackson men, the friction became increasingly worse and Crockett became highly frustrated. I think he honestly did differ with Jackson on some issues, like the Bank and Indian Removal, but Crockett eventually became so angry over his land bill that he began to oppose Jackson on everything. He simply wasn't a tactful or clever enough politician to find a way to navigate such a difficult upstream course.
Nonetheless, I'm not sure that Crockett could not have continued his political career in Tennessee. He lost his final election there by a very slim margin (200 votes or so I think) and he had lost before and then come back to win again. I think he was actually tired of he whole business and also in debt. He'd probably been looking for a new course for a while and had Texas in mind long before late 1835.
Having not read much on Houston yet, I'm not sure what their relationship might have been. Houston was clearly a Jackson man. They were in agreement on the eventual annexation of Texas. I don't know how much political use Jackson saw in Houston after his meltdown in Tennessee (resigning the governership after his wife left him, becoming a drunk, and then vanishing to live with the Cherokee). I don't know how much contact the two actually had regarding Houston's later activities in Texas or during the war for independence. I have a vague recollection of some sort of communication between them regarding the future of Texas, or at least of Jackson being aware of what was going on there and understanding that Houston was trying to push Texas into the U.S. Despite his brief downfall in Tennessee, Houston must have seemed to Jackso a guy who could be relied on.
Shackford makes much of the alleged political differences among the pro- and anti-Jackson men in Texas and attempts to explain Crockett's behavior on that basis. But Bowie was also a Whig and not a Jackson man, yet remained very close to Houston and was trusted completely by Houston. Of course, Bowie never ran for office or became the kind of loud anti-Jackson politician that Crockett was.
AW
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 10:06:29 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 6, 2007 10:06:29 GMT -5
Notwithstanding Houston’s well-known connections with the Cherokee, the curious business of his going off to sort out a peace treaty while the government was falling apart may also have been tied into his relationship with Jackson. My understanding is that he originally came to Texas at Jackson’s behest with the ostensible purpose of conducting a diplomatic mission to the Comanche. Why the Comanche should have been of interest to the US government in the 1830s isn’t clear, but having done so Houston then settled in Texas, was a prominent advocate of annexation and in at least one letter to Jackson in either 1833 or 1835 (I forget which) actually warned that if the US didn’t move quickly enough the British would get in first – which rather makes me wonder if he suspected James Grant’s real status. Now when it came to the matter of the Cherokee in early ’36, there had in fact been an earlier resolution passed by the Council calling for just such a treaty which provided the justification for Houston taking himself off to speak to them. However the timing of the actual negotiations is obviously suspect. The generally accepted view has been that Houston undertook them at that particular time because he had been unable to sort out the Matamoros business and wanted to distance himself from that and from the dispute between Governor and Council until it was all settled – before coming back in good time for the eventual declaration of independence and his own re-appointment as commander-in-chief. However there is an overlooked sub-plot in that the immediate pretext for Gaines and his US troops to enter Texas was to protect the settlers at Nacogdoches not from the Mexican army but from an Indian uprising. Houston, obviously enough, would not have incited the Cherokee to attack the settlers, but by abandoning his proper military duties to conduct “urgent” peace-talks he may well have been stoking up the impression that trouble was imminent and so providing a quite spurious justification for US intervention to forestall if not deal with that imaginary trouble.
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 10:06:49 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Jun 6, 2007 10:06:49 GMT -5
Do you think Houston's reluctance to relieve the Alamo had anything to do with Crockett? Yep...I know what I'm implying but I need to ask. The Convention received it's last message from Travis on March 6th, when it was motioned that the Convention adjourn and rush to Travis' aid, that's when Houston made his announcement that that was foolishness, that Texas needed a Government, that they needed to stay and finish their business and he would ride to the relief of the Alamo. It was already too late. (Eighteen Minutes page 16-17) Houston sent his aide, Hockley, on to Gonzales, but moved slowly himself staying at Burnham's Crossing for two days and reportedly saying that Travis and Fannin's claims about the Mexican Army were "lies made as electioneering schemes" (Eighteen Minutes, page 41) Whether, this statement is true or not is debatable, it was taken years later by Houston's political foes, but I'm inclined to believe it. Jim and I have been speculating for a couple of years, that Bowie may have played a role in Houston's slow movements. Bowie was Houston's man at the Alamo, and Houston trusted Bowie's judgement. Travis was a known hot head, that made mountains out of molehills. Every Message from the Alamo was from Travis, not one of the Travis messengers (that we know of) actually delivered, in person, a message to Washington-on-the Brazos (thus being able to personally testify to events and Bowie's illness) instead the messages were handed off to fresh couriers with no first hand knowledge of events. Could Houston have honestly believed, that if there was a real crisis in Bexar, he would be hearing from Bowie? Thus could Bowie's illness lead to Houston's delay and the reported comment at Burnham's? Even had Houston moved as urgently as possible, it was still too late. According to Eighteen Minutes LTC Neill left Gonzales for the Alamo with a relief force of 28 Men on March 7. The only volunteers present at Gonzales willing to ride to the relief of the Alamo.
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 10:23:23 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 6, 2007 10:23:23 GMT -5
Here's a bit more grist for the mill. Gaines' outpost immediately before being staged outside Texas was Florida, where he had just buried the dead from the Dade massacre, the first real engagement of the Second Seminole War. Jackson had great success a number of times by inciting Indian troubles and using them as a pretext for invasion. It was his usual MO. Jim
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 11:08:46 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 6, 2007 11:08:46 GMT -5
Well, in the Florida case Spain had already ceded that territory to the U.S. in 1821 (the Adams-Onis Treaty), although it didn't become a state until 1845 (when Texas did). From the time the U.S. took over Florida Jackson was determined to remove the Indians there to make room for white settlers, who were already flooding in and complaining about the Indians, whose land they wanted. The Seminoles also had been sheltering runaway southern slaves for years and southern planters wanted an end to that. The Second Seminole War was aimed at forcibly removing those Seminoles who would not go west voluntarily (it was the same Indian Removal policy that Crockett opposed and which resulted in the Cherokee "Trail of Tears" removal).
The first Seminole War, when Jackson was military commander of the operation, may, indeed, have been designed to stir up trouble and drive the Spanish out.
AW
|
|