|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 12:46:06 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 6, 2007 12:46:06 GMT -5
I think the comparisons are apt in both cases. Not to get too far off topic, but there are differing interpretations about what was promised the Seminoles. They claimed (and it seems to me that their treaty promised) that they had been given reservation lands in Florida for a period of 20 years in the Moultrie Treaty, which Jackson was violating. There's evidence that the government never intended to honor the treaty, and only wanted to collect the Seminoles in one place in order to more easily force their move west. Jackson always seemed to find a way to use the Indian situation to his advantage. Jim
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 15:33:17 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 6, 2007 15:33:17 GMT -5
I agree and, although some biographers insist that Jackson was not an Indian hater he was ruthless in removing them from their lands. The use of treaties as a ploy to buy the Indians off for a while, knowing white settlers would invade their lands anyway, became fairly standard practice.
Houston does seem to have had a genuine rapport with Indians and really did live among them for a time (maybe had a Cherokee wife; can't quite recall). I don't think he was in office in 1830 when the Indian Removal Bill was passed, but I wonder how he viewed all this.
I believe that there never was a final treaty with the Seminoles after the Second Seminole war and they remain, in a sense anyway, undefeated by the U.S. I think most of them who weren't killed eventually left, but a small number held out in the Everglades and are still somewhere around there.
AW
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 15:38:51 GMT -5
Post by elcolorado on Jun 6, 2007 15:38:51 GMT -5
Thank you, gentlemen (Jim - Stuart - Allen - Herb) for helping to clarify the Crockett/Houston relationship up a bit for me. I'm quite comfortable with the idea that they were on good terms with each other... possibly friends...at least until Crockett began to oppose and attack Jackson. After that...I'm not sure we can say with certainty what their relationship was. It may or may not mean anything...but I find it curious that in Crockett's "Narrative", Houston did not even merit an "honorable mention" and David wasn't shy about naming names...either friend or foe.
The supposition in regards to Bowie and Houston is a good one and I believe it has merit. From my understanding, Houston relied on Bowie's judgment on a whole range of issues and never seemed to be afraid to defer to Bowie when indecisiveness gripped him. Houston's dislike or distrust of Travis may have played into his "foot dragging" as well. If I remember, Travis was a Robinson/Counsel man, whereas, Bowie and Houston were both supportive of Gov. Smith. So it is plausible that because Houston did not hear directly from Bowie, he was satisfied that there was no real threat or urgency to go to Bexar.
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 16:00:01 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 6, 2007 16:00:01 GMT -5
I need to look this up, but I remember reading that the Seminoles signed a treaty fairly recently. You're right that a group of them held out for a long time. I'll see what I can dig up. The Second Seminole War is of interest to me not only because I'm a native Floridian (I may be the only one left), but because the events were concurrent with the Texas Rev and Republic, and many of the principal players were also involved in the MAW. It's all of a piece. Jim
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 6, 2007 16:08:19 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 6, 2007 16:08:19 GMT -5
I think it is all of a piece when you look at the really "big picture." This was clearly the age of expansion and Manifest Destiny and Jackson was a strong believer in it. In fact, pretty much everyone was, including Crockett and Houston. Whether they really believed the nation was destined by heaven to reach from sea to shining sea, or the major players simply wanted all the land they could get for a variety of reasons, in the end the results were the same. Those reasons included security from foreign powers and control over a large territory and all of its bountiful resources, as well as secure ports on both coasts for trade. The U.S. was destined to be a great country and a great country had to be a large one.
The agenda carried a fair degree of racism too; non-whites could not possibly have been destined to occupy these lands, and of course that included Mexicans and Indians (the French had conveniently left after selling Louisiana). Stuart has made clear the British interest in Texas and the U.S. clearly wanted Britain off the continent (hence the Oregon dispute).
If this was at the top of everyone's minds, then the way in which this "destiny" was brought about was merely a matter of tactics and small details, like booting the Indians out.
AW
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 12, 2007 18:36:08 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 12, 2007 18:36:08 GMT -5
I need to look this up, but I remember reading that the Seminoles signed a treaty fairly recently. You're right that a group of them held out for a long time. I'll see what I can dig up. The Second Seminole War is of interest to me not only because I'm a native Floridian (I may be the only one left), but because the events were concurrent with the Texas Rev and Republic, and many of the principal players were also involved in the MAW. It's all of a piece. Jim U.S. Treaties with Indians generally weren't worth the paper they were printed on. The first one was signed with the Micmac Tribe in Watertown, Mass. in 1776 and was for the most part honored. The only reason being that the Americans couldn't get a hold on Micmac land.
|
|
|
Houston
Jun 12, 2007 18:47:53 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 12, 2007 18:47:53 GMT -5
I'd need to scrape a lot of rust off of my 1960s research into the Iroquois, but I think some of the treaties made with those tribes actually did hold. I believe the Senecas ended up keeping whatever land was set aside for them and I've been to the Mohawk reservation in upstate New York, which extends into Canada.
The "planned obsolete" treaties were the rule out west. It's pretty harsh, but I really believe that the government eventually just assumed the Indians would (and some thought should) disappear. One rationalization was to force them onto reservations to "protect" them from white settlers, but settlers alone were not the real threat to Indians; it was the army (and the enemy tribes that sided with the U.S. army; they were absolutely crucial to U.S. victory over the western tribes). It was the settlers they were protecting by "locking up" the Indians; those who wouldnt' agree were deemed "hostile" and hunted down. It was always about the land; both sides wanted and needed it for different purposes and there was never a serious attempt to coexist on it. Why there was a degree of better results for Indians in the northeast I really don't know. Of course the most heinous case was Jackson's cruel and cynical removal of eastern Indians to the west so that their lands could be taken by whites.
AW
|
|
|
Houston
Aug 18, 2007 7:40:50 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 18, 2007 7:40:50 GMT -5
I think some of this had to do with alliances the Indians formed during the French and Indian War, then later in the Revolutionary War. The Shawnees were considered conquered people, their treaties void and their land the spoils of war because they allied with the British in the Revolution. Tman56 probably could contribute here if he checks in. I think the F&I war is an area of expertise for him. Come to think of it, isn't Bill C pretty up on this era too? Bill? Jim
|
|
|
Houston
Aug 19, 2007 11:59:37 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Aug 19, 2007 11:59:37 GMT -5
I used be up on the French and Indian Wars, but have gotten sidetracked by the Texas Rangers and other conflicts in recent years. It's a very interesting period though and has little of the romance of James Fennimore Cooper. Adieu.
|
|
|
Houston
Mar 18, 2009 21:23:33 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 18, 2009 21:23:33 GMT -5
Much has been made of Houston's periodic heavy drinking between his marriages to Eliza Allen and Margaret Lea during the 1830s. It has also been stated that as a novice general during the Gonzales retreat and San Jacinto campaign that Houston was overly indecisive when giving orders to subordinate officers. With these criticism in mind, I found the Texas republic claim below interesting and a bit ironic. Apparently, Houston's soldiers became a little liquored up and rowdy while the army was camped at Groce's Plantation. In response to this problem Houston ordered aid-de-camp, James Collinsworth to seize the remaining ninety gallons of whiskey and brandy from the traveling peddler and immediately destroy the spirits. Martin Clow and Company filed the claim for the loss of two hundred and fifty dollars, but it was rejected on Dec.31, 1836 by the government auditor. I wonder what would have happened if Santa Anna had pulled a San Jacinto on the Texan Army at Groce's while part of the Houston's force was drunk and and the other half was taking a siesta or engaged in some similar diversion. tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/253/25300617.pdf
|
|
|
Houston
Mar 18, 2009 21:52:13 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Mar 18, 2009 21:52:13 GMT -5
Thanks, RR.
I had to go back and read the whole topic, forgot this one was here.
Anytime, Houston comes up, I don't know which way to lean. He kind of reminds me of another flamboyant personality that I'm more familiar with. It's hard to like the man, and the way he dealt with people, and I'm not too sure how honest he really was, but he did get results.
|
|
|
Houston
Mar 19, 2009 5:26:05 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 19, 2009 5:26:05 GMT -5
Your welcome Wolf. I'm not sure who you mean, but I think Houston probably has him beat in the flamboyance department. I guess Houston was one of those love him or hate him type of personalities. I obviously believe he had many virtues and some vices, but try to judge him on how his early life and experiances molded him . So far as honesty. In an age of braggarts like Mike Fink, Strap Buckner, etc, etc, I think Houston had a lot to crow about, but he seemed to restrain himself remarkably well for a crafty politician and sometime soldier. ;D
|
|
|
Houston
Apr 13, 2009 21:30:14 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 13, 2009 21:30:14 GMT -5
Ever since the battle of San Jacinto, there has been confusion over which of General Houston's legs was wounded in the fight. Most sources state that he was shot in the right ankle as shown in W. H. Huddle's famous painting, despite the claims of the Houston family to the contrary. Today, I found what I believe is an unpublished and little known document confirming Sam Houston's 1853 allusion to the San Jacinto wound in his left leg. It is a note from two doctors. While settling in as Governor of Texas, Houston invited Austin Doctors, Rentfro and Taylor to the Governor's Mansion and asked them to take a gander at his old war wound, so he could qualify for a certain congressional act for wounded veteran's land. I think this evidence probably closes the book on this issue and it's time to change that Handbook of Texas article.
Here is a document transcription:
We M. A. Taylor and E. D. Rentfro of the County of Travis and State of Texas do hereby certify that in the year 1860, we were called on Genl Sam Houston to examine a certain wound in the left ankle (emphasis mine) which said wound the said General Houston assured us was received in the battle of San Jacinto; and being called upon to examine and give an opinion, as physicians, upon said wound, it is our opinion after, careful examination, that said wound is a bodily injury for life, and beyond the power of medical aid to produce a permanent cure which disqualifies him from body labor.
Subscribed and Sworn to before } M.A. Taylor, M.D. me , this 4th day of June, 1860 } E. D. Rentfro, M.D.
W.S. Hotchkiss Com of Claims
|
|
|
Houston
Apr 13, 2009 21:46:33 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 13, 2009 21:46:33 GMT -5
That is interesting--but I wonder about the other wound from Horseshoe Bend. That was a little higher up (in the thigh) but was also rumor as not to have healed properly...
|
|
|
Houston
Apr 14, 2009 6:06:19 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Apr 14, 2009 6:06:19 GMT -5
That is interesting--but I wonder about the other wound from Horseshoe Bend. That was a little higher up (in the thigh) but was also rumor as not to have healed properly... I doubt if there's any real conflict/confusion. I understand its not uncommon for wounds to stubbornly refuse to heal. The ankle wound on the other hand may have healed in the sense of sealed up and stopped suppurating but if the bones were shattered medical science couldn't put them back together again properly. That being said, while I've no doubt he probably had a nasty limp he may not have been as disabled as the certificate suggests. In the British Army of the day there was no such thing as a pension for service and/or suffering, but rather a straightforward and robust view that once a man was discharged the government had no obligation to look after him; except, and this is the important bit, when wounds or illness prevented him from doing an honest day's work, in which case a pension was awarded nicely calculated to cover the gap between what he would earn if possessed of all the regulation arms, legs, fingers and eyes, and what he was capable of earning without one or more of the above. In reality the Army did its best to thwart the Treasury by exaggerating injuries and if the worst came to the worst certifying men as "worn out" even if otherwise complete, simply in order to secure some kind of pension. I'm sure this was also the case here. The certificate is indeed decisive in identifying which ankle was injured, but no matter the pain and inconvenience, without a little creativity on the part of the doctors the Treasury would never have coughed up.
|
|