|
Houston
Apr 14, 2009 11:31:00 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 14, 2009 11:31:00 GMT -5
Question-was this for a something the US Government was issuing or the State of Texas?
|
|
|
Houston
Apr 15, 2009 13:32:44 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 15, 2009 13:32:44 GMT -5
Thnx fellas. I hope it settles the right or left question. Although the arrow wound on Houston's thigh/ groin was apparently a vicious injury, I think he probably had more trouble with the two musket balls that he took to his right arm and shoulder. It seems to have been badly mangled by his service at Horseshoe Bend. He received medical treatment on the battleground, but was in and out doctor's offices in Ft. Williams, Washington, Knoxville, New Orleans, and New York City until the the Spring of 1816, when his injuries became manageable. Currently, I'm having trouble with tendons in my right arm and it's hard for me to imagine the lifelong pain Houston endured from his injuries. Thank Goodness for our modern medicine. The physicians evaluating Houston's ankle wound were doing so for a grant through the Texas General Land Office.
|
|
|
Houston
Apr 15, 2009 17:10:05 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 15, 2009 17:10:05 GMT -5
I think it is an interesting document and a great find. My reason for asking was to see if Houston was trying to make a claim to the US Gov for a wound he recieved in a non-US battle.
As you pointed out, the Horeshoe Bend wounds had been bad enough.
I still deal with a bad shoulder from a horsefall 15 years ago, so I am also amazed how all those folks with wounds like Houston managed to deal with the pain.
|
|
|
Houston
Apr 16, 2009 12:39:46 GMT -5
Post by mustanggray on Apr 16, 2009 12:39:46 GMT -5
I'm dealing with the results of a horse rolling over on me 10 years ago(at Ft. Parker Kevin) and I can almost imagine how painful musket and arrow wounds would have been. Look at how bad@*$ Old Hickory was though... he carried a ball around in him for how many years and then had it removed and presented it to back to Benton?! Those guys really were tough old codgers!
|
|
|
Houston
Apr 16, 2009 22:20:23 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 16, 2009 22:20:23 GMT -5
I agree Houston suffered four bad wounds and was just one of many tough Americans. In an age when robust men could die from a scratch due to infection, Houston really should have kicked the bucket at Horseshoe Bend. I'm sure some wish he had, so their own star could rise. After the fight at San Jacinto, Pres. David G. Burnet tried to keep Houston from getting further medical treatment on his ankle. I also think it was Pres. Burnet and others that belittled the ankle wound and stated that it would be a little thing to a brave man. Perhaps this is the reason the governor of Texas felt the need to obtain the impartial opinions of these doctors for an already historically and medically documented war wound.
|
|
|
Houston
Apr 30, 2009 13:15:07 GMT -5
Post by bobdurham on Apr 30, 2009 13:15:07 GMT -5
I ran across the following article while doing some research -- thought those with an interest in Houston might like it.
BELLEFONTAINE GAZETTE. VOL. II. BELLEFONTAINE, OHIO, JULY 13, 1832. NO. 21.
The Indian ration contract & Houston. The Washington correspondent of the N. Y. Daily Advertiser, under date of June 11th has the following paragraphs: “I mentioned to you in a letter not long since, that Mr. Houston had gone to New York and that it was expected he would see Mr. Van Fossen on his way to Washington, whither he had been summoned as a witness before the committee appointed to investigate the fraud attempted to be practised in giving the contract to Mr. Houston for supplying the emigrating Indians. Mr. Van Fossen was the person who put in bids under the direction of Mr. Houston, and was said to have several letters in his possession very important to the investigation. It is understood that a subpoena, duces ticum, was served on him to bring all such letters and papers as he had in his possession, touching the subject of investigation. Mr. Van Fossen came; but on examination, it is reported he stated that Mr. Houston had claimed that the letters were private, and he gave them up to him. It is thus that this investigation is to be stifled. It is tho’t very likely that Mr. Van Fossen may be appointed Indian Agent at Chicago, as a reward for this fact.
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 20, 2009 21:54:27 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 20, 2009 21:54:27 GMT -5
Author James L. Haley sent me this link to a new Sam Houston documentary and it looks really good. Haley wrote the script and the film dispels some of the myths surrounding the controversial general and politician. Take a gander. www.samhoustonmovie.com/
|
|
|
Houston
Jul 25, 2015 18:11:28 GMT -5
Post by crockettkin on Jul 25, 2015 18:11:28 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.
Interesting question . . . did "Houston's reluctance to relieve the Alamo had anything to do with Crockett?"
I can't remember where I first came across this idea - that Houston or Jackson's political machine want to stop Crockett's political future - and so that added to the reasons not to rush to the Alamo's aid.
Is there a book (or website) that first raised that possibility?
|
|
|
Houston
Jul 27, 2015 18:54:51 GMT -5
Post by loucapitano on Jul 27, 2015 18:54:51 GMT -5
I'd love to see where this thread goes. It's sure to cause a ruckus! Here's my very unsupported suppositions: Once, Crockett was very close to Jackson as a fellow Tennessean. I don't see why Houston's friendship with the President would carry over to Crockett. Houston and Crockett both favored treating the Indian Nationss fairly. Houston was so convinced holding the Alamo was futile, he didn't need his feelings, if any, about Crockett to affect his sound military judgment. Then again... what do you guys think? Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Houston
Jul 27, 2015 23:09:22 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 27, 2015 23:09:22 GMT -5
Yeah, this sort of seems like the old claim that the reason Sam Houston spared Santa Anna's life at San Jacinto was because S.A. flashed him the Masonic distress signal, and, with both being Masons, Houston had to spare him. Houston had a major reason for sparing Santa Anna -- for holding him as a hostage. If Santa Anna were killed, the commander-in-chief of the army, Gen. Filisola, would attacked with 3,000 men and have eliminated Houston's army.
|
|
|
Houston
Jul 29, 2015 23:51:03 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 29, 2015 23:51:03 GMT -5
[/p] Interesting question . . . did "Houston's reluctance to relieve the Alamo had anything to do with Crockett?"
I can't remember where I first came across this idea - that Houston or Jackson's political machine want to stop Crockett's political future - and so that added to the reasons not to rush to the Alamo's aid.
Is there a book (or website) that first raised that possibility?
[/quote] I don't think Crockett's presence had anything to do with Houston's decision, but I suspect that Jackson was glad to hear Crockett had made good on his promise and left the US rather than live under a Van Buren presidency. Of course, Crockett saw a lot of opportunities to get rich in land speculation in Texas, which may have made his decision a little easier. Honestly, Crockett's political career was finished after his loss to Huntsman. He was broke, disillusioned, and made it clear to everyone that he had no further interest in the US political process. Unfortunately for the Jacksonians, Crockett's son John Wesley won Huntsman's seat in the next election and managed to pass the legislation Crockett promoted and Jackson fought against. Jackson couldn't stand the son any more than he could the father, by the way. Jim
|
|
|
Houston
Jul 30, 2015 10:12:28 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 30, 2015 10:12:28 GMT -5
I think something more important than getting rich in land speculation influenced Crockett's move to "the Texes." The simple itchy-foot urged him on once again and then rewarded him by placing him in "a world in itself" where his ego was stroked everywhere he went -- dinners in his honor, town cannon fired upon his arrival, town ladies falling all over him, and just simply new people upon whom he could recycle his old material and humor without being lambasted by "the opposition" the press or "King Andrew the First." And yes, there was also an opportunity for him to finally help his family.
|
|
|
Houston
Jul 31, 2015 2:44:18 GMT -5
Post by estebans on Jul 31, 2015 2:44:18 GMT -5
It seems unlikely to me that "they" could actively stop Crockett's political future, given how hard it was for Houston or anyone else in power to actively accomplish any substantial goal. I find that period hard to read about for that reason--I don't want to be in the Texian leaders' shoes at all. Houston really could not effectively send anybody to relieve anybody on any significant scale, could he? It's more like the kind of scurrilous rumor that tended to spread in Texas when people did not want to admit their powerlessness or ineptitude and would instead impute a really bad motive to someone else.
I would suspect instead that Crockett was eager to enter a situation where he could get in on the ground floor of the nascent political power structure and not be so subject to an existing one. I think by the time he arrived, the potential for a viable bloc to oppose Sam Houston and annexation was obvious, as was the potential for Crockett to win voters over. Like so many others arriving in Texas, he found a more open field in which to make his way, only he was gonna start very near the top, high private or not. High private possibly a deliberately ironic reference to his political potential and populist appeal.
|
|
|
Houston
Jul 31, 2015 11:15:38 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 31, 2015 11:15:38 GMT -5
Indeed Crockett had a political agenda, since he was programmed to think that way by his political strife in Tennessee and Washington City. I just don't think that was his basic motive for Going To Texas. I know he was aware of the opportunities -- and that's why he joined the army -- but I also think it was important to him simply to get a breath of fresh air and have his ego stroked once again.
|
|
|
Houston
Jul 31, 2015 18:58:05 GMT -5
Post by loucapitano on Jul 31, 2015 18:58:05 GMT -5
He heard of Houston and Austin and so To the Texas plains he had to go. Where freedom was fighting another foe, And they needed him at the Alamo.... Thank you Walt and Fess.
I found myself agreeing with all of your valid opinions. As far as his ego, half horse, half alligator, what else could he do? Lou from Long Island
|
|