|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 24, 2008 22:47:35 GMT -5
Who knows what Houston's or the Texas government's plans were originally, but as various problems overtook them, they obviously had to adapt new tactics to deal with the perceived situation. In my opinion Houston was receiving mixed messages and orders from the fleeing Texas government (Burnet, Zavala, etc.) and the not so flighty (Rusk, Carson, etc.) officials. This maybe one of the reasons why Houston didn't lay out his plans to most of his officers. At one point there was obviously a plan to drive toward the Lousianna border near the Neches or Sabine and lure General Gaines into the fray, but when Rusk joined the army a different tactic went into effect. Involving the United States wasn't only Houston's intention. Pres. Burnet was also a promoter initially.
|
|
|
Post by Don Guillermo on May 10, 2008 7:57:05 GMT -5
Hola Amigos! The complicated Sherman-Houston relationship, similar to most others of consequence in post-Republic Texas politics is covered in great depth in Bate, W.N. General Sidney Sherman: Texas Soldier, Statesman and Builder. Texian Press, Waco, TX, 1974 with a full chapter 21 on Houston’s Speech in the US Senate. In essence the buffoon Houston, who could be termed Texas’ Santa Anna in a different context with different short term outcomes, used the floor of the US Senate at his retirement from it in 1859 to smear another Texian patriot with equal or more impact than him on the war and to Texas contributed to it with much more principle. This was a lifetime continuation of Houston’s passion to take credit for something that he had no positive role in terms of command and to cover up and squash debate and criticism of the fact that Houston’s command in reality had very little to do with the outcome at San Jacinto more having the title of Commander-in-Chief. In particular was the cover-up of his two most cowardly, but overridden by majority decisions to retreat east from San Jacinto and to call a halt to a charge at San Jacinto when the momentum was greatest. Not to mention his many other negative decisions to engage the enemy at various opportune times.
The Bennett smear letter directed at Sherman in defense of Houston was well known in Texas prior to 1859 and given little credibility among those who were knowledgeable. Yet the platform of the US Senate, letterhead and prestige of a US Senator and the former President of the Republic of Texas was abused to continue the personal smokescreen upon exit from the Senate of all things. This was at a time when Sherman no longer had a platform and was in private life.
Like Santa Anna of Mexico who returned from defeat, rejection and exile to be chief executive of Mexico and led more battles than Napoleon and Washington combined, the Santa Anna of Texas with nothing near that record, only a concocted one provided by Texians where everyone was “a Captain”, was similarly a survivor, highly adapt at taking credit for others efforts and smearing those who pointed that fact out. Soon after exit from the US Senate the Santa Anna of Texas was re-elected governor of the State of Texas.
In regard to numbers of responses to Bennett's letter, in 1854, Gen. Sherman’s residence was burned to the ground and with it lost numerous papers and correspondence that according to him included letters in response to the Bennett allegations.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 11, 2008 15:22:05 GMT -5
Hola Amigos! The complicated Sherman-Houston relationship, similar to most others of consequence in post-Republic Texas politics is covered in great depth in Bate, W.N. General Sidney Sherman: Texas Soldier, Statesman and Builder. Texian Press, Waco, TX, 1974 with a full chapter 21 on Houston’s Speech in the US Senate. What's complicated about their non-relationship. They hated each other. I'm surprised to hear that Mr. Bate devoted a whole chapter explaining this simple personality conflict. I guess one person's buffoon is another's dragoon. This comparison seems a bit ridiculous in my opinion. I'm not aware that Gen. Sam Houston ever suspended a constitution, declared himself dictator, ordered the executions of surrendered prisoners, etc, unlike Gen. Saint Anthony. Why is a mere speech in the U. S. Senate a smear, while printed anti-Houston attacks using similar verbiage are deemed the God's honest truth? Wasn't Houston also responding to a diatribe and contemplating a run for Texas governor. I may be wrong, but think historians should look at the political motivations behind the crazy speeches politicians make. Civilians that go public in print attacks have their own agendas and are not always honorable. You are a braver man than I as I'd never call a former duelist and thrice wounded veteran a coward. Oh! I forgot, he's dead. This sort of thing happened all the time back then and it wasn't out of place, since one of Gen. Sherman's cronies, Rev. James H. Perry was attacking Houston from the pulpit. Uh! excuse me. When was Gen. Houston ever defeated in war, politics or love, except by his own problems. Houston rose from nothing with a limited education and despite his faults usually came out ahead. Santa Anna spent his last years as an exile and died a one-legged pauper. Yes, he was. Good timing, but it didn't last long for the old unionist. A likely story or maybe they never exited. What happend to his supposed copies?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 12, 2008 10:02:26 GMT -5
I tend to look at one-sided characterizations of historical figures with a good deal of suspicion and skepticism. Houston is no exception. Anyone that successful, famous and (at least among some) admired is going to make enemies, some of them very bitter ones. I know very little about Houston, but he does come off as both larger than life and pragmatic. So the personal attacks should be taken with a generous grain of salt. Just look back at the past year's election shenanigans, the innuendo, character assassination, dopey statements and speeches, etc. People who clearly dislike each other may up running together for president and vice president.
I don't know what happened on that road to Harrisburg, but I can understand Houston being wary of picking a fight with the Mexicans too soon and losing the war. Texas had suffered nothing but humiliating defeats and was on the verge of collapse. For better or worse, Houston found himself with most of the responsibility for avoiding total disaster. I think the suggestions that he believed his army had only one good fight in it was true, or that he had every reason to believe that, hence a desire to choose the time and place for battle if he could.
I've always thought that Houston didn't get enough credit for opposing Texas secession. He had devoted a good deal of his life to Texas and had favored annexation from the beginning. After seeing that long struggle succeed it must have pained him to watch it all coming apart.
AW
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on May 12, 2008 14:24:34 GMT -5
"You are a braver man than I as I'd never call a former duelist and thrice wounded veteran a coward."
RR,
How many duels was Houston in? I was under the impression he always managed to avoid them in some way or another. I think several of his contemporaries would not have hesitated to call him such names. While I don't care much for Houston myself I would not call him a coward... I've always thought of him as a true politician in the largest sense of the term!
SMc
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 12, 2008 17:39:31 GMT -5
I tend to look at one-sided characterizations of historical figures with a good deal of suspicion and skepticism. Houston is no exception. Anyone that successful, famous and (at least among some) admired is going to make enemies, some of them very bitter ones. I know very little about Houston, but he does come off as both larger than life and pragmatic. So the personal attacks should be taken with a generous grain of salt. Just look back at the past year's election shenanigans, the innuendo, character assassination, dopey statements and speeches, etc. People who clearly dislike each other may up running together for president and vice president. I don't know what happened on that road to Harrisburg, but I can understand Houston being wary of picking a fight with the Mexicans too soon and losing the war. Texas had suffered nothing but humiliating defeats and was on the verge of collapse. For better or worse, Houston found himself with most of the responsibility for avoiding total disaster. I think the suggestions that he believed his army had only one good fight in it was true, or that he had every reason to believe that, hence a desire to choose the time and place for battle if he could. I've always thought that Houston didn't get enough credit for opposing Texas secession. He had devoted a good deal of his life to Texas and had favored annexation from the beginning. After seeing that long struggle succeed it must have pained him to watch it all coming apart. AW Although you know little about General Houston, that was a fair and thoughtful opinion concerning the positions he was thrust into during his life. Weaker men have crumbled under such pressures.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 12, 2008 19:25:05 GMT -5
How many duels was Houston in? I was under the impression he always managed to avoid them in some way or another. I think several of his contemporaries would not have hesitated to call him such names. While I don't care much for Houston myself I would not call him a coward... I've always thought of him as a true politician in the largest sense of the term! I can't remember the exact details, but Houston almost killed a General White in a duel before he was elected governor of Tennessee. I imagine that Houston got into other unknown shooting affairs during his younger rowdy days. I also recall that Houston nearly beat a man to death with his cane in Washington D.C. The poor fellow pulled out a pistol to shoot Houston, but the gun misfired. I guess Houston and others didn't deem this man a proper gentleman under the Code Duello or they would have met on the so-called Field of Honor. Obviously, once Houston became a president of the Texas Republic, he couldn't participate in duels anymore as it would be unseemly. At this time few people in Texas were Houston's social equal anyway as I understand this stupid code. As he told David G. Burnet: "I don't fight down hill."
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Jun 6, 2010 0:23:43 GMT -5
I grew up in the town north of Dallas named after him, but I wonder how much stock anyone can put in anything Sydney Sherman said about Houston. Didn't Houston take Sherman's cavalry command away from him and give it to Lamar after Sherman's insubordinate cavalry charge the night before the battle? A horse soldier who's forced to command foot soldiers would feel humilitated enough. Add to that the fact that Lamar later rose to heights Sherman never attained. I see plenty of animus for Sherman to "go negative" on Houston at every turn.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 6, 2010 14:10:05 GMT -5
I grew up in the town north of Dallas named after him, but I wonder how much stock anyone can put in anything Sydney Sherman said about Houston. Didn't Houston take Sherman's cavalry command away from him and give it to Lamar after Sherman's insubordinate cavalry charge the night before the battle? A horse soldier who's forced to command foot soldiers would feel humilitated enough. Add to that the fact that Lamar later rose to heights Sherman never attained. I see plenty of animus for Sherman to "go negative" on Houston at every turn. Sherman, having raised and brought to Texas a volunteer company from Kentucky, was made a LTC of the First Regt at Gonazles, and then Colonel of the newly formed Second Regiment at Groces. Sherman was not demoted or transfered following the action on the 20th-he commanded the left wing of the Texan Army the next day. Lamar, who saved T.J. Rusk's life during the action of the 20th, was promoted "on the spot" the next day to command the Texan Cavalry in the attack. True, Lamar did rise more politically than Sherman, but in contrast, Sherman was sucessful as a businessman. A lot of San Jacinto Veterans were upset with Houston's US Senate Speech concering the San Jacinto Campaign.
|
|
|
Post by greatbigmike on Jun 8, 2010 10:48:57 GMT -5
A transcription I recently done. Offered as an "as is item" Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by greatbigmike on Jun 8, 2010 11:15:11 GMT -5
One more transcription once more offerd as an "as is" item Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by greatbigmike on Jun 11, 2010 10:49:37 GMT -5
I thought it was quite shrewd of Houston to deliver his speech in Congress. By reading it into the congressional record he insured that his side of the story would be preserved for all time, relegating materials such as Sherman’s to hopefully a copy remaining available in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 14, 2010 12:55:25 GMT -5
I thought it was quite shrewd of Houston to deliver his speech in Congress. By reading it into the congressional record he insured that his side of the story would be preserved for all time, relegating materials such as Sherman’s to hopefully a copy remaining available in the future. It insures that the Houston version becomes the offical one and lessens the impact of anyone who gave a different account.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Jun 14, 2010 14:41:46 GMT -5
Gentlemen, please excuse this brief step away from the topic at hand. I just noticed that gbjamesonheir is from my hometown of Sherman, Texas and I hope that he might see this and drop me a line. alamobill SHS'64
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 14, 2010 18:21:05 GMT -5
I thought it was quite shrewd of Houston to deliver his speech in Congress. By reading it into the congressional record he insured that his side of the story would be preserved for all time, relegating materials such as Sherman’s to hopefully a copy remaining available in the future. It insures that the Houston version becomes the offical one and lessens the impact of anyone who gave a different account. Especially when Sam Houston kept copious notes, letters and official documents to back up his stories to some extent, while his enemies not so much. That doesn't mean that Houston couldn't be just as vindictive when attacked as any other politico or commentator. Sometimes Houston and his enemies were on their seperate games and sometimes they were not. Elections were obviously the deciding factor that settled the petty disputes for a brief time. Houston was kicked out of the Governor's Mansion for taking a more intelligent stance during the Seccession Crisis, but even with his premature demise I think he won out in the end. He did more good than harm in our turbulent early history, which is more that I can say for Pres. Lamar. * Spelling correction
|
|