From the New York Times Magazine story about the race between our Gov. Rick and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, he’s talking about his admiration for Sam Houston:
“Houston became a Christian late in life because of his wife,” he said. “He was running for the presidency in 1860, and she talked him out of it. She thought he would lose his mortal soul if he ran for the presidency. He was highly respected in the North — an anti-slave Southerner. There are those that think he would’ve won the presidency of the United States and we probably would not have had a civil war. Interesting.” The governor was grinning broadly. “Then we wouldn’t have had Abe Lincoln,” I pointed out.
Perry contemplated this for barely a second before replying, “Maybe Sam Houston would’ve been better.”
He sat back and munched on his popcorn, clearly pleased to have said something that might provoke incredulity somewhere.
I’m going to recuse myself in any debate of the merits of Lincoln vs. Houston due to my deep personal ties to our 16th president’s hometown. But I will say that the election of someone else as president in 1860 might well have delayed a civil war. I doubt it would have prevented one. And I don’t think a delay would have done our country much good in the long run, particularly for the millions of human beings living in bondage.
I realize I’m responding to Perry’s off-the-cuff remark in an overly serious manner. I just think our history matters.
23 comments
Your mention of Sam Houston’s conversion made me recall a statement years ago from a Texas history class at Sam Houston State. The professor said that as Houston came up and out of the water from his baptism the preacher told him that all of his sins had been washed down the river. Sam replied, “if that is the case then I hope that God has mercy on those poor fish”.
The Civil War would indeed eventually occur. The only way a delay might have made things better were the advances in medicine in the late 19th century, particularly sterilization, that might have allowed for more survivors. Then again, advances in military technology might have caused more battlefield deaths. I have allot of Texas pride but Perry’s Texan bravado is wearing thin. After Bush, it might be good for prideful Texas politicians to keep a low national profile until at least after the next presidential election.
England managed to end slavery without firing a shot.
War was not inevitable nor necessary.
The only real comparison between Abe Lincoln and Sam Houston is the fact that they have the same number of letters in their first and last names. Gov. Rick feels compelled, I suppose, to make these statements on a regular basis to show that he’s a state and not a federal kind of guy, and to renew his cred with the evangelicals. At this point, its unnecessary, since he’s preaching to the choir. Can’t say it inspires “incredulity.” More like familiarity.
It was much easier for England to abolish slavery than it was for the United States. England was nowhere near as dependent on slave labor for its economic production — at least not directly. They didn’t suffer the deep sectionalism that the U.S. faced with the divisions between North and South. It’s not like the West Indies was going to declare war on Britain.
Who needs the intellectual rigour of history when one can simply declare “I Love Jesus” then proceed with endless, self-centered speculation about almost anything?
Texas, Perry, ugh.
Has Rick Perry ever read the Pledge of Allegiance? You know, the part that says “One nation”, the part that says “Indivisible”? It does not say “Texas and umpteen other states.”
If he is such a fan of Sam Houston, why does Perry support secession, while Sam was a Unionist, through and through?
Does Rick Perry EVER think about what he says in anything other than self-serving political ways?
It’s almost like Perry’s trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
England certainly made money off the slave trade but the slave trade wasn’t ‘home-based’; half the country hadn’t built much of its economy, much of its culture, even its voting system, entirely on slavery. This same half of the country also fiercely resented any intrusion into its “peculiar institution” yet was incredibly poorly prepared for the industrial and infrastructural demands that war would bring.
So England’s peaceful banning of slavery is hardly a useful comparison to whether war was inevitable in the United States and whether the war would be as grueling as it became.
How can we expect the tea-baggers and their friends to get over the election of Obama in 2008 when the governor of Texas still hasn’t gotten over the election of 1860? Give a break, Rick, and just go away.
Yossarian is not a clean, crisp, Texican name like Houston or Austin.
Yossarian your comment reminds me of the singer/songwriters that came to be known by my crowd as the “I love beer and Texas singers.”
Substitute Jesus for beer and run for office.
Bob – you are clearly no student of history. The bit about the pledge of allegiance? US Civil War: 1861-1865. Pledge of Allegiance: 1892. OOPS! Your problem is that you are thinking w/ a 20th and 21st century mindset. For the people of 1860, the US was indeed not “indivisible.” Many, especially southerners, thought of themselves as Virginians or Mississippians first, and “Americans” second. The Civil War has to be thought of from as much of a 19th century perspective as possible to fully understand it.
As for Sam Houston – unclear if he’d have won. War was not inevitable. I fully believe, and many statistics show, that slavery was on its way towards being abolished in the South. The war sped up this process, but also probably played a major part in racial strife for decades to come, as well as threw the South (whites and blacks) into poverty for decades.
Ugh Texas?
I-35 still runs North to free you of having to put up with Texas.
I love Obama supporters giving history lessons, where did our founders make provisions for the fed taking over as they have?
I will take I love Texas singers over 90% of the crap out there….
Well at least Governor Perry is as good a historian as he is a Constitution scholar.
Pssst, don’t tell the Governor the Houston was apposed to secession, which is one of Perry’s platform planks.
DallasMan–You are clearly no student of reading. I did not say that the Pledge of Allegiance came before the Civil War. Whether it was written before or after the Civil War, it refers to the founding concept of this country–one nation, indivisible.
If you need further proof of this basic idea, you might try reading the Constitution of the United States (which, I believe, was written before the Civil War). It begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . .”
You might also try reading the many books about Lincoln in which he clearly states his intent to keep the Union whole and intact. Sure, many Southerners believed in and fought for the idea of “states’ rights,” but they lost. The rest of the country defended the unity of this nation, and they won.
Union remains united: 1
Secessionists: 0
Given England’s history in India I think many would question the statement that England ended slavery without firing a shot.
Many a person died under England’s rule.
Oh Bob, you completely missed the point. Its not “whether it was written before or after” – no, that IS THE POINT. The idea that the nation was “indivisible” was established BY the result of the war. It was up in the air before then.
Yes, I’ve read the Constitution. I’m a LAWYER. I’ve also read the Declaration of Independence, when the colonies separated themselves from Great Britain. Funny, the British thought of themselves as indivisible from their colonies too, as did many pro-British colonists. Winning a war has a way of settling disagreements over political autonomy. The winner also writes the history books.
Your last paragraph just confirms – you don’t understand the principles needed in examining history without bias, and are making this discussion an “us versus them” item.
Objection – non-responsive.
I think anyone who’s really read much about Houston’s life will put his Christian “conversion” in the “things-one-does-for-the-wife” and maybe “things-one does-to-run-for-higher-office” categories. He was an unrepentant pagan in the best sense of that word after spending what he called the best years of his life living among the Cherokee.
In other words, Sam’s conversion was probably every bit as sincere as Rick’s.
DallasMan–thank you for your observations about me missing the point and failing to understand things. I guess that, since you are a lawyer, you must be right.
However, your revisionist view of history is belied by the many documents of our nation’s history that show, clearly and convincingly, that the United States was NOT meant to be a confederation of states whose members could check in and out as they pleased. Just start with the original document, the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” and then proceed to the present Constitution, and tell me where you find any authority for your idea that the concept of indivisibility was “up in the air before” the Civil War.
By the way, did the law school that you attended teach you your version of constitutional law? Or did you just make it up, like so many Republicans today seem to do?
Heh. He’s a LAWYER not a lawyer.
Thanks for the clarification, Llamalu. I guess being a LAWYER trumps being a lawyer. My bad.
Bob – glad I could clear things up for you.
No, the law school I attended didn’t teach this “version” of law, they taught constitutional law, including its history and development through the years as our nation’s judicial and collective understanding of it changed.
These “clear[ly] and convincing[ly]” documents you mention, you must be reading different texts that I am. That’s a mighty high burden of proof to meet. The amount of intelligent disagreement from both sides over the years seems to indicate these documents are indeed not so simple as you allege.
I’m a historian, and also not a Republican, as much as you seem to want to attribute that quality to me. I’m just sorry you seem to be so closed-minded in your attempt to put history in a box to make it “nice and pretty.” Our national history is complicated and complex, but apparently you prefer the white-washed elementary school textbook version.
DallasMan:
Sorry, but Bob does have a point that you ignore. The Declaration of Independence DOES state “We the PEOPLE of the United States” have been impelled to separate from England. It doesn’t say “We the States.” So as much as pre-Civil War folks in Georgia may have thought of themselves as Georgians before they thought of themselves as Americans, they — and all of us — had already bound ourselves together in a compact. As further proof, the Declaration doesn’t end with any reference to the separate states getting together to do this as a kind of treaty. It says that we, the representatives, “by the authority of the good people of these colonies” mutually “pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Ergo, we as a people trump the separate states.