Page 1 of 65
Sam Houston -- Ed Sebesta 4/7/2021
Of all the Texas secessionists, it seems to the author that Sam Houston is perceived by the public and historians as being not like the others and having some positive qualities. Houston was against secession during the Civil War, but many supporters of slavery were against secession since they saw that it could lead to the total destruction of slavery which it did. Houston was believed to be better towards Native Americans than other Texas leaders. However, Anglo-American settlement of Texas, and surely Texas secession from Mexico was going to be the doom of Native Americans in Texas and it was the doom of Native Americans in Texas. Historians may debate whether what happened to Native Americans in Texas was an ethnic cleansing or genocide, but either way it was horrible.1 Houston was a hero to white Texans because he saved the Texas secession effort which resulted in the certain death or expulsion or subjugation of Native Americans from Texas. Different bits and pieces of Houston’s career are sometimes showcased in isolation to give the impressions that Houston was one thing or another. I have yet to find a satisfactory biography of Sam Houston. There has been this debate about whether Texas seceded because of the tyranny of the dictatorship of Santa Anna or because of slavery or whether the motives were mixed. As will be discussed in this essay this debate falsely frames the historical question as a choice between these two ideas in opposition or a compromise of them. Historical evidence does show that Santa Anna was a dictator and the pro-slavery motives of the Texas secessionists is of historical record. It ought to be considered that Texas secession was for the freedom to own slaves against a dictator that would forbid slave ownership. The two reasons are then not in opposition, but are working together in alignment. These motives could exist in a larger context. That is what this essay will discuss. Of course, the irony of slave owners complaining about dictatorship is fairly obvious. Knowing the historical record is good. Understanding the historical record is another thing. The core issue of Sam Houston’s role in history is his motivation to have Texas secede and what type of nation he thought he was creating. Mexico had already abolished slavery in 1829 at the time of Texas secession.2 The Texas constitution, adopted on March 17, 1836, in which Samuel Houston was the chairman of
1
Gary Clayton Anderson in his book, “The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land,” Oklahoma Univ. Press, 2020 argues that it is ethnic cleaning and not genocide. Thomas Richards Jr. in his book, “Breakaway Americas: The Unmanifest Future of the Jacksonian United States,” John Hopkins Univ. Press, refers to “Mirabeau Lamar’s genocidal policies.” 2 Valdés, Dennis N., “The Decline of Slavery in Mexico,” The Americas, pub. Cambridge Univ. Press, Vol. 44 No. 2, Oct. 1987, pp. 167-194.