/Vr/ THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF SAM HOUSTON THESIS Presented to the Graduate School of the University of North Texas in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By John D. Daniels, B.A. Denton, Texas December, 1990 Daniels, John D., The Political Philosophy of Sam Houston. Master of Arts (History), December 1990, 299 pp., bibliography, 193 titles. Although most Americans view Sam Houston as a military leader and practical politician with little understanding of intellectual issues, he actually possessed a complex moral and political philosophy which he elaborated and demonstrated during a fifty-year public career. He based his philosophy on a mixture of Christian idealism and pragmatic realism, with duty, honor, and strict morality serving to restrain his love of reality, reason, and physical pleasures. The dual nature of his moral beliefs extended into his politics, which mixed Jeffersonian republicanism, individual rights, and limited government, with Jacksonian democracy, the needs of society, and the will of the people. Throughout most of his career he kept those conflicting sets of ideals successfully in balance, with only the turmoil of the 1850s leading him into extreme positions. Copyright by John D. Daniels 1990 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to express my gratitude to Jim B. Pearson, who contributed much to the development of this work before his untimely death. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . .. a......... 1 2. PERSONAL LIFE AND PUBLIC CAREER......... 9 3. PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY AND BASIC BELIEFS ..*.* .0 34 4. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT 64 5. MANIFEST DESTINY AND INDIAN POLICY . .. .. 97 6. LAND POLICY AND BOUNDARY DISPUTES ....... 130 7. CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT AND EXECUTIVE POWERS .............a..... 157 8. FOREIGN DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION ........................ 192 9. ECONOMIC POLICY AND GOVERNMENT FINANCE . 214 10. CONCLUSION . a . 257 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................ ....... 285 V CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION An extensive body of literature already exists on the subject of Sam Houston. Biographers have produced many different treatments of his life, with their contents ranging from uncritical praises of Houston's virtues and popular tales of his life and times, to scholarly analyses of his actions and motives. Historians have investigated many aspects of his life in minute detail. 2 With such an impressive quantity of work already in print, the creation of yet another volume requires some explanation. Basically, the current body of work neglects two important aspects of Sam Houston. The first neglected aspect lies in the area of overall interpretation. Books and articles have covered parts of Houston's career over and over again. For example, scholarly journals and popular magazines have published many articles about the battle of San Jacinto.3 Numerous articles have also covered various other military campaigns that involved Houston, such as the Snively Expedition and the Mier Expedition. 4 No author, however, has attempted to tie all those military campaigns together in a general discussion of Houston's military policies and military strategies. Similarly, a vast number of books and articles 1 have dealt with various topics concerning Houston's policies towards the Indians, but few authors have tried to unite all those topics into a general discussion of Houston and Indian policy.5 Nonetheless, though such topical overviews are few in number and limited in scope, they do exist. What is completely missing is an overview of all of Houston's public policies. No one has tried to analyze those policies and then to integrate them into a statement of his political philosophy. This volume will attempt to provide that missing overall interpretation. After presenting a brief summary of Houston's life, it offers topical overviews of all the major subjects that Houston addressed during his public career. The concluding chapter then attempts to integrate the topical overviews into one overall summary of Houston's political philosophy. Critical scholars could offer three major objections, or questions, to such a procedure. First, is there sufficient, appropriate evidence to make such a procedure valid? Houston's public career lasted from 1813 to 1861. During those forty-eight years he was usually in some position of public trust, at various times holding military commands, executive positions, and legislative posts. In the process he left behind an extensive public record, including eight volumes of private letters, public documents, and public speeches.6 Since he held both 2 executive and legislative positions, his actions serve as a check on his speeches. Simply put, this extensive body of deeds and words, not speculation about Houston's unstated motives or psychology, provides the material for this study. Second, did Houston have a set of ideas which he adhered to consistently enough to be considered a political philosophy? Some military and political leaders are pragmatic men of action who adapt their principles to fit their situation. Such leaders cannot be considered to have a true political philosophy. Houston was not such a man! He rarely changed his views to suit his circumstances, and he was remarkably consistent in his public positions. In fact, he frequently made stands which cost him political popularity. Although he did occasionally contradict himself on a given subject, these inconsistencies usually occurred under extreme circumstances. Third, did Houston simply acquire his principles as a body from someone else, or were his ideas different enough to be worth considering independently? Houston was definitely a Jacksonian. He shared many ideas with his friend and mentor, Andrew Jackson, but he also had some definite differences with him. In addition, Houston spent much of his public life outside the direct influence of Jackson. From 1832 to 1845 Houston lived in Texas, outside of the United States, and in 1845 Jackson died. If Houston was a Jacksonian in his later years, he was one simply 3 because he understood the philosophy well enough to apply it to his own circumstances. In short, his differences in philosophy and his differences in application are significant enough to make Houston worth separate consideration. The second neglected aspect of Sam Houston lies in the area of his significance. Texas historians recognize Houston's importance in the development of Texas, but American historians largely discount his significance in the development of the United States. General histories of the United States usually mention his part in the Battle of San Jacinto, and they occasionally mention his election as the first President of the Texas Republic, but they virtually ignore the rest of his career.8 Most topical histories of the American antebellum period also give Houston little attention. For example, books on pre-Civil War Indian policy rarely even mention him.9 Books on the development of the secession movement do include him, but only as a minor figure of the period, while books on the Jacksonian movement either ignore him altogether or make only minor references to him.10 In one sense the American historians are correct. They are looking for men who had a positive effect on the outcome of historical events. After 1845 Houston had only a minor impact on U.S. events. On the level of political principles, though, he has a much greater significance. He 4 was virtually the only Jacksonian who managed to retain an important political position until the beginning of the Civil War. His career during the 1850s provides an excellent illustration of how an old style democrat reacted to the rise of the new political doctrines which swept the country toward sectional conflict. This volume attempts to show how the battle between Houston and his opponents on a wide range of issues provided a stunning demonstration of the problems and consequences of antebellum political philosophies. 5 Notes 1Popular works include George Creel, Sam Houston: Colossus in Buckskin (New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, 1928); Charles Edward Lester, Life and Achievements of Sam Houston: Hero and Statesman (New York: John B. Alden, 1887). Scholarly analyses include Marquis James, The Raven: A Biography of Sam Houston, introduction by Henry Steele Commager (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1929; reprint, New York: Grosset & Dunlap, [1953]); Llerena B. Friend, Sam Houston: The Great Designer (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1954; reprint, 1969). 2A good example is Jack Gregory and Rennard Strickland, Sam Houston with the Cherokees, 1829-1833 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967). 3Michael Fluent, "San Jacinto," American History Illustrated 21 (May 1986): 22-31; Jenkins Garrett, "A 1971 Look at San Jacinto," Stirpes 11 (June 1971): 43-7; Allen Lee Hamilton, "Pathway to Retreat Ignored," Military History 5 (October 1988): 18-25; Richard Jackson, "Costliest Nap in Military History," True West 6 (May/June 1959): 12-4, 34. 4Harry A. Gailey, Jr., "Sam Houston and the Texas War Fever, March - August, 1842," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 57 (July 1958): 29-44; Ralph A. Wooster, "Texas Military Operations Against Mexico, 1842-1843," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 67 (April 1964): 465-84. 5 Books and articles on Houston's Indian policies include Mary Whatley Clarke, Chief Bowles and the Texas Cherokees (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971); Prairie View Malone, Sam Houston's Indians: The Alabama- Coushatti (San Antonio, Tex.: Naylor