James K. Polk SSB(N)-645 - History

James K. Polk SSB(N)-645 - History

James K. Polk

(SSB(N)-645; dp. 7,250 "surf.); 8,250 (subm.); 1. 425'; b.
33'; dr. 31'5"; s. over 20 k.; cpl. 140; a. 16 Poll mist;
cl. Lafagette)

The keel for the Navy’s 35th Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine and the first ship of the fleet to be named in honor of James K. Polk was laid at General Dynamics Corporation’s Electric Boat Division at Groton, CT, on November 23, 1963. A year and a half later, this submarine began her water borne career after being christened USS JAMES K. POLK (SSBN-645) by Mrs. Horation Rivero, Jr. on May 22, 1965. For the next 10 months, she underwent fitting-out and on March 13, 1966, she conducted her first sea trials. USS JAMES K. POLK was commissioned as a ship of the U.S. Navy on April 16, 1966.USS JAMES K. POLK combined the almost unlimited endurance of nuclear power with the deterrent might of 16 thermonuclear missiles capable of wreaking more havoc than all the bombs of World War II. These missiles had a range of 2500 nautical miles and were housed in 16 launching tubes located aft of the sail.
USS JAMES K. POLK sailed to Charleston, SC in September 1966 to load-out Polaris missiles for her initial deterrent patrol. After completion of the shakedown period, she operated in the Atlantic Ocean and completed 19 strategic deterrent patrols from September 1966 until May 1971.

USS JAMES K. POLK conducted her first overhaul at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Virginia for nuclear refueling and conversion of the weapons system to the Poseidon missile system in July 1971. She completed her conversion in late 1972 and commenced a rigorous schedule of sea trials and exercises. These events culminated in the Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) of the Poseidon missile system. The DASO afforded the opportunity to test the ship’s system, train the crew and launch a Poseidon C-3 missile from the submarine.

USS JAMES K. POLK commenced Poseidon deterrent patrols in the Atlantic Ocean in May 1973. She conducted her second overhaul at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard after completing her 50th deterrent patrol in September 1981. The ship completed overhaul in 1983 and conducted 7 more successful patrols.

USS JAMES K. POLK returned to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in January 1986 for a third overhaul after completing her 58th deterrent patrol. She departed Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in November 1988 and sailed south for commencement of her Demonstration and Shakedown Operations (DASO). May 1989 marked the beginning of her final series of Poseidon strategic deterrent patrols.

USS JAMES K. POLK celebrated her 25th year of commissioned service in April 1991 and completed her 66th and final strategic deterrent patrol in August of that year. She completed a nineteen month shipyard conversion which removed her 16 Poseidon missiles in March 1994 and converted her designation from SSBN-645 to SSN-645. Since conversion, she has completed two extended deployments to the Mediterranean with Dry Deck shelters and has participated in numerous SPECWAR and NATO exercises.


USS Louisiana (SSBN-743)

USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) is the 18th and last ship of the United States Navy ' s Ohio class of nuclear-powered fleet ballistic missile submarines. She carries Trident ballistic missiles and has been in commission since 1997. She is the fourth commissioned ship to bear the name of the U.S. state of Louisiana.

    2006 (Blue Crew) 2009
  • Meritorious Unit Commendation (Gold Crew) 2009
  • 16,764 long tons (17,033 t) surfaced [1][2]
  • 18,750 long tons (19,050 t) submerged [1]
  • 1 × S8GPWR nuclear reactor [1]
  • 2 × geared turbines[1]
  • 1 × 325 hp (242 kW) auxiliary motor
  • 1 × shaft @ 60,000 shp (45,000 kW) [1]
  • 15 officers [1][2]
  • 140 enlisted [2][1]
    torpedoes
  • 24 × Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles

James K. Polk: Family Life

Although Polk was a religious man, his faith seldom equaled the stern beliefs of Sarah's outspoken devotion. Raised a Presbyterian, Polk had never been baptized due to a family argument with the local Presbyterian minister in rural North Carolina. At age thirty-eight, Polk experienced a religious conversion to Methodism at a camp meeting, and thereafter he thought of himself as a Methodist. Out of respect for his mother and wife, however, he continued to attend Presbyterian services even if he was not overly fond of their Calvinist content. But whenever his wife was out of town or too ill to attend church, Polk worshiped at the local Methodist chapel. On his deathbed, he summoned the man who had converted him years before, the Methodist Reverend John B. McFerrin, who at last baptized Polk.

Never having children, Polk had no family life as President other than what Sarah would arrange for him. His family was politics, and he pursued it relentlessly. One biographer writes that aside from politics, Polk "had no aspirations, intellectual interests, recreation, or even friendships." He once described himself as the hardest-working man in Washington, and even his political enemies marveled at his ability to accomplish so much on a daily basis.


Block Reason: Access from your area has been temporarily limited for security reasons.
Time: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 6:29:26 GMT

About Wordfence

Wordfence is a security plugin installed on over 3 million WordPress sites. The owner of this site is using Wordfence to manage access to their site.

You can also read the documentation to learn about Wordfence's blocking tools, or visit wordfence.com to learn more about Wordfence.

Generated by Wordfence at Sun, 20 Jun 2021 6:29:26 GMT.
Your computer's time: .


SSBN-658 was commissioned in 1963 and laid down at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in 1964 . In 1965 the boat was launched and was christened, godmother was Patricia OV McGettigan, a descendant of Vallejo. At the end of 1966 the Mariano G. Vallejo was put into service.

The submarine was stationed in Pearl Harbor , Hawaii, in 1967 , and has been on regular nuclear deterrent patrols from there in the years that followed. The boat was later relocated to the Atlantic and modernized so that it could shoot down the Trident I. In 1987, the Vallejo completed the 2,500th deterrent patrol of the US Navy submarine fleet.

In 1995 the Mariano G. Vallejo was decommissioned and then canceled in the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program in the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard . Only the tower of the boat was preserved, brought to the site of the Mare Island shipyard, which is located near the town of Vallejo , which is also named after Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo, and exhibited there. Although the shipyard closed in 1996, the tower is still there.


1. Braxton Bragg, United States Army and Confederate States Army

Braxton Bragg graduated from West Point and accepted a commission into the United States Army in 1837, standing fifth in his class of fifty cadets. He served with distinction in the Seminole War, and further distinguished himself in the Mexican-American War. Though he was unpopular among his fellow officers, Bragg earned respect for the disciplined performance of the troops under his command. He returned to wide-spread admiration following the war, and in 1856 purchased a large sugar plantation near Thibodeaux, Louisiana. Bragg joined in local politics and government, accepted a commission as a Colonel in the Louisiana Militia, and grew in wealth and influence. At one time he and his wife owned over 100 slaves.

During the Civil War Bragg renounced his oath and served in the Confederacy, mostly in the western departments. He commanded a corps at the bloody battle of Shiloh, and eventually assumed command of the Army of the Mississippi, later called the Army of Tennessee. He led his forces in several major battles, nearly all of them defeats for the Confederacy, though he did win a morale-boosting victory at the Battle of Chickamauga. Bragg failed to adequately follow-up on his victory, and suffered a severe defeat at the subsequent battles for Chattanooga. Regarded by most historians and military scholars as an ineffective leader and tactician, Bragg&rsquos war ended with him having lost the confidence of Confederate military and political leaders, though he remained in the field until captured in May, 1865.


Contents

The contract to build Kamehameha was awarded to Mare Island Naval Shipyard at Vallejo, California, on 31 August 1962 and her keel was laid down there on 2 May 1963. She was launched on 16 January 1965, sponsored by Mrs. Samuel Wilder King, and commissioned on 10 December 1965 with Commander Roth S. Leddick in command of the Blue Crew and Commander Robert W. Dickieson in command of the Gold Crew.

Conducting deterrence patrols during the Cold War, Kamehameha's armament as a ballistic missile submarine was 16 Poseidon ballistic missiles plus ten to twelve Mark 48 heavy torpedoes non-ADCAP (advanced capability).


Air Force F-35A will likely deploy within 2 years

Posted On April 02, 2018 09:40:19

U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Connor J. Marth

Air Force F-35A Joint Strike Fighters coordinated close air support with Navy SEALs, trained with F-15Es and A-10s, dropped laser-guided bombs and practiced key mission sets and tactics in Idaho as part of initial preparations for what will likely be its first deployment within several years, senior service officials said.

“We are practicing taking what would be a smaller contingent of jets and moving them to another location and then having them employ out of that location,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, Director, F-35 Integration Office told Scout Warrior in an interview.

While the Marine Corps has publically said it plans to deploy its Short-Take-off-and-Landing F-35B aboard an amphibious assault ship by 2017, the Air Force has been reluctant thus far to specify a deployment date for its F-35A variant.

However, Harrigian did say the Air Force plane would likely deploy within several years and pointed to recent mini-deployments of 6 F-35As from Edwards AFB in Calif., to Mountain Home AFB in Idaho as key evidence of its ongoing preparations.

“They dropped 30-bombs – 20 laser-guided bombs and 10 JDAMS (Joint Direct Attack Munitions). All of them were effective. We are trying to understand not only how we understand the airplane in terms of ordnance but also those tactics, techniques and procedures we need to prepare,” Harrigian explained.

During the exercises at Mountain Home AFB, the F-35A also practiced coordinating communications such as target identification, radio and other command and control functions with 4th-generation aircraft such as the F-15E, he added.

The training exercises in Idaho were also the first “real” occasion to test the airplane’s ability to use its computer system called the Autonomic Logistic Information System, or ALIS. The Air Force brought servers up to Mountain Home AFB to practice maintaining data from the computer system.

A report in the Air Force Times indicated that lawmakers have expressed some concerns about the development of ALIS, which has been plagued with developmental problems such as maintenance issues and problems referred to as “false positives.”

U.S. Air Force photo

“This is a new piece of the weapons system. It has been challenging and hard. You have all this data about your airplanes. We learned some things that we were able to do in a reasonable amount of time,” Harrigian said.

F-35A “Sensor Fusion”

The computer system is essential to what F-35 proponents refer to as “sensor fusion,” a next-generation technology which combines and integrates information from a variety of sensors onto a single screen. As a result, a pilot does not have to look at separate displays to calculate mapping information, targeting data, sensor input and results from a radar warning receiver.

Harrigian added that his “fusion” technology allows F-35A pilots to process information and therefore make decisions faster than a potential enemy. He explained how this bears upon the historic and often referred to OODA Loop – a term to connote the Observation Orientation, Decision, Action cycle that fighter pilots need to go through in a dogfight or combat engagement in order to successfully destroy the enemy. The OODA-Loop concept was developed by former Air Force strategist Col. John Boyd it has been a benchmark of fighter pilot training, preparation and tactical mission execution.

“As we go in and start to target the enemy, we are maximizing the capabilities of our jets. The F-35 takes all that sensor input and gives it to you in one picture. Your ability to make decisions quicker that the enemy is exponentially better than when we were trying to put it all together in a 4th generation airplane. You are arriving already in a position of advantage,” Harrigian explained.

Also, the F-35 is able to fire weapons such as the AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile “off boresight,” meaning it can destroy enemy targets at different angles of approach that are not necessarily directly in front of the aircraft.

“Before you get into an engagement you will have likely already shot a few missiles at the enemy,” Harrigian said.

The F-35s Electro-Optical Targeting System, or EOTS, combines forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track sensor technology for pilots – allowing them to find and track targets before attacking with laser and GPS-guided precision weapons.

The EOTs system is engineered to work in tandem with a technology called the Distributed Aperture System, or DAS, a collection of six cameras strategically mounted around the aircraft to give the pilot a 360-degree view.

The DAS includes precision tracking, fire control capabilities and the ability to warn the pilot of an approaching threat or missile.

An F-35B dropping a GBU-12 during a developmental test flight. | U.S. Air Force photo

The F-35 is also engineered with an Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar which is able to track a host of electromagnetic signals, including returns from Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR. This paints a picture of the contours of the ground or surrounding terrain and, along with Ground Moving Target Indicator, or GMTI, locates something on-the-move on the ground and airborne objects or threats.

F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Deployment

The Air Force plans to announce what’s called Initial Operational Capability, or IOC, of its F-35A at some point between August and December of this year seven F-35As are preparing for this at Hill AFB, Utah.

There is an operational unit at Hill AFB which, this coming June, is slated to go to Mountain Home for its training and preparation. They are the 34th Fighter Squadron

“All of this is part of a robust schedule of activities,” Harrigian added.

Following this development, the F-35A will be ready for deployment, Harrigian explained.

Once deployed, the F-35 will operate with an advanced software drop known as 𔄛F” which will give the aircraft an ability to destroy enemy air defenses and employ a wide range of weapons.

Full operational capability will come with Block 3F, service officials said.

Block 3F will increase the weapons delivery capacity of the JSF as well, giving it the ability to drop a Small Diameter Bomb, 500-pound JDAM and AIM 9X short-range air-to-air missile, Air Force officials said.

As per where the initial squadron might deploy, Harrigian said that would be determined by Air Combat Command depending upon operational needs at that time. He did, however, mention the Pacific theater and Middle East as distinct possibilities.

“Within a couple years, I would envision they will take the squadron down range. Now, whether they go to Pacific Command or go to the Middle East – the operational environment and what happens in the world will drive this. If there is a situation where we need this capability and they are IOC – then Air Combat Command is going to take a hard look at using these aircraft,” he said.

Articles

“Long-Legged Yankee Lies”

I posted this back in March 2006, but decided to showcase it since my Civil War Memory classes will be meeting today to discuss James McPherson’s essay on the UDC and their efforts to control and shape the content of history textbooks at the beginning of the twentieth century. The article is titled, “Long-Legged Yankee Lies”: The Southern Textbook Crusade, which appeared in Alice Fahs and Joan Waugh, eds., The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture (UNC Press, 2004).

By the 1890’s organizations such as the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) had organized committees to oversee and review the content of textbooks for children in schools across the South. As one UCV committee report noted, the purpose of such reviews was to honor the sacrifice of the Confederate soldier and “to retain from the wreck in which their constitutional views, their domestic institutions, the mass of their property, and the lives of their bravest were lost, the knowledge that their conduct was honorable throughout, and that their submission at last . . . in no way blackened their motives or established the wrong of the cause for which they fought.” (p. 68)

Consider Susan Pendleton Lee’s 1895 text, A School History of the United States, in which she declared that although abolitionists had declared slavery to be a “moral wrong” most Southerners believed that “the evils connected with it were less than those of any other system of labor. Hundreds of thousands of African savages had been Christianized under its influence—The kindest relations existed between the slaves and their owners. . [The slaves] were better off than any other menial class in the world.” No surprise that in her account of Reconstruction the Klan was necessary “for protection against . . . outrages committed by misguided negroes.” (p. 69)

By the first decade of the twentieth century most Southern states had created textbook commissions to oversee or prescribe books for all public schools that provide a “fair and impartial” interpretation. These committees worked diligently to challenge publishers who stood to threaten the South’s preferred story of the war: “Southern schools and Southern teachers have prepared books which Southern children may read without insult or traduction of their fathers. Printing presses all over the Southland—and all over the Northland—are sending forth by thousands ones which tell the true character of the heroic struggle. The influence . . . of the South forbid[s] longer the perversion of truth and falsification of history.” (p. 70)

Perhaps the best example of the oversight by the UDC was through the work of “historian general” Mildred L. Rutherford of Georgia. In 1919 Rutherford published A Measuring Rod to Test Text Books and Reference Books in Schools, Colleges, and Libraries. The UCV historical committee recommended the book for “all authorities charged with the selection of text-books for colleges, schools, and all scholastic institutions” and recommended that “all library authorities in the southern States” to “mark all books in their collections which do not come up to the same measure, on the title page thereof, ‘Unjust to the South.’

Here are some of Rutherford’s recommendations:

    1. Reject a book that speaks of the Constitution other than [as] a compact between Sovereign states.
    2. Reject a text-book that . . . does not clearly outline the interferences with the rights guaranteed to the South by the Constitution, and which caused secession.
    3. Reject a book that says the South fought to hold her slaves.
    4. Reject a book that speaks of the slaveholders of the South as cruel and unjust to his slaves.
    5. Reject a text-book that glorifies Abraham Lincoln and vilifies Jefferson Davis.
    6. Reject a text-book that omits to tell of the South’s heroes and their deeds. (p. 72)

Here are corrections to common mistakes found in textbooks:

    1. Southern men were anxious for the slaves to be free. They were studying earnestly the problem of freedom, when Northern fanatical Abolitionists took matters into their own hands.
    2. “More slaveholders and sons of slaveholders fought for the Union than for the Confederacy (this fit awkwardly with assertions elsewhere that the Yankees got immigrants and blacks to do most of their fighting – McPherson comment).
    3. Gen. Lee freed his slaves before the war began and Gen. Ulysses S. Grand did not free his until the war ended.
    4. The war did not begin with the firing on Fort Sumter. It began when Lincoln ordered 2,400 men and 285 guns to the defense of Sumter.”
    5. Union forces outnumbered Confederate forces five to one, not surprising when the Union population was 31 million while the Confederate population was only 5 million whites and 4 million slaves.” (p. 73)

And there you have it. I wonder if Rutherford and the rest of the gang had any idea of just how successful they were in shaping an interpretation that continues to prove to be attractive throughout this country. Consider the following two posts (here and here) if you have any doubts.

In reference to the state of art in terms of Civil War remembrance in 1960-61, something that might be worth considering are the names assigned to the USN’s 41 SSBNs equipped with Polaris and/or Posiedon SLBMs.

These ships were authorized during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, and the choices made for nomenclature (“American patriots” as opposed to the then-traditional “marine life” names for subs) are interesting:

Of the 41 boats, only four (USS Robert E. Lee, SSBN-601 Abraham Lincoln (602), Ulysses S. Grant (631), and Stonewall Jackson (634)) would come to mind as figures from the Civil War period (although there were SLBMs named after Sam Houston and James K. Polk, among others, whose lives were intimately connected with the Civil War.)

Overall, all 42 individuals (counting USS Lewis and Clark as a two-fer) honored are male, although not all are soldiers/statesmen types – Thomas Edison was honored, for example, as was the humorist Will Rogers. Rogers is fairly quixotic, but there are some others that sort of make you scratch your head in terms of “what were they thinking?”…

Four foreign nationals (Lafayette, Von Steuben, Pulaski, and Bolivar) were honored, as was one (Mariano Vallejo) who became a US citizen more or less by force also honored were two “natives” (Kamehameha and Tecumseh) Kamehameha died without any knowledge of the existence of the United States, presumably, and Tecumseh, of course, actually fought against the US as a British ally in the 1812-15 war.

Exactly one African-American is honored, and he was not, for example, Frederick Douglas instead, USS George Washington Carver was christened as such.

The memoranda back-and-forth about the names selected for these ships could offer some real insight, I’d think.

As Grant freed the only slave he actually owned before the war, and as the Dent slaves freed themselves during the war (and this freedom was rendered into law when Missouri abolished slavery early in 1865), there’s a host of factual misstatements here, although even the editor of Mrs. Grant’s autobiography, the late John Simon, perpetuated the misapprehension in the notes to that volume.

Thank you for responding to this, Brooks. I have only been at White Haven a few months, and visitation has been slow due to weather and other factors, but I frequently have to try to correct visitors’ false impressions. A few days ago, for example, after talking about Grant and slavery at White Haven, a man from Mobile, Alabama visiting with his wife, said to me, “Robert E. Lee didn’t own any slaves.” A Google search of Grant, Lee, and slavery shows just how much misinformation is out there. I think it is also important to note that we don’t know how or why Grant acquired the one slave he owned and that he could have sold him at a t

OOPS! my finger hit the wrong key. Anyway… Grant freed his slave at a time when he could have used the money.

Here is “A Measuring Rod to Test Text Books and Reference Books in Schools, Colleges, and Libraries” online at the Digital Library of Georgia:
http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/meta/html/dlg/zlgb/meta_dlg_zlgb_gb5126.html?Welcome

Excellent post, Kevin. I’m particularly fond of these three…

“More slaveholders and sons of slaveholders fought for the Union than for the Confederacy”

My answer to those who say this… A statement typically made by those who can’t even substantiate the claim. Ultimately, I have to say, “prove it, show me the numbers.” But then, for the person who makes the claim shown above, it shows a huge void in understanding the bigger picture.

“Gen. Lee freed his slaves before the war began and Gen. Ulysses S. Grand did not free his until the war ended.”

My answer to this… “Long-legged Rebel lie.” As we all know, Lee did not free his slaves until 1862, and then, it might be seen as something he did only because his father-in-law stated that the slaves (which were ultimately passed along to Lee from Custis) were to be freed no later than 5 years after his death. I wonder if Lee would have held on to them otherwise. In the end, we can only speculate on that.

“The war did not begin with the firing on Fort Sumter. It began when Lincoln ordered 2,400 men and 285 guns to the defense of Sumter.”

My answer to this… “and of course, what forward-thinking president would not reinforce a US Military post considering the possibility of violence against said post.”

Dog gone it! This would have been more fun to play on had these statements been on a site run by a new age Confederate. Then again, statements like these are floating out there in various sites.

Yet, would it not be beneficial, in addition to Rutherford’s recommendations, to show your students the intent shown in the history text recommendations made by the G.A.R.?

Your final point is one that I tried to follow-up on. McPherson doesn’t say much in the essay beyond the claim that G.A.R. units did not push as strongly for a preferred narrative. I don’t know whether that it is true or not. Please let me know if you have any references beyond Stuart McConnell’s fine study.

I’m actually trying to dig deeper into that, but don’t yet have a good deal to work with. McConnell cites a paragraph from the, I believe, “Patriotic Committee” from a late 1880s or 90s National Encampment. He also cites objections of the G.A.R. to texts that exclude terms like “rebellion” and so on, but I don’t think (so far) that it comes near to anything like that which we see in Rutherford’s recommendations.

Without having done the necessary research, I would suspect that G.A.R. members would be concerned about the characterization of the war, but given the overall retreat from emancipation by the turn of the twentieth century it is unlikely they would have objected to claims about race and slavery.

I’m getting the impression that, in years after the war, the G.A.R. began to adopt, as a primary “cause” for their going to war, the liberation of the slaves though this is, in fact, contrary to the reasons why many went to war at the beginning. I think there are enough works to show that Union soldiers adopted this as a good “cause” for their fight against the Confederacy as the war went on, and they were able to see slaves and the conditions in which many of them lived. I think as an action of postwar veterans adopting the “cause” of “freeing the slaves” in retrospect is somewhat deceptive as it sounds more like they, as soldiers, went to war with this in mind from the start. Maybe I’m a bit off base on this, but that’s the impression I’m getting so far.

I have a graduate student friend at UVA who did a comprehensive survey of regimental histories published in the first few years following the war and he found that they emphasized emancipation as a crucial theme and consequence of the war. It would be interesting to know how they compared with later histories. It would also be interesting to know if there is a difference in the emphasis on unit histories from the western theatre.

But, if Union regimentals written after the war make the claim that emancipation was behind the “cause” of the men serving, does this not also mean that we should consider the claims made in Confederate regimentals written soon after the war, where the soldiers said they were not fighting for slavery?

Might we not consider the War of the Rebellion edition set as the northern response to shape the narrative? The OR does indeed tell a particular story – and it is a selection of documents (and the selections were made by one veteran group as civil servants). I am not saying the OR is full of lies but I am saying it is forced by size constraints to only tell part of the story. I had thought this might be the case and, when checking the records of the Department of NC (under various command names), discovered this to be the case. The editors selected documents that served a particular narrative. They faithfully transcribed those documents . The selection process must have had specific criteria. The end result is that the OR tells a selective tale.

Going through the records of the 1862 Mountain Department at least, it was easy to pick out what ended up in the OR and what didn’t–there’s a little pencil checkmark on the former. Leaving those items out didn’t give the OR a Northern bias–the editors as I remember worked hard to find and even buy Confederate documents–but it did sanitize the war somewhat. That is, items related to traditional warfare routinely were included in the OR, but items related to guerrilla activities often were not.

Chris… Wow! I never considered the OR as a form of persuasion or argument to prove a point. Are you saying that the War Department, ultimately, only allowed Confederate reports that would support a particular argument?

Nothing so insidious as what you might be suggesting (not wishing to place an argument in your question). Although I had not checked, specifically, against Confederate reports. What I found in letters sent and received to the US Dept of NC offered more evidence on NC unionism and also on the issue of trade in the NC waterways. By excluding these documents from the OR our understanding of what is happening in the Dept of NC is altered. The editors were forced to choose documents that depicted key moments, as they understood what moments or actions were key. When a document is chosen it is rendered faithfully. But I submit that “what to leave in and what to leave out” colors our understanding in a particular direction. Even though it might be subtle. Maybe the editors did not think the trade issue important or maybe it does not portray the US in a positive light. But by not including those documents at all the reader of the OR would never know one way or the other.
Control the information, control the argument, control the memory. Its about as 1984 as it gets.

Not meaning to sound like there was something “sinister” about the OR, but I am compelled by the way you suggest how selection of specific documents “colors” the way we reflect on events as we read about them in the OR. I mean, it makes sense, but I never thought of the ORs that way before.

Hey Robert,
They, all the various OR’s, are an amazing resource. And I think all Civil War historians can be thankful we have such a touchstone. And the OR’s seem so very exhaustive in materials presented. But an easy extra step for historians is to see if there are more documents pertinent to their research in the records at Archives I.
I guess it was seeing the purple circular stamp on documents denoting their selection to be used in the OR that began me thinking that not everything got in. And if it did not get in did that mean it was not important? When I found items I thought important to my work it crystallized for me that documents included were there to give an account of particular narrative lines. Someone had to chose those narrative lines. And with a title like “War of the Rebellion” we may be seeing a clue as to the general thrust of those narrative lines.
I am pleased to have contributed to the general discussion here – as I find Kevin’s work here of much benefit and appreciate everyone’s efforts to contribute. Thanks Robert for the dialog!

While I agree entirely that the selection of documents in the OR colors the interpretation of the war, I might point out that the point of Series I of the OR was to relate the paperwork relating to the operations of armies in the field. Of course, focusing on the armies does lead to a specific story being told. From what I have read about the process behind the OR, there was immense pressure on the War Department to process the documents and get the series out. Likewise, the calls for the OR centered around the activities of the major armies in the field. I agree with you Chris that the document selection shapes memory, but I think with the OR the process is the reverse – popular sentiment at the time placed importance upon the actions of the armies in the field (rather than administrative, routine, or lower-level paperwork [how often do you run across regimental level documents outside of formal reports of battles?]). For us today, the OR is often the first place to go when starting to research a particular topic, but keep in mind by the time the first volume appeared in 1880, a vast literature about the Civil War had already appeared. For the most part this work concentrated on battles, leaders, and military operations. In other words, those behind the OR responded to popular public sentiment regarding what was worthy of inclusion. I find the insinuation that the editors left out documents simply because they portrayed the US in a negative light a bit unconvincing because of the amount of material that does paint a negative picture of the US war effort that found its way into the OR.

Point well made and well taken. I certainly should not have suggested something was left out due to its possible negative effect – there is plenty left in that makes that a silly comment. Sorry about that.
I am pleased to be in agreement with you regarding selection coloring interpretation. And take your point about the process being influenced by the context of the times.

So Mildred Rutherford also neglected to mention the hundreds, nay, thousands of slaves that volunteered to fight for the Confederacy??


Ближайшие родственники

About Gen. Samuel Rutherford Houston

Sam Houston (March 2, 1793 – July 26, 1863) was an American soldier and politician. An important leader of the Texas Revolution, Houston served as the 1st and 3rd president of the Republic of Texas, and was one of the first two individuals to represent Texas in the United States Senate. He also served as the 6th Governor of Tennessee and the 7th governor of Texas, the only American to be elected governor of two different states.

Born in Rockbridge County, Virginia, Houston and his family migrated to Maryville, Tennessee when Houston was a teenager. Houston later ran away from home and spent time with the Cherokee, becoming known as "Raven". He served under General Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812, and after the war he presided over the removal of many Cherokee from Tennessee. With the support of Jackson and others, Houston won election to the United States House of Representatives in 1823. He strongly supported Jackson's presidential candidacies, and in 1827 Houston won election as the Governor of Tennessee. In 1829, after divorcing his first wife, Houston resigned from office, joined his Cherokee friends in Arkansas Territory.

Houston settled in Texas in 1832. After the Battle of Gonzales, Houston helped organize Texas's provisional government and was selected as the top-ranking official in the Texian Army. He led the Texian Army to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto, the decisive battle in Texas's war for independence against Mexico. After the war, Houston won election in the 1836 Texas presidential election. He left office due to term limits in 1838, but won election to another term in the 1841 Texas presidential election. Houston played a key role in the annexation of Texas by the United States in 1845, and in 1846 he was elected to represent Texas in the United States Senate. He joined the Democratic Party and supported President James K. Polk's prosecution of the Mexican𠄺merican War.

Houston's Senate record was marked by his unionism and opposition to extremists from both the North and South. He voted for the Compromise of 1850, which settled many of the territorial issues left over from the Mexican𠄺merican War and the annexation of Texas. He later voted against the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he believed it would lead to increased sectional tensions over slavery, and his opposition to that act led him to leave the Democratic Party. He was an unsuccessful candidate for the presidential nomination of the American Party in the 1856 presidential election and the Constitutional Union Party in the 1860 presidential election. In 1859, Houston won election as the Governor of Texas. In that role, he opposed secession and unsuccessfully sought to keep Texas out of the Confederate States of America. He was forced out of office in 1861 and died in 1863. Houston's name has been honored in numerous ways, and he is the namesake of the city of Houston, the fourth most populous city in the United States.

Contents 1৪rly life 2 War of 1812 and aftermath 3৪rly political career 4 Political exile and controversy 5 Texas Revolution 6 President of Texas 7 U.S. Senator 7.1 Mexican𠄺merican War and aftermath (1846�) 7.2 Pierce and Buchanan administrations (1853�) 8 Governor of Texas 9 Retirement and death 10 Personal life 11 Legacy 12 See also 13 Notes 14 References 15›ibliography 15.1 Works cited 15.2Ÿurther reading 16žxternal links Early life

Sam Houston Birthplace Marker in Rockbridge County, Virginia Houston was born in Rockbridge County, Virginia on March 2, 1793, to Samuel Houston and Elizabeth Paxton. Both of Houston's parents were descended from British and Irish immigrants who had settled in British North America in the 1730s.[1] Houston's father was descended from Ulster Scots people he could trace his ancestry to Sir Hugh de Paduinan, a Norman knight.[2] By 1793, the elder Samuel Houston owned a large farm and a handful of slaves, and served as a colonel in the Virginia militia.

Houston's uncle, the Presbyterian Rev. Samuel Houston, was an elected member of the "lost" State of Franklin then in the western frontier of North Carolina, who advocated for the passage of his proposed "A Declaration of Rights or Form of Government on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frankland" at the convention that was assembled in Greeneville on November 14, 1785. Rev. Houston returned to Rockbridge County, Virginia after the assembled State of Franklin convention rejected his constitutional proposal.[3]

Houston had five brothers and three sisters, as well as dozens of cousins who lived in the surrounding area. According to biographer John Hoyt Williams, Houston was not close with his siblings or his parents, and he rarely spoke of them in his later life.[1] Houston did take an interest in his father's library, however, reading works by classical authors like Virgil, as well as more recent works by authors such as Jedidiah Morse.[4]

Houston's father was not a good manager and got into debt, in part because of his militia service.[5] He planned to sell the farm and move west to Tennessee, where land was less expensive, but he died in 1806. Houston's mother followed through on those plans and settled the family near Maryville, the seat of Blount County, Tennessee. At that time, Tennessee was on the American frontier, and even larger towns like Nashville were vigilant against Native American raids. Houston disliked farming and working in the family store, and at the age of sixteen he left his family to live with a Cherokee tribe led by Ahuludegi (also spelled Oolooteka).[6] Houston formed a close relationship with Ahuludegi and learned the Cherokee language, becoming known as "Raven".[7] He returned to Maryville in 1812, and he was hired at age 19 for a term as the schoolmaster of a one-room schoolhouse.[8]

War of 1812 and aftermath In 1813, Houston enlisted in the United States Army, which was then engaged in the War of 1812 against Britain and Britain's Native American allies. He quickly impressed the commander of the 39th Infantry Regiment, Thomas Hart Benton, and by the end of 1813 Houston had risen to the rank of third lieutenant. In early 1814, the 39th Infantry Regiment became a part of the force commanded General Andrew Jackson, who was charged with putting an end to raids by a faction of the Muscogee (or "Creek") tribe in the Old Southwest.[9] Houston was badly wounded in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the decisive battle in the Creek War. Although army doctors expected him to die of his wounds, Houston survived and convalesced in Maryville and other locations. While many other officers lost their positions after the end of the War of 1812 due to military cutbacks, Houston retained his commission with the help of Congressman John Rhea.[10]

In early 1817, Houston was assigned to a clerical position in Nashville, serving under the adjutant general for the army's Southern Division. Later in the year, Jackson appointed Houston as a sub-agent to handle the removal of Cherokee from East Tennessee.[11] In February 1818, he received a strong reprimand from Secretary of War John C. Calhoun after he wore Native American dress to a meeting between Calhoun and Cherokee leaders, beginning an enmity that would last until Calhoun's death in 1850.[12] Angry over the incident with Calhoun and an investigation into his activities, Houston resigned from the army in 1818. He continued to act as a government liaison with the Cherokee, and in 1818 he helped some of the Cherokee resettle in Arkansas Territory.[13]

Early political career After leaving government service, Houston began an apprenticeship with Judge James Trimble in Nashville. He quickly won admission to the state bar and opened a legal practice in Lebanon, Tennessee. With the aid of Governor Joseph McMinn, Houston won election as the solicitor general for Nashville in 1819. He was also appointed as the adjutant general of the Tennessee militia.[14] Like his mentors, Houston was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, which dominated state and national politics in the decade following the War of 1812.[citation needed] Tennessee gained three seats in the United States House of Representatives after the 1820 United States Census, and, with the support of Jackson and McMinn, Houston ran unopposed in the 1823 election for Tennessee's 9th congressional district.[15] In his first major speech in Congress, Houston advocated for the recognition of Greece, which was fighting a war of independence against the Ottoman Empire.[16]

Houston strongly supported Jackson's candidacy in the 1824 presidential election, which saw four major candidates, all from the Democratic-Republican Party, run for president. As no candidate won a majority of the vote, the House of Representatives held a contingent election, which was won by John Quincy Adams.[17] Supporters of Jackson would eventually coalesce into the Democratic Party, while those who favored Adams would become known as National Republicans. With Jackson's backing, Houston won election as Governor of Tennessee in 1827.[18] Governor Houston advocated the construction of internal improvements such as canals, and sought to lower the price of land for homesteaders living on public domain. He also aided Jackson's successful campaign in the 1828 presidential election.[19]

In January 1829, Houston married Eliza Allen, the daughter of wealthy plantation owner John Allen of Gallatin, Tennessee. The marriage quickly fell apart, possibly because Eliza loved another man.[20] In April 1829, following the collapse of his marriage, Houston resigned as Governor of Tennessee. Shortly after leaving office, he traveled to Arkansas Territory to rejoin the Cherokee.[21]

Political exile and controversy Houston was reunited with Ahuludegi's group of Cherokee in mid-1829.[22] Because of Houston's experience in government and his connections with President Jackson, several local Native American tribes asked Houston to mediate disputes and communicate their needs to the Jackson administration.[23] In late 1829, the Cherokee accorded Houston tribal membership and dispatched him to Washington to negotiate several issues.[24] In anticipation of the removal of the remaining Cherokee east of the Mississippi River, Houston made an unsuccessful bid to supply rations to the Native Americans during their journey.[25] When Houston returned to Washington in 1832, Congressman William Stanbery alleged that Houston had placed a fraudulent bid in 1830 in collusion with the Jackson administration. After Stanbery refused to answer Houston's letters regarding the incident, Houston beat Stanbery with a cane.[26] After the beating, the House of Representatives brought Houston to trial. By a vote of 106 to 89, the House convicted Houston, and Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson formally reprimanded Houston. A federal court also required Houston to pay $500 in damages.[27]

General Sam Houston (postcard, circa 1905) In mid-1832, Houston's friends, William H. Wharton and John Austin Wharton, wrote to convince him to travel to the Mexican possession of Texas, where unrest among the American settlers was growing.[28] The Mexican government had invited Americans to settle the sparsely populated region of Texas, but many of the settlers, including the Whartons, disliked Mexican rule. Houston crossed into Texas in December 1832, and shortly thereafter he was granted land in Texas.[29] Houston was elected to represent Nacogdoches at the Convention of 1833, which was called to petition Mexico for statehood (at the time, Texas was part of the state of Coahuila y Tejas). Houston strongly supported statehood, and he chaired a committee that drew up a proposed state constitution.[30] After the convention, Texan leader Stephen F. Austin petitioned the Mexican government for statehood, but he was unable to come to an agreement with President Valentín Gómez Far໚s. In 1834, Antonio López de Santa Anna assumed the presidency, took on new powers, and arrested Austin.[31] In October 1835, the Texas Revolution broke out with the Battle of Gonzales, a skirmish between Texan forces and the Mexican Army. Shortly after the battle, Houston was elected to the Consultation, a congregation of Texas leaders.[32]

Along with Austin and others, Houston helped organize the Consultation into a provisional government for Texas. In November, Houston joined with most other delegates in voting for a measure that demanded Texas statehood and the restoration of the 1824 Constitution of Mexico. The Consultation appointed Houston as a major general and the highest-ranking officer of the Texian Army, though the appointment did not give him effective control of the militia units that constituted the Texian Army.[33] Houston helped organize the Convention of 1836, where the Republic of Texas declared independence from Mexico. Shortly after the declaration, the convention received a plea for assistance from William B. Travis, who commanded Texan forces under siege by Santa Anna at the Alamo. The convention confirmed Houston's command of the Texian Army and dispatched him to lead a relief of Travis's force, but the Alamo fell before Houston could organize his forces at Gonzales, Texas. Seeking to intimidate Texan forces into surrender, the Mexican army killed every defender at the Alamo news of the defeat outraged many Texans but also caused desertions in Houston's ranks.[34] Commanding a force of about 350 men that was numerically inferior to that of Santa Anna, Houston retreated east across the Colorado River.[35]

Detail from Houston at the Battle of San Jacinto by Henry Arthur McArdle

Surrender of Santa Anna by William Henry Huddle shows the Mexican general Santa Anna surrendering to a wounded Sam Houston. It hangs in the Texas State Capitol. Though the provisional government, as well as many of his own subordinates, urged him to attack the Mexican army, Houston continued the retreat east, informing his soldiers that they constituted "the only army in Texas now present . There are but a few of us, and if we are beaten, the fate of Texas is sealed."[36][a] Santa Anna divided his forces and finally caught up to Houston in mid-April 1836.[38] Santa Anna's force of about 1350 soldiers trapped Houston's force of 783 men in a marsh rather than pressing the attack, Santa Anna ordered his soldiers to make camp. On the April 21, Houston ordered an attack on the Mexican army, beginning the Battle of San Jacinto. The Texans quickly routed Santa Anna's force, though Houston's ankle was shattered by a stray bullet.[39] In the aftermath of the Battle of San Jacinto, a detachment of Texans captured Santa Anna.[40] Santa Anna was forced to sign the Treaty of Velasco, granting Texas its independence. Houston stayed on briefly for negotiations, then returned to the United States for treatment of his ankle wound.[citation needed]

The Republic of Texas after the Texas Revolution Victory in the Battle of San Jacinto made Houston a hero to many Texans, and he won the 1836 Texas presidential election, defeating Stephen F. Austin and former governor Henry Smith. Houston took office on October 22, 1836, after interim president David G. Burnet resigned.[41] During the presidential election, the voters of Texas overwhelmingly indicated their desire for Texas to be annexed by the United States. Houston, meanwhile, faced the challenge of assembling a new government, putting the country's finances in order, and handling relations with Mexico. He selected Thomas Jefferson Rusk as secretary of war, Smith as secretary of the treasury, Samuel Rhoads Fisher as secretary of the navy, James Collinsworth as attorney general, and Austin as secretary of state.[42][b] Houston sought normalized relations with Mexico and, despite some resistance from the legislature, arranged the release of Santa Anna.[44] Concerned about upsetting the balance between slave states and free states, U.S. President Andrew Jackson refused to push for the annexation of Texas, but in his last official act in office he granted Texas diplomatic recognition.[45] With the United States unwilling to annex Texas, Houston began courting British support as part of this effort, he urged the end of the importation of slaves into Texas.[46]

Sam Houston In early 1837, the government moved to a new capital, Houston, named for the country's first president.[47] In 1838, Houston frequently clashed with Congress over issues such as a treaty with the Cherokee and a land-office act.[48] The Texas constitution barred presidents from seeking a second term, so Houston did not stand for re-election in the 1838 election and left office in late 1838. He was succeeded by Mirabeau B. Lamar, who, along with Burnet, led a faction of Texas politicians opposed to Houston.[49] The Lamar administration removed many of Houston's appointees, launched a war against the Cherokee, and established a new capital, Austin.[50] Meanwhile, Houston opened a legal practice and co-founded a land company with the intent of developing the town of Sabine City.[51] In 1839, he was elected to represent San Augustine County in the Texas House of Representatives.[52]

Houston defeated Burnet in the 1841 Texas presidential election, winning a large majority of the vote.[53] Houston appointed Anson Jones as secretary of state, Asa Brigham as secretary of the treasury, George Washington Hockley as secretary of war, and George Whitfield Terrell as attorney general.[54] The republic faced a difficult financial situation at one point, Houston commandeered an American brig used to transport Texas soldiers because the government could not afford to pay the brig's captain.[55] The Santa Fe Expedition and other initiatives pursued by Lamar had stirred up tensions with Mexico, and rumors frequently raised fears that Santa Anna would launch an invasion of Texas.[56] Houston continued to curry favor with Britain and France, partly in the hope that British and French influence in Texas would encourage the United States to annex Texas.[57] The Tyler administration made the annexation of Texas its chief foreign policy priority, and in April 1844 Texas and the United States signed an annexation treaty. Annexation did not have sufficient support in Congress, and the United States Senate rejected the treaty in June.[58]

Henry Clay and Martin Van Buren, the respective front-runners for the Whig and Democratic nominations in the 1844 presidential election, both opposed the annexation of Texas. However, Van Buren's opposition to annexation damaged his candidacy, and he was defeated by James K. Polk, an acolyte of Jackson and an old friend of Houston's, at the 1844 Democratic National Convention. Polk went on to defeat Clay in the general election, giving backers of annexation an electoral mandate. Meanwhile, Houston's term ended in December 1844, and he was succeeded by his secretary of state, Anson Jones. In the waning days of his own presidency, Tyler used Polk's victory to convince Congress to approve of the annexation of Texas. Seeking Texas's immediate acceptance of annexation, Tyler made Texas a generous offer that allowed the state to retain control of its public lands, though it would also be required to keep its public debt.[59] A Texas convention approved of the offer of annexation in July 1845, and Texas became a U.S. state in February 1846.[60]

U.S. Senator Mexican𠄺merican War and aftermath (1846�) See also: Presidency of James K. Polk and Presidency of Millard Fillmore

The United States in 1849, with the full extent of Texas's land claims shown In February 1846, shortly before Texas became a state, the Texas legislature elected Houston and Thomas Jefferson Rusk as Texas's two inaugural U.S. senators. Houston chose to align with the Democratic Party, which contained many of his old political allies, including President Polk.[61] As a former President of Texas, Houston is the most recent former foreign head of state to serve in the U.S. Congress.[citation needed] He was the first person to serve as the governor of a state and then be elected to the U.S. Senate by another state. In 2018, Mitt Romney became the second.[62] William W. Bibb accomplished the same feat in reverse order.

Breaking with the Senate tradition that held that freshman senators were not to address the Senate, in early 1846 Houston strongly advocated for the annexation of Oregon Country. In the Oregon Treaty, which was reached later in 1846, Britain and the United States agreed to split Oregon Country.[63] Meanwhile, Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to lead a U.S. army to the Rio Grande River, which had been set as the Texas-Mexico border under the Treaty of Velasco Mexico claimed the Nueces River constituted the true border. After a skirmish between Taylor's unit and the Mexican army, the Mexican𠄺merican War broke out in April 1846. Houston initially supported Polk's prosecution of the war, but differences between the two men emerged in 1847.[64] After two years of fighting, the United States defeated Mexico and, through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, acquired the Mexican Cession. Mexico also agreed to recognize the Rio Grande River as the border between Mexico and Texas.[citation needed]

After the war, disputes over the extension of slavery into the territories raised sectional tensions. Unlike most of his Southern colleagues, Houston voted for the Oregon Bill of 1848, which organized Oregon Territory as a free territory. Defending his vote to create a territory that excluded slavery, Houston stated, "I would be the last man to wish to do anything injurious to the South, but I do not think that on all occasions we are justified in agitating [slavery]."[65] He criticized both Northern abolitionists and Democratic followers of Calhoun as extremists who sought to undermine the union.[66] He supported the Compromise of 1850, a sectional compromise on slavery on the territories. Under the compromise, California was admitted as a free state, the slave trade was prohibited in the District of Columbia, a more stringent fugitive slave law was passed, and Utah Territory and New Mexico Territory were established. Texas gave up some of its claims on New Mexico, but it retained El Paso, and the United States assumed Texas's large public debt.[67] Houston sought the Democratic nomination in the 1852 presidential election, but he was unable to consolidate support outside of his home state. The 1852 Democratic National Convention ultimately nominated a compromise nominee, Franklin Pierce, who went on to win the election.[68]

Pierce and Buchanan administrations (1853�) See also: Presidency of Franklin Pierce and Presidency of James Buchanan

Houston in 1859 In 1854, Senator Stephen A. Douglas led the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which organized Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory. The act also repealed the Missouri Compromise, an act that had banned slavery in territories north of parallel 36뀰′ north. Houston voted against the act, in part because he believed that Native Americans would lose much of their land as a result of the act. He also perceived that it would lead to increased sectional tensions over slavery.[69] Houston's opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act led to his departure from the Democratic Party.[70] In 1855, Houston began to be publicly associated with the American Party, the political wing of the nativist and unionist Know Nothing movement.[71] The Whig Party had collapsed after the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, and the Know Nothings and the anti-slavery Republican Party had both emerged as major political movements.[72] Houston's affiliation with the party stemmed in part from his fear of the growing influence of Catholic voters though he opposed barring Catholics from holding office, he wanted to extend the naturalization period for immigrants to twenty-one years.[73] He was also attracted to the Know Nothing's support for a Native American state, as well the party's unionist stance.[74]

Houston sought the presidential nomination at the Know Nothing party's 1856 national convention, but the party nominated former President Millard Fillmore. Houston was disappointed by Fillmore's selection as well as the party platform, which did not rebuke the Kansas–Nebraska Act, but he eventually decided to support Fillmore's candidacy. Despite Houston's renewed support, the American Party split over slavery, and Democrat James Buchanan won the 1856 presidential election. The American Party collapsed after the election, and Houston did not affiliate with a national political party for the remainder of his Senate tenure.[75] In the 1857 Texas gubernatorial election, Texas Democrats nominated Hardin Richard Runnels, who supported the Kansas–Nebraska Act and attacked Houston's record. In response, Houston announced his own candidacy for governor, but Runnels defeated him by a decisive margin.[76] After the gubernatorial election, the Texas legislature denied Houston re-election in the Senate Houston rejected calls to resign immediately and served until the end of his term in early 1859.[77]

Governor of Texas See also: Texas in the American Civil War

Sam Houston in 1861. Houston ran against Runnels in the 1859 gubernatorial election. Capitalizing on Runnels's unpopularity over state issues such as Native American raids, Houston won the election and took office in December 1859.[78] In the 1860 presidential election, Houston and John Bell were the two major contenders for the presidential nomination of the newly-formed Constitutional Union Party, which consisted largely of Southern unionists. Houston narrowly trailed Bell on the first ballot of the 1860 Constitutional Union Convention, but Bell clinched the nomination on the second ballot.[79] Nonetheless, some of Houston's Texan supporters nominated him for president in April 1860. Other backers attempted to launch a nationwide campaign, but in August 1860 Houston announced that he would not be a candidate for president. He refused to endorse any of the remaining presidential candidates.[80] In late 1860, Houston campaigned across his home state, calling on Texans to resist those who advocated for secession if Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election.[81]

After Lincoln won the November 1860 presidential election, several Southern states seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America.[82] A Texas convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Houston proclaimed that Texas was once again an independent republic, but he refused to recognize that same convention's authority to join Texas to the Confederacy. After Houston refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, the legislature declared the governorship vacant. Houston did not recognize the validity of his removal, but nor did he attempt to use force to remain in office, and he refused aid from the federal government to prevent his removal. His successor, Edward Clark, was sworn in on March 18.[83] In an undelivered speech, Houston wrote:

Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas. . I protest. . against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void.[84]

On April 19, 1861, he told a crowd:

Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.[85]

Houston's grave in Huntsville, Texas. After leaving office, Houston returned to his home in Galveston.[86] He later settled in Huntsville, Texas, where he lived in a structure known as the Steamboat House. In the midst of the Civil War, Houston was shunned by many Texas leaders, though he continued to correspond with Confederate officer Ashbel Smith and Texas governor Francis Lubbock. His son, Sam Houston, Jr., served in the Confederate army during the Civil War, but returned home after being wounded at the Battle of Shiloh.[87] Houston's health suffered a precipitous decline in April 1863, and he died on July 26, 1863.

The inscription on Houston's tomb reads: A Brave Soldier. A Fearless Statesman. A Great Orator𠅊 Pure Patriot. A Faithful Friend, A Loyal Citizen. A Devoted Husband and Father. A Consistent Christian𠅊n Honest Man.

Margaret Lea Houston Houston married Tiana Rogers (d. 1838), daughter of Chief John "Hellfire" Rogers (1740�), a Scots-Irish trader, and Jennie Due (1764�), a sister of Chief John Jolly, in a ceremony according to Cherokee customs. Tiana was in her mid-30s, of mixed-race, and a widow. She had two children from her previous marriage: Gabriel, born 1819, and Joanna, born 1822. She and Houston lived together for several years, though, under civil law, he was still legally married to Eliza Allen Houston.[citation needed] After declining to accompany Houston to Texas in 1832, Tiana later remarried. She died in 1838 of pneumonia.

On May 9, 1840, Houston, aged 47, married for a third time. His bride was 21-year-old Margaret Moffette Lea of Marion, Alabama, the daughter of planters. They had eight children. Margaret acted as a tempering influence on her much older husband and convinced him to stop drinking. Although the Houstons had numerous houses, they kept only one continuously: Cedar Point (1840�) on Trinity Bay.

In 1833, Houston was baptized into the Catholic faith in order to qualify under the existing Mexican law for property ownership in Coahuila y Tejas. The sacrament was held in the living room of the Adolphus Sterne House in Nacogdoches. By 1854, Margaret had spent 14 years trying to convert Houston to the Baptist church. With the assistance of George Washington Baines, she convinced Houston to convert, and he agreed to adult baptism. Spectators from neighboring communities came to Independence, Texas to witness the event. On November 19, 1854, Houston was baptized by Rev. Rufus C. Burleson by immersion in Little Rocky Creek, two miles southeast of Independence.

Legacy Houston, the largest city in Texas, is named for Sam Houston. Several other things and places are also named for Houston, including Sam Houston State University, Houston County, Minnesota, Houston County, Tennessee, and Houston County, Texas. Other monuments and memorials include Sam Houston National Forest, Sam Houston Regional Library and Research Center, Fort Sam Houston, the USS Sam Houston (SSBN-609), and a sculpture of Houston in the city of Houston's Hermann Park. In addition, a 67 foot tall replica of Houston, known as "Big Sam," stands next to I-45, between Dallas and Houston, in Huntsville, Texas. Along with Stephen F. Austin, Houston is one of two Texans with a statue in the National Statuary Hall. Houston has been portrayed in works such as Man of Conquest, Gone to Texas, Texas Rising, and The Alamo.


SSBN-657 was commissioned from Electric Boat in 1963 and laid down there in late 1964. After only about four and a half months, the boat was launched and was baptized Godparents were two of Keys' offspring, Mrs. Marjory Key Thorne and Mrs. William T. Jarvis. On December 3, 1966, the Francis Scott Key was put into service with the United States Navy .

The Key was stationed in Charleston , South Carolina . After test drives and a test shot by a UGM-27C Polaris A3 , the boat's first deterrent patrol began in June 1967. The boat was then deployed from the forward bases in Rota , Spain and Holy Loch , Scotland. In 1972/73 the boat was converted in the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to be able to shoot down the new UGM-73 Poseidon . 1978 was followed by the upgrade to the UGM-93A Trident I . The Francis Scott Key was the first boat to go on patrol with the new ICBM in 1979. 1983 was followed by an overhaul in Newport News Shipbuilding .

On September 2, 1993, the Key was decommissioned and moored in Puget Sound. In 1995 the submarine was canceled in the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program .


Watch the video: Contemporary Studies James K Polk and Oregon