# Life and select literary remains of Sam Houston of Texas/Chapter 19

CHAPTER XIX.
The fortunes of Jackson and Houston were reunited on entering Congress. Houston had been elected a Representative from Tennessee, September 13, 1823, by the people of the Ninth District; and Jackson had been elected by the Legislature of Tennessee on the 25th October following, amid all the excitement that followed his act in June previous in pursuing the Seminoles into Florida, and hanging at St. Augustine two English abettors of their barbarities in Georgia. Jackson was immediately made chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs in the Senate; while Houston, his former favorite lieutenant, was on the 5th December made a member of the same committee in the House. The session opened with exciting issues before it, and while Jackson, not gifted as a speaker, was firm in action, Houston was for full two years studying the situation and shaping his course on varied issues as experience should dictate. On the 12th December Mr. Hayne in the Senate offered a resolution providing for a new election and a future change of the Constitution as to its provisions for the election of President and Vice-President; and on the 22d December Mr. McDuffie in the House moved the same, thus indicating the sentiment of South Carolina on this issue. Houston's first recorded vote was in the case of a contested election, where an error in the count was claimed. On the i6th January, 1824, the question of preemption by settlers on lands west of the Mississippi was up for debate. On the 19th January, Jackson, from the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, introduced a resolution for payment of losses of horses and private property, met by volunteers in the Seminole war; the views of Jackson and Houston leading to the immediate passage of the resolution. On the 19th of January, again, Webster in the House introduced his resolution to send an agent to Greece, then struggling to gain independence; on the same day Mr. Mitchell moved an invitation to the Marquis de Lafayette to a reception by the House; and on the same day Clay brought in a bill providing for resistance to the interposition of Spain to recover her lost Mexican possessions. The able, earnest antagonistic views, brought out by this array of questions, stimulated thought and compelled ​independent judgment in young minds. In these debates Mr. Webster made that celebrated speech, rich with old Grecian and Roman principles of international and inter-State alliance, which, though it failed to accomplish the advocate's special end, revived the like sentiment of Henry of Virginia and Otis of Massachusetts, brought out at the Revolutionary era. Mr. Clay, again, uttered the general spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, and of the following administration, that of the second Adams, in which he was to be, as Secretary of State, the shaper of foreign policy. The veteran Randolph, in whom the ambition of foreign crusade was tempered, though the fire of chivalry was not quenched, opposed both Mr. Webster and Clay; while to a lady friend who remonstrated he exclaimed, in view of the needy at home, "Madam, the Greeks are at your door."
The disposition to reach ends suggested as mere questions of the day, by new constitutional provisions, appeared in a suggestion of Mr. Van Buren on the 226. January, that the Constitution provide an equitable scale of appropriations for internal improvements in the different States. This action arose because the State of New York had already, at her own expense, built her canal through the State to the lakes. In the House the main question arose on a proposition to employ engineers to make surveys for canals from the Delaware to the Chesapeake, from the Chesapeake to the Ohio, and again for the removal of obstructions in the Mississippi; a series of measures involving inter-State action, and interesting many of the Atlantic, as well as all the valley States. Mr. Webster, from the least interested, and Mr. Clay, from the most interested section, advocated the measure; Randolph threw all his decaying energy into the opposition; while Houston went with the majority, both from interest and principle. Among other issues debated during the session of 1823-4 were the following: In view of the fact that colored sailors from British, as well as northern ports, came into southern ports, Mr. Abbot, of Georgia, introduced a resolution to the effect that the United States Constitution was not to be construed as authorizing the importation or ingress of persons of color in contravention of State laws — a subject which, under the administration of Adams, led to a remonstrance of Sir Stratford Canning on the part of the British Government. The bill for the purchase of lands at West Point brought out sectional views as to State rights. Randolph proposed that the State of New York be first consulted. Macon opposed it because a large sum was to be given for a farm of moderate value, close to which was a grog-shop as a lure to cadets, and because no limit could be fixed to future outlay arising from the purchase. ​Though not acting with Macon as to West Point, Houston followed Macon in opposing an outlay of $26,000 on the Presidential mansion.
The question of the tariff, opened during the session of 1823-4, was pursued in the session of 1824-5. Mr. Webster's cast of mind, as well as the interests of his Boston constituency, enabled him to present facts and figures which were all-controlling, especially as they were based on commercial and common, rather than on manufacturing or local interests. In December, 1824, from the South Carolina Legislature were introduced resolutions on the tariff, and on internal improvements to this effect: that it was unconstitutional to tax one State for improvements in another State; or to levy duties other than for revenue on foreign imports; or to levy a tax for the support of domestic manufactures. Thus was opened the issue which culminated eight years later, at a period when the influence of Mr. Webster went counter to the last proposition of South Carolina; though the distinct position of antagonism was not taken during the four years that Houston, in common with Webster, was in the House. In the final action, testing the merits of the bill, two of the Tennessee Representatives, one of whom was Houston, voted for, while seven voted against the measure; a vote which tested the intelligent and independent judgment which ruled Houston as a young member.
The honors paid to Lafayette brought out the peculiar cast of different leading minds, both in the Senate and the House. Two propositions were brought forward: the former to give Lafayette a formal reception in the halls of Congress, the latter to give him a grant of lands in the territory formerly belonging to France. Macon, the veteran North Carolina Senator, opposed both as a departure, the one from the simplicity, the other from the unselfishness which should characterize Republican leaders. In the House the vote for giving the public reception was carried by 166 to 26, Houston voting with the majority. The resolution to make the grant of lands also was passed by overwhelming majorities on these grounds: that the lands donated in 1803 to Lafayette in the Territory of Louisiana, directly after its purchase from France, whose value was regarded only a fair equivalent for actual money expenditures made by Lafayette in his long service rendered to the United States, had subsequently been claimed by a French resident as his property, and that Lafayette had relinquished the grant as a matter of individual justice. In addition to this grant Congress voted to refund to Lafayette his travelling expenses incurred on his visit as the guest of the nation. It was at St. Louis, the ancient center of the line of French settlements which ​extended through Canada down the Mississippi to New Orleans, and it was in view of the French attempt under Washington, and then under Jefferson, to sever first the West and then the Southwest from the English-speaking States of the North and East,—it was at such a center, and in memory of these attempts at disunion, that Lafayette uttered these memorable words, addressing the Mayor of St. Louis, August, 1825: "An union, sir, so essential, not only to the fate of each member of the confederacy, but also to the general fate of mankind, that the least breach of it would be hailed with barbarian joy, by an universal war-whoop of European aristocracy and despotism." No man in the country more appreciated these words than Houston. It was also during this visit, that, at Washington city, Lafayette predicted the gradual complete operation of natural laws tending to the emancipation of African slaves; as was recorded by G. W. Parke Custis, and published at the time in the "African Repository." From the rapid spread of emancipation measures advancing southward from New England, measures compelled by interest as well as principle, since a more productive class of labor was brought into competition with slave labor, Lafayette predicted that at an era not remote emancipation would gradually extend to the Gulf; that thus the old French settlements would be overstocked with the colored population brought in from the North; and, as a Frenchman anxious for his countrymen, he expressed the gravest apprehension for the future of the Gulf States. Trained as Sam Houston from childhood had been, sometimes side by side with negro and Indian laborers, as a hard-working yeoman, his whole heart from youth to old age centred on the interests of the agricultural yeomanry who tilled their own lands; and every one of his life-long appeals for union was inspired by the fact that the people at large wished to be left in peace to enjoy their homes, and not to be dragged against their will into what he to the last maintained were schemes of heartless politicians, only seeking personal ends of aggrandizement.
During this early history of the United States, and amid this early civil training of Houston and of his compatriots, the modern questions of Civil Service, in both the fields now discussed, were already debated. Attempts to civilize and educate the Indians in the Gulf States and in the Mississippi Valley, inaugurated under Mr. Monroe in 1819, and specially advanced by Mr. Calhoun as Secretary of War, before the organization of the Department of the Interior, were virtually a part of the Civil Service. In December, 1824, the Secretary reported 32 schools, with 916 pupils, in successful operation; a work only nominally connected with the War Department. Then, as now, the question was: Does the ​genius of American institutions apply to other than white men, and is it the soldier or the teacher that is to civilize the red races? Houston believed, because he had means of judging, that the Indian, as well as the white man, was to be trusted in civil service. Yet more. Civil Service Reform was urged in precisely the same form, and on the same grounds as now. The venerated Macon, in February, 1823, as chairman of a committee of the Senate on Constitutional Reforms, proposed measures for diminishing and regulating the patronage of the Executive. Though the system of filling subordinate offices with partisan political aspirants, irrespective of fitness, was not then, as under a later administration, inaugurated, the whole history of the Government, observed by himself personally, led Macon to see that only fixed tenure in office could secure the service of men devoted, not to a party, but to the interests of the people. No man in Congress was more firm and faithful than Houston in uncovering, irrespective of party, malfeasance in office, as appeared in the next, the Nineteenth Congress, to which he was elected.
The Presidential election, which was held in the autumn of 1824, and reported to Congress in December, created divisions unknown before. Besides the candidates of the two great parties, two other candidates were in the field. General Jackson, put forward by the Democrats, received 97 electoral votes, having supporters in all sections of the country; Adams, the Whig candidate, received 84 votes, chiefly in New York; Crawford, an Independent, received 41 votes, chiefly from Whigs, especially in Virginia; while Clay received 37 votes, mainly from the West, and, as was supposed, as a Democratic candidate. The election being thus thrown into Congress, as neither candidate had a majority of the votes cast, a union of the friends of Mr. Adams and Clay was formed; Mr. Adams was elected to the Presidency, while Mr. Clay became Secretary of State. As this implied in Mr. Clay a virtual change in political principles, charges of corruption were of course naturally suggested, and Mr. Clay, late in the session, asked an investigation. This Houston opposed. His reasons were given in a circular to his constituents, dated March 3, 1825. The substance of this circular, afterward published in Niles' Register, at Baltimore, May 28th, is worthy of reproduction, as it gives the balanced judgment of Houston on matters of civil and constitutional law. It is as follows:
   "At a late day of the present session an appeal was made by the Speaker of the ​House of Representatives, in his official character, requesting an investigation of some charges that had been made against him by a member of Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, which appeared in the character of a letter in one of the public journals of that State. A motion was submitted to appoint a special committee for the investigation of the subject, which, after consuming two days in discussion, was adopted. To this course I was opposed, because I did not think that Congress had anything to do with a difference which had been made personal by the course pursued by the Speaker himself. The imposing situation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is such, that I am never willing to give my vote for an extension of his power when I can either suspect the existence of personal feelings, or that there is even a remote possibility of rendering Congress a court of inquisition, or that it may become an engine of oppression to either members of the House or individuals in society who may choose to exercise their constitutional privileges in the expression of their opinions.
   "The courts in our country are open at all times to the redress of grievances, and to them individuals can have recourse, where justice can be administered to the party aggrieved. There, every man is presented upon a footing of equality, stripped of power and patronage; no adventitious circumstances of official character or extensive influence can bias the minds of an impartial jury. The case is then determined upon its merits. There is no danger in this course; the Constitution has prescribed it. There is no danger of rendering it the fire-brand of partisan zeal.
   "But it will assume a very different aspect if Congress is to become a court for the trial of personal altercation and disputes. It will render it a scene of confusion, and the whole of legislation will become a scene of uproar, party rancor, and personal animosity.
   "The subject of the Presidential election, which agitated the American community so long, and was of so much interest to the nation, has resulted in the election of a candidate who had not a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. Nor had he a majority of the members in the House of Representatives, but only a majority of the States. As our Government is, in all other respects, a representative Republic where the voice of the people governs, there must be a manifest defect of the Constitution in relation to the election of President. During the present Congress, various resolutions have been submitted to the House of Representatives proposing amendment, but none have yet been adopted. That there is need for amendment of the Constitution we can not doubt, when we advert to the facts in the last election. One candidate had a decided preference in eleven out of twenty-four States by the people; yet, when the power passed from their hands and devolved on the House of Representatives, the voice of the people was not, in many instances, regarded by their representatives, but their individual inclinations were, for some cause or other, pursued without reference to the will of their constituents.
   "The individual who was manifestly the choice of the majority of the people was not elevated to that distinguished situation for which his qualifications so pre-eminently fitted him, and to which the important services he had rendered to his country so richly entitled him. Another was chosen by the House of Representatives who had in his favor less expressions of national confidence, as manifested in the Electoral Colleges. This is a subject of serious consideration ​for the citizens of the United States, and it will be for them to say, on some subsequent occasion, whether their voice shall be heard and their rights respected, or whether they will tamely yield those inestimable rights to the unhallowed dictation of politicians, who may choose to barter them for their own individual aggrandizement, or otherwise dispose of them contrary to the known will of their constituents."
At the opening of the Nineteenth Congress, December, 1825, Houston, having been re-elected, was again placed on the Military Committee of the House; and soon he was drawn out in this and other relations. A widow of New Hampshire, who had lost a son in the Indian wars, asked a pension, and Houston became her advocate. Mr. Webster called for information as to diplomatic relations with Central America; and Houston sustained him. Mr. Calhoun, now out of office, asked, through representatives from South Carolina, an investigation as to charges of fraud in the War Department while he was Secretary under President Monroe; Mr, Floyd, of Virginia, his friend, favored the request; while Houston, though subjected himself while a lieutenant to unjust aspersion, showed himself impartial toward the former Secretary. Mr. Webster, still pressing the claims of the Greeks, asked an appropriation of $50,000 to supplement private contributions sent them; but Houston, with a large majority, voted against it as a matter for individual charity, not to be taken from the people at large. When final action on Mr. Webster's tariff provisions came up, though passed by 106 to 95, Houston was with the opposers.
Among resolutions expressive of censure on the course of the new Administration, was one specially touching the interests of the people; which called out Houston's sustained and earnest opposition, and brought him before the country as an able debater. On the 12th of February, 1827, Gen. Saunders, of North Carolina, offered a resolution directing the Secretary of State, Mr. Clay, to communicate to the House " a list of all the newspapers in each State of the Union in which the laws of Congress were directed to be published in 1825-6; also, a list of such in which the laws are directed to be published in 1826-7, designating the changes which have been made, and the reasons for such changes." Gen. Saunders spoke at length on presenting the resolution; and occupied the hour given to resolutions also on the 12th, and again on the 14th and 15th. On the 17th Mr. Johnson, of New York, replied, opposing the resolution. His time having expired, Houston, who purposed to reply, asked an extension of Mr. Johnson's privilege, which was granted; and he completed his argument on the 20th. On the 22d, Houston got the floor; also again on the 24th; when, not having fully completed his reply, the rare courtesy of ​suspending the rule was accorded, that he might finish. No record of the course of argument which he pursued is found; it was, doubtless, filled, like his reported speeches, with details of facts as well as with discussion of principles involved; but Houston won a reputation as a public speaker which he ever after maintained. The force of his reasoning is indicated by the fact that, on the 28th, Mr. Wright, of Ohio, felt called on, not only to reply to Gen. Saunders, but also to Houston.
The session of Congress having ended March 4, 1827, an event occurred whose like had been avoided in all his former life, as it was also avoided in all his subsequent life. This event brought out in a new light the character of Houston, and gave him a place m the esteem of the whole people of Tennessee, one of whose Congressional districts he had represented. The obnoxious Federal appointments in the new States, reaching to the removal of postmasters respected in the communities they served, and the substitution of mere political partisans in whom the people had no confidence, led from warm debate to personal collisions; into one of which Houston, despite his fixed rule of action, was drawn against his will.
On the 2d June, 1827, the grand jury of Simpson County, Kentucky, found bills against C. M. Smith and Samuel Houston, both of Tennessee; the former for murder, in killing Mr. Bank, of Tennessee; and the latter for shooting, with intent to kill, Gen. White, of Tennessee; which act, under the laws of Kentucky, was "felony."
The Governor of Kentucky demanded the surrender of both from the Governor of Tennessee. As the shooting was the result of a duel agreed on by both parties, obedience to the summons was not expected. As Houston had acted only in self-defence, the tide of popular sentiment not only sustained him, but led to his nomination and election as Governor. His popularity throughout the country is indicated in the fact that Niles' Register, of May 18th, Baltimore, Md., then the chief reporter of national events, gives a full report of Houston's speech previously made at Telico, Tennessee, when called out by the people as their favorite. Replying to the charge that he was a duellist, he said " that he never could recur to the late exceptional event in his life but with mingled pain and thankfulness to that Providence which enabled him to save his person and his honor, and that without injury to his assailant. He had been, and still was, opposed to the practice of duelling. He had passed through the army without any act to sanction it. He had hoped to be as successful in civil life. The Federal Government, however, had made appointment of a postmaster opposed to the wishes of all the people, and of ten out of eleven ​representatives of the State in the two Houses of Congress. His remonstrance was warm; and hence the challenge, presented in public. He had risked his life in defence of his country, and he could do no less in defence of his honor. Thank God," he added, "that my adversary was injured no worse."
This closing of the first stage of Houston's national career, as a calm review of the facts, indicated a moral courage and a true conscientiousness in his public bearing which reached a higher development in a future field. With noble impulses, with a daring and devotion equal to every emergency, his life, from thirty years of age to thirty-four, developed amid the turbulence of a new settlement, showed him worthy at this early age of being placed in the position of chief magistrate in a State crowded with adventurers and honored by the residence of citizens like his old commander, Jackson.
The two following incidents of the session of 1825-6, indicate the marked ability of Houston as a young Representative from a youthful State. In the pressure and heat of debate of a bill making appropriations for public buildings, discussion had continued till near midnight. Under that pressure the bill had passed by a bare majority, and several members had already retired. The Speaker was about to sign the bill when, as the record states, Mr. Houston objected to the signing, asking if a quorum were present. The Speaker said that, as there was a quorum when it passed the House, there could be no objection. Mr. Houston urged that the rules of both Houses forbade it. Mr. Everett, of Massachusetts, to meet the emergency, proposed a joint resolution that the rule be set aside so that the bill might be signed. A call of the roll showed that a quorum was not present. Mr. Polk, of Tennessee, as it was Saturday, May 27th, and past midnight, protested against any farther legislation as an infringement of the Sabbath-day and of statutes relating to it. Mr. McDuffie appealed to Houston to withdraw his objection, as it was but a matter of form. Houston assured the House that no desire for captious obstruction, but "conscientious scruples "as to the violation of law led to his act; and as proof of his sincerity, added, "I will with pleasure retire from the chamber while the bill is signed." Mr. McDuffie then began an argument to show that the Speaker might with propriety sign the bill; but the Speaker, having examined the rule, interrupted him to state that he was convinced he could not legally sign it. The efforts of the officers of the House had meanwhile secured a quorum; Mr. Everett's motion prevailed, the Senate concurred, the bill was signed according to law, and Houston's character was stamped for future success.
​The second, occurring at the same juncture, is thus presented in a brief article prepared by the writer for the daily press as these pages of Houston's Congressional career, prepared by him, are being revised for publication:
   "CIVIL SERVICE REFORM BEFORE JACKSON'S ADMINISTRATION.
   "The discussion of this question of the age calls for two demands from impartial judges: first, that the voice of the past be heard; second, that partisan bias be silenced in listening to that voice. It is a common impression that Jackson originated, and that Marcy first formulated, the doctrine as to American civil service, that ' to the victors belong the spoils.' Facts, however, attest that Jackson's course was but a reaction against previous abuses, as the two following testimonies show.
   "Under the genial administrations of Mr. Monroe, ' the era of good feeling,' the Post-Office, as well as other departments, had taken on those corrupt practices which Amos Kendall, P. M. General under Jackson, was so efficient in correcting. The accession of Adams, by attempted changes in the West and South, little known to the President, only aggravated these evils. Sam Houston, then a young Representative from Tennessee, so won popular esteem by his effort to correct improper appointments that after two terms in Congress, from 1823 to 1827, as to aid largely in his election as Governor. In one case, as Houston stated, a postmaster was appointed whom all the people whom he was to serve disapproved, and the appointment was made with the concurrence of only one of eleven members of the Senate and House from Tennessee. On the 8th February, 1826, the following resolution was introduced into the Senate by Hon. Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, who nad been in Congress from the opening of the second session in 1791:
   "The election to the Presidency of J. Q. Adams by the Houses of Congress led to such a popular demand that a 'grand committee' of both Houses was appointed to recommend an amendment to the Constitution which should hereafter prevent such an occurrence. On the date mentioned Senator Macon moved the following:
   "'Resolved, That the committee to whom has been referred the several resolutions to amend the Constitution of the United States be instructed to inquire into the expediency of diminishing or regulating the patronage of the Executive of the United States, with leave to report by bill or otherwise.'
   "The resolution was referred as proposed. On the 28th May following, the 'grand committee' reported through their chairman, Mr. McDuffie: that they found it impossible to agree on any common plan for obviating an evil generally admitted; and that because of the conflicting interests involved, both between the larger and smaller States, and between Federal and State rivalries. That Marcy in his oft-quoted statement had a spice of humor is manifest from his well-known character, and from the following incident: On the evening after his appointment as Secretary of State under Gen. Pierce, in a company who called for social courtesy, a committee of political aspirants were ushered into the Secretary's parlor. In pressing their claim, which sought removals of tried men of the former administration, Marcy 's famed expression was quoted to him; ​when, treating it as a joke, he humorously exclaimed: 'But I never proposed the plundering of the camp of an ally.' The interests of the great question ot Civil Service Reform, now being examined from various points of view, make it wise that the entire history of the recognized demand be brought into review."
In these movements for Civil Service Reform Houston sided with Nathaniel Macon, whom Jefferson called the "last of the Romans," and of whom John Randolph said: "He is the wisest man I ever knew."
Houston's relation to questions dividing the South and North, claiming, as he always did, to be a Southern man, is worthy of the more note because the result has proved that his balanced judgment saw aright the principles involved; and, that judgment was in accord with the views of Washington. When Washington urged the removal of the seat of Government from New York to Philadelphia, and then again to the unsettled location on the Potomac, that it might be removed from the moral control of a city where were great commercial and manufacturing interests, as opposed to those of the quiet rural people at large, he had learned that human nature was the same in the American States as at European courts. Urged by ambitious men, who expected to be lords, to form an Imperial Government, or one of force, he resisted; for monarchy was not for Americans any more than for Romans, a rule to be submitted to. Next after this, as Aristotle in ancient philosophy, and Montesquieu in more modern philosophy, have shown both in theory and historic fact, comes the more subtle and successful effort of "plutocracy," or of landed associations, who could absorb by commercial monopolies the value of products which ought to be equalized among producers. The great statesmen of Virginia and of the South, representing an agricultural population, such men as Macon and the Barbours saw that the very influence Washington sought to escape, followed the Government to its seat, wherever located. They saw, just as the people of New York city and State now see, that not only is "the price of liberty eternal vigilance," but that the price of just legislation for the people is more than eternal vigilance can meet. The cool, unsuspecting people at large, and their representatives unschooled in the schemes of moneyed centers by which tariffs, or the disposal of public offices, are made to promote their money schemes, the representatives of the great mass of the people are out-manoeuvered by the wily politicians who represent moneyed aristocracies. The Southern representatives saw this evil growing to gigantic proportions, when, under Monroe, in his second administration, the power of a Webster was thrown into the scale to make the interests of the agricultural districts pay for internal ​improvements and for revenue what indeed benefited all, while, nevertheless, the great resources were absorbed at a few commercial centers. Moreover, it was in the administration that preceded that of Jackson that the system of placing men in office who would aid these monopolies was inaugurated and pushed to an extreme; and the revolution which led to the interested party-cry that Jackson was the author of the "spoils system" in national offices, was but the doubtful policy of fighting an enemy with his own weapons. The Southern States were wronged by the measures against which South Carolina led her sister States in resisting. How to resist wisely, safely, and successfully was the vital question. Neither Jackson nor Houston believed that disunion was the true and sure way to rectify the wrong. As Washington preserved a balanced mind and a steady hand amid baffling gales, so, as the result has shown, safety and success were to be secured by other means than force. Jackson only hinted, in the crisis of 1830-33, what Houston was called to maintain, from that period till the bloody catastrophe of 1860-61.