I Guess This Proves Texas Isn’t Really Southern

In the South, you wouldn’t tell the Boy Scouts to be more like a guy that lost his first governorship because of an angry child bride he was rumored to have sprung a puss-filled crotch wound on and lost his second governorship because he thought the South was stupid for trying to secede, because the North was going to “move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”

The child bride is enough to put me off Sam Houston, but for a fucked up drunken lout with a child bride, he’s kind of awesome. Still, my point is–what exactly should the Boy Scouts emulate about Sam Houston? Wanting to fuck a girl way too young for him? Leaving a puss-y crotch wound untreated? Being a drunk? Sassing the South? None of these things are the actions of honorable men. Though they might be the actions of a man you wish you were Facebook friends with, just for the train wreck. But we don’t need a country full of Boy Scouts like that.

8 thoughts on “I Guess This Proves Texas Isn’t Really Southern

  1. They are not admiring the real Houston, they are admiring the imaginary person created mostly by Disney and Hollywood; that’s all the history folks like Gov. Idiot know.

  2. And the Houston of the Alamo! Where everyone is spoken of with great reverence in whispers. Really. If you were to speak in a normal voice you’d be told to leave.

    And Gov. Goodhair carries a gun while jogging because he’s scared of snakes and has to defend himself from them. But he’s a manly man because he’s down on gays.

  3. But if he was against slavery, then would the more compelling analogy be to being pro-gay? To not being abusive, authoritarian assholes to the marginalized? If being anit-slavery wasn’t just an of-the-moment, pop cultural fad, then why is being pro-gay only a fad?

  4. Sam Houston owned slaves, so I think Rick Perry’s analogy is just amazingly fucked up from the get-go. I don’t see how anyone reasonably could say that Sam Houston was against slavery. He was against breaking up the Union and he was against the South getting its ass handed to it. I suppose, like many pragmatists, if ending slavery would have prevented either of those things, he would have tolerated that, but I don’t think you can call that “against slavery.”

    But, otherwise, yes, it makes no sense to think that somehow “anti-slavery” and “anti-gay” are somehow analogous.

  5. Houston was probably one of those Southerners and slave owners who did not believe Lincoln intended to try and abolish slavery.

    I suppose that Perry could incorrectly have concluded that opposition to secession was effectively the same as opposition to slavery. Certainly protecting {and expanding} slavery was a major reason for the fire-eaters to press for secession from the 1850s on. In fact it seems clear that opposition to the expansion of slavery, whether into the territories or into places like Mexico and Cuba, had become the equivalent of abolitionism for some slave owners because of the limits on their existing cotton producing lands.

    But that seems an overly sophisticated analysis for Perry.

  6. Houston’s a weird figure. I’m not sure it’s fair to call him a Southerner, because it implies a regional identification I just don’t think it’s clear he would have had. His twin impulses are strange–wanting both to not be a part of “civilization” and to run things.

    I have to think, too, that Houston’s experience trying to muster an army and protect a country smaller than the United States from invasion would have led him to have many thoughts on the advisability of attempting to be a country smaller than the U.S. with two hostile nations on its borders (the U.S. and Mexico).

    It’s hard for me to think that Houston would have been as fastidiously willing to cling to his slaves as most Southerners. On the one hand, yes, I think it’s clear that he didn’t see anything wrong with owning slaves. And slaves were the markers of wealth. So, if he was going to be a wealthy man, he was going to have the trappings of wealth due him–in this case, enslaved people.

    But Houston had lost and gained his fortunes repeatedly. He’d been through the creation of new ways of life twice–with the Cherokee who’d been relocated and then with the Republic of Texas. More than most folks, I think he was unafraid of rebuilding, even if that meant rebuilding without slaves.

    In some ways, Houston reminds me of Twain, in that I suspect that they thought slave-owning did fucked up things to white southerners.

  7. Anyone who can look ahead with clear enough eyes to see that his side is gonna get smashed, and not think there’s something gallant and noble in going ahead and getting himself smashed anyway, is worth emulating to a certain degree. I mean, at least he wouldn’t have led Pickett’s Charge. So there’s that. But mostly, Perry just opens his mouth and words come out. Sometimes they take the syntactical order of a sentence, and sometimes they don’t, and sometimes … I can’t remember #3.

  8. Texas is like Florida – Southern by way of geography. Really, though, they’ve got their own thing going on.

Comments are closed.