Skip to main content

When Sam Houston took the oath of office as Governor of Texas in December 1859, he was returning to state leadership at a moment of mounting national crisis. A towering figure in Texas history, Houston had already served as commander of Texan forces during the Revolution, leading the army to victory over Santa Anna at San Jacinto in 1836. He then served as President of Texas, guided the republic through turbulent early years, and played a decisive role in securing annexation to the United States in 1845.

After annexation, Houston represented Texas in the U.S. Senate from 1846 to 1859, during which time he supported westward expansion but increasingly clashed with Southern Democrats over the spread of slavery and the rise of secessionist rhetoric. He opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, condemned filibustering expeditions, and resisted efforts to push the South into conflict with the North.

By the time he returned as governor in 1859, Houston stood nearly alone among prominent Texas politicians in defending the Union. In this inaugural address, he warned against sectionalism, called for investment in infrastructure and education, and advocated stronger frontier defenses—including better management of Indian relations and increased federal support. His language reflects both an enduring belief in the American constitutional system and a pragmatic concern for Texas’s internal development and border security.

When Texas voted to leave the Union in early 1861, Houston refused to swear loyalty to the Confederacy, as required under a new pro-secessionist state constitution. For this act of conscience, he was removed from office in March 1861, ending his long career in public life.

This address therefore stands as Houston’s final great public appeal on behalf of Unionism, moderation, and institutional reform—a summation of his vision for Texas in the face of national disunion.

December 21, 1859

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Called from retirement by the voice of my fellow citizens to the responsible position of the Executive of the State, I am not insensible to the delicacy and importance of the duties which devolve upon me. Having been withdrawn for years past to the discharge of Federal duties, as Senator of the United States, I have not had the advantage of participating in the local affairs of the State and have much to inquire into concerning its interests.

I am aware that our local interests are varied and important, and feel pleasure in assuring my fellow citizens that my object will be to promote and advance every interest without regard to section, and use my best endeavors to develop our resources. To effectuate this object, and to meet the just expectations of my fellow citizens, it will be necessary that I should enjoy and realize a hearty cooperation on the part of the people’s representatives in consummating these desirable objects.

My purpose, as well as my desire, will be to sustain such measures of policy as may have been introduced promotive of the public good, and to inaugurate and advance such others as will conform to the best interests of the community.

Our insular situation imperatively demands the construction of railroads on an extended and practicable scale, commensurate to the growing importance of our settlements, as well as to the production and commerce daily increasing in our country. At the same time, a policy should be adopted and pursued which would secure the State against all imposition and insure the fulfillment of every charter granted and the accomplishment of every contract to which the government may be a party.

The munificent grants made by the Government hold out every inducement for the investment of capital and the employment of enterprise; and it is but justice to it that all fair requirements in its behalf should be exacted and conceded in return for its liberality.

The improvement of our rivers,1 so far as can be effected at a commensurate expense so as to render them navigable where it is practicable, seems to me to be an object demanding the fostering care of the government. Nature has provided these channels of commerce, and when improved, they will supply the necessities and wants of communities, which railroads cannot accomplish for a length of time. True economy dictates that we should realize from them whatever advantage they possess.

Having treated of the physical economy of our State, it is proper that I should advert to the intellectual and moral improvement of our people. It is a truism that to maintain liberty, intelligence is indispensable. To attain this object, education is all-important; it should not be confined to classes, but disseminated throughout the whole community. How to accomplish this object to the greatest perfection seems to be a subject yet left for solution.

The [Texas] Constitution evidences that its framers regarded education as a primary object, and in that instrument, ample provisions were made for the endowment of Universities and the support of common schools.2 The improvement and perfection of common schools suggest themselves to me as the foundation upon which to erect the best system of education; and when the foundation is firmly laid, it will be easy to erect thereon materials for a University, if the voice of the State should, at some future day, require the establishment.

To me, it seems both wise and expedient that all reasonable encouragement should be extended to all educational institutions now in existence, which have been established and sustained by individual enterprise, and to promote the establishment of others in various portions of the State, thus rendering them more able to extend their usefulness and increase their advantages to the community.

In the attainment of these various objects, it does seem to me that two important desiderata must enter into the plan of their accomplishment: economy in relation to the finances and the public domain, and strict accountability on the part of all public functionaries.3 These should be held indispensable. It is for the legislature to enact such laws as are necessary to attain this object and secure the public treasury from imposition and fraud.

So far as is dependent on my official action, I can assure my constituents that in the appointment of official functionaries, I will entrust no man with office in whose integrity I have not entire confidence that he will discharge the duties of the trust confided to him with fidelity.

I have confidence that my constituents, in the exercise of their discernment, will not fail to discriminate between that which was desired to be accomplished, and could not be done for want of unity and a cooperation of the different parts of government, and that which falls within the constitutional power of the Executive.

As regards the public domain, the intelligence of the legislature—whose attention has been called to it—is capable of devising a system for its future disposition, and such an one will embrace a liberal policy toward the settler.4 From the inception of the Government of the Republic of Texas, a provision was contained in the Constitution providing for sectionizing the public domain; and if such a policy had been carried out, it would have prevented a vast amount of litigation which has since that time occurred.

If the legislature of the State should, at any time, adopt such a measure, it would have a tendency to dispel a thousand anxieties which the settler now entertains, because, when he would then settle upon a tract of land, he would know his metes and bounds, and that he could assuredly repose in the guarantees which the State afforded him for the occupancy of his homestead.

In an inaugural address, it is not expected that subjects which would be more appropriate in a general message to the legislature—which I contemplate making—should be embraced; yet there are subjects which demand my attention.

The subject of our frontier defenses is of absorbing interest. Where it is possible for the Government to give protection to its citizens, it is a duty which cannot be disregarded. The extent of our frontier, stretching as it does from the Red River to El Paso, on the Rio Grande, and from thence to the mouth of that river, comprises a distance of but little short of two thousand miles.5 One half of that distance is exposed to Indian depredations, and the other borders upon Mexico, which is in a state of anarchy.

Depredations by the Indians are so frequent that to hear of them has almost ceased to excite sympathy and attention in the interior of our State. We have a right to look to the Federal Government for that protection which, as a part of the Confederacy,6 we are entitled to. The Federal Government has stationed troops on our frontiers, but they are Infantry, and not calculated for that effective warfare which should be carried on against the Indians. When depredations are committed by the Indians, they escape, and the Infantry cannot overtake them.7

Were a force authorized by the Federal Government of Texan Rangers—who understood the Indian mode of warfare, and whose animals would be capable of subsisting upon prairies without other forage—the expense would be less to the Government, and their efficiency greater in protecting our frontier than any other description of troops.

The misfortune which has attended us is the fact that annuities paid by the United States to tribes that infest our borders are received by these Indians by way of Arkansas, and not by way of Texas, which causes them to believe that they violate no treaty stipulation by marauding upon Texas, because the people of Texas are not identified with those of Arkansas. If annuities were paid to the Indians upon our borders, it would exercise a salutary influence upon them.8

We must look beyond mere physical means for defense. There must be a moral influence exerted upon the Indians, and I earnestly hope that will be exerted by the President of the United States, having full confidence in his desire to promote the well-being of the whole country, and that he will not withhold any means in his power to protect our bleeding frontier.9

The various tribes on our borders, if they were invited to meet at some place convenient on our frontier, and a treaty were made with them to give them a trifling annuity compared to the amount required to afford us but partial protection, would give us peace to our borders. This policy at the time of annexation gave security to our frontier. Of the future it is fair to judge by the past. In the meantime, we must not neglect the demands of emergency but must ourselves provide means for the immediate defense of our settlements.

Our entire boundary upon the Rio Grande, from the anarchy which prevails in that country, is in an exposed and excited condition.10 The utter disregard of all law and order in Mexico has communicated its unhappy influence to this side of the Rio Grande, and a portion of our citizens at this time are in a most deplorable condition. What it is to eventuate is impossible to conjecture. The federal arm has been extended there, and I hope will give security and restore tranquility to our people.

I will deem it my duty, if sustained by the Legislature, to institute a proper inquiry into the causes which have led to the recent disorders and adopt such measures as will prevent the recurrence of similar outbreaks. I am satisfied they have grown out of local causes, and that no premeditated insurrection was contemplated.

Whilst your representative in the Senate of the United States, being well apprised of the hopeless condition of Mexico, I introduced a measure for the purpose of establishing a Protectorate by the Government of the United States over Mexico. The measure was received with disfavor.11

Aware of the state of Mexican affairs, I believed the Mexican people utterly incapable of framing a government and maintaining a nationality. This has been demonstrated since their separation from old Spain. Their history is a catalogue of revolutions, usurpations, and oppression. As a neighboring people to us, it is important for the maintenance of good neighborhood that law and order should exist in that country.

The Mexicans are a mild, pastoral, and gentle people; and it is only by demagogues and lawless chieftains12—who with armed bands have robbed and plundered the people—that the disorders in that country are continued. A guarantee given to these people, for the protection of their lives and property against such, would cause them to rejoice; and they would hail with pleasure any measure which might be adopted by any foreign government that would give them peace and security.

As a border state, our own security must to a great extent depend upon the condition of things in Mexico, and the restoration of order and the establishment of good government in that country. This is a subject for the consideration of the federal authorities and no doubt will command their gravest reflection.

Should no change take place in Mexico restraining their disorders, and should they extend to this side of the Rio Grande, it will demand of the Executive of the State the exercise of its fullest powers, if needful, to protect our citizens and vindicate the honor of our State.

In concluding this Inaugural, I am irresistibly led to reflections which I hope will be heard with no disadvantage to any of my audience. When Texas united her destiny with that of the Government of the United States, she took upon herself duties and responsibilities for the faithful performance of which we are pledged as a State.13

She entered not into the North, nor into the South, but into the Union: her connection was not sectional, but national.14 And however distinct or diversified her interests may be, as compared with those of other States, she relies upon the same Constitution as they to secure her in the enjoyment of her rights.

Making that Constitution the guiding star of our career as a State, let our rivalry be to approximate more closely to it than any of our sister States. It inculcates faithfulness to the Union—let us be faithful to it. Let us, in our relationships with the General Government and with the States of the Confederacy, allow none to excel us in our desires to promote peace and harmony.15

When our rights are aggressed upon, let us be behind none in repelling attack; but let us be careful to distinguish between the acts of individuals and those of a people—between the wild ravings of fanatics and that public sentiment which truly represents the masses of the people.

It is in the diversity of opinion that Democracy may rest securely. The right to think adversely to us is a guarantee of American Republicanism, and though this privilege may often be carried to extremes, and to our detriment, yet the very safety of our institutions depends upon our maintaining it as a republican principle.

When thought becomes treason, the traitor is as much the enemy of one section as of the other. Its overt acts we must repel. Its expression by those inimical to our institutions, where they do not exist, need affect us nothing. The alarm at their endeavors is needless and but strengthens them—the eternal din which has echoed to that song of hostility to the South is music to their ears.

Their aim is to array sectionalism upon their side and thus promote strife and confusion. We should meet their clamor with the contempt of a people who fear no invasion of their rights, and instead of feeding the flame of discord which a few in both sections have kindled, lend our endeavors toward quenching it altogether.

How happy would have been the result if the attention of statesmen North and South had been as much directed toward promoting harmony between the States and cementing those fraternal bonds which can alone hold us together as a people, as toward promoting the strife of sections and the antagonisms which are fast dividing us. Half the care—half the thought—which has been spent to meet sectionalism by sectionalism, bitterness by bitterness, and abolition by disunion, would have made this people, today, a happy, united, and hopeful nation.16

Elected by the people, I am responsible to the people alone. Indebted to no clique or caucus for the position that I occupy, I shall act alike beyond the wishes and control of such.17 Looking to the people in their broad conservatism and their patriotism to sustain my endeavors, I shall pursue the course which will best conduce to the prosperity of Texas.

Regarding my election as an endorsement of the sentiments enunciated by me when I yielded my name to the people, I shall feel as the representative of the popular will an additional incentive to make my administration accord with those principles.

Should my endeavors to turn the attention of the Legislature toward these questions—whose solutions bear the prosperity and happiness of the people of Texas—to the sacrifice of those national abstractions18 which should have no place in our councils, fail of success, I have but to look to the people to sustain me. My hopes point me, however, to the honorable body before me, believing that in so much wisdom and intelligence there cannot fail to exist, at the same time, that amount of virtue and patriotism necessary to meet any emergency.


Explanatory Notes

  1. The Trinity, Brazos, and Colorado Rivers were central to early commerce, but their navigability was limited. Federal and state funds were often debated for internal improvements. ↩︎
  2. The 1845 Texas Constitution included provisions for a public education system, but progress was uneven. Houston had long championed public education in both the Republic and State periods. ↩︎
  3. This refers to patronage and political appointments. At the time, the spoils system dominated American politics, and integrity in appointments was a recurring public concern. ↩︎
  4. The public domain refers to state-controlled lands. Texas retained control of its public lands after annexation in 1845, unlike other states, and used them to fund schools and attract settlers. ↩︎
  5. Houston describes the vast and often undefended Texas frontier. West Texas remained sparsely populated, with frequent Comanche and Kiowa raids. Federal troops were inadequate, and Texas Rangers often filled the gap. ↩︎
  6. In this context, Houston is using “Confederacy” in its older, non-secessionist sense. Prior to 1861, the word was often used interchangeably with federal union or confederation to refer to the USA as a union of sovereign states. ↩︎
  7. At the time, federal troops were often immobile and ill-equipped to handle fast-moving Native American raids. Houston advocated for mounted troops like the Rangers who understood the terrain and tactics. ↩︎
  8. Annuities were payments the U.S. made to Native tribes as part of treaties. Houston is arguing that these should be routed through Texas to strengthen treaty obligations and reduce raids. ↩︎
  9. Houston’s call for “moral influence” likely referred to federal treaty-making and annuity diplomacy, but may also reflect the era’s belief in civilizing Native tribes through education and assimilation. As of 1859, U.S. Indian policy combined military containment with efforts to promote agriculture, Christianity, and schooling—administered by the Office of Indian Affairs. ↩︎
  10. Mexico experienced chronic instability after independence from Spain in 1821, with frequent coups and weak central governments. The Reform War (1857–1861), a civil conflict between liberals and conservatives, was ongoing at the time of this speech. ↩︎
  11. While serving in the U.S. Senate, Houston proposed that the U.S. intervene in Mexico. ↩︎
  12. Houston is referring to figures in Mexico such as Antonio López de Santa Anna and other caudillos, who rose to power through military means and repeatedly destabilized Mexican governance. ↩︎
  13. Texas was annexed in 1845 after nearly a decade as an independent republic. This act precipitated tensions with Mexico and contributed to the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). ↩︎
  14. This is a subtle rebuke to sectionalism. Houston affirms that Texas joined the United States as a whole—not to align with Southern grievances or Northern ideology. He would later oppose secession on exactly these grounds. ↩︎
  15. This reflects Houston’s Unionist stance. As Southern states moved toward secession over slavery, Houston consistently advocated for preserving the Union, even at the cost of political isolation. ↩︎
  16. These references point to the national crisis over slavery. By 1859, abolitionist sentiment in the North had provoked fierce backlash in the South, leading to political polarization and the rise of the Republican Party under Lincoln. ↩︎
  17. Houston’s populist appeal and resistance to party machinery distinguished him. He was known for defying both Democratic and Whig establishments, prioritizing personal principle and popular will. ↩︎
  18. This phrase refers to national debates over slavery and abolitionism, which Houston saw as divisive and distracting. While personally conservative on racial issues, he opposed making slavery the dominant issue in state politics, as secessionists wanted to do in the lead-up to Secession and the Civil War, which Houston opposed. ↩︎
Civic knowledge strengthens Texas. Share this article to help build an informed, active citizenry.