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

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

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 Afstemningståge;
cl. Lafagette)

Kølen til søværnets 35th Fleet Ballistic Missile ubåd og flådens første skib, der blev navngivet til ære for James K. Polk, blev lagt på General Dynamics Corporation's Electric Boat Division i Groton, CT, den 23. november 1963. Et år og halvdelen senere begyndte denne ubåd sin vandbårne karriere efter at være døbt USS JAMES K. POLK (SSBN-645) af fru Horation Rivero, Jr. den 22. maj 1965. I de næste 10 måneder gennemgik hun indretning og den 13. marts 1966 gennemførte hun sine første søforsøg. USS JAMES K. POLK blev bestilt som et skib i den amerikanske flåde den 16. april 1966. USS JAMES K. POLK kombinerede atomkraftens næsten ubegrænsede udholdenhed med afskrækkende kraft fra 16 termonukleare missiler, der var i stand til at skabe mere ødelæggelse end alle bomberne af Anden Verdenskrig. Disse missiler havde en rækkevidde på 2500 sømil og var indkvarteret i 16 affyringsrør placeret agter for sejlet.
USS JAMES K. POLK sejlede til Charleston, SC i september 1966 for at indlæse Polaris-missiler til hendes første afskrækkende patrulje. Efter afslutningen af ​​shakedown -perioden opererede hun i Atlanterhavet og gennemførte 19 strategiske afskrækkende patruljer fra september 1966 til maj 1971.

USS JAMES K. POLK foretog sin første revision i Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company i Virginia til atompåfyldning og konvertering af våbensystemet til Poseidon -missilsystemet i juli 1971. Hun afsluttede sin konvertering i slutningen af ​​1972 og påbegyndte en streng tidsplan for havet forsøg og øvelser. Disse begivenheder kulminerede i demonstration og Shakedown Operation (DASO) af Poseidon -missilsystemet. DASO gav mulighed for at teste skibets system, træne mandskabet og lancere et Poseidon C-3-missil fra ubåden.

USS JAMES K. POLK påbegyndte Poseidon afskrækkende patruljer i Atlanterhavet i maj 1973. Hun foretog sin anden revision på Portsmouth Naval Shipyard efter at have afsluttet sin 50. afskrækkende patrulje i september 1981. Skibet gennemførte eftersyn i 1983 og gennemførte yderligere 7 vellykkede patruljer.

USS JAMES K. POLK vendte tilbage til Portsmouth Naval Shipyard i januar 1986 for en tredje revision efter at have afsluttet sin 58. afskrækkende patrulje. Hun forlod Portsmouth Naval Shipyard i november 1988 og sejlede sydpå for at påbegynde sin demonstration og Shakedown Operations (DASO). Maj 1989 markerede begyndelsen på hendes sidste serie af Poseidon strategiske afskrækkende patruljer.

USS JAMES K. POLK fejrede sit 25. år i tjeneste i april 1991 og afsluttede sin 66. og sidste strategiske afskrækkende patrulje i august samme år. Hun gennemførte en nitten måneders skibsværftskonvertering, som fjernede hendes 16 Poseidon-missiler i marts 1994 og konverterede hendes betegnelse fra SSBN-645 til SSN-645. Siden konverteringen har hun gennemført to udvidede udsendelser til Middelhavet med tørdækrum og har deltaget i adskillige SPECWAR- og NATO -øvelser.


USS Louisiana (SSBN-743)

USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) er det 18. og sidste skib i den amerikanske flådes Ohio klasse af atomdrevne flåde ballistiske missilubåde. Hun bærer Trident ballistiske missiler og har været i kommission siden 1997. Hun er det fjerde bestillingsskib, der bærer navnet på den amerikanske delstat Louisiana.

    2006 (Blue Crew) 2009
  • Meritorious Unit Commendation (Gold Crew) 2009
  • 16.764 lange tons (17.033 t) dukkede op [1] [2]
  • 18.750 lange tons (19.050 t) nedsænket [1]
  • 1 × S8GPWR atomreaktor [1]
  • 2 × gearmøller [1]
  • 1 × 325 hk (242 kW) hjælpemotor
  • 1 × aksel @ 60.000 shp (45.000 kW) [1]
  • 15 betjente [1] [2]
  • 140 meldte sig [2] [1]
    torpedoer
  • 24 × Trident II D-5 ballistiske missiler

James K. Polk: Familieliv

Selvom Polk var en religiøs mand, var hans tro sjældent lig med den strenge tro på Sarahs åbenhjertige hengivenhed. Polk var opvokset som presbyterian og var aldrig blevet døbt på grund af et familiekrig med den lokale presbyterianske minister i landdistrikterne i North Carolina. I en alder af otteogtredive oplevede Polk en religiøs konvertering til metodisme på et lejermøde, og derefter tænkte han på sig selv som en metodist. Af respekt for sin mor og kone fortsatte han imidlertid med at deltage i presbyterianske gudstjenester, selvom han ikke var alt for glad for deres calvinistiske indhold. Men når hans kone var uden for byen eller for syg til at gå i kirke, tilbad Polk i det lokale metodistkapel. På sit dødsleje indkaldte han manden, der havde konverteret ham år før, metodisten pastor John B. McFerrin, der omsider døbte Polk.

Polk havde aldrig børn og havde ikke noget familieliv som præsident andet end det Sarah ville arrangere for ham. Hans familie var politik, og han forfulgte den ubarmhjertigt. En biograf skriver, at bortset fra politik havde Polk "ingen ambitioner, intellektuelle interesser, rekreation eller endda venskaber." Han beskrev engang sig selv som den hårdest arbejdende mand i Washington, og selv hans politiske fjender undrede sig over hans evne til at præstere så meget på daglig basis.


Bloker årsag: Adgang fra dit område har været midlertidigt begrænset af sikkerhedsmæssige årsager.
Tid: Søn, 20. juni 2021 6:29:26 GMT

Om Wordfence

Wordfence er et sikkerhedsplugin installeret på over 3 millioner WordPress -websteder. Ejeren af ​​dette websted bruger Wordfence til at administrere adgangen til deres websted.

Du kan også læse dokumentationen for at lære mere om blokeringsværktøjer til Wordfence og#039, eller besøge wordfence.com for at lære mere om Wordfence.

Genereret af Wordfence søn, 20. juni 2021 6:29:26 GMT.
Din computers tid:.


SSBN-658 blev taget i brug i 1963 og blev lagt på Mare Island Naval Shipyard i 1964. I 1965 blev båden søsat og døbt, gudmor var Patricia OV McGettigan, en efterkommer af Vallejo. I slutningen af ​​1966 blev Mariano G. Vallejo blev sat i brug.

Ubåden var stationeret i Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, i 1967, og har været på regelmæssig atomafskrækkende patruljer derfra i de følgende år. Båden blev senere flyttet til Atlanterhavet og moderniseret, så den kunne skyde ned i Trident I. I 1987 blev Vallejo afsluttet den 2.500. afskrækkende patrulje af den amerikanske flådes ubådsflåde.

I 1995 blev Mariano G. Vallejo var nedlagt og derefter annulleret i programmet Program til genanvendelse af skibe i Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Kun bådens tårn blev bevaret, bragt til stedet for skibsværftet Mare Island, som ligger nær byen Vallejo, som også er opkaldt efter Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo, og udstillet der. Selvom værftet lukkede i 1996, er tårnet der stadig.


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

Braxton Bragg tog eksamen fra West Point og accepterede en kommission i den amerikanske hær i 1837 og stod femte i sin klasse på halvtreds kadetter. Han tjente med udmærkelse i Seminole-krigen og markerede sig yderligere i den mexicansk-amerikanske krig. Selvom han var upopulær blandt sine medofficerer, tjente Bragg respekt for de disciplinerede præstationer af tropperne under hans kommando. Han vendte tilbage til stor beundring efter krigen, og i 1856 købte han en stor sukkerplantage nær Thibodeaux, Louisiana. Bragg sluttede sig til lokal politik og regering, accepterede en kommission som oberst i Louisiana -militsen og voksede i rigdom og indflydelse. På et tidspunkt ejede han og hans kone over 100 slaver.

Under borgerkrigen gav Bragg afkald på sin ed og tjente i konføderationen, mest i de vestlige departementer. Han befalede et korps ved det blodige slag ved Shiloh og overtog til sidst kommandoen over Mississippi -hæren, senere kaldet Army of Tennessee. Han førte sine styrker i flere store kampe, næsten alle nederlag for Konføderationen, selvom han vandt en sejr, der øger moral i slaget ved Chickamauga. Bragg undlod tilstrækkeligt at følge op på sin sejr og led et alvorligt nederlag ved de efterfølgende kampe om Chattanooga. Betragtet af de fleste historikere og militærforskere som en ineffektiv leder og taktiker, endte Bragg & rsquos -krigen med, at han havde mistet tilliden hos de konfødererede militære og politiske ledere, selvom han forblev i feltet, indtil han blev taget til fange i maj 1865.


Indhold

Kontrakten om at bygge Kamehameha blev tildelt Mare Island Naval Shipyard i Vallejo, Californien, den 31. august 1962, og hendes køl blev lagt der 2. maj 1963. Hun blev lanceret den 16. januar 1965, sponsoreret af fru Samuel Wilder King, og blev taget i brug den 10. december 1965 med kommandør Roth S. Leddick i kommando over Blue Crew og kommandør Robert W. Dickieson i kommando over Gold Crew.

Udførelse af afskrækkelsespatruljer under den kolde krig, Kamehameha 's bevæbning som en ballistisk missil ubåd var 16 Poseidon ballistiske missiler plus ti til tolv Mark 48 tunge torpedoer non-ADCAP (avanceret kapacitet).


Air Force F-35A vil sandsynligvis indsende inden for 2 år

Udgivet den 2. april 2018 09:40:19

U.S. Air Force foto/Airman 1. klasse Connor J. Marth

Air Force F-35A Joint Strike Fighters koordinerede tæt luftstøtte med Navy SEALs, trænet med F-15E'er og A-10'er, faldt laserstyrede bomber og praktiserede centrale missioner og taktikker i Idaho som en del af de indledende forberedelser til, hvad der sandsynligvis vil blive dens første indsættelse inden for flere år, sagde højtstående tjenestemænd.

Vi øver os på at tage, hvad der ville være et mindre kontingent med jetfly og flytte dem til et andet sted og derefter få dem til at ansætte ud af det sted, ” Generalmajor Jeffrey Harrigian, direktør, F-35 Integration Office fortalte Scout Warrior i et interview.

Mens Marine Corps offentligt har sagt, at det planlægger at indsende sit F-35B med kort start og landning ombord på et amfibisk angrebskib inden 2017, har luftvåbnet hidtil været tilbageholdende med at angive en indsættelsesdato for sit F-35A variant.

Harrigian sagde imidlertid, at luftvåbnets fly sandsynligvis ville blive indsat inden for flere år og pegede på nylige mini-indsættelser af 6 F-35A'er fra Edwards AFB i Californien, til Mountain Home AFB i Idaho som et vigtigt bevis på dets igangværende forberedelser.

De faldt 30 bomber-20 laserstyrede bomber og 10 JDAMS (Joint Direct Attack Munitions). Alle var effektive. Vi forsøger ikke kun at forstå, hvordan vi forstår flyet med hensyn til ammunition, men også de taktikker, teknikker og procedurer, vi skal forberede, ” Harrigian forklaret.

Under øvelserne på Mountain Home AFB øvede F-35A også på at koordinere kommunikation såsom målidentifikation, radio og andre kommando- og kontrolfunktioner med 4. generations fly såsom F-15E, tilføjede han.

Træningsøvelserne i Idaho var også den første lejlighed til at teste flyets evne til at bruge sit computersystem kaldet Autonomic Logistic Information System, eller ALIS. Air Force bragte servere op til Mountain Home AFB for at øve sig i at vedligeholde data fra computersystemet.

En rapport i Air Force Times indikerede, at lovgivere har udtrykt nogle bekymringer over udviklingen af ​​ALIS, som har været plaget med udviklingsproblemer såsom vedligeholdelsesproblemer og problemer, der omtales som falske positive. ”

Foto fra U.S. Air Force

Dette er et nyt stykke af våbensystemet. Det har været udfordrende og hårdt. Du har alle disse data om dine fly. Vi lærte nogle ting, som vi kunne gøre på rimelig tid, sagde Harrigian.

F-35A “Sensor Fusion ”

Computersystemet er afgørende for, hvad F-35-fortalere omtaler som “sensor fusion, ” en næste generations teknologi, der kombinerer og integrerer information fra en række sensorer på en enkelt skærm. Som følge heraf behøver en pilot ikke at se på separate skærme for at beregne kortoplysninger, målrettede data, sensorindgang og resultater fra en radaradvarsler.

Harrigian tilføjede, at hans “fusion ”-teknologi tillader F-35A-piloter at behandle oplysninger og derfor træffe beslutninger hurtigere end en potentiel fjende. Han forklarede, hvordan dette berører det historiske og ofte omtalte OODA Loop - et udtryk for at betegne observationsorienteringen, beslutningen, handlingscyklussen, som jagerpiloter skal gennemgå i en hundekamp eller bekæmpe engagement for at kunne ødelægge fjenden med succes. OODA-Loop-konceptet blev udviklet af den tidligere luftvåbenstrateg, oberst John Boyd, og det har været et pejlemærke for jagerpilotuddannelse, forberedelse og taktisk mission.

Da vi går ind og begynder at målrette mod fjenden, maksimerer vi vores jetflys muligheder. F-35 tager alt det sensorindgang og giver dig det på et billede. Din evne til hurtigere at træffe beslutninger om, at fjenden er eksponentielt bedre, end da vi forsøgte at sammensætte det hele i et 4. generations fly. Du ankommer allerede i en fordelagtig position, forklarede Harrigian.

F-35 er også i stand til at affyre våben såsom AIM-9X Sidewinder luft-til-luft-missil “off boresight, ” hvilket betyder, at det kan ødelægge fjendtlige mål i forskellige indfaldsvinkler, der ikke nødvendigvis er direkte foran af flyet.

Inden du går ind i et engagement, har du sandsynligvis allerede skudt et par missiler mod fjenden, ” sagde Harrigian.

F-35s Electro-Optical Targeting System, eller EOTS, kombinerer fremadrettet infrarød og infrarød søgning og sporsensorteknologi til piloter-så de kan finde og spore mål, før de angriber med laser- og GPS-guidede præcisionsvåben.

EOTs-systemet er konstrueret til at fungere sammen med en teknologi kaldet Distributed Aperture System, eller DAS, en samling af seks kameraer, der er strategisk monteret omkring flyet for at give piloten et 360-graders udsyn.

DAS omfatter præcisionssporing, brandkontrolfunktioner og evnen til at advare piloten om en trussel eller et missil, der nærmer sig.

En F-35B dropper en GBU-12 under en udviklingsmæssig testflyvning. | Foto fra U.S. Air Force

F-35 er også konstrueret med en aktiv elektronisk scannet array-radar, der er i stand til at spore et væld af elektromagnetiske signaler, herunder returneringer fra Synthetic Aperture Radar eller SAR. Dette tegner et billede af konturerne af jorden eller det omgivende terræn og lokaliserer sammen med Ground Moving Target Indicator eller GMTI noget på farten på jorden og luftbårne objekter eller trusler.

F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Deployment

Luftvåbnet planlægger at annoncere, hvad 8217'er kaldte Initial Operational Capability, eller IOC, for dets F-35A på et tidspunkt mellem august og december i år forbereder syv F-35A'er sig på dette i Hill AFB, Utah.

Der er en operationel enhed på Hill AFB, som i juni kommer til at gå til Mountain Home for at træne og forberede den. De er den 34. Fighter Squadron

Alt dette er en del af en robust aktivitetsplan, tilføjede Harrigian.

Efter denne udvikling vil F-35A være klar til implementering, forklarede Harrigian.

Når F-35 er implementeret, vil den fungere med et avanceret softwarefald kendt som 𔄛F ”, som vil give flyet en evne til at ødelægge fjendens luftforsvar og anvende en lang række våben.

Fuld operationel kapacitet kommer med Block 3F, sagde tjenestemænd.

Blok 3F vil også øge JSF's våbenleveringskapacitet og give den mulighed for at tabe en lille diameterbombe, 500 pund JDAM og AIM 9X luft-til-luft-missiler med kort rækkevidde, sagde luftvåbenets embedsmænd.

Pr. Hvor den oprindelige eskadrille kunne indsættes, sagde Harrigian, at det ville blive bestemt af Air Combat Command afhængigt af operationelle behov på det tidspunkt. Han nævnte imidlertid Stillehavsteatret og Mellemøsten som forskellige muligheder.

Inden for et par år ville jeg forestille mig, at de ville tage eskadrillen ned. Uanset om de går til Pacific Command eller går til Mellemøsten - det operationelle miljø og hvad der sker i verden vil drive dette. Hvis der er en situation, hvor vi har brug for denne kapacitet, og de er IOC - så vil Air Combat Command tage et hårdt kig på at bruge disse fly, ” sagde han.

Artikler

“Langbenede Yankee Lies ”

Jeg postede dette tilbage i marts 2006, men besluttede at fremvise det, da mine borgerkrigshukommelsestimer vil mødes i dag for at diskutere James McPherson ’s essay om UDC og deres bestræbelser på at kontrollere og forme indholdet i historiebøger i begyndelsen af tyvende århundrede. Artiklen har titlen, “Long-Legged Yankee Lies ”: The Southern Textbook Crusade, der optrådte i Alice Fahs og Joan Waugh, red., The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture (UNC Press, 2004).

I 1890’erne havde organisationer som United Confederate Veterans (UCV) og United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) organiseret udvalg til at føre tilsyn med og gennemgå indholdet af lærebøger til børn i skoler i syd. Som en UCV -udvalgsrapport bemærkede, var formålet med sådanne anmeldelser at ære den konfødererede soldats offer og "at bevare fra det vrag, hvori deres forfatningsmæssige synspunkter, deres hjemlige institutioner, deres ejendomsmasse og deres modigste liv gik tabt, viden om, at deres adfærd var hæderlig hele vejen igennem, og at deres indsendelse endelig. . . på ingen måde sorte deres motiver eller fastslået den forkerte årsag, som de kæmpede for. ” (s. 68)

Overvej Susan Pendleton Lees tekst fra 1895, En skolehistorie i USA, hvor hun erklærede, at selvom afskaffelsesfolk havde erklæret slaveri for at være en "moralsk forkert", troede de fleste sydlændere, at "det onde, der var forbundet med det, var mindre end noget andet arbejdssystem. Hundredtusinder af afrikanske vilde var blevet kristnet under dens indflydelse - De venligste forhold eksisterede mellem slaverne og deres ejere. . [Slaverne] havde det bedre end nogen anden menial klasse i verden. ” Ingen overraskelse, at Klan i hendes beretning om genopbygning var nødvendig “for beskyttelse mod. . . forstyrrelser begået af vildledende negre. ” (s. 69)

I det første årti af det tyvende århundrede havde de fleste sydlige stater oprettet lærebogskommissioner til at føre tilsyn med eller ordinere bøger til alle offentlige skoler, der giver en "fair og upartisk" fortolkning. Disse udvalg arbejdede ihærdigt med at udfordre udgivere, der stod for at true Sydens foretrukne historie om krigen: ”Sydlige skoler og sydlige lærere har udarbejdet bøger, som sydlige børn må læse uden fornærmelse eller forringelse af deres fædre. Trykkerier overalt i Sydlandet - og over hele Nordlandet - sender tusindvis af dem, der fortæller den heltemodige kamps sande karakter. Indflydelsen . . . i Syd forbyder [s] længere perversion af sandhed og forfalskning af historien. ” (s. 70)

Måske var det bedste eksempel på UDC's tilsyn gennem arbejdet med "historikergeneral" Mildred L. Rutherford fra Georgien. I 1919 udgav Rutherford En målestang til test af tekstbøger og opslagsbøger i skoler, gymnasier og biblioteker. UCVs historiske udvalg anbefalede bogen til "alle myndigheder, der har til opgave at vælge tekstbøger til gymnasier, skoler og alle skolastiske institutioner" og anbefalede "alle biblioteksmyndigheder i de sydlige stater" at "markere alle bøger i deres samlinger, som ikke komme op på samme mål på titelsiden deraf, 'Uretfærdig mod syd.'

Her er nogle af Rutherfords anbefalinger:

    1. Afvis en bog, der taler om forfatningen andet end [som] en kompakt mellem suveræne stater.
    2. Afvis en lærebog, der. . . skitserer ikke klart indgrebene i de rettigheder, der garanteres mod syd af forfatningen, og som forårsagede løsrivelse.
    3. Afvis en bog, der siger, at Syd kæmpede for at holde sine slaver.
    4. Afvis en bog, der taler om slaveindehaverne i syden som grusomme og uretfærdige over for sine slaver.
    5. Afvis en lærebog, der forherliger Abraham Lincoln og ødelægger Jefferson Davis.
    6. Afvis en lærebog, der udelader at fortælle om Sydens helte og deres gerninger. (s. 72)

Her er rettelser til almindelige fejl i lærebøger:

    1. Sydlige mænd var ivrige efter at slaverne skulle være frie. De studerede alvorligt problemet med frihed, da nordlige fanatiske abolitionister tog sagen i egen hånd.
    2. “Mere slaveholdere og sønner af slaveholdere kæmpede for Unionen end for Konføderationen (dette passede akavet med påstande andre steder om, at Yankees fik immigranter og sorte til at gøre det meste af deres kampe - McPherson -kommentar).
    3. General Lee frigjorde sine slaver, før krigen begyndte, og general Ulysses S. Grand befriede ikke hans, før krigen sluttede.
    4. Krigen begyndte ikke med affyringen på Fort Sumter. Det begyndte, da Lincoln beordrede 2.400 mand og 285 kanoner til forsvar for Sumter. ”
    5. Unionens styrker var i undertal af konfødererede styrker fem til en, ikke overraskende, da unionens befolkning var 31 millioner, mens den konfødererede befolkning kun var 5 millioner hvide og 4 millioner slaver. ” (s. 73)

Og der har du det. Jeg spekulerer på, om Rutherford og resten af ​​banden havde en idé om, hvor vellykkede de havde med at forme en fortolkning, der fortsat viser sig at være attraktiv i hele dette land. Overvej de følgende to indlæg (her og her), hvis du er i tvivl.

Med henvisning til den kendte teknik med hensyn til minde om borgerkrig i 1960-61, er noget, der kan være værd at overveje, navnene, der er tildelt USN ’s 41 SSBN'er udstyret med Polaris og/eller Posiedon SLBM'er.

Disse skibe blev godkendt under Eisenhower- og Kennedy-administrationerne, og de valg, der blev truffet for nomenklatur (“American patriots ” i modsætning til det dengang traditionelle “ marineliv ” navne på subs) er interessante:

Af de 41 både ville kun fire (USS Robert E. Lee, SSBN-601 Abraham Lincoln (602), Ulysses S. Grant (631) og Stonewall Jackson (634)) komme til at tænke på som figurer fra borgerkrigstiden ( selvom der var SLBM'er opkaldt efter blandt andre Sam Houston og James K. Polk, hvis liv var tæt forbundet med borgerkrigen.)

Samlet set er alle 42 individer (tæller USS Lewis og Clark som en tofer) ærede, men ikke alle er soldater/statsmændstyper – Thomas Edison blev for eksempel hædret, ligesom humoristen Will Rogers. Rogers er temmelig quixotisk, men der er nogle andre, der på en eller anden måde får dig til at ridse dit hoved med hensyn til “hvad tænkte de på? ” …

Fire udenlandske statsborgere (Lafayette, Von Steuben, Pulaski og Bolivar) blev hædret, ligesom en (Mariano Vallejo), der blev amerikansk statsborger mere eller mindre med magt også blev hædret, var to “natives ” (Kamehameha og Tecumseh) Kamehameha døde uden nogen viden om eksistensen af ​​USA, formodentlig, og Tecumseh, selvfølgelig, faktisk kæmpede mod USA som en britisk allieret i krigen 1812-15.

Præcis en afroamerikaner hædres, og han var for eksempel ikke Frederick Douglas i stedet, USS George Washington Carver blev døbt som sådan.

Notaterne frem og tilbage om de navne, der er valgt til disse skibe, kunne tilbyde en vis indsigt, tror jeg.

Da Grant frigjorde den eneste slave, han reelt ejede før krigen, og da Dent -slaverne frigjorde sig under krigen (og denne frihed blev lovgivet, da Missouri afskaffede slaveriet tidligt i 1865), findes der en række faktiske fejlinformationer her, selvom redaktøren af ​​fru Grant's selvbiografi, afdøde John Simon, fastholdt misforståelsen i noterne til dette bind.

Tak fordi du reagerede på dette, Brooks. Jeg har kun været i White Haven et par måneder, og visitationen har været langsom på grund af vejr og andre faktorer, men jeg er ofte nødt til at prøve at rette besøgende og#8217 falske indtryk. For et par dage siden for eksempel, efter at have talt om Grant og slaveri i White Haven, sagde en mand fra Mobile, Alabama på besøg sammen med sin kone, til mig, Robert E. Lee ejede ikke nogen slaver. ” A Google -søgning efter Grant, Lee og slaveri viser, hvor meget desinformation der er. Jeg synes, det er også vigtigt at bemærke, at vi ikke ved, hvordan eller hvorfor Grant erhvervede den ene slave, han ejede, og at han kunne have solgt ham på et t

Ups! min finger ramte den forkerte tast. Anyway … Grant frigjorde sin slave på et tidspunkt, hvor han kunne have brugt pengene.

Her er “A Measuring Rod til at teste tekstbøger og opslagsbøger i skoler, gymnasier og biblioteker online på Digital Library of Georgia:
http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/meta/html/dlg/zlgb/meta_dlg_zlgb_gb5126.html?Velkommen

Fantastisk indlæg, Kevin. Jeg er særlig glad for disse tre …

Flere slaveholdere og sønner af slaveholdere kæmpede for Unionen end for konføderationen ”

Mit svar til dem, der siger dette … En erklæring, der typisk fremsættes af dem, der ikke engang kan underbygge påstanden. I sidste ende må jeg sige, “ bevis det, vis mig tallene. ” Men så for den person, der gør påstanden vist ovenfor, viser det et stort tomrum i at forstå det større billede.

“Gen. Lee frigjorde sine slaver, før krigen begyndte, og general Ulysses S. Grand befriede ikke hans, før krigen sluttede. ”

Mit svar på denne … “Langbenede oprørs løgn. ” Som vi alle ved, frigjorde Lee først sine slaver før 1862, og så kunne det ses som noget, han kun gjorde, fordi hans svigerfar erklærede, at slaverne (som i sidste ende blev givet videre til Lee fra Custis) skulle frigøres senest 5 år efter hans død. Mon ikke Lee ellers ville have holdt fast i dem. I sidste ende kan vi kun spekulere i det.

Krigen begyndte ikke med affyringen på Fort Sumter. Det begyndte, da Lincoln beordrede 2.400 mand og 285 kanoner til forsvar for Sumter. ”

Mit svar på dette … “og naturligvis, hvilken fremadstormende præsident ikke ville forstærke en amerikansk militærpost i betragtning af muligheden for vold mod posten. ”

Hund gået det! Dette ville have været sjovere at spille på, hvis disse udsagn havde været på et websted, der blev drevet af en ny tids konfødererede. Så igen flyder udsagn som disse derude på forskellige steder.

Men ville det ikke være gavnligt ud over Rutherfords anbefalinger at vise dine elever den hensigt, der er vist i historietekstanbefalingerne fra G.A.R.?

Dit sidste punkt er et, som jeg forsøgte at følge op på. McPherson siger ikke meget i essayet ud over påstanden om, at G.A.R. enheder pressede ikke så stærkt på en foretrukken fortælling. Jeg ved ikke, om det er sandt eller ej. Lad mig vide, hvis du har referencer ud over Stuart McConnells fine undersøgelse.

Jeg prøver faktisk at grave dybere i det, men har endnu ikke en god handel at arbejde med. McConnell citerer et afsnit fra, tror jeg, “Patriotic Committee ” fra en slutning fra 1880'erne eller 90'erne National Encampment. Han henviser også til indsigelser fra G.A.R. til tekster, der udelukker udtryk som “rebellion ” og så videre, men jeg tror ikke (indtil videre), at det nærmer sig noget lignende, som vi ser i Rutherfords anbefalinger.

Uden at have foretaget den nødvendige research, ville jeg formode, at G.A.R. medlemmerne ville være bekymrede over krigens karakterisering, men i betragtning af den samlede tilbagetrækning fra frigørelsen ved begyndelsen af ​​det tyvende århundrede er det usandsynligt, at de ville have gjort indsigelse mod påstande om race og slaveri.

Jeg får indtryk af, at i år efter krigen kunne G.A.R. begyndte at vedtage frigivelsen af ​​slaverne som en primær årsag til deres krig, selvom dette i virkeligheden er i modstrid med årsagerne til, at mange gik i krig i begyndelsen. Jeg synes, der er nok værker til at vise, at unionsoldater vedtog dette som en god årsag til deres kamp mod konføderationen, mens krigen fortsatte, og de var i stand til at se slaver og de betingelser, som mange af dem levede under. Jeg tror, ​​at som en handling fra efterkrigstidens veteraner, der vedtager “ årsagen ” for “ at frigøre slaverne ” i eftertid er noget vildledende, da det lyder mere som om, at de som soldater gik i krig med dette i tankerne fra starten. Måske er jeg lidt på afstand af dette, men det er det indtryk, jeg kommer så langt.

Jeg har en kandidatstuderende ved UVA, der lavede en omfattende undersøgelse af regimenthistorier, der blev offentliggjort i de første år efter krigen, og han fandt ud af, at de understregede emancipation som et afgørende tema og konsekvens af krigen. Det ville være interessant at vide, hvordan de sammenlignede med senere historier. Det ville også være interessant at vide, om der er forskel på vægten på enhedshistorier fra det vestlige teater.

Men hvis unionsregimentaler, der blev skrevet efter krigen, hævder, at frigørelsen stod bag “ årsagen ” for de mænd, der betjente, betyder det ikke også, at vi skulle overveje de krav, der blev fremsat i konfødererede regimentaler, der blev skrevet kort efter krigen, hvor sagde soldater, at de ikke kæmpede for slaveri?

Kan vi ikke betragte War of the Rebellion -udgaven som den nordlige reaktion på at forme fortællingen? OR fortæller faktisk en bestemt historie, og det er et udvalg af dokumenter (og udvælgelserne blev foretaget af en veterangruppe som embedsmænd). Jeg siger ikke, at OR er fuld af løgne, men jeg siger, at det er tvunget af størrelsesbegrænsninger til kun at fortælle en del af historien. Jeg havde troet, at dette kunne være tilfældet, og da jeg kontrollerede posterne fra Department of NC (under forskellige kommandonavne), opdagede jeg, at dette var tilfældet. Redaktionen valgte dokumenter, der tjente en bestemt fortælling. De transskriberede trofast disse dokumenter. Udvælgelsesprocessen skal have haft specifikke kriterier. Slutresultatet er, at OR fortæller en selektiv fortælling.

I det mindste at gå igennem bjergafdelingens optegnelser fra 1862, var det let at finde ud af, hvad der endte i OR, og hvad der ikke var et lille blyantmærke på førstnævnte. At lade disse ting være ude gav ikke OR en nordisk skævhed, og redaktørerne, som jeg husker, arbejdede hårdt på at finde og endda købe konfødererede dokumenter, men det sanerede krigen noget. Det vil sige, at ting relateret til traditionel krigsførelse rutinemæssigt blev inkluderet i OR, men genstande relateret til guerilla -aktiviteter var det ofte ikke.

Chris … Wow! Jeg har aldrig betragtet OR som en form for overtalelse eller argument for at bevise en pointe. Siger du, at krigsafdelingen i sidste ende kun tillod konfødererede rapporter, der kunne understøtte et bestemt argument?

Intet så lumsk som det du måske foreslår (ikke ønsker at placere et argument i dit spørgsmål). Selvom jeg ikke specifikt havde tjekket mod konfødererede rapporter. Hvad jeg fandt i breve, der blev sendt og modtaget til US Dept of NC, tilbød mere bevis på NC -fagforening og også om spørgsmålet om handel med NC -vandveje. Ved at udelukke disse dokumenter fra EL eller OR ændres vores forståelse af, hvad der sker i NC's afdeling. Redaktionen blev tvunget til at vælge dokumenter, der skildrede centrale øjeblikke, da de forstod, hvilke øjeblikke eller handlinger der var nøglen. Når et dokument vælges, gengives det trofast. Men jeg fremlægger, at hvad vi skal efterlade, og hvad vi skal udelade, farver vores forståelse i en bestemt retning. Selvom det måske er subtilt. Måske syntes redaktionen ikke, at handelsspørgsmålet var vigtigt, eller måske fremstillede det ikke USA i et positivt lys. Men ved slet ikke at inkludere disse dokumenter ville læseren af ​​OR aldrig vide den ene eller den anden måde.
Kontroller oplysningerne, styr argumentet, styr hukommelsen. 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 .

Det 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 . Det 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 .


Se videoen: Americas Most Underrated President. The Life u0026 Times of James K Polk