History of Texas Part III: Sam Houston

March 02, 2017

WRITER

They say everything is bigger in Texas, and that includes the legends who forged the state's independence.

Texas history could ever be complete without covering Sam Houston, one of the most complex and fascinating characters in American history. Born in Virginia in 1793, Houston would become the only American to serve as the governor of two separate states, a congressman, a senator and the president of a sovereign nation --- the Republic of Texas.

Revered for his military service under Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 and as the general who would defeat Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto, Houston fell out of favor when he refused to secede with southern states during the Civil War era. History would eventually right the wrongs done to his legacy and prove his judgment correct. Today, Sam Houston remains a beloved and giant figure in Texas history.

Listen to this segment:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

GLENN: They say everything is bigger in Texas. And that includes the legends responsible for forging its independence. No discussion of Texas history could ever be complete without exploring the lives of Sam Houston, Davy Crockett, and Jim Bowie. One fact that makes us wannabe Texans feel better that none of these were born in Texas. But like the 28 million others who live there today, we all got here as soon as we could.

While Stephen F. Austin is the man without whom Texas might still be a hot, humid, swampy wasteland. In our first episode, we covered Austin's critical contributions to the founding of the state. He was, as the Spanish called him, an impresario, who was eventually responsible for at least 1200 American families immigrating to Texas. But, meanwhile, several other men, who like Austin who were from the east would also make their way to Texas.

This episode, we focus on one of the most complex and fascinating characters in American history, his name is Sam Houston, who was born in Virginia in 1793. He was 14 years old when his family moved to Tennessee. And at the age of 19, Houston joined the US Army and fought under Andrew Jackson in the war of 1812. Andrew Jackson is a guy that I like just about as much as Woodrow Wilson. I contend that the American republic as our Founders knew it, died under Andrew Jackson.

Not a good guy. But Jackson was responsible for the expansion of America in many ways. Mainly by killing the Indians. In the battle of horseshoe bend, Houston was wounded multiple times and just kept going. He was shot in the groin area with an arrow, and he bandaged himself up, then lead a charge to overtake the enemy fortification and was shot twice more by a rifle. He was hit in the shoulder and the arm.

His heroics made quite an impression on the future president, President Jackson. They became friends and close confidants for life. In 1822, Houston ran for and won election to the US Congress. And in 1827, was elected governor of the state of Tennessee.

VOICE: Within weeks, the marriage collapsed. He sent her packing back to her father. And he resigned as governor of Tennessee. This personal tragedy had great political repercussions. It ended his opportunity for a traditional political career and set him on a westward course that took him to Texas. And the beginnings of the creation of an empire.

GLENN: During his first term in office, rumors arose that Houston had developed a serious drinking problem and that he was cheating on his new wife. Because of this, he gave up plans to run for reelection. He quit politics, and for a time, went to live with the Cherokee Indians where he met and married his second wife, a woman whose heritage was half Cherokee. Houston was an outspoken advocate for the Indians, which was in direct conflict with his good friend, Andrew Jackson.

In 1832, he traveled to Washington to expose government fraud against the Cherokees. While there, a congressman from Ohio, William Stanbery made accusations against Houston on the floor of Congress.

Houston wrote repeatedly to demand satisfaction on the charges from Stanbery, but never heard back. Finally, Houston confronted Stanbery in DC on Pennsylvania Avenue and beat him senseless with a hickory cane.

Apparently, a lot of beatings with canes happened back then. Stanbery pulled his pistol and fired at Houston, but the gun misfired. Stanbery was injured because of that, and Congress ordered the arrest of Sam Houston.

He was represented in court by Francis Scott Key. Yes, that guy. He was a lawyer who authored the national anthem. But the famous representation didn't help. But if you're the opposite of Garth Brooks and you have friends in high places, including the president of the United States, President Jackson and future President James K. Polk, he was only lightly reprimanded. Yes, some things in Washington never change.

Unsatisfied with Houston's punishment, Stanbery sued him in civil court, and he won a 500-dollar judgment. But Houston left for Texas without paying a penny of it. He was later pardoned by Andrew Jackson, and the fine was erased.

So what happened to his family? Well, Houston's Cherokee wife had absolutely no interest going off to Texas with him, and she stayed behind in Tennessee.

VOICE: The hour that Sam Houston crossed the Red River in Texas in December of 1832, he became the most famous human being in Texas. He was nationally famous, as a war hero in the war of 1812, as a lieutenant of Andrew Jackson's, as congressmen in flamboyant governor of Tennessee. And the mere appearance of Sam Houston in Texas guaranteed that Sam Houston would achieve public notice, public notoriety perhaps.

GLENN: With the War of Independence on the horizon for Texas and Houston's reputation of a war hero after arriving in Texas, he was quickly appointed to commander-in-chief of the Texas Army, even though at the time there wasn't much of an army to speak of.

October 1835, the actual fighting in the Texas revolution began in Gonzalez. As a detachment of Mexican soldiers was beaten back and defeated trying to take back the Gonzalez cannon back to Mexico. The battle cry of the residents was defiant. You might have seen it on a flag from Texas recently. It just says: Come and take it.

The Mexicans couldn't. Texas won. A small group of 183 men took up the fight at the Alamo in San Antonio, as rumors spread of the approach of the 5,000 strong Mexican Army began to reach them. The men in the Alamo were determined to stay and fight even though Sam Houston told them it's foolhardy, a hopeless cause, and, quote, a trap for anyone who dared to defend it, end quote.

As we all know, he was right. The Mexican Army laid siege to the Alamo for nearly two weeks, then attacked and killed everyone inside.

The 183 men inside of the Alamo made the Mexicans pay dearly, killing between 600 and 1300 men in Santa Anna's army. Angered, Santa Anna began looking for Sam Houston, and along the way, executed the 400 Texans who had defended the garrison at Goliad, Texas, after they surrendered.

As the word trickled out about the fate of nearly 600 Texans killed at the Alamo and Goliad, more and more angry Texans joined Houston's army. It's one of the reasons why the Russian plans to invade the United States never included a single plan to enter through the Texas border.

You just don't want to make Texans angry. When Houston finally decided the time and circumstances were right to fight Santa Anna and he had enough angry Texans, he pounced on Santa Anna's forces at 3:30 at the battle of San Jacinto, winning one of the fastest, most divisive victories in all of history. The battle lasted 18 minutes. And that is when Texas won its independence.

Houston was wound again. His ankle was shattered by a bullet. And when he went to New Orleans for treatment, a huge crowd awaited him on the dock. One of those in the crowd was a 17-year-old girl named Margaret Lee who was immediately smitten with the 43-year-old war hero. But she didn't get a chance to meet him. Three years later, on a business trip to Mobile, Alabama, Houston and Lee met and were formerly introduced. The next year, the two were married. And this time, married for life. For the rest of Houston's life, Lee remained at Houston's side, until he died in his home in Huntsville in 1863.

Houston became a hero of incredible proportions in Texas. He would be elected president of the new republic twice. And when it became a state within the United States, he was elected one of the two US senators from the state.

VOICE: In 1854, as one of the two US senators from Texas, Houston performed the bravest political act of his career, when he voted against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have potentially opened up certain western territories to slavery.

So he alone among all US senators from the cotton states voted against the act. And, of course, he was hung in effigy. He was reviled on street corners and on the political stump. The state legislature called upon him to resign in Texas.

VOICE: Although rejected by the Texas legislature, the people remained loyal to Houston and elected him governor in 1859.

Hardly had Texas joined the Union when the issue of secession to maintain the right to hold slaves swept the southern states.

VOICE: Houston fought with all of his might against the forces of secession. But crowds now hooted him down, spat upon him, threatened his life. The man who had given birth to Texas was now hated by the people he had led. He refused to swear allegiance to the Confederacy and was ousted from office.

GLENN: He had held on to his principles, even when it cost him his political career and his enormous popularity with the people. However, history would eventually right the wrongs done to his legacy and prove that his judgment was correct.

Sam Houston goes down as the only American in history to serve as the governor of two separate states, a US congressman, a US senator, and the president of a sovereign nation. He truly was one of the most unique and fascinating characters in history. Next time, Texas today.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep