History of Texas Part III: Sam Houston

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.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.