From the New York Times Magazine story about the race between our Gov. Rick and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, he’s talking about his admiration for Sam Houston:
“Houston became a Christian late in life because of his wife,” he said. “He was running for the presidency in 1860, and she talked him out of it. She thought he would lose his mortal soul if he ran for the presidency. He was highly respected in the North – an anti-slave Southerner. There are those that think he would’ve won the presidency of the United States and we probably would not have had a civil war. Interesting.” The governor was grinning broadly. “Then we wouldn’t have had Abe Lincoln,” I pointed out.
Perry contemplated this for barely a second before replying, “Maybe Sam Houston would’ve been better.”
He sat back and munched on his popcorn, clearly pleased to have said something that might provoke incredulity somewhere.
I’m going to recuse myself in any debate of the merits of Lincoln vs. Houston due to my deep personal ties to our 16th president’s hometown. But I will say that the election of someone else as president in 1860 might well have delayed a civil war. I doubt it would have prevented one. And I don’t think a delay would have done our country much good in the long run, particularly for the millions of human beings living in bondage.
I realize I’m responding to Perry’s off-the-cuff remark in an overly serious manner. I just think our history matters.
