Challenge: Sam Houston as Texas and United States president

Zioneer

Banned
So here's my challenge to you all, make Sam Houston both a President of Texas and a President of the United States during his life. POD can be any time after Houston is born, or after Texas is declared sovereign, if you want.

Additionally, I'd like anyone who takes up the challenge to explore the cultural impact of an American president who was also a president of a foreign nation.
 
1860 seems to be the best year for this to happen, but the details elude me.

The easiest way for Sam Houston to be president of the US is for a deadlocked Democratic convention in 1852 to turn to him. Unlikely, but unlikelier things have happened with deadlocked conventions. If nominated, he would almost certainly win, the Whigs being terribly divided on the slavery issue. And his presidency would be interesting, because he is the only possible Democratic nominee in 1852 I could think of who definitely would *not* support the Kansas-Nebraska bill as president.

it is also just barely conceivable he could have become president in 1860 if (a) the Constiutonal Unionists had nominated him instead of Bell, and if (b) the race had gone to the House, and if (c) the Republicans in the House, seeing that they could not get Lincoln elected there, threw their support to Houston. (IMO all three conditions are unlikely. To confine myself to (a), Houston was too much of an Old Democrat for a party that was mostly a party of Old Whigs, and he was also hurt by his advocacy of a US protectorate over northern Mexico.)

However, both these scenarios depend on Texas having been annexed. There is no way Houston could *simultaneously* be president of the US and of an independent Republic of Texas. He had sworn allegiance to the United States of Mexico in 1835 and thereby lost his US citizenship. (One could argue that he had already lost it by accepting citizenship in the Cherokee nation--but the Supreme Court would hold in 1831 that the Cherokee nation was not sovereign.) Later of course he was a citizen of the Republic of Texas. He did not regain his US citizenship until Texas was annexed. Since he was now once again a US citizen, and, because he had been born in the US, a "natural born" one, he was now eligible for the US presidency.
 
The easiest way for Sam Houston to be president of the US is for a deadlocked Democratic convention in 1852 to turn to him. Unlikely, but unlikelier things have happened with deadlocked conventions. If nominated, he would almost certainly win, the Whigs being terribly divided on the slavery issue. And his presidency would be interesting, because he is the only possible Democratic nominee in 1852 I could think of who definitely would *not* support the Kansas-Nebraska bill as president.

it is also just barely conceivable he could have become president in 1860 if (a) the Constiutonal Unionists had nominated him instead of Bell, and if (b) the race had gone to the House, and if (c) the Republicans in the House, seeing that they could not get Lincoln elected there, threw their support to Houston. (IMO all three conditions are unlikely. To confine myself to (a), Houston was too much of an Old Democrat for a party that was mostly a party of Old Whigs, and he was also hurt by his advocacy of a US protectorate over northern Mexico.)

However, both these scenarios depend on Texas having been annexed. There is no way Houston could *simultaneously* be president of the US and of an independent Republic of Texas. He had sworn allegiance to the United States of Mexico in 1835 and thereby lost his US citizenship. (One could argue that he had already lost it by accepting citizenship in the Cherokee nation--but the Supreme Court would hold in 1831 that the Cherokee nation was not sovereign.) Later of course he was a citizen of the Republic of Texas. He did not regain his US citizenship until Texas was annexed. Since he was now once again a US citizen, and, because he had been born in the US, a "natural born" one, he was now eligible for the US presidency.

Very good insights, but I missed where anyone assumed he could be president of two countries at the sae time or in succession.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Houston was a unique character; if anything, he was

Houston was a unique character; if anything, he was Andrew Jackson's "Westerner" archetype to the nth power. If anyone could follow in Jackson's footsteps (other than Polk), Houston was probably the man.

Having said that, I think odds are long against him serving as president of the Republic of Texas and then, after admission, being elected president of the United States, although David's two options seem about the most likely imaginable.

Having said that, a Sam Houston who declared for the Union in 1861, and survived later than 1863, might have had an interesting career (although he was 70 when he died); however, his son was older he was made it to the Senate...

Best,
 

Zioneer

Banned
Maybe I misread Zioneer's initial post.

Yeah, my bad if it wasn't clear; I meant Houston being President of Texas at one point, then after the annexation of Texas, Houston becoming President of the United States. He doesn't have to elected (so he could be a VP that takes over after a president dies), he just has to serve long enough to be counted as a president.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If Houston lived until 1864-65, and had declared

Yeah, my bad if it wasn't clear; I meant Houston being President of Texas at one point, then after the annexation of Texas, Houston becoming President of the United States. He doesn't have to elected (so he could be a VP that takes over after a president dies), he just has to serve long enough to be counted as a president.

If Houston lived until 1864-65, and if he had declared strongly for the Union in 1861, he'd been an interesting alternative to Andrew Johnson...

Best,
 
Last edited:
I asked the same question a while ago (great minds think alike ;)), and the small consensus was that Houston was unlikely to win in 1852 or 1856. Mostly because he was a Unionist and Free-Soiler (he held slaves but did not support the sectional idea of expanding it), and thus unthinkable to the Fire-Eaters that ran the show (he was also rumored to be a Catholic). He could possibly win 1860, either by an electoral majority in the face of much weaker candidates, or by a deadlocked Electoral College leading to a House Vote (his own Constitutional Unionist voters, Republicans who realize the State layout's are stacked against them, and possibly Douglas Democrats who don't want Breckenridge as President).
 
I asked the same question a while ago (great minds think alike ;)), and the small consensus was that Houston was unlikely to win in 1852 or 1856. Mostly because he was a Unionist and Free-Soiler (he held slaves but did not support the sectional idea of expanding it), and thus unthinkable to the Fire-Eaters that ran the show (he was also rumored to be a Catholic). He could possibly win 1860, either by an electoral majority in the face of much weaker candidates, or by a deadlocked Electoral College leading to a House Vote (his own Constitutional Unionist voters, Republicans who realize the State layout's are stacked against them, and possibly Douglas Democrats who don't want Breckenridge as President).

Could he have replaced Bell on the Constitutional Union ticket?
 
However, both these scenarios depend on Texas having been annexed. There is no way Houston could *simultaneously* be president of the US and of an independent Republic of Texas. He had sworn allegiance to the United States of Mexico in 1835 and thereby lost his US citizenship. (One could argue that he had already lost it by accepting citizenship in the Cherokee nation--but the Supreme Court would hold in 1831 that the Cherokee nation was not sovereign.) Later of course he was a citizen of the Republic of Texas. He did not regain his US citizenship until Texas was annexed. Since he was now once again a US citizen, and, because he had been born in the US, a "natural born" one, he was now eligible for the US presidency.

This actually brings up a more interesting question I think than simply "What would Sam Houston do as President of first Texas and then the United States?"

By that, I mean, I know it's quite a ways before the 14th Amendment, but just what does this do to US Citizenship law? I mean, I can imagine, with the (essentially) voluntary renunciation of Houston's citizenship, as well as his (former) citizenship in Mexico, as well as his (essentially honorary) citizenship in the CHerokee nation, could we see some sort of ultra-citizenship case being decided in the Supreme Court when someone challenges Houston's bid for election? If so, what would the case, in its simplest terms look like? I'm imaging it as some sort of mash-up of the Wong and Afroyim cases running headlong into each other. But what would the result be, and how does whatever decision that comes of that affect things, directly or indirectly, in the future?

It's somewhat off-topic I know but if Houston comes into power in the 1850s, it's also quite relevant...or maybe not, I'm not sure how in-tune people might be to these sort of things back then.
 
This actually brings up a more interesting question I think than simply "What would Sam Houston do as President of first Texas and then the United States?"

By that, I mean, I know it's quite a ways before the 14th Amendment, but just what does this do to US Citizenship law? I mean, I can imagine, with the (essentially) voluntary renunciation of Houston's citizenship, as well as his (former) citizenship in Mexico, as well as his (essentially honorary) citizenship in the CHerokee nation, could we see some sort of ultra-citizenship case being decided in the Supreme Court when someone challenges Houston's bid for election? If so, what would the case, in its simplest terms look like? I'm imaging it as some sort of mash-up of the Wong and Afroyim cases running headlong into each other. But what would the result be, and how does whatever decision that comes of that affect things, directly or indirectly, in the future?

It's somewhat off-topic I know but if Houston comes into power in the 1850s, it's also quite relevant...or maybe not, I'm not sure how in-tune people might be to these sort of things back then.

well he was born in the US so that part is covered
 
well he was born in the US so that part is covered

That's true, and I know that, but I mean there was discussion above about him renouncing his citizenship.

This would be his natural-born citizenship, and for him to take it up again, would that not mean he is no longer a naturally born, but instead naturalized citizen, his birthplace notwithstanding? I'm not sure what the rules are like about the resumption of citizenship, but I imagine that the status of 'natural-born' would be a one-off thing that is reliant exclusively upon being a citizen from birth, and which, once renounced, could never be reclaimed. That is more the question I'm curious about I suppose.

I'm not sure how well I explained it, but that is what I am getting at with my query.
 
That's true, and I know that, but I mean there was discussion above about him renouncing his citizenship.

This would be his natural-born citizenship, and for him to take it up again, would that not mean he is no longer a naturally born, but instead naturalized citizen, his birthplace notwithstanding? I'm not sure what the rules are like about the resumption of citizenship, but I imagine that the status of 'natural-born' would be a one-off thing that is reliant exclusively upon being a citizen from birth, and which, once renounced, could never be reclaimed. That is more the question I'm curious about I suppose.

I'm not sure how well I explained it, but that is what I am getting at with my query.

but where he renounced his citizenship to move to, Texas, was annexed by the US & everyone there became a citizen of the US once more
 
Could he have replaced Bell on the Constitutional Union ticket?

Bell got 68.5 votes on the first ballot, Houston got 57. The second ballot had Bell win 138 (out of 252) and Houston got 69. If Houston led on the first ballot he could have overtaken Bell in a few rounds. He would probably win Kentucky and Tennessee like Bell and possibly more states like Maryland (Breckenridge 45.9% to Bell's 45.1%), Missouri (Douglas 35.5% to Bell's 35.3%), and North Carolina (Breckenridge 50.5% to Bell's 46.7%). Georgia, Lousiana, and Texas are also unlikely possibilities (Breckenridge won over 75% of the Texas vote, but with Houston on the ticket I think they could be swayed).
 
Top