[a fool in paradise]

Houston is one of those people I never get tired of reading about, simply because he is such a paradox. He had periods of bravery that would make Audie Murphy jealous. He had periods where he appeared to be a complete wuss. He was at times a brilliant leader and statesman, other times a knot-head.

Such perspectives (both for and against) may need to be tempered with a grain of salt.

What we know about so much "history" comes filtered through the bias, perspective, and neglegence of other historians (or even contemporaries of the figure/event being discussed).

So "contradictions" can appear because we may not know enough about motive or even what really happened.

Having seen how so many academics slur Reagan and praise Carter says a lot. And the same can even be said of "contemporary" politicians and journalists' accounts of those years.

Which is why it is nice to be able to go back to someone's original writings where possible.

This is not a defense of Sam Houston, just a discussion about getting information after the fact and trying to form an opinion based on possibly unreliable accounts.

[I cannot think of a name]

Absolutely spot on.

That's part of the reason I'm a compulsive used book store prowler. I love to have multiple accounts, written in multiple different eras. If you get enough different accounts and enough different opinions, you can almost begin to discern a line of truth.

Houston is so interesting because he has these high profile public periods that are quite documented, followed by periods that are nearly blank (Like his actions after the strange dissolution of his first marriage - gone Indian? gone alcoholic? gone Indian/alcoholic?).