Would today's GOP back Sam Houston?
by Will Lutz    Wed, Mar 7, 2012, 10:13 am
Most Americans know about the brave group of Texans who met 176 years ago on March 2 at Washington-on-the-Brazos to demand their God-given freedoms from a despot named Santa Anna, who was almost as unpopular in Mexico as in Texas.    

But on college campuses nationwide, students learn a different narrative. They have to sit through diatribes on so-called institutional racism. If Sam Houston is discussed at all, he is portrayed in a negative light, with the manifest destiny and/or Texas Independence usually dismissed and discussed mainly in racial terms.

Now -- in the 21st Century -- we're in a fight for the heart and soul of the next generation. Will Texas Republicans stand up for the values of Sam Houston, or will decide meekly not to rock the boat, passively giving away what William Barret Travis and Davy Crockett died to protect?

Two decades ago, the University of Texas at Austin used to sponsor a festive celebration of Texas Independence. Then, in 1994, when I was a student, a left-wing group known as MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán) protested and tried to shout down the celebration. Then-President Robert Berdahl decided to cancel the March 2nd celebration on campus in 1995. (UT didn't cancel the March 2 fundraisers the Ex-Students Association holds statewide, however.)

So the Young Conservatives of Texas exercised their First Amendment Rights and held the celebration themselves. After that, Berdahl brought back a watered-down on-campus celebration, largely so the administration could control the content. Berdahl thankfully left Texas in 1997 and accepted the chancellorship of an institution that better reflects his values -- the University of California - Berkeley.

Since then, little has changed in the UT Tower. A few years ago, some UT professors tried to create a Program in Western Civilization and American Institutions. The campus left balked because the program portrayed Western Civilization and America in a positive light. UT President William Powers, Jr. supported the decision of his liberal arts dean, Randy Diehl, to cancel the program, replace it with a generic great books program, and remove the words "American" and "Western" from the center title.

While not much changed in the Tower, a lot has changed down the street. Texans now have a governor, Rick Perry, who understands and will stand up for the values of Sam Houston. Working with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, he's leading a campaign to reform higher education, to deliver better value for Texans' hard-earned tax dollars. And several legislators objected to Diehl's attack on the Western Civilization Center, most notably Reps. Lois Kolkhorst of Washington County and Wayne Christian of Shelby County.

Who shows up to fight governor Perry and TPPF? Robert Berdahl.

After his retirement as Chancellor at Berkeley, Berdahl became president of the Association of American Universities. He wrote a nasty letter opposing higher education reform to then-Texas A&M System Chancellor Mike McKinney. This letter has been seized on by liberal Democrats in the Texas Legislature in their attacks on Perry.

That's why the May 29 primary matters so much; it will determine what kind of Republicans will  govern. For example, some Republican senators object to Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini's (D-Laredo) nonstop attacks on Perry, TPPF, and their conservative reform agenda, while others remain silent or tacitly support her misbehavior.  Will Texas Republicans give more of Texans' money to the campus left or support efforts to turn UT into another Berkeley? Or will they -- as Sam Houston advocated -- "Do right and risk the consequences"?

One day, I hope our state universities will once again honor and reflect the values of those who signed the Texas Declaration of Independence. Until then, I invite all Texans, as the Declaration says, to do something else out-of-style in academia. Let us "fearlessly and confidently commit the issue to the decision of the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations." Amen.

Share This Story on Facebook
Comments (3)add comment
written by Buckmeister , March 08, 2012

Whew! What was that all about? Next time, try a punchline, such as Vote For Rick for President. I agree, that way those darned liberal Mexicans who flooded into Texas, under the reign of George I & II will finally get their comeupance, a raise.

written by Dan Short , March 08, 2012

When one reads such ridiculous ideology identified in this article—it verifies that ignorance in history is not just confined to the higher offices of this land—it apparently is rampant in our universities as well.

To construct the whole history one should know—which is apparently not required to be a University administrator. So I’ll just make a quick reference of what the realities are.

Why so many Anglos in Texas?
Invited by Mexico, as the Mexicans did not want to go north to this desolate land—and put up with the Comanche, they were promised land if they became citizens—which required they learn the language, and become as the theocracy of Mexico stated—become Catholic. All of these things were being done by the Anglos moving to a new country.

Problem—the constitution of 1824—which was the covenant of political governance the Anglos when they signed up to come here—was dismissed by the dictatorship of Santa Anna.

Now what happened—it was not only Texas that was in opposition to this event—it was also the actions of 10 of the states of the United Mexican States—resulting in the army of Santa Anna moving north and crushing all resistance one by one.

Now the dilemma; should the Texans fight for the return to the constitution of 1824—or was independence in their future. The choice was made for them—when Santa Anna would defeat any of the rebellious states, he would impose draconian measures to insure they did not revolt again. As last in the line to be dealt with—the course was clear, submit and obey, and face this same measure of justice…or declare independence.

So today what are we facing? Benjamin Franklin told us that the worse law to make…is one not enforced. For to do so only creates this social concept that laws—as they are not enforces—must not have value anyway. This results in making all of civilization and the rule of law nothing but the law of the jungle.

Today our state—Texas—is being invaded not by those invited—but by those who broke the law to get here. They are not coming to become Americans, they desire to bring their culture, their values, their concept of entitlement that has been taught to them by our very own government—that they are not an asset—they are a deficit that must be controlled.

Houston was the controller of the Anglos, coming to Texas. As such, he made them comply with the laws of Mexico. Now we have the concept of “anarchy” where this tsunami of population is not only not law abiding—they as our president believe that nihilism of what is will provide them something they can get from someone else. Resulting in that today the cost—not only directly but indirectly is bankrupting this state—and helping with the fiscal destruction of this nation.

Houston may have liked his booze, his women, and his fun—but he respected the law. Today the influence of the latino environment into this nation is not constructive, but detrimental—and no they would not support Houston.

written by Paul Perry , March 14, 2012

Amen , your right on target.

Write comment