Texas was having trouble getting other states and countries to recognize them as an independent nation. Lamar and Houston have completely opposite opinions on how to rule a republic, one individual liked peace, and the other disturbed the peace. Policies were completely opposite when these presidents oversaw Texas, and I will talk about their differences.
Sam Houston
Sam Houston had a two-year presidency, and he was very passionate about annexation and wanted Texas to become a part of the United States. The United States did not want to add Texas to its map because it meant that they would have another slave state, and at the time Texas was still a slave state. Sam Houston worked to keep peace with the natives and tried to establish a peace treaty during the Texas revolution happening in 1836. Houston promised the natives that if they did not disturb the peace of Texas, they would be able to keep the land they live in, which was in east Texas. Sam
…show more content…
Lamar did not only act opposite from Houston's actions in the native category, but he also did not agree with keeping the peace with Mexico. Lamar wanted to aggravate tension between Texas and Mexico, and he did this by sending the Texas navy to Mexico in order to help soldiers and citizens of Mexico who were rebelling against the Mexican government. Lamar did not care about becoming a part of the United States to free the republic from debt, he wanted Texas to remain independent, and wanted to expand Texas borders into New Mexico to become a bigger republic with more land. Being in debt did not bother Lamar, and he continued to spend money on expeditions, and battles with natives. This increased the Texas debt that had already been calculated at one million dollars, and Lamar increased the debt to seven million dollars by the end of his presidency. People described Lamar as a quiet person who read books and liked