The Great Texas Stew: How Houston and Lamar Cooked Up Different Economic Policies (Spoiler Alert: One Was a Budget Bonanza, the Other a Fiscal Fiesta...Gone Wrong)
Ah, Texas. Land of wide-open spaces, ten-gallon hats, and apparently, presidents with wildly different ideas about how to manage the Republic's checkbook. Today, we're diving into the fascinating (and sometimes hilarious) world of Texan economics under Presidents Sam Houston and Mirabeau B. Lamar. Buckle up, y'all, because this is a tale of two fiscal philosophies that couldn't be more opposite if they tried.
Houston: The Frugal Frontierman
Sam Houston, our first rodeo as president, was a man who knew the value of a buck (or maybe a peso, considering the times). Having just fought a war for independence, Texas was, well, broke. So, Houston adopted a "spend what you gotta, but mostly gotta nothin'" approach. Here's the gist:
- Land Grants Galore: Houston saw land as the key to economic growth. He doled out land grants like free samples at the county fair, attracting settlers and boosting the population (which meant more tax revenue...eventually).
- Debt? We Don't Know Her: Houston steered clear of unnecessary borrowing, preferring to live on a shoestring budget. Think ramen noodles and government meetings by candlelight.
- Howdy, Neighbor!: Houston believed in fostering trade with other countries, especially the United States. That way, Texas could import fancy things (like, you know, actual furniture) and export their goods.
Basically, Houston played it safe. He wasn't exactly swimming in riches, but at least the Republic wasn't drowning in debt.
Lamar: The Big-Dreaming Big spender
Now, Mirabeau B. Lamar? That fella had a different recipe for economic success. He envisioned Texas as a grand and glorious nation, and he wasn't afraid to spend some serious dough to make it happen.
- Education, Education, Education!: Lamar, a man of letters himself, believed a strong education system was crucial. He set aside land for schools and a university, which may sound great, but...well, you gotta pay for teachers and textbooks, right?
- Military Muscle: Lamar felt Texas needed a beefed-up military to defend its borders and establish itself as a world power. This translated to a whole lot of shiny new weapons and fancy uniforms, which, again, ain't exactly cheap.
- Adios, Annexation!: Unlike Houston, Lamar wasn't too keen on joining the United States. He wanted Texas to stand on its own two boots, even if those boots were starting to get a little worn-out from all the spending.
Lamar's ambitious plans were admirable, but they came at a cost. The Texan treasury went from "kinda empty" to "echoing tumbleweed empty."
The Verdict: Feast or Famine?
So, who wins the "Best Economic Policy" award? Well, that depends on your taste. Houston kept things stable but unspectacular. Lamar dreamed big but ended up with a national credit card bill that would make even a Kardashian blush.
In the end, both presidents had their strengths and weaknesses. Houston left Texas with a foundation for future growth, while Lamar laid the groundwork for education and infrastructure. The moral of the story? A healthy economy needs a dash of Houston's practicality and a sprinkle of Lamar's ambition. Just maybe hold off on the military parade until the national bank account is a little fuller, alright Lamar?
💡 This page may contain affiliate links — we may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.
