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.
He's one of those rare people that the more you find out about him, the less you feel like you know or understand him. I would love to have met in person - if nothing else just to see which one was actually him.
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.