Final answer:
The question of the Texas navy's value is complex. While expensive, historical precedents show that navies have been essential for trade security and national defense. However, the specific context of Texas during Sam Houston's time would heavily influence whether the costs were justified.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether Sam Houston was correct in opposing the navy due to its costs is a nuanced one. While Sam Houston feared the financial burden a navy would impose, history has provided examples where navies have played crucial roles in a nation's defense and economic interests. For instance, during the undeclared war with France, the use of a more effective navy was mostly undisputed due to the conflict's naval nature, and American ships like the USS Constitution had notable successes in combat. Comparatively, John Adams and the Federalists saw the navy's importance both in conflict and for protecting American trade routes.
Moreover, the diversion of funds towards a standing army by the High Federalists under Hamilton's influence suggests that the debate over military spending was complex, involving concerns about domestic uses of military power and political control. Some politicians, like Adams and McKinley, recognized the strategic and diplomatic value of a navy without necessarily plunging into aggressive military postures. Seeing that navies can secure trade routes, project power, and provide national defense, they can be considered a worthwhile investment, even if expensive. Whether this holds true in the context of Texas at the time of Sam Houston's decision is a matter of historical debate, with considerations of the particular financial and political circumstances of Texas in mind.