Pease said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

chase128 said:

---

So if it started on a lie that doesn't undo all the great things he did for our state and our university. His statue was to honor his contributions to our university.

---

That is the only thing we can honestly infer about his life.

It is tragic, in my opinion, that he has been elevated to a hero's status in spite of the fact that other people, even at that time, knew he was lying about the facts. Probably to protect his reputation - one can only guess.

He did good things - and he did bad things. Why then are we drawing a line in the sand to protect only one part of his "legacy"? I am for moving him to a part of campus where his statue and others can exists and be learned from.

---

My reading is that Ross lied about the events at the massacre in order to bolster his political career. I'm reading Cult of Glory by Doug Swanson... It is a history of the Texas Rangers. It is a horrifying history. Swanson devotes a long section on Ross, the Pease massacre, and how Ross modified his story over the years to bolster his political career. And the thing is, Ross did not changed his story in order to minimize his roll in the massacre and protect his reputation, but rather in his multiple retellings over the years he increasingly described himself as the hero -- slayer of Peta Nocona, savior of Cynthia Ann Parker, and breaker of the Comanche confederacy-- all lies.

---

Another poster, only active since the sul Ross debate started, claiming truth based on reading a single book.

There are many replies on this thread that already say what I would say to you. And your stance is no different than the OP without providing any new information or showing any credibility by attempting to fact check your book.

So thanks for the redundant posting. Really added a lot.

Great! Save a ton of taxpayers money from now on. No statues, libraries, street names, to Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Trump, And start demolishing anything to past political figures that did anything including lying to enhance their political careers.
Sheesh

Oh look! Another member of the Cheesecake Factory tag teams in!

Something about Hillary claiming to be under gun fire during a plan landing?

You still voted for her lol

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Oh look! Another member of the Cheesecake Factory tag teams in!

---

mmmmm... cheesecake

So having lost the argument that Ross should be removed because he was a racist, the new strategy is to disparage his character and military record.

Pease said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Oh look! Another member of the Cheesecake Factory tag teams in!

---

mmmmm... cheesecake

---

Not that crap from this particular "sheesecake factory"

Wildcat said:

---

So having lost the argument that Ross should be removed because he was a racist, the new strategy is to disparage his character and military record.

---

Oh, yeah, there is an idiot on Twitter insisting that the Daughters of the Confederacy erected the LS Ross statue, and they later became involved with the Klan, and some of our faculty on campus after the statue went up were in the Klan, therefore Ross has to come down.

It's clown world.

PabloSerna said:

---

chase128 said:

---

So if it started on a lie that doesn't undo all the great things he did for our state and our university. His statue was to honor his contributions to our university.

---

That is the only thing we can honestly infer about his life.

It is tragic, in my opinion, that he has been elevated to a hero's status in spite of the fact that other people, even at that time, knew he was lying about the facts. Probably to protect his reputation - one can only guess.

He did good things - and he did bad things. Why then are we drawing a line in the sand to protect only one part of his "legacy"? I am for moving him to a part of campus where his statue and others can exists and be learned from.

---

Cool. I'm not and so my vote cancels yours.

It stays.

Quote:

---

I am for moving him to a part of campus where his statue and others can exists and be learned from.

---

Yeah, this is the "compromise" the concerned moderates are trying to use. It's bullcrap. Once he's on a trailer, they're hauling him to the recycling center.

PabloSerna said:

---

AgNSX said:

---

Your evidence is a single book. What if those who are pro-Sully counter your argument with 2 books? Does that mean they win because they will have twice as much evidence as you?

---

I picked the book because it was well researched and presented facts, printed reports, and interviews. Their target was not Sul Ross, although he gets a whole chapter in the book.

Texas and it's history are by some standards - mythic. The men and women who set that into motion in no small way contributed to this myth that we are now finding out was nothing short of a lie. Case in point is the Pease River Massacre. It made for good re-telling and was by opined by the authors - the catapult that shot Sul Ross up through the ranks and into the Governorship.

I encourage you to read as much as you can and share with the rest of us what you learn.

---

I read the book although not recently. I'm not sure I would agree with you on the well researched and facts portion of your analysis (nor do I think a lot of other historians would either). Interesting book - just not sure it is all that accurate.

I read a book once.

Really makes you think.

Wildcat said:

---

I read a book once.

Really makes you think.

---

In the case of the OP, apparently, it does not.

Quite a few left winged "history buffs" coming out of the woodwork lately. Some of these have got to be profs and/or connected to CCC in some way right? Seems like part of a pathetic "movement" of some sort.

For the devoutly Christian OP...here's a short list of some of the flaws of the all stars of the Bible:

-Adam and Eve...duh
-Lot got wasted and slept with his daughter(s)
-Moses committed murder and became a fugitive
-David had a friend and fellow high ranking soldier killed so that he could take his beautiful wife as his own.
-Apostle Paul killed or commanded the killings and persecution of many Christians.
-Peter lied to Christ and even denied him 3 times.

I could go on...this is just a short list of people who did more than just lie or fabricate for political purposes or whatever.

Should we burn bibles or remove references to them or just trash their legacy? What can we do to negate all the good they did because of their flaws? As good Christians, surely we should push to have all of apostle Paul's books removed bc he once did bad things?

And to bring back to a modern context, surely we should remove or deface every George Floyd mural as he once held a gun to a pregnant woman's belly in an armed robbery and did many other awful awful things?

This discussion is over a book written eight years ago that challenges the generally accepted historical record of a number of events in 19th century Texas.

It should be moved to the history board.

Canyon,

Tis interesting when you start digging into historical minutia. From accounts the melee at Pease River was confusing....and different histories give differing accounts for example:

In Arnold's Jeff Davis's Own 2nd Calvary he states unequivocally Ross kills Peta Nacona.

In Fehrenbach's Texas "Ross believed that he killed Peta Nocona....". "It is almost certain the man Ross thought to be Peta was a Mexican slave named Joe". Peta Nacona died later of infected wounds.

The account of the killing of Peta comes in two stories... But then RIP Ford's book is silent on the event, and unusually so.

PabloSerna said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

I'm sorry Pablo, but I believe this entire thread is a Red Herring.

Sully's statue is not at A&M to honor his actions at the Battle of Pease River in 1860 when he was 22 years old. Nor is it to honor his actions during the Civil War from 1861 to 1864 when he was 22-25 years old.

He is honored for his actions later in life as the Governor of Texas from 1886 to 1891, and as president of Texas A&M from 1891 until his death in 1898. (Aged 48 to 59).

He definitely was not perfect. Nor am I. Nor are you. I would wager, however, his impact on A&M in those last 11 years of his life was greater than anyone else in his time, or ours. His lasting positive impact on THOUSANDS of lives of every race and creed is inarguable.

If nothing else, Sully's story is one of redemption and lasting impact on others. Why are you so intent of robbing him of that legacy?

---

How is the truth robbing him of his legacy?

As I understand you and others - you would rather focus only on part of his life and contributions to Texas A&M and nothing else. Mond was poignant in his letter about this fact - that we cannot choose to ignore the violence this man wrought on native and black people and glorify only the part that we are comfortable with.

I guess you can - but I can't.

For me this isn't just about a statue. It's about us - Aggies.

It may not be the right time - but at some point. The truth will win out, I have faith in that.

---

Circling back around to this to expose another flawed argument:

"How is the truth robbing him of his legacy?" It is not. The attempt to remove his statue and all references to him is the attempt to rob him of his legacy. We acknowledge the truth, and acknowledge that he is flawed, but that should not diminish his legacy at Texas A&M.

"As I understand you and others - you would rather focus only on part of his life and contributions to Texas A&M and nothing else. Mond was poignant in his letter about this fact - that we cannot choose to ignore the violence this man wrought on native and black people and glorify only the part that we are comfortable with."

Can't we? Not even addressing the fact that he was nowhere near the violent oppressor you make him out to be - these were acts of war against enemy combatants, not attacks against peaceful folks just living their life - we absolutely focus on his life and contributions to A&M. That is why the statue is there.

By Mond's (or his Ghost writer's) logic we should remove MLK's statues because of his history of domestic violence, possible presence in a room during the commission of a rape, among other indiscretions. MLK was involved in some pretty nasty stuff. However, I still honor his statue and memory because his MESSAGE is the enduring legacy of his life, even if he personally fell short of his own message on occasion.

I sure hope that we don't find out that Ross was never Governor of Texas, nor President and later savior of Texas A&M College.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

So having lost the argument that Ross should be removed because he was a racist, the new strategy is to disparage his character and military record.

---

Oh, yeah, there is an idiot on Twitter insisting that the Daughters of the Confederacy erected the LS Ross statue, and they later became involved with the Klan, and some of our faculty on campus after the statue went up were in the Klan, therefore Ross has to come down.

It's clown world.

---

The flanking maneuver tells you that this is no longer (if it ever was) about an institutional icon whose statue may be upsetting to African American students due to his service during the Civil War.

The attack on his service record and character tell you it is about "winning".

They went after it a few years ago with the same arguments and failed. This time they got QB1 to participate, but it doesn't look like that will succeed. So now a new, entirely different line of attack that has nothing to do with race (then or now) or Texas A&M has been launched. "Ross was a liar and we can't have statues to those."

Those motivated to see the statue removed just want to win. At this point, it has nothing to do with the original premise.

The newbies who came hear to make that argument are not genuine.

PabloSerna said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Possible. Are you going to ask him if he misremember or changed his story to embellish it?

---

Something about Aggies don't lie, cheat, or steal. Nor tolerate those that do.

---

How do you know he lied? You weren't there to witness it.

You only have accounts of people and as has been mentioned memory is malleable, so at that point in time when their account was given it was true to the best of their recollection.

It seems to me once you gather all the evidence and accounts, they all for the most part agree except for one. I know which account I wouldn't believe, but you do you.