So I stopped by my old friend's office yesterday. Like many of us I have been concerned over the division on the campus over the statue of Lawrence Sullivan Ross. Also, like many of us, my old unit spent many hours taking care of that statue an activity that most Ags today, particularly non-regs, cannot relate to.


You may not know this but our Chancellor is a keen student of history. To wit, he handed me a piece of paper containing an epic poem. That poem is a eulogy written for Lawrence Sullivan Ross in January of 1898, immediately following his death.

The most interesting aspect of the poem, bracing though it is, is the author, Edward L. Blackshear.

Mr. Blackshear was arguably the most prominent African American man in Texas at the time. He was certainly the most notable black educator. He had been appointed "principal" of Prairie View State Normal & Industrial College (Prairie View A&M) in 1896.

The poem is entitled, "Sul Ross" was published in the Houston Post and Galveston Morning News on January 6, 1898. It reads as follows:

A hero's gone! We are all wrapped in gloom,
Sadness fills the soul.
O'ver all the lovely commonwealth,
Bells of sorrow toll.

By all hearths in all homes,
Grief and silence reign.
Strong men bow, fair women moan-
Hearts are sore with pain.

They mourn the loss of a soldier true,
Who never knew to fear.
Who loved his State with devotion rare,
Holding life not dear.

On many a stubborn field of blood,
He met the savage foe,
He dealt the fierce Comanche,
The fearful, fatal blow.

In times of peace no less than war,
He served his country's needs,
Guided with skill the Ship of State,
Achieved noble deeds.

By Academus' shady grove,
He shapes the future State,
Leading the Youth to nobler things,
Teaching to be great.

But death e'er lover's shining mark,
And smote him unawares
He fell and passed in peaceful mood,
Leaving behind Earth's cares.

His spirit brave and pure and mild,
Broods over us from the skies;
Though dead he lives though mute he speaks,
Though in the grave he lies.

Like the Lone Star of our flag, he shines,
With lustre clear and bright.
In heart, on page, his name shall live,
Enshrined in love and light.

I find it interesting that Mr. Blackshear should gush so over a dead man that could do him no harm and to whom he owed no debt. What would motivate Mr. Blackshear to write this eulogy? Could it have been genuine friendship and admiration? Sully was not a perfect man, but he was a leader who was much admired in his day and without whom Texas A&M would not exist.

[We are locking this thread for the night and informing posters that do not regularly post on the Agglieland forum that it is one of the most strictly moderated forums on this site when asking posters to remain respectful. -Staff]
[The thread is being unlocked unless it turns into a Forum 16 thread or starts getting filled with unsubstantiated rumors which will cause it to be deleted. -Staff]

Maybe it would help if the statue had any historical context at all.

It doesn't.

Somewhere between tearing it down and not doing anything is literally every other option. One of which would be to add a plaque to the statue that explains why Sul Ross is remembered on the campus, and who he was and what he did.

Instead, only on the back of the statue, mostly hidden from the view is any context given at all.

bobinator said:

---

I didn't say it was offensive, or that I was offended, I just said he was talking down. As if the opinions of almost everyone on campus don't matter because a few people have some kind of special connection with the statue.

But that goes back to my actual point, if almost no one has any context for the statue, that's already a problem.

---

Don't be disingenuous. The implication could not have been clearer. He was stating his own experience, while you are projecting. The fact that you choose to mock his "special connection", which accurately identifies it says way more about you than him.

When that statue was first erected, and for most of a half century later, no written context was necessary. An oral history was passed along to most every fish, who learned it by heart, most of whom can likely still recite it. Sadly, that began to change about the time I matriculated in the mid 60's to where we are now.

But Sully, and his reputation, are hardly at fault for that, and neither deserve the disrespect shown now.

I mean he did outright say he thinks the faculty are trying to change the campus culture, which I'm not sure is something I agree with or that's particularly relevant to the conversations that Aggies are having about the statue.

Maybe I misinterpreted his meaning with "just can't relate to," but I read it as a way of excluding the opinions of non-regs about the statue.

If that wasn't the intent, then that's a misread on my part, and I apologize.

But you're right, a big hole in this conversation is simply that not enough people know anything about the subject.

But that cuts both ways. His handed down story that most people know is kind of a white washed version of the man also.

bobinator said:

---

I mean he did outright say he thinks the faculty are trying to change the campus culture, which I'm not sure is something I agree with or that's particularly relevant to the conversations that Aggies are having about the statue.

Maybe I misinterpreted his meaning with "just can't relate to," but I read it as a way of excluding the opinions of non-regs about the statue.

If that wasn't the intent, then that's a misread on my part, and I apologize.

But you're right, a big hole in this conversation is simply that not enough people know anything about the subject.

But that cuts both ways. His handed down story that most people know is kind of a white washed version of the man also.

---

If you cannot/will not agree with your first statement, we'll not agree on much else. But that's certainly not a recent phenomenon.

As for your reading his intent as "excluding the opinions of non-refs", that's you projecting. No apology necessary. Just try extending the benefit of the doubt, when in doubt.

As to the "white washed version", I think "soldier, statesman, knightly gentleman" sums it up quite nicely! There was actually a bit more to it, but it's been more'n 50 years, so...

People nowadays can only dream of living the kind of adventuresome life Sully lived and excelled at. We've no reason to be ashamed of a man we've admired our entire lives, and with good reason. The folks trying to shame Sully are, at the same time glorifying George Floyd, Micheal Brown,Trayvon Martin, and Freddy Gray. That dog won't hunt.

My issue is I think with some discussions we could find a solid middle ground here.

Adding something to the statue that tells Sul Ross's whole story. What he did with the Rangers, in the confederacy, and afterwards. Give some context as to why he's worth remembering on our campus, but also why he his legacy isn't as simple as just "soldier, statesman and knightly gentleman."

But it seems like nobody is even willing to discuss that option. It's either "it's fine as is" or "tear it down."

But I also wonder why we've become so fixated on statues. In the same plaza as the statue is a building named for Richard Coke who was even more problematic.

I don't think we need to worry about what's next. We can't let a hypothetical next debate be the reason we can't have this one.

Slippery slope arguments are the worst kind because everything is a slippery slope. Like pure capitalism vs socialism, just as an example. From the time the constitution was written and provided the framework for a common defense, there's been a little bit of socialism in the way our country operates. But for 250 years we've been arguing where it stops, and we'll continue to argue it for as long as there is a United States.

So the line is always where we decide it is, until we decide it isn't. Maybe those future discussions are worth having, maybe they're not, but they aren't the discussion we're having right now and we can't let the fear of a hypothetical slope be a reason for an intractable position.

I wish more people realized this because if all we're talking about are the options at the extremes, then it seems like just a matter of time before that statue is gone, when I personally think we can find a solution that honors Ross' contributions to A&M, while fully recognizing that those contributions aren't his only legacy.

bobinato said:

---

So the line is always where we decide it is, until we decide it isn't. Maybe those future discussions are worth having, maybe they're not, but they aren't the discussion we're having right now and we can't let the fear of a hypothetical slope be a reason for an intractable position.

---

That's exactly the point. Who's the "we" that gets to make that decision? You make it sound like debate club where everyone is making calm, rational arguments for and against but that's not what's happening.

This was kind of a royal we in the larger sense. Like, we as a society. If where the line used to be becomes untenable, then the line moves.

But in the case of Sul Ross, the 'we' should be all Aggies. The students got a survey about their thoughts, why can't the Association of Former Students send out something similar? Give the whole community a chance to weigh in.

And I don't see why we can't have a (mostly) calm, rational debate about Sul Ross (and other potential problematic names.)

What I would actually propose, not that anyone asked, is exactly that. A debate series (maybe one featuring current students and one featuring former students) leading up to an All-Aggie vote at every Muster next year.

It would be difficult, but I think it could be a chance to show that we as Aggies aren't afraid of having difficult conversations and considering different points of view rather that just simply hoping the public outcry goes away before we have to do anything.

I find it interesting is that everyone is so hung up on a statue when there is a university in honor of Sul Ross that has been around just as long.

OrBoD said:

---

I find it interesting is that everyone is so hung up on a statue when there is a university in honor of Sul Ross that has been around just as long.

---

With all due respect to Sul Ross University, a fine school, but TAMU is a much larger target with a much more recognized heritage and tradition. And as we know, it's not about a statue, it's about getting a well known conservative institution to cave in to the radical liberals.

I hope that language is not too harsh for this board.

So you think Kellen Mond and everyone else had a meeting and were like "Alright everyone, how can we get this well known conservative institution to cave to the radical liberals?"

Kellen Mond, no.

The greater powers behind him acting as the "influence", more or less yeah I do.

bobinator said:

---

I obviously can't say for sure that that's not the case, but to me it just seems like a way to not have to listen to the concerns of people like Kellen. If we assume that any argument is part of some kind of national liberal conspiracy, then it makes it easy to just ignore the comments from current students.

You're essentially saying that Kellen's (and others, but I think we can all agree that he's the most public figure in this) voice doesn't matter because everything he's saying is being fed to him by some kind of liberal underground.

I'm not really sure that gets us anywhere.

---

I've heard Kellen, I went to the June 13 protest on campus and heard them too. How could you not hear them if you are paying attention? I do not agree with Kellen and the rest of the (re)move Sully group. So I and others can hear them, but we don't have to agree with what they are voicing.

That said, they are also talking right from the liberals "destroy institutions we don't like" handbook. There is no reason to (re)move a statue honoring a man who did so much for TAMU just to make those people feel better as there are many, probably more, who are very comfortable with Sully being right where he is.

I can also endorse a plaque with a more expanded history of Sully, warts and all, or one that just notes his service to TAMU.

Quote:

---

And as we know, it's not about a statue, it's about getting a well known conservative institution to cave in to the radical liberals.

---

#bingo

Quote:

---

You're essentially saying that Kellen's (and others, but I think we can all agree that he's the most public figure in this) voice doesn't matter because everything he's saying is being fed to him by some kind of liberal underground.

---

How can you get such a misunderstanding of his meaning? The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact is that KM's feelings are based upon lies and distortions. Of course "he" matters, but accepting a false narrative is unacceptable and unnecessary. It's very important to have a dialogue with him, if only to disabuse him of the false notions he's confused by. He has an obligation to know the truth before he presumes to lecture and advocate.

Do you recognize what he has said as the truth of the matter?

jeffk said:

---

It's a eulogy.

---

But Mr. Blackshear chose to write it. He didn't have to.

Sharp has definitely made his own personal view known in the past, but it does at least seem like he's considering all opinions at the moment. I think that's a good thing though.

bobinator said:

---

Sure, which parts do you find inaccurate.

---

Parts? This is so revealing, and renders further discussion with you pointless.

K. Seemed like a simple question but either way we're into either history or politics board territory.

It just seems they would have a lot better support had they spoken out about the illegal vandalism. Theres a long history of them making public statements in similar incidents. The silence leads you to wonder what agendas are going on.

jeffk said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

jeffk said:

---

If DIt's a eulogy.

---

But Mr. Blackshear chose to write it. He didn't have to.

---

Obviously true, but I wouldn't expect a eulogy to address the full scope of someone's life or include any negative portions of it whatsoever. It's a nice gesture, but I wouldn't use it as a reliable historical reference point.

---

Because if Sully was first and foremost a racist, why would Blackshear even agree to eulogize him in such a favorable way? Blackshear was much closer to the situation and knew Sully a lot better than any of us on either side of the issue do today. As a black man, he could've just said, "I'll pass." But he didn't. He chose instead to honor the many good and noble things Sully did. That's a pretty good reason to keep the statue as is.

This is also where historical context comes from. One newspaper article from the time calling him a Negro killer (muckraking was as big back then as it is now) vs. a set of positive remarks from a black colleague. I side with the latter.