quote:

---

I believe Reese actually went to UT but I could be wrong.

---

He went to A&M for undergrad and t.u. for his PhD.

http://www.tamu.edu/history/faculty/reese/cv.pdf

quote:

---

Dr. Alan C. Ashcraft - a great lecturer of civil war history

---

It was almost as if I was listening to a great show on the History Channel during a lot of his lectures.

Treat and Calvert were great too.

I was taking a class one time under Dr. Dawson. It might have been the Civil War history course and we were reviewing for the final exam. Dr. Dawson said that he would not take questions at the end of the class (since we had already reviewed for the final exam, earlier in the class). Dawson ended the class by speaking about one of the last battles of the war and the flag coming down on the Confederacy. He then turned closed his notes and walked out the door. It was the most dramatic way I had ever seen to end a course.

It would be cool if all prospective profs took some classes in Theater. It is a performance art, and most of the folks have the stage presence of a rock.

quote:

---

Kirkendall-I took both of his Latin American History classes and found an interest in a section of the world I could have honestly couldn't have cared less about.

---

hands down. reese was really, really dry. dunning is a crazy old bat, but a great storyteller. oddly enough, i took april hatfield for colonial north america. i learned more about the study of history from her than from anyone else. brands was excellent for my seminar - the presidency of george hw bush.

i was thrilled to get into krammer's history of nazi germany and was sorely disappointed. he'd just gotten back from a year in germany and was very disjointed and repeated material over and over.

did anyone have Wetteman while they were at A&M? i had history 105 and 106 with him and those were AMAZING classes, especially 105.

but then i never saw him listed again and never thought to ask what happened to him. anyone know?

other than him, my favorite was definitely Krammer. Nazi History was my favorite class that i took while at A&M.

worst was definitely Resch. i had him for 102, and then made the huge mistake of taking 20th Century Intellectual Thought with him. by the end of that class i really did not like that guy at all.

Dr. Calvert, by far. When he found out I was an Astros fan, we got along even better. I remember walking with him all the time after class during a summer session, and he kept going on and on about how much he loved the Astros. He was a great professor.

A science professor was lecturing students on the size of the universe.

"The Earth is but a spec in our solar system", he said.

"And our solar system is but a spec in our galaxy".

"Furthermore our galaxy is but a spec in the cosmos which is but a spec in the universe".

"How do you know this, Professor?", asked a student.

The professor replied,


"SPECULATION".

Sorry Jackal. I could never pretend to be a stros fan just to get an A!

I loved Hudson and Bradford's classes. I had Hudson once and Bradford twice. I wish I had some of their lectures recorded because they were great. I would sit with Bradford after class once in a while and shoot the breazed with Bradford about WWII. The guy knows his stuff and is a great person to chat with if you are a big WWII history buff.

Krammer, Dunning, and Brands were all very good.

Though I only had Krammer for the survey class, he was pretty interesting.

Dunning made me learn my stuff about "Russia".

Brands was foreign policy and managed to keep me from going insane when our class was something like three straight hours on a Wednesday night.

Krammer and Nazi Germany was my favorite class at A&M.

Dr Lloyd Taylor I had him the summer of 71 for the 2nd semester of american history. He taught it by presidential administration.
he was very interesting.

unfortunately he died from a heatstroke while running on the track at Kyle Field I believe.

quote:

---

A rabid Southerner, Al was still fighting the War Between the States almost 100 years after it ended.

---

Or to paraphrase Wm. Faulkner The past is not dead, it's not even past....that still pretty much sums up things at A&M sometimes. Many of our traditions should be maintained as tenaciously as possible, some need updating.

The post below and quoted was posted on another Texags Forum more than a year ago concerning a speech that Dr. Vandiver delivered at Andersen, county seat of Grimes County, on the occasion of their dedication of a monument to the counties Civil War veterans. The speech and the dedication were at a time in Texas and the US when progressive activists were making a full scale assault on symbols of our Civil War heritage ... depiction of the CSA Battle Flag, monuments at tu and inscriptions on state buildings. A time not unlike current events that are unfolding in the US now.

This may be of interest to you ... and it gives a glimpse of the wisdom and humanity of Frank Vandiver.

quote:

---

fossil_ag
posted 12:46p, 01/20/07

Emblems from the American Civil War that relate to the Southern Cause continue to be under seige from elements of the left/progressive culture in the US. Statues of Civil War heroes on both the tu and TAMU campuses are drawing fire from those who want them removed. Images of the Confederate battle flag draw particularly vicious howls of outrage from a vocal few who cannot differentiate history from contemporary political drama. Most folks today cannot understand what all the fuss is about ... so in most cases local powers that be yield to the protesters ... to the disappointed annoyance of the "silent majority."

A former president of Texas A&M, Frank E. Vandiver, PhD, addressed this situation April 28, 2001 in a speech at Andersen at the dedication of a statue and plaza commemorating the Grimes County Greys, a volunteer group who fought for the Confederacy more than 140 years ago. This group was a source of historic family and community pride for Grimes County.

For those of you who never had the pleasure of meeting Frank Vandiver allow me to introduce this gentleman.

Vandiver was President at TAMU from 1981 to 1988. Before that, he was President at the University of North Texas from 1979-1981. Before that he was on the faculty at Rice University 1955-1979 and served as President there 1968-1970. Vandiver retired from TAMU in 1988 to head the Mosher Institute at A&M and to devote full time to writing Civil War and military histories.

Vandiver was a Civil War historian of the first order and published 20 books on the subjects. Before his teaching at Rice, Vandiver was on the faculty at Oxford University and the US Military Academy. His favorite characters were "Mighty Stonewall Jackson" and John J. Pershing. He was not locked into the Civil War but in later writings blended lessons from that war into contemporary wars, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.

Frank Vandiver was a good and gentle man ... and his delivery of anecdotes from the Civil War could mesmerize an audience ... He was the pure academic historian, the type who footnotes every utterance. And his voice was on par with Shelby Foote (a popular historian) who wrote the History of the Civil War and narrated the Ken Burns epic of that book.

Frank Vandiver found a home at Texas A&M and loved every part of it, from the Dixie Chicken to Kyle Field. He passed away at his home in College Station in 2005.

This was Frank Vandiver's speech for dedication of the Grimes County Greys memorial in April 2001.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladies and gentlemen, please accept my warm thanks for your invitation to participate in the unveiling of a new monument to Confederate soldiers. It is fitting and proper that we should do this for these men fought for what they believed in and wanted their descendants to have. It is fashionable now in some parts of the nation to stereotype Rebels as fighting for slavery. This certainly was one of the reasons, but the many, many non-slave holders in arms indicate other causes among which were independence and the defense of a life tempo comfortable in an agrarian nation. Rebels gave their lives for what they believed in -- many, many lives.

It may be that some of the men we commemorate here today were among those to whom General Lee referred in his tribute until recently displayed on the State Supreme Court building in Austin: I rate my Texans as storm troops and regret only that I must call on them too often. (As an aside, I wonder why that quotation was quietly removed by the then Governor. Was it because Lee said it, or because it praised Texas Confederates? See how easily meanings are confused?) I suspect that some of the men here memorialized were among Lee's favorites. Texas troops have usually done well. On that surreptitious moment that Lee's quote was taken from us, so was a bas relief of the Confederate Battle Flag.

It's about the current flag issue that I'd like to talk for a moment, with your kind indulgence. This issue is, to borrow a Jefferson phrase, "like a fire bell in the night." It is a far more serious matter than most people think. It is not "much ado about nothing," nor is it likely simply to go away. Part of the problem is that flags mean different things to different people at different times. Our American flag has suffered burnings, cursings and has, now and then, represented things not entirely agreeable to all Americans. So, too, the Lone Star. If you read the growing news about the Battle Flag you'll see that opinions are beginning to firm up on both sides of the issue. Many blacks have a legitimate aversion to a banner seeming to them a cloak for racism, a banner spuriously embraced by racist groups such as the KKK. Many Southerners sustain a deep, personal devotion to ancestors who died for that same banner in an American quest for independence -- and they see the controversy as an example of reverse racism.

What alarms me is that neither side, I think, quite appreciates the power of symbolism in this situation. The direct black approach of economic threats to sections of the south retaining the flag have scored early and big victories. But a counter-resentment is growing among defenders of their heritages and they just scored in Mississippi. The quick assertion that the election did not settle the issue and that the Mississippi campaign to change the flag would continue clearly underscores the deep divisions this issue is causing.

Where will all this end? If both sides continue digging in, riveting their positions, I foresee great trouble ahead for the country, a country re-divided in ways tragically hurtful to the vital progress of Civil Rights for both sides.

I do not think this is an issue of political correctness (surely an oxymoron!); it is an issue of deep-struck anguish. Both sides have legitimate points. In the normal American process these would be compromised. But compromise has failed because a few extremists on both sides will not have it so.

Let me suggest that all of us here, Americans everywhere, government officials especially, take this symbolic conflict as the warning that it is. I suggest that those on both sides of the flag issue try to see beyond their angers into the hearts of their supposed opponents. The battle flag seems to demean black successes in their fight against a background of American shame. The battle flag also has deep meaning in the southern psyche because it honors courage and assuages, still, the heartbreak of losing. In a new bestseller about the end of the war the point is made that had not Grant, Sherman, Lincoln and other Northern leaders been the men they were, the results of the war could well have been years of savage guerrilla battles and the kind of butchery that followed many European wars. One of the wise things to come from Lincoln's attitude of "letting 'em up easy," was that the South was left its history, could cherish men who fought gallantly in adversity and so could reenter a Union with honor and old enemies could become comrades once again.

If the flag issue, and it is only one of several attacks on Confederate history, escalates, banked anguish may become overt hostility with dismal portents. Americans must not let this happen. Edicts, proclamations, shouts, week-kneed truckling, none will derail this different train.

Americans all need to retreat from extremism. We need to work our way back to democracy's surest foundation -- reason. Reason nourishes understanding, understanding cools hatred so that the old trait of compromise can work its preserving magic. Americans can avoid racism and honor bravery at the same time.

May I suggest that defenders of both sides recall and affirm some words of Voltaire, which I will paraphrase here to reflect differing views: "I disagree with everything you say about the Battle Flag, but will defend to the death your right to say it." "I disagree with your displaying the Battle Flag, but will defend to the death your right to display it." Here is empathy coming from compassionate reason, the thing most needed in our country today.

I congratulate all of you who have produced this splendid memorial and deeply hope that it will be among the first received with the respect of compassionate reason.

Thank you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Edit: As one might expect, a member of the TAMU Touchstone group attacked Vandiver's speech with viciousness and hatred. That attack on an even-handed address by a learned and compassionate person stands in itself as a symbol of the blind hatred the left/progressives have for speech they do not agree with ... speech is only free if it reflects their narrow views.

---

Edit 2: The Confederate symbol that was removed at TAMU as mentioned in the first paragraph of my original post concerned a portrait of Gibb Gilchrist that was removed from the new Texas Transportation Institute building after protests by the husband of a secretary that worked in the TTI building. Gibb Gilchrist was in earlier time head of the State Department of Transportation, then came to A&M in 1937 as Dean of Engineering. He became president in 1944 and in 1948 was promoted to become the first Chancellor of TAMC. He retired in 1953. His gifts to A&M included the Dept of Aero Eng, Easterwood Airport, TEES and TTI. Gilchrist was a devoted student of the Civil War and had a particular high regard for Robert E. Lee ... and had a painting of REL in his office. The offending portrait of Gilchrist had a portion of the REL painting visible in the background. The portrait of Gilchrist was unceremoniously removed from the building and department he built for the university ... and relegated to the basement. The administrator who ordered that action should be forever reviled on the TAMU campus as a person of diminished intelligence and fortitude.




[This message has been edited by fossil_ag (edited 3/20/2008 9:59p).]

Brands! I remember once flipping through the channels and seeing him give a lecture to a large audience (can't remember what the lecture was about or what channel it was on, but it wasn't a local or public access one). He really knew his stuff and was a great professor!

Pro Sandy, I had Quince Adams for 2 semesters of British History in the late 1970s. Because of the way he taught, he really prepared me for law school. I met my wife in his class. We still see him every know and then for a drink at Ozonas on Harvey. He is still an interesting guy. He played football at Indiana Univeresity. Not many people know that.

Not enough love for Dr. Linn here. I credit Modern Military Thought with making me a little better as an officer.

Bradford would be a close second. Those guys still teachingg?

Hmm, maybe I should ask Dr. Adams about that on Tuesday for British history...

I'm gonna have to go with Seipp. I think he really does a good job and I loved his European Military History course, even though I got a B.

I like Adams, and he's insanely knowledgeable about British history, but following him in lecture sometimes is dang near impossible. Looking at a C, might get a B depending on how I do on my next test.

quote:

---

No mention of Dr. Conrad?

If you wanted to know anything about the Greeks, Romans, or Ancient History than Dr. Conrad was the man. To this day I remember the lessons from his history/classic courses. He was the type of professor who really got into his lessons and enjoyed teaching. Anyone know if he is still at A&M?

---

He was as of the 2005-2006 school year as I took both of his Roman history classes which were absolutely fascinating. Great history prof!

quote:

---

The portrait of Gilchrist was unceremoniously removed from the building and department he built for the university ... and relegated to the basement.

---

False. It's in a large conference room on the first floor beside a glass case displaying Gilchrist memorabilia and pictures. The doors are usually open and visible from the lobby.

And it wasn't a secretary. She was a manager.

Worth noting as well is that the portrait was replaced with another portrait of Gilchrist of equal size and quality.

So the portrait of Gilcrist has been restored. I am glad to hear that.

Quoted below is part of the cackling that caused and celebrated its removal in the first place.

quote:

---

Confederates on Campus

Enjoyed your Feb/Mar issue. I was surprised I did not see any reference to the Gibb Gilchrist building. You may or may not know that this building, part of TTI (and therefore part of the A&M System), has in its foyer before the elevator a portrait of former A&M Chancellor, Gibb Gilchrist. Prominently displayed in this portrait is a portrait (a portrait within a portrait) of Robert E. Lee, all decked out in his gray uniform. Now, no doubt, Robert E. Lee represents to many (including the late Gilchrist) a symbol of gallantry and honor. In the year 2000, he should properly be understood to represent a vulgar symbol of bigotry, prejudice and racial superiority. Lee, by the way, was also a traitor, having broken his West Point oath to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He fought to preserve the Southern way of life, which was founded on a political-economic system of slavery. He invaded the North with the intention of ultimately routing the federal government of the United States, and most would agree his military strategy and tactics prolonged the bloodshed of the civil war well beyond what would have otherwise been the case.

Why in the world this vulgar symbol sits in a public building on our campus is beyond me. One can only assume the System and central officials at this university are insensitive, stupid or pretty damn cynical to allow such a repugnant image of racism to be so blatantly displayed. It is an insult to all within the Texas A&M community, regardless of race, color, or gender. But then again, if we can get away with that idiot Sul Ross standing in front of the Academic Building proudly looking over his former all-white southern military academy, well I guess anything goes.

-- John Robertson, Professor, Political Science

We thank John for bringing this to our attention and are pleased to report that due to the efforts of one of his students, the portrait has been permanently removed from the TTI building, although this move has apparently upset some of the good old boys at TTI. While we're on the subject of pro-Confederacy sentiments at TAMU, we recently discovered that in 1998, Barry Thompson, then Chancellor of the A&M System, visited the North Texas chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and reassured them that the Confederate Battle Flag is "welcome everywhere on campus except the Corps." (N. TX SoCV newsletter, the "Vanguard", July 1998). Thompson has since retired but the suit against the university by Cadet Womack who was told to remove an image of the flag from the outside of his locker is still pending (see our summer 1998 issue at http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/summer98/league.html).

---

http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/april00/01letter.htm

Question: Is John Robertson, Professor, Political Science, still a member of the TAMU/Political Science faculty?



[This message has been edited by fossil_ag (edited 4/1/2008 4:06p).]

Sul Ross an idiot? Never have the words, it takes one to know one been more true then.

I won't even comment on the Lee stuff, the extemists on both sides of the Confederacey=slavery debate are the true idiots that keep that debate alive and frankly they are usually the least informed.

Maximus, did you ask Dr. Adams about his football playing days at Indiana?

A reporter was once speaking to an elderly lady that was close to death. The reporter asked if she feared dying and she said that she did not, because she would be with the three men she loved the most. Her deceased husband, her Savior and Robert E. Lee.

I haven't had a chance, yet. I was out of town on Tuesday, and I just flat out forgot yesterday. I'll get around to it sooner or later.

What happened to Dr. Calvert?

Dr. Reese wasn't all that tall, he was less than 6 feet tall, kinda thin and had a full head of salt and pepper hair (I had him for 2 classes, late Western Civ and Soviet History). I'm pretty sure he was a former Army officer. Anyone remember "Dr. Reese's Bus Theory"? His theory was that had Marx (it may have been Lennon) gotten run over by a bus, the whole world would be different.

Loved Dr. Anderson. I had him for 2 classes. Everyone told me he was a sexist pig but seemed like if you tried and worked hard and paid attention you'd succeed. I had him for a senior history seminar on the US in the 1960s. LOVED that class.

Dr. Borstein was the history of Christianity class. He loved to get the Corps boys to squirm when he talked about homosexuality in the Roman army. I remember we spent at least 2 weeks talking about catholic churches being consecrated with sacred relics...a class full of protestants couldn't quite grasp the idea of a piece of Christ's foreskin in a church.

The last prof I can't remember his name, he taught ancient Russian history. He had a long grey beard and was very kind and personable. Wish I could remember his name.

tgray - It was Lenin, if Lenin had been hit by a bus, the whole Bolshevik revolution collapses. He also used the guards in the tower from Monty Python & the Holy Grail to demonstrate the revolution. I actually teach my high school students his theory and show the video.

cozart- Wetteman is my 2nd fav. prof behind reese. Last I heard he got his PhD and went to teach at McMurry University in Abilene, I don't know if he's still there or not but I do check their website occasionally.

Reese is my favorite prof, I took everything I could from him and even sat in on his 481 seminar because he wasn't offering one the semester I was going to graduate. I use notes from his class to teach my world history class. He was even in the corps during his undergrad days. One day before finals he asks "how many of you are over 21?" Then he proceeds to tell us about a review session he's going to have off campus and tells us he's supplying the beer, but only if you are over 21.

Wetteman was also a great prof. For dead week he would hold office hours on Northgate. He told us he would start at Fitz and work his way towards Loupot's. I don't know if it still is or not but that's where all the 21 & up only bars were so if you weren't 21 you had better catch him early in the week.

I was a history major so I had many history profs and the only prof I didn't like was Resch. I took one class from him and was failing until I looked at reviews on pick a prof. All the suggestions said, just take notes, then for the exams, regurgitate what he told you. What do you know, I ended up passing. He's only interested in what he thinks. Plus, he's a dirty commie.

I'd have to say Calvert, but its been a long time and I know none of them there now.

Reese was great. Went to Russia with him spring 2001. His Soviet history class convinced me to become a history major.

Krammer was amazing. Brought history to life and literally put it in our hands.

Buenger for Texas history was challenging and rewarding. "Goodbye to a River" remains my favorite book.

Reading this thread makes me want to go back and take some more history classes. Gig 'em.