Sorry if this has already been discussed on here, I'm sure it has.

But does this moniker on the Sul Ross statue necessarily mean he was part of the Ku Klux Klan? And, is there any other evidence that he was part of the KKK?

Arguments for:
- Members of the KKK were known as "Knights," so it looks suspicious.

Arguments against:
- The KKK had been gone for decades when Ross died in 1898. The revived KKK was not started until 1915, and was slowly taking off when the statue was built in 1919. Why would they celebrate membership in an organization that hadn't really been relevant since the early 1870's?
- The notion of being "knightly" and the whole culture of chivalry was widely celebrated throughout the South, long before the KKK or even the Civil War. See Mark Twain on how Sir Walter Scott was the cause of the Civil War, because the region was stuck inside a medieval fantasy. The term precedes and goes beyond the KKK.

I've heard these rumors of Sul Ross being in the KKK for over a decade but never seen any concrete evidence. Would be nice if someone could get to the bottom of it.

NormanAg said:

---

Sorry, but I could care less what "knight" means in this context - history is what it is. You can't change it. Any and all comparisons to current events vis a vis Confederate monuments to what ISIS has done in the Middle East are spot on. The Sullie monument needs to STAY.

As my wife is constantly repeating, we LEARN from history so as to repeat our successes and NOT repeat our failures. The Confederate monuments and monuments to the founders of our country reflect the times they lived in.

Times have changed and are still changing as I type this post. As a country - and as individuals - we should never forget where we came from. It's the absolute BEST way to understand WHERE WE ARE TODAY. And help guide us to what we want to be tomorrow.

/rant over

---

Not really sure what you're responding to. I am for keeping the statue. I'm trying to get to the bottom of the main argument of the people who want to remove it.

Sorry, I was not responding to you. We are on the same side. Just trying to add some additional rationale for keeping the statue and expanding your argument to the entire subject of removing historical statues.

I should have made that plain in my response. Please accept my apologies.

I would say it doesn't matter. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia served until 2010 and was a "former" member of the KKK. He was even the leader of his local KKK Chapter at one point.

Most Fed Govt buildings, highways, etc, etc in West Va are named after him. Are we going to change all the govt pork projects in West Va named after Bryd because he was once a member of the KKK?

p_bubel said:

---

How are you supposed to prove a negative?

If he was in the Klan, have 'em prove it.

---

Well, they are taking the phrase "knightly gentleman" as proof. And the rumor has gone on for over a decade based on these two words. I've met loyal, die-hard Aggies who sheepishly said, "Well, you know he WAS in the Klan... I mean it says "knightly gentleman" on the statue."

I think we've all seen that statues and much greater things can be brought down without any proof, based on unchecked rumors and myths.

So I am just trying to determine if there is any more evidence to this, either way. And if there is more evidence, get it out there.

It doesn't matter if he was in the KKK or not - just mention Sen Robert Byrd from West Virginia.

NormanAg said:

---

I would say it doesn't matter. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia served until 2010 and was a "former" member of the KKK. He was even the leader of his local KKK Chapter at one point.

Most Fed Govt buildings, highways, etc, etc in West Va are named after him. Are we going to change all the govt pork projects named after Bryd because he was once a member of the KKK?

---

I think Sully would stand on firmer ground if we could decisively show that the rumor is baseless, rather than just resorting to, "Well, he might have been in it, but he's part of history, and you have to let history be history," etc.

I don't want to settle for him being in the same league as Senator Byrd from West Virginia if he isn't. If he was never in the KKK, I don't want to have to shrug my shoulders when someone says he was.

OK, I guess. I doubt that he was and I sincerely hope you can prove that. But IMO you are missing the Big Picture here - it doesn't matter.

What will you say if it is proved that he WAS in the KKK?

Bottom line IMO - it doesn't matter. The past is the past. If he wasn't in the KKK - great. If he was - he wasn't alone in that given the times he lived in.

Did he ever own slaves? Now THAT'S a reason to tear down his statue!

Oh wait - many of our founding fathers owned slaves. Damn - guess their monuments have to be torn down as well. [/sarcasm]

You really need to look at the Big Picture. If you can prove he didn't belong to the KKK (very likely I believe), the aholes will just come up with another reason to tear down the statue. Why not draw the line at tearing it down FOR ANY REASON?

Ok Norman, we can agree to disagree on whether I see the big picture or not. But I still think it's worthwhile to investigate the main argument that people have about the Sul Ross statue, especially since I have reason to believe it's nonsense.

And there's nothing wrong with a two-pronged attack. One person can say "It shouldn't be torn down for any reason," and another person can say, "And by the way, the reason you keep giving is b.s. Here's why."

"Knightly gentleman" wasn't a Klan title that I've ever seen. I agree with other posters that it probably had more to do with a cultured romanticism.

To all the arguments about robes for Ross, even if he was a Klansman (and I don't think he was) he almost certainly wouldn't have had robes. Robes were for the foot soldiers. The higher ups in society wouldn't endanger themselves by wearing or even owning robes.

AggieLit said:

---

Ok Norman, we can agree to disagree on whether I see the big picture or not. But I still think it's worthwhile to investigate the main argument that people have about the Sul Ross statue, especially since I have reason to believe it's nonsense.

---

It's not worthwhile because there's nothing to investigate.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

To all the arguments about robes for Ross, even if he was a Klansman (and I don't think he was) he almost certainly wouldn't have had robes. Robes were for the foot soldiers. The higher ups in society wouldn't endanger themselves by wearing or even owning robes.

---

Ross was alive during the first version of the Klan. The "everyone wears a robe version" was the 1920s revival (DX Bible's era). People confuse the two, probably thanks to Birth of a Nation

---

True, though the first Klan had robes, they just weren't the uniform type of the 2nd Klan. They got creative with their costumes. There's actually been some interesting work comparing vaudeville influences on the Klan and how that played into their terror. But in the subject at hand, it's all the more reason Ross would not have had any Klan paraphernalia regardless of any connection.

And again, for anyone who jumps to conclusions because they see my name on a post about Sul Ross and the KKK, I don't believe he was a member.

I am always interested in your opinions related to history. I sometimes disagree with those opinions (not all that often, actually), but I do always respect them.

AggieLit said:

---

p_bubel said:

---

How are you supposed to prove a negative?

If he was in the Klan, have 'em prove it.

---

Well, they are taking the phrase "knightly gentleman" as proof. And the rumor has gone on for over a decade based on these two words. I've met loyal, die-hard Aggies who sheepishly said, "Well, you know he WAS in the Klan... I mean it says "knightly gentleman" on the statue."

---

Next time an old Ag tells you this, tell them they need to find a copy of this book and read it. You were right in your first post about the role of honor and chivalry in the development of the Southern tradition.



I might also add, somewhere hidden in the Texas A&M archives is the discussion of what to put on the statue base and why that phrasing was chosen. That might be the golden nugget needed to prove what exactly that phrasing meant.

Aggies Revenge said:

---

AggieLit said:

---

p_bubel said:

---

How are you supposed to prove a negative?

If he was in the Klan, have 'em prove it.

---

Well, they are taking the phrase "knightly gentleman" as proof. And the rumor has gone on for over a decade based on these two words. I've met loyal, die-hard Aggies who sheepishly said, "Well, you know he WAS in the Klan... I mean it says "knightly gentleman" on the statue."

---

Next time an old Ag tells you this, tell them they need to find a copy of this book and read it. You were right in your first post about the role of honor and chivalry in the development of the Southern tradition.



I might also add, somewhere hidden in the Texas A&M archives is the discussion of what to put on the statue base and why that phrasing was chosen. That might be the golden nugget needed to prove what exactly that phrasing meant.

---

Thanks, I need to check that out. And the discussion sounds very interesting. If I were in College Station I would go check it out today.

AggieLit said:

---

Aggies Revenge said:

---

AggieLit said:

---

p_bubel said:

---

How are you supposed to prove a negative?

If he was in the Klan, have 'em prove it.

---

Well, they are taking the phrase "knightly gentleman" as proof. And the rumor has gone on for over a decade based on these two words. I've met loyal, die-hard Aggies who sheepishly said, "Well, you know he WAS in the Klan... I mean it says "knightly gentleman" on the statue."

---

Next time an old Ag tells you this, tell them they need to find a copy of this book and read it. You were right in your first post about the role of honor and chivalry in the development of the Southern tradition.



I might also add, somewhere hidden in the Texas A&M archives is the discussion of what to put on the statue base and why that phrasing was chosen. That might be the golden nugget needed to prove what exactly that phrasing meant.

---

Thanks, I need to check that out. And the discussion sounds very interesting. If I were in College Station I would go check it out today.

---

I might clarify, I do not know if this discussion actually exists, but if it does, it would probably be somewhere in the archives associated with the records of the Sully statue.

Ross bio from the the 1895 Olio:

page 2:

Thanks for the links. I once consulted what biographies of him I could find at Evans and didn't see any mention of KKK. Of course, it was a "secret society," so probably wouldn't have made it into biographies if he was a member.

I think the last piece remaining to eliminate even circumstantial evidence is to find contemporary sources from when the statue was made, showing that "knightly gentleman" was a term in common circulation.

The Wikipedia article, where it mentions the KKK controversy, links to this article on JSTOR, which apparently says something about an "exhaustive search" not turning up any evidence.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20715415

I don't have a JSTOR subscription. Maybe a current student can look this up and post the relevant material?

Quote:

---

Deconstructing Racism One Statue at a Time: Visual Culture Wars at Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin
Patrick Slattery
Texas A&M University




Abstract

This article discusses visual culture on two uni versity campuses: The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University. Specifically, this article explores the racist and historical implications of statues of Confederate soldiers and slaveholders, and the disproportionate un derrepresentation of students of color on these campuses. The author connects his own auto biographical experiences to the visual culture of the two campuses and advances a proposal for addressing racism and visual representa tion.

I arrived at Texas A&M University in 1998 as a professor of philosophy of edu cation with academic preparation in cur riculum theory and ethics; experience as a museum docent; passion for creating provocative art installations; and an activ ist commitment to a range of social justice issues including the campaign to end the death penalty, the greening of higher edu cation (with David Orr at Oberlin College), the liberation theology sanctuary move ment for refugees from Central America, and the human rights campaign for gay, les bian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) equality. As a native New Orleanian and an elementary student in 1959 when Ruby Bridges was escorted to her classroom by federal marshals to become the first African-American child to integrate our public schools, Iwas immersed in the racist and violent context of my hometown. Nor man Rockwell emblazoned this moment in our collective conscience with his paint ing titled The Problem We All Live With. Growing up in Louisiana, I heard a con stant barrage of racist jokes and Iabsorbed



apartheid imagery such as "white only" drinking fountains. I also interacted with KKK members, including my college class mate at Louisiana State University, David Duke. Somehow-despite my enthusias tic vote for George Wallace and despite hanging a Confederate flag in my teenage bedroom-I emerged from the racist co coon of my youth with a social conscience that led me to participation in anti-Viet nam war protests following the Kent State University shootings in 1970, environmen tal activism and vegetarianism by age 22, and a passion for cultural diversity and multicultural justice that began in one of my college classrooms with an activist professor.
It was only natural that the first commit tee that Ivolunteered to join when I arrived at Texas A&M was the President's Com mission on Art and Diversity. The campus was embroiled in a controversy related to the iconic bronze statue of Lawrence Sullivan Ross, which stands prominently in front of the academic building. The im age of the Sul Ross statue adorns every publication at Texas A&M. Students rub his bronze boots on the way to exams and leave pennies on his pedestal for good luck-ironically, a Catholic-like ritual on this predominantly Christian fundamental ist and Southern Baptist campus. The Sul Ross statue is the site for Christian Bible study circles and visiting campus preach ers. The solemn Silver Taps memorial for recently deceased students is conducted at 10:00 p.m. every first Tuesday, when thousands of students stand shoulder to shoulder in motionless silence for an hour



28 VISUAL ARTS RESEARCH 2006 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois


as the campus is darkened and the m1!1ta1 honor guard, the Ross Volunteers, marcr in a slow motion cadence to the statue 101 taps. The president of the university then consoles the grieving parents of the de ceased students and presents them with a flag. Ten thousand students then walk back to their residence halls and apartments in total darkness and reverent silence. I had goose bumps the first time I attended this ritual-or "tradition," as it is called at Texas A&M.
"Ole Sully," as Lawrence Sullivan Ross is affectionately called by the Corps of Ca dets, is identified on a plaque on the rear base of the pedestal in this way:
Lawrence Sullivan Ross, 1838-1898 Soldier, Statesman, Knightly Gentleman Brigadier General Confederate States of America
Governor of Texas
President of the A&M College

Texas, like California, is now a "majority minority" state in which African-American (11.4%), Hispanic (34.3%), and Asian/other (4.8%) minorities outnumber white citizens (Austin American-Statesman, 2004b). Yet the two premier flagship universities, Texas A&M and the University of Texas, remain predominantly white institutions. Since the mid-1990s, Texas A&M has enrolled approximately 45,000 students, making it one of the largest universities in the United States. In 1996 only 1,126 students (3%) were African-American and 3,664 stu dents (10%) were Hispanic. By 2003 the African-American student population had declined to 854 students (2%) and the Hispanic students to 3,365 (9%). Although Texas A&M has created new scholarships and recruiting practices, President Rob ert Gates announced to the faculty in the spring of 2004 that he would not use legal affirmative action options to increase black and Hispanic enrollment. After protests from the faculty, the president did rescind the policy of granting admission points to relatives of alumni.
In this climate, it should be predictable that anger erupted when some history pro fessors and students in multicultural orga-


r11zat1ons exposed the not so subtly named
Knightly Gentleman" Sul Ross as affiliated with the Knights of the KKK and proposed that a statue of a black man named Mat thew Gaines be erected on the campus (Baum, 1998). Gaines was a former slave who became the first African-American state senator and prominent leader in the 12th Texas Legislature in 1869. He passion ately and unflaggingly supported the for ward-looking, albeit at the time extremely controversial Federal Land Grant College Act. His egalitarian and progressive invest ment in 1871 in the future of public educa tion in Texas laid the essential foundations for the building of Texas A&M University (Baum, 1998).
Some suggested that Gaines and not Sul Ross should be credited with the founding of the university. Traditionalists and alumni were up in arms over the sug gestion that a black man founded Texas A&M, yet black student organizations and their white allies were adamant in their conviction that Gaines must be honored with a prominent statue. The president called for a faculty and student commis sion to address the conflict and present recommendations. As a new faculty mem ber, I enthusiastically volunteered for the committee. After a year of deliberation, the committee recommended that a statue of Matthew Gaines be placed in a large "diversity plaza" next to the library and in close proximity to Sul Ross. Unfortunately, the following semester Texas A&M suffered a heartbreaking tragedy when the annual bonfire collapsed and killed 12 students. The Art and Diversity Commission recom mendations were shelved, former CIA di rector Robert Gates was appointed as our new president, and the Bonfire Memorial was dedicated.
Texas A&M, like neighboring rival the University of Texas at Austin, is adorned with dozens of statues and memorials to white men, many with complex Confeder ate and KKK histories. At the same time that Texas A&M was struggling with the proposed statue of Matthew Gaines, a long-standing controversy was reemerg-

Deconstructing Racism 29


ing at the University of Texas. After year s of debate about the statuary on the south mall of the campus at the base of the tower and facing the state capitol, new tensions arose in 1998. In what may be one of the largest memorials to the Confederacy outside of Richmond, Virginia, statues by sculptor Pompeo Luigi Coppini-includ ing Confederate president Jefferson Davis and general Robert E. Lee-have stood in prominent display on the congested south mall for over 70 years. In 1999, the univer sity was completing a project to erect a new statue of Martin Luther King, Jr., on the lightly traveled east mall of the campus. Soon after the MLK statue was installed, it was vandalized repeatedly and the uni versity was forced to place surveillance cameras in the plaza to guard it. This con troversy has continued for five years, and reached a climax on September 2, 2004, when this editorial appeared in the Austin American-Statesman.
Don't move the statue of Martin Luther King, Jr., from the University of Texas campus. Sadly, that has to be said be cause there are folks who are contem plating moving it out of the state. Just days ago, University of Texas business professor and researcher John But ler discussed with Morehouse College board officials whether the statue would be better off at their campus in Atlanta. His reasons were sincere, though mis placed. "What I suggested was that if we have to guard Dr. King, then he should be in a place where he is loved;' Butler said. As for moving the MLK statue, the uni versity should focus more on eliminating ignorance that certainly aids the bigotry that motivates students and others to de face the King statue. If, however, profes sor Butler, who is African-American, or others want to move statues, then they should start with Jefferson Davis, Robert
E. Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and John
H. Reagan. Move them to a museum. ("Keep MLK Statue;' 2004a, p. A-14)
I made the same recommendation in an investigative report published in June 2004. With Professor Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas Law School, Iwrote

30 Patrick Slattery


that the Confederate statues represent a flawed vision of history and that in order to embody diversity, the flagship universi ties of Texas must commission new public art and move the Confederate statues to museums (Slattery, 2004, Slattery & Rapp, 2003). For several years, I have suggested that both universities create diversity pla zas with reflection spaces and evocative narrative representations. In addition to Matthew Gaines, I suggested statues of Caesar Chavez, Barbara Jordan, Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, Oscar Rome ro, Dorothy Day, Henry David Thoreau, Langston Hughes, and Jesus Christ preaching the Sermon on the Mount. I am pleased to report that the University of Texas announced in October 2004 that they were commissioning statues of Chavez and Jordan to be installed on the highly visible west mall in 2006. In a stun ning development, University of Texas President Larry Faulkner announced on October 28, 2004 that a faculty committee would be formed to decide where to move the Confederate statues. This will now put added pressure on Texas A&M to move forward with the Gaines statue and its di versity plaza.
There is much more work to be done. The image of the beautiful and innocent Ruby Bridges walking with dignity amid in sults to her first grade classroom in New Orleans reminds us of the insidious hatred that is deeply embedded in the American psyche and the bigotry and violence that persists in this nation today. Relocating Confederate statues and commissioning new iconic images of diverse persons may not be the best way to address the con tinuing tragedies of racism, sexism, het erosexism, imperialism, xenophobia, reli gious intolerance, class bias, and violence against minorities. However, I believe that the visual culture on our campuses does have a huge impact on our psychological and spiritual sensibility. Thus, the changes Ioutline today represent positive steps for ward that must be celebrated, if we have any hope of achieving a more perfect union of life on this very fragile planet.


References

Austin American Statesman, Keep MLK statue on the UT campus. (2004a, September 2). Page A-14.
Austin American Statesman, US Census Bureau report. (2004b, September 2). Page A-14.
Baum, D. (1998). The shattering of Texas union ism: Politics in the Lone Star state in the Civil War era. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Slattery, P., & Rapp, D. (2003). Ethics and the foundations of education: Teaching convic-


tlons m a postmodern world. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slattery, P. (2004, June 6). To embody diver sity, schools need new art. Austin American Statesman, p. E1-E4.


Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patrick Slattery, College of Education, Texas A&M Univer sity, College Station, Texas 77843-4232, pslattery@ tamu.edu.

---