"Knightly Gentleman"

18,661 Views | 86 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by OldArmy71
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
With a corresponding robust reading list if I remember correctly!
Aggies Revenge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Damn thing grows by the hour.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The validity or "authority" of a person's paper/essay/article/book does not come from their credentials, it comes from the strength of their arguments and the evidence they use to support their arguments.

You are basically defending the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

No, I'm simply stating that the assumption of authority may lie on false premises. The credential is not the PhD, the credential is knowledge of the relevant history.

The strength of the arguments is only as good as the depth of the knowledge and research behind the arguments. I could make a pretty good argument about anything with only half of the requisite knowledge. But it would be incomplete, and a layman, not knowing the holes, would misinterpret it. If I made the case that the German invasion of the Soviet Union was tactically sound and omitted the existence of the T-34 tank and the IL-2 Sturmovik, my argument might sound smart to a reader, but would be fallacious.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aalan94 said:

Quote:

The validity or "authority" of a person's paper/essay/article/book does not come from their credentials, it comes from the strength of their arguments and the evidence they use to support their arguments.

You are basically defending the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

No, I'm simply stating that the assumption of authority may lie on false premises. The credential is not the PhD, the credential is knowledge of the relevant history.

The strength of the arguments is only as good as the depth of the knowledge and research behind the arguments. I could make a pretty good argument about anything with only half of the requisite knowledge. But it would be incomplete, and a layman, not knowing the holes, would misinterpret it. If I made the case that the German invasion of the Soviet Union was tactically sound and omitted the existence of the T-34 tank and the IL-2 Sturmovik, my argument might sound smart to a reader, but would be fallacious.



Which would be pointed out in academia during peer review, if it's an academic paper or book. The Ph.D. does indicate a wide and deep level of knowledge in an era or a topic as well as a recognition of a certain level of skill as a researcher and writer. There are people who shouldn't have a Ph.D. with one. But your blanket statements about the professoriate aren't really describing the overwhelming majority of professors and Ph.D's I know and have worked with.
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I could make a pretty good argument about anything with only half of the requisite knowledge. But it would be incomplete, and a layman, not knowing the holes, would misinterpret it.
Then that would be a weak argument. If it "sounds smart" but doesn't hold water when a person with knowledge of the subject takes a look at it then it's not a good argument.

My point is that it doesn't matter so much who the author is, but whether their argument is strong and supported by good sources. Of course you need someone who knows the field to evaluate it, but as Watson pointed out, that's why peer review exists. If we get too hung up on who wrote something rather than consider what they wrote, we can end up with ad hominem fallacies which are not conducive to productive discussion.

In the case of Slattery it certainly seems he did not have the background or develop a depth of knowledge to write authoritatively on the subject. But that came through in his argument, his education is simply a follow on issue.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ya'll keep up the discussion I'm enjoying it as a person with regular contact with Civil War historians both professorial and layman.

My two cents is to come down slightly with what Aalan is saying. I find that many professors are offended by laymen historians and they disdainfully discount their work. But I would say professors tend to be more narrowly focused and deep into certain things.

Don't even get me started on gender and ethnic studies in history which are the "basket weaving degrees" of history today or the blackballing of professors who specialize in military history.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BQ78 said:

Ya'll keep up the discussion I'm enjoying it as a person with regular contact with Civil War historians both professorial and layman.

My two cents is to come down slightly with what Aalan is saying. I find that many professors are offended by laymen historians and they disdainfully discount their work. But I would say professors tend to be more narrowly focused and deep into certain things.

Don't even get me started on gender and ethnic studies in history which are the "basket weaving degrees" of history today or the blackballing of professors who specialize in military history.


I think most people are wary of non-professionals assuming they can do the same work or better, regardless of whether that's logically a valid position. And there are laymen who do very poor work that reflects badly on the discipline. I will say that while some gender and ethnic studies researchers produce little of broader use, they have done a very necessary job of expanding our understanding of society in the past and the impacts of events on everyone, not just those in charge. The part about military historians could take up a whole other thread.
Aggies Revenge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:


My two cents is to come down slightly with what Aalan is saying. I find that many professors are offended by laymen historians and they disdainfully discount their work. But I would say professors tend to be more narrowly focused and deep into certain things.

I can see what you are saying with this but there is a reason for some disdain. I will just start with the current trend of TV mouthpieces cranking out poor history. They put little research into what they are writing, spend very little time thinking through and connecting pieces, and rush to write just to put out a book that will pad their pockets, not increase the level of understanding and knowledge of history. Yes they are entertaining and much easier to read (a serious fault of most academic history is how dry it is) but at times dangerously inaccurate.

They walk in with a notion and idea of what they are looking for and want to write. Instead of following the evidence and writing what it reveals they end up chained to their own agenda and biases.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

They walk in with a notion and idea of what they are looking for and want to write. Instead of following the evidence and writing what it reveals they end up chained to their own agenda and biases.
I find this a problem with both lay and professorial historians and not confined to just one group over the other.
Aggies Revenge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

Quote:

They walk in with a notion and idea of what they are looking for and want to write. Instead of following the evidence and writing what it reveals they end up chained to their own agenda and biases.
I find this a problem with both lay and professorial historians and not confined to just one group over the other.
I cannot disagree with you there. It is a shame that some professionals forget why they in this field. From day 1 of my advanced education we have had it beat into us to leave personal bias and beliefs out of the research. Sadly, not everyone takes it to heart.
Liquid Wrench
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, back to the topic of Sul Ross....did a little research and it looks like the statue was funded and commissioned by the State of Texas, and awarded to AMC as the host site. I'll try to get around to posting the newspaper articles here in the next day or two, but in the meantime I found it interesting that the statue was not exclusively an A&M dedication to the school president. Ross was a big deal and remembered by contemporaries for many accomplishments besides being a Confederate officer or even A&M president. I think some of the contemporary news coverage might shed some light on the dedication.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

Quote:

They walk in with a notion and idea of what they are looking for and want to write. Instead of following the evidence and writing what it reveals they end up chained to their own agenda and biases.
I find this a problem with both lay and professorial historians and not confined to just one group over the other.


you mean like Michael Bellesiles....?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/us/author-of-gun-history-quits-after-panel-faults-research.html?mcubz=0
PuryearAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Very interesting to read back on this discussion.... glad I found it.
The_Waco_Kid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Especially since the rumor around Sully being in the Klan is currently being cited as reason #1 to remove the statue and burn it to the ground. Reason #2 being his serving in the Confederate Army, and therefore oppressing every black student on campus. It doesn't matter what the actual facts of the case are, the emotions of a very vocal minority always gain the attention of the narrative powers that be. In this day and age, I'm afraid that there might be a change to how Sully gets portrayed soon - that he will either be moved to a private room in a museum or have a large sign erected nearby saying "Texas A&M does not condone slavery or the racist context exhibited by this monument."
DustysLineup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I believe the phrase "knightly gentleman" sparked most of the klan speculation, with some lazy historians even citing it as evidence.

But the phrase was used as a compliment long before the Civil War, let alone the klan. I did a simple search on newspapers.com and found ample documentation of its common usage.
ChipFTAC01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NormanAg said:

Quote:

This whole thread is so strange.
Yes, it is. I tried a couple of times to convince the OP that he is not looking at the "Big Picture". If he is able to prove his case that Sullie had no connection to the KKK (which I firmly believe) , it will make NO difference to the folks who want his stature removed.

They will just move on to their next "reason" - probably the fact that he was a General in the Confederate Army.

The OP is fighting a skirmish and ignoring the REAL war that is going on here.


Prescient
Scorebook
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This place seems to be more sane than the politics board, I'm going through this large document on Sul Ross trying to hammer out my own thoughts based on research. I'm going to use this space to put in some musings (I've already had a few that were interesting, might go back later).



Quote:

The governor to-day wrote a pointed letter to the county attorney of McLennan county, directing him to hunt up and prosecute the perpetrators of the white cap outrage at Waco, and if necessary to call on the executive department of state for assistance. Governor Ross denounces the outrage, and says the state doesn't require a lawless body as an agency to right wrongs, real or fancied, and when a secret organization assumes the execution of law government ceases to exist. Fort Worth Daily Gazette, 13 December 1888, page 2
(p124)
"Whitecapping" [edit] appears to be the act of vigilante justice done by conservative (traditional/democratic supporting groups of the time) groups. I know one of the major McLennan County historians so I'm going to inquire with him on this incident and on L.S. Ross.

OldArmy71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I posted this on the other Sully thread, too.

This is a compilation of documents by and about Sul Ross done by Bill Page, in the Government Documents Department of TAMU Libraries.

[url=https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A11449434-b6c7-4025-a3b4-f4363988d91f&fbclid=IwAR1798tMxK8l2RjsG1LDQXmZS_eFF6uLQx4tKDBy8BvPc1hvjgkMN_DkFAk#pageNum=6][/url]https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A11449434-b6c7-4025-a3b4-f4363988d91f&fbclid=IwAR1798tMxK8l2RjsG1LDQXmZS_eFF6uLQx4tKDBy8BvPc1hvjgkMN_DkFAk#pageNum=6


Page addresses the KKK connection on page 265. Page writes that there is no evidence Sul Ross had any connection with the Klan. He says that Ross could not have been a member while governor or president of A&M, because the Klan was not active in Texas during that time. He adds that the rumor about the Cushing Library having Ross' Klan robes is untrue.

Page goes on to give a lengthy discussion of how common it was to use the phrase "knightly" at the time as a synonym for chivalrous, while having no connection whatsoever with the Klan. I don't have the software to cut and paste, but it's on pp. 265-268.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.