So, again, here's the tally:

Simkins = KKK founder, and therefore racist
Coke = may have been racist, but no evidence
Ross = may have been racist, but no evidence

Keep digging, klanhorns. You may find some sidewalk named after a guy who said something about black holes, so you can twist it into a racist comment.

___________________________

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have anything remotely credible that proves A&M has named a building after someone who can conclusively be proved to be a racist?

---

Finally an admission that the answer to the question above is a resounding yes. Asymptotes for $500 Alex.

---

You are a ****ing lightweight. Can you klanhorns please get somebody on here who can argue using some form of logic and reason?

___________________________

There are a ton of examples in his letters from that post that say otherwise:

quote:

---

Let the laws of Texas be just and equal, bearing on all alike, protecting all alike, and administered with an impartiality which shall no neither class nor color

---

This quote was from him vetoing a bill that would limit the voting rights:

quote:

---

The Constitution treats all men as equal as respects the question of suffrage

---

pages 77 and 78 reflect his belief that lynchings are wrong and that it is a failure of the officials in charge when they happen.

on page 120, he speaks about teh college at Bryan when creating the basis for public education ( no mention of anything in Austin). Nothing racial, just thought I would point that out. Page 137 and 138 talk about the agriculture and mechanical college.

excellent quote on page 173...too long to quote, but it starts a couple of sentences down with "let critics carp" He talks about how people will come in and try to erect barriers based on race and that noble men should prevent this.


As far as your "natural follower" quote: read the whole paragraph. Coke speaks of how all the systems have changed in Texas (political, social, enterprise, etc...) and that there are people that may take advantaged of them being "un-enlightened" by "unscrupulous tricksters". All this is in regards in writing a new constition "that should be adapted to our changed social, political, and industrial condition". Sounds to me like he is defending black men from being taken advantage of with their new freedoms.

Pooor klanhorns. Still getting donkey-punched with no remorse...and coming back for more.

quote:

---

I'm the one who first provided that quote, dumbass.

---

What on Earth has that got to do with anything? Of course I'm aware that you posted it (as part of a long and extremely poorly formatted paragraph, I might add). The question that I posed that you didn't pose (and which I'll pose again, since you, not surprisingly, didn't answer it) is the following: what do you think Governor Coke was suggesting by this statement?

Was he suggesting that the legislature undertake to educate and inform the ignorant and impressionable freed slaves, so that they could, as soon as possible, become valuable and contributing members of the electorate?

Or was he suggesting that steps be taken to keep them from voting altogether?

Why was Governor Coke not concerned about uneducated, illiterate white voters (of which there were a great number, in Texas, in the 1870s).

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/3/2010 10:58a).]

one thing I do have to say about this thread...

I learned a little about Texas history with it. If you are a history buff, read the article that 512 and the sips are referring to here. It tells you what a good man Gov. Coke is and how the Texas Constitution was formed. Those are all his letters setting up the public school system, vetoing tax increases, etc... Gov. Coke's letters are a timeline of the creation of modern Texas after the civil war. It is actually pretty interesting.

[This message has been edited by Ted Logan (edited 6/3/2010 10:56a).]

quote:

---

Was he suggesting that the legislature undertake to educate and inform the ignorant and impressionable freed slaves, so that they could, as soon as possible, become valuable and contributing members of the electorate?

---

YES. see my post (a couple of spots)above and try actually reading some of the links you post.


edit...I don't mind this being a troll. This is educational.

[This message has been edited by Ted Logan (edited 6/3/2010 10:58a).]

512 continues blimping, you guys continue to take the bait, and yet these facts remain indisputable:

* tu still has a dorm on campus named after a KKK founder. Link
* the math building is named after a longtime racist member of that faculty. Link
* it's still got a racist law professor on the current faculty. Link
* the arena is still named after a school icon who fought integration. Link
* the stadium is still named after a coach who fought integration. Link
* there are still 4 Confederate 'neck statues on campus. Link
* the MLK statue on campus is a regular target of vandalism by the Klanhorns. Link

I'll be back later today, several pages down the line, and post those facts again.

[This message has been edited by A_History_Of_Violence (edited 6/3/2010 11:17a).]

quote:

---

I learned a little about Texas history with it. If you are a history buff, read the article that 512 and the sips are referring to here. It tells you what a good man Gov. Coke is and how the Texas Constitution was formed.

---

Are you making the conflated argument that "proponent of new Constitution" = "good man?"

Since we're learning so much about history, try this (I think it's a fifth grade textbook): http://www.harlandavidson.com/txhist/4e/chap06ov.htm 'Bout three quarters down: "Democrats regain control" and "Constitution of 1876."

Given the outpouring of racial sensitivity that has been displayed by the Aggies on this long and amusing thread, by your own reasoning, you are all obviously in favor of repealing a document that was created in large part by racism.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/3/2010 11:32a).]

quote:

---

what do you think Governor Coke was suggesting by this statement?

---

That the drafters have several things to consider when drafting the new constitution. One in particular, the 40,000 people who have no education whatsoever and who were, up until recently, chained up.

THERE IS NOTHING ELSE YOU CAN INFER FROM THAT STATEMENT WITHOUT ADDING YOUR OWN SPIN!!!!

Coke's statement is about education.
Klanhorns' interpretation is about race.

Figures....klanhorns.

Spin and twist to get racism v. FOUNDING KLAN GUY. Yeah, were on the losing end of this one.

___________________________

No poster has ever taken a beating so many times on one thread.

512, king of failed blimps.

512..You are talking about Gov. Davis in your last post. You know, the guy that the President wanted to be Gov. That was elected fraudulently ( Link , was then voted out of office but refused to leave. Then he asked for Pres. Grant's support, but even the President wouldn't back him anymore. He then left, ran for election for Governor 2 more times and lost.

That's the guy you are saying deserves the credit, based on your link, for making Texas what it is, when everything he did had to be redone? The constitution of 1876, which your link says is still in effect today was influenced by Coke, not Davis.

From your link:

quote:

---

Constitution of 1876 “included provisions that prohibited the state from chartering banks, empowered the state…to regulate corporations and railroad companies( this was a good thing at the time[;] establishing a state debt ceiling of $200,000(this is a good thing, put a strict limit on the maximum ad valorem tax rate(this is a good thing, and all but abolished the public school system”(The constitution of 1876 created the public univeristy fund that was the beginnings of Texas A&M, Prairie View A&M, and eventually the Univerity of Texas. It also ensured that equal facilities would be built for the education of black men (170)

---

and I can't find the source page to find out what the 170 source is.

This thread in my opinion is really stupid.Just because of the actions of a few that makes an institution racist? There was a professor, he was there when I attended A&M but not sure if he is still there, that wrote a book on institutionalized racism.
Link: http://www.thebatt.com/2.8482/institutionalized-racism-continues-at-a-m-1.1212073

Let's not forget about the black-face video incident that happened in 2006.
Link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/one_texas_am_st.html

Just saying that we shouldn't throw rocks when the same issues occur on our campus as well.

[This message has been edited by AmandaReed (edited 6/3/2010 12:09p).]

Amanda..I think you missed the point. Racists exist, no one is denying that. This is about t.u. naming buildings after KKK founders and them stretching for something to argue back at us with. They thought they found something with the Coke building.

Ted,

I'm not talking about Davis, and yes Coke was instrumental in the chartering and drafting of the Constitution of 1876. According to the first two sentences of the paragraph that you left out when you quoted the other portion: "Hoping to eliminate all traces of Reconstruction and overturn Republican successes on behalf of blacks, conservative Democrats demanded a new constitution aimed at restoring states’ rights. In 1875 Coke called for a constitutional convention."

Never, at any point, in any way, by even the most tortured construction, can it be argued that I made any statements to to the effect that Davis deserves any credit (why is it that I find myself, time after time, having to point out what I did and did not say?).

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/3/2010 12:25p).]

Amanda...

We didn't name any buildings after the black-faced guys. I am pretty sure that they were not looked favorably on with these actions.

Your first link about Bonilla-Silva's book (interesting that a person with a latin name would support white supremacy) does not have anything to do with Texas A&M. ALthough he is a professor here , we have not named any buildings after him. His book is not about Texas A&M, like you imply, but about White Supremacy in the Post Civil Right Era. If I write a book about
Nazi Germany, does that make me a Nazi?
I particularly like this quote:

quote:

---

Prescribed on page 85 is the need for "...specialized student groups-such as ethnic residential theme houses, support centers, and academic departments." In this theme, implied segregation is the operating mode for University-sponsored groups such as the African American Student Coalition, the Hispanic Business Student Association, MEDALS, ExCel, and the minority open house known as Nu House.

---

So the university goes out to support ethnic groups by creating support groups for them and that is racism? The university is intentionally segregating them? If A&M didn't do this, there would be another article talking about how racist A&M is for not providing these things. That's like saying the Latin American Center in Austin is racist because it separates them from the "regular" American Center... Looks like this is another author trying to rile people up.

This may very well be the most butthurt thread I've ever seen.

512..we are going in circles

You responded to my comment about Coke being a "good man" by citing a source and a specific passage that states Coke usurped the Governorship from Davis to undo everything he did. Your argument, by providing that link, is that Coke is not deserving of his acclamations and that he is wrong for calling for a new Constitution that is still relevant today. If the purpose of this constitution is to take all the rights away from newly freed black men, how has it survived to today, even through the civil rights movement. Go back and read all the letters from Coke from your other link if you want PROOF of what he did and did not do and/or believe in.

Lets quit debating history since you will not go on proof or facts, and since you will only believe an occasional quote you from an author with no documentation. My documentation is the link YOU provided in his letters.

Lets go back and argue the fact that texas has a building named after the founder of the KKK and you are stretching and interpreting someone's beliefs to find anything like that relevant in College Station.

[This message has been edited by Ted Logan (edited 6/3/2010 12:42p).]

klanhorns

quote:

---

That the drafters have several things to consider when drafting the new constitution. One in particular, the 40,000 people who have no education whatsoever and who were, up until recently, chained up.

---

Alright. So I ask you (again): why was he not concerned about the uneducated, impoverished, white voters?

This:

quote:

---

I'm not talking about Davis, and yes Coke was instrumental in the chartering and drafting of the Constitution of 1876. According to the first two sentences of the paragraph that you left out when you quoted the other portion: "Hoping to eliminate all traces of Reconstruction and overturn Republican successes on behalf of blacks, conservative Democrats demanded a new constitution aimed at restoring states’ rights. In 1875 Coke called for a constitutional convention."

---

Followed by this quote from Coke:

quote:

---

Constitution-making is a work greatly different from what it formerly was in Texas. Our social and our labor systems and, in some degree, our political systems have changed fundamentally. We have 40,000 unenlightened black voters, natural followers, in their simplicity and ignorance, of the unscrupulous trickster and demagogue, in some portions of Texas largely outnumbering the whites, and
have equal privileges with them at the ballot box and in the jury box. From these and other facts . . . questions must present themselves to be dealt with by the framers of our organic law which should be gravely and maturely considered.

---

In context, here is MY interpretation of Coke's comments. Everybody want's to get rid of the Reconstruction Constitution. Doing so will NOT be easy. So many things have changed, that we must consider. (for example, free slaves) These changes should be considered gravely and maturely.

Did I misinterpret the quote given the context?
If so, how?

(cue: What he really said is that when they do the constitution, they are going to eff with the black people, because that's what he wanted).

___________________________

klanhorns still blimping.

quote:

---

Your argument, by providing that link, is that Coke is not deserving of his acclamations and that he is wrong for calling for a new Constitution that is still relevant today. If the purpose of this constitution is to take all the rights away from newly freed black men, how has it survived to today, even through the civil rights movement.

---

How, indeed? How has the United States Constitution survived, despite its original acquiescene to (or outright support of) slavery?

And my argument had nothing to do with how Coke took over as Governor. It had everything to do with his motivations in implementing the new Constitution. Put another way: simply because Coke wanted a new Constitution does not make him "good," particularly since on of the reasons he wanted a new Constitution was to undo all the advances made on behalf of black Texans under Reconstrustion.

Lawyers

man you are bull headed

what makes you say he was not concerned? Was it my quote from your link that he vetoed bills that kept non landowners from voting? Was it this:

quote:

---

The convention did, however, mandate segregated schools; and in a positive sign for the future, endowed a permanent school fund with revenue from the public domain.

---

, from your last link, creating the basis of an education system that is responsible for some of the largest endowments in the country?

You say things just to here yourself talk (or watch yourself type). Hell, read the links that YOU posted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "concerned."

Is it fair to say that you disagree with the quote from the textbook that conservative democrats wanted a new Constitution in order to undo the advancements made on behalf of blacks during Reconstruction?

Do you stick by your assertion that the Constitution of 1876 cannot have been based in part of racist principles, as evidenced by the fact that it still exists today?

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/3/2010 12:55p).]

I've never, ever seen somebody so content on blimping. Blue star for you klanhorn 512

tell me what advancements he undid...

show me which racist principles the 1876 Constitution is based on...

I simply cannot state it any more plainly. Under reconstruction, blacks were given broad rights. Coke and other democrats weren't happy about this, so they drafted a new Constitution in order to abrogate and reduce those rights. Those are not the actions of a champion of racial equality.

quote:

---

Alright. So I ask you (again): why was he not concerned about the uneducated, impoverished, white voters?

---

If they were chained up, whipped, used for labor, not taught to speak, read, watch out for rogues, basically treated like animals, I'm sure that's something Coke would have considered.

Again, my interpretation. Tell me where I went wrong:
1. People wanted to change the constitution.
2. Coke was concerned about the difficulty
3. Why was he concerned about the difficulty?
a. So many things had changed since the last time the State drafted a constitution.
5. What had changed since the last time?
a. social and our labor systems
b. political systems.
--------1. Example: a bunch of people who were treated like animals, forced to be submissive, and because of their condition, and follow their leaders without question, could now be easily influenced by trickery.

He doesn't say what they had to do (like not let blacks vote, like you suggest). He simply was concerned about how they would approach the task because of a number of NEW factors to consider.

Again, it's six degrees of Kevin Bacon for you klanhorns.

___________________________

quote:

---

tell me what advancements he undid...

---

Really? And I'm the one who's bullheaded and blimpling?

quote:

---

tell me what advancements he undid...

---

Really? And I'm the one who's bullheaded and blimpling?

quote:

---

I simply cannot state it any more plainly. Under reconstruction, blacks were given broad rights. Coke and other democrats weren't happy about this, so they drafted a new Constitution in order to abrogate and reduce those rights.

---

I'll tell you how to state it more plainly...list the friggin rights. You deal with quotes, where are the facts.