Keep the statue of Governor Lawrence Sullivan Ross in front of the Academic building

3,686 Views | 34 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by 2004FIGHTINTXAG
rebel06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another group started a petition to remove Sully and we need your support to help shut them down:

https://www.change.org/p/texas-a-m-university-keep-the-statue-of-governor-lawrence-sullivan-ross-i-m-front-of-the-academic-building?recruiter=1109778405&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=sms&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial&recruited_by_id=e13f0160-a726-11ea-a75d-4fbd62ab0bca
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As much as I want the statue to stay, it would not surprise me if someone in the administration caves in. I keep seeIng a memo circulated around from chancellor Sharp but it's from 2018. I'd be curious to see an updated statement from the school's administration on their views and thoughts.
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why do people think change.org petitions mean anything? I am not the least worried about this. Sully isn't some random CSA general like Texas had on their campus, he was the president of A&M and governor of the state. His placement has historical meaning and he is celebrated out of uniform, as he was when he was president of A&M. I don't believe he is going anywhere.
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mizzou is trying to take down a statue of Jefferson because he owned slaves. It's insane and Sully isn't safe from removal because the radical left will not stop.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

Mizzou is trying to take down a statue of Jefferson because he owned slaves. It's insane and Sully isn't safe from removal because the radical left will not stop.


Maybe I'm just a huge pessimist, but I can see the admin caving.
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue


May I ask why? Not being snarky or anything, but interested to hear your reasons. Is it simply because he was a Confederate General?
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue


May I ask why? Not being snarky or anything, but interested to hear your reasons. Is it simply because he was a Confederate General?


Of course, I come to this board because I tend to relate more and find more people with a respectful manner considering where most of us have been.

If you simply google "Texas A&M inclusion" you will see that every department at A&M has a statement in regards to diversity and inclusion. I feel as though the representation the statue has is counter intuitive to that. Yes he was a confederate general and as we've seen all across our military we have been removing all symbols of the confederacy and if it weren't for POTUS most of our top brass agreed that some of the bases be renamed. Sul Ross did support the founding of a HBCU (PVA&M) but let's not act like this was a genuine thing, most HBCUs were founded to keep POC out of universities. If Sul Ross saw A&M today do you think he would be happy to see how diverse A&M is?
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BarstoolAggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.


Except LSR isn't a Confederate monument. Simply a statue of man who fought for the confederacy in his youth. If the statue didn't mention "Brigadier General CSA" I'd wager a vast majority of current students wouldn't even bother to look him up. What do you know of the other early A&M presidents? Two of them fought as teenagers with the VMI Corps of Cadets at New Market against the Union Army. I'll let you look them up, but I'd wager probably 99% of the people don't know this who attend A&M. But if you go look for outrage you'll find it if you dig hard enough. Are we going to start demanding USMA and USNA tea down statues of their former Cadets who shaped this country prior to and during the ACW? Cougar asks a valid question. Where does this stop?
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.


Except LSR isn't a Confederate monument. Simply a statue of man who fought for the confederacy in his youth. If the statue didn't mention "Brigadier General CSA" I'd wager a vast majority of current students wouldn't even bother to look him up. What do you know of the other early A&M presidents? Two of them fought as teenagers with the VMI Corps of Cadets at New Market against the Union Army. I'll let you look them up, but I'd wager probably 99% of the people don't know this who attend A&M. But if you go look for outrage you'll find it if you dig hard enough. Are we going to start demanding USMA and USNA tea down statues of their former Cadets who shaped this country prior to and during the ACW? Cougar asks a valid question. Where does this stop?


I didn't say Sullys statue was a confederate statue, all I said was the monuments he referred to were US monuments. The statue doesn't mention he was in the confederate army, people just have done the research and it's become common knowledge. Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would like to recommend we move this to the History board if you are so inclined.

I'd recommend the Politics board but.....well you know.
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

I would like to recommend we move this to the History board if you are so inclined.


Nah, I'm good. Like I said, I prefer this board because it's mostly a veterans board.
TXAG 05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BarstoolAggie said:

JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.


Except LSR isn't a Confederate monument. Simply a statue of man who fought for the confederacy in his youth. If the statue didn't mention "Brigadier General CSA" I'd wager a vast majority of current students wouldn't even bother to look him up. What do you know of the other early A&M presidents? Two of them fought as teenagers with the VMI Corps of Cadets at New Market against the Union Army. I'll let you look them up, but I'd wager probably 99% of the people don't know this who attend A&M. But if you go look for outrage you'll find it if you dig hard enough. Are we going to start demanding USMA and USNA tea down statues of their former Cadets who shaped this country prior to and during the ACW? Cougar asks a valid question. Where does this stop?


I didn't say Sullys statue was a confederate statue, all I said was the monuments he referred to were US monuments. The statue doesn't mention he was in the confederate army, people just have done the research and it's become common knowledge. Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.


It actually does mention that he was a CSA general in addition to governor of Texas and A&M President. Yes he fought for CSA and may have said some bad things, but does that erase all the good things he did? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cstrickland05 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.


Except LSR isn't a Confederate monument. Simply a statue of man who fought for the confederacy in his youth. If the statue didn't mention "Brigadier General CSA" I'd wager a vast majority of current students wouldn't even bother to look him up. What do you know of the other early A&M presidents? Two of them fought as teenagers with the VMI Corps of Cadets at New Market against the Union Army. I'll let you look them up, but I'd wager probably 99% of the people don't know this who attend A&M. But if you go look for outrage you'll find it if you dig hard enough. Are we going to start demanding USMA and USNA tea down statues of their former Cadets who shaped this country prior to and during the ACW? Cougar asks a valid question. Where does this stop?


I didn't say Sullys statue was a confederate statue, all I said was the monuments he referred to were US monuments. The statue doesn't mention he was in the confederate army, people just have done the research and it's become common knowledge. Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.


It actually does mention that he was a CSA general in addition to governor of Texas and A&M President. Yes he fought for CSA and may have said some bad things, but does that erase all the good things he did? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Said some bad things? The man killed black POWs. Sorry but some sins out weigh the other. Yes I am a sinner but I never supported or fought for the enslavement of an entire race or betrayed my country.

This is the 21st century, we are an inclusive university, and supposed to be fearless in every front. You can't lead from the front while looking in the past and worshiping idols that wouldn't even allow 25% of the student to attend the university.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BarstoolAggie said:

Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.


I've done a quick google search and came up with nothing. Can you provide some context? Or a source?

ETA I found an article that makes this claim, in which a protest was filed by a Union Colonel that 5 of his men were suspected to have been murdered. LSR replied that 2 of his men had been treated in kind. So......who's right? Is it even true? Atrocities happen in war, no doubt. There was definitely animosity between CS fighting USCT. Might be true and then again might not. Like I said, just the one claim that mentions this in one sentence. I will continue to look though for sources
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BarstoolAggie said:

Yes I am a sinner but I never supported or fought for the enslavement of an entire race or betrayed my country.


With all do respect that's because you're alive now and didn't live back then. If we continue to judge people from the past with our 21st century morals, then everyone will fall short by a wide margin. Had you lived in Texas or Georgia or Virginia in 1861 then the odds are you would have been singing a different tune. Maybe not, but like I said the odds are against you in that aspect.
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarstoolAggie said:

Cstrickland05 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.


Except LSR isn't a Confederate monument. Simply a statue of man who fought for the confederacy in his youth. If the statue didn't mention "Brigadier General CSA" I'd wager a vast majority of current students wouldn't even bother to look him up. What do you know of the other early A&M presidents? Two of them fought as teenagers with the VMI Corps of Cadets at New Market against the Union Army. I'll let you look them up, but I'd wager probably 99% of the people don't know this who attend A&M. But if you go look for outrage you'll find it if you dig hard enough. Are we going to start demanding USMA and USNA tea down statues of their former Cadets who shaped this country prior to and during the ACW? Cougar asks a valid question. Where does this stop?


I didn't say Sullys statue was a confederate statue, all I said was the monuments he referred to were US monuments. The statue doesn't mention he was in the confederate army, people just have done the research and it's become common knowledge. Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.


It actually does mention that he was a CSA general in addition to governor of Texas and A&M President. Yes he fought for CSA and may have said some bad things, but does that erase all the good things he did? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Said some bad things? The man killed black POWs. Sorry but some sins out weigh the other. Yes I am a sinner but I never supported or fought for the enslavement of an entire race or betrayed my country.

This is the 21st century, we are an inclusive university, and supposed to be fearless in every front. You can't lead from the front while looking in the past and worshiping idols that wouldn't even allow 25% of the student to attend the university.

You could certainly argue that this entire situation is counter inclusive from both sides. However, it's not about inclusiveness for those wanting Sully to be removed. TAMU is a very inclusive university and there is zero compromise on their end. It's about power/control and always finding something to be outraged over. Where does it stop?

Yes, the U.S. monuments are U.S. monuments as you argued, but with yours and others current logic, the logic still works. The current logic states that any monument/statue with any ties to slavery whatsoever should be removed. Under this logic, we should remove half the monuments in D.C.

So, I ask again, where does it stop?
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Cstrickland05 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.


Except LSR isn't a Confederate monument. Simply a statue of man who fought for the confederacy in his youth. If the statue didn't mention "Brigadier General CSA" I'd wager a vast majority of current students wouldn't even bother to look him up. What do you know of the other early A&M presidents? Two of them fought as teenagers with the VMI Corps of Cadets at New Market against the Union Army. I'll let you look them up, but I'd wager probably 99% of the people don't know this who attend A&M. But if you go look for outrage you'll find it if you dig hard enough. Are we going to start demanding USMA and USNA tea down statues of their former Cadets who shaped this country prior to and during the ACW? Cougar asks a valid question. Where does this stop?


I didn't say Sullys statue was a confederate statue, all I said was the monuments he referred to were US monuments. The statue doesn't mention he was in the confederate army, people just have done the research and it's become common knowledge. Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.


It actually does mention that he was a CSA general in addition to governor of Texas and A&M President. Yes he fought for CSA and may have said some bad things, but does that erase all the good things he did? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Said some bad things? The man killed black POWs. Sorry but some sins out weigh the other. Yes I am a sinner but I never supported or fought for the enslavement of an entire race or betrayed my country.

This is the 21st century, we are an inclusive university, and supposed to be fearless in every front. You can't lead from the front while looking in the past and worshiping idols that wouldn't even allow 25% of the student to attend the university.

You could certainly argue that this entire situation is counter inclusive from both sides. However, it's not about inclusiveness for those wanting Sully to be removed. TAMU is a very inclusive university and there is zero compromise on their end. It's about power/control and always finding something to be outraged over. Where does it stop?

Yes, the U.S. monuments are U.S. monuments as you argued, but with yours and others current logic, the logic still works. The current logic states that any monument/statue with any ties to slavery whatsoever should be removed. Under this logic, we should remove half the monuments in D.C.

So, I ask again, where does it stop?


You do realize that confederates were traitors to their country right. That they literally went against the US in an all out war to keep rights to own slaves. Nobody has been asking to take down US monuments, just monuments of traitors to the country. It's pretty simple.
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Yes I am a sinner but I never supported or fought for the enslavement of an entire race or betrayed my country.


With all do respect that's because you're alive now and didn't live back then. If we continue to judge people from the past with our 21st century morals, then everyone will fall short by a wide margin. Had you lived in Texas or Georgia or Virginia in 1861 then the odds are you would have been singing a different tune. Maybe not, but like I said the odds are against you in that aspect.


I mean the morals that slavery was wrong have been in the Old Testament for a lot longer than even the United States existence so this isn't some foreign concept.

Hold them to 21st century morals? Even Germany was more self aware to not have memorials and statues of the nazis in their country. Crimes against humanity and those that supported it aren't ones to be held in high regard. It's not a foreign concept.
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.


I've done a quick google search and came up with nothing. Can you provide some context? Or a source?

ETA I found an article that makes this claim, in which a protest was filed by a Union Colonel that 5 of his men were suspected to have been murdered. LSR replied that 2 of his men had been treated in kind. So......who's right? Is it even true? Atrocities happen in war, no doubt. There was definitely animosity between CS fighting USCT. Might be true and then again might not. Like I said, just the one claim that mentions this in one sentence. I will continue to look though for sources


Here's one article that was written yesterday that also mentions Ross also as governor instituted voter laws to keep POC from voting

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29314689/texas-kellen-mond-supports-removing-controversial-statue
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarstoolAggie said:

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Cstrickland05 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.


Except LSR isn't a Confederate monument. Simply a statue of man who fought for the confederacy in his youth. If the statue didn't mention "Brigadier General CSA" I'd wager a vast majority of current students wouldn't even bother to look him up. What do you know of the other early A&M presidents? Two of them fought as teenagers with the VMI Corps of Cadets at New Market against the Union Army. I'll let you look them up, but I'd wager probably 99% of the people don't know this who attend A&M. But if you go look for outrage you'll find it if you dig hard enough. Are we going to start demanding USMA and USNA tea down statues of their former Cadets who shaped this country prior to and during the ACW? Cougar asks a valid question. Where does this stop?


I didn't say Sullys statue was a confederate statue, all I said was the monuments he referred to were US monuments. The statue doesn't mention he was in the confederate army, people just have done the research and it's become common knowledge. Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.


It actually does mention that he was a CSA general in addition to governor of Texas and A&M President. Yes he fought for CSA and may have said some bad things, but does that erase all the good things he did? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Said some bad things? The man killed black POWs. Sorry but some sins out weigh the other. Yes I am a sinner but I never supported or fought for the enslavement of an entire race or betrayed my country.

This is the 21st century, we are an inclusive university, and supposed to be fearless in every front. You can't lead from the front while looking in the past and worshiping idols that wouldn't even allow 25% of the student to attend the university.

You could certainly argue that this entire situation is counter inclusive from both sides. However, it's not about inclusiveness for those wanting Sully to be removed. TAMU is a very inclusive university and there is zero compromise on their end. It's about power/control and always finding something to be outraged over. Where does it stop?

Yes, the U.S. monuments are U.S. monuments as you argued, but with yours and others current logic, the logic still works. The current logic states that any monument/statue with any ties to slavery whatsoever should be removed. Under this logic, we should remove half the monuments in D.C.

So, I ask again, where does it stop?


You do realize that confederates were traitors to their country right. That they literally went against the US in an all out war to keep rights to own slaves. Nobody has been asking to take down US monuments, just monuments of traitors to the country. It's pretty simple.
Your statement of taking down "just monuments of traitors to the country" is factually incorrect. See link below of Mizzou having to counter the removal of a statue of Thomas Jefferson.

https://www.newstribune.com/news/local/story/2020/jun/13/university-missouri-will-not-remove-jefferson-statue/830707/

Here's another one of a CNN analyst wanting all Washington and Jefferson statues removed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8413185/CNN-analyst-calls-remove-George-Washington-Thomas-Jefferson-statues-owned-slaves.html

Here's a list of the recent statues and monuments that were removed, toppled or vandalized. Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and a Texas Ranger among them.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/502492-list-statues-toppled-vandalized-removed-protests

So, I'll ask again. Where does it stop? It certainly isn't with Confederate statues.
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

BarstoolAggie said:

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Cstrickland05 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

JABQ04 said:

BarstoolAggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

BarstoolAggie said:

As a recent graduate I respectfully disagree and side on the removal of the statue
Remove the Washington Monument? Jefferson Memorial? Are you down for removing the Texas flag? Rename everything that has a Spanish name? How about removing the name "America" from everything?

Where do you stop?



Well I mean if we are being realistic, those you brought up are United States monuments. Confederate monuments aren't US monuments.


Except LSR isn't a Confederate monument. Simply a statue of man who fought for the confederacy in his youth. If the statue didn't mention "Brigadier General CSA" I'd wager a vast majority of current students wouldn't even bother to look him up. What do you know of the other early A&M presidents? Two of them fought as teenagers with the VMI Corps of Cadets at New Market against the Union Army. I'll let you look them up, but I'd wager probably 99% of the people don't know this who attend A&M. But if you go look for outrage you'll find it if you dig hard enough. Are we going to start demanding USMA and USNA tea down statues of their former Cadets who shaped this country prior to and during the ACW? Cougar asks a valid question. Where does this stop?


I didn't say Sullys statue was a confederate statue, all I said was the monuments he referred to were US monuments. The statue doesn't mention he was in the confederate army, people just have done the research and it's become common knowledge. Don't make the excuse he was young when he joined when there are quotes that exist saying "give no quarter to those who fight with black soldiers" and killing black POWs.


It actually does mention that he was a CSA general in addition to governor of Texas and A&M President. Yes he fought for CSA and may have said some bad things, but does that erase all the good things he did? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Said some bad things? The man killed black POWs. Sorry but some sins out weigh the other. Yes I am a sinner but I never supported or fought for the enslavement of an entire race or betrayed my country.

This is the 21st century, we are an inclusive university, and supposed to be fearless in every front. You can't lead from the front while looking in the past and worshiping idols that wouldn't even allow 25% of the student to attend the university.

You could certainly argue that this entire situation is counter inclusive from both sides. However, it's not about inclusiveness for those wanting Sully to be removed. TAMU is a very inclusive university and there is zero compromise on their end. It's about power/control and always finding something to be outraged over. Where does it stop?

Yes, the U.S. monuments are U.S. monuments as you argued, but with yours and others current logic, the logic still works. The current logic states that any monument/statue with any ties to slavery whatsoever should be removed. Under this logic, we should remove half the monuments in D.C.

So, I ask again, where does it stop?


You do realize that confederates were traitors to their country right. That they literally went against the US in an all out war to keep rights to own slaves. Nobody has been asking to take down US monuments, just monuments of traitors to the country. It's pretty simple.
No, it's not pretty simple. Are we taking down statues because they were traitors or because they owned slaves, or because they fought for the Confederacy, or is it because of police brutality (ACAB graffiti on Sully), or is it white privilege? The protestors this weekend were asked if there could be a compromise and they said something along the lines of give up your "white privilege."

Also, your statement of taking down "just monuments of traitors to the country" is factually incorrect. See link below of Mizzou having to counter the removal of a statue of Thomas Jefferson.

https://www.newstribune.com/news/local/story/2020/jun/13/university-missouri-will-not-remove-jefferson-statue/830707/

Here's another one of a CNN analyst wanting all Washington and Jefferson statues removed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8413185/CNN-analyst-calls-remove-George-Washington-Thomas-Jefferson-statues-owned-slaves.html

Here's a list of the recent statues and monuments that were removed, toppled or vandalized. Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and a Texas Ranger among them.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/502492-list-statues-toppled-vandalized-removed-protests

So, I'll ask again. Where does it stop? It certainly isn't with Confederate statues.


Why are you dragging all this into a conversation about A&M. I literally have zero iput into most of the articles that you posted. This is about Sul Ross.
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Because your logic states:

If a statue/monument is of someone that owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy then it must be torn down. Sully fought for the Confederacy, so therefore he must be torn down or removed.

While this is a logically valid argument, it is not a sound argument. His statue is not there because he fought for the Confederacy. His statue is there for many other accomplishments that have nothing to do with the Confederacy or slavery.

Also, your logic (and many others) is a very slippery slope that could be applied across the country and the world (pyramids, temples, Roman infrastructure, etc...). That is why I asked, where does it stop?

I bring all the articles into the discussion because you stated that people are only trying to remove Confederate statues and not others. This is factually incorrect.
ABHag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

Because your logic states:

If a statue/monument is of someone that owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy then it must be torn down. Sully fought for the Confederacy, so therefore he must be torn down or removed.

While this is a logically valid argument, it is not a sound argument. His statue is not there because he fought for the Confederacy. His statue is there for many other accomplishments that have nothing to do with the Confederacy or slavery.

Also, your logic (and many others) is a very slippery slope that could be applied across the country and the world (pyramids, temples, Roman infrastructure, etc...). That is why I asked, where does it stop?

I bring all the articles into the discussion because you stated that people are only trying to remove Confederate statues and not others. This is factually incorrect.


But that's not the only reason it should be removed. Dont you think that Sullys views are counter intuitive to the university today? Yes they are. This mans name was the Negro Killer, he killed black POWs, founded a black university to keep POC out of white universities, anti black voter laws, and many other acts against POC.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Please provide a link or a source about his nickname. Can't seem to locate anything
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BarstoolAggie said:

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

Because your logic states:

If a statue/monument is of someone that owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy then it must be torn down. Sully fought for the Confederacy, so therefore he must be torn down or removed.

While this is a logically valid argument, it is not a sound argument. His statue is not there because he fought for the Confederacy. His statue is there for many other accomplishments that have nothing to do with the Confederacy or slavery.

Also, your logic (and many others) is a very slippery slope that could be applied across the country and the world (pyramids, temples, Roman infrastructure, etc...). That is why I asked, where does it stop?

I bring all the articles into the discussion because you stated that people are only trying to remove Confederate statues and not others. This is factually incorrect.


But that's not the only reason it should be removed. Dont you think that Sullys views are counter intuitive to the university today? Yes they are. This mans name was the Negro Killer, he killed black POWs, founded a black university to keep POC out of white universities, anti black voter laws, and many other acts against POC.
I believe you are misinformed. Here's the link to the article where Mond acquired his cherry picked information that you are referring too. As you'll read below, the time period was not as simple as you make it seem and for the time period, Sully was actually pretty dang pro-African American. I will again go back to the slippery slope of not viewing the entirety of someone's life, but choosing to condemn them for fighting for their state and the south, as many did then and given the current environment, many Texans would also do today. If Sully was in a Confederate uniform and put there for solely fighting for the Confederacy then yes, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but he's not and wasn't.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A11449434-b6c7-4025-a3b4-f4363988d91f&fbclid=IwAR1798tMxK8l2RjsG1LDQXmZS_eFF6uLQx4tKDBy8BvPc1hvjgkMN_DkFAk#pageNum=1

Obituary of former Ross family slave who worked for the Ross family for many years after being freed (note he was owned by Sully's father, sully never owned slaves):
From Waco Armstead Ross, the faithful body servant of General Sul Ross during the war, is lying at the point of death. Galveston Daily News, 19 October 1883, page 5 From Waco Armstead Ross, a Negro body-guard to General Ross during the war, whose serious illness was reported last night, died at an early hour this morning and was buried this evening. His funeral cortege was, perhaps, the largest of any colored man in the state, a large number of white citizens heading the procession. Deceased was sixtytwo years of age, and leaves upward of $10,000 worth of property. Galveston Daily News, 20 October 1883, page 4 Old Armistead Ross, one of the most hardworking, steady and wealthy colored men in Waco, was consigned to the earth yesterday. Armistead's history is closely connected with that of Waco's he having come here over a third of a century ago, when Capt. S. P. Ross came. He assisted in building some of the first houses put up in Waco. His interests and labors were ever associated with those in the Central City. During over thirty years he had lived here and accumulated quite an amount of property, his estimated worth at the time of his death being in the neighborhood of $10,000. His funeral took 63 place at 3 o'clock yesterday, and was attended by a large concourse of people, both white and black. The pall bearers who bore his coffin to the hearse were Gen. L. S. Ross, Sheriff W. T. Harris, County Clerk John W. Baker, Tom Padgitt, and John V. Smith. His remains were interred in the old cemetery. Waco Daily Examiner, 20 October 1883, page 4

Sully's speech at a Confederate reunion, not defending slavery and explaining why many southerners fought for the Confederacy:
In 1892, in a speech to a Confederate reunion, Ross stated: "In behalf of thousands of old Confederates I want to record the fact today, that while slavery was undoubtedly an element which served to keep the public mind of the country like an angry sea that was continually casting up mire and dirt, it did not represent the principles for which the great majority of Confederates contended. As an evidence of this fact I simply illustrate a general truth by saying that not 100 of the 1200 men composing the regiment in which I enlisted at the commencement of the struggle ever owned or expected to own a slave. Very many of them had not left their former northern homes long enough to entitle them to vote here and yet when their adopted state took the fatal step, though subjected to the severest ordeal through which men wore ever called upon to pass, they determined to share her fate and they adhered to her cause with consistent and unshaken fidelity until it perished by war." (From "Confederate Reunion ... Addresses by Gov. Ross," Galveston Daily News, 26 October 1892, page 6

Sully's letter to his wife wishing to desert the Confederacy but citing his reason for staying as duty to his country:
This work cites Sul Ross' letters to his wife: "Honor not only drove Texans to join the Confederate Army but also kept them from deserting. Many Texans throughout the war felt the temptation of deserting the army. Lawrence Sullivan Ross felt the desire to leave the army and recorded these feelings in letters to his wife Lizzie. "I must confess that I desire to return," Ross wrote. "Yet I feel that my duty to my Country demands the course I am pursuing, and hence it becomes more tolerable." Later in the war, as he experienced the hardships of warfare, Ross wrote 66 again, "I would resign and return home but I feel that my duty to you and my Country demands of me, all the service and sacrifice I can render or make Very many of the old officers are retiring from the service and returning home. I do not feel that I could do so honorably while my Country bleeds at every pore." Personal honor and that of his wife influenced Ross to ignore his desire to return to the comforts of home." (Citing as its source: Personal Civil War Letters of General Lawrence Sullivan Ross: With Other Letters, transcribed and compiled by Perry Wayne Shelton, Austin: S. and R. Morrison, 1994). From: Grear, Charles David, Texans to the Front: Why Texans Fought in the Civil War. PhD Dissertation, Texas Christian University, 2005

Article on the battle of Corinth, and context on Mond's quote of Sully being a "Negro Killer", which was written in an 1864 article by a union
The Black Courier of Corinth An Interesting Incident Recently Related of that Good Battle (from the Marble Falls Gazette) When in conversation with Gov. Ross and Capt. Joe Cobb in Austin last week, the following reminiscence of the battle of Corinth was called to mind, and as it was never published, we will give it as related by the governor. Our brigade at the beginning of the engagement was composed Sixth and Ninth Texas cavalry, Third Arkansas cavalry and Maj. Bridges' battalion of sharp shooters and was commanded by Brigadier General Phifer. During the first day's fighting Gen. Phifer's servant Mason (a large black Negro man) rode up and down the line delivering canteens of water to the famishing men. On the morning of the second day Col. Ross was ordered to assault Ft. Robinet, with his regiment, while other commands were ordered to assail the different points on the line of the works supporting the fort. The commander to the left started but missed his bearings, the commands to the right (Villepeg's) never did show up at all, which left Col. Ross and his regiment exposed to an unfailing (?) fire from both ranks. Gen. Phifer, upon discovering Ross' position, sent one of his aides de camp to order Col. Ross to retire; the aid started, went to the crest of the hill, looked down in the valley of fire and returned, reporting it was impossible to reach Ross; Gen. Phifer sent another aid, who started but returned and made a similar report to the first. The blackman, Mason, who was sitting upon a very fine horse belonging to the general, said to his master, "write the order and hand it to me and I will deliver it to Col. Ross." The order was handed to him and he bore it through that rain of shot and shell, sitting erect and riding at full speed, he looked like a black eagle soaring in a hailstorm; upon delivering the order, Col. Ross cautioned him to hurry and get out or he would get hurt; he replied "I am in no more danger than you are, colonel," then deliberately returned on the only living horse on the battlefield. Had the order been given to the black courier at first it would have saved a hundred of the Sixth Texas Cavalry. Austin Statesman, 1 May 1890, page 2 Major General William T. Sherman, however, took issue with General Thomas' plan because it did not take into consideration the entrenched racism of the rebels. He wrote 67 to Thomas in April 1864, "I heard a young lady in Canton [Mississippi], who was a communicant of a Christian church, thank her God that her Negroes, who had attempted to escape into our lines at Big Black, had been overtaken by [General L. S.] Ross' Texas Brigade and killed. She thanked God and did it in religious sincerity. [from Forbes, Ella, African American Women During the Civil War, New York: Garland, 1998]. "Ross' brigade returned to Benton on the 28th of February, and was in the act of going into camps at Ponds, four miles down the plank road towards Yazoo City, when a squadron of Negro cavalry from the city came in sight. General Ross ordered detachments of the Sixth and Ninth Texas to charge them. The Negroes after the first fire broke in disorder and ran for dear life. The Negro troops, a short time previous to this, had caught and murdered two of the Sixth Texas, and as these fellows were generally mounted on mules very few of them got back inside the breastworks, these few being mostly the white officers, who were better mounted than the Negroes. Among the killed along the road was found a Negro that belonged to Charley Butts, of Company B, he having run away to join the First Mississippi Colored Cavalry. On the evening of March 4 Brigadier-General Richardson, with his brigade of West Tennessee Cavalry, joined General Ross for the purpose of assisting in driving the enemy from Yazoo City, which is situated on the east bank of Yazoo River. The city with its surroundings was occupied by a force of about 2000 white and Negro troops, commanded by Colonel James H. Coats, supported by three gunboats. About eight o'clock on the morning of March 5, 1864, the city was attacked by Ross' and Richardson's brigades, Brigadier-General L. S. Ross in command. Our fighting strength was about 1300 men, with two or three batteries; but as we dismounted to fight, taking out the horseholders, every fourth man, this would reduce our fighting strength to about 1000 men. The enemy had the advantage of several redoubts and riflepits, the main central redoubt being situated on the plank road leading from Benton to Yazoo City. We fought them nearly all day, and at times the fighting was terrific. With the Third Texas in advance we drove in their pickets and took possession of all the redoubts but the larger central one. This one was in command of Major George C. McKee, of the Eleventh Illinois Regiment with nine companies: about four companies of the Eighth Louisiana Negro regiment; Major Cook, with part of his First Mississippi Negro cavalry, the same that had murdered the two Sixth Texas men; and one piece of artillery. The Third and Ninth Texas and Fourteenth Tennessee cavalry found themselves confronting this redoubt. Two of our batteries were placed so as to obtain an enfilading fire at easy range, and threw many shells into the redoubt, but failed to drive the enemy out. In the meantime General Richardson, with the rest of his brigade, the Sixth Texas and the Legion, drove the remainder of the enemy's forces entirely through the city to the protection of their gunboats, and gained possession of the entire place except one or two brick warehouses near the bank of the river, behind which their troops had huddled near the gunboats. The Sixth Texas and Legion took position on the plank road in rear of the large redoubt, and thus at four o'clock in the afternoon we had it entirely surrounded, we being in front some 150 yards distant. At this juncture General Ross sent Major McKee a flag of truce and demanded an unconditional surrender. The firing ceased and the matter was parleyed over for some time. The first message was verbal, and Major McKee declined to receive it unless it was in writing. It was then sent in writing, and from the movements we could see, we thought they were preparing to surrender. But they refused, 68 owing perhaps to the fact that General Ross declined to recognize the Negro troops as soldiers; and how they would have fared at the hands of an incensed brigade of Texas troops after they had murdered two of our men in cold blood was not pleasant to contemplate. As for the Negro troops, well, for some time the fighting was under the black flag no quarter being asked or given. Retaliation is one of the horrors of war, when the innocent are often sacrificed for the inhuman crimes of the mean and bloodthirsty. The parley in reference to surrendering being at an end, little more firing was indulged in, as both parties seemed to have grown tired of shooting at each other. The troops were under the impression that we were to assault the redoubt, but instead of doing so we quietly retired just before nightfall, and returned to our camp on the Benton road. This was explained by General Ross in his report in this way: "To have taken the place by assault would have cost us the loss of many men, more, we concluded, than the good that would result from the capture of the enemy would justify." Barron, S. B., The Lone Star Defenders; a Chronicle of the Third Texas Cavalry, Ross Brigade, New York: The Neale Publishing Company, 1908, pages 181-183 Reliable persons, who have left Vicksburg within the past week, state that the Yankees are in constant dread of an attack, and that a number of the merchants packed up their goods and prepared to leave at a moment's notice. Gen. Ross, the gallant Texas "Negro killer," made a descent upon two brigades of black Yankees, at Snyder's bluff, on Wednesday, the 30th ultimo, killed and captured quite a number of them, and drove the remainder into Vicksburg in great confusion and disorder. Two regiments of whites were sent out to reinforce the blacks, and they too came back at a double-quick. Several cannon, it is said, came lumbering into the city without any riders on the horses. Ross followed them to within one mile of the city, when they opened on him from their fortifications, and he was compelled to fall back. We should not be surprised to hear of him in Vicksburg before long. Memphis (TN) Daily Appeal, 20 April 1864, page 2 An example of the effect of this upon Negro troops may be offered from the pen of a Confederate officer who had occasion to regret it. Brigadier General L. S. Ross cut off and surrounded the Federal garrison at Yazoo City, Mississippi in March, 1864, and, on the fifth, demanded its surrender. "We squabbled about the terms of the capitulation," reported the General, "as I would not recognize Negroes as soldiers, or guarantee them nor their officers protection as such." As a result, he went on, the Negroes "returned and pressed our forces so hard that we were compelled to withdraw and they refused to surrender." (Aptheker, Herbert, Negro Casualties in the Civil War, Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, 1945?, page 39

Sully's stance on voting rights for blacks after the Civil War:
Ross apparently was one of the people in the constitutional convention who supported unlimited suffrage (that is, opposing having already the payment of already existing poll taxes linking to the right to vote, and giving African Americans the same voting rights as whites). A series of votes on the poll tax question took place; they are complicated, and I encourage people to study the record carefully. It appears that Ross voted against the poll tax (Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Texas: Begun and Held at the City of Austin, September 6th, 1875, Galveston, 1875, pages 307-310). The controversy involved a supposed agreement between the "Grangers" and the Republicans to work together to pass or block certain measures, such as the requiring of payment of a poll tax to vote. It is not clear if Ross was part of the alleged group. For an analysis of this provision (but not a record of how delegates voted), see: Mauer, John Walker, The Poll Tax, Suffrage, and the Making of the Texas Constitution of 1876, Master's Thesis, Texas Tech University, 1973

Article about Sully being nominated as a candidate for governor:
The Galveston News reported, "never a candidate presented to a people by a convention that was nominated more fairly than General Ross." When the news reached Waco, the city went wild. Steam whistles blew; anvils were fired; the Waco Light Infantry discharged blank cartridges; state and national flags flew from house to house; bands played; and the "colored brethren" pealed the bells in their churches in honor of the "Little Cavalryman." On Saturday, when Ross made his appearance in Waco, there was a grand parade with distinguished guest speakers, and Ross mounted the podium and declared that he would serve "the whole people alike, regardless of party affiliation." (From: Casad, Dede Weldon, The Lives and Legacies of Two Texas Governors, Richard Coke and Lawrence Sullivan Ross. Two Governors: A Comparative Study, PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Dallas, 2001, page 155) Waco The colored brethren were as happy as the whites, and pealed the bells of their churches in honor of the victory of the "little cavalry man" Galveston Daily News, 14 August 1886, page 2

Article on establishment of Prairie View A&M:
January 20, 1887 ... Resolution in regard to the erection of a mechanical and agricultural college for colored youths, from citizens of Galveston. To the Senate and House of Representatives of Texas in Legislation assembled: Preamble and Resolutions. Whereas, The colored people of the State of Texas stand greatly in need of scientific instruction in agriculture and the industrial arts, and are shut out of all means of acquiring such knowledge; and Whereas, The Constitutional convention of 1876, composed of such distinguished citizens of our State as the Hon. L. S. Ross, present executive; Hon. John H. Reagan, Hon. Fletcher B. Stockdale, Hon. W. P. Ballinger, Hon. George McCormick, Hon. Marion Martin, Hon. C. S. West, Hon. John Henry Brown, Hon. N. H. Darnell, and a host of other distinguished citizens, authorizes and directs the Legislature to establish an agricultural and mechanical college, so that that the colored people might acquire such knowledge; and Whereas, The Fifteenth Legislature recognizing the necessity of such an institution, and in pursuance of their constitutional duty, did pass an act entitled "An act to establish an agricultural and mechanical college of Texas for the benefit of the colored youths, and to make appropriations therefor." (chapter 92. Approved August 14, 1876). Therefore, be it 85 Resolved, That the present Legislature is earnestly requested to make the necessary appropriation to carry into effect the provisions of the law of 1876. Resolved, That the Senator and Representatives from this district be respectfully requested to use their best exertions to secure the passage of a suitable appropriation to put into effect the law establishing an agricultural and mechanical college for the colored youths of this State. David Goodin, President. C. J. Waring, Secretary Referred to Committee on Education. Journals of the Senate of the State of Texas, 1887, page 95

Letter to Sully regarding protections for black Texas citizens during race wars:
Governor Ross had scores of callers yesterday. He received the following letter from a colored school teacher at Palestine, which speaks for itself: Palestine, Texas, April 14, 1888 Dear Sir Having noticed with great pleasure the firm and manly stand you have taken in sending rangers into Wharton county, to ferret out the perpetrators of that heinous crime committed upon the colored people of Spanish Camp, I am compelled to beg for forgiveness for sending you this as a token of my appreciation of your manliness and sterling worth of the chief executive of this state, and I express the sentiments of my people when I endorse and advocate your re-election as governor of this state. Yours for True Manhood, H. L. Price, Teacher in Public Schools, Anderson County, Texas

Interestingly Sully was endorsed by both the Democrat and Republican parties in his re-election as Governor:
The Republican State Convention," Jacksboro Gazette, 27 September 1888, page 2. "Colonel DeGress said he had offered the resolutions endorsing Ross in the last convention, and he was proud of it. Ross was the only Governor since Davis who had tried to protect all citizens in their rights. He believed Ross would have ferreted out and punished those who committed the outrages in Washington and Fort Bend." The Marshall Colored Fair association have invited Governor Ross to deliver an address at the opening of their fair next month, and, if he can spare the time, possibly he may do so. Austin Weekly Statesman, 27 September 1888, page 4

CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The man killed black POWs.
According to Union propaganda.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

You do realize that confederates were traitors to their country right. That they literally went against the US in an all out war to keep rights to own slaves. Nobody has been asking to take down US monuments, just monuments of traitors to the country. It's pretty simple.
Totally wrong. They were loyal to their county, the CSA. Most of all they were loyal to their states, at a time when the United States were simply considered to be a voluntary association of states. An association their home states left/

You want to take down statues of traitors, then you have to take down anything to Washington, Jefferson or any of the Founding Fathers. They were traitors to their country and their King, at a time when it was believed that God appointed Kings, and it was sinful to oppose them.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Here's one article that was written yesterday that also mentions Ross also as governor instituted voter laws to keep POC from voting
Exactly backwards. Ross was for universal suffrage, regardless of race, and tried to eliminate the poll tax.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Nice find.
Ark03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

Here's one article that was written yesterday that also mentions Ross also as governor instituted voter laws to keep POC from voting
Exactly backwards. Ross was for universal suffrage, regardless of race, and tried to eliminate the poll tax.
The ESPN article referenced was quoting a statement from the A&M history department:


Quote:

Anti-Black laws, poll taxes and voter intimidation, and violent attacks against people of color were the primary way that white southerners consolidated their power in the post-Reconstruction era," the statement said. "It is unequivocally true that Ross agreed with, supported, and defended these policies until his death, even as he carried out what might be considered isolated acts of charity towards some communities of color.

Very disturbing that, of all the various departments' statements coming out of A&M, not even the history department could be bothered to cite their sources.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

not even the history department could be bothered to cite their sources.
Source" "My feeelz".
Ark03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

not even the history department could be bothered to cite their sources.
Source" "My feeelz".
Actually, I'm back to eat my words. I don't have access to the sources mentioned, but I did find a copy of the statement online, and they did, in fact, cite some sources. I wish I had the time to hunt down and explore their sources, but there are citations.

Like many of us, I fell folly to repeating things I heard from others I trusted before I looked it up for myself. Let that be a reminder that practice is particularly dangerous in this day and age - it damages our credibility and weakens our argument when we don't bother. And, props to 2004FIGHTINTXAG above who did answer a poster's claims with facts and references.

Here is the history department's statement in full.
[url=https://twitter.com/Pendeviejo95/status/1272224356958158860/photo/1][/url]

Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.