Aggies Revenge said:

---

It appears that Dr. Slattery is a little thin on evidence associating Sully to the KKK and makes no real references to where the claim comes from.

He should have asked a historian to proof his paper first.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Dale Baum, a history professor at A&M, said UT's statues and fountain inscription make it arguably the most Confederate campus in the South.

The displays "should never be refashioned in line with contemporary scholarship," Baum said, "for they are living memorials to how the brief semblance of justice achieved for black Texans during Reconstruction was subsequently cruelly betrayed. This itself is a valuable lesson to learn and understand."

Patrick Slattery, a professor of the philosophy of education at A&M who has studied the statuary on both campuses, would like to see contemporary figures and memorials added as well as more complex signage.

"Perhaps it is time to move the statue of Jefferson Davis at UT and the statue of Sul Ross at A&M to a suitable museum space with a robust historical analysis from several perspectives," Slattery said. "Perhaps Barbara Jordan and Matthew Gaines should stand on these pedestals for the next 50 years."

---

74OA said:

---

AggieLit said:

---

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.

---

What circumstantial evidence? The word "knightly"?! How is this evidence--does the KKK have exclusive use of that term? You understand that by arbitrarily declaring that word as "evidence" you actually lend credence to the utterly unsubstantiated notion that it is? You are essentially endorsing the doubter's false premise.

You're also suggesting that people prove that "knightly" isn't a KKK reference and fall into the trap of trying to disprove a negative. Even if sources didn't yield evidence that "knightly gentleman" was in common circulation, you understand that still does not establish any linkage between the work "knightly" on Sully's inscription and the KKK, right?

Why shouldn't the onus be entirely on the doubters to prove that "knightly" is a KKK reference in the Sully context instead of getting away with calumny?

---

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

I did a quick Google Books search through the book, and Ross isn't even mentioned (though it should be noted that the search may not have included pages outside of the preview). Nor A&M.

---

p_bubel said:

---

Quote:

---

Dale Baum, a history professor at A&M, said UT's statues and fountain inscription make it arguably the most Confederate campus in the South.

The displays "should never be refashioned in line with contemporary scholarship," Baum said, "for they are living memorials to how the brief semblance of justice achieved for black Texans during Reconstruction was subsequently cruelly betrayed. This itself is a valuable lesson to learn and understand."

Patrick Slattery, a professor of the philosophy of education at A&M who has studied the statuary on both campuses, would like to see contemporary figures and memorials added as well as more complex signage.

"Perhaps it is time to move the statue of Jefferson Davis at UT and the statue of Sul Ross at A&M to a suitable museum space with a robust historical analysis from several perspectives," Slattery said. "Perhaps Barbara Jordan and Matthew Gaines should stand on these pedestals for the next 50 years."

---

Cached article.

Slattery bases his conclusion on Baum's book, but has a hard on for Sul Ross when Baum certainly doesn't appear to.

I'd be interested in what the book actually says.
The Shattering of Texas Unionism: Politics in the Lone Star State during the Civil War Era
Dale Baum, 1998

---

Quote:

---

This whole thread is so strange.

---

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.

---

74OA said:

---

Wikipedia: "The morning after Ross's death, the Dallas Morning News published an editorial, quoted in several biographies of Ross:

Quote:

---

It has been the lot of few men to be of such great service to Texas as Sul Ross. ... Throughout his life he has been closely connected with the public welfare and ... discharged every duty imposed upon him with diligence, ability, honesty and patriotism. ... He was not a brilliant chieftain in the field, nor was he masterful in the art of politics, but, better than either, he was a well-balanced, well-rounded man from whatever standpoint one might estimate him. In his public relations he exhibited sterling common sense, lofty patriotism, inflexible honesty and withal a character so exalted that he commanded at all times not only the confidence but the affection of the people. ... He leaves a name that will be honored as long as chivalry, devotion to duty and spotless integrity are standards of our civilization and an example which ought to be an inspiration to all young men of Texas who aspire to careers of public usefulness and honorable renown.

---

These compliments are of the same style as "knightly gentleman" and typical of that period. The Wiki piece goes on to say that some years ago a few people attempted to link Sully to the KKK on the basis that he might have been friends with Klansmen, but an "exhaustive search" turned up no such ties. That's how far we've come in trying to impose 21st Century political correctness on 19th Century men--he might have had friends who were KKK. No accusation that he was a Klansman, just that some of his friends might have been! Shameful that some today are still attempting that calumny based on one word--"knightly".

---

Quote:

---

BENAVIDES, SANTOS (18231891). Santos Benavides, the highest ranking Mexican American to serve the Confederacy, the son of Jos Jess and Margarita (Ramn) Benavides, was born in Laredo, Texas, on November 1, 1823....
His greatest military triumph was his defense of Laredo on March 19, 1864, with forty-two troops against 200 soldiers of the Union First Texas Cavalry, commanded by Col. Edmund J. Davis, who had, ironically, offered Benavides a Union generalship earlier....

---

Quote:

---

He served three times in the Texas legislature from 1879 to 1884 and twice as an alderman of Laredo. He was instrumental in the formation of the Guarache or citizen's party in South Texas, a faction of the Democratic party opposed to the powerful Botas (see BOTAS AND GUARACHES).

---

Quote:

---

The Botas ("Boots"), led by Raymond Martin, a powerful political patron and one of the wealthiest men on the border, and incumbent county judge, Jos Mara Rodrguez, were essentially the "wealthy" class, although they drew much support from the less fortunate. The reform club, which adopted the slogan Guaraches ("Sandals") to symbolize the lower class, included Santos Benavides, who had previously served as county judge and as a colonel in the Confederate Army.

---

Quote:

---

His political affiliations indicated his continued belief in regional independence from national authority. His leadership built Democratic support among Hispanics in Webb County and contributed to the eclipse of the Republican party in the region.

---

Quote:

---

...I can assure you that a "professor of history" has no standard underpinning of historical knowledge in general, and is entirely a specialist.

That's because history is too big and academia does not put a premium on the wider picture. They don't want you to be a mile wide and an inch deep, but an inch wide and mile deep.

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, even were he a professor of history, his paper wouldn't have authority unless he himself were an expert on the topic.

---

Ag_EQ12 said:

---

Quote:

---

...I can assure you that a "professor of history" has no standard underpinning of historical knowledge in general, and is entirely a specialist.

That's because history is too big and academia does not put a premium on the wider picture. They don't want you to be a mile wide and an inch deep, but an inch wide and mile deep.

---

I think you are mischaracterizing and misunderstand the PhD process here. Most, if not all, programs require comp exam fields outside of your specialty. Texas State does not have a PhD program in History so perhaps you haven't been exposed to how most programs work.

Most PhD students take 1 or 2 comp exams in their major field(s) along with 2 or 3 exams in minor and outside fields. For example, a PhD student in Texas history could take an exam in Texas history (likely with their committee chair), two more in US history (pre 1877 and post 1877), one in military history, and an outside field in 19th century literature (for example). The comp exams are meant to test a students mastery of their chosen field and their proficiency in their chosen minor fields (often considered teaching fields). Let me assure you any historian with a PhD from a reputable program has much more than "specialized credentials" in their topic. They will also have read widely on several other fields to gain enough knowledge to teach college level courses. My reading list for one of my minor fields was over 150 books and the others ranged from 50 to 75 books each. Once you join a faculty you are often asked to teach general surveys outside of your main fields so many develop proficiency in even more areas.

I will agree that many PhDs focus in on their research, particularly if they are at a research university, and rarely stray from their field if they can help it. They can certainly get tunnel vision. However getting a PhD (usually, there are some strange people in academia) gives you the skills to read widely on a subject, think critically about arguments, evaluate sources, and explain complex, nuanced stories to non-specialists all in a fairly short period of time. Much like a well rounded bachelors program, getting a PhD is more than developing an expertise in a specific field, it's advanced training in critical thinking and information processing.

You are right that history is too big to develop an expertise in most, or even more than a few subjects. Most history professors know this and, while many have quite broad interests, we tend to allow the subject matter experts have their say.

---