It took the Civil War to get the Morrill Act through, southerners kept killing it in Congress.

As with all legislators, his vote only counted as one, but according to TAMU, he was instrumental in getting the bill passed.
https://uart.tamu.edu/gainesbio/

Propaganda for who? He was a Texas legislator who helped the formation of a Texas institution of higher learning.

Are you suggesting the removal of a statue?

pmart said:

---

Propaganda for who? He was a Texas legislator who helped the formation of a Texas institution of higher learning.

---

So were many others, when are we building statues for everyone that voted yes?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

pmart said:

---

Are you suggesting the removal of a statue?

---

I'm stating that it has no reason to be at A&M, other than pandering and to placate some of the anti-Sully forces for a short time.

It and the "Saw 'em off" monstrosity would be better served melted down

Can you give one real reason for the statue?

---

I provided sourced relevant information to the OP, you are attempting to discredit the information and source without sources. it would seem to me that the onus is on you to provide sourced information to counter if that is your prerogative. However, as you already hinted at, this is not really about historical inaccuracies as much as it is about current culture wars.

Well, it looks like we are at an impasse as to who will prove what and are left giving opinions. Therefore, i will give my opinion. i think Matthew Gaines went from being considered subhuman and underserving of freedom to being a leader of the state that once enslaved him. he taught himself to read with books that were smuggled to him at a time when he could get severely punished for it. i think he had great respect for education and the sense of freedom that brings to a person. as a young adult he escaped his enslaver, but was later caught; he was once again a captive. However, it wasn't long before he attempted another escape, this time to Mexico in 1863. He again was caught. i think because of the metaphorical freedom education brought him, he believed there was great power in it and as a leader of the state he fought to bring education to all through the passage of Senate Bill 276, which lead to the creation of A&M. I DO NOT think his overarching goal was to create an institution that would exclude him and others of his skin tone for nearly a century after its creation, but through his fight for education for african americans, Texas A&M was created. And that seems to be a common occurrence in civil right history; that through its passage, far more than just one group benefits from it, including the majority group.

i think it is a mistake to downplay the significance of even one vote for this bill. by no means was the passing of the bill and creation of texas a&m a foregone conclusion. As BQ78 already alluded to, it took the civil war to get the passage of the morrill act because the established southern politicians did not want it.

At the state level, one of the reasons cited in the texas declaration of independence was the establishment of public education, yet 30 years later little progress had been made. that school in austin likes to talk about how they were first mentioned into existence in 1839, but didn't even open its doors until after a&m in 1883. And don't forget that it took the era of radical republicans and reconstruction to get the bill passed. so if you do not think matthew gaines is worthy of a statue on campus, perhaps you would be more satisfied with one of all the senators who voted for it or even just the radical republicans?

I would consider that a shallow way of thinking about it. African American history in Texas (and throughout the US) is filled with tragic stories of oppression, but if you pay attention you will notice real triumphs like this one. And yeah, there were efforts then like there are now to discredit and even cover up those triumphs.

Some may think the movement to have a statue of Matthew Gaines was something that just started in the last five years or so, but it goes back to the mid 90's at least. Even gaining some momentum with the administration until the bonfire collapse focused their attention on a memorial for that.

pmart said:

---

i think it is a mistake to downplay the significance of even one vote for this bill. by no means was the passing of the bill and creation of texas a&m a foregone conclusion.

---

I think you are ignorant of the history of the time and how the 12th Legislature even came into being

I am happy to be educated. Continue…

CanyonAg77 said:

---

A platitude on a web site is hardly sourced information.

And I am at a loss tao discern how i am supposed to prove that he did nothing. I have searced online, including Senate records of the day and found....nothing,

You believe he was insturmental, the onus is on you to prove it

---

Yes. He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.

Not to say he wasn't but the the calimant must define the terms and prove the claim.

The respondent bears no burden of proof.

Except, my claim is that A&M says Senator Gaines was "instrumental " to which I provided a link to them stating so. Others stated that was propaganda and untrue, it seems the burden of proof is on them to prove that and why they essentially are saying A&M is lying.

I have not, nor had any intention of calling you racist. I don't feel the need to label you.

You just call anyone questioning a racist, got. It

CanyonAg77 said:

---

You just call anyone questioning a racist, got. It

---

I fail to see where I once wrote racist or racism in this thread, except to say I had no intention of calling you a racist. At this point that is only coming from you.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Why?

He didn't do a thing but vote one time.

---

Along with 20 other senators

eye roll for the virtue signaling tokenism of elevating a man above his peers and erecting a statue to him because of his color on the pretext of a group accomplishment.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

A platitude on a web site is hardly sourced information.

And I am at a loss tao discern how i am supposed to prove that he did nothing. I have searced online, including Senate records of the day and found....nothing,

You believe he was insturmental, the onus is on you to prove it

---

He was absent from the senate on April 17, 1871, the day the senate sent the enrolled version to the house.

pmart said:

---

Except, my claim is that A&M says Senator Gaines was "instrumental " to which I provided a link to them stating so

---

Your link only proves that the student intern writing that web page said he was so.

pmart said:

---

Except, my claim is that A&M says Senator Gaines was "instrumental " to which I provided a link to them stating so. Others stated that was propaganda and untrue, it seems the burden of proof is on them to prove that and why they essentially are saying A&M is lying.

---

And it's just that, a claim. You proved nothing. Your link is from the University Art Galleries page.

There isn't any footnotes or any citations proving he was "instrumental". The fact you can't provide anything other than this galleries web site as a source is very telling.