Aggie_Swag18 said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

The Battalion: January 15, 1898

---

There are lot of wrong statements and embellishment going on in that article

---

please enlighten us on the wrong statements that were written a week after his death

AWP 97 said:

---

rootube said:

---

I don't think that's the only question you need to ask. A better question is if you take up arms against your own country and side with pro slavery does that outweigh your contribution as an effective college administrator? For many people the answer is yes.

---

Didn't the colonist take up arms against their own country and have slaves? I mean if we are going to cleanse our country, then we need to do it .

---

Yes, they did and they won. That is why you don't see any King George statuary in our country.

Here is a depiction of colonists tearing down a statue of King George for reference.

BLM, as a statement at face value, is all right by me.

BLM as a movement, as stated on their values website (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) is about a lot more, and I can't get behind all of that.

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Aggie_Swag18 said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

The Battalion: January 15, 1898

---

There are lot of wrong statements and embellishment going on in that article

---

please enlighten us on the wrong statements that were written a week after his death

---

The "heroic encounter with the Comanches" was more of a massacre of a camp of only a few Native Americans that was mostly women. There were no accounts of Ross killing any of the women himself or directly ordering it that I can find but but there are accounts of men under his command killing the women as described by Charles Goodnight "The sergeant and his men killed every one of them, nearly in a pile" Also he didn't kill Peta Nocona. Nocona's son Quanah Parker and others said he died years later from disease/infection and was not present at the Battle of Pease River as he had already departed/gone out hunting. Ross chose to embellish this as the heroic encounter that this article claims, describing it as "The great Comanche confederacy was forever broken, the blow was decisive, their illustrious chief slept with his fathers and with him were most of his doughty warriors." The Comanches were already breaking camp at the point of the attack and most of the people were already gone. It was only a few stragglers that were left, and most of them weren't warriors. H. B Rodgers described it as "I was in the Pease River fight, but I am not very proud of it. That was not a battle at all, but just a killing of squaws. One or two bucks and 16 squaws were killed. The Indians were getting ready to leave when we came upon them." This is directly in contrast to the great victory that Ross made it out to be.

I haven't seen anything that makes it sound like Ross hated Native Americans, and was definitely at odds with some of the most extreme anti Native American haters like John Baylor. He did have a problem of embellishing stories for his personal gain though, and he didn't seem to have any qualms about the killing of the women who were defenseless and trying to flee or do anything as repercussion for his soldiers actions as far as I can find. The claim that he killed Peta Nocona also was wrong and he should have corrected that at a later date as new information was revealed to him. At the time he and most people believed it was Nocona, but he later spoke with Quanah who told him that his dad died several years later from being sick. At the point of this article that should have already been known.

Are we going to rename the home of the President of the United States? Kellen Mond advocating for the removal of Ross's statue. Everyone is entitled to their opinions no matter how uninformed they may be! This whole situation is completely out of hand and continues to worsen by the day! How has the violence, theft, and vandalism made the situation better? Truth, it hasn't. It only serves to make the issue worse!

Here's to hoping we see this headline tomorrow:

"Texas A&M QB Kellen Mond has entered the transfer portal"

The difference between these individuals is that they did not seek to tear the nation asunder on the pure principle of white supremacy. While practicing slavery George Washington also released his slaves upon the death of Martha Washington. Confederates' sole existence was because they wanted to subjugate an entire race to bondage. That was it.

The issue was State's rights, of which slavery was a part.

I'm wondering if the protesters will be satisfied if Sully's statue is moved. Actually, I'm not. I'm fully expecting them to target the Ross Volunteers immediately afterward.

If we've seen anything in these times, we've seen that the mob is never satisfied. In our instance, they will seek to completely eliminate the existence of anything at A&M remotely related to Sully. Then, they will find something else to target as 'inherently racist'. Where will it end?

I thought this was about George Floyd and police brutality. How did we end up cancelling history?

aggie090 said:

---

The issue was State's rights, of which slavery was a part.

---

Slavery was the defining issue and the only right they cared about. Read the Declaration of Causes by the state of Texas. It goes on and on about slavery, how the north is harboring fugitive slaves, and how the non-slave holding states are seeking to end slavery. The war with Native Americans and lack of support against criminals from Mexico were just mentioned as afterthoughts.

Quote:

---

Slavery was the defining issue and the only right they cared about

---

Wouldn't the main right they cared about be the right to separate themselves from the union?

aggie090 said:

---

The issue was State's rights, of which slavery was a part.

---

That's a significant part if you are a slave.

Just a quick reminder, you can learn about Sully's involvement with PVAM in the paper I put in the beginning of this thread. Just search "prairie view"

Especially when the accusation is largely unsubstantiated in the VAST majority of the people he's framing with grossly generalized BS.

Let's tear down the pyramids of Giza. Built by slaves.
Let's tear down anything Roman. Built by slaves.
Let's tear down the Great Wall of China. Built by slaves.
Let's tear down history in a wide variety of countries worldwide where slave labor was utilized.

rootube said:

---

I don't think that's the only question you need to ask. A better question is if you take up arms against your own country and side with pro slavery does that outweigh your contribution as an effective college administrator? For many people the answer is yes.

---

Contrary to what many are led to believe, slavery was not the only reason why the Civil War was fought. Many people who fought for the Union had owned slaves at one time. Was Ross a racist if he did not own slaves but fought for the Confederacy but a soldier that fought for the Union that had owned slaves was not just because of the side he chose?

farwellrob said:

---

The fact is that INSERT ANY UNIVERSITY HERE does have a history of racism and we should be more proactive than some other schools. But I'm hoping cooler heads will prevail and we can save Sully.

---

Sq 12 Ag said:

---

rootube said:

---

I don't think that's the only question you need to ask. A better question is if you take up arms against your own country and side with pro slavery does that outweigh your contribution as an effective college administrator? For many people the answer is yes.

---

Contrary to what many are led to believe, slavery was not the only reason why the Civil War was fought. Many people who fought for the Union had owned slaves at one time. Was Ross a racist if he did not own slaves but fought for the Confederacy but a soldier that fought for the Union that had owned slaves was not just because of the side he chose?

---

Slavery was the predominant reason the Civil War was fought, don't try and white wash history. Read the Texas Declaration of Causes where they outline the issues of why they wanted to secede.

Some of my favorite parts are: "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

"...based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

"They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition."


"For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States."

Slavery was the primary cause, that's why they went on about it for most of their declaration. They were upset that people were trying to end slavery, and they were upset that people weren't returning escaped slaves. We don't have to sit here and debate about what the Civil War was about, the people who started it wrote the reasons behind it down.

I would agree that slavery was one of the top issues, if not the top issue of the confederacy, but let's hear from Sully about how he felt about his time in the confederacy:

Quote:

---

He would further say that he regards the slavery question as finally settled, and would view any attempt to reestablish slavery in the South as injudicious & impolitic. He believes that the People of the South should regard the question as settled for ever, and that it devolves upon the Southern States in their respective conventions to so provide in their organic laws. Respectfully submitted, L. S. Ross

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Personally I don't care that much about the statue. I also support Mond using his platform for what he believes in. I also think he's wasting his platform trying to get a statue taken down when there's so much more he could try to do (even for the BLM movement). Why not push for more A&M academic scholarships for African Americans?

So what will be next when they get sully taken down. What persons good deeds will be uncelebrated.

Rename Kyle field? I mean Edwin Kyle was ok, but his dad was a soldier in confederate army.

Sq 12 Ag said:

---

rootube said:

---

I don't think that's the only question you need to ask. A better question is if you take up arms against your own country and side with pro slavery does that outweigh your contribution as an effective college administrator? For many people the answer is yes.

---

Contrary to what many are led to believe, slavery was not the only reason why the Civil War was fought. Many people who fought for the Union had owned slaves at one time. Was Ross a racist if he did not own slaves but fought for the Confederacy but a soldier that fought for the Union that had owned slaves was not just because of the side he chose?

---

Contrary to what you are trying to suggest the Confederacy was not a noble cause with one bad idea. Unfortunately for Sul Ross, he chose to fight for the wrong side. You can argue (And I have) that the statue belongs on our campus because of his contribution (and relationship) to our university. Because I am not blind or tone-deaf I am able to understand that people could look at the balance sheet and come to the conclusion that he should not be honored. If you think this is going to go away you are badly mistaken.

If you were of fighting age and lived in Texas when the Civil War broke out, you didn't "choose" to fight for the Confederacy. The politicians in charge decided that Texas would join and you weren't given a choice. The German immigrants in Kendall County and Gillespie county who decided not join the Confederacy were hunted down and massacred.

So he killed a whole bunch of native Americans....

ethio_aggie said:

---

Really an A&M article from the 1800's ? Lol... good try.

---

not only an article but the Battalion writeup of the obituary and funeral speeches honoring Lawrence Sullivan Ross by real people who knew him at that time, not after researching his life for 100 years and being overly critical of every detail

THE_CHOSEN_ONE said:

---

If you were of fighting age and lived in Texas when the Civil War broke out, you didn't "choose" to fight for the Confederacy. The politicians in charge decided that Texas would join and you weren't given a choice. The German immigrants in Kendall County and Gillespie county who decided not join the Confederacy were hunted down and massacred.

---

A better question is where is the German immigrant statue? By your own account, those guys had some courage.

rootube said:

---

THE_CHOSEN_ONE said:

---

If you were of fighting age and lived in Texas when the Civil War broke out, you didn't "choose" to fight for the Confederacy. The politicians in charge decided that Texas would join and you weren't given a choice. The German immigrants in Kendall County and Gillespie county who decided not join the Confederacy were hunted down and massacred.

---

A better question is where is the German immigrant statue? By your own account, those guys had some courage.

---

Maybe there should be one somewhere (maybe there already is I dunno) but that doesn't have anything to do with Texas A&M

rootube said:

---

THE_CHOSEN_ONE said:

---

If you were of fighting age and lived in Texas when the Civil War broke out, you didn't "choose" to fight for the Confederacy. The politicians in charge decided that Texas would join and you weren't given a choice. The German immigrants in Kendall County and Gillespie county who decided not join the Confederacy were hunted down and massacred.

---

A better question is where is the German immigrant statue? By your own account, those guys had some courage.

---

There is one in Comfort, TX, hardly anyone knows about it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treue_der_Union_Monument

THE_CHOSEN_ONE said:

---

rootube said:

---

THE_CHOSEN_ONE said:

---

If you were of fighting age and lived in Texas when the Civil War broke out, you didn't "choose" to fight for the Confederacy. The politicians in charge decided that Texas would join and you weren't given a choice. The German immigrants in Kendall County and Gillespie county who decided not join the Confederacy were hunted down and massacred.

---

A better question is where is the German immigrant statue? By your own account, those guys had some courage.

---

There is one in Comfort, TX, hardly anyone knows about it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treue_der_Union_Monument

---

Thanks for sharing. I'm embarrassed to say that I have never heard this story.

It's absurd to indicate that the Union States were on some moral crusade against slavery.

Aggie_Swag18 said:

---

Sq 12 Ag said:

---

rootube said:

---

I don't think that's the only question you need to ask. A better question is if you take up arms against your own country and side with pro slavery does that outweigh your contribution as an effective college administrator? For many people the answer is yes.

---

Contrary to what many are led to believe, slavery was not the only reason why the Civil War was fought. Many people who fought for the Union had owned slaves at one time. Was Ross a racist if he did not own slaves but fought for the Confederacy but a soldier that fought for the Union that had owned slaves was not just because of the side he chose?

---

Slavery was the predominant reason the Civil War was fought, don't try and white wash history. Read the Texas Declaration of Causes where they outline the issues of why they wanted to secede.

Some of my favorite parts are: "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

"...based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

"They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition."


"For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States."

Slavery was the primary cause, that's why they went on about it for most of their declaration. They were upset that people were trying to end slavery, and they were upset that people weren't returning escaped slaves. We don't have to sit here and debate about what the Civil War was about, the people who started it wrote the reasons behind it down.

---

That did not answer my question.

rootube said:

---

Sq 12 Ag said:

---

rootube said:

---

I don't think that's the only question you need to ask. A better question is if you take up arms against your own country and side with pro slavery does that outweigh your contribution as an effective college administrator? For many people the answer is yes.

---

Contrary to what many are led to believe, slavery was not the only reason why the Civil War was fought. Many people who fought for the Union had owned slaves at one time. Was Ross a racist if he did not own slaves but fought for the Confederacy but a soldier that fought for the Union that had owned slaves was not just because of the side he chose?

---

Contrary to what you are trying to suggest the Confederacy was not a noble cause with one bad idea. Unfortunately for Sul Ross, he chose to fight for the wrong side. You can argue (And I have) that the statue belongs on our campus because of his contribution (and relationship) to our university. Because I am not blind or tone-deaf I am able to understand that people could look at the balance sheet and come to the conclusion that he should not be honored. If you think this is going to go away you are badly mistaken.

---

I did not suggest anything about nobility, I did not say that I don't understand how someone else could come to the decision that the statue should not be honored. I did not say that I thought this was "going away." All I wanted to know was

Was Ross a racist if he did not own slaves but fought for the Confederacy but a soldier that fought for the Union that had owned slaves was not just because of the side he chose?