http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/alabama_university_presidents.html
I normally oppose earmark spending. However, given what the Union troops did to UA’s campus near the end of the war, I see no problem with Sen. Shelby securing money for the UA campus. I don’t think people fully appreciate what was done to the campus during the war. Every single building, save for maybe 3, were completely destroyed.
Well, better a new building at UA than a bridge to nowhere 
Earmarks aside, I don’t like the idea of naming buildings (and colleges) after politicians and their wives. This isn’t their money.
It makes me think of how 1/2 of West Virginia seems to be named after the late Senetor Byrd.
This list is endless…I’m thinking of re-naming our Florida room, to the Robert C. Byrd Florida Room…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_named_after_Robert_Byrd
If only every earmark would loudly proclaim the name of the politician who procured it and brought it home to his/her state.
Maybe Shelby can bring home some money to fix up Nott Hall and Morgan Hall, and then the two buildings can be renamed as Shelby 1 and Shelby 2, thus cutting the ties to a pro-slavery scientist and a KKK Grand Dragon.
“Harper Lee Hall” anyone?
Wow, @Gator88NE, that’s amazing (the Byrd name everywhere). 
@chesterton Then as a country, we’d have to rename a bunch of stuff that has been named after slave-owning presidents, etc…starting with Washington, DC.
@aeromom I wouldn’t be surprised if something is soon named after Harper Lee…maybe part of the Gorgas Library expansion or ???
@mom2collegekids Not really. My recommendation, while in jest, would not necessitate renaming every single building or monument that was named after any person who perhaps once owned slaves and profited from their labor. Let’s just deal with the University of Alabama. It gets some points for attempting to overcome some difficult history, but it does make sense to me to at least remove the old placards and paintings inside those two buildings which celebrate these two men for the exact things that led to my recommendation. They are an anachronism that serve no purpose any longer and may cause pain for no reason. Either that, or make those placards even bigger and make sure that every person who walks into those buildings every day knows exactly who Mr Morgan and Mr Nott were. And I would hardly equate either man with George Washington. Washington owned slaves, but he did not lead the KKK and, as far as I know, did not believe nor promote the pseudo-science idea that African Americans were genetically intellectually inferior.
Everybody hates pork until it lands in their home state and benefits them or their kids. I happen to dislike earmarks too, but that’s how our system works, for better or worse. I do find it rather unseemly for politicians to have more than one building named in their honor, but it’s a choice that may have been made as the best option at the time. And, trust me, most universities will gladly cast aside ANY name in favor of the next person who comes along offering beaucoup bucks.
And whenever I hear in-state families complain about all the OOSers taking over the university and how “Alabama taxpayers” shouldn’t be funding these usurpers, I just politely remind them how much federal money has been earmarked for UA thanks to Sen. Shelby. 
Horrible idea to rename existing buildings, it will only confuse people.
ha! “The Biology Building” remains unnamed on campus. I’d like to see it named in my lifetime, but don’t have the funds to get it called my own. 
As much as earmarks are inefficient and a way to boost local popularity for a politician, there are worse ways the federal government could be spending the money anyways. I wring my hand at the feds taking my taxes but smile when UA grows from it 
I am not sure it is correct to say that Morgan was in the Klan, though that didn’t stop WV from naming many buildings after its former Klan leader, and long time senator, Robert Byrd. In the comments section of an article at the Crimson White, a couple of students disputed the belief that Morgan was in the Klan.
I do think it would be appropriate to take Nott’s name off of Nott Hall given that he never had any ties to UA. But Morgan, no. Do not change it.
In Alabama, we have Community Colleges named after key figures in the defense or slavery, secession, segregation, etc. It honestly makes me sick to think about it in those terms, but that is the sad legacy of my state.
I am NOT a huge fan of the practice of naming of buildings after politicians, but I am a proponent of congressional term limits, which would ideally eliminate such things from happening anyway. If a wealthy person donates personal cash to a school, then I am all for naming a building after them - or if they have made a unique and significant contribution to society via achievement, discovery, artistic accomplishments, etc. such as renaming the English building “Harper Lee Hall” because of her great legacy and ties to UA.
Someone please notify the folks over at the Encyclopedia of Alabama that John Tyler Morgan had nothing to do with the KKK: http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-2934
They may need to review their biography, too: http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1508
Because I am so sure those students commenting at Crimson White know more than the scholars involved in producing the Encyclopedia of Alabama.
History is fascinating and first sources a wonder to behold.
In 1908, Henry Clayton did a marvelous job eulogizing Morgan from the floor of Congress - one reads it and Morgan sounds like a Superman - and Clayton finds one of Morgan’s greatest achievements to be defeating the “force bill” that Clayton describes as “a bill designed to reintroduce the saturnalia of crime, misgovernment, and corruption that characterized the period of reconstruction.”
Read for yourself at Google Books from the Congressional Record 1908:
So what really was the “force bill”? Well the Encyclopedia of Alabama Morgan bio refers to it as the Federal Elections Bill of 1890. You may Google that and then decide if Morgan’s filibuster of that bill ought to be considered a crowning achievement.
Or better yet, take a look at the following (when you click, you have to scroll all the way down):
In this day and age of Google, there is just no excuse for being ignorant. If people disagree about renaming the buildings, that is fine, but let’s not use ignorance of the truth as the basis for keeping the status quo.
Another link to consider:
To be fair to Robert Byrd, he did express regret about his own involvement with the Klan:
We Americans love a good redemption story. If John Tyler Morgan expressed similar regrets, then great. I have not found a link to support that but there could be something in his personal papers. Morgan accomplished many things, but not all were worthy of praise. Whether the building remains a monument to him is something today’s students on both sides should decide. I do expect those students to educate themselves fully about the issue.
Being that Morgan passed away in 1907, well before the Civil Rights Movement, we don’t know if he would have had such regrets had he lived to that time period in our nations history. He may have come out and fought against desegregation and supported the Civil Rights Movement.
There’s no way to know since he died well before.
During his time, he was an influential person for the state and nation in other regards during his time.
I’m not in favor of removing monuments, renaming buildings, etc. It is our past and it is a part of my family history, ny ancestors, etc. Removing and renaming really does nothing other than to pacify the current offended party. It erases our past, makes it “disappear” in a way. Yes, Washington D.C. should be tops on the list if we are goingt to start removing buildings or renaming them. Our nations capitol was built by slave labor. There is so much of our histry that has been twisted and contorted to fit a certain idea of what some think happened vs what really did happen. Lots of finger pointing that it was only the South that was in favor of slaves and used slaves to benefit land owners.
Not to mention all of the presidents involved in ethnically cleansing Native Americans. Why do people stay so fixated on past Southern injustices when so many injustices took place under the US flag?