The problem that we have here is that you leap to one unfounded generalisation after another. But if you want to bound from subject to subject without
answering any of the replies to your accusations, let's try to at least get those sidetracking accusations correct shall we?
Prince Hall's background is relatively unknown as you claim. To claim that he is descended from a white nobleman is mere unfounded conjecture. Why
you would find the fact that historians have trouble pinpointing his exact family history "intriguing" is in itself yet another example of ignorance
regarding the subject. Maybe you should try reading "Roots" by Alex Hailey? In it he explains the difficulties that he had tracing his family's
history through the slave era.
You also claim that Africa Lodge sprang up after it was demitted and after Prince Hall died. This is blatantly not true.
"On March 2, 1784, African Lodge #1 petitioned the Grand Lodge of England, the Premier or Mother Grand Lodge of the world, for a warrant (or
charter), to organize a regular masonic lodge, with all the rights and privileges thereunto prescribed.
The Grand Lodge of England issued a charter on September 29, 1784 to African Lodge #459, the first lodge of Blacks in America."
Prince Hall didn't die until 1807.
Maybe you should read the words of the Prince Hall Freemasons themselves.
Now I don't pretend for one minute that there were no rascists within Freemasonry back in the 1700s or 1800s. But to single out one organisation when
of society back then was riddled with it is not exactly being truthful is it? You may as well condemn every single white person in
the Southern states. Not only that, but your argument is that Freemasonry is a racist organisation also doesn't take into account the fact that
Freemasonry is a worldwide fraternity and was present in non-European countries long before it arrived in America - the West Indies and India just two
Any large gathering of any group of white people in the deep South could be interpreted the same way by using your argument, so yet again you've
really made a bit of sneaky generalisation. One could just as well claim that a church congregation was the creating force behind the Klan. After all,
this is a large group of people gathering together and could be just as guilty according to your logic.
I asked for specifics. I've supplied some for you, so now be kind enough to supply them in return.
Please supply evidence that Albert Pike founded the Klu Klux Klan and that Freemasonry was involved in promoting that organisation.
Don't leap to another subject to cover your tracks. Don't hide behind another insinuation. Just supply some facts.