I know a thing or two about history, but not in depth, so I need a little help.

I am aware that President Jackson was a Mason, and that the Whig party which evolved into the Republican party had an anti-masonic element as a result. I am curious about the size and influence of that element in the party. Was it sufficient that we might suspect the involvement of a rival society in that party's formation?

Here's why I ask. I was researching "Temcumseh's Curse" (how from 1840 to 1960 the president elected every 20th year would eventually die in office) and I noticed something.

First of all, until Franklin Roosevelt (re-elected 1940) died, all of the curse victims had been Whig/Republicans.

Except for Harding, in 1920, all of the Republican/Whig victims were military men.

Except for the first victim, Harrison, in 1840, all of the Republican victims were assassinated (Harding was poisoned).


I KNOW this is pretty thin, but here's what it comes out to. Every 20th year for 80 years the party of choice for anti-masons elected a military man who was destined to be replaced by his VP.

I'm basically asking if this thin coincidence meshes with any sort of symbolism or history of a secret society rival to the masons. (Also, except for Lincoln, all of the republican victims were from Ohio, but didn't attend the same schools.)

Could be something against people from Ohio

Sorry couldn't resist that one. It is an interesting bit of research. I am not American and not particular knowledgeable of the history, or the election process. I do however research a number of topics and the hardest bit is continuing someone elses, if you would like to elaborate on your sources and direcetion of your research, to save overlap for a start, maybe it will be easier for those knowledgeable of the subject to realise if they have any info that may assist you.

Just a thought HTH

The Anti-Masonic fiasco is mostly now just an oddity in the history books, but you bring up a few interesting points.
Jackson, a Democrat and a Mason, ran against a candidate who had the full backing of the Anti-Masonic Party, along with some Whig support, indicating that the Whigs may have had an anti-Masonic constituent. Interestingly enough, some of the more famous 19th century American Masons were Whigs, including Pike and Mackey, although Mackey eventually came out of Babylon and joined the Democratic Party.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Mason and originally a Republican, left that party because of the growing strength of its conservative wing, which he called "the Anti-Masons in disguise."

Only one Republican president has been a Mason since Teddy Roosevelt's day: Gerald R. Ford, a moderate. Ford also has the distinction of being one of only two presidents in American history to be 33° Masons of the Scottish Rite (the other being Democrat Harry Truman).

Two Masons were nominated 8 years ago for the presidency by the Republicans (Bob Dole and Jack Kemp), but were defeated by the Democratic candidates, two members of DeMolay (Bill Clinton and Al Gore).

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Teddy Roosevelt, a Mason and originally a Republican, left that party because of the growing strength of its conservative wing, which he called "the Anti-Masons in disguise."
[edit on 23-11-2004 by Masonic Light]

I'm VERY happy you mentioned Teddy Roosevelt and Truman as Masons because I didn't know that and it ties into the pattern.

Franklin Roosevelt has an intersting family background. He kept his mother's prominent maiden name as his middle name (Delano). He also passed it on to all of his sons. He was married to the niece of his 5th cousin, Teddy Roosevelt. It smacks of blood-politics.

FDR also suffered an assassination attempt immediately after election in 1932/33, as well as a planned coup which Marine legend Smedley Butler blew the whistle on. The coup was allegedly backed by JP Morgan and other corporate interests and aimed at forcing the president to accept a cabinet "secretary of general affairs" who would take over most executive powers, and restore the gold standard.

This I believe is the heart of the assassination pattern. Jackson was against the formation of the central bank- the Whig/Republican party which opposed Jackson was in favor of it.
The Republican party and whatever anti-masonic organization had interests in it were financially powerful and had interests in the central bank and the gold standard. Somehow these people just couldn't seem to stay alive.

I have to go for a moment. I will expand on this soon.

I will try to format the information I have in a convenient way and present it here. I will also fill in the presidents i haven't researched yet.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The Republican party and whatever anti-masonic organization had interests in it were financially powerful and had interests in the central bank and the gold standard. Somehow these people just couldn't seem to stay alive.

I have to go for a moment. I will expand on this soon.

I will try to format the information I have in a convenient way and present it here. I will also fill in the presidents i haven't researched yet.

I don't know about the anti-masonic factions involved, but I had heard that both Lincoln and Kennedy were assasinated in part because of their reluctance to follow policy put forth by the Fed. Lincoln because he thought the government could print its own money and not have to borrow from the Fed. Kennedy because he opposed something (???) the Fed wanted to do.
I don't remember where I read this, but will post if I do.
Perhaps this information could help you

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Here's why I ask. I was researching "Temcumseh's Curse" (how from 1840 to 1960 the president elected every 20th year would eventually die in office) and I noticed something.

Mildly off topic, but how do they reconcile the fact that Reagan survived both his terms? (Although, they did try to kill him.
Of course, we don't yet know about Bush. He still has four more years to live out the curse.

Reagan did break "Tecumseh's Curse" however I do not find that too remarkable because I don't believe in curses. I believe the strange timing of assassinations (no president has ever been assassinated off of the "curse" timeline) has to do with a belief or significant pattern to one of the factions involved.
I am curious what the significance of the years ending in zero could be for the Masons or other societies involved in this little back and forth.

When FDR was re-elected in 1940, it was the first time in the progression of the curse where the president was not from the anti-masonic/anti-bank side- in fact his VP was a Mason. He was the first president in the order since Harrison to die of natural causes.

By the time Kennedy was in office it was a different world. The issues which had driven the original feud were dead. Kennedy was probably killed for other reasons.

The pattern continued though- Kennedy was hit and there was an attempt on Reagan as well. I was AMAZED when Bush didn't get it in his first term.

My question: Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush- what societies were they? I'm pretty sure Kennedy and Bush are Skull and Bones aren't they?

If we see a continuing pattern of Skull men getting whacked out of office ever 20 years, it is possible that it is a continuation of the previous pattern, and it would reveal Skull and Bones as the rival group in this financial battle against the Masons.

Originally posted by The Vagabond


My question: Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush- what societies were they? I'm pretty sure Kennedy and Bush are Skull and Bones aren't they?

Both Bushes are Skull and Bones alumni. Neither Kennedy nor Reagan were Bonesmen, but both were members of traditional Greek Letter Societies while in college (the Skull and Bones fraternity exists only at Yale; its major rival is the Scroll and Key Society at Harvard).

If we see a continuing pattern of Skull men getting whacked out of office ever 20 years, it is possible that it is a continuation of the previous pattern, and it would reveal Skull and Bones as the rival group in this financial battle against the Masons.

Masonry isn't in a financial battle with anyone, and, to be honest, I believe the traditional financial battle of the Skull and Bones Society is to determine which pledges are buying the kegs for Saturday night frat party.

Freemasonry is neither financial nor materialistic: it is intensely spiritual. If financial disputes were to enter the Craft, it would automatically cease to be Freemasonry by such an innovation.

It has been claimed by quite a few Masonic scholars that the whole purpose of Freemasonry was to conceal and transmit to posterity the so-called "Secret Doctrine", i.e., the spiritual and philosophical concepts of the Kabbalah, in an era when disagreement with the status quo religious officials over doctrine meant almost certain death. If this is indeed the case (and I am of the opinion that it is), Freemasonry and materialistic capitalism through exploitation are irreconcilable. To be true Masons we must give assent to the words of the Most Wise Master, who admonished us to feed and clothe the poor, and only afterwards follow Him.

Fiat Lvx.


[edit on 24-11-2004 by Masonic Light]

I can see that your knowledge on the topic of secret societies will prove quite valuable in keeping this thread in the realm of sanity, and I appreciate it.

I would like to point out that although Masonry may very well be out of the financial battle -now- it may only be because the issue is decided now. In the late 19th century the Masons may very well have been involved in ideological battles aimed at preventing the development of a strong status quo which thrives on exploitation in the name of capitalism. At that point in time, issues which decided the balance of power in the future of the US were still up for debate and could be influenced.
So here is what I'm wondering now: would masons of that day have fought (or murdered) these anti-masonic presidents to check the development of a political powerful financial elite? My first guess is that they would. I think I recall Andrew Jackson threatening to personally lead federal troops against a political rival once.

For the most part, time will tell, but there is some reason to believe that "The Curse" is over with now, as the issues which fueled the assassinations are now dead.
FDR wasn't from the anti-masonic side, and he died of natural causes. Kennedy came after the issues of that battle were resolved, and did enough to get himself killed without a "curse". Reagan survived. Bush is half way through surviving.

As for Skull and Bones- I think we can set them aside based on the information you have contributed, especially as to their very limited size.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

So here is what I'm wondering now: would masons of that day have fought (or murdered) these anti-masonic presidents to check the development of a political powerful financial elite?

It is conceivable that individual Masons may have, but not Masonry as an organization. Our fraternity is extremely diverse: in financial spheres, some Masons have been conservatives, others have been socialists, and others everything in between.

When a man joins Freemasonry, he takes an oath to uphold the rule of law, both civil and moral. This would naturally exclude any and all criminal acts, especially violent ones such as murder. Any Brother who engages in such activity will be summarily expelled from the Fraternity for the Masonic crime of perjury (i.e., violating his Masonic obligations).

By the way,...

Lincoln applied to join his local Masonic Lodge in his home town, but withdrew his petition when he ran form office because he didn't want it to be said he was attempting to curry favor... He intended to re-submitt his petition when he had dropped from politics. He (obviously) never got the chance.

The republican party has many tacit ties with extremist white supremacist organizations (WASP) or organizations like the moon sect, which are traditionally anti-masonic. Also, the republican party has strong nationalist tendencies, which are being rejected by the freemasonic ideals of tolerance and reason. Anti-freemasonry is often accompanied by racial, religious and sexual bigotry (for example the nazis).


[edit on 30-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

Um,... No.

I'm a Freemason AND a Republican,... and I know of others who are both. The Republican party has strong ANTI-nationalistic tendencies (more oriented towards State's Rights).

The Republican party's basic platform is towards individual determinination and responsibility, smaller government, and traditional social values. There is nothing "anti-masonic" about that.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
The republican party has many tacit ties with extremist white supremacist organizations.

Wow- I bet President Lincoln will be pissed when he finds out. And somebody better tell President Bush too, because if he keeps nominating hispanics and black women into his cabinet they might kick him out of the party!

Also, the republican party has strong nationalist tendencies, which are being rejected by the freemasonic ideals of tolerance and reason.

Well, I give you partial credit. Neo-conservatives have a strong nationalistic/militaristic foreign outlook. Conservatives in general (especially neo-cons) tend to be very individualistic when it comes to domestic policy.
Domestically speaking, nationalism is about the individual citizen being more subject to regulation for the good of the whole than in other systems. At home, the democrats would be the more nationalist party, and the closer parallel to Nazism (which doesn't fit really, but YOU brought it up)- because Nazism which was of course a socialist political ideology.

Anti-freemasonry is often accompanied by racial, religious and sexual bigotry (for example the nazis).
[edit on 30-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

I know I'm missing the point, but are you accusing the Nazis of sexual bigotry? You mean that the leather and the jackboots and the gay leader and that top test-pilot who happened to be a woman were all just to throw us off? It wasn't exactly a chauvanist image that I got from watching the history channel, even though the Nazis liked to throw around the word "manliness" (which ironically just makes them sound even more gay).

More to the point- if you want to talk about religious bigotry you have to talk about the democrats and the ACLU's war on middle America. It's not the Republicans who have fought kicking and screaming to force certain religions to be practiced in utter secrecy.

Originally posted by JaseP
I'm a Freemason AND a Republican,... and I know of others who are both. The Republican party has strong ANTI-nationalistic tendencies (more oriented towards State's Rights).

Both of the major parties are nationalistic, but the Republican Party is the most nationalistic of the two, by far. By "nationalism", I refer to the continuing appeal to national patriotism, especially in time of war.
This is not in itself a bad thing; however, it is an appeal to emotion instead of reason, and could theoretically be abused.

The Republican party's basic platform is towards individual determinination and responsibility, smaller government, and traditional social values. There is nothing "anti-masonic" about that.

The Republican Party is not itself anti-Masonic, and many Masons are, and have been, affiliated with that party. The extreme right wing of the party, however, is the direct descendent of the Anti-Masonic Party, which merged with the Republicans giving birth to the ultra-conservative movement.

The ultra-conservative branch of the party is composed of Christian fundamentalists who want the government to recognize its religious beliefs as official through legislation, in direct opposition to the classical liberal principles of our forefathers. This in large part was a result of the attack on Masonic tolerance of non-Christian religions in the United States.

It's also this group that has a habit of leaving Jack Chick tracts under our windshield wipers while we're at Lodge.

But I would disagree that the Republicans favor states rights and smaller government over the Democrats. The federal government was cut by one-fifth during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, but has grown by 80% during the first four years of the Bush administration. Furthermore, the Democrats have defended states rights to legislate things like medical marijuana, gay marriage or civil unions, etc., while the Republican status quo want to legislate those things on the federal level, even through constitutional amendment.



[edit on 2-12-2004 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Furthermore, the Democrats have defended states rights to legislate things like medical marijuana, gay marriage or civil unions, etc., while the Republican status quo want to legislate those things on the federal level, even through constitutional amendment.

In your opinion, where to libertarians fall on your scale?

It was formerly the case that republicans were pro-economic liberties and democrats were pro civil liberties, however it is my view that these two parties have become so similar that these descriptions are no longer accurate and that they can legitimately be called the pro-corporate "demopublican party" with candidates that will support whatever position is economically benificial to their election.
.

Can you tell us more about the anti-masonic party ? Where they historically influenced by some kind of lodge or spiritual tradition ?

Originally posted by df1
where to libertarians fall on your scale?

Libertarians could be called "classical Liberals", to distinguish them from the modern Democratic Party, which is mostly composed of New Deal Liberals.

Both Libertarian Liberals and Democratic Liberals agree on some fundamental basics, i.e., the complete separation of church and state, freedom of speech, of the press, and the sovereign liberty of the individual. The Republicans agree with these things to a point, but conservatives are in favor of less civil liberty (like gay civil unions, war protests, giving more power to the federal government to strengthen the Patriot Act, etc.) in order to preserve the status quo.

The main difference between the Libertarian and Democratic Liberal is economical. The Libertarians believe in complete laissez-faire economics, which is a classical position. However, it is extremely unlikely that Libertarianism would function in the modern world. The Libertarian type of Liberalism became outdated after the Industrial Revolution. Laissez-faire economics began to separate society into a small wealthy elite, and huge masses afflicted by poverty. Finally, the system began to collapse with the mraket crash which launched the Great Depression.

FDR's New Deal combined basic laissez-faire with modern types of socialism in order to ensure stability and fairness. The new "socialist-capitalist" system gave us Social Security, minimum wage, child labor law, environmental protection, etc.