It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
If the Pike supporters are right, though, and Pike had nothing to do with the KKK, then the man is the victim of a wicked smear campaign.
Pike was considered by his contemporaries as being one of the least racially biased individuals of his time. During his military service in the US Civil War, he chose to lead only native Indian troops - something others eschewed because of the perception that Indians were 'sub-human'. His position on slavery is sometimes assumed because of his service in the Confederacy yet that assumption reflects ignorance of the beliefs of a well-read gentleman living in the South and feeling an obligation to support 'his' country.
BCY Freemasonry
It was not until Dr. Walter L. Fleming republished Lester's booklet in 1905 that a list of names of key Klansmen was included in a preface. In 1924, Ms. Susan L. Davis published her Authentic History, in which she contradicts a number of points made by Lester, denigrates Fleming for his superficial knowledge of the Klan and condemns Lester's co-author, David L. Wilson, for suggesting the Klan had failed.
Any other book or article promoting Albert Pike's association with the Klan will either cite Fleming or Davis, cite other authors who cite Fleming or Davis, or not cite anyone. Both Fleming and Davis accepted, unquestioningly, the fifty year old reminiscences of several of the founding members of the Klan.
Originally posted by Trinityman
Oh this is great...
www.masonicinfo.com...
Go to the page and scroll down to the New York Times claim.
Originally posted by Nygdan
BCY Freemasonry
It was not until Dr. Walter L. Fleming republished Lester's booklet in 1905 that a list of names of key Klansmen was included in a preface. In 1924, Ms. Susan L. Davis published her Authentic History, in which she contradicts a number of points made by Lester, denigrates Fleming for his superficial knowledge of the Klan and condemns Lester's co-author, David L. Wilson, for suggesting the Klan had failed.
Any other book or article promoting Albert Pike's association with the Klan will either cite Fleming or Davis, cite other authors who cite Fleming or Davis, or not cite anyone. Both Fleming and Davis accepted, unquestioningly, the fifty year old reminiscences of several of the founding members of the Klan.
It looks like they are saying that the founders of the klan were saying that Pike was an important member, and that other founders were masons (later in the page). I fail to see why this is unaccpetable evidence. Masonry obviously had serious problems back in these days, being as racist as most people tended to be.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the page then. It seems to be saying that Flemming and Davis are the original books that have the claim that Pike was a KKKer. Why is Flemming and Davis's work rejected? On the other hand, what evidence did they use to support these statements...
The Klan's first incarnation was in 1866. Founded by veterans of the Confederate Army, its main purpose was to resist Congressional Reconstruction, and it focused as much on intimidating "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" as on putting down the freed slaves. It quickly adopted violent methods, and was involved in a wave of 1,300 lynchings of Republican voters in 1868. A rapid reaction set in, with the Klan's leadership disowning it, and Southern elites seeing the Klan as an excuse for federal troops to continue their activities in the South. The organization was in decline from 1868 to 1870, and was destroyed in the early 1870s by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act).
The first work about the Klan, Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment was written in Tennessee in 1884 as a 119 page apology and justification for the Klan, by one of the founders, Captain John C. Lester and a non-Klansman, Rev. D.L. Wilson. Walter L. Fleming added notes and an introduction for the 1905 edition. Fleming provides no quotes from Albert Pike or other corroborating references.
In a note of acknowledgment Fleming thanks a number of people, including Major James R. Crowe and Major S. A. Cunningham, for their assistance. The source of his information regarding Pike is not cited.
The plate facing page 19 displays seven images over the title, "Some Klansmen." The first photograph is of D.L. Wilson, who was not a Klansman. The central image is not a photograph, but appears to be a pen and ink tracing of a photograph of Albert Pike in Scottish Rite regalia, found as a frontispiece to many editions of his Morals and Dogma. Although slightly larger than the six photographs, its size and position need not have any significance other than an attempt at balanced design. The photographs appear to be reproductions of newspaper or magazine clippings. No attribution or citation is noted.
The title of Chief Judicial Officer does not appear in the Prescript of the Order, under Article I, Titles; Article V, Judiciary; or elsewhere. [pp. 153-176.] The title also does not appear in the 1868 Revised and Amended Prescript.
Strongly influenced by the Dunning School, Fleming wrote four monographs, one dissertation, and two articles on the Ku Klux Klan. Both Fleming's Civil War and Reconstitution in Alabama and The Sequal of Appomattox contain chapters on the Klan's history and administration; nowhere does he mention Albert Pike.
Originally posted by Nygdan
I do find it odd that Pike is so vorciferously attacked tho, it looks like lots of of other masons were invovled in setting it up, why the focus on pike?
That some members of the 1920s revived Klan were also freemasons cannot be denied. "While its influence in local lodges probably varied widely, the infiltration of the Klan was noticeable enough that most Grand Masters, prompted by unfavorable public opinion and dismay over the dissension the Klan was promoting within Masonry, found it necessary to make a statement either condemning the Ku Klux Klan or denying Masonry's connection with it."
Also, a far blacker mark against masonry than some of the individuals in it helping to make the cluclos knights is simply the segregation of the lodges based on race, something that masonry seems to openly admit and just as openly scorn today.
Originally posted by Trinityman
Masons appear to have been involved in the setting up of KKK II, unfortunately,
Originally posted by Trinityman
This, I think is a quite separate issue.
I am often making the point that the attitudes of freemasons reflects the society in which they are based. British freemasons traditionally are reserved and like to keep themselves to themselves, for example. There's no reason to think that the endemic attitudes in the Deep South wouldn't translate into lodge rooms.
more because of the perception of competition as much as anything else.
Originally posted by Trinityman
I am often making the point that the attitudes of freemasons reflects the society in which they are based. British freemasons traditionally are reserved and like to keep themselves to themselves, for example. There's no reason to think that the endemic attitudes in the Deep South wouldn't translate into lodge rooms.
How do you about what this says about the ability of the fraternity to teach moral lesson, by the by??
There wouldn't've been any competition to worry about tho if the lodges weren't segregated tho.