Talk:Anti-Masonic Party

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): W0lflena. Peer reviewers: W0lflena.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Morgan's abduction to Fort Niagara

When his purpose became known to the Masons, Morgan was subjected to frequent annoyances, and finally in September 1826 he was seized and surreptitiously conveyed to Fort Niagara, from whence he disappeared.

Who was he seized by, who conveyed him to Fort Niagara, and can we have some references please? Very broad statement. Jachin 09:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic language

"...he had been foully dealt with." That is not the kind of language i expect from an encyclopedia. I will change it to "he had been murdered." Voice your objections, please.--213.101.247.115 13:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1882 Presidential election?

There's a reference to Jonathan Blanchard's candidacy for President in the election of 1882. There was no U.S. Presidential election in 1882, although of course a nomination could have been made in that year for the election of 1884 (Cleveland-Blaine). Could anyone clarify? (The article on Jonathan Blanchard doesn't.) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article is worded in such a way as to convey an apparent bias. Did these events actually happen, or is it mere speculation? This seems like an urban legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.115.5 (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, since the sources only lead to one side if the argument, and there are hardly any opposing views. It is blatantly trying to show Freemasonry in a bad light, in order to promote the anti-masonic views. There are many reliable sources that contradict the sources given, from many lettered authors. Morgan was, in fact, a debtor, and a thief, which has been documented as fact, and not some flimsy charge to arrest him on. Also, it was never proven he was murdered, as after the fact, several Canadians said they saw him alive. The book was not printed until after his disappearance. The ones who took him from the jail, said they gave him money, took him to the border, and told him not to come back.--Craxd (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia text closely represents the consensus of scholarly specialists. Nobody knows what happened Morgan, but many people at the time not only believed he'd been murdered by Masons but that belief inspire them to form a political movement. Anti-Mason movement completely vanished over 150 years ago. The Freemasons still are an active organization but I seriously doubt the argument by Craxd that "There are many reliable sources that contradict the sources given, from many lettered authors." -- He should provide title of the single best reliable source that he is using and we can go from there. Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the Wikipedia article is in line with scholarly consensus. I'm a Mason myself. I'm also interested in U.S. political and military history, which is why I spent some time and effort on the Anti-Masonic Party and William Morgan pages.

The consensus among academics and historians is that Morgan was probably murdered by Masons who drowned him in the Niagara River. It's impossible to know for sure, of course, and there are other possibilities, which are mentioned in the Wikipedia article and include references. That said, most people who I think would be considered subject matter experts on this question are of the view that Morgan having been killed on the river by Masons is the most likely scenario.

Billmckern (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"The consensus among academics and historians is that Morgan was probably murdered " I don't see this consensus in the article now. Josephus Nelson Larned who is cited is one rather old historian. Who else? Cathry (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Anti-Masonic Party article contains two references which indicate that that the generally accepted belief is that Morgan was drowned by Masons:

16. Pool, William (1897). Landmarks of Niagara County, New York. D. Mason & Company. p. 69.

17. Cornog, Evan (1998). The Birth of Empire: DeWitt Clinton and the American Experience, 1769-1828. Oxford University Press. p. 167.

In addition, the William Morgan article contains additional references to indicate that Morgan having been killed by Masons is the most plausible scenario, including:

35. Ridley, Jasper; The Freemasons: A History of the World's Most Powerful Secret Society, pp. 180-181 (Arcade Publishing 1999).

37. Jeffers, Henry Paul, Freemasons: A History and Exploration of the World's Oldest Secret Society, p. 85, Citadel Press, 2005.

It's also worth mentioning that DeWitt Clinton's reward for information on Morgan's whereabouts went unclaimed. $1,000 at that time was equal to about $25,000 today -- not enough to make someone rich, but enough that you'd think that someone with knowledge that Morgan was alive would have come forward. I'd also point out that Clinton, who was a Mason, removed the Sheriff of Niagara County from office -- something I think Clinton would not have done if he'd believed that the Masons in that area were blameless.

17:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

potential source

Dropping this here in case anyone wants to utilize it.

• Kazin, Michael; Edwards, Rebecca; Rothman, Adam (2009-11-09). The Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History. (Two volume set). Princeton University Press. pp. 39–. ISBN 9780691129716. Retrieved 11 December 2012.

Thaddeus Stevens

Shouldn't Thaddeus Stevens be mentioned more? I thought he was a very influencual Anti-Mason and was the leader of the Pennsylvania party. And kept Anti Masonry alive in his state longer than the others while using them in successful coalitions with Whigs and Know Nothings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebcro (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

right-wing???

In the 19th century "right wing" is associated with support for established elites. Recent scholarship shows that the Masons and anti-masons in USA were quite similar in terms of middle class social status. Ideologically the antis were opposed to any establishment of secretive powerful men. The main motivation for the antis was the fear that Masons were a secret power group that threatened republicanism and the American democratic political system. In that regard they resemble liberal /progressive models of the 1890-1920 era. see (1) Paul Goodman, Towards a Christian republic: Antimasonry and the great transition in New England 1826-1836 ( Oxford University Press, 1988). (2) William Shade, "Review: The Elder Goodman's "Light on Antimasonry"? Reviews in American History (1989) in jstor; (3) Formisano, Ronald P., and Kathleen Smith Kutolowski. "Antimasonry and Masonry: The Genesis of Protest, 1826-1827." American Quarterly 29.2 (1977): 139-165. online Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You'll never get an answer to this on "current year" Wikipedia the term "right-wing" is always used to label anything that "not-good." Just be glad, they haven't deleted the article yet. --Tonitrus1992 (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What did they actually believe in?

Why is there almost no information on this article about what their party platform was? 2603:6013:BA40:5047:7F9D:58A0:5C94:355C (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A -- It's in the title. They opposed Masonry. B -- Also, in the political rise section, there's a passage about how the party tried (and failed) to broaden its base by taking positions on other issues. Billmckern (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)