Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

control of state governments

The article states, "Through sympathetic elected officials, the KKK controlled the governments of Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon in addition to those of the Southern Democratic legislatures." I've seen detailed discussions of how Indiana's state government was controlled, for a time, from top to bottom by the Klan. However, the last clause, about "Southern Democratic legislatures," seems way too vague, and I have a hard time believing it. Also, the whole sentence doesn't state the time frames. For instance, IIRC their control of the Indiana state government only lasted for a few years. Can anyone provide more detailed information, and improve the accuracy of this sentence?--Bcrowell 17:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

end of first Klan

The following statements are simply untrue. The Klan was extremely powerful in rural South Carolina AFTER it was supposedly destroyed according to the statements below.

The first Klan was destroyed by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the 1871 Klan Act and Enforcement Act.

In 1871 President Ulysses S. Grant signed The Klan Act and Enforcement Act. The Klan became an illegal group, and the use of force was authorized to suppress and disrupt the organization's activities. Hundreds of Klan members were fined or imprisoned, and habeas corpus was suspended in some counties in South Carolina. These efforts were so successful that the Klan was eliminated in South Carolina and decimated throughout the rest of the country. The Klan Act was declared unconstitutional in 1882, but the Klan was largely gone by then, and had in fact achieved many of its original goals, such as denying political rights to blacks.

I guess my question would be whether this was the actual Klan that remained operational, or a splinter or other group that appropriated the name. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm open to any contrary information that can be documented from a real source. The article is getting to be well documented these days with notes and references, and the original text reflects what I gathered from multiple print sources, such as Wade and Horn. I'm reverting the text until someone can show me a contrary source. I'll get the books back out of the library, and review this issue. Although Horn is the most detailed book I have access to, the Klan Act falls at the end of the time period it covers, so I'm not sure whether it has much on this.--Bcrowell 19:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I temporarily moved statements which I believe to be highly untrue, to the talk page for work. Bcrowell reverted without any such work. If a work is suspect it is unwikipedic to keep it in the text, until we can have confidence in its accuracy. Pollinator 03:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

The article is carefully researched and footnoted. You have offered no evidence for your contrary view.--Bcrowell 04:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've gone back through Horn and Wade, and added more details and footnotes to the discussion of the dissolution of the first Klan. I didn't find anything that contradicted what the article already said. Horn seems relatively sympathetic to the first Klan, and Wade is unsympathetic, so I think this provides a good spectrum of views on what was going on. If anything, it's become clear to me from going back over these references carefully that the Klan was already in decline by 1868-70, before the Klan Act was even signed. If you have other references to back up a different view, please say what they are.--Bcrowell 00:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting Pollinator's edits that changed "destroyed" to "driven underground." This part of the article is now extremely thoroughly footnoted, from multiple print sources. Despite my repeated requests, Pollinator has not come forward with any verifiable information to the contrary.--Bcrowell 02:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Pollinator's latest edits. Pollinator, please provide some print sources for your assertions. Also, see below under "between the klans."--Bcrowell

Basically I would say that the 'First KKK' ended with its disbanding by the Grand Wizard, General Nathan Bedford Forrest, in 1869. The Enforcement Acts of the 1870's didn't cripple the party it only immoblised the already shattered entity. The Acts only served to shine light on the racist parties diminished presence.

Hi -- I think you're right that the Klan was already in decline before the 1870's. However, Forrest's order disbanding the Klan had almost no effect, as discussed in the article and the footnotes, and the Klan Act had a huge effect, as discussed in the article and the footnotes.--Bcrowell 14:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

between the klans

As part of my revert of Pollinator's edits about the end of the first Klan, I've also deleted the following text about the period between the first and second klans:

Like Hydra of mythology, the Klan continued; its goals; to disarm and disenfranchise blacks, continued through the clubs and the Democratic party, culminating in the absolute solidification of white power and black suppression by the election of Ben Tillman in 1890. Stirred by Tillman's rhetoric, new waves of lynchings occurred well through the turn of the century. In the early 20th century, South Carolina historians such as Mary Simms Oliphant and William Bodie continued to portray the Klan as heroic saviours of society

The part about Hydra doesn't seem accurate to me, based on Wade and Horn. I'm not convinced that Ben Tillman is particularly important or relevant here. The historiography stuff about Mary Simms Oliphant and William Bodie is interesting, but IMO not particularly relevant here. Maybe it would be a good idea to start a section on historical perceptions of the first and second klans?--Bcrowell

Byrd

There have been some reverts and re-reverts of some material about Byrd. I think this may have somehow gotten tangled up with the issue of end of the first Klan. I've asked Brownman40 and Jpgordon to discuss these issues here. Participation on the talk page from Pollinator would also be welcome.--Bcrowell 05:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've removed this particular sentence a couple of times:

However, he either led or supported failed attempts to scuttle the nominations of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, the first and second black Supreme Court justices, Condoleezza Rice, the first black female Secretary of State, and Janice Rogers Brown, a black appellate judge.

Its inclusion is nothing but a smear; the obvious implication is that Byrd's early connection with the Klan has something in common with his opposition to Thomas, Rice, and Brown; he would have opposed them as a Democrat, not as a racist. I'm less sure about his opposition to Thurgood Marshall, a generation earlier. Regardless, the sentence as added was a smear, and was meant as one -- freepers and their ilk love to trot out the "Byrd opposed these nominees" story to show how racist Democrats are; but it's certainly not relevant to the history of the Klan. It is treated pretty fully in the Robert Byrd article. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments persuade me. I put it back in only because my earlier deletion of it had been done unintentionally, as part of a revert on a different issue.--Bcrowell 05:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe this text is appropriate, considering the quote that Byrd said joining the Klan is his biggest mistake. If that quote wasn't there, I would agree that text is POV, but in light of that quote this text neutralizes the point of view. And though it is not provable, I believe Sen. Byrd's opposition to the only two black Supreme Court Justices of differing political backgrounds is germane. Brownman40 23:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • So basically, you want to the article to include innuendo. The vote to confirm Thomas was 52-48. Are you prepared to find racial motives in each of those 48 "nay" votes? It's not germane to the history of the KKK; it is certainly relevant that Byrd said it was a mistake; it's not relevant that "critics of Byrd look askance at it because he voted against a small number of black nominees." Why? because the article as about the KKK, not about Byrd. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've wikified the words "racial controversies," with a link to the relevant section of the Byrd article. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. The text in the Byrd article is going to be watched over by people who are knowledgeable about Byrd, and it seems well documented and NPOV.--Bcrowell 00:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the compromise is appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

At this point is it really the KKK article you're unhappy about, or the Byrd article? The Byrd article has a lot of material in it under the sections "Recent Racial Controversies" and "2001 Racial Remark and Controversy," and it isn't all just innuendo. The present KKK article doesn't really say much about it at all now, except to point to the relevant part of the Byrd article.--Bcrowell 00:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the edit history, and I must agree with Jpgordon. As written, the juxtaposition is clearly meant to raise the question of "He said it was his greatest mistake, but look, he's still racist -- these oppositions must be racially motivated because they're all black." How many other nominations of people who aren't black has Byrd opposed in his long career in Congress? I just don't see how this language can stand as written; it's cherry-picking and possibly original research. On the other hand, if you can find someone criticizing his stance on those nominees as racist, then I could see including that. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm honestly confused. The article currently says this: "West Virginia's Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle, and defended the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.[33] He has since called joining the Klan his "greatest mistake" though critics find Byrd's claim specious in light of racial controversies surrounding him even after his departure from the Klan." If you click through on the link, it discusses stuff like his use of the term "white nigger." Are we talking about the current version of the KKK article, an old version of the KKK article, or the Byrd article? Katefan0, when you say "if you can find someone criticizing his stance on those nominees as racist," that's exactly what the linked-to Byrd article does: "The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a civil rights organization, has stated that Byrd's hold on Rice's nomination was "racist." [10]."--Bcrowell 02:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what the Byrd article says. It only matters to me, for this discussion, what this article says. And currently it is not NPOV on that score. Leaving biased information intact in one article and then counting on someone to click on another article to balance it out is not adequate. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. This article is about the KKK, not about Byrd. Byrd's relationship to the KKK ends with his comment that he considered it his greatest mistake. Anything past that is speculation and analysis about Byrd, not about the KKK - and so is in the Byrd article, where it belongs (if it belogns anywhere); CORE's opinion of Byrd's hold on Rice's nomination has nothing whatsoever to do with the KKK. Likewise, the article does not discuss [[Nathan Bedford Forrest]'s distinguished military career. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the indentation level is getting awfully deep, I'm coming back over to the left. Jpgordon's argument that it's off-topic makes some sense to me. There's been sort of a similar issue with the Truman stuff, where all the (extremely complicated) info about his flirtation with the Klan is in the Klan article --- it used to be duplicated in the main Truman article, but that got silly. There does need to be some sane split between what goes in this article and what goes in the Byrd article. Karefan0, I disagree with your argument that it's NPOV as currently written, and I think you're misunderstanding me if you think I was arguing that we should be leaving "biased information intact in one article and then counting on someone to click on another article to balance it out." My argument was that it was NPOV and true, and that the Byrd article supported it. In any case, it's a little weird that the three of us are getting into such a long debate about this, while Brownman40, who started the whole controversy, has only posted once and then gone away. I don't really care about the issue that much myself, but I wanted to get Brownman40 to discuss it here. If he doesn't care enough to stay involved in the debate, and I don't care that much either, then it seems fine to me if Jpgordon or Katefan0 wants to get rid of the contested text in the section on Byrd. It was just a bad situation to have a revert war going on between Brownman and Jpgordon, without any debate on the talk page.--Bcrowell 16:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My point has always been that if the information can be supported (you say it's supported in the Byrd article), then it must also be supported here in similar fashion, or be removed as biased. I agree that talking is far preferable, and sympathize with the situation you find yourself in (I've had a few situations where I entered into a dispute originated by someone who later left unceremoniously!) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What seems to have worked well with the Truman material (which was pretty contentious) was something like this: we put all the detailed info about the Klan in this article, and added a few sentences of "glue" to explain how different people could put it in perspective relative to the rest of his life and career. Then, in the Truman article, we put only a brief mention of the Klan, with a link to this article. A similar approach might work with Byrd, but since Byrd is a much less important historical figure, and the discussion of him is much shorter, any "glue" should probably be extremely brief to keep it from being out of proportion. Maybe in Byrd's case the only glue that's really necessary is the link to the Byrd article.--Bcrowell 22:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

132.241.41.181's edits

132.241.41.181, could you discuss your edits here? Re the Truman stuff, Truman's friendship with Jacobson wouldn't disqualify him from Klan membership, although it might have created some cognitive dissonance.--Bcrowell 22:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

132.241.41.181 added the URL http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050710/NEWS01/507100360/1056/rss02 to the text of the article. 132.241.41.181, please use the talk page -- that material was already footnoted, and if you think this reference adds useful information, it belongs in the footnote, not in the text.--Bcrowell 22:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

FA?

I'm thinking of self-nominating this to be a featured article. Comments? Is it ready?--Bcrowell 22:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It has definitely improved since you started working on it. Before doing the FAC nomination, I would suggest putting it up for peer review. You'll probably get a lot of good comments, especially on a topic like this that will draw a lot of interest. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Bcrowell 23:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

First you gotta deal with the hyperbole about the Klan being "destroyed" in South Carolina. At best it's wishful thinking, at worst it's delusional. Anyone who makes such a claim does not understand the mind of those who supported the Klan. I live in former Klan country. Many families continuously had Klan members from every generation from its inception into the mid 20th century. I do not have time right now to transcribe some of Bodie's (a South Carolina historian that likely was a member himself) comments. One of these days I'll get to it. When you hear his discription with an almost religious admiration for the Klan, you can better understand the mind of the people who saw them as saviours. It's hard for me to understand how you could say with a straight face that they were "destroyed" by the Klan Act. It's simply not true. They were incensed at the Federal enforcement, but since they knew where they were up against greater power, they just backed off. As soon as the "heat" was off, they went right back at it again.

Since you won't deal with it and won't let me edit, I may have to put a factually incorrect tag on the page. It's definitely not ready for featured status until the errors are dealt with. Read some of the southern historians like Bodie or Oliphant. Pollinator 01:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you have verifiable sources for your assertions, and your sources disagree with the multiple print sources I've cited, that's great, please make appropriate footnoted edits.--Bcrowell 02:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but re "read some of the southern historians," Horn was a Southerner, and his book is very sympathetic to the first Klan. I've added an external link to an interesting oral history interview with him, which includes a discussion of how he researched his book, and in which he draws a sharp distinction between the first and second Klans. AFAICT from amazon.com, Mary C. Simms Oliphant seems to be a textbook author who has written entirely about South Carolina history. Has she written anything specifically about the Klan? Re William Bodie, I'm only turning up a single book by him, and it's about the Vietnam War. Is there a particular title you had in mind?--Bcrowell 17:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

listing movies?

28 Days (film) is a film showing negatively the KKK. Maybe it should be included in the article. CG 07:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

If we included every place where the KKK is shown negatively, we would have no room left for the article. I think it would make more sense to limit it to a few specific works more directly critical of the KKK. Incidently, the link you gave points to a punk rock band, not the film, so be sure to disambiguate properly if you do add it to the article. Aquillion 08:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is the article 28 Days (film)

It's got a copyvio notice on it, no article there anymore.--Bcrowell 16:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. Once a list gets started on WP, it tends to grow indefinitely. In fact, I'm going to delete the references under "The Ku Klux Klan in the arts" to Mississippi Burning (which isn't mainly about the Klan) and The Birth of a Nation (which is discussed extensively elsewhere in the article).--Bcrowell 16:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Reagan and th Klan

In 1980 Ronold Reagan made a speach in Philidelphia Mississippi declareing the utost importance of states rights. Andrew Young pointed out the insensitivity of Reagan's making such a speach at the sight of the most infamous tripple murder the Klan ever commited.

Soon afterwards Klan Wizard Wilkinson endorced Reagan saying "The Republican platform reads as if a Klanmen had written it."

Wilkinson especialy like Reagan's lukewarn stance on afermitive action.

Reagan regected this endorsement. Weeks after it had been made.

"The Firey Cross" page 387

That same year on september 1st Reagan claimed Jimmy Carter chose to open his campain in Tuscumbia Alabama because it "gave birth and is the parent body of the Klu Klux Klan" a lie that Reagan never gave a sincer apology for but used it when confronted with facts to further slander Jimmy Carter.

Soon after Regans lie Wilkinson went one step further and he argued The fact the Klan had been injected into the campain proved "the ideals of the Klan" had risen to high levels. "It's risen to such a high level that the GOP platform parallels our views almost one-hundred percent across the board"

"The Firey Cross" page 388

In 1985 when Reagan was denied millitary support for the contras in Nicuraga Klansmen rallied to his side. Don Black announced that he had created a 120 man Klan Unit called "The Nathanian Beford Forrest Brigade" with the intention of aiding the contras. Black said the brigade would engage in psychological warfare in Nicuraga to foster anti-government seniment and would provde "a civi action unit to promote a stable economy" The Klan felt that they were acting with Regan's blessing because he had said in October that "traditional" for American volunteers to take such actions in other countries.

"The Firey Cross" page 398

Spelling+

In 1980 Ronold Reagan made a speach in Philidelphia Mississippi declareing the utost importance of states rights. Andrew Young pointed out the insensitivity of Reagan's making such a speach at the sight of the most infamous tripple murder the Klan ever commited.

Soon afterwards Klan Wizard Wilkinson endorced Reagan saying "The Republican platform reads as if a Klanmen had written it."

Wilkinson especialy like Reagan's lukewarn stance on afermitive action.

Reagan regected this endorsement. A long time after it had been made.

"The Fiery Cross" page 387

That same year on september 1st Reagan claimed Jimmy Carter chose to open his campain in Tuscumbia Alabama because it "gave birth and is the parent body of the Klu Klux Klan" a lie that Reagan never gave a sincer apology for but used it when confronted with facts to further slander Jimmy Carter.

Soon after Regans lie Wilkinson went one step further and he argued The fact the Klan had been injected into the campain proved "the ideals of the Klan" had risen to high levels. "It's risen to such a high level that the GOP platform parallels our views almost one-hundred percent across the board"

"The Fiery Cross" page 388

In 1985 when Reagan was denied millitary support for the contras in Nicuraga Klansmen rallied to his side. Don Black announced that he had created a 120 man Klan Unit called "The Nathanian Beford Forrest Brigade" with the intention of aiding the contras. Black said the brigade would engage in psychological warfare in Nicuraga to foster anti-government seniment and would provde "a civi action unit to promote a stable economy" The Klan felt that they were acting with Regan's blessing because he had said in October that "traditional" for American volunteers to take such actions in other countries.

"The Fiery Cross" page 398

alton young

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/features/woody/woodyNatural.htm

alton young

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/features/woody/woodyNatural.htm

"though only when it would hurt rival factions"

An anon has been doing the following edit and getting reverted by me and Andrew pmk:

...rival Klan factions both accused each other's leaders of being FBI informants, and one leader, Bill Wilkinson of the Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, was in fact later revealed to have been working for the FBI though only when it would hurt rival factions.

The italics are the text the anon has been adding. I don't have Thompson's book checked out of the library right now, so I can't verify this, but in any case, I don't understand why it would be notable. Anon, could you explain?--Bcrowell 04:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

maybe he's trying to figure out if Bill's statments about Reagan were truely his opinion or done at the direction of the FBI.

the klan sucks but guess what?

they have been a political and religious group in the past not just a fraternal group.

I feel sorry for those who censor this fact.

69.111.91.169, if you think that aspect of the article should be changed, let's discuss it. But blanking large portions of the article repeatedly, without explanation, isn't going to help. Unless you can be more persuasive, I'm not convinced there's a problem with the article's lead as it is; just because it says it's fraternal, that's not an implication that it's not political or religious.--Bcrowell 02:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The original Ku Klux Klan

Materials from this (KKK) article should be merged into TOKKK as needed and the section here (KKK) should be reduced to a brief summary (not my interest, so I leave it to others). Leonard G. 15:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Possible proof that Harding was in the Klan

"Afterward, the President appreciatively gave members of the team War Department license tags that allowed them to run red lights all across the nation."

wouldn't there be records of this?

I feel we should split this article.

I feel we should split this article because it's gotten way to big.

It's 50k, which is more than the recommended 32k limit, but the 32k is only a soft recommendation, not a hard limit. The article is currently undergoing peer review, with an eye to nominating it as a featured article. Generally it seems that for an FA, it's common --- almost expected --- for it to be over 32k. I'm not dead set against splitting it, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. One problem with the proposed split is that it would tend to endorse a POV that emphasizes the discontinuity between the first and second Klans rather than the continuity between them; this has been a contentious issue recently. A better option, IMO, might be to spin off bits of content here and there into other articles. Roughly 25% of the article is currently devoted to discussions of famous politicians who were (or might have been) Klansmen. I think I'm going to spin that off into Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics. Those discussions tend to become longer and longer, because everyone on both sides of the issue wants to make sure that all the possible evidence is given. I think that will bring the article back down to 35-40k.--Bcrowell 20:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I aprecreate your idea of a "Notable Ku Klux Klan members in U.S. politics" but we are talking about a secret society and who was at it's boldest in it's infancy thus we would see a political slant if we did this.

I advocate the system I tried to state inwhich there is the main artical and three linking articals one for each of the Klans.

Four articles on the KKK are too many. If anything, I'd support something more in line with what Bcrowell suggested. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I hope I didn't shoot from the hip too much. I went ahead and spun off the Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics, ans that's brought the article down to 41k, a pretty reasonable size for something that's going to be nominated for FA. IMO spinning off that part of the article was an improvement in and of itself, since it was out of proportion to its relative importance in the article. Sorry if I stepped on toes by doing this so quickly, but I did it before seeing the anon's suggestion that this would give the article a political slant; I actually don't understand why it would do that. The list includes one Republican president and one Democratic president. Oh, BTW, I don't think it makes sense to talk about three articles, one for each of the Klans; the first and second Klans were discrete entities, but after the fall of the second Klan, there were tons of smaller Klans, none of which was "the third Klan."--Bcrowell 20:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Long as it keeps to the National level its cool.

featured article nomination

We got some good comments in peer review. I'm nominating this to be a featured article now.--Bcrowell 22:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

deleted The Ku Klux Klan in the arts

I've deleted this section. It only had one sentence in it ("The Ku Klux Klan is a common reference point for extremism in the arts. It has been featured in British musical theatre, in Jerry Springer - The Opera."), and in the past had acted as a magnet for trivia about movies that just happened to have something about the Klan in them. People had complained that it was weird that it was a single sentence, and in the FA discussion, there was a complaint about the section as well.--Bcrowell 17:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Klan pamplet

"Don't be fooled. Farly is ROOSEVELT: Tammany Hall. Catholic controled is ROOSEVELT....EVERY PROMINANT ROMAN CATHOLIC YOU CAN FIND IS FOR ROOSEVELT...The Underworld is a unit for Roosevelt. The gangsters of Chicago, St. Louis....and Jew York are for Roosevelt...Roosevelt, thier subservient tool, will turn our country over to Tammany and thus we will have CATHOLIC CONTROL OF AMERICAN GOVERNMEMT AND LIFE, if he is elected...BEWARE OF THE 8TH OF NOVEMBER!"

Klan pamplet from 1930's or 40's

where should this go?

All of these Reconstruction era black Senators and Representatives were members of the Republican Party. The Republicans were the party of Abraham Lincoln and of the Emancipation Proclamation, while the Democrats were the party of slavery and secession. Until 1876, the Republicans made genuine efforts to ensure that southern blacks were able to vote.

After the deal with the southern states that secured the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, however, Republican interest in southern blacks faded, and the white Democrats gradually regained control of the Southern legislatures and restricted the rights of blacks to vote. The last black Congressman elected from the South was George W. White of North Carolina, elected in 1897. After his term expired in 1901, there were no blacks in the Congress for 28 years.

These are general statements about Reconstruction, not about the Ku Klux Klan. Readers who need more background on Reconstruction can click on the wikilinks to that article.--Bcrowell 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)