Talk:Albert Pike/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality & Diversity in this article

• Albet Pike was a Freemason
• So, out of 8 links, 1 doesn't work; 2 are 100% non-masonic; 1 is about Pike's Masonic philosophy; 1 is about a book he wrote; 1 is about where he was buried; 1 is negative POV; & 1 is basically a necessary, accurate, & extremely valid defense.
• Nothing stated in No neutrality in this article is true, whatsoever.

1. Handbook of Texas Online - Albert Pike Goes to the Univ of Texas website, not a Masonic website.
2. Pike's Masonic philosophy Is 'clearly noted as a Masonic citation.
3. Albert Pike: Hero or Scoundrel? Is The Smithsonian Associates' website.
4. a modern analysis of his Morals and Dogma is about Albert Pike's book. See line 1.
5. About room where he is entombed is, as stated, about his tomb. Check it out.
6. Albert Pike and World War Three This is rediculous. It'd be all kinds of neat and interesting, & scary, if true, but there's no sources. Oh, I see...
7. His involvement with the KKK & KGC I could see how this one might make critics mad, as it destroys most or all of their sources creditability

Grye 14:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that the NPOV comment was unsigned in the first place, and that no one has bothered to comment on it in a month, and that three of the external links are to a BBS (which is not reputable info), I have removed the NPOV templates. However, I do believe there is source material against Pike's supposed KKK affiliation that someone should look for. MSJapan 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Pike and sympathy

This Anti-Pike commentary (from both Catholic and Masonic views) is from Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry. It is sadly unreferenced, but if it were it could be incorporated into what is a rather hagiographic article. JASpencer 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a few problems with the most recent additon (a quote from Pike)... first there is a general objection to citing quotes second hand. The citation is actually to the Catholic Encyclopedia and not to Pike. I do not doubt that the Catholic Encyclopedia quoted him accurately... I just object to this practice in general terms. Because many second hand sources don't quote Masonic authors correctly, we should be wary of using them. We should hunt down the original and cite that. Then there is a more specific problem... As I have said frequently, Pike is but one man. He did not and does not speak for all of Masonry. Like any cross section of society, Freemasonry has it's bigots... I think Pike was one. He definitely shows an Anti-Catholic viewpoint. But (and this is a big BUT)... just because he may have been a bigot does not make all American Freemasons in the late 1800s bigots. And the inclusion of the quote certainly implies that all American Freemasons are bigots today. I have slightly amended the citation note to highlight these concerns (to make it clearer that Pike was only one person, who spoke only for himself. However, I would feel better if the quote were not used at all. Blueboar 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is did Pike speak for American Masonry in the late nineteenth century not now? The clash between the church and newly-unified state was in that time, not now. Pike was certainly held in greater esteem then than he is now, as was understandable he was the long standing head of the Scottish Rite body for half the US. The builder magazine (1915-1930) also was very complimentary towards him - and I've never seen them say "but he's only one Mason among many and you shouldn't take his hard sayings too seriously" - although it may be lurking there somewhere. Mackey and Pike were also very close. Quoting Pike is not a claim that any Mason today is bound by Pike's religious views, nor is it a claim that all Masons in Ninenteenth century America shared these views - but Pike was probably the most eminent and influential figure in late Nineteenth Century Masonry and in the Nineteenth Century debate between the lodge and the Church, his fiercely anti-Papal views mattered.

On the issue of quoting from a secondary source - yes the original should be hunted down, but the best should not be the enemy of the good. As long as the quote is valid, it should be used. 13:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are over emphisizing Pike's importance. Even in the 19th century, Pike could not speak for Freemasonry. No one could or can do that. The closest that anyone ever comes to doing so is a Grand Master of one of the many Grand Lodges (which Pike was not)... and then he can only speak for his jurisdiction during his term of office... other Grand Masters, in other jurisdictions, or in other times are free to completely disagree. OK... I suppose it is valid to say that Pike could speak for AASR SJ during the mid 1800s, but as we have repeatedly pointed out, that is NOT Freemasonry as a whole. You can't even say that he spoke for US Scottish Rite Masons at the time, because he had no authority in the Northern Jurisdiction.

Please note that I am not trying to say that Pike wasn't anti-catholic... I suspect that he was (it was sadly not uncommon in mid-1800s USA). What I am concerned about is the use of Pike quotes (or any other quote for that matter) to insinuate that Freemasonry was/and thus is/ anti-catholic as well. I believe you when you say that is not your intent... but in the context of this article (which is very negative in its view of Freemasonry if not POV), that is how it comes across. Let me think about the issue for a while... perhaps I can come up with language that solves my problem and meets with your approval. Blueboar 14:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A follow-up thought on Pike... one that goes to your statement that Pike's views mattered: I suspect that the only reason that Pike's views ever came to the attention of the Vatican was due to his being used in the Taxil Hoax (which occured after Pike had died). I would be interested to find out if the Vatican had even heard of him during his lifetime. On the Masonic side, almost as soon as Pike died, the Southern Jurisdiction began to distance themselves from his views. The preface from Morals and Dogma includes a specific statement saying (in effect), "this is Pike's oppinion and not that of AASR". I doubt they would have included such a statement if he was as influential as you imply. Blueboar 15:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Pike was the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Souther Jurisdiction for many years of the Scottish Rite. Now that may be an honorary position, but it certainly sounds important to those of us without leather aprons. For sixty years Morals and Dogma was given to all who joined the Southern jurisdiction of the Southern Rite. He's described by the California Freemason as "the all-time Goliath of Freemasonry" and by masonicinfo.com as "among the most influential Masons of his time". He was an important figure, and in late nineteenth century Masonry it mattered what he thought. JASpencer 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite accounts for less than 20% of American Freemasonry... even at the time, most Freemasons NEVER HEARD of Albert Pike. He is know to scholars because he wrote a great big book full of his musings on comparative mythology. The only reason he is not long forgotten is that he was used by Taxil in his hoax. Even when Morals and Dogma was given to those who joined SJ, most of them never even opened it. In short... Pike is overblown by Anti-masons. but all this is besides the point ... the real point is that you are using his quotes to insinuate that there is currently a bias against Cathlics in modern American Freemasonry, which is not true. It is true that you don't actually say this... but given the context, you hint at it strongly. So... either cut the quote or majorly change the sentence it is linked to to make it VERY clear that the author was but one person, with little authority in American Freemsonry... and that his bias is not to be taken as speaking for the entire fraternity, then or now. I may have to tag this. Blueboar 17:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, the point is that the Catholic Church (especially in the late 19th-early 20th Century) thought that Freemasonry in the less anti-clerical countries was very sympathetic to the Latin lodges and their anti-clerical actions. It may have been inappropriate to quote Pike, but they did quote Pike.

I have change the "a Freemason" to "the eminent and influential Freemason Albert Pike". He is claimed to be influential on Masonic sites. I didn't find a Masonic site that says that Albert Pike was in fact a mad old coot, and I did look a bit. If there is please cite it (and I would suggest that you try to change the Albert Pike page first as otherwise the two pages will contradict one another). JASpencer 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it would be good to sort out how influential Pike was in Freemasonry. This is clearly a big issue in the religious criticism of Masonry. I know your view of Pike but I would respectfully suggest that this is not the unanimous Masonic view. I have a feeling it is not the majority view, but am prepared to be proved wrong. JASpencer 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some dates to give context to show that this was in the past. I hope that this removes any implied bias to claim that Pike speaks for Freemasons now. JASpencer 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Still not acceptable... still implies that today's masonry agrees with what Pike said. Have deleted the entire section until this debate is cleared up. Blueboar 23:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree that the quote "Today, some Masons will diminish Pike's importance so as to deflect the charges of anti-Masons. There is no doubt, though, that he was among the most influential Masons of his time." from masonicinfo.com is relevant to Pike's influence on Freemasonry in the late Nineteenth century? I would find it hard to see that being justified. JASpencer 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar do you disagree with the idea that Pike was "among the most influential Masons of his time"? If he was then it seems that he should be cited. JASpencer 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I most definitely disagree. Although I will allow the hesitation to say that it depends on what you say his influence was... as the man who basicly recreated the Scotish Rite in the Southern US in a form he liked, and as the man who helped that organization to grow into the largest Scotish Rite Jursidiction in the world... sure, he was infuential. As a ritualist, comparative Mythologyst, writer, scholar, etc... I would have to say that he was not all that influential, even in his own time. Outside his Jurisdiction no one paid him any attention. And certainly he is not influential at all today... the AASR Southern Jurisdiction no longer uses his rituals or his writing. As you are using him to make statements about the entire fraternity, I would have to say that he is most definitely NOT influential. Imfamous, perhaps, but influential... no. 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted once or twice now to clarify the relationship between the Scottish Rite and Freemasonry, it appears that I've not been succesful. Despite that I'll try again. SR is an appendant body to Freemasonry, it draws its membership from Master Masons but has no authority over the craft, take a look at Regular Masonic jurisdictions for UGLEs view that it recognises no higher authority or Supreme Council. Pike wrote on the Scottish Rite in the Southern USA, hence his writings have no authority over Freemasons in the craft and indeed SR/ A&AR masons outside the SJ.

As to the veracity of Pikes writings, it's likely that a member of Quatuor Coronati has written something on him, I'll take a look at the copies of AQC I have later on, but I only have about 10 years worth of them, so it might involve going to Great Queen Street to take a look at the library. As to the level of acceptance his words have within the community. I would suggest that it is more likely that those who actively participate in the discussion or promotion of FM on the web are also active Masons, hence more likely to be involved or associated with the appendant bodies or the running and government of the craft. These brethren are more likely to be aware of additional sources such as Pike. As such the impression given from web sources is unlikely to be representative of Freemasonry as a whole, as Blueboar points out the proportion of Masons who are members of the SR is relatively small.

The fact remains that this distinction is not drawn by various sources hostile to Freemasonry, it should be clear that to do so would weaken the arguments, engaging in a detailed and subtle discussion of the relationship between various organisations which use symbolism in a range of ways does not lend itself to tabloid style condemnation.ALR 09:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar: Firstly thanks for replying. If we are taking out some text “to discuss” then it is rather strange when the discussion stops at that very stage.

The issue is whether Pike was ‘’representative’’ and ‘’influential’’ within Freemasonry in the ‘’’late Nineteenth Century’’’, not today.

Pike may be a mad old coot who no-one listened to in the late Nineteenth Century, but that is at the moment an uncited view (although that will probably change), whereas the idea that he was influential is not only attested by the Catholic Encyclopedia (making the quote citeable ’’for that reason alone’’ in an article which is largely about ‘’Catholic attitudes towards Freemasonry’’) but is also attested by two Masonic apologist sites – meaning that it was at least arguable that the Catholic Encyclopedia was reasonable in putting the quotation in as representative. Masonicinfo.com and California Freemason may be less important in the Masonic scheme of things than the Masonic editors who edit here, but they are more citable.

JASpencer 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

ALR, points taken. However (1) does any of this mean that Pike wasn’t taken as representative by the Catholic Church? No and for this reason alone the quote should be included. (2) Does it mean that Pike was not influential in the late Nineteenth Century as opposed to the early Twenty First? No (and masonicinfo.com directly contradicts this idea). (3) Are any of the arguments by you and Blueboar sourced and cited? No.

If you want to add something in saying “Yes, the croppies point to Pike, but Masons think he’s a couple of apples short of a full picnic.[455]” or words to that effect, please do. JASpencer 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that several of the points we've made are referenced as part of the broader development of the group of related articles however the pertinent points here are:

Pike spoke for the SJ of the SR. Blueboar may be able to provide that as a positive statement. I would suggest it's a little disingenuous to ask for a negative citation. Your argument to be that this had a significant influence on Craft Masonry at the end of the 19th Century. I think it'll be a struggle to find a citation that says that it doesn't apply to Craft Masonry worldwide, given the absence of any global FM hierarchy, but it can be demonstrated that the potential influence is much smaller than is implied.

Craft Masonry recognises no higher authority is made clear in the Regular Masonic jurisdictions article where the Aims and Relationships of the Craft are both linked and included. UGLE is not in amity with any GL which recognises the higher authority of a Supreme Council. Given that the list of GLs in amity with UGLE includes both Grand Lodges and Prince Hal Grand Losges in all the US states covered by SJ it can be seen that SJ has no authority over the craft within it's geographic constraints.

As to the RCC reinforcing it's own position by conflating SJ SR with Craft Masonry? I'd suggest that it is reasonable to state the RCC position but to make clear in the article where the arguments presented by the RCC do not accurately reflect the reality of the organisation. That allows the reader to come to their own conclusions.

As to your last point, IMO it doesn't matter what Pike said, the point is that it has little to do with the Craft Masonry which the vast majority of Masons belong to. I'm not sure what the statistics are but feel sure that compiling and analysing them would probably constitute original research. I know there was a peper delived to Quatuor Coronati about 4 years ago which analysed trends in Craft membership numbers but that wouldn't apply. For the UK I suppose one could compare the numbers of lodges, the numbers of A&AR Chapters.ALR 13:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again...

• Pike is a beloved figure for those who are members of the Southern Jurisdiction AASR... he basicly founded the organization as we know it. So, of course, nobody wants to say he was a loony old coot on Masonic web sites.
• Pike was influential devising the rituals of the SJ AASR. BUT...
• AASR is but a tiny part of Freemasonry. The vast majority of Freemasons world wide do not belong to any verison of Scottish Rite, and indeed have never even heard of it or of Pike... This was even more true in the 1800s when they didn't have instant communications and web pages etc. to look things up on.
• In the US, only about 30% of all Freemasons belong to Scottish Rite ... and about half of these belong to the Northern Jurisdiction, over which Pike NEVER had any influence. This was also true in the 1800s.
• Pike HAS become known to Anti-Masons, because Leo Taxil used his name in his Hoax. But for that, Pike would probably be long forgotten.
• Because he appeared in Taxil's Hoax, Anti-Masons have poured through his obscure (and at times bizzar) writings looking for quotes that they can take out of context to say: "see Masons believe such and such". If they can not find a quote they like, they will make one up... because they know that few people will bother to open Pike's great big heavy book and verify it.

IN SHORT: In the 1800s, Pike had very little influence on Freemasonry. Today he has even less. However, Pike has had a huge influence on Anti-Masonry. If you want to say something along those line fine, but make sure that you tripple check anything you quote Pike as saying... because we will be cite checking you. Blueboar 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have both missed the point. I asked you for a citation that said what you have. If Pike is not influential in Freemasonry and his name has been misused by anti-Masons then surely there must be some credible Masonic source that says "We love Pike, but he's mad", or words to that effect. I tell you what, if you can do that I will go over the the Albert Pike page and put that in. (I'd suggest that you do the same with all this stuff). At the moment it is your views of Pike's relevance that are driving this. Just provide a citation. JASpencer 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Other interests section

This section contain the following sentence: "Pike died in Washington, D.C. and was buried at ..."

How does this relate to "other interests"? I think it should be moved into his bio area. Zos 22:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

KKK

There were books written citing actual high ranking klan members who acknowledged Albert Pike's membership. Also, the wording in the KKK section was taken directly from a Scottish Rite website (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/kkk.html), which means it is in no way neutral and the facts themselves are disputable because obviously the freemasons themselves do not want one of their own 33rd degree members to be known as a KKK member as well.

For the reason that the article plagiarized http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/kkk.html, I have rewritten that section without altering its p.o.v.

First, I'm wondering who posted these comments. You're supposed to sign them. And if you have "book" references, then why are there no citations in that whole section? Zos 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying he was or wasn't involved with the founding of the KKK, but I think this sentence should be reworded: "Pike has been accused of being a founder and high ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan; however, there is no evidence of this..."

I think it should be reworded because there is actually some evidence (little, but some) that he is one of the founders. He was involved with the organization a mere 2.5 years after it's inception as evinced by the quote currently in the article. ("We would unite every white man in the South, who is opposed to negro suffrage, into one great Order of Southern Brotherhood...")

Also, the line "It is noteworthy that when the Klan was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee around Christmas 1865, Pike was living in Arkansas, and there is no record of him journeying to or being in Pulaski." is problematic, because, unless records were kept of his journeys as a matter of course, then it's not saying much, is it? What I mean is, unless his journeys were noted at that time, then who is to say where he journeyed to? The fact that he owned a newspaper in Memphis Tennessee at that time should be enough evidence to support that he travelled to Tennessee in that time span.

24.18.35.120 05:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek and Albert Pike

There is a wacky thoery that Star Trek's Captain Christopher Pike, was named after Albert Pike and that Star Trek presents a subliminal message about Masonry. I think it's a crock, but never the less, it is interesting. Here is the link.

Star Trek Masonic Conspiracy

Mirlin 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Palladians? (Satanic order) someone believes the Taxil hoax. 20:15, 22 September 2007 AEST

Missing info?

I've been recieving info that Pike was convicted for treason(??) and was to be hanged but that Andrew Jackson Pardoned him, saying that he answered to Pike. any truth to this? Was Jackson a freemason too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Smith (nom de guerre) (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

No, Andrew Jackson wasn't a Freemason. Kinda doubt the rest... What could he have possibly done to merit the quite serious charge of Treason?!? Grye 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No your both wrong. Albert Pike was pardoned by Andrew JOHNSON after the Civil War. And yes, he was a brother Mason. He also wasn't convicted of treason. What happened was "he formed a brigade composed of Indian soldiers. Their only serious battle was at Pea Ridge, Arkansas, in 1862 and it was a loss. Worse, reports were circulated that at least one Union soldier had been scalped. This was a terrible black mark against Pike and his brigade, as well as the Confederate cause, and he was eventually forced to hightail it into the Arkansas woods to avoid prosecution."-Secrets of the Widows Son, David A. Shugarts. p. 90 Nikter 01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just slipping in some history for the record... Jackson was indeed a Freemason, but he had nothing to do with Pike (Jackson was President in the 1830s). It was Andrew Johnson (who became President right after the Civil War, after Lincoln's assasination) who pardoned Pike (for the reasons Nikter states). Blueboar 14:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Heavy editing due to POV and lack of references

I am currently doing a bit of an overhaul on this article due to the extreme negative POV that seems to have taken over. I have also marked this article in need of references because most of the information is not referenced and the little that is, is unreliable. Some examples of why I felt this necessary is as follows:

1. The KKK article was written without neutrality ending with the sentence "Albert Pike was a member of the KKK" although no credible evidence was provided.

2. The references are dubious and very few. Almost all the information stated as fact is not supported in this article.

3. We need better monitoring and managing of this article as it seems that people who dislike Albert Pike have been able to corrupt this article unchecked. Nikter 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have marked this article as "neutrality of this article is in dispute" due to the lack of NPOV. This needs to be discussed here before this tag is removed. Nikter 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that a lot of work has gone into the article since July... should the tag remain? Blueboar 14:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the neutrality tag, but I think the page is still in need of better references...or else it needs to be re-done by someone who can provide references. Please let me know if you disagree. Nikter 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Statue

The Wikipedia article on Pike starts out by stating that he is the only Confederate military officer or figure to be honored with a statue in DC. This is blatantly false. Robert E. Lee's statue stands in National Statuary Hall in the Capitol, and this is acknowledged by Wikipedia itself in the article on National Statuary Hall.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

I think the distinction is that Pike's statue is outside (in Judiciary Square), and not in a hall. I'll try to clarify that one way or the other and change it accordingly. MSJapan (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pike and the Indians

The one paragraph on Pike's dealings with the Indians seems pretty bland, and other references deal mostly with the accusations of scalpings. R.A. Lafferty, in "Okla Hannali" (ISBN 0806123494), describes in a great deal of detail how Albert Pike "personally arranged twelve separate civil wars among the Indians". I believe this ought to be either corroborated or refuted in an article claiming to be encyclopedic. Jpaulm (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead Link

It seems that the former link to Pike's tomb (or location of his remains) is dead. The domain name seems to have changed. The new link appears to be http://www.scottishrite.org/visitors/main.html#poc. I took the liberty of replacing the dead link with a corresponding link from archive.org. Please review this and use the most appropriate link. Umeboshi 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course its dead, its his tomb! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.168.245 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Add link to Everybody's Dixie (also known as "To Arms in Dixie")

I added this link in the external-links section because Pike's version of the words seems to be actively used. It's used by a You-Tube video of Civil War re-enactors, for instance. I'm not sure my external link (which is to the words, not the video) formally passes Wikipedia's verifiability requirement, but it looks credible to me, and I don't expect my edit to be controversial. Oaklandguy (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be an inline citation so there's an apparent reason why it's there at all. Also, there's no date on that, and Pike lived another 26 years after the Civil War. That site's pretty poor on his biography, so is it even verifiable that Pike wrote it during the Civil War? MSJapan (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-Catholicism"

I deleted a line which stated that Pikes statements were anti-catholic. There needs to be an example of this if you cite it - linking to a Catholic encyclopieda doesn't do anything. Given the historical tensions between masonry and catholicism and all that. Its like linking to PETA to prove eating meat is evil. If there is a actual statement made by Pike that has been deemed anti-catholic by third party sources, then by all means include it.LowLevelMason (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If he joined the Know-Nothing and was part of the Golden Circle then he was anti-catholic. I wonder about his Christian denomination though.173.176.2.81 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Albert Pike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061221064805/http://www.freemason.org:80/cfo/mar_apr_2002/pike.htm to http://www.freemason.org/cfo/mar_apr_2002/pike.htm

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Homosexual Jew

Pike was an esoteric Jew and homosexual.

Petey Parrot (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. MSJapan (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, Petey Parrot, but it is Joye Jeffries Pugh, and she is not a credible source, and nowhere near scholarly. The book is nothing but conspiracy conjecture and personal opinion all the way through.--Craxd1 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy

As a general reader with neither a Masonic or Fundie axe to grind, I do find it a little bit odd that there's no mention of Pike being used by plenty of conspiracy theories in this article. I'd have thought that for the vast majority of people that's the reason they come to this page. I think there should probably be some mention that Morals and Dogma has been used by conspiracy theorists even if only to debunk those readings. 86.160.177.106 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be dealt with more in detail in the article on Morals and Dogma, but it's possible the linkage has disappeared over time. I'll try to source something and rewrite it if it's not there adequately. MSJapan (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing Citations

Hello, there was several tag for citation needed that I added a citation. There are as following:

"The articles were popular enough that he was asked to join the newspaper's staff. Later, after marrying Mary Ann Hamilton, he purchased part of the newspaper with the dowry."

In Brown's A Life of Albert Pike on page 61, the author details how Pike used property and slaves brought into the marriage by his wife and some from his sister in law as collateral during his purchase of the paper.

"Although several shots were fired in the duel, nobody was injured, and the two were persuaded by their seconds to discontinue it."

In Brown's A Life of Albert Pike on page 240, the author recounts the exchange in a similar manner.

" He wrote another book, Maxims of the Roman Law and some of the Ancient French Law, as Expounded and Applied in Doctrine and Jurisprudence."

In Brown's A Life of Albert Pike on page 302, the author describes Pike and his work on this text along with some details about the text itself.

"Also, as in the previous war, Pike came into conflict with his superior officers, at one time drafting a letter to Jefferson Davis complaining about his direct superior."

In Boyden's Bibliography of the Writings of Albert Pike: Prose, Poetry, Manuscript, the author list this letter under the "Military" section of the biography. A microfilmed copy of the letter is housed at the Arkansas History Commission as part of the Albert Pike Papers collection under the title "1862 July 3: Albert Pike, Fort McCulloch, Choctaw Nation, to the President of the Confederate States." Given that it does not appear among the papers of Davis, then it would appear to have been a draft as stated within the article.

Most of the tab for citations needed are referenced either in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture or directly in Brown's work. CrawfordRJ (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Pike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725142921/http://www.ma150.org/day-by-day/1862-03-06/massachusetts-born-csa-general-albert-pike-leads-brigade-native-americans-batt to http://www.ma150.org/day-by-day/1862-03-06/massachusetts-born-csa-general-albert-pike-leads-brigade-native-americans-batt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about Walter L Fleming / KKK claims?

Research published by Walter L. Fleming in 1905 suggested that Pike was in fact the original founder of the KKK.

In his book, Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment, Fleming cited a document called the “KKK prescript” where Pike is featured at the top of a list of KKK leaders, and is given the title of chief judicial officer. Fleming was himself a racist and a supporter of both Pike and the KKK, and his views were fairly popular at the time, which shows that this research was never intended to be a smear campaign, but a simple biographical research project.

There is not even one mention of the KKK in this article. Lol. Kek. I can't even be bothered to argue with you n00bs. Sort yourselves out. Kek will make you pay for your crimes against truth. You know who you are. Kek. 20:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.170.104 (talk)

Suggest you read this web page which addresses the issue directly. While Fleming did indeed claim that Pike was involved with the KKK, more modern scholarship dispute the claim. The general consensus is that Fleming simply isn't accurate. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So the only claim that is considered reputable is from the freemasons themselves. While other earlier writers clearly state otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D139:B2B0:7868:2ECF:D5FB:E2DE (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No neutrality in this article

All sources cited and all links provided are links to purely masonic sources and masonic points of view and are therefore far from neutral. There is a need for links to opposing views on this subject. Without that, the article itself is completely biased.

There should not be opposing points of view for the sake of expressing another opinion. There should only be an opposite pov if there is EVIDENCE for it. As it stands, the article points out that Pike was in another state at the time the Klan was founded and that no primary source documents his connection. Also, since Pike was distrusted by the Confederacy, the idea that the Klan would trust him to be involved doesn't pass the smell test.

No dissent will be tolerated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.57 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

1871 Letter is a Hoax

I am surprised that Wikipedia's quality standards are so low that someone was able to create an entire section around the hoax Pike "world wars" letter. I removed it completely. See here to find out info on the hoax: http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/pike_mazzini.html. The site is by a Grand Lodge but is well sourced to document the hoax. Albert Pike is the subject of quite a few hoaxes, and there is no reason to put the obviously false in the article. LowLevelMason (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A) This article has enough sourcing problems without introducing a contentious, unsourced letter. B) It is inappropriate to post an entire letter into an encyclopedia article. Once we have a reliable source for it, we can use that source to help us write a summary which we can illustrate with a short quotation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not particularily clear to me as to why it would be included at all. A hoax, unless of extreme historical significance (like the "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast), is by its nature not something that would be in an encyclopedia. This "world wars" hoax is something that conspiracy theorists LOVE but is in fact completely untrue. It should be left out completely. LowLevelMason (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that the whole letter shouldn't be in there. However, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and it can indeed be verified that it was a hoax, and BC&Y apparently thought it was important enough to write about. Therefore, it has to have some importance, especially since it is still quoted in anti-Masonic arguments. In trying to show that it wasn't needed, you yourself have provided a verifiable source for it, so I think you defeated your own argument - something needs to at least be said about it. MSJapan (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few masonic conspiracy theories revolving around Albert Pike - all of them debunked at sites like the one I cited. If the letter itself must be mentioned, there are so many other things that would need to be mentioned as well - including the Lucifer taxil hoax. LowLevelMason (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Its impossible for it to be a hoax when its 100 percent correct and accurate so far... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.188.184.21 (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you're unaware that the letter was written after all of the events within the letter happened, which explains the uncanny accuracy and anachronistic English. Please see: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/01/10/albert-pike-to-mazzini-august-15-1871-three-world-wars/ Pepe Oats (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Pike's Memorial

"Albert Pike is the only Confederate military officer or figure to be honored with a statue in Washington, D.C."

While it might be true (I don't know), the source offered sources Wikipedia, making it a circular reference. And the website just seems to be somebody's photo album for the most part. Not sure I would consider it a reliable source.

SynAck (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

11:15pm Juneteenth - just watched the statue pulled down, then set afire by protesters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8880:1650:5C3:3A2D:5079:CA38 (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Military career

In the last paragraph, under the Military career section, it states: "He was at length arrested on November 3". There is no such thing, he was just arrested.--Craxd1 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. And five years later I changed this sentence. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)