Masonic Murder

John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States, wrote a letter to W.L. Stone in 1833. This great man knew better than most in his time about the insidiousness of Freemasonry:

"Freemasonry, corporate Freemasonry, is chargeable with the stealing of a free citizen, and the murder of a father and husband. The proof of this subject is perfectly conclusive, and is to be found in the reports of the trials of the kidnappers of William Morgan, and in the official accounts given by different special Attornies. It is responsible for having baffled inquiry, for having defeated investigation by the removal of witnesses, and for having produced the acquital of persons notoriously guilty. It has been decided by Judge Marcy in New York, and by two sets of triers at a circuit court held by Judge Gardiner, in the same state, and by a court in Rhode Island, that the obligations of Freemasons disqualified a man from being an impartial juror in a case where a brother mason was a party; and such undoubtedly is the law of the land. The Grand Lodge of New York has given one hundred dollars, in charity, to one of the most guilty kidnappers of Morgan. The Grand Chapter of the same state has given one thousand dollars to aid and sustain other well known kidnappers, and to enable them to escape from justice, at a time when they had no money to bestow, in charity, to widows and orphans. This has recently been established in the trial of a libel suit, brought by Jacob Gould, which was tried at Albany, New York. But perhaps the most remarkable evidence of the binding force of masonic obligations and of the real power of the fraternity, is afforded in the conduct of those who control the newspapers of the country. When the English forger, Stephenson, was kidnapped in a distant state, and brought forcibly to New York, the whole country rang with the alarm which was sounded by the newspapers and every patriot was called on to resent this invasion of personal liberty.
But when a free citizen of America was dragged from his family, forcibly carried through the country and drowned in the deep waters of the Niagra, a death-like silence pervaded the newspapers; or if they spoke, it was to notice the outrage in terms of irony and as a trifling and unimportant affair. The papers of every party teemed with the most gross misrepresentations; a simultaneous attack was made on all who were engaged in discovering the offenders; fabricated accounts of Morgan having been seen at different and distant places were incessantly circulated, and every effort was made to delude the public and mislead inquiry. How tremendously powerful must have been that organization, which could produce this shameful treachery of the press to it's public duties! These facts are as notorious as the sun at noon-day, and a stronger proof of their general truth cannot be adduced, than the single circumstance, that to this day, thousands and millions of reading citizens of this country are ignorant of the history of Morgan's abduction and murder, and are totally uninformed of the abominations of freemasonry." (John Quincy Adams, Adams letters Addressed to W.L. Stone[1833] 23-24, University of Rochester Library Archives).

Captain William Morgan shall not be forgotten nor shall other victims of masonic assassination: Joseph Smith, Edgar Allen Poe, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit


Captain William Morgan shall not be forgotten nor shall other victims of masonic assassination: Joseph Smith, Edgar Allen Poe, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Also, let's not forget the attempted Masonic assassinations that failed, like J.R. Ewing and Montgomery Burns.

For some reason, that writing style just does not have the J.Q. Adams "feel", if you know what I mean, nor does the syntax seem right for the era.

How is it that the Masonic organization killed anyone? Am I to understand that, if someone was actually killed, that the entire Masonic establishment is responsible? Maybe I need a little more coffee today, but I'm just not following very well.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
For some reason, that writing style just does not have the J.Q. Adams "feel", if you know what I mean, nor does the syntax seem right for the era.

How is it that the Masonic organization killed anyone? Am I to understand that, if someone was actually killed, that the entire Masonic establishment is responsible? Maybe I need a little more coffee today, but I'm just not following very well.

Don't sweat it, TC. I've had an entire pot of coffee today and just had to shake my head on this one.

ML mentioned a couple of failed attempts, but I'm sure glad he didn't bring up Archduke Ferdinand.

OOOPPPPSSS! Now, I've done it.

[ducking for cover]

Regards

One word...

source?

My source is quoted. I do believe that the entire organisation can be blamed for crimes carried out by individuals within the fraternity, for it is the bond of brotherhood that allows these criminals to be protected. An individual may commit the crime, but when the lodge assists in the aid of the criminal, does that not make them as guilty? Let us not forget the infamous P2 lodge in Italy or for that matter 'Operation Countryman' in London. Is it not true that masons are bound by their solemn oaths of secrecy to the third, ninth, and thirtieth degrees to assist in the commision and coverup of crime? Wasn't Mark Aldrich elected from steward to Worshipful Master while indicted for the murder of Joseph Smith?
Is it not a fact that Poe was a profoundly committed opponent of the craft? Read the "Cask of Amontillado". Those who subscribe to the 'alcoholic, drug addict' story are assisting those who murdered this literary great.

William Morgan was never found. So there is a probability that he never was murdered.

I suppose that it is possible that after Morgan was arrested at the insistence of the Master of the Lodge of Masons of Canandaiuga. Taken to Ontario County Jail, given over to a mob of masons, taken to Fort Niagra for 15 days,he was given a horse and buggy and rode off into the sunset. Never to be seen or heard of again. Maybe he did become an Indian chief or a pirate.


I would suggest reading Edward Giddins Statement concerning this subject. As he was the keeper of Fort Niagra at the time and a Royal Arch Mason. Even though no direct admission of murder is given I doubt kidnapping was considered a 'Horrid outrage'.

Is it not a fact that Poe was a profoundly committed opponent of the craft? Read the "Cask of Amontillado".

Ummm I am a huge E.A. Poe fan and have read pretty much all of his work. The cask of amontillado refernce alone does not tell us that he was anti masonic. Nor do any other masonic refernces spring to mind from other works of his. If anything the "amontillado" refence used the brotherhood as a pun if anything. Seriously and objectively think about it for a minute. When fortunato "sounds" him to see if he is a mason and then flat out asks him about it he says yes I am and shows a trowel. A tool of a brick layer also called a mason.

And further more how does drinking himself to death lead anyone to believe that masons killed him? I would love to see something to substantiate this claim.

Sorry I know I got way off topic there but i felt that there was a small bit of ignorance that needed denied. And everybody knows what happens when ignorace is allowed to grow

Back on topic! Can you link us to a source or atleast tell us where you got the information. unfortunately just saying that he wrote a letter is not anywhere near enough for me personaly. I would like to examin the facts around the statements not just take them at face value.... but what do i know im just a mindless zombie

[edit on 30-10-2005 by zombiemann]

"( In The Cask of Amontillado") A Roman Catholic aristocrat takes revenge on his Freemason Enemy by walling him into a corner of the family catacombs, thus destroying his life and freedom by masonry. To most readers this is an audacious pun, but to anti-Masonic readers it is poetic justice as well: the remains of Fortunato, the hapless Mason, will lie among the bones of his Roman Catholic enemies, "the great and numerous Montresors", while the present Montresor lives on. Anti-Masonic readers may be few today, but in the 1840's they too would have been numerous." (Kent Bales, "Poetic Justice in the Cask of Amontillado", Poe studies, 6, [1972], 51 ).

"Insult is added to injury in this tale since Poe drew it's central character and basic narrative situation from the Freemason, Benjamin Franklin. So we have a character from a "bagatelle" of the adversary forever enshrined as fiction's best known Masonic executioner since the name of Franklin's hero is Montresor and this is of course the name Poe has chosen for his; that his source was indeed Franklin is confirmed by William H. Schurr ("Montresors audience" in 'The Cask of Amontillado', Poe Studies, 1, [1977]"
-Michael A. Hoffman II

As for other stories:
"The Devil in the Belfry", is a satire on President Martin Van Buren, the man who narrowly defeated anti-Masons for high political office.
"In the Philadelphia Saturday Chronicle of May 18, 1839, Poe published his tale 'The Devil in the Belfry', to be reprinted November 1839 and November, 1845. William Whipple reasonably deems it a satire on President Martin Van Buren and his corrupt political machine in New York..."
("Poe's Political Satire", University of Texas Studies in English, 35, [1956], 81-95--Burton R. Pollin, City University of New York.)

"'Mellonta Tauta' criticizes the aura of sanctimony which surrounds Mason George Washington, specifically in a tedious 'George Washington cornerstone ceremony'. Washington actually laid the cornerstone to the Capitol building in full Masonic Regalia and there is a widely circulated painting of this event. In this story, 'Mrs. Pundit' laments the failure of people to sufficiently honor the Founding Father. For Mrs. Pundit there can never be enough praise for Washington, and Poe, as an anti-Mason, points up the high irony of the actual event upon which 'Mellonta Tauta' is based as detailed in the New York Herald Tribune of October 20, 1847: 'the crowning of the bust of the first president with laurel by a damsel dressed as Liberty.' The central image of the tale is of a hot air balloon which collapses at the end of the story just as Mrs. Pundit is about to place Washington's story inside a bottle and drop it in the sea"
-Michael A. Hoffman II

"Never Bet the Devil Your Head" has some parallel to a well-known Masonic story- Kipling's "The Man Who Would Be King". Bridge Symbolism is an important backdrop. A man decapitated (9th degree, St. John.) in a covered bridge (Royal Arch Masonry is obsessed with bridge symbolism). Of course there is the demon himself, dressed all in black, including a black apron(The sign of the Masonic initiate)

As for the 'alcoholic' slander:
"He made many enemies and many harsh things have been said about him, but I never once saw him drunk."
-John Sartain in William Sartain's "Edgar Allen Poe- Some Facts Recalled", Art World, 2, (July, 1917) 321-23
John F. Courtney, M.D. believes that the cause of Poe's death was a blow to the head and not a drug episode.

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
Is it not true that masons are bound by their solemn oaths of secrecy to the third, ninth, and thirtieth degrees to assist in the commision and coverup of crime?

No, of course it isn't true.

The secrets of our brother, when communicated to us, must be sacred, if they be such as the law of our country warrants us to keep. We are required to keep none other, when the law that we are called on to obey is indeed a law, by having emanated from the only source of power, the People. - Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma', p. 109

The only secrets a Mason can keep are lawful ones. Because crime is immoral, it is unmasonic.

Wasn't Mark Aldrich elected from steward to Worshipful Master while indicted for the murder of Joseph Smith?

www.rickross.com...

Is it not a fact that Poe was a profoundly committed opponent of the craft? Read the "Cask of Amontillado". Those who subscribe to the 'alcoholic, drug addict' story are assisting those who murdered this literary great.

First, I am quite a fan of Poe, and always have been. Secondly, his alcoholism and drug addictions are simply facts of history. This is not to disparage the man, as many other literary greats also battled addiction.

As for Freemasons, Poe was suspicious of the fraternity, but he was suspicious of pretty much everyone. To my knowledge, he never singled out Freemasonry as some sort of great evil.

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
Let us not forget the infamous P2 lodge in Italy or for that matter 'Operation Countryman' in London.

Yup. Let's not forget them.
The P2 Lodge was an unrecogised Lodge that had been thrown out of Freemasonry and Operation Countryman was an investigation into police corruption that did not involve Freemasonry.

So yup. Let's not forget two major sources for your argument that don't actually have any bearing on the matter.

Let's not.
I would even go so far as to say that P2 was not a Lodge at all. It would probably be more correct to say that P2 was a covert grouping of around 1000 Italian Freemasons. P2 was spoken of as a Lodge. Remember that Freemasonry was practised in Italy for 240 years before it was recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England. Would Italian men who practised Freemasonry prior to 1973 think themselves any lesser Masons?

Operation Countryman was an investigation into police corruption. Corrupt officers that were Freemasons. Mason or not, corruption will always exist within our police sevices, but this particular investigation centred around one James Page and actions he undertook as a Freemason more than a police officer. Page made many questionable decisions, all of them in some way related to Masonry. The promotion of officers Tearle and Oates being his downfall. These two officers(and Freemasons) were known to be corrupt and have criminal links. Page promoted them purely because they were Masons. Being made subservient to Tearle after being introduced to to Tearles Lodge, where he was Grand Master.
"I owe them three more years yet"-Police Commisioner James Page

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
Is it not true that masons are bound by their solemn oaths of secrecy to the third, ninth, and thirtieth degrees to assist in the commision and coverup of crime?

No, of course it isn't true.

The secrets of our brother, when communicated to us, must be sacred, if they be such as the law of our country warrants us to keep. We are required to keep none other, when the law that we are called on to obey is indeed a law, by having emanated from the only source of power, the People. - Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma', p. 109

The only secrets a Mason can keep are lawful ones. Because crime is immoral, it is unmasonic.

Oh yes? Let me reply by quoting Stephen Knight:
"At the lowest degree, that of the entered apprentice, an initiate swears on pain of death and ghastly mutilation to obey not only the precepts of Freemasonry but also those of the Bible and the laws of the land in which his Lodge operates. The further he progresses through the hierarchy, the more the laws of the Bible and society are discarded and the more sacred become the laws of Masonry. Having passed what is known as the Royal Arch, a Mason owes allegiance only to his brother Masons.
An illustration of this progression from being a member of society to one independant of society's laws appears in the following. It is an extract from the oaths taken at two degrees, that of the Master Mason, the highest of the lower degrees, and that of the Royal Arch Mason, the first step in the long climb up to the ultimate degree, the thirty-third.
In a Master Mason's initiation ceremony he swears that the secrets of another Master Mason, 'given to me in charge as such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, when communicated to me, murder and treason excepted; and they left to my own election. ...
Thus, up to and including the degree of Master Mason, an initiate has the right to act as a normal responsible member of society and report to the authorities any Mason who may be engaged in murder or treason. But beyond the Royal Arch this is no longer true. In the initiation ceremony of a Royal Arch Mason he promises 'that a companion Royal Arch Mason's secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, murder and treason not excepted....'
This fundamental change between the degrees alters a Mason's entire standing in society. Now he is accorded moore immunity than a King or president. William Morgan, an American Mason who wrote a book called 'Freemasonry Exposed', published in 1826, declared:
'The oath taken by Royal Arch Masons does not except murder or treason; therefore under it, all crimes can be perpetrated.'
The Full truth is more disturbing than this, for in the same oath the Royal Arch Mason swears:
'that I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason, when engaged in any difficulty, and espouse his cause, so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or wrong....
Thus when a Freemason passes the Royal Arch he is not only prohibited on pain of death from exposing a fellow Mason involved in treason or murder, he is also compelled to assist him in covering up his crimes."-Stephen Knight (Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, Grafton Books, 1977; pp153-154)
I see this saying bandied about by Masons- 'Not all good men are Masons, but all Masons Are Good Men.'
What about this one- 'Our motto must be 'All means of force and hypocrisy... In order to obtain our ends we must have recourse to much slyness and artfulness'.

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit

Oh yes? Let me reply by quoting Stephen Knight:
"At the lowest degree, that of the entered apprentice, an initiate swears on pain of death and ghastly mutilation to obey not only the precepts of Freemasonry but also those of the Bible and the laws of the land in which his Lodge operates.

The easiest way to answer this is simply by re-posting the Pike quote:

The secrets of our brother, when communicated to us, must be sacred, if they be such as the law of our country warrants us to keep. We are required to keep none other, when the law that we are called on to obey is indeed a law, by having emanated from the only source of power, the People. - Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma', p. 109

Stephen Knight was never a Mason, and obviously had an agenda by selling yellow journalism to an uninformed populace. Pike, on the other hand, was a Masonic administrator, and wrote his books for the purpose of educating the craft.

In a Master Mason's initiation ceremony he swears that the secrets of another Master Mason, 'given to me in charge as such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, when communicated to me, murder and treason excepted; and they left to my own election. ...
Thus, up to and including the degree of Master Mason, an initiate has the right to act as a normal responsible member of society and report to the authorities any Mason who may be engaged in murder or treason. But beyond the Royal Arch this is no longer true. In the initiation ceremony of a Royal Arch Mason he promises 'that a companion Royal Arch Mason's secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, murder and treason not excepted....'

The above Knight quote is completely bogus. I'm a Royal Arch Mason, and Past High Priest (or, as the English call it, Past First Principal), and have administered the Royal Arch obligation upon candidates on several occassions. As Pike said, only lawful secrects can be kept, and is mentioned in the obligations themselves, nothing a Mason does can at any time conflict with the principles of morality if he wishes to remain a member of the fraternity.

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
Oh yes? Let me reply by quoting Stephen Knight:

It sounds like you are more sympathetic to the view put forward by Knight that those of Light. I fear you have misplaced your trust.

At the lowest degree, that of the entered apprentice, an initiate swears on pain of death and ghastly mutilation

Untrue. Although the traditional penalties are outlined in full, it is specifically pointed out to the candidate that these are not the real penalties. I guess Knight missed that bit.

The further he progresses through the hierarchy, the more the laws of the Bible and society are discarded and the more sacred become the laws of Masonry.

Untrue. The laws of God and society always come first. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise anywhere in masonry.

Having passed what is known as the Royal Arch, a Mason owes allegiance only to his brother Masons.

Untrue. See above. Please also be aware that obligations taken in Craft masonry would always supercede those in a side order (should they conflict, which they don't).

[snip monologue concerning authors fantasies about masonic progression]

I really recommend you buy some masonic ritual books and see for yourself.

The Full truth is more disturbing than this, for in the same oath the Royal Arch Mason swears:
'that I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason, when engaged in any difficulty, and espouse his cause, so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or wrong....

Not in my ritual book, Nemo. Can you give me any more clue as to how I might verify this claim, other than 'Stephen Knight says so'?

Thus when a Freemason passes the Royal Arch he is not only prohibited on pain of death from exposing a fellow Mason involved in treason or murder, he is also compelled to assist him in covering up his crimes."-Stephen Knight (Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, Grafton Books, 1977; pp153-154)

And thus we have an erroneous conclusion drawn up from half-truths and poor research which conveniently creates a justification for the book, which I understand has made quite a lot of money for Mr. Knight.

Just to re-iterate - no such thing happens in the Royal Arch and the conclusions drawn therein are predicated on a lie.

Like I said. Poor source.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Trinityman]

I believe that Stephen Knight was an ascetic, a follower of the Bagwhan.
I'm not sure he personally made a lot of money over the years as he died while writing his follow-up to "The Brotherhood".... at the age of .....33

Just found this on Adams:

users.crocker.com...

You know guys, I am learning a whole bunch from these posts, I have to tell you all.

While I am still not one to join any organization that has any ring of secrecy, I am beginning to appreciate the Masons more and more.

One of the reasons for my appreciation of the Masons is the odd attacks I see. For example, when an individual asserts that the whole organization, which is a loose afilliation of lodges, can be held liable for theconduct of a small few elsewhere, I have to sit back and wonder what the deal is.

Please, let us keep in mind that there have been times when parts of the organization have gone bad, and the central authority cut off the part that became rotten. That is an act of responsibility, if one were to ask me.

E.A. Poe was one of my favorite writers when I was a teen, I guess I had a seriously dark streak in me when I was going through the puberty thing, but I don't think I'd use a drunken opiate addict as a witness against an entire organization.

Just a couple thoughts, trying to figure out how to keep it real, you know what I mean?

Steer me straight if I am veering off into a ditch.

I do believe that the entire organisation can be blamed for crimes carried out by individuals

Then by this logic All of xianity is responsible, retroactivly of course for the
Inquisition, the Witch burnings and stonings, the Albiginsean (sp?) Crusade,
and the attempted genocide of the Native American Peoples right?