To Neil and others, having been the daughter of a mason and at one time
member of the OES (Eastern Star), I have been often confused by masonic
history. My father would talk about masonic history and cobble together
Solomon's Temple and Jacques DeMolay almost in the same breath. Then
because he belonged to "The Commandery", the first stop in the York
Rite, he received some very interesting newsletters which were not at
all secretive. Whoever the editor was of the late 1950's he has
outstanding putting together this history of the US in terms of its
leaders and which ones were masons. We all know that George Washington
was a mason. So were most of the men who were in Washington's time and
later who were leaders of our country. The idea and ideals of masonry,
of 'republicanism' which is not the "Grand Old Party" of today's
politics, but somethng much better, of putting together the country, of
leading the people and how it should be done. Very idealistic. The idea
that each chosen leader would serve for a limited time to the best of
his ability and then return to private life so that other leaders could
come forward to take his place. I dare say, the ideals of masonry had
much to do with the 'committee of correspondence' that promulgated the
idea of separating ourselves from the rule of a king and his ministers.
It is said that the masonic lodge of Boston were the 'red indians' that
put the tea into Boston Harbor. Paul Revere was a mason, so was Sam
Houston!
At one time, there were certain professions in the US who most certainly
provided many members to the masonic order, the conductors on the
American Railroads, for instance.
If they chose to be secretive, so much the better, more spice. Maybe,
there was a need in 1717 to be discrete. Not hardly now. People need to
know the masons have a part in the welfare of our communities. Sally
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html