Talk:Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies articles

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please indicate the Republican party affiliation of the people who seem to lack party affiliation. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.107.152 (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliability of the Warren G. Harding Section

Regarding the section of Warren G. Harding -- there is no proof of the claim made in this article that Harding was a member of the KKK, merely the presentation of one researcher’s findings - and even these are speculative. Fact tells a different path than the one presented in thsi article.

In reviewing the Harding Presidency materials at the Ohio Historical Society there are no primary source documents to back-up the so called "plausible evidence" (read: circumstantial evidence) quoted in this article to the effect that Harding was brought into the KKK while in office. Furthermore, numerous respected historians have taken this topic up before. (I must qualify this by stating that Gaston Means, William Estabrook Chancellor and Francis Russell do not count as reliable historians when it comes to Harding.) There simply are no rosters, sign in books, appointment book entries – FACTS, mind you, to back these claims against Harding.

Totally lacking in the removed section was the discussion of the Klan’s “One Drop Rule” that was in force in the 1920s. The One Drop Rule, which is widely known by those who have studied the Klan, stipulated that no man could join the Klan if there was the possibility or existence of one drop of “negro” blood in his veins. Rumors (floated by William Estebrook Chancellor and others) existed that Harding was of mixed blood, ergo, the Klan never would have welcomed him into their ranks. Most recently, Robert Ferrell discusses the “KKK” issue in his very well researched and written book, The Strange Deaths of President Harding. (Note: Ferrell uses the plural "Deaths" in his title as both play on words, and references to Gaston Means book, see below)

What is known, and this is documented in Harding’s personal papers on file at the Ohio Historical Society (Which has thousands of linear feet of Harding’s original documents in their archives) is that Harding was elevated within the Masonic Rite by his home lodge while in office. I do not have the specific degree in front of me at this moment.

As for the vercacity of the KKK web sites, that reference speaks for itself. And it is well known that the KKK is a secretive society,which means it does not publish its member rosters.

If this needs to be clarified by a noted Harding scholar, I would suggest getting in touch with the Ohio Historical Society, and then being connected with the site manager of the Harding Home in Marion Ohio.

But my favorite part of this removed section is the granting of War Department license tags that allowed people to run red lights! This is a fanciful, and totally inaccurate statement. No such plates existed – if they had, such a perquisite would have not only been well known, but why would anyone from the War Department have a need to run a red light? Furthermore, had these plates existed, they would have placed on Governmental vehicles, not privatly owned cars!

Finally, I appreciate the open source aspect of Wikipedia, it does give an outlet to those who have facts to share facts, I do have a problem with those who state that confuse “plausible” evidence, with circumstantial evidence. Such demonstrations devalue Wikipedia, and cast a wide cloud over the reliability of this site. Skoblentz 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly states the source of the information, which was Kennedy's deathbed interview with Young. It's fine that you've stated the case against Harding's membership. Readers can consider the evidence and decide for themselves.--Bcrowell 01:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. But I find the argument that “Harding was in the Klan because someone took a deathbed confession and then passed it onto a third party who reported the incident” to be horribly flawed, and plausible least possible way. The author you cite wasn’t even at the deathbed confessional, ergo, all he really had to work on was what the reporter – who may have had Klan ties, or even a personal belief that Harding was involved – provided. My point is what you present isn’t plausible so much as it is alleged. If one of my students presented this and drawn the conclusion that you did based on one source, I don’t think I would have passed them. I believe that Harding should not be included in this article. At the very least I believe that the section that you included needs to clarified from "plausible" to "alleged". Again, my concern is that what people read on Wikipedia needs to be factual, not merely a book report on one authors claims. Skoblentz 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just as unimpressed with the arguments in the second subsection as you are with the arguments made in the first subsection. The reader can weigh the evidence and decide. You might also want to read the current version of the article, since, e.g., the word "plausible" is no longer there.--Bcrowell 17:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bcrowell, we may not seem to see things eye to eye, but I based my arguments on facts. Evidently, our paths our quite different. As for my errors, I can will fix those, but my facts stand alone and have scholarly research backing them up. I really wish you well. Skoblentz 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, could you please proofread your subsection? It's full of errors in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar.--Bcrowell 17:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really mean that it's based on "heresy" and rumor, do you?--Bcrowell 21:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, hearsay. My bad. The reference that I used the wrong word towards wasn't directly involved in the action that they reported. He was simply going on what one man reported to him that he heard on another man on his deathbed if I read reference correctly. Stu 01:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dog in the fight of whether Harding was a member, but if his info is going to be in here, it shouldn't be listed as a sub heading under John Clinton Porter. As it stands, it looks like this, which makes no sense:

   1.11 John Clinton Porter
       1.11.1 Evidence for Harding's membership
       1.11.2 Evidence against Harding's membership

Tericee (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail to Stetson Kennedy requesting information

It turns out Stetson Kennedy is still living (there's a WP article on him), and he has a web site run by Sean Kennedy, who I'm guessing is his son. I've e-mailed Sean Kennedy to ask for info about the Harding issue:

Hello,

I don't know if you're familiar with the Wikipedia project. It's
an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who
wants to volunteer. I've been working on a couple of Wikipedia's
articles relating to the Ku Klux Klan:

 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Notable_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_national_politics

There's also an article on Stetson Kennedy, who I guess is your father? --

 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Stetson_Kennedy

The article on notable members in national politics discusses the possible evidence
that President Harding was a Klan member, and the source for that is
Wyn Craig Wade, The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America. New York: Simon and
Schuster (1987), which says Alton Young, on his deathbed, described Harding's
induction to Stetson Kennedy. This has led to a lot of debate, because it's so
indirect (Wade's account of Kennedy's account of Young's eyewitness acount),
and also because people are suspicious that the whole thing is an example of
the Klan's attempts to puff up its own importance. The claim about the war
department license tags also smells fishy to a lot of people.

I was wondering if you could tell me if Stetson Kennedy ever published an
account of his interview with Young in any of his books, and whether you
can shed any other light on any of the other evidence that is supposed to
exist, e.g., letters to Coolidge that Wade says are in Coolidge's presidential
papers, or statements in various places on the web that "Imperial Wizard James Venable
(now deceased) claims to have possessed photographs of a Klan funeral ceremony  conducted
for Harding in Marion, OH August 1923." Any help you could provide would be
much appreciated. Currently, if you do a Google search on "ku klux klan,"
the Wikipedia article is the third thing that pops up, so a large number of
people are going to be getting their information on the Klan from these
articles. Thanks in advance!

--Bcrowell 18:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of the Klan, Harding, Jim Thorpe, et.al.

Bcrowell - I commend you for going to a source for verification.

If you would have asked me about a Klan visitation to Harding's grave, I could have told you about this - I own original picture postcards of the event. The Klan did visit Harding grave while he was interred in receiving vault at Marion Cemetery. For that matter, they also paraded around town in the 1920s a great deal. The Klan in Ohio maintained an office in the Mart Building on North State Street; after Harding died, the new owners of the Marion Star moved the paper into the building following the Klan's eviction. The Marion Star is still located in that building.

Its also a fact was that Olympian Jim Thorpe, also played professional basketball in the Mart Building's second floor auditorium with a team comprised of all native Americans (they even played the Chicago Bulls in that building according to the Marion Star ads for the event!)- while the Klan operated the building. Now, the Klan visiting Harding's grave, no more makes Harding a member of the Klan than does it make the Klan honorary native Americans because Jim Thorpe played ball in the building. The boy scouts also annually visited the Harding tomb as well. Mrs. Harding was an ardent supporter, the President never was a scout; does their visitation make him guilty of being a secret boy scout as well?

I don't mean to be flip, but it just seems as if Harding's connections to the Klan seem to be very indirect. Now if the email is answered with sound references that can be verified in a sound matter, I'm open to further investigation. Stu 02:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be responding to things that I never said in the article, and things I never said on this talk page.--Bcrowell 02:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, in the email quoted above that you provided you state "Imperial Wizard James Venable (now deceased) claims to have possessed photographs of a Klan funeral ceremony conducted for Harding in Marion, OH August 1923." All I said was that I have copies of photographs, later made into postcards, that verify that indeed, the Klan made visitation to Harding's grave. As I read this, the context was that the Klan's visitation was confirmation of Harding's membership, is that not what what you meant by including the event in the email to your source? Stu 14:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A funeral ceremony isn't the same as a visit to a grave. You also seem to be answering a variety of logical arguments that I never actually made.--Bcrowell 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly are implied. Believe me, I am with you 100% on documenting these racial terrorists for what they are. But I just get the feeling that linking Harding to the Klan has transcended objectivity. Stu 15:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links for citations to the Warren G. Harding section are no longer working. This page needs some serious work, really, in using proper citations. Citation 40 has no link for verification, and citation 41 now gives a 404 content not found error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:77F:58B0:E594:F546:52A:DF (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No national leaders belonged to KKK at the time they were leaders

I believe that no national politician in the 1920s acknowledged membership in the KKK. Look at say Senator Earle Mayfield (who refused to talkk about the Klan). That is important: no one in Washington spoke on behalf of the group (and many spoke against it). Hugo Black belonged for a while, as a young lawyer who did not hold office. Likewise Senator Byrd was a local leader in the 1940s, long before he held office. Truman of course was a minor figure in the early 1920s. Chief Justice White had briefly belonged to the first KKK as a young man; not the 2nd. No federal judge in the 1920s has ever been identified with the KKK. By the way, we ought to be real careful about using poor sources like the Wade, "Fiery Cross." See the Amazon.com site where the Publisher's Weekly review sums it up as "This doggedly researched history of the American racist group is bloated with cliches, overstatements, colloquialisms, sensationalistic accounts of sexual atrocities and nonsensical connections." The author Wade is a psychologist who has not read the history journals. Rjensen 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of a post on the main Ku Klux Klan article's talk page. Please don't post the same thing in two places, because it just makes it harder to have a coherent discussion.--Bcrowell 05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the opening to make clear that hardly any important people belonged to the KKK at the time they were important. Readers need to know that up front, because it sets the image for who ran the country in the 1920s. Rjensen 07:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there also needs to be clarification under the opening. The heading called "Active Members" seems like it implies the people listed were active members at the time of their political careers, but in most cases, this was not so. It says "Active Members", then lists people, so it would be easy to take a screenshot and promote the appearance that the politicians were active all their lives, not just before office. Uncleosbert (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry S. Truman

Kudos to the editors of this page for the section on Harry S. Truman. User:Bcrowell and I worked hard together to create a neutral and factually accurate discussion of Truman's brief flirtation with the Klan while this all was still part of the main Ku Klux Klan article. The current version is even better. It is very fair and very very thorough. Job well done, folks. --Hnsampat 06:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political Machine boses, mayors and Klansmen

Charles Bowles and John Duvall.

On the Claim that Harding Was a Faerie

The section on Harding contained this sentence:

Despite all the evidence against Harding being in the Klan we must remember that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

We might as well, then, have articles on which public figures are magical beings of one sort or another. After all, if “absence of proof is not proof of absence”, then who is to say? In point of fact absence of proof is proof of absence; that's a standard principle of empirical logic, known as “Ockham's Razor”. A rejection of this principle is known as “a leap of Faith”, which leaping would be just fine if this article were presented as religious dogma. —12.72.68.195 13:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unfortunatly, we live in an era when facts take a second seat to fact interupretation. I remember that I had a go around whith some Wikipedian who based his belief that Harding was in the Klan because he read about the authors of Freakanomics visiting some KKK hunter in Florida and they tried on a Klan robe that the man had. This was proof enough for this fellow and he was intent on having his way. Several months later when the authors of Freakanomics disclosed that their infalible source had in fact been "guilding the lilly" on the facts he was reporting on, there wasn't a peep from the person. I qualified the passage with a citation in the argument against Harding in the Klan, but haven't heard a peep from the person who was so sure of what he believed rather than what he knew as fact. Stude62 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again we have someone insisting on the nonsensical claim that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Again, if this principle were true, then no empirical proposition could be rejected. We reject the claim that there are fairies and that Harding were a fairie because the absence of evidence for fairies is evidence that there are no fairies, and the absence of evidence that Harding were a fairie is evidence that he was not a fairie. Likewise, we reject the claim that each of our Presidents (including Harding) were a member of the Ku Klux Klan. —75.5.174.230 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White

The reference for White was in fact missing. I have therefore inserted a {{fact}}. If no proper citation appears within a week, then I will rewrite this section to reflect a gross lack of substantiation. —71.154.208.74 02:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a good faith effort to find some source for the claim about Edward Douglass White, and came up perfectly empty. My call for a cited source has been ignored. Hence, I am removing the whole subsection. If someone wants to restore it, then he or she should have a cited source to include. —71.154.208.74 07:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the White section until it is somehow proved that a citation cannot be found is ridiculous. Provide a citation or leave the White section out. —12.72.71.48 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking 2005 versions of the article on the Klan, I see that the charge against White is made by Wyn Craig Wade. This is the very same fellow who is teh source of the Harding charges that got chewed-up. In any event, I will now post a White section that appropriately sources the claim. —12.72.71.48 11:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (anonymous) who apparently doesn't understand wiki mark-up put this

13. Paths to Distinction by: William D. Reeves p.157 States that White was never a member of the Klan, but stated he was for acceptance. This book was written at the request of The Friends of the Edward Douglass White Historic Site of Thibodaux, Louisiana.

Amongst the footnotes. It doesn't have a link back to anything. It also is ambiguously worded. (What sort of acceptance of what?) —12.72.71.48 12:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foot-Notes

There are 15 foot-note markers in the body, and were 12 actual footnotes (plus the thing mentioned above in the discussion on White). I prowled old versions and found a thirteenth foot-note. I suspect that the others were tied to notes in the Klan article before this thing was spun-off. Someone should find them. I don't think that I will bother looking. —12.72.71.48 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a fn, so there are now 16 markers and 14 actual notes. Two markers remain unmatched. —12.72.73.78

Okay, the foot-notes are largely cleaned-up now. But, as well as the Mysterious White Thing, I also found that this

^ “Church of the American Knights of the KKK” from the ADL, 22 October 1999, retrieved 26 June 2005.

wasn't properly tied back to the body of the article. —12.72.72.172 19:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that note seems to have been mistakenly dragged from the main body during a previous attempt to clean-up the notes. So I think that the footpnotes are now in proper order. Paths to Distinction may be a relevant reference for White, but the earlier editor mishandled the citation and I don't know where it was to go. —12.72.72.172 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“ability to join”

The phrase “ability to join” isn't quoted; it is merely emphasized. (I don't know nor will I worry about by whom.) —71.154.208.74 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James T.M. Anderson

Is there in fact any evidence that James T. M. Anderson was a member of the KKK? We don't want this article to be a list of every politician who received a majority (or even a preponderate majority) of the Klan vote. —75.18.113.152 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Content:

=== James T. M. Anderson ===

In [[Saskatchewan]], [[Canada]], the KKK was seen as having a dramatic effect on the provincial election of 1929, which defeated the [[James G. Gardiner]] [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal]] government and installed the 1929–1934 [[Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan|Conservative]] government of [[James T.M. Anderson]]. It is not known if Anderson, himself, was ever a member of the Klan.

Bringing up old stuff again: Reliability of Warren Harding allegation

I'm kind of shocked so much space is devoted to it here, given that most historians consider it tinfoil hat cruft, seeing as how the "evidence" consists of the word of one single ex-Klansman, with absolutely no corroboration in Harding's papers or anywhere else for that matter. The only reason it's survived as a rumor so long is because it's titillating and stinks of scandal. Having "case for" and "case against" sections makes it seem as if we're saying there is serious historical debate here, which is patently untrue. It was a rumor. No reputable historian thinks is true. The list of sources for this historical "fact" begin and end with Wade's somewhat sensationalist book The Fiery Cross.

So, in sum I think giving Harding this much page space, and the format of his entry here, lend gravely undue weight to something that is at best a historical conspiracy theory. I intend to cobble a new version of the section in a few days, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions before I do. Ford MF 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself bears the scars of a campaign by a few editors, who were much sold on the work of Wade, to depict Harding as a Klansman, and of an attempt by other editors to counter-balance the case for membership. Possibly things could be condensed, especially as one of the two principal anti-Harding campaigners has retired from Wikipedia, and the other has been indefinitely banned.

But I say “condensed” advisèdly. If not in this article then somewhere Wikipedia ought to provide a reasonably thorough examination of these claims. Wikipedia shouldn't just fill in blanks; it should also help people find their way out from error. Merely waving a proposition away is not satisfactory, especially as this has all too often been done to the truth. —SlamDiego 10:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to remove it, just restore it to a size commensurate with its contextual value. Ford MF 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't think that you proposed to remove it. You might consider a combination of condensation and moving content to its own article. In any event, I wish you success. —SlamDiego 05:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged promise not to speak

This claim

However, Harding promised not to speak against the KKK at the 1924 Republican National Convention (RNC), let alone adopt an anti-Klan platform.

has had a {{fact}} tag on it for a long time. I'm pulling it from the article. If someone can find a decent citation for it, then of course it should be restored. —SlamDiego 09:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

As anyone who has followed this article knows, the “national” in its title does not refer to a nation, but to national governments as opposed to local governments — there was a section on a Canadian politician removed because, while the Klan influenced Canadian national politics, there was no evidence (other than support by the Klan) that the politican was himself a Klansman.
This article isn't about the Klan in national politics in general; otherwise it would discuss the effect of the Klan on races where they were significant without any candidate being an alleged member. This article is exactly about notable alleged Ku Klux Klan members in national politics.
Yuck or no yuck, the individuals discussed weren't actually all Klan members; they are people about whom serious allegations were or have been made.

—SlamDiego_←T 03:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article refers only to politicians in US national politics, a better title would be:

Alleged Ku Klux Klan members in American national politics

I think the "notable" can be dropped because it is assumed that someone involved in national politics is notable. Ground Zero | t 11:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the word, American, might still convey a sense of North American. I prefer using United States instead. Also, I am convinced that the KKK has never figured significantly in Canadian politics, so the title should be such as to focus the subject matter on the U.S., solely. To attempt to trascend the international border with the subject matter might have the effect of diluting the impact of the KKK in the national politics of the United States. This was an organization whose origin was in that unique crucible of the United States, both post-Civil War (first occurence) and post-WWI (second occurence). The Canadian political climate was utterly distinct from that of the United States at the time the KKK was formed (twice). Nor was Canada’s racial history ever really such that a KKK-like organization could ever develop deep roots north of the U.S.-Canada border. (At least that’s my interpretation/reading of Canadian history. Ground Zero most likely has a more thorough understanding of it than do I.) — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, “American” doesn't mean North American, nor from somewhere in North or South America.

At the time that the people of my nation started calling themselves “American”, no one else wanted the term. The other peoples of North and South America thought of themselves as citizens of the European nations that had colonized these two continents, or as members of aboriginal tribes, not as Americans. It was only later, when hunting for grievances, that anyone else decided that the Americans had somehow stolen their name. (It is revealing that no one seems to howl that another nation called itself “Colombia”.) Meanwhile, “the United States” isn't a nation; it's a ruling institution. —SlamDiego_←T 10:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to 'actual and alleged Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics', to make it clear that this is only about the United States. (While the KKK never operated in any other country, it's best to avoid ambiguity in titles wherever possible.) Robofish (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Duke

Duke has to be the most notorious KKK member in American politics. Why isn't he here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenitor (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superficial

The article is very slight. The KKK was a significant influence during two or three periods of US history, and all you come up with are two figures (one never elected) who've long been known to be Klan members and flimsy allegations about two Presidents and a Supreme Court justice. You've got to go deeper and name names or else acknowledge that the question of KKK members in American politics will always remain murky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.105 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Issues

I have removed all persons whose membership is not verified by reference or citation. This is a serious WP:BLP issue. Please do not "allege" someone is a member. Find the source and cite it please. JodyB_talk 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I was bold and moved the page to a title which does not include "alleged" as all of these have been removed. JodyB_talk 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Jastremski

According to his biography, Pills, Pen & Politics, Jastremski was a KKK member, joining in 1876. He was mayor of Baton Rouge and ran for governor of Louisiana twice.Pola.mola (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harding material removed.

I've removed a section from Harding on the Tall Cedars. Having read the entire section, I don't see the connection in the first place, as the key to it is factually inaccurate. Tall Cedars is not and never has been "a Shrine organization", and it never was. Apart from the fact that the source is taking as factual evidence secondhand reporting by another person, the repetition of a factual inaccuracy from the past is still inaccurate, even in an otherwise factual book. As a citation for this has not been found in five years, I highly doubt there will be one. MSJapan (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive right wing garbagge

This whole article should be deleted it;s just WND in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.159.72 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

was Jackson of Indiana actually a Klan member??

Jackson never said he belonged to the Klan. No one has specified the date he joined, or the Klavern that he joined. The leading historians of the Klan in Indiana say that he took a $2500 bribe from Klan leader Stephenson, but they did not say that Jackson was ever a member. see Citizen Klansmen: The Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, 1921-1928 by Leonard J. Moore and Indiana Through Tradition and Change: A History of the Hoosier State by James H. Madison. The latter book states clearly that the Klan effort to pass legislation in Indiana in 1925 "ended in nearly total failure." – and that the Catholic newspaper praised the legislature: "The honor of Indiana, as a home of religious liberty has been redeemed by the Legislature of 1925." Madison pages 67-68. Rjensen (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics. 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/20090206151355/http://mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf to http://mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf

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) 16:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics. 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/20060831083918/http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_own_words/duke_intro.asp to http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_own_words/duke_intro.asp

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) 04:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics. 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:

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) 09:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Source For Means being a member of the Klan

"Rice W. Means, a Republican U.S. Senator from Colorado, was a member of the Klan in Colorado." Neither source provided supports this assertions. I looked for references which could substantiate this claim, and found none. Some seem to specifically exclude him. 2601:243:1180:2689:F84B:E4DA:CE7C:C61A (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Politicians who were active in the Klan" section

This one sentence section has problems besides its title which is practically a repetition of the article's title. First, the Washington Post didn't really "report" that there was a "rough split" between Republican and Democratic governors, senators, and congressmen by 1930. This information was part of "Perspectives" series which tells readers that it includes opinion. So it is really closer to an op-ed than a news report. Moreover, "rough split" is ambiguous. Does it mean a roughly even split or just some kind of indeterminate split? It is plainly deceptive to imply early in the article that, historically, there was something even close to an even split between Democrats and Republicans who were Klan members. The remainder of the article dealing with individual Klan members goes on to demonstrate that the split was not even at all. Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least 3 to 1. None of this is surprising since, for roughly a century the Democratic party in the South was the party of Secession and then the party of Jim Crow. That has certainly changed now, but it remains an historical fact. 131.109.225.34 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just arrived from outer space.

Greetings Earthlings! What is the meaning on the figure (D) next to most of the names of on this list? 2600:8801:BE26:2700:B501:8203:51E0:20AA (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Signed, Gork.[reply]

(D) denotes a member of the Democratic Party.--Darwinek (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]