Handbook of Texas Rewrites KGC Article

I was scrolling through my favorites and noticed the UNT Professor of History has rewritten the KGC article. It leaves out all the unproven history and unreliable sources. Not a bad job. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/KK/vbk1.html

Due to a wave of outrage and pressure from our traditionalist opponents and
their paid employees, the Texas State Historical Association's Chief Historian
removed our fully-documented and fact-checked article from their Handbook of
Texas Online and replaced it with another article that simply trumpets the same
old disproven trash that traditionalists want the public to believe. As a
result, Colin and I have retained all copyrights and rights to publish our
original article and we have published it on a different website. Since it will
be competing on search engines with the Handbook of Texas Online's baloney, I
encourage all members to click on this link and view it as it appears now. Be
sure to bookmark and save this link for your future reference. I've also placed
this link in our Links section.

http://knightsofthegoldencircle.webs.com

~Texas Jay
http://bloodybillanderson.webs.com

The new article uses Bickley's own address and other sources who rely heavily on newspaper articles from the time and the Bickley papers (NARA).

The unproven parts of your article rely on current sources and a dime store novel. There is nothing that proves Pike was KGC anywhere from the time or in his personal library and belongings at the Scottish Rite temple but there is nothing that says he wasn't a member. There is nothing that proves Jesse James was a KGC member, the only thing we know is based on the KGC rules and regs (NARA) is that during the war he was too young to take even the first degree. But after the war he could have done it. There is no evidence that the KGC existed in any meaningful way after the war but there is no evidence that they didnt.

The problem is you list most of your beliefs as fact using current sources. Historians cannot use circumstantial evidence as fact without acknowledging it as being circumstantial and defend your beliefs but offer the beliefs of the other side as well for the reader.