Nice work, Chasson.If Russells, fathers and son, were mason, they were only rank and file, not
important masons of this city. None of these two man were considered
deserving being mentioned, even a line.This is the list of the members of the lodge number 223 of Allegheny in
1874, at this date, the father of Russell is still alive and is supposed to be an
active mason in this same lodge as asserts it mister Leblanc's site. There is
no Russell in this list in 1874. On the other hand in 1874, Russell?s son does
not seem to be introduced neither.If Russell was mason, he was not really recognized by his peers who forgot
to speak about it, in the same way, even in the history of the city and the
County, Russells father and son did not stand out the history of their city.Then Russell an unnoticed mason? Maybe not a mason at all.
I happened to be thumbing through the pages here and came across this
thread of yours. It was a good thing I did. Reading for oneself is always the
best when forming opinions about what someone said or didn't say.Yesterday, someone seemed to indicate that your research had led you
to a definitive conclusion. They said, "... Chasson ... researched
Masonic history in the Pittsburgh area, and he uncovered nothing
which would indicate Russell or his father were Masons." While that
statement is true, it leaves open the possibility that they WERE, a
conclusion I thought impossible based on the statement I read
yesterday that referenced your work. It doesn't matter to me one way
or the other, but I appreciate your research just the same. Thanks.tj
important masons of this city. None of these two man were considered
deserving being mentioned, even a line.This is the list of the members of the lodge number 223 of Allegheny in
1874, at this date, the father of Russell is still alive and is supposed to be an
active mason in this same lodge as asserts it mister Leblanc's site. There is
no Russell in this list in 1874. On the other hand in 1874, Russell?s son does
not seem to be introduced neither.If Russell was mason, he was not really recognized by his peers who forgot
to speak about it, in the same way, even in the history of the city and the
County, Russells father and son did not stand out the history of their city.Then Russell an unnoticed mason? Maybe not a mason at all.
I happened to be thumbing through the pages here and came across this
thread of yours. It was a good thing I did. Reading for oneself is always the
best when forming opinions about what someone said or didn't say.Yesterday, someone seemed to indicate that your research had led you
to a definitive conclusion. They said, "... Chasson ... researched
Masonic history in the Pittsburgh area, and he uncovered nothing
which would indicate Russell or his father were Masons." While that
statement is true, it leaves open the possibility that they WERE, a
conclusion I thought impossible based on the statement I read
yesterday that referenced your work. It doesn't matter to me one way
or the other, but I appreciate your research just the same. Thanks.tj