Light on a Dark Subject

Note: The copyright of this material may or may not be expired. This material is covered under the non-commercial “fair use” (research) provisions under Section 107, Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If the copyright is still in effect, this material may not be commercially marketed.

Relative to Masonic courtesy, it should not be distributed in a manner which might offend the Prince Hall Masons.

The material contained in this file is a ‘scanned-in’ resource, with the text being (originally) in MS “Word.” The desired text can be quickly located by entering the unique text of a desired term - or by referencing the original volumes - in the “Go To” function window.

This ‘computerized’ material primarily serves as a ‘drag ‘n drop’ utility for the researcher, however casual or serious. It serves as an electronic preservation of history, and another modern tool in the Masons tool kit. At the moment, the text has not been refined from the “raw” scanned-in material, it being felt that expediency of access is more important than perfection – for the moment!

This work was produced for both the ‘Cut ‘n Paste’ researcher and in the hope that it will find its way into the computerized world of text-to-speech conversion, for those with sight or cognitive impairment.

LIGHT ON

A DARK SUBJECT

BEING

A Critical Examination

OF OBJECTIONS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF

THE MASONRY EXISTING AMONG

THE NEGROES OF AMERICA.

BY WILLIAM H. UPTON, A. M., LL. M.,

Grand Master of Masons in the State of Washington.

PRICE, $1.00.

THE PACIFIC SEATTLE MASON, PUBLISHER.

1899.

PREFACE.

The following paper was originally prepared for the use of the members of the Grand Lodge of Washington, Free and Accepted Masons. The opinion having been expressed that the interest felt by members of the Fraternity throughout the country in the subject, to which the paper relates will occasion a demand for the "Proceedings" of that Grand Lodge which would cast an undue burden on the Grand Lodge; and THE PACIFIC MASON, with its usual public spirit, having offered to come to the relief of the Grand Lodge by publishing a separate edition of the essay, a few copies are now issued in the present form.

The writer can add nothing to the idea expressed in the introductory part of the paper: That it was written solely with a view of supplying, in a convenient form, more correct information upon the subject of "Negro Masonry" than is generally accessible. If the paper assists the candid seeker after truth to form a more correct conception of the history and rightful status of the Negro Mason, its purpose will have been accomplished.

The writer will be glad to be informed of any errors or inaccuracies that may have crept into the paper.

W. H. U.

Walla Walla, June, 1899.

REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION

Of objections to the Legitimacy of the Masonry Existing Among the Negroes of America.

lNTRODUCTORY......................................................................................

LIST OF OBJECTIONS ..............................................................................

Objections to the initiation Of PRINCE HALL ................................................

Objections to the inchoate Lodge, 17 7 51 8 7 ...........................................

Objections to African Lodge, No. 459 ..........................................................

BRITISH MASONRY, 17751787a Digression ...............................................

MASONRY IN MASSACHUSETTS, 17751787a Digression ............................

Objections to the career of African Lodge, 1808-1847, ..................................

Objections to Lodges founded by PRINCE HALL ............................................

Objections to the first negro Grand Lodge .....................................................

Objections to later Negro Grand Lodges ........................................................

MASONRY IN THE PIIILIPPIITEI,AN ALLEGORY ............................................

Objections to recognition ............................................................................

how to solve the problem ............................................................................

Appendices ...............................................................................................

SECTIONS.

INTRODUCTORY.

1. At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Washington in 1891, a respectful petition was received from two colored men who claimed to be Masons, praying the Grand Lodge to "devise some way" whereby they might be "brought into communication with" members of the Craft in this state.

( 1. At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Washington in 1897 a respectful petition was received from two colored men who claimed to be Masons, praying the Grand Lodge to "devise some way" whereby they might be "brought into communication with" members of the Craft in this state. The petition was referred to a committee composed of Past Grand 'Masters THOMAS MILBURNE REED and JAMES EWEN EDMISTON and the present writer, then a Grand Warden. The committee reported the following year, and its report was adopted by an almost unanimous vote. In their report the committee plainly expressed the personal belief of the members thereof, that the negro Masons of the United States who can trace their descent from the Grand Lodge of England are as fully entitled to the name of Masons as any other brethren. But, as they knew that a different view was entertained in many quarters; and were satisfied that the ends of justice could be served without any change in our law; out of comity, and in the interest of harmony, they recommended only the adoption of certain resolutions, which left the status of the petitioners as it was under the Landmarks and ancient usages of the Craft, except that the Grand Lodge declared that the colored Masons might cultivate the royal art and regulate their own affairs within this state without molestation from it. *

Because the committee took the view that the matter before it concerned this Grand Lodge alone, and was prepared to answer orally on the floor of the Grand Lodge any questions that might be asked; and because it intended to propose no change in our law, unless the declaration just mentioned amounts to a change, it did not deem it necessary to discuss with three exceptions, and these but brielly the objections that

*The following were the resolutions adopted:

" Resolved, That, in the opinion pf this Grand Lodge, Masonry is universal; and, without doubt, neither race nor color are among the tests proper to be applied to determine the fitness of a candidate for the degrees of Masonry.

" Resolved, That in view of recognized laws of the Masonic Institution, and of facts of history apparently well authenticated and worthy of full credence, this Grand Lodge does not see its way clear to deny or question the right of its constituent Lodges, or of the members thereof, to recognize as brother Masons, negroes who have been initiated in Lodges which can trace their origin to African Lodge, No. 459, organized under the warrant of our R. W. Brother THOMAS HOWARD, Earl of EFFINGIIAM, Acting Grand Master, under the authority of H. R. H. HENRY FREDERICK, Duke Of CUILBERLAND, etc., Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honourable Society of F. & A. Masons in England, bearing date September 29, A. L. 5784, or to our R. W. Brother PRINCE HALL, Master of said Lodge; and, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, for the purpose of tracing such origin, the African Grand Lodge, of Boston, organized in 1808 subsequently known as the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the first African Grand Lodge of North America in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, organized in 1815, and the Hiram Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania may justly be regarded as legitimate Masonic Grand Lodges.

"Resolved, That while this Grand Lodge recognizes no difference between brethren based upon race or color, yet it is not unmindful of the fact that the white and colored races in the United States have in many ways shown a preference to remain, in purely social matters, separate and apart. In view of this inclination of the two races Masonry being preeminently a social Institution this Grand Lodge deems it to the best interest of Masonry to declare that if regular Masons of African descent desire to establish, within the State of Washington, Lodges confined wholly or chiefly to brethren of their race, and shall establish such Lodges strictly in accordance with the Landmarks of Masonry, and in accordance with Masonic Law as heretofore interpreted by Masonic tribunals of their own race, and if such Lodges shall in due time see fit in like manner to erect a Grand Lodge for the better administration of their affairs, this Grand Lodge, having more regard for the good of Masonry than for any mere technicality, will not regard the establishment of such Lodges or Grand Lodge as an invasion of its jurisdiction, but as evincing a disposition to conform to its own ideas as to the best interests of the Craft under peculiar circumstances; and will ever extend to our colored brethren its sincere sympathy in every effort to promote the welfare of the Craft or inculcate the pure principles of our Art.

"Resolved, That the Grand Secretary be instructed to acknowledge receipt of the communication from GIDEON S. BAILEY and CON A. RIDEOUT , and forward to them a copy of the printed Proceedings of this annual communication of the Grand Lodge, as a response to said communication."Proceediiigs, G. L. of Washington, 1898, p. 60.

Masonry; but contented itself with remarking that they had been "fully met and completely answered, over and over again." Subsequent events seem to me to demonstrate that this course was a mistake; and I feel free to say so, as I prepared the report of the committee. For, during the year, those same old, threadbare and untenable objections have been brought forward in numerous Grand Lodges; with the result, not only that this Grand Lodge has been condemned without a hearing, but that the question itself has been prejudiced in many Grand Lodges for another generation, by the mistaken notion that its merits were fully examined in the year 18989 by committees of those jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, no single committeeso far as indicated by its reporthas given it more than a superficial examination, or shown any acquaintance with the later literature of the subject, referred to by the Washington committee last year.

( 2. The comity and consideration for the opinions of others shown by the Washington committee and Grand Lodge were neither appreciated nor reciprocated. During the year, in a number of Grand Lodges, the position of this Grand Lodge has been savagely attacked, often in language disgraceful to Masonry. Men whose utterances fail to disclose even a superficial acquaintance with either the history or the law of the subject, have presumed to sit as judges in condemnation of this Grand Lodge; and Grand Lodges have usurped a supervisory power over our actions which, if acquiesced in, means not only the destruction of the sovereignty of this Grand Lodge, but the end of that principle of self‑government among Masons which has been claimed as a cornerstone of our Institution since the dawn of its history.

( 3. Under these circumstances, it seemed tome to be due to the brethren of this Grand Lodge who, last year, confided in the judgment, knowledge and integrity of their committee, and who, this year, may be called upon to again pass upon similar questions; as well as to friends of this Grand Lodge elsewhere who may lack time or opportunity to investigate the subject for themselves, that a plain statement should be made of the reasons which exist for considering the negro Masons of America within the pale of the Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons. I had hoped that some other of the many hands in this jurisdiction more capable than mine might prepare this statement; and especially that it might be undertaken by that beloved brother who has ruled over two generations of Masons and now dwells in lionor among the third, and who has had no superior among Masons in the state of his nativity*, or

* Grand Secretary Reed first saw both the light of nature and the light of Masonry in Kentuckythe jurisdiction which was the first to denounce us, and the one which employed the most indecent language. Brother Edmiston, another member of our committee on Negro Masonry, and a Mason who, as chairman of the Committee on Jurisprudence, has made a reputation as a Masonic jurist such as no other son of Arkansas enjoys, is a native of that State; and in the Confederate army did what he could to rivet the shackles of slavery on the negro. The Grand Lodge of his native State sought to rival Kentucky in malignant abuse of this Grand Lodge.

in the State whose foundations he assisted to lay. But one circumstance after another seemed to lay the task upon me. It is a task which I would gladly have escaped. I have no taste for controversy; I feel no special interest in negro Masonry, and originally discussed the subject only because detailed to that duty by my Grand Master. Other deterrent circumstances, also, exist, too personal in their nature to be of interest to the reader, but which constantly remind me of the vanity of all things earthly; and, most of all, of the frivolity of such petty prejudices and technicalities as have prompted the recent attacks on this Grand Lodge, and of those attacks themselves: "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."

( 4. I am not particularly intimidated by the knowledge, which has come to me during the year, not merely by what has appeared in print but by abusive letters, that the undertaking will subject me to scurrilous abuse and cowardly vituperation; for since I have learned how thin the veneer of Masonry and of civilization is upon some men who have held high places in Masonic councils; and that, as one eminent brother has expressed it, men whom I had been wont to look up to as leaders are "tifty years behind the times and a thousand years behind the principles they profess," I have become indifferent to their abuse: as LAURENCE DERMOTT expressed it, 'I do not find that the calumny of a few Modern Masons has done me any real injury."

I shall write for four classes of readers: First, the little band of Masonic scholars who, in diverse climes, pursue their studies for the sake of truth alone the most of these already know and declare that the Grand Lodge of Washington is right; second, that large class of brethren who have neither time nor opportunities for personal investigation, and are compelled to take their information at second hand; third, a determined and implacable and well organized band of men who have determined that, right or wrong, Mason or no Mason, come what may, the negro shall not be recognized by American Grand Lodges; and, lastly, the members of my own Grand Lodge, who may be called upon to act upon the matters which I shall discuss, and who have a right to feel sure of their ground before acting. I feel that the first and last of these classes know me well enough to rely implicitly on the frankness and candor with which I shall address them. I feel quite as certain that the discordant and malignant cries of the third class will so drown my voice that for the present it will not reach the ears of the second; and possessed of this conviction I am content to address the few of today, the many of tomorrowto appeal to posterity and a future age.

( 5. In casting about for a plan on which to present my view of the subject, no better one has occurred to me than to take up, one by one, every objection that has ever been urged against the regularity of the Masonry found among the negroes, and set forth, under each, the reasons why it failed to impress me as sound. This, therefore, is the course I shall adopt in the following pages; and when I have done this I shall have placed my reader, so far as my ability to express my meaning clearly, and the unfavorable circumstances under which I write permit, in a position to see why I reach the conclusion that no single one of the objections is valid; and to judge for himself whether he agrees with me or not. When I have done this, my task will have been completed;. unless I invite such readers only as reach the same conclusions as I do, to consider briefly what course ought to be adopted by the white Masons of America to restore the ancient universality of Masonry. "The curious subject of Freemasonry," said HALLA31,* eighty years ago, "has been treated of only by panegyrists or caltimniators, both equally mendaciotis." What was true of Freemasonry even fifty years after HALLAM spoke, is nearly as true today of "the curious subject" of Negro Masonry. While I shall write of it avowedly as a partisan, I shall endeavor not to deserve the reproach which the historian applied to our ancient brethren. I shall avoid as much as possible the tone of controversy, and shall cite authorities for statements of fact not found in the commoner Masonic histories. I hope I may be pardoned for adding that I have sufficient confidence in my own intellectual honesty to believe that Time, if she shall point out any trifling errors of statement, and whether she confirms or refutes my conclusions, will vindicate the candor with which I present the subject and the correctness of my statements of historical facts.

Origin of* Negro Masonry. The origin of Masonry among the negroes of the United States was as follows:

On March 6,1775, an army Lodge attached to one of the regiments stationed under General Gage, in or Dear Boston, Mass., initiated PRINCE HALL and fourteen other colored men of Boston into the mysteries of Freemasonry. From that beginning, with small additions from foreign countries, sprang the Masonry among the negroes of America. These fifteen brethren were probably authorized by the Lodge which made them according to the custom of the day to assemble as a Lodge. At least they did so, but it does not appear that they did any "work" until after they were regularly warranted. They applied to the Grand Lodge of England for a warrant, March 2, 1784. It was issued to them, as "African Lodge No. 459," with PRINCE HALL as Master, September

*Middle Ages, iii, 359.

t This sketch of the origin of negro Masonry is substantially that compiled by the present writer in 1895 (Proceedings, G. L. of Washington, 1895, Cor. Rep., p. 206) and adopted by the Washington committee on Negro Masonry (Proceedings, 1898, p. 52). It was originally compiled from data drawn from a great variety of sources. Its general correctness has not been questioned by any Grand Lodge committee during the heated controversy of the past year; but, nevertheless, it is not here presented as authoritative, t,ut merely as a thread to string our inquiry upon. The few points in it concerning which any question has ever been raised will be discussed in subsequent sections. CLARKA trustworthy authority states that PRINCE HALL wits initiated a short time before March 6, but the others on that day. Negro Masonry in Equity, 13.

Were we ignorant of the manner in which Lodge numbers were assigned, in view of subsequent events we might suspect that grim humor had led a prophetic Grand Secretary to assign to African Lodge the number which was borne by that "Spectator," in which ADDISON bad said, "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love, one another."

29, 1884, but not received until May 2, 1787. The Lodge was organized under the warrant four days later. It remained upon the English registry occasionally contributing to the Grand Charity Fund until, upon the amalgamation of the rival Grand Lodges of the "Moderns " and the "Ancients " into the present United G. L. of England, in 1813, it and the other English Lodges in the United States were erased.

Brother PRINCE HALL, a man of exceptional ability, worked zealously in the cause of Masonry; and, from 1792 until his death in 1807, exercised all the functions of a Provincial Grand Master. ln 1707 he issued a license to thirteen black men who bad been made Masons in England to "assemble and work" as a Lodge in Philadelphia. Another Lodge was organized, by his authority, in Providence, Rhode Island. In 1808 these three Lodges joined in forming the "African Grand Lodge" of Boston subsequently styled the "Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts" and Masonry gradually spread over the land.

The second colored Grand Lodge, called the "First Independent African Grand Lodge of North America in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," was organized in 1815 and the third was the "Hiram Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania." These three Grand Bodies fully recognized each other in 1847, by joining in forming a National Grand Lodge, and practically all the negro Lodges in the United States are descended from one or the other of these.

It is known to a certainty that they have our secrets and practice our rites. * Many foreign Grand Lodges recognize their organizations; and where this is not done, their individual members are commonly received as visitors.

( 7. btatus coneetled them. In the earliest days their Lodge was freely visited by white Masons; f and down to the present time many white Masons, when influenced by curiosity or higher motives, have not hesitated to thus recognize them. But gradually, especially after some white Grand Lodges, t acting upon the slight information that was then accessible ll had questioned their standing, and the advantages of exclusive territorial jurisdiction had become apparent, their origin was lost sight of; and the 'view that they were for what reason was generally but vaguely understoodmore or less irregular, became prevalent, and tinally crystallized among the rank and file of the Fraternity into almost an axiom. The subject has, however, been examined occasionally; and,

* Proceedings, G. L. of Washington, 1895, Cor. Rep., pp. ~08, 209. Letter of P. G Master L. V. BiEncE; New Day New Duty, 16.

t PRINCE: HALL incidentally mentions this; (see Appendix 11, post); and JAcoB NORTON, speaking of the same period, says, in a letter dated Sept. 26, 1872, printed in the London Freemason: "I have indubitable proof that African Lodge was then repeatedly visited by white brethren."

The terms "white Grand Lodge" and "white Lodge," where employed in this paper, are used merely as convenient terms to distinguish our own organizations in the majoritg of which no "color line " is noininally drawn from the negro bodies.

11 New York as early as 1818 and 1829.

2. As persons whose claim to Masonic consideration has been passed upon adversely, legislatively, and upon an ex parte showing by the local Grand Lodge, and is therefore to be considered no further.

3. As Masons, more or less irregular, whose claims to legitimacy it would be inconvenient to acknowledge; and who, therefore, had better be quietly ignored, under the best excuse that may be at hand.

4. As persons whose claims have never been passed upon by our Grand Lodge, and of whom, therefore, every Mason of our jurisdiction must be his own judge.

5. As Masons, found to have been made consistently with the Landmarks and general laws of the institution at large; and, therefore, with certain claims upon us which we are not at liberty to wholly ignore; but to whose organizations it is not expedient (out of comity for certain other Bodies, and under certain "American doctrines") for us to accord formal or, perhaps, any official recognition.

6. As Masons, whose organizations ought to be accorded by us the same recognition as that accorded to other American Grand Lodges and Lodges,

The literature of the subject during the last year would indicate that the official Grand Lodge classification of them which, in the North, has usually been somewhat more rigorous than the personal views of leading members of the Grand Lodges in a majority of jurisdictions of the United States places them in class 2; though sometimes the language points to classes 1 or 3. The Washington committee last year* found them in this State, in class 4; and although the committee plainly stated that the personal opinion of its members placed them in class 5not in class 6, as has been inferred, it recommended leaving them in class 4. And that is where they stand in Washington today. Masonic sentiment outside of the United States and possibly parts of Canada is practically unanimous in placing them in classes 5 or 6.

Since the subject was under consideration in 1869 and 1876, there has been a slight but perceptible drift of opinion in favor of the correctness of some of the claims put forward by the negro Masons.t Thus, even in Delaware the Grand Master now admitst that

"This is not a question of the regularity and legitimacy of PRINCE HALL'S making, but of the right which he exercised to erect Lodges of Negro Masons. * * * "

One of the most virulent of the anti-negro writers, who in 1816 reported to his Grand Lodge that the negro Lodges were "irregular and must be held to be clandestine," has Dow reached the conclusion that ii

*Proceedings, G. L. of Washington, 1898, p. 50.

fsee also the views of Dr. JosEpu RoBBiNs, in Appendix 28, post.

"If one of these colored Lodges were in existence in Washington today and should ask to give in its adhesion to the Grand Lodge of Washington, and that Body should accept, and issue a charter to it, that Lodge would thereby become, as to all the world, a regular lodge. * * * "

Of course, such would not be the case had the Lodge and its members been "clandestine."

( 8. Definitions. This last remark illustrates the wisdom of having definite meanings for the words we employ. The words "regular," "non-regular," "irregular" and "clandestine," in particular, will frequently occur throughout this paper. It is unfortunate that they are sometimes employed by Masons indifferent senses. "Irregularities" may, of course, be either trifling or enormous. The phrase "a regular Lodge," however, has a definite and certain meaning, given it by one of the "Old Regulations" of 1721; wherein the only Grand Lodge in the world declared that when members of its Lodges desired to form a new Lodge "they must obtain the GRAND MASTER'S warrant to join in forming a NEw LODGE," until which time the "REGULAR LODGES" were not to countenance them.* This subject will be fully discussed in subsequent parts of this paper;f and hence we need observe here, only that while there was but one Grand Lodge, a "regular" Lodge was one that, having been formed by authority of the Grand Master or his representative, was enrolled or entitled to be enrolled upon its Register. As other Grand Lodges were formed, the definition was naturally extended to include all Lodges which had been formed under the authority of any Grand Lodge or Grand Master; or, having been formed otherwise, had been "regularized" by being placed on the roll of a Grand Lodge. All other Lodges were nonregular. On this point a brother who has made this subject his peculiar field, and who, for accuracy of knowledge and of expression stands second to no other Mason, of this or any other age, says:t

"What was meant by the regularity" of Lodges in early days was that such Lodges as were under the jurisdiction (sub regula) of the Grand Master were styled Regular. This did not imply that all other Lodges were irregular; far from it. They were non Regular, but not necessarily clandestine or unlawful. A similar distinction holds in the Roman Catholic church between the secular (or parochial) clergy, and the regular (or monastic) clergy. This does not stigmatize the former as irregular. Some of our historians have failed to grasp the distinction, and have thought Regular Lodges alone could be lawful at any period of our history."

In later times inexact writers, in and out of Grand Lodges, have used the term "regular" as though it applied only to Lodges upon the roll of recognized Grand Lodges. But this indicates a total misconception of the meaning of the term. The word "regular" has no relation to the legitimacy of a Lodge, but relates solely to the question of its right to enrollment. The Grand Lodge of Washington has never formally "recognized" any of the German Grand Lodges; but unquestionably it regards

*General Regulations, A. D. 1721, viii.

tsee

22,23,51 et seq., post.

*W. J. CHETWODE CRAWLEY, Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, ix, 125. See also Appendix 16, post.

12

all their Lodges as "regular," if they be Masonic Lodges at all. By a similar latitude, Grand Lodges have been wont to vote that such and such a Lodge is "irregular" or "clandestine." This only means that they will so regard it, and is similar to the action of Grand Lodges which vote a Master Mason the "rank" of Past Grand Master. All the world knows that he is not u past Grand Master. There is nothing in the world to prevent the Grand Lodge of Kentucky from voting that our Lodge, Olympia, No. 1, is an "irregular" or a "clandestine Lodge." But such a vote does not affect the actual standing of the Lodge, but only its subjective standing with relation to that particular Grand Lodge and such other bodies as elect to adopt that vote to govern their own concerns. From the practice last mentioned, it results that a Lodge may be "regular" in one jurisdiction and with reference to the general law of the Institution, and yet be under a judgment of irregularity in another. The word "clandestine" is also used somewhat recklessly at times by reckless writers, when looking around for some word that is strong enough to express their detestation; but nearly all writers admit that, properly, it is a much stronger word than "irregular." Perhaps the clearest idea of the correct use of the word may be obtained by applying this test: Anything that can or could be "healed" or cured, in any way o r by any body, is not "clandestine, " but is, at most, "irregular." A great lawyer* speaking of what acts might be held to amount to "fraud," said:

"The court very wisely hath never laid down any general rule, beyond which it will not go; lest other means for avoiding the equity of the court should be found out."

Perhaps a similar respect for the ingenuity of depravity ought to deter us from making any definite list of acts that may be clandestine.

( 9. List of objections. It may be a convenience to the reader if I now give a list of the objections which will be considered in this paper. To make the list serve the purpose of a table of contents, I add, after each objection, the numbers of the sections in which it is answered. This will enable the reader to skip those parts of the paper which relate to objections which he already knows to be puerile. (I claim that this is one of the most unselfish suggestions ever made by any writer; for it will justify many well-informed Masons in closing the book as soon as they have run their eye over the list.

Objection to the initiation OF PRINCE HALL and his companions.

1. That there is Do evidence that they were ever made Masons..~, 10.

2. But if made, they were made in an army Lodge.~ 11.

3. That in 1773 a Provincial Grand Lodge at Boston had forbidden army Lodges to initiate eivilians.~,~ 12, 13.

4. That negroes are ineligible to be made Masons.~,~ J476.

Objection to the inchoate Lodge.

5. That until 1787 the first negro Lodge had no warrant or charter. a ch ill a vs to I]te 7e ,r m in a, .d

Objections to African Lodge, No. 459.

6. That it never had a warrant; but the pretended warrant was a forgery.(( 78, 19.

7. That England ipso facto lost the right to warrant Lodges in the United States when the independence of this Nation was recognized( 20.

8. That the warranting of African Lodge was an invasion of the jurisdiction of a Massachusetts Grand Lodge.(( 2,7, 3336.

9. That it is not known that African Lodge was ever formally "constituted."( 37.

10. That the *organization of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 179'~) invalidated the further existence of African Lodge.( 3843.

Objections to the career of African Lodge, 18081847.

11. That the Lodge became dormant, some time after 1807.~ 44.

12. That it was dropped from the English register at the end of 1813. 45.

13. That it surrendered its warrant to England in 1824.,~ 46.

14. That it declared itself independent, in 1827.( 47.

15. That it surrendered its warrant to the National Grand Lodge in 1847.~ 48.

Objections to Lodges founded by PRINCE HALL.

16. That African Lodge was not a Grand Lodge, and PRINCE HALL not a Grand Master; and consequently they could not establish other Lodges.~( 49,58.

17. That the Lodges established by them were in invasion of the jurisdictions of existing Grand Lodges.~( 6871.

Objections to thefirst negro Grand Lodge.

18. That its erection was an infringement of the "American Doctrine" of the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of Grand Lodges.~ 6Z64.

19. That it became dormant .zl, 65.

20. That in 1847 it surrendered its independence sovereignty by becoming a constituent of the National Grand Lodge.~ 66.

21. That the negro Masons abandoned the requirement that candidates be "free born."( 67.

Objection to later negro Lodges and Grand Lodges.

22. That their existence is an invasion of jurisdiction.~ 6,~7Z.

Objections to recognizing.

23. That however legitimate negro Masonry may be, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has, it is said, decided against it, and all the world is bound by that decision.~( 7783.

24. That the language of our installation charges precludes recognition.( 84.

25. That there are rival Grand Lodges among the negro Masons, and they are "not ready" for recognition until they have settled their internal differences.( 85.

26. That recognition would injuriously affect the "high degree" bodies.~, 86.

27. That recognition would involve a recognition of the "social equality" of the negro.~,'~7.

28. That recognition by one Grand Lodge m ' ight occasion inconvenieiiee to others which did not recognize.( 8,1~.

29. That for other Grand Lodges to recognize a particular negro Grand Lodge, before it had been recognized by the white Grand Lodge of the State in which it is situated, would be an infringement of that spirit of comity which pervades the relations between the white Grand Lodges.~~ "~9.

Objections to the initiation 0/'PRINCE HALL and his companions~.

10. Doubts as ' to their making. The first objection to the regularity of PRINCE HALL and his associates which I shall consider is one of the conclusions" of the Massachusetts committee of 1876,* that there is "'No evidence that they were made Masons in any Masonic Lodge." Wi suggestion of such a doubt, never heard of until a century after thto which it alludes, is an illustration of the methods of those who, having predetermined that right or wrong the claims of the negro Masons shall be rejected; it is to the credit of American Masons that few of them have laid any stress upon it. Like most of the "conclusions" of that committee, there is nothing at all in the body of the report to base it upon. Of course, the sufficient answer to this objection is that the Grand Master of England was satisfied on that point before he granted his warrant for African Lodge. That answer is not only a conclusive one when the matter is approached as a question of Masonic jurisprudence, but it was en

*Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., Sept. 1876, p. 59. This report, which appears to be about all of the literature of the subject which most of the southern committees have ever read, will bespoken of again in ~~, 82, post. As these so-called "conclusions" Many of which are not conclusions at all, and do not follow from anything stated in the report proper, but are mere assertions and opinion sha;e been copied into nearly every committee report during the year and accepted as gospel, I give them here; and have inserted in brackets after each the sections of this paper wherein its subject is incidentally disposed of.

"1. No evidence that they were made Masons in any Masonic Lodge, [,' 10.] "2. If made, they were irregularly made. [~ 1116.] "3. They never had any American authority for constituting a Lodge. [P,, 19.1 "4. Their charter from England was granted at a time when all American Masonic authority agrees that the Grand Lodge of England had no power to make Lodges in the United States after the acknowledgment of our independence, November 30, 1782, and the treaty of peace made November 3, 1783. [~ ~?0.] "5. The Grand Lodge of England dropped African Lodge from their list in 1813. [~ 45.] Said Lodge does not appear to have worked since PRINCE HALL'S death, in 1807, except this: that in 1827 parties calling themselves African Lodge, No. 459, repudiated the Grand Lodge of England. [~44.1 "6. The Grand Lodge of England did not delegate to African Lodge any power to constitute other Lodges, or to work elsewhere than in Boston.

No Masonic authority exists for any of the organizations since 1807, whether pseudo Lodges or Grand Lodges JR 4960]; and no evidence of the Masonry of any of their members has come to our knowledge. [~ 6 last note.] "S. Neither English nor any other Masonic authority exists, nor has at anytime existed, for these colored Lodges located out of Boston to make Masons or practice Freemasonry, [~?, 50, 64, 6871.] Each of them began its existence in defiance of the Masonic community

of the, st.f 15

tirely convincing to my mind when I approached the subject as a private inquirer. Yet for the benefit of the more sceptical, I add the following; Brother CLARK informs us* that

"The records of the initiation of these fifteen colored men is in possession of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts." . Grand Master WILLIAM SEWALL GARDNER, in his address to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, said (italics mine):

"I have no doubt that, on the 6th of March, 1775, the day after WARREN delivered his celebrated oration in the Old South Church, where he was menaced by British troops, PRINCE HALL and thirteen others received the three degrees in a travelling Lodge attached to one of the British regiments in the army of General GAGE, by whom Boston was then garrisoned; that PRINCE HALL and his associates met as a Lodge thereafter in Boston, without any warrant or authority until May, 1787." A committee reported to the Grand Lodge of Ohio in 1876 as follows:

"Your committee deem it sufficient to say that they are satisfied beyond all question that Colored Freemasonry had a legitimate beginning in this country, as much so as any other Freemasonry; in fact, it came from the same source."

The absurdity is apparent of supposing that no denial of their Masonry would have been made at the time; no attempt to prevent their obtaining a warrant, when the fact of their initiation was common talk in Boston, and when the public press had stated that they had sent to England for' a warrant, and were disappointed at its nonarrival. 11 How many Lodges, formed in 1784, can now show where their members were initiated? But, after all, the true answer to this objection is that sufficient evidence must have existed in 1784 to satisfy the Grand Master of England; and it is immaterial whether that evidence still exists or not.

~ll. Objection that they tvere tnade in a military Lodge. It is objected that the making of PRINCE HALL and his associates was irregular because they were made in a military Lodge, and military Lodges it is alleged were forbidden by the law of the Grand Lodge of England to initiate civilians. If this last allegation were true instead of being absolutely without any foundation whatever it would be completely answered by the fact that these brethren were "regularized," in 1784, in the only way then known to Masonry by receiving the warrant of the Grand Master of England and being enrolled as Lodge No. 459 on the register of the premier Grand Lodge of the world.

*The Negro Mason in Equity by M.'.W.*.SAMUEL W. CLARK (n. p. [Cincinnati]: 1886),14. This admirable work so completely demolishes the principal arguments against the negro Masons that the present report would be superfluous were Bro. CLARK's book in the hands of the brethren generally. JACOB iNORToN and others examined these records. See ~~ 44, note; 80, note, post.

tproceedings, G. L. of Mass., 1870, p. 34. Grand Master GARDNER Was the arellenemy of the negro Masons, and this address is incomparably the ablest document of all that have appeared against them.

'.Composed, as has been said, "of the leading Masons of Ohio": Lucius V. BIERCE, ENOCH T. CARS014, FERDINAND WILMER, Louis H. PIKE and CHARLEs A. WOODWARD.Proceedings G. L. of Ohio, 1876, p. 17.

,I See ~ 15, post; and Appendix 7.

But let us probe this objection a little deeper. Who could make a law prohibiting the military Lodge from making PRINCE HALL a Mason? Obviously, the Grand Lodge to which it belonged. Recognizing this, some of our critics * have cited OLIVIMR'S "Dictionary of Symbolic Masonry " for the statement that a law of the ("Modern") Grand Lodge of England forbade the initiation of civilians by military Lodges. It is almost cruel to give the answer to this rare instance in which those who have assumed that the Masons of Washington were ignoramuses, have deigned to cite any authority for their assertions, In the first place, OLIVER'S inexactness is so well known that he is never cited, by scholars, as authority on a disputed point; in the second place, at this point OLIVER was speaking of a period long subsequent to 1775; and, finally, it's absolutely certain that neither of the English Grand Lodges had any law on that subject at that time. I have before me the 1764 and 1807 editions of the "Ahiman Rezon " of the " Ancient" f Grand Lodge, the former of which was in force when PRINCE HALL was initiated the next edition having appeared in 1778 and in neither of these is there the slightest trace of any law on that subject. And I am authorized by the highest authority in England on such a point, Bro. WILLIAM JAmiEs HUGHAN, to quote him as saying that no such law appears "in any edition of the Constitutions" of the "Modern" Grand Lodge "until the year 1815."f Should it be shown that PRINCE HALL'S initiation occurred in a Scotch or Irish Lodge, an even more stunning response to this objection would exist.

( 12. Same. The Vote of 1773. 11 But so eager has been the desire to oniit nothing that might becloud the mind of too inquiring brethren, that we have been gravely reminded that in 1773 the St. Andrew's Provincial Grand Lodge at Boston "passed a vote" that I I no traveling Lodge had the right in this jurisdiction to make Masons of any citizens." ** It was I will not say uncandid, but unfortunate and misleading that Grand Master GARDNER attributed this to " the Massachusetts Grand Lodge "; ff and Bro. WOODBURY to "the" Provincial Grand Lodge "of Massachusetts. " tt Many have been misled thereby into supposing that this vote

* Special report of Committee on For. Cor.; Proceedings, G. L. of Arkansas, 1898; et seq. (By the last two words I mean, See also the reports of numerous other committees who have lazily followed the Arkansas assertion, and copied it into their reports, without investigation.)

t The reader unfamiliar with the terms " Ancient " G. L. and " Modern " G. L. will find them explained in ?24, post.

I Bro. HUGHAN wrote the same thing to Bro. W. R. SINGLETON of the D. C., but Bro. SINGLETON could not read his letter! See Proceedings, G. L. of D. C., 1898, Cor. Rep., s. v. "Kentucky." 11 See p 13, post.

** The language of this " vote " is not quite identical in all our authorities. My quotation is from the Woodbury Report. Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., Sept. 1876, p. 67.

11,

was passed by the Grand Lodge oj' Massachusetts, and there lies before the writer at this moment a letter from a most respected New England Grand Master, in which it is suggested that he and the Grand Master of Washington are precluded by "this action by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, with which the Grand Lodges of Washington and are in affiliation "!

It may be advisable for the younger reader who desires to more cleitily understand the condition of Masonry in Massachusetts at the time this vote was passed, to turn, at this point, and read what is said of the "Ancients" and "Moderns" in sections 22 to 26, and of Masonry in Massachusetts in sections 27 to 32. To appreciate the absurdity of citing this vote of 1773, the well read Mason needs to be reminded of but few points: First, that the body that passed it was not a Grand Lodge at all, but was a Provincial Grand Lodge* existing by the will and pleasure of the Proviricial Grand Master appointed by the Grand Master Mason of Scotland; and had no jurisdiction whatever except over the four Scotch Lodges in Massachusetts, St. Andrew's and Massachusetts Lodges in Boston, Tyrian

with the independent body organized in 1777, it did not assume the name of "The Massachusetts Grand Lodge of Ancient Masons' until 1782. The present "Grand Lodge of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," created by the union of the last nained body of "Ancient" Masons with the rival St. John's (Provincial) Grand Lodge of "Modern" Masons. was not formed until 1792. The matter is more fully discussed in ~,~ 2732, post.

*The Address of Gr.iiid Master GARDNER, which contains the ablest attack on the negro idasons we have seen, also contains an able and scholarly discussion of the Provincial Grand Lodge system, from which the following correct statement of the subject is condensed:

"The Provincial Grand Alaster was appointed by commission of the Grand Master, wherein the extent of his powers were set forth, and by virtue of which he convened his Grand Body. In the language of early days, this commission was styled a Deputation, and this word conveys the true idea of the Provincial's position. It was aDeputy Grand Lodge, with its various Deputy Grand Officers, convened by the power and authority of the Provincial Grand Master as the Deputy of the Grand Master. It possessed no sovereign powers. * * * * "The allegiance of the Lodges and of the Craft was to the Grand Lodge of England for Scotland, etc., as the case might be], and to the Provincial Grand Lodge and Grand Alitster, through the parent Body, There was no direct allegiance to the Provincial from the Craft. * W. * "Thus it will be seen that the Provincial Grand Master was appointed for the coiiven ience of the administration of the affairs of the Grand Lodge of England in distant parts in the same manner that our District Deputies are appointed at the present time. * * ~ "The Provincial Grand Lodge was the creation of the Provincial Grand Master, and was wholly under his direction and control. * ~ * In this Grand Lodge there was no inherent power, save what it derived from the Provincial Grand IVIaster, by virtue of his delegated authority, thus making it the very reverse of a Sovereign Grand Lodge. * * "Such a Grand Lodge never possessed any vitality which would survive the life of the commission appointing the Provincial Grand Master.

"The death of the Provincial would also lead to tire same result. The commission to him from the Grand Master would lose all its force upon his decease.

Later quoting authorities]: "If these authorities support the position taken, and if the conclusions arrived at are correct, it follows beyond all controversy that when Provincial Grand Master Joseph WARREN expired on Bunker Hill, June 17,1775, the Provincial Grand Lodge, of which lie was the essence and life, expired also, and with it all the offices of which it was composed. "Proceedings (,. L. of Massachusetts, 1870, pp. 1823.

2 is

REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.

at Gloucester, and St. Peter's at Newburyport;* that it was an "Ancient" body and had or claimed no jurisdiction over "Modern" Masons or their Lodges; and that a Provincial Grand Master, or the Grand Lodge of his province, had no jurisdiction over military Lodges temporarily in the province. The latter, whether "Ancient" or "Modern," English, Scotch or Irish, owed Do allegiance save to the Grand Lodge, whose warrant they held; and could laugh to scorn any assertion on the part of a petty Provincial body to legislate concerning them. If the authors of the vote of 1773 had any idea of usurping jurisdiction over the English and Irish army Lodges, they forgot their own history, and disregarded the words of their own Grand Master; for when, in 1762, the English Lodges in, Boston objected to the establishment of the first Scotch Lodge in that city, St. Andrew's Lodge, as an infringement on the jurisdiction of JERF,Nty GRIDLEY, the English Provincial Grand Master, the Grand Master Mason of Scotland wrote t (italics mine):

,I do not doubt nor dispute his [GRIDLEY's] authority as Grand Master qf all the Lodges in North America, who acknowlege the authority and hold of the Grand Lodge of England, as he certainly has a warrant and commission from the Grand Master of England to that effect. The Grand Master and Grand Lodge of Scotland have also granted a warrant and commission to our Rt. Worshipful Brother, Col. JOHN YOUNG, Es q., constituting and appointing him Provincial Grand Master of all the Lodges in North America who acknowledge the authority and hold of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. These commissions when rightly understood can never clash or interfere with each other."

The Grand Master Mason of Scotland was right: He himself had no jurisdiction over the English and Irish army Lodges in America, and the petty Provincial Grand Lodge, whose very existence was dependent upon the pleasure of his Provincial Deputy, had none.

( 13. Same.I had written section 12 before it occurred to me that it could possibly be necessary to verify the correctness of the statements of the Massachusetts writers, that there was such a vote as they speak of..

* For the last three Lodges, see Proceedings G. L. of Massachusetts, 1869,2).172; and Drumiiioiid, in Gould's History, iv, 343. For St. Andrew's Lodge, see ~,28, post.

f This was undoubtedly the general rule. The idea that a Grand Lodge ruled over territory instead of over the Lodges upon its own roU o)dy and their members could legislate for other Lodges or Masons, and even for profaiies flrst found adherents in any numbers, at a much later day. Indeed, if the "vote of 1773" was intended to suggest such a dogma, it probably is entitled to the distinction of being the first assertion of it, and may become as famous in history as the "crime of 1813." Some reasons for thinking that it remember we are now speaking of the legislative power of Grand Lodges, not of the judicial functions of a Lodge is a false doctrine, and contrary to a fundamental principle of Masonry will be found in the introduction to the Masonic Code of Washington (Ed. 1897.)

"The letter is or purports to bequoted by DRUMMOND, Gould's History, iv, 300. Throughout this paper, in citing GOULD'S "History of Freemasonry," the reference is to the American (pirated) edition for the unavoidable reason that very few American readers have access to the English edition. In justice to GOULD, it should be remembered that he is not responsible for anything in the American edition after page 294 of volume

19

Having now examined the official proceedings,* I find therei never was any vote which purported to forbid the initiation ot' civilians by army Lodges. But I will let section 12 stand, as a monument to the trouble to which a man can be put by writers who will not or do not quote correctly.

Past Grand Master GARDNER'S language was:

"October 1, 1773, the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, after mature deliberation, decided that neither the Lodge at Castle William, nor any other traveling Lodge, 'has any right to make Masons of any citizen.,

Brother WOODBURY'S committee said:

"It is somewhat singular that the Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, October 1, 1773, passed a vote that 'no travelling Lodge had the right in this jurisdiction to make Masons of any citizens.' * * *'7

But the original record, under the date above mentioned, reads as follows (the brackets are mine): 11

'The Petition of RICHARD CARPENTER & Others, under the 2d of June was this Evening Read, and The Substance therein debated, [The Grand l,odge being fully of Opinion that the Lodge at Castle William nor no other Travelling Lodges, has any Right to Make Masons of any Citizen,] The same was put whether the Prayer of the said CARPENTER (V Others should be Granted, Passed in the Negative." What the nature of the petition was does not appear.

A child can see that Brothers GARDNER and WOODBURY unintentionally, I do doubt quoted what was not in the record; that the matter which I have placed in brackets was not voted on; that that part of the record is but the opinion of the Grand Secretary, Brother HOSKINS, as to what influenced the minds of the members of the Grand Lodge. Had Brothers GARDNER and WOODBURY been writing up the Proceedings of their Grand Lodge in 1870 and 1876, respectively, they might have inserted the opinion that the Grand Lodge was "fully of Opinion" corresponding to theirs; but the Grand Lodge did not say so in their cases.**

Similarly, Brother HOSKINS may have made a fine speech, taking the view expressed within the brackets, and may not have made a single convert to his view and yet believed he had convinced all present. However this may be, if the Prov. G. L. was of this "Opinion," it did not say so. If it thought travelling Lodges did not have "any Right" to initiate civilians, either because it knew that it had no jurisdiction over them, or for some other reason, it did n ' ot venture to "decide" or "pass a vote" that they should not do so; and that is the end of this objection.

(14. Negroes i?zeligible. We have now disposed of every objection that has been made to the mere initiation Of PRINCE HALL and his associates, unless it be the objection that negroes are ineligible to be made Masons. During the last year there has been great anxiety manifested to waive this objection, and to insist that no question of race or color is