|
Prince Hall Lodges
- History - Legitimacy - Quest for
Recognition
-
By
WB Joseph E. Moniot
-
Walter F. Meier Lodge of
Research No. 281
The reader
should be aware that, unlike the
abundance of writings and records of the
white Lodges and Grand Lodges of
America, those of the Prince Hall Lodges
and Grand Lodges are of extremely
limited supply. Those that are
available must be considered unreliable
and viewed with suspicion until
verified, if that be possible.
During the
past two hundred plus years, there have
been a certain few writers and
historians, of both the black and white
races, who have altered or adjusted
facts to serve their own purposes. Often
there will be more than one version of
certain data or events and neither can
be proven. When this occurs, both will
be included, any opinions formed will,
of necessity, be those of the reader.
On March
6, 1775, in a Lodge of Freemasons at
Castle William, Boston Harbour, (later
called Fort Independence) Prince Hall
and fourteen others were initiated by
the Master of Lodge No. 441: a traveling
military Lodge of Irish Registry
attached to the 38th Foot
(Regiment) under the command of General
Gage. The Master of Lodge No. 441 was
Sergeant (or Sergeant-Major) John B.
Batt.
From an
address by John V. DeGrasse to the
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of
Massachusetts, on June 30, 1858:
“One year
later (1776) According to a statement
which I have in his (Hall’s) own:
handwriting, in the company with Thomas
Sanderson, Boston Smith and others, he
organized and opened: under dispensation
granted by this British Traveling Lodge,
the first Lodge of Masons composed of
Coloured Men in America”.
Sources
differ as to the work performed by
African Lodge, No. 1 (so designated by
Prince Hall) from the time of its
formation until the receipt of its
Warrant in 1787. One source states that
work began immediately and up to
forty-one degrees were conferred.
In a
letter written by Prince Hall to the
Grand Lodge of England (Modern) of March
2, 1784, applying for a warrant, there
is no mention of work having been
performed. It stated only, that they
had “a permit to walk on St. John’s day
and bury our dead.”
A “Warrant
of Constitution” was issued for African
Lodge No. 459, by the Grand Lodge of
England; Signed and sealed on September
29, 1784 under the authority of His
Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of
Cumberland, Grand Master, by R. Holt,
Deputy Grand Master and attested by
William White, Grand Secretary.
After
several delays for various reasons, the
Warrant was delivered to Prince Hall on
April 29, 1787 by Captain James Scott, a
seafaring man of London. It was said
that this captain was a brother-in-law
of John Hancock, one of the signers of
our Declaration of Independence. In
addition to the Warrant, Captain Scott
delivered a bound copy of the Book of
Constitutions as a gift from the Grand
Secretary, William White.
African
Lodge, No. 459, was organized under its
Warrant on May 6, 1778, with Prince Hall
as Worshipful Master; Boston Smith,
Senior Warden; and Thomas Sanderson,
Junior Warden.
On May 17,
1787, Prince Hall acknowledged the
receipt of the Warrant and thanked the
Grand Secretary for the gift of the Book
of Constitutions. He advised that he
would be sending a copy of their By-laws
and roster of the Members.
The
records of the Grand Lodge of England
show that African Lodge, No. 459 made
contributions to its charity fund in
1789, 1792, 1793 and 1797. Apparently,
the English law left it to the Lodges
themselves to determine what sums the
“circumstances of the Lodge” justified
them to contribute to the Grand Charity.
In 1792,
the Grand Lodge of England renumbered
its Lodges. African Lodge was advanced
to No. 370, however, all the records
since that time appear to use No. 459.
It is highly possible that African
Lodge, No. 459, never knew of the change
in its number.
African
Lodge, No. 459, remained on the English
Registry until 1813, when at the Union
of the Grand Lodges of the “Ancients”
and “Moderns” into the present United
Grand Lodge of England, it and all the
other Lodges in America on the English
Registry were erased.
P.G.M.
Charles Griswold, in the Proceedings of
the Grand Lodge of Minnesota of 1877,
p.58, put the erasures by the Grand
Lodge of England in such a comprehensive
form, it deserves being quoted in its
entirety:
“In making
said erasures, the Grand Lodge of
England evidently recognized the fact
that her American children, African
Lodge among the rest, were of age and
well able to take care of themselves.
At that time, they all had their own
Grand Lodges in this country, and, in
their formation, virtually severed their
connection with the parent Grand Lodge.
The action of the Grand Lodge of Enoand
was simply a recognition of this fact.
Prince Hall Grand lodge proper was
formed in 1808, five years before the
said erasure took place. When the
attention of Bro. Hervey, Grand
Secretary of the Grand Lodge of England,
was first called to this matter, he gave
it his personal opinion in a letter to
Bro. C.W. Moore, that said African
Lodge, as a result of its erasure, had
become irregular; but when, upon further
examination, he found that all American
Lodges upon the English Grand Lodge
register were erased at the same time,
he evidently saw his mistake, and, in a
still later letter, recalled his first
opinion. In the Masonic News’ of
Canada, January last, Bro. Jacob Norton
says: ‘In conversation with Bro. Hervey
about the two letters sent by him to
Bro. Moore, Bro. H. told me personally,
that upon reflection, he really could
not distinguish the difference between
the legality or illegality of the
Massachusetts Grand Lodge, or the Prince
Hall Grand Lodge’.”
In 1792,
the present Grand Lodge of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts was formed
by the union of St. John’s Grand Lodge
(Modern) and Massachusetts Grand Lodge
(Ancient). At this union the last named
body voted “that this Grand Lodge be
dissolved.” The reason: the only two
lodges in Massachusetts which possessed
charters emanating directly from the
mother country took no part in the
organizing of this new body - St
Andrews, the oldest of the “Ancient”
lodges warranted by the Grand Lodge of
Scotland and African Lodge No. 459, the
only Lodge that ever existed in
Massachusetts which possessed the
warrant of the Grand Master of the
“Moderns,” or the Mother Grand Lodge of
the World”.
St.
Andrews Lodge was pressured for years to
become a member of the new Grand Lodge
but refused to do so until 1809. African
Lodge, No. 459, was never invited to
become a part of the Grand Lodge of
Massachusetts.
The
African Grand Lodge of North America was
formed on June 24, 1791, when a General
Assembly of Coloured Masons was convened
at Mason’s Hall, in the Golden Fleece,
Water Street, Boston, with the following
officers:
-
Prince Hall, Grand Master,
-
Cyrus Forbes, Senior Grand
Warden
-
George Middleton, Junior Grand
Warden
-
Peter Best, Grand Treasurer
-
Prince Taylor, Grand Secretary
It was set
up as a Provincial Grand Lodge under
warrant of the Grand Lodge of England.
It is said that the only copy of the
Warrant was destroyed in a fire in
Philadelphia along with numerous other
records of the Philadelphia African
Lodge. Available references are silent
as to whether this warrant was ever
issued.
Whether
Prince Hall was actually appointed a
Provincial Grand Master, or not, he was
addressed as “Right Worshipful Brother”
by William White, Grand Secretary of the
Grand Lodge of England (Modern) in a
letter dated August 20,1792. Which
letter requested Prince Hall to
investigate and report on the status of
a list of lodges established by that
Grand Lodge in the Colonies of New
England.
The
application of the term “Right
Worshipful” differed between the two
Grand Lodges of England prior to 1813.
The “Ancients” applied that form address
to the Masters of subordinate Lodges.
The “Modern” Grand Lodge, that warranted
African Lodge, No. 459, reserved the use
of the salutation “Right Worshipful” for
the Provincial Grand Masters, District
Deputy Grand Masters and its own Grand
Officers.
On page 13
of “Negro Masonry in the United States,”
by Harold Van Buren Voorhis, is an
illustration of the cover of a pamphlet,
owned by the Grand Lodge of New York, of
a “Charge” delivered to African Lodge on
June 25th, 1792 showing it to
be “By the Right Worshipful Prince
Hall.”
The
provincial Grand Masters commissioned to
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Henry
Price, Joseph Warren, John Rowe, etc.,
were all addressed as “Right
Worshipful.”
About six
months after the death of Prince Hall, a
Delegate Convention of Negro Masons was
held at Boston, July 24, 1808, with
representatives of the Lodges at Boston,
Philadelphia and Providence: present.
The Deputy Grand Master, Nero Prince,
was elected Grand Master and the name of
the Grand Lodge was changed to “Prince
Hall Grand Lodge” in honor of their
first Master and Grand Master.
During
Prince Hall’s tenure as Grand Master, he
had warranted two Lodges:
-
African Lodge, No. 459, at
Philadelphia on June 24,
1797.
-
Niram Lodge, No. 3, at
Providence, Rhode Island,
date unknown.
-
From 1808 to 1813 the Prince
Hall Grand Lodge warranted,
at least, four more Lodges:
-
Union Lodge, No.2, at
Philadelphia.
-
Laurel Lodge, No.5, at
Philadelphia.
-
Phoenix Lodge, No.6, at
Philadelphia.
-
Boyer Lodge, No. 1, at New
York.
-
Mo Lodge appears with the
number of 4.
Who was
Prince Hall? The version of his
biography that is most often quoted and
accepted is as follows:
“Hall was
born on September 12, 1748 at
Bridgetown, Barbados, British West
Indies. His father, Thomas Prince Hall,
was an Englishman and his mother of
French descent. He was apprenticed as a
leather worker - came to the United
States in 1765 at the age of 17 -
applied himself industriously to common
labor during the day and studied
privately at night. Upon reaching the
age of 27, he had acquired the
fundamentals of an education. Saving
his earnings, he had accumulated
sufficient funds to buy a piece of
property. He joined the Methodist
Church in which he passed as an eloquent
preacher. His first church was located
in Cambridge, Massachusetts, -
The author
of this biography was William H.
Grimshaw, a Past Grand Master (1907) of
the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of
Washington, District of Columbia. It
was included in his “Official History of
Free Masonry Among the Coloured People
in North America”, published in 1903.
Prince Hall historians have denounced
his “official” history and consider the
biography “a figment of his
imagination”.
Who, then,
was Prince Hall? No one seems to know.
What little information there is about
him is sketchy, some contradictory and
most confusing.
The few
items relative to Prince Hall’s personal
background that have proved reliable are
the records of his marriages, the Boston
Assessor’s tax rolls, and a few
petitions and depositions that became
public record in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
A
historian, John M. Sherman published an
article, in 1963, containing a copy of
an old notarial record of 1770 which
reads:
“This may
certify it may concern that Prince Hall
has lived with us 21 (date unclear - may
be 25) years and has served us well upon
all occasions for which reason we
maturely give him his freedom and he is
no longer Reckoned a slave but has
always accounted as a freeman by us as
he has served us faithfully upon that
account we have given him his freedom as
witness our hands this ninth day of
April 1770.
-
William Hall
-
Margaret Hall
-
Witnesses
-
Susan Hall
-
X
(Elizabeth Hall’s mark).”
This copy
of, what might be called, a Certificate
of Manumission has been challenged for
many reasons; from the fact that there
was known to have been, at least, three
(3) Prince Halls living in the vicinity
of Boston about 1745 to 1749; to the
fact that the document was not an
original but a copy kept in the diary of
Ezekiel Price, the Recorder.
The
records of the School Street Church of
Boston contain the following entry for
November 2, 1763:
“Prince
Hall, neg. svt., William Hall & Sarah,
neg. svt., Francis Richie”.
This
record could possibly validate the
“Certificate of Manumission” we have
just seen; Prince Hall, a negro servant
of William Hall married Sarah, a negro
servant of Frances Richie.
From
“Black Square and Compass” by Joseph A.
Walkes, Jr.: “In the August 31, 1807
deposition of Prince Hall concerning
John Vinal, he wrote, ‘I was a member of
his church (Andrew Cromwell), being in
full communion therewith, for a number
of years, having been received into the
same in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and sixty two in
Nov’r.” (Suffolk County Registry of
Deeds)
This wife
died in 1769, and was buried in the
Copp’s Burial Ground, Boston. Engraved
on her headstone is:
“Here lies
the Body of Sarah Ritchery Wife of
Prince Hall died Feb. the 26th
1769 aged 24 years”.
The
preceding documents, among others
similar to these, containing information
concerning the Prince Hall, in whom we
are interested, pose certain questions:
1. Would
two separate families have allowed a
marriage between two slaves or
indentured servants, in 1763: without
one or the other having been sold or
freed?
2. Would
two slaves have been married in a church
in 1763?
3. Could
it be possible that the so-called
“Certificate of Manumission” was a
fabrication? If so, why?
4. Would
a Slave or indentured servant have been
a member of a church “being in full
communion therewith” in 1762?
Prince
Hall married again in 1770 and the
notice read: “Prince Hall of Boston and
Flora (Gibbs) of Crouchester Married by
the Rev. Samuel Chandler, August 22,
1770”.
This
announcement did not mention race or
occupation. Nothing is known of this
wife, when or where she died or was
buried.
Hall
married for a third time to Zilpoy
Johnson on June 28, 1804. This wife
outlived Prince Hall who died in 1867.
He may
have been buried in Copp’s Burial ground
next to his first wife. On the Reverse
of Sarah’s gravestone is carved: “Were
lies ye body of Prince Hall First Grand
Master of the Coloured Grand Lodge of
Masons in Mass. Died Dec. 7, 1807.”
Some
sources state a belief that this
engraving was done several years after
his death, disputing his place of
burial.
The actual
date of Prince Hall’s death was 4
December 1807, and his obituary appeared
in several Boston newspapers on December
7. An extract from the “Boston Gazette”:
“DEATHS,
On Friday morning, Mr. Prince Hall, aged
72, Master of the African Lodge.
Funeral this afternoon at 3 o’clock from
his late dwelling house in Lendell’s
Lane; which his friends and relatives
are requested to attend without a more
formal invation.”
The
subject of the legitimacy of the Prince
Hall Lodges has been argued since the
first meeting of African Lodge at Boston
in 1776. It is as complex as the
personalities of the brethren, writers
and philosophers of the white and Prince
Hall Lodges and Grand Lodges, their
religious and geographical heritages,
and the two hundred plus years of
changes in life styles combined.
For these
reasons and a multitude of others, we
must guard against a tendency towards
over-simplification. Therefore, we
shall bring up only a few of the
objections most often heard, that the
reader may form his own judgements.
-
1. Freeborn versus Free,
-
2. Violation of the
“American Doctrine” or
“Doctrine of Exclusive
Jurisdiction,”
-
3. Prince Hall Lodge, No.
459 was erased by the Grand
Lodge of England in 1813 -
1814.
1. In
“THE CHARGES OF A FREE-MASON (1721),
Section III OF LODGES, is the following:
“The
Persons admitted members of a Lodge must
be good and true men, free-born, and of
mature and discreet age, no bond- men,
no Women, no immoral or scandalous men,
but of good Report.”
The Grand
Lodge of England, in 1845, replaced the
word “free-born” with freeman”, although
it remains “freeborn” in our obligations
to this day.
2.
Simply put, the “American” Doctrine of
Exclusive Jurisdiction is the
subordination of All Lodges and the
right to ALL potential candidates for
Masonry within a jurisdiction (State) to
one Grand Lodge. No other Grand Lodge
to be formed within nor trespass upon
that jurisdiction. This doctrine was
unheard of until the formation of the
Grand Lodge of Virginia in 1778. For
our purposes, Massachusetts adopted the
same philosophy in 1792.
It would
be difficult to assume there was a
violation of the Grand Lodge of
Massachusetts’ exclusive jurisdiction
for two reasons:
First: In
1784, when the Grand Lodge of England
warranted African Lodge No. 459, the
Grand Lodge of Massachusetts did not
exist. There was no exclusive
jurisdiction to violate.
Second: At
the formulation of the Grand Lodge of
Massachusetts, African Lodge, No. 459,
was not invited to participate nor
become a member of that Grand Body. The
African Grand Lodge of North America was
ignored when it was formed in 1791.
After the death of Prince Hall and the
change of name to the Prince Hall Grand
Lodge, in 1808, there were still no
charges of violation to the doctrine of
exclusive jurisdiction.
3. In
1813 - 1814, the two rival Grand Lodges
of England, the “Ancients” and the
“Moderns” united into the present United
Grand Lodge of England. This
necessitated the re-numbering of the
combined subordinate Lodges. Since the
Masons of England put great importance
in their Lodge’s high position on the
registry, lots were drawn to see whether
the “Ancients” or “Moderns” would have
the coveted “No. 1”, then the remainder
were allotted alternating numbers. As
an additional step in attempting to
secure the high numbers, each of the
now-united Grand Lodges struck from its
rolls every Lodge that was not
positively known to be active and/or
desiring to remain with the United Grand
Lodge of England. This action included
every English Lodge in America that had
EVER been on the rolls of either Grand
Lodge, and many in other countries,
including some who did not wish to lose
their ties with the Mother Grand Lodge.
Some of these Lodges, including African
Lodge, did not discover they had been
dropped (erased) for several years.
William
James Hughan (Voice of Masonry, Nov.
1876) lists some seventy American
Lodges, “Modern” and “Ancient” that were
removed from the rolls immediately
before the union of December 1813.
A book of
massive proportions could be compiled in
an effort to bring to its readers a
chronological listing and explanation of
all the petitions, letters, documents
and papers that have been prepared in
the past two hundred years on the
subject of recognition of the Prince
Hall Masons by the white Masonic bodies
in America.
Some
historians and writers have said that
Prince Hall began these efforts by
approaching Joseph Warren, Provincial
Grand Master, at Boston prior to his
death at Bunker Hill on 17 June 1775.
True or not, Warren’s death negated that
attempt.
In
September 1846, a petition from Lewis
Hayden, later to be a Grand Master of a
Prince Hall Grand Lodge, and others was
submitted to the Grand Lodge of
Massachusetts “praying to be healed and
legalized as Masons.” At the Annual
Communication, December 9; 1841, it was
resolved that “the petitioners had
concluded to obtain a charter from
African Lodge in Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, they had leave to
withdraw”.
When, in
1869, Prince Hall Grand Lodge petitioned
the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for
Masonic recognition, they placed before
the committee, to which the petition was
referred, records to prove the
continuity of regular meetings during
the years of their existence. The
appointed committee refused to examine
those records.
At the
Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge
of Illinois, 4-7 October 1870, “The
Sections 81 and 82 of the Bylaws were
debated and finally decided to be
expunged from the By-Laws, in order to
leave the subordinate Lodges free to
exercise their discretion of admitting
persons of colour, to visit them or
otherwise, as they may in their
judgement unanimously decide”.
This
activity goes on and on through the many
Grand Lodge in the United States.
At the
Congress of the “Union of Grand Masters”
held at Darmstadt, Germany, in 1875, “it
was decided to recommend to the German
Grand Lodges the recognition of the
‘Coloured Lodges of the United States’.”
This was done and was also recommended
to the Grand Bodies of Hungary,
Switzerland and Italy.
The Grand
Lodge of Ohio received a “proposition to
recognize lodges said to exist among the
coloured people as legal lodges” in
1874, but postponed any action until the
convening of the Annual Communication in
1875. At that time, an assigned
committee reported that “they are
satisfied beyond all question that
Coloured Freemasonry had a legitimate
beginning in this Country, as much as
any other Freemasonry; in fact, it came
from the same source”.
The
committee offered the following
resolution for adoption: “Resolved, * *
* * * that this Grand Body will
recognize the so-called Grand Lodge of
Coloured Free Masons of the State of
Ohio as a legitimate and independent
Grand Lodge, on Condition that the
so-called Coloured Grand Lodge shall
change its Constitutional tide, so that
it May read as follows: ‘The African
Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons
of the State of Ohio’.”
This
recommendation was defeated in the White
Grand Lodge by a vote of 390 to 332.
The
remarks, in reaction to that defeat of
the resolution, Wm. H. Parham, Grand
Master of the Coloured Grand Lodge of
Free and Accepted Masons of the State of
Ohio are much too long to be included
here, but his last paragraph speaks
volumes:
“Having
been taught among my first lessons in
masonry to stand erect as a man, I shall
endeavour to continue in that attitude.
Whenever recognition and acknowledgement
are offered with a humiliating
‘condition precedent’, I am bound to
refuse it. I shall never consent to
accept the title of Negro or African
Grand Lodge - we are neither, but
American citizens with all the term
implies. Brethren, you have my
position. Here I plant myself and here
I will stand, God helping me. I cannot
otherwise.”
Perhaps
one of the most dramatic action/reaction
episodes relating to the history of
“Quest for Recognition” began at the
Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge
of Washington in 1897, when a letter was
received from Conrad A. Rideout and
Gideon S. Bailey, who claimed to be
“Free and Accepted Masons of African
descent”. They prayed that the M.W.
Grand Lodge of Washington “devise some
way whereby we (the writers of the
letter) as true, tried and trusty
masons, having been regularly inimated,
passed and raised, can be brought into
communication with, and enjoy the
fraternal confidence of the members of
the Craft in this State”.
A
committee consisting of Past Masters
Thomas M. Reed and James E. Edmiston and
Deputy Grand Master William H. Upton was
formed to study the request and report
to the Grand Lodge in June 1898. The
report was duly prepared and submitted.
A very simplified summary of the
resolutions is as follows:
1. That
Masonry is universal and neither race
nor colour are among the tests to
determine the fitness of a candidate for
the degrees of Masonry.
2. That
the Grand Lodge does not see its way
clear to deny or question the right of
Constituent lodges, or the members
thereof, to recognize as brother masons,
negroes who have been initiated in
Lodges which can trace their origin to
Prince Hall Lodge, No. 459, organized
under Warrant issued by the Grand Lodge
of England in 1784.
3. That
this Grand Lodge recognizes no
difference between brethren based on
race or colour but is aware of the
proclivity of the races, in social
matters, to remain separate and apart.
For this reason, this Grand Lodge deems
it to be in the best interest of
Masonry, if the Masons of African
descent so desire, to establish Lodges
confined wholly to the brethren of that
race. Said Lodges to be established in
strict accordance to the Landmarks of
Masonry and Masonic Law. If, in time,
these Lodges were to find it necessary
to form a Grand Lodge for better
administration, said establishment would
not be considered an invasion of the
jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of
Washington.
4. That
the Grand Secretary be instructed to
forward a copy of the printed
Proceedings of the Annual Communication
to Mr. Hideout and Mr. Bailey as a
response to their communication.
Before the
Grand Lodge Proceedings had been
returned from the printers, the
Associated Press, it is said, had the
news on the wires to the East. The
headlines of the Eastern newspapers told
the world that the Grand Lodge of
Washington had recognized Negro Masonry;
without including any of the qualifying
details contained in the resolutions.
The Grand
Lodge of New York was the first of
nineteen (19) Grand Jurisdictions to
terminate Masonic relations with the
Grand Lodge of Washington. West
Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas,
Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina,
Delaware, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee,
Mississippi, Wisconsin, Nevada, Wyoming
and Louisiana followed in that order.
The
Worshipful Master of one of the Lodges
in Seattle, for some unknown reason,
took it upon himself to write letters
to, apparently, all the jurisdictions
requesting telegraphic responses to the
actions of the Grand Lodge of
Washington. Twenty-eight responses were
returned with remarks ranging from “Our
Grand Lodge refrained from action
against Washington, having full
confidence that our Washington brethren
would correct their serious error upon
sober reflection” from the Grand Master
of Kansas to “Washington’s course has
abrogated the whole system of American
Grand Lodge sovereignty. It must
destroy harmony and produce confusion
and anarchy. Bring Washington back”
from the Grand Master of South Carolina.
A Special
Committee, consisting of seven Past
Grand Masters, was formed and reported
at the Grand Communication in June
1899. In that report was included a
“Declaration” in response to several
requests from the M.W. Grand Lodges of
Maryland, Rhode Island, Virginia, Utah,
Massachusetts and Maine concerning the
adoption of the four Resolutions,
relating to Negro Masonry, at the
Communication of 1898.
The
Declaration consists of ten (10)
sections and, for the purpose of this
paper, it is unnecessary to quote them
in their entirety. Thusly:
SECOND,
That it trusts its sister Grand Lodges
appreciate the fact that these requests
are presented to it at a time when it is
facing attacks upon its autonomy and
sovereignty which, if successful, would
result not only in its destruction of
its Masonic independence, but,
ultimately, in the abrogation of that
principle of local self-government,
subject to the Landmarks only, which had
prevailed among Masons from time
immemorial; and that these assaults are
connected with the resolutions to which
our good brethren allude, this Grand
Lodge would hardly be blameworthy if it
declined - so long as an enemy is at its
gate breathing threatenings and
slaughter to take any step that might be
construed as a concession to threats, or
that might encourage similar attacks
upon it or upon others, in the future.
FOURTH,
That accordingly it has carefully
reconsidered its said action and
resolutions of last year, with the
results stated below.
FIFTH,
That this Grand Lodge does not see its
way clear to modify in any respect the
first of said resolutions, but reaffirms
the same.
SIXTH,
That it is manifest to this Grand Lodge
that the second of is said resolutions,
while entirely clear to all the members
of this jurisdiction, has been generally
misunderstood elsewhere; and, in
particular, that latter part of it has
been erroneously understood to accord
recognition to certain organizations
incidentally mentioned therein.
Therefore, with the hope of removing all
misunderstanding, and satisfying every
reasonable objection, said resolution is
hereby repealed. And whereas, the
relations of the Grand Lodge of
Washington with the present M.W. United
Grand Lodge of England during the whole
existence of this Grand Lodge have been
and now are of the most fraternal and
cordial character; in view of this and
other circumstances, including its own
descent, the comity due from one Masonic
body to another, and its duty to
preserve harmony among its own members,
this Grand Lodge does not see its way
clear to deny or question the right of
its Constituent Lodges or of members
thereof to recognize as a brother Masons
any man (otherwise in good Masonic
standing) who has been regularly
initiated into Masonry by authority
derived, regularly, and strictly in
accordance with the laws of the Masonic
Institution, from the United Grand Lodge
of England or from either of the two
Grand Lodges which joined in forming
that United Grand Lodge in 1813, so long
as the regularity of such initiations
remains unquestioned by the United Grand
Lodge of England; provided, always, that
such initiation conflict with no law of
the Masonic Institution, and that the
old Landmarks be carefully preserved.
SEVENTH,
That whereas, the third of said
resolutions has been widely - though
erroneously, as this Grand Lodge
believes - supposed to encourage the
establishment of a second Grand Lodge
within the State of Washington; and
whereas, it appears to be open to the
objection of pledging this Grand Lodge
to a course in future years which may
not be consistent with the judgement of
the brethren composing the Grand Lodge;
and whereas, this Grand Lodge is not
insistent upon any one plan for dealing
with the matter to which this resolution
relates, but is willing to consider any
plan that may preserve harmony and
subserve the ends of truth and justice;
and whereas, the publication of that
resolution for one year has served -
with our own members and with all by
whom the meaning was intended was
understood - all necessary purposes, and
its further publication might lead to
further misapprehensions; therefore it
is for now,
RESOLVED,
That said third resolution be repealed.
The report
elicited but brief discussion, and on
motion, was adopted by the Grand Lodge
with only two dissenting votes.
The last
of the Grand Lodges who had ceased
Masonic correspondence with the Grand
Lodge of Washington did not return to
the fold until 1907. Still the search
for recognition by the Prince Hall
masons continues.
Other
efforts by concerned members of regular
Lodges, not all by any means, include
California in 1875 and 1878;
Massachusetts who approved recognition
in 1947 and rescinded it in 1949;
Wisconsin in 1979 and continuing through
1985; none of which at this writing have
been successful. The reluctance of
Prince Hall Masons to surrender their
traditions and identity in a much larger
organization seems to render solutions
by way of recognition or merger
difficult to attain.
In
Closing, I would like to quote the Creed
of the Prince Hall Masons.
I believe
in God, Grand Architect of the Universe,
the Alpha of the unreckoned yesterdays,
the Omega of the impenetrable tomorrows,
the beginning and the ending. I believe
in man, potentially God’s other half,
often faltering in his way upwards, but
irrepressible in the urge to scale
Annapurnas*. I believe in Freemasonry,
that corporate venture in Universal
brotherhood, despising kinship with no
child of the All-father. I believe in
Prince Hall Freemasonry, a door of
benevolence, securely tiled against the
unworthy, but opening wide to men of
good report, Whether Aryan or Hottentot.
I believe in Masonic vows - the truth of
true men plighted to their better
selves.”
·
Annapurna,
one of the principal massifs of the
Himalayas and one of the highest in the
world, situated in North Central Nepal.
Thirty-five miles long consisting of two
peaks, one 26,502 feet high, the other
26,041 feet. Scaled for the first time
in 1950 by Maurice Herzog, a French
mountaineer.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
The Charges of a Freemason,
Section III, of Lodges, 1721,
Washington Masonic Code, 1913.
-
The Voice of Masonry - Negro
Admissions, 1870.
-
The Michigan Freemason,
February, 1874.
-
The New England Freemason,
November 1875.
-
The Masonic Review, January,
March, July & October
-
1876, January 1878.
-
The Voice of Masonry, September
1875, April & July 1876.
-
“Tribute of Respect to the
Memory of a Coloured Mason” -
Editorial - Masonic Monthly, San
Francisco, September 1879.
-
Proceedings, Grand Lodge of
Washington.
-
“Coloured Masonry”, Thomas S.
Reed, P.G.M., 1876. Foreign
Correspondence - Minnesota,
1877.
-
Report of Masonic Correspondence
for the year ending June, 12,
1889.
-
Report on Correspondence -
Supplement.
-
“Masonry Among the Negroes”, Wm.
H. Upton, P.M. 1895.
-
Negro Masonry - A Committee
Report, 1898.
-
“A
Critical Examination of
Objections to the Legitimacy of
the Masonry Existing Among the
Negroes of America”, By William
H. Upton, G.M., 1899.
-
Report on Negro Masonry, 1839.
-
Negro Masonry in the United
States, Harold V.B. Voorhis,
1949.
-
Negro Freemasonry in America,
Marshall E. Gordon, P.M.
-
Walter F. Meier Lodge of
Research, No. 281, F.& A.M.
-
Proceedings, Grand Lodge of
Washington.
-
Foreign Correspondence -
Wisconsin. 1981, 1982 & 1983.
-
Seattle’s Black Victorians, 1852
- 1901, by Elizabeth Hall
Mumford, Anansi Press, Seattle
WA, 98122.
-
Black Square & Compass, 200
Years of Prince Hall Masonry by
Joseph A. Walkes, Jr., Revised
Edition, 1981.
-
A
Prince Hall Quiz Book, Joseph A.
Walkes, Jr., 1984.
-
The Phylaxis, A Prince Hall
Magazine, Vol. 6, No.4, 4th
Quarter, 1980 & Vol. 13, 1st
Quarter, 1987.
|
