Here's something from Hiram's Oasis that I thought would be of interest on this
subject.
This
was originally downloaded by Brother Bill Maddox.
DISPELLING THE MYTH THAT PRINCE HALL MASONS ARE CLANDESTINE
R. Stanley Harrison, Connecticut (Grand secretary)
(A talk to the Grand Secretaries assembled at the Grand Masters conference in
Alexandria, VA, February, 1992)
My Brothers, honored Colleagues, Grand Secretaries:
Most
Worshipful Brother Robert E. Davies, Agenda Chairman of this Grand Secretaries
Conference, asked that I prepare and present the above subject and topic for you
at this 1991 Grand Secretaries Conference. I assure each of you Brothers from
our recognized Sister Grand Jurisdictions, that it is not my prerogative in
presenting this subject, to convince or change your thoughts and actions
regarding the subject in any of your Grand Jurisdictions. I do prevail upon each
and every one of you to listen with open minds to the accurately researched
material, proven by so many scholars, who over the many years have authentically
studied this subject pertaining to Prince Hall, F. & A.M. Masonry.
Definition
of Clandestine: -(Webster's Unabridged) Conducted with secrecy by design,
actually for evil purposes. -(Mackey:) The irregular origin or
operation as a Masonic Lodge or men functioning as a Body of Masonry. Also
referring to Clandestine, perhaps those Grand Jurisdictions do not require a
belief in a Supreme Being as a requirement for membership, or the use of a Book
of Sacred Law on the Altar in their Lodges; also those Grand Jurisdictions which
do not conform to all the requirements of recognition asare set forth in our own
Grand Jurisdiction. The traditional story regarding Prince Hall is
published annually in the Prince Hall Masons Year Book, an official publication
sponsored by the Grand Masters Conference of Prince Hall Masons of America. It
must, therefore, be assumed that this traditional history is regarded as correct
and accurate by the various Prince Hall Grand Lodges of the United States of
America. Prince Hall was born in Bridgetown, Barbados, West Indies, about
September 12, 1748. There are some discrepancies of a couple years one way or
the other of 1748,which was true in many records of death and birth in that era.
He was freeborn. His father, Thomas Prince Hall, was an Englishman and his
mother a colored woman of French extraction. At approximately 17 years of age,
he worked passage on a ship to Boston, Massachusetts. He worked as a leather
worker and some eight years later acquired real estate and became a qualified
voter in Massachusetts. Prince Hall was religiously inclined and later became a
Methodist preacher with a charge at Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Boston,
Massachusetts on March 6, 1775, 15 free black men, including one named Prince
Hall, were Initiated into Masonry in Castle William (now Fort Independence) in
Boston Harbor by Masonic Lodge No. 441 (attached to the British Garrison 38th
Regiment of Foot, as a Military Lodge from the Grand Lodge of Ireland).
Sergeant
John B. Batt was listed as the presiding Worshipful Master. Records of the Grand
Lodge of Ireland show these are true facts. Later, these Black Brethren were
granted a permit with limited activities; not being able to confer Degrees. The
same procedure was followed by Union Lodge of Albany, now Mount Vernon No. 3, F.
& A.M., whose civilian members had all been made in Army Lodge No. 74,
Ireland. First Lodge meaning one under Dispensation. Prince Hall was the first
Worshipful Master of this Lodge, which was organized and opened as the first
Lodge of Black Masons in America.
From
1784 to 1806 Prince Hall conducted voluminous correspondence with the English
Grand Secretary, more so than any other American Mason of that period. Most of
the information about Massachusetts Freemasonry and Massachusetts Lodges went to
England through Prince Hall, since none of the other Massachusetts Lodges
corresponded with England during the period of 1770. Written evidence exists to
show that regular meetings of First African Lodge were held from 1779 to 1787.
Its Regulations dated January 14, 1777, are now in the British Grand Lodge
Library, London, England. Prince Hall made application to Dr. Joseph Warren, who
was killed in a skirmish at Bunker Hill before any action could be completed. He
later applied to the Provincial Grand Master, Brother John Rowe, but his granted
permit was for very limited activities of the Lodge.
Irked
by Rowe's failure, Prince Hall made a request through one William M. Moody; the
application is preserved in the British Grand Lodge Library, and it referred to
the Lodge as having existed for eight years. The request was granted and a
Charter was issued to African Grand Lodge No. 459 under date of September 29,
1784. A true record of the act and of all fees being paid is recorded
in the English Grand Lodge. The Charter was not delivered for three years due to
the ending of the war and travel circumstances.
Publicity
of the Warrant being received appeared in the Boston newspapers and no protest
was ever filed by any white Lodges in or around Boston. At this time, the Black
Lodge was the only Body in Massachusetts which held a true Warrant from the
Grand Master of England, the acknowledged Mother Grand Lodge of the Masonic
World. In the report of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Most
Worshipful Melvin Johnson stated that on May 6, 1787, African Lodge No. 459 was
formally organized in Boston under the Charter with Prince Hall as Worshipful
Master. That Charter is in existence today and there is no question of its
authenticity; it is believed to be the only original Charter issued from the
Grand Lodge of England in the United States.
African
Grand Lodge was formed following Ancient Custom and Usages; Prince Hall being
selected as Grand Master. Prince Hall issued a permit and Warrant to 13 Black
Brothers Initiated in England, to form the African Lodge of Philadelphia, with
no protest from Philadelphia white Masons. In 1797, Hiram Lodge No. 1 was
Chartered in Providence, Rhode Island; the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island itself
being formed in 1856. After its formal organization, African Lodge functioned as
a Mother Lodge, assuming authority to establish other Lodges, much as it had
been founded by the British Army in 1776; this was indeed considered a lawful
practice of Freemasonry in those days. Upon the death of Prince Hall it was
voted to change the name to Prince Hall Grand Lodge in memory of the founder.The
Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was formed one year after the African Grand Lodge,
and any new and arbitrary regulation concerning Territorial Jurisdiction, such
as only one Grand Lodge in each state, could not be applied to pre-existing
Grand Lodges within the state insofar as legality is concerned. It can only be
applied for purposes of recognition. It also cannot make rules binding upon the
Mother Lodge of England which Chartered them.
Thus,
the forming of African Grand Lodge was more properly accomplished than the
formation of white Grand Lodges in other states. In 1813, the
United Grand Lodge of England, upon revising the Roll of Lodges, omitted those
which had gone out of, or joined, other Grand Lodges. African Grand Lodge was
included, but so were over 70 Lodges in the United States, among them being St.
Johns Lodge of Boston, Massachusetts. It is now agreed that this act by the
English United Grand Lodge in 1813 had no effect upon the legitimacy or standing
of any erased Lodge. We all note that there have existed for many years the
several active and legitimate Bodies of Appendant Black Masonic Organizations,
in York Rite, Scottish Rite, Order of the Eastern Star and so forth. For our
acceptance of recognition of Prince Hall Masonry, we are cognizant of their
belief in a Supreme Being, the use of a Book of Sacred Law on their Altar, and
we know their Rituals, Modes of Recognition (Secret Work), their procedures,
their requirements, their beliefs, their tenets or fundamental principles are
all either identical with what we have or are recognizably similar. The
following items further substantiate that Prince Hall Masons are not
Clandestine:
The
Ancient Landmarks do not require that a Grand Lodge have exclusive Jurisdiction.
There were two Grand Lodges in Massachusetts until 1792 and St. Andrews Lodge of
Boston continued to work under the Grand Lodge of Scotland until 1809. There
were two Grand Lodges in South Carolina until 1817. There were two Grand Lodges
in New York until 1827. American doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction was not put
forth until the 1880s. The Grand Master of Massachusetts, William
Sewall, in 1870 said that he had no doubt that Black Masons were legitimate.
Shortly after that, a select committee in the Grand Lodge of Ohio studied the
matter for a year and reported that it was satisfied beyond all question that
Colored Masonry had a legitimate beginning in this Country, as much as any other
Freemasonry; infact it came from the same source.
In 1898, the Grand Lodge of the State of Washington admitted the
legitimacy of the Black Masonry. (Massachusetts, Ohio and Washington all
referred to Prince Hall Affiliates.) At the Annual Communication of the
Grand Lodge of the State of Washington F. & A.M. in July 1990, Prince Hall
F.& A.M. Affiliates were granted Recognition and Visitation rights. In
1940 the Prince Hall Affiliate appeared in an action in the Court of Common
Pleas at New Haven, Connecticut, against two Clandestine Black Lodges. Two Past
Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut, both attorneys,
and the Deputy for Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite in Connecticut, appeared and
gave active assistance. The two Past Grand Masters testified to the recognized
legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge.
In 1947, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts voted to recognize Prince
Hall Masonry but bowed to pressures from one Northern Grand Lodge and several in
the South and rescinded that action in 1949, saying because of
objections . and not because (they were) not legitimate. In May of 1876, the
Deputy Grand Master of Scotland presented a lengthy paper in the Transactions of
the Quatuor Coronati Lodge and concluded that
Prince Hall Masonry was legitimate according to the customs of the times
(when it was founded), that Prince Hall's patent of appointment as
Provincial Grand Master was legitimate and that Prince Hall and African Lodge
warranted other Lodges exactly as the White Lodges did (notable examples being
the Lodge at Fredericksburg establishing two). In 1974, a Special Committee of
the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, chaired by a former Chief Justice of the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, ended two years of exhaustive studies of the legitimacy of Prince
Hall Masonry and the doctrine of exclusive Jurisdiction. The Committee concluded
that nothing prohibited the recognition of Prince Hall Masonry. After stalling
in 1976 and 1977 and further stalling in 1978 and 1979, the Grand Lodge of
Wisconsin recognized Prince Hall Masonry, F. & A.M., in 1990. Let me
conclude thusly: Here are men, good men, who have been following the ideals of
Masonry and thinking themselves as Masons, for well over 200 years, and have
contributed to the welfare of Freemasonry over all these years. Therefore, the
important first step is simply to acknowledge the legitimacy of Prince Hall
Masons, to cease the hostilities and to stop stating Irregular every time Prince
Hall Masonry is mentioned.
Summary
It has been my honor and privilege to present and discuss this topic
with you, this august assemblage of Grand Secretaries. Great concern has
been evidenced by so many of you good Brothers regarding Prince Hall Masonry,
whether or not it is a prevailing subject in your respective Grand
Jurisdictions. To date (2/92), there have been five Grand Jurisdictions
which have recognized Prince Hall Masonry. They are: Connecticut,
Nebraska,Wisconsin and Washington, with the latest being the Grand Lodge of
Colorado. (As of 12/92 the count was up to eight, these five being joined by
Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.) The recognition in four Grand Jurisdictions
has been for Recognition and Visitation rights only, and the Grand Jurisdiction
of Nebraska permitted Affiliations and so forth. Within the past few months, I
have received requests from five other Grand Jurisdictions for all the material
we used in our Grand Jurisdiction of Connecticut in our
preparations and mutual resolutions between my Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of
Connecticut and Prince Hall F. & A.M. Affiliates of Connecticut. I have
distributed these materials at each of the classes I have conducted at this
Conference. Concern was expressed by some Brothers regarding other Black Grand
Lodges, several being in some Grand Jurisdictions. The consensus of opinion
seems to be that Prince Hall Grand Lodge should take the initiative to have
these other Black Grand Lodges clean up their act, so it eliminates the
prevailing situation which is currently existing in those Grand Jurisdictions
where several BlackGrand Lodges now are operating. Considerable discussion
evolved with reference being directed to Brothers visiting in Lodges that
recognize Prince Hall Masonry. The opinion seem to be that you let your
conscience be your guide and attend their Lodges. It also would work in the same
manner for those who have recognized Prince Hall Masonry already, while visiting
a Grand Jurisdiction which has not recognized Prince Hall Masonry. We must bear
in mind at all times that we must recognize and abide by Regulations of each and
every Grand Jurisdiction.
The matter of Grand Lodge of England withdrawing recognition of Prince
Hall Masonry was brought up; research has proven that such has no effect on
the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry. Prince Hall Masonry operates even now
with a legitimate Charter with all their other Masonic Appendant and Affiliated
Bodies in full and legitimate operation. It was my pleasure to
have researched the subject and present to you that which I have gleaned
from materials prepared and presented by so many notable Masonic Scholars and
researchers.
Thank
you, and so mote it be.
END OF ARTICLE
Here is an answer to the question raised by Bro. Bennie Ellis about
"Sovereign Jurisdiction" as used by Grand Jurisdictions in this
country.
It has been researched by Pierre G. Normand, Jr., the Secretary of St.
Alban's Research Society and Editor of it's quarterly journal, "The
American
Masonic Review". Membership in the Society, which includes a subscription
to "The American Masonic Review", costs $15.00/year. Dues can be sent
to: St. Alban's Research Society, PO Box 10361, College Station, Texas 77842.
Dear Brother Bennie:
You note that there were, in some states, more than one grand
lodge, supporting my earlier point that there can be more than one grand lodge
in a particular geographic jurisdiction. "Sovereign Jurisdiction"
refers to
the relationship of the Grand Lodge to its constituent lodges, and not to
the geographic territory it occupies. We say that a grand lodge cannot
"share its authority" with any other body or grand body in respect to
its
relationship with its lodges. S&F, Pete
And more information as posted by Brother Pete:
As a point of information, I received a fax message on 9 December,
1992 from Brother J.A. Fergusson, Grand Secretary of the GL of Manitoba. He
reports:
"The GL of Manitoba has officially approved the acceptance of PH
GL, as approved by the Conference of PH Gr Ldgs, as being regular Masonic GLs.
This is the first step. The next step is to grant full recognition to
individual PH GLs in the same manner as any other Masonic GL in the world.
"Our closest PH GL is in Minnesota, which we understand, according
to their charter, has jurisdiction over PH Masonry in Manitoba (they have
one lodge in Winnipeg.) As they are junior in seniority to the GL of
Manitoba, the request for recognition should come from them in accordance with
traditional Masonic protocol. "I understand that a number of other Canadian
Grand Lodges have approved the acceptance of PH GLs as being legitimate and if
you wish, I could canvass
them for a detailed consensus." I have mailed my response to him asking for
a full update on Canada.
S&F, Pete, Editor, American Masonic Review
And still more posts. This is from Bro. Pete Normand to Bro. Mike
Bellamy, a Prince Hall Mason.
Dear Mike:
Your analogy comparing different unrecognized grand lodges to
separate religious denominations is confusing to me and demonstrates a certain
regard for our fraternity that has brought upon it criticism from certain
religious groups.
I have to protest the analogy at this point as being illogical. I'm
not being critical here, but constructive. Pete Martinez gave the best answer
here to your question about F.& A.M.
vs A.F.& A.M., but let me add that, WITHIN YOUR OWN STATE, different grand
lodges probably DO NOT recognize each other for many reasons, BUT the
designation at the end of their name is not one of them. Therefore, within your
state you MAY have an A.F.& A.M. grand lodge, an F.& A.M. grand lodge,
and others to boot. But, as for the 51 grand lodges in the U.S. that 1)
recognize each other, and 2) are recognized by the United Grand Lodge of
England, they are EITHER F.& A.M. OR A.F.& A.M. (plus Washington DC,
which is F.A.A.M and South Carolina which is A.F.M.). As Pete M. pointed out,
many just chose their designation for
reasons unknown to us now and therefore do not designate that they belong to one
"strain," "tradition," "family," or whatever. For
instance, the GL of
Texas A.F.& A.M. was formed by three lodges chartered by the GL of Louisiana
which is F.& A.M.
Your story about the different grand lodges in your state, King
David's Grand Lodge, etc, etc, reminds me of when we had a young man from
Lebanon come to our lodge seeking admission. It turns out he was from a
"Grand Lodge of Tyre, Lebanon." The Grand Lodge of New York has five
dormant lodges and a District Deputy in Lebanon, so I called the Grand Secretary
of New York and spoke with him about it. He told me that, at last count, there
were no less than 26 different grand lodges in Lebanon, NONE were considered
regular by the Grand Lodge of New York and NONE of them recognized each other,
each of them claiming to be the "Supreme Masonic authority in that
country."
This kind of chaos among irregular grand lodges, each of whom may
or may not conform with all the ancient customs and usages of the fraternity,
is why Masons continue to concern themselves with "which grand lodges are
recognized by my grand lodge and which are not."
Aside from the question of "legitimacy of origin," there are many
grand lodges out there with irregular practices, including the "selling of
degrees," the admission of atheists, and the practice of political and
religious discussion in lodge. If we did not have a "screening
process"
whereby we can discern which grand lodges meet all the qualifications of
regularity, then we would have many Masons unschooled in the correct
ancient customs and usages diverting the craft away from its original aims and
purposes.
As for what these "ancient customs and usages" are, I can recommend
the article, "REGULARITY, RECOGNITION AND FRATERNAL RELATIONS," which
appears in the Summer 1992 issue of American Masonic Review. S&F, Pete
Normand
Fraternal greetings from SE Pennsylvania!!
George S. Robinson, Jr.,PM
Mt. Pickering Lodge No. 446 F & A M
Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania
So
Mote It Be!!
