Was Prince Hall an American Patriot or British Loyalist?
Torence
with us on the American side; but the facts that led to his being
initiated into our order seem to put him squarely on the side of the
Red Coats.
The original fourteen “regular” American Grand Lodges that were
organized between 1777 & 1800 were parochial incorporations and in
only two instances, New York & Massachusetts, competing Grand Lodge
organizations had to work out their differences within the same state.
Each of the various Grand Lodges in England, Ireland & Scotland
chartered Provincial Grand Lodges over here; and the ones that won out
as incorporated American Grand Lodges seem to have done so more
because their leadership maintained the popular political attitude
then any firm pedigree leading back to one Mother Grand Lodge or other
overseas.
Is it possible to suppose, then, that having misaligned himself
and his fourteen fellow free black men with the loosing side, that
Prince Hall lost out on recognition for his Grand Lodge more for his
political stance then any supposed bigotry about his pigment?
The Scots had organized a Provincial Grand Lodge centered at St.
Andrew’s in Boston which was decidedly ancient in style. This was
Joseph Warren’s Lodge, and at times it has been hard to tell whether
at their gatherings they acted out so much as Masons or as the local
chapter of the Sons of Liberty.
The Moderns organized a Provincial Grand Lodge centered at St.
John’s; and it was here that Prince Hall originally petitioned to join
FreeMasonry and was turned away.
John Rowe was the Provincial Grand Master there; but something else
aside from Prince Hall’s petition was going on at that lodge. At about
the same time as he was said to petition, January 1775, the lodge
“went in eclipse.” It ceased to meet and remained dormant until 1787.
John Rowe, because of his British loyalties, simply lost the ability
to influence the membership and they chose to meet without him. He
wasn’t alone. William Allen of Philadelphia suffered the same censure
from the locals. Sir John Johnson PGM of New York and Sir Edgerton
Leigh of South Carolina skipped town, one to Canada and the latter all
the way back to England.
But Prince Hall did not approach St. Andrew’s Lodge. He went to the
Red Coats at Castle William and petitioned the lodge accompanying the
38th Foot Regiment. This regiment had recently taken in some drafts
from the 18th foot who, notable for us here in Illinois, had just
returned from service in the far west at Cahokia and Kaskaskia. Prince
Hall’s petition and the petition of the other fourteen were referred
to one of these drafts, Sergeant Batt, and he was initiated by Batt on
March 6th by Military Lodge No. 441, an Irish Constitution traveling
lodge. Seems that our British Brothers had not the time or the desire
to initiate these free black men.
A month later, on April 19th, the fight at Lexington & Concord
erupted; and in June, Warren met his end at Breed's Hill. (A firm
identification was made of his remains by Paul Revere who had dabbled
in dentistry and attested to work that he did on Warren's teeth). The
rest of the story concerning St. Andrew’s, the formation of the
Massachusetts Grand Lodge and Revere’s own start up in Rising States
Lodge is familiar enough.
With so many lodges acting in and around Boston as self-created
“Grand” Lodges, is it fair to assume that Prince Hall’s group was
shunned for their race rather than their choice of allegiance?
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789- Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois
Doug Freyburger
>
> With so many lodges acting in and around Boston as self-created
> shunned for their race rather than their choice of allegiance?
You ask an "or" question. The actual answer is likely to be an "and"
one. It's an interesting point and it hammers home why discussion of
politics is not allowed in tiled meetings.
Note that staying loyal to the original Grand Lodge led to recognition
in recent decades. The lodges that descended from African petitioned
for recognition from UGLE based on that and recognition was granted.
Torence
> Torence wrote:
> You ask an "or" question. The actual answer is likely to be an "and"
> one. It's an interesting point and it hammers home why discussion of
> politics is not allowed in tiled meetings.
might consider a-political. Hanging out around us at meal time, for
instance, a new-bee or visitor would never know that we had such a
prohibition; and thankfully this newsgroup is not a tiled meeting.
As a Mason, I am not opposed to recognition for our Prince Hall
cousins or the admittance of any qualified candidate. But I am for a
clarification of whom and what we are admitting or recognizing. Our
Brothers that belong to those clubs should be prepared for some
examination; not to diminish them or disparage their heroes; but to
bring them and those Brothers into sharp focus. A great harm is done
when the scant biographies most often repeated merely parrot an
editorial based upon twentieth century politics. I propose that it is
more worthwhile that we re-examine ourselves for this century.
> Note that staying loyal to the original Grand Lodge led to recognition
> in recent decades. The lodges that descended from African petitioned
> for recognition from UGLE based on that and recognition was granted.
worked very hard to lay claim to and puff up just about every notable
patriot. Two names are regularly left off the lists, Thomas Jefferson
and Thomas Paine, and I believe based upon their personal writings
that there is still a good chance that Jefferson at least was
initiated into the Lodge of the Three Sisters in France. I also find
much Masonry in the wording and phrases that Paine used and believe
that he may have been initiated while a prisoner in the same country.
But I cannot say for certain that either man was a freemason. Paul
Revere, second in the minds of most American Masons only to George
Washington (O.K. maybe third after Franklin) was actually a very
ordinary laborer and administrator. Since 1923, at our Officer
Installations Thaddeus Mason Hall’s work is regularly attributed to
Revere. The truth is that while Revere employed Hall’s work, he was
not the author.
Prince Hall proponents should be prepared to describe him in the
context of his actions. When our American Revolutionary Vets rose up
in rebellion after languishing without their promised pay and pensions
and the banks went to foreclose on their homes and farms, Prince Hall
offered up an army of 700 African –American men to the Governor to put
them down. Rather then champion integration, Prince Hall argued for
the Back-to-Africa movement. He married four times and fathered
children with at least two of these women. All in all, he was very
ordinary in thought as expressed by his actions though I do credit him
with giving up his home to be used for a school. I think the idea was
more his fourth wife’s than his.
I would welcome some discussion or even correction here from a
Prince Hall historian. I know this, that his lodge was specifically
prohibited from conducting raisings. Wouldn’t the original Prince Hall
lodges, then be deemed a quasi-Masonic rather than a fully vested
Masonic club?
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
Janet Wintermute
Freemason by initiation "into the Lodge of the Three Sisters" in France,
that'd probably be the Loge des Neufs Soeurs, usually translated "Lodge
of the Nine Muses" with reference to Greek mythology. I have been told
that Jefferson's signature is in the attendance book at least once in
France but don't know if it was at Nine Muses or elsewhere.
What that proves--if anything--is that he was a Mason or he wouldn't
have been admitted to the lodge. Where or when he joined the Craft
remains completely unknown.
Franklin certainly influenced many men in his day and was involved with
Nine Muses (and also an obscure lodge in the south of France). He
probably had something to do with getting Voltaire to join (which
happened practically on his V's deathbed). Franklin and Jefferson were
indeed in France at the same time. But again we haven't much to go on
in terms of leaping to the conclusion that Franklin got TJ into
masonry. Torence did not make that connection specifically, but one
sees the statement from time to time on the Net.
With regard to Paul Revere, Torence called him
> actually a very ordinary laborer and administrator.
Way off course. Revere was the preeminent silversmith of his era and an
artist in that medium whose work has never been surpassed in our part of
the world. I'm not sure what T. means by "administrator," but Revere
was the owner of his own smithy and had both subordinate workmen and
apprentices studying the art under his guidance.
The other info about Prince Hall is thought provoking. Could he have
assembled "an army of 700 African-American men" from the free blacks of
greater Boston? Seven hundred free in the 1770s in one city sounds
quite high.
Torence, what is your source for this statement:
> I know this, that his lodge was specifically
> prohibited from conducting raisings.
Have you seen/read the warrant for African Lodge #849, which was issued
by UGLE? If the warrant makes no reference to any such prohibition,
what else could possibly have the effect of nullifying what is arguably
the only purpose of a masonic lodge: to make masons.
--Janet
Torence
> Have you seen/read the warrant for African Lodge #849, which was issued
> by UGLE? If the warrant makes no reference to any such prohibition,
> what else could possibly have the effect of nullifying what is arguably
> the only purpose of a masonic lodge: to make masons.
Joseph Robbins. GM Robbins argued for Prince Hall recognition as early
as 1888 here in Illinois. Coil makes similar statements and even
Grimshaw, the PH GM of DC, states that John Batt’s original permit
specifically denied the right for the Brothers to make Masons. For
this permit, Prince Hall paid fifteen guineas. His fellow African-
American compatriots were Cyrus Johnbus, Fortin Howard, Prince Rees,
Bueston Slinger, John Canton, Benjamin Tiber, Peter Freeman, Prince
Payden, Cato Speadin, Duff Buform, Boston Smith, Richard Tilley,
Thomas Sanderson and Peter Best (not the musician). They were allowed
to meet as a Lodge, bury their dead in due form, and walk on St.
John’s Day only.
Though historians state that the problem in discussing Prince Hall
was that there were at least four free black-men of that name in
Boston at that time, I have found none who have given the other names
any research, neither have I, come to think of it ever saw a facsimile
of the warrant or a transcript of the charter. You would think that it
could be commonly had in print or on the internet.
> I have been told
> that Jefferson's signature is in the attendance book at least once in
> France but don't know if it was at Nine Muses or elsewhere.
Paine would have also attended and that the vouching Brother was
likely Brissot de Warvelle. But this is pure speculation on my part. I
like to point out that while Jefferson was born into a plantation
family, owned slaves, went the Continental Congress as a student on a
field trip with his law professor from William & Mary, was a success
before thirty, went to France as Minister Plenipotentiary, returned as
Secretary of State and became President; Paine who had more to do with
shaping American thought and government, was born in an English
village, went bankrupt and came to America at thirty-four. He wrote
“Common Sense,” "The American Crisis" and “The Rights of Man.”
Jefferson wrote the Virginian Colonial Bill on Religious Freedom and
the "Declaration of Independence."He went to France for the purpose of
raising money to build an Iron Bridge. He got caught up in the
revolution and thrown in jail by the revolutionaries who should have
honored him. Jefferson did nothing for his friend until he was
President when he sent a ship to secure Paine’s release. Paine died in
relative obscurity while Jefferson retired as “The Sage of
Monticello.”
I wish that Paine’s commitment to cause was better remembered as do
I wish that Brissot’s work establishing the society “Amis de Negro”
should be remembered. It is a shame that the same revolutionaries
beheaded him and just about everyone else on the membership list of
that organization in 1793 while Paine, being an American, languished
in jail for years.
>. Revere was the preeminent silversmith of his era and an
> artist in that medium whose work has never been surpassed in our part of
> the world.
Roccoco, based upon common moulds available for sale at the time. Had
he been better at the Craft he would have done much less pewter work,
more silver and should have produced at least some goldware. He was a
lousy dentist. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and these
views are strictly my opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours.
> The other info about Prince Hall is thought provoking. Could he have
> assembled "an army of 700 African-American men" from the free blacks of
> greater Boston?
26th, 1786 to assist in putting down Shay’s rebellion. Some speculate
that he fought on our side during the war; but I do not think it
logical that he would then side with the Banks foreclosing on these
unpaid vet’s farms had he done so.
Doug Freyburger
>
> Re Torence's mention that Jefferson is often claimed to have been a
> Freemason by initiation "into the Lodge of the Three Sisters" in France,
> that'd probably be the Loge des Neufs Soeurs, usually translated "Lodge
> of the Nine Muses" with reference to Greek mythology. I have been told
> that Jefferson's signature is in the attendance book at least once in
> France but don't know if it was at Nine Muses or elsewhere.
Yet no one can produce the minutes book with his signature.
> What that proves--if anything--is that he was a Mason or he wouldn't
> have been admitted to the lodge. Where or when he joined the Craft
> remains completely unknown.
It remains something a lot of folks wish to be true but there is still
no proof.
> With regard to Paul Revere, Torence called him
>> actually a very ordinary laborer and administrator.
> Way off course. Revere was the preeminent silversmith of his era and an
> artist in that medium whose work has never been surpassed in our part of
> the world. I'm not sure what T. means by "administrator," but Revere
> was the owner of his own smithy and had both subordinate workmen and
> apprentices studying the art under his guidance.
Revere was a Grand Master in his state. Bro Torrence regularly
disapproves of grand officers. I thought he referred the ritual work
that is attributed to him actually being written by his Grand Chaplain
plus a commonet on how he ran his GL during his tenure.
Torence
> Janet Wintermute wrote:
> Revere was a Grand Master in his state. Bro Torrence regularly
> disapproves of grand officers.
Masters. Three have at least my respect if not my admiration, M.W.
Bros. Ford, Grisham and Yandel.
I admit that when I go to work on the record of GMs such as M.W.
Bro. Revere that much of what I do psychologically is projection. If I
were Grand Master, then I would insist that I be respected as an
ordinary man and not “revered” (Yes, the pun was intended. Forgive
me.) especially after my term.
At a time when the Massachusetts Grand Lodge was in its infancy,
When the English Grand Lodge showed a distasteful hypocrisy with
Deputy Grand Master Thomas Harper, and the new Massachusetts Grand
Lodge could have shown the way for Ancients and Moderns to work
together, Revere broke off to form an independent Grand Lodge with
Rising States Lodge. He kicked at Massachusetts Masonry when it was
but a puppy.
As far as a notion may exist to recognize organizations that we do
not acknowledge today, I have not committed firmly to one cause or
against another. I just believe whole heartedly that transparency and
full disclosure from both groups is the Masonic thing to do while
working out the details. In this example, we have two heroes who lived
in the same time and place. Let’s be plain about who they were; and, I
think that their ghosts will be more pleased and may even bless the
union more so than if we were to puff any of them up.
After all if they were truly Grand, wouldn’t there have been a union
in the first place?
Perhaps the Scottish Rite should conjure up a Revere/Hall degree.
Richard
Newsgroups: soc.org.freemasonry
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 9:46 AM
Subject: Was Prince Hall an American Patriot or British Loyalist?
> Several notable Prince Hall historians have tried to put him in
> with us on the American side; but the facts that led to his being
> initiated into our order seem to put him squarely on the side of the
> Red Coats.
Really? What fact relating to his *initiation* put him "on the side of the
Red Coats"?
When he was initiated, the revolution was not under way - the UDI didn't
happen for another year. Even then, the only evidence I can find of his
involvement in the rebellion was on the side of the rebels:-
q.v. Sidney Kaplan and Emma Nogrady Kaplan, The Black Presence in the Era of
the American Revolution (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1989;
ISBN 0-87023-663-6), p. 203.
> The original fourteen "regular" American Grand Lodges that were
> organized between 1777 & 1800 were parochial incorporations and in
> only two instances, New York & Massachusetts, competing Grand Lodge
> organizations had to work out their differences within the same state.
> Each of the various Grand Lodges in England, Ireland & Scotland
> chartered Provincial Grand Lodges over here; and the ones that won out
> as incorporated American Grand Lodges seem to have done so more
> because their leadership maintained the popular political attitude
> then any firm pedigree leading back to one Mother Grand Lodge or other
> overseas.
Do have any citations for this?
At least one US GL in these early years was constituted from an assembly of
Freemasons (note: not representatives of lodges or an ad-hoc GL). See
http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm
> Is it possible to suppose, then, that having misaligned himself
> and his fourteen fellow free black men with the loosing side, that
> Prince Hall lost out on recognition for his Grand Lodge more for his
> political stance then any supposed bigotry about his pigment?
Thus claiming that the newly independent US GL's took masonic decisions for
political motives?
<snipped>
> But Prince Hall did not approach St. Andrew's Lodge. He went to the
> Red Coats at Castle William and petitioned the lodge accompanying the
> 38th Foot Regiment.
He didn't go to the Red Coats - he went to a Lodge.
> This regiment had recently taken in some drafts
> from the 18th foot who, notable for us here in Illinois, had just
> returned from service in the far west at Cahokia and Kaskaskia.
Yes - keeping the British/Irish American colonists safe from the French!
Look at the thanks they got for this ;-))
>Prince
> Hall's petition and the petition of the other fourteen were referred
> to one of these drafts, Sergeant Batt, and he was initiated by Batt on
> March 6th by Military Lodge No. 441, an Irish Constitution traveling
> lodge.
If you had read (or listened) to a previous Prestonian Lecture on the
history of British military lodges, you would know that a great many of them
were Irish Constitution, because the GLI issued warrants promptly which the
GLE took a month of Sundays by comparison.
> Seems that our British Brothers had not the time or the desire
> to initiate these free black men.
By British - does this include the colonists, who at that time were of
course also British?
For what it's worth, the British Army regiment was probably the only unit of
the army stationed in Boston in 1775. It may have been the only place where
Prince Hall could go to get initiated. I haven't researched this aspect, so
I can only speculate here.
<snipped>
Torence
> Really? What fact relating to his *initiation* put him "on the side of the
> Red Coats"?
sometime in January 1775 but was turned away. He made no attempt to
gain admission into St. Andrew’s Lodge. When he was turned way from
St. John’s, he petitioned the lodge that was attached to and populated
by “Regulars” rather than the remaining Patriot Lodge in town. In my
heart I feel that had his kind of man prevailed there is a good chance
that I would be drinking that watery brown stuff that you folks are so
fond of since your dalliances in Bengal and Madras rather than the
hearty black brew that I am enjoying as Brother Roosevelt would say,
“Good to the Last Drop.”
> Even then, the only evidence I can find of his
> involvement in the rebellion was on the side of the rebels:-
> q.v. Sidney Kaplan and Emma Nogrady Kaplan, The Black Presence in the Era of
> the American Revolution (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1989;
> ISBN 0-87023-663-6), p. 203.
Dissenters as history usually proves us to make-up the winning side.
The mistake is common particularly from those writers who rely on
material published here around our Bi-Centennial. I have not read your
reference. If you can forward a snippet from the book as you seem to
have it handy, it should make for an interesting read.
I am offering a differing theory and editorial, wholly my own.
> Do have any citations for this?
Masonic Supply, 1976 – Transactions of the Missouri Lodge of Research
pgs. 45-51. He explains there the growth of Masonry in America. I
extrapolate from knowing how the story ends that the proto-Grand
Lodges that fail had Loyalists for their leadership. When the
Massachusetts Grand Lodge worked to form after Saratoga and its
component members were not sufficiently firm in their Americanisms,
Revere pulled the strongest from them out, delayed their start, formed
Rising States Lodge and eventually his own Massachusetts “Grand
Lodge,” free at last, free at last, thank God All Mighty more pure in
their American ways.
> Thus claiming that the newly independent US GL's took masonic decisions for
> political motives?
start in that they have been consistently motivated by politics.
However, I will not limit the disease to our American Grand Lodges
alone. The Premier Grand Lodge in England, 1717, had two purposes i.e.
to put on the annual feast, a Masonic endeavor, and to find a Royal to
serve as its Grand or Lackey Master, an unMasonic consideration. I can
forgive W. Bro. Anthony Sayre and his homeboys for this defect,
however, as for them the meal was the thing. Later generations assumed
prerogatives to exclusively charter other Lodges, Local, Provincial
and Grand, and deny regularity to long established and healthy Lodges
of good men and true, the injustices done to R.W. Bro. Harper etc. The
record of making decisions affecting the membership based upon
political motives is as the Masonic Grand Constant.
> Yes - keeping the British/Irish American colonists safe from the French!
and Liberty. and Vive Le Difference attitudes. Had we swung that way
then all of my Brothers would also have both wives and mistresses.
Thanks for rescuing them from such a life.
> Look at the thanks they got for this ;-))
> If you had read (or listened) to a previous Prestonian Lecture on the
> history of British military lodges, you would know that a great many of them
> were Irish Constitution, because the GLI issued warrants promptly which the
> GLE took a month of Sundays by comparison.
considerations?
> For what it's worth, the British Army regiment was probably the only unit of
> the army stationed in Boston in 1775. It may have been the only place where
> Prince Hall could go to get initiated. I haven't researched this aspect, so
> I can only speculate here.
from St. John’s. He had to cross the bay to get to “youse guys”
cloistered as you were kept from our infectious and free wheeling
ways.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
Doug Freyburger
>
> In my
> heart I feel that had his kind of man prevailed there is a good chance
> that I would be drinking that watery brown stuff that you folks are so
> fond of since your dalliances in Bengal and Madras rather than the
> hearty black brew that I am enjoying as Brother Roosevelt would say,
> Good to the Last Drop.
You have definitely confused your beers. ;^) That watery brown stuff
is pilsner and it's very American. The hearty black brew would be
Mackison Stout or Guinness depending on which GL on that side of the
pond was the sponsor. They definitely have the better of us when it
comes to beer. Unless the Belgian brews come into the discussion.
I was at one table lodge where they had wine. When debating the
relative merits of beers and ales it's the neutral approach. Vivat,
vivat, vivat.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
[ Bro. Doug, I think he means tea vs. coffee, not beer. :) ]
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Wintermute" <jwint...@erols.com>
Newsgroups: soc.org.freemasonry
Subject: Re: [sof] Was Prince Hall an American Patriot or British Loyalist?
<snipped>
>> I know this, that his lodge was specifically
>> prohibited from conducting raisings.
> Have you seen/read the warrant for African Lodge #849, which was issued by
> UGLE? If the warrant makes no reference to any such prohibition, what
> else could possibly have the effect of nullifying what is arguably the
> only purpose of a masonic lodge: to make masons.
Hi Janet,
The Warrant was not issued by UGLE - it didn't exist then. It was issued
by the 'moderns' GL of England (the one originally founded (as the GL of
London and Westminster iirc) in 1717.
The lodge no. was originally no. 459 (not 849) and was renumbered to no. 350
in 1792. It was a regularly constituted lodge, and is the only lodge in
the USA whose original warrant still exists to this day - though somewhat
charred around the edges as a result of a fire in 1863.
This is the text of the Warrant:-
"Effingham, A.G.M. To all and every Right Worshipful and loving Brethren,
we, Thomas Howard, &c., &c., &c., Earl of Effingham, Lord Howard, Acting
Grand Master under the authority of His Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke
of Cumberland, &c., &c., &c., Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honorable
Society of Free and Accepted Masons, sends Greeting:
"Know ye, that we, at the humble petition of our right trusty and well
beloved brethren, Prince Hall, Boston Smith, Thomas Sanderson, and several
other brethren residing in Boston, New Zealand, in North America, do hereby
constitute the said brethren into a regular Lodge of Free and accepted
Masons, under the title or denomination of the African Lodge,
to be opened in Boston, aforesaid; and do further, at their said petition,
hereby appoint the said Prince Hall to be Master, Boston Smith, Senior
Warden, and Thomas Sanderson, Junior Warden, for opening the said Lodge, and
for such further time only as shall be thought proper by the brethren
thereof,
it being any future election of officers of the Lodge, but that such
election shall be regulated agreeably to such By-Laws of the said Lodge as
shall be consistent with the general laws of the society, contained in the
Book of Constitutions; and we hereby will and require you, the said Prince
Hall, to take special care that all and every the said brethren are, or have
been, regularly made Masons, and that they do observe, perform, and keep all
the rules and orders contained in the Books of Constitutions; and further,
that you do, from time to time, cause to be entered in a book kept for that
purpose an account of your proceedings in the Lodges, together with all such
rules, orders, and regulations as shall be made for the good government of
the same; that in no wise you omit once in every year to send to us, our
successors Grand Masters or to Rowland Holt, Esq., our Deputy Grand Master,
for the time being, an account in writing of your proceedings, and copies of
all such rules, orders, and regulations as shall be made as aforesaid,
together with a list of the members of the Lodge, and such a sum of money as
may suit the circumstances of the Lodge and reasonably be expected towards
the Grand Charity. Moreover, we hereby will and require you, the said Prince
Hall, as soon as conveniently may be, to send an account in writing of what
may be done by virtue of these presents.
"Given at London, under our hand and seal of Masonry, this 29th day
September, A.L. 5784, A.D. 1784.
By the Grand Master's Command.
"ROWLAND HOLT, D.G.M.,
Witness
WILLIAM WHITE,
"Grand Secretary."
No mention of any prohibition on the making of masons .... let alone on the
ceremony of Raising.
Torence
by the contents that the documented permitted the Lodge to meet as
Masons, elect officers, make reports and raise money, not men
necessarily, for the Grand Charity. Compare that to the first warrant
given to a Lodge here in Illinois where the requirement to make the
profane into Master Masons is much more apparent:
“We, ISRAEL ISRAEL, Esquire, Right Worshipful Grand Master of
Masons in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Masonic
jurisdiction there unto belonging
To All Free and Accepted Masons wherever dispersed
Greetings
Reposing the Greatest Confidence in the Zeal, Fervor, and
Constancy in the Craft of our Worthy and Beloved Brother, James Edgar,
a Past Master, Ancient York Mason, residing at Kaskaskia in the
Indiana Territory in the Untied States AND by the virtue of the powers
and authorities vested in US, We DO hereby Authorize, Empower, and
request him to call to his assistance, sufficient number of known and
approved Master Masons to open a Lodge in the Town of Kaskaskia
aforesaid and their [sic] and there Initiate, Pafs [sic] and Raise
Masons according to the most Ancient and Honorable Customs of the
Craft in all Ages and Nations throughout the Western World and not
contrary wise [sic] and to make report to US herein endorsed of their
proceedings. This Dispensation to remain in force of Six Months from
the date here of and no longer.
Given under Our Hand and Seal of Our Grand Lodges at the City of
Philadelphia this twenty-fourth day of September in the Year of Our
Lord 1805 and in the year of Masonry 5805.
Israel Israel
G.M.
Attest
George A Baker
Grand Secretary
The regular lodges in America at the time of the Prince Hall
warrant, such as the one in Fredericksburg, Va. for example, were not
only fully vested with the Hiramaic lesson; but they incorporated the
Royal Arch as part and parcel of their degree work. When I am Grand
Master, the Royal Arch will be restored to the Craft lodges here in
Illinois where the work should more properly reside.
The other important note about the Kaskaskia warrant is that it
contains no direction to raise money for export to Pennsylvania. Since
the time of Henry, 5th Duke of Beaufort (1762-1768), concern was
expressed by the Craftsmen in the Premier Lodge that the funds being
raised for charity could be diverted for other purposes, such as the
building of a Great hall and lavish entertainments. These concerns
caused debate on the Bill to incorporate the Premier Grand Lodge to
adjourn “sine die” in Parliament. Though Beaufort built the Hall, the
administration of the Premier Grand Lodge was altered and money was
needed from distant places to support the operation. Fees, for
example, were introduced to provide warrants such as the one you cite
as was compulsory registration for members, all to finance a lodge
that the distant brothers had no opportunity to use.
It was Henry Frederick who established himself as the Grand or
Lackey Master and began the practice of appointing Acting Grand
Masters, in this case the Earl of Effingham. But I am surprised to
learn that Thomas Dunkerly is not mentioned in the document, the much
more capable officer. The Duke of Cumberland died in 1790 and his
successors would be the Prince of Wales (later Prince Regent and King
George VI) and his Pro Grand Master, the very proficient Earl of
Moria.
Given the names and activities of the players, IMHO, this “Prince
Hall” warrant seems to be deficient and a lesser document.
Torence
MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> [ Bro. Doug, I think he means tea vs. coffee, not beer. :) ]
longer drink beer as I suffer from gout and ale is definitely a
trigger. My fellow Auburn Parkians call it the Grand Master’s
revenge.
> Unless the Belgian brews come into the discussion.
According to my 2010 Book of Lodges-Masonic, The “Regular Grand Lodge
of Belgium,” (Eli Peeters Grand Master), recognizes Illinois. They
also recognize the following specific Prince Hall Grand Lodges,
Colorado, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and
Wisconsin.
They also recognize “Guinea Conakry,” Lithuania, Macedonia, Bosnia
& Herzegovinia, Latvia. Mali, Poland, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, San
Marino & Slovenia. However, they do not recognize Brazil, Acre,
Alagoas, Amapa, Amazonas, Bahia, Brazilia, Ceara, Espirito Santo,
Goias, Maranhao, Minas Gerias, Para, Paraiba, Parana, Pernambuco,
Piaui, Rio Grade de Norte, Rondonia, Ruriana, Santa Catarina,
Sergripe, Tucantius, Colombia, Barranquilla, Los Andes, Occidental-
Cali, Oriental-Cucuta, Santander, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,
Guatelmala, Hondorua, El Salvador, Mexico (all but York) and Puerto
Rico.
Frankly. I do not recognize half of these places myself. I would
probably recognize none at all if I had enough to drink.
> I was at one table lodge where they had wine. When debating the
> relative merits of beers and ales it's the neutral approach. Vivat,
> vivat, vivat.
McKenna operated a bar in the Fisher Building. Above the mirrored back
drop behind the bar was the inscription “Vino Veritas” which he
thought meant “In Wine there is Truth.”
Can our Illinois Brothers handle the Truth at Table Lodge?
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
>> [ Bro. Doug, I think he means tea vs. coffee, not beer. :) ]
Sure, but where's the fun in that? ;^)
>> I was at one table lodge where they had wine.
>
> Can our Illinois Brothers handle the Truth at Table Lodge?
At least on the first degree. Later the topics get more metaphorical.
We can certainly handle wine at Table Lodge so I think the rule against
it should be removed. I don't feel strongly enough about the rule to
write a proposal about it. Most Illinois Table Lodge meetings I've been
to have been at a location with a bar that was available before the
meeting not during the meeting. Close enough.
Torence
> Close enough.
Fortunately, Illinois has no probhibition on dope smoking as long as
it is done outside and not within the lodge hall.
:-)
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secreatry - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
Richard
"Torence" <toren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1c7ae916-f959-4198...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> Thank you, Bro. White for providing the text. But anyone can read
> by the contents that the documented permitted the Lodge to meet as
> Masons, elect officers, make reports and raise money, not men
> necessarily, for the Grand Charity. Compare that to the first warrant
> given to a Lodge here in Illinois where the requirement to make the
> profane into Master Masons is much more apparent:
Which is totally irrelevant. The wording of a GLofE warrant is probably
slightly different from that used by any other GL.
What you stated earlier is that the African Lodge no. 459 was specifically
prohibited from conducting Raisings.
To quote: "I know this, that his lodge was specifically prohibited from
conducting raisings."
I am sure you will agree that there is nothing in its Warrant which states
this "specifically".
What the Warrant does state is that the new lodge must act within the rules
of the Book of Constitutions. These rules provide for the election of
officers, the proposal and initiation of candidates, and their passings and
raisings. No more need be written within the Warrant.
<...snipped...>
> The regular lodges in America at the time of the Prince Hall
> warrant, such as the one in Fredericksburg, Va. for example, were not
> only fully vested with the Hiramaic lesson; but they incorporated the
> Royal Arch as part and parcel of their degree work. When I am Grand
> Master, the Royal Arch will be restored to the Craft lodges here in
> Illinois where the work should more properly reside.
Congratulations on your election to the office of Grand Master - can you
tell me when you will be installed?
As the Royal Arch is an independent sovereign body (at least in the USA),
won't they have something to say on the matter? What will you do if they
don't want to be "restored"?
<snipped>
> Given the names and activities of the players, IMHO, this "Prince
> Hall" warrant seems to be deficient and a lesser document.
In what manner deficient? Lesser than what? It is a legitimate Warrant to
constitute a regular Lodge - no more, no less. The wording and form of the
Warrant, and the names of the Grand Master, Acting Grand Master etc. are
consistent with what would have appeared on any 'moderns' GLofE Warrant
issued at that time.
S & F regards,
Richard
Torence
> Congratulations on your election to the office of Grand Master - can you
> tell me when you will be installed?
(Unless, of course, I can learn how to duck quickly.)
> As the Royal Arch is an independent sovereign body (at least in the USA),
> won't they have something to say on the matter? What will you do if they
> don't want to be "restored"?
They are dependent upon the Craft lodges for their material and that
substance is subject to the rules of Ancient Craft Freemasonry before
any of those other bodies. They simply owe their loyalty to the Lodges
that raised them first.
As the Scottish Rite in particular here, like Grand Orients
elsewhere, have encroached upon the territory of the Craft Lodges from
time to time (i.e. conducting the three principle degrees of
Freemasonry and involving themselves in the decision making process
reserved for Grand Craft Lodges), I figure that such an adjustment is
not only in order; but it may prove to be the best path to grow our
fraternity with freedom, fervency and zeal.
We need no longer divide ourselves up between many organizations
each of which professes to be superior to the other and the Pinnacle
of the Masonic experience.