FreeMasons and Civil Disobedience
Torence
While Law & order supporters point the passage from our charges the
admonition to remain peaceable to the civil magistrates, those
sympathetic to revolutionary causes call upon another passage, that
the same instructions remind us to stand by our Brothers even in
difficult or hard times. While a protesting Brother may be pitied as
an unhappy man, we own him and his act and should show the entire
world that we still love him throughout his ordeal.
I ask this question of the group because in another forum, we have
been exploring the relationship of FreeMasonry and Government, our own
as well as the civil one. I find it often incongruous that the same
Brothers who profess a zero tolerance to crime, for example, also take
pride that their associations here also link them to some of our great
revolutionary heroes. They are even a bit shamed when those
associations prove to be linked to something from the wrong side of
history.
If you were in the society of these names and in their day, what
would you like to think your attitude to them and their acts would be?
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary � Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 � Crete, Illinois
PM � Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 � Lansing, Illinois
Chris H
s.com>, Torence <toren...@aol.com> writes
> Can a Mason, if his mind so moves him, engage in Civil Disobedience?
>While Law & order supporters point the passage from our charges the
>admonition to remain peaceable to the civil magistrates, those
>sympathetic to revolutionary causes call upon another passage, that
>the same instructions remind us to stand by our Brothers even in
>difficult or hard times. While a protesting Brother may be pitied as
>an unhappy man, we own him and his act and should show the entire
>world that we still love him throughout his ordeal.
> I ask this question of the group because in another forum, we have
>been exploring the relationship of FreeMasonry and Government, our own
>as well as the civil one. I find it often incongruous that the same
>Brothers who profess a zero tolerance to crime, for example, also take
>pride that their associations here also link them to some of our great
>revolutionary heroes. They are even a bit shamed when those
>associations prove to be linked to something from the wrong side of
>history.
> If you were in the society of these names and in their day, what
>would you like to think your attitude to them and their acts would be?
> Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Dear Pandora,
See "Paradox" in the dictionary :-)))
I don't think there is an answer to your question. Whilst we are
required to be "moral and upright" there are no absolutes in morality.
Also History is written by the winners.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Torence
> I don't think there is an answer to your question. Whilst we are
> required to be "moral and upright" there are no absolutes in morality.
>
> Also History is written by the winners.
As an historian, I thank you for your compliment. :-)
Another point to be explored is the fact that our Charges state our
position in relationship to plots and conspiracies against government.
But historically, there are other fights, such as the one against bad
business as an example.
While we have going into this century in civil America, an overseas
fight we also have had over the centuries a few folks who did and are
still doing a good job of railing against the machine. I would like to
think that I would always be on the side of the individual, despite
any personal quirkiness, short comings, or temporal hic-cups in
judgment; and always against any machination. My general rule would be
that as a society, both Masonic and public, too much good order
retards progress and ultimately leads to decay.
But enough of my opinion, what is yours?
Doug Freyburger
>
> But enough of my opinion, what is yours?
I think it's obedience to just government. That's why dictatorships ban
Freemasonry when they get power. Masons might go from fostering
obedience to a just government to fostering revolution to an unjust
government. It's happened in the past, individual Masons anyways.
How this maps to acts of civil disobedience as protest I haven't thought
through. I have friends who have gone out to certain sites and crossed
the fence to get themselves arrested on camera. It's an honorable thing
to do iMO. As far as I know when I took my degrees I agreed not to do
that.
But what's the line between just and unjust governement - That's
a judgment that is not always obvious.
Torence
> Torence wrote:
> > But enough of my opinion, what is yours?
> I think it's obedience to just government. That's why dictatorships ban
> Freemasonry when they get power. Masons might go from fostering
> obedience to a just government to fostering revolution to an unjust
> government. It's happened in the past, individual Masons anyways.
I would like to know a little more myself about who wrote and what
motivated the Charges of a Freemason in Anderson�s Book of
Constitutions. Whether he or Payne or some other Brother was the
author, the instructions are very clear that individually we must
endeavor to be generally peaceable to the civil powers. Should one of
our peers find himself on the wrong side of the law, we should own him
and his act, and still love him throughout his ordeal of trial. I
would also like to think that if he were incarcerated, that as
individual FreeMasons we would not completely disown him. But my
experience among the Masons of my time is that we do not do that.
Indeed if you were to continue to help an incarcerated Mason, even one
whose imprisonment he professes to be an injustice, you may find the
cogs of the machine shift gears to head in your direction.
> How this maps to acts of civil disobedience as protest I haven't thought
> through. I have friends who have gone out to certain sites and crossed
> the fence to get themselves arrested on camera. It's an honorable thing
> to do iMO. As far as I know when I took my degrees I agreed not to do
> that.
But civil disobedience is not a tactic that is limited to disputes
between men and their government. I would like to think that every
FreeMason that I know, both here and in our other circles, would not
tolerate a tyrant or dictator. But injustice in our time is often
inflicted by the cold robotic hands of other public institutions. In
Anderson�s day, religious strife was fresh, in our time bad business
and a corrupted education system are in need of reform. I have been
doing some reading up as to how Freemasons here in Chicago behaved
when our club was dominated by politicians and Captains of Industry
while many rank and file members organized the Knights of Labor and
made Pullman�s social experiment a workable reality. No doubt,
Chicagoans lost much in the 20th Century due to the peculiar short
sightedness of that day. I wonder if our club could tolerate members
who were to conceal a fugitive who engaged in sabotage or disruption,
particularly when such acts posed no threat to public safety.
As Masons where exactly does our moral responsibility lie?
Chris H
Didn't George Washington do that and a bit more besides?
I thought half those who signed the US declaration of independence were
Masons and could be viewed as doing "civil" disobedience, if not
insurrection and rebellion against the government...
I know we are all friends 300 years later but at the time?
There are no moral absolutes.
Chris H
.com>, Torence <toren...@aol.com> writes
>
> As Masons where exactly does our moral responsibility lie?
In the place where you were first prepared to be made a Mason.
Torence
> I thought half those who signed the US declaration of independence were
> Masons and could be viewed as doing "civil" disobedience, if not
> insurrection and rebellion against the government...
As you so aptly pointed out, history is written by the victors. I
am reminded here of the case of Brother Richard Penman. Brother Penman
was the fellow in the poem who hung the lamps �One if by land and two
if by Sea.� Many of us on this side of the pond are taught in school
that the Regulars were aggressors and that these citizens, Penman,
Revere, Adams and Hancock were keeping tabs on troop movements and the
famous ride was to somehow protect ordinary folks from some sort of
invasion. But no one on our side was being particularly high-minded,
nor were their actions motivated for a political consideration.
The reality is that some of the local rowdies had been poking fun at
the new foppish commander of the Regulars who liked to dress the boys
and display them around town from time to time. Our guys raided the
arsenal one night and stole two shiny brass parade canons. At the same
time, the local court handed down indictments for two notorious
smugglers, Sam Adams and John Hancock. Hancock had earned an
additional capital charge of piracy. Both were in Concord hiding out
from the fuzz.
The Regulars making their way into Concord that day when there was
�a shot heard around the world� were to recover the stolen canon and
arrest a couple of common criminals. The system of hanging lamps by
Penman in North Boston Church was designed to signal Hancock�s ships
where to port. Penman would gather intelligence by hanging out with
the young soldiers and discover their detail so as to best direct the
illicit landings.
So, our ForeBrothers� motive was profit, and from that our modern
condition is derived. None the less, I would like to think that had
the Regulars �got their men� in the parlance of �The Way of the
West,� (Or is that a Canadian Mounty thing? ) and I was around in that
day, that I would still have stood up for Adams, Hancock and Penman
before, during and after their trial. It is a duty that I owe my
Brothers and that I have registered in heaven. On what side of the
fence would you picture yourself to have been? It is as much a matter
of Ego as it is of any moral consideration.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary
Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 � Crete, Illinois
Janet Wintermute
> As you so aptly pointed out, history is written by the victors. I am
> reminded here of the case of Brother Richard Penman. Brother Penman
> was the fellow in the poem who hung the lamps �One if by land and two
> if by Sea.� Many of us on this side of the pond are taught in school
> that the Regulars were aggressors and that these citizens, Penman,
> Revere, Adams and Hancock were keeping tabs on troop movements and the
> famous ride was to somehow protect ordinary folks from some sort of
> invasion. But no one on our side was being particularly high-minded,
> nor were their actions motivated for a political consideration. The
> reality is that some of the local rowdies had been poking fun at the
> new foppish commander of the Regulars who liked to dress the boys and
> display them around town from time to time. Our guys raided the
> arsenal one night and stole two shiny brass parade canons. At the same
> time, the local court handed down indictments for two notorious
> smugglers, Sam Adams and John Hancock. Hancock had earned an
> additional capital charge of piracy. Both were in Concord hiding out
> from the fuzz.
> The Regulars making their way into Concord that day when there was �a shot heard around the world� were to recover the stolen canon and arrest a couple of common criminals. The system of hanging lamps by Penman in North Boston Church was designed to signal Hancock�s ships where to port. Penman would gather intelligence by hanging out with the young soldiers and discover their detail so as to best direct the illicit landings. So, our ForeBrothers� motive was profit, and from that our modern condition is derived. None the less, I would like to think that had the Regulars �got their men� in the parlance of �The Way of the West,� (Or is that a Canadian Mounty thing? ) and I was around in that day, that I would still have stood up for Adams, Hancock and Penman before, during and after their trial. It is a duty that I owe my Brothers and that I have registered in heaven. On what side of the fence would you picture yourself to have been? It is as much a matter of Ego as it is of any moral consideration.
>
Fascinating, Torence. This is such a contrarian view of "history" that
I'm moved to ask your sources. Hancock was certainly the model for the
self-made man, rising from illegitimate birth in the West Indies to
become a hugely successful banker. Considering that the Crown licensed
"privateers" as a legalized form of piracy (with the King getting a cut,
no doubt), I wonder if Hancock may not have been in that category. The
family that built the 1710 Colonial house I own in southeastern Virginia
had such a privateering license from England to snatch booty from ships
on the Chesapeake Bay. When things got too hot for them in that line of
work, they retreated to their island home and farmed their 450 acres
until the forces of law and order got distracted....
--Janet
maclilus
> � The reality is that some of the local rowdies had been poking fun at
> the new foppish commander of the Regulars who liked to dress the boys
> and display them around town from time to time. Our guys raided the
> arsenal one night and stole two shiny brass parade canons. At the same
> time, the local court handed down indictments for two notorious
> smugglers, Sam Adams and John Hancock. Hancock had earned an
> additional capital charge of piracy. Both were in Concord hiding out
> from the fuzz.
Bro. Torrence:
Checking on historical records, I cannot find any reference to the
stolen cannon. However, in Williamsburg, VA, several months earlier,
it was the case of the Royal Navy stealing gunpowder from the Virginia
Arsenal - which was bought and paid for by the colonists. Just who
owned the cannons? If they were brought over by the British Army of
Occupation - there to force submission on Bostonias Mason and non-
Mason alike - then we have a case of theft. If the cannons were part
of the colonial militia - such as the Ancient & Honorable Order of
Artillery - we have a case of retrieval.
Hancock and Adams - both an unlikely pair - were actually returning
from Philadelphia where they served as delegates to the First
Continental Congress. The arrest warrant was issued by Lord Dartmouth
(Secretary for the Colonies) "to arrest the principal actors and
abettors in the Provincial Congress whose proceedings appear in every
light to be acts of treason and rebellion" - not for smuggling. And
BTW, Hancock actually believed in submitting to parliamentary
authority when the Acts were first instituted in 1765, but as they and
their enforcement became harsher, believed in non-violent resistance
to these laws. Hancock was believed to be targeted because of his
political prominence more than to his alleged activities.
The political ideas that motivated many colonists were based on
John Locke's view of libertarianism (not to be confused with the
Libertarianism of today when one takes into account the spirit of the
times). The basic premise is that the legitimacy of any government
was that power came from the governed and that should the government
work to injure rather than protect the governed, its legitimacy was
called into question. At that idea is sometimes known as "first
principles." The First Continental Congress invoked first principles
(Declaration of Resolves) when it came to Parliamentary authority (but
the authority of the King was not). The Second Continental Congress
would make that break final with the Declaration of Independence.
While you state that profit was the motive for Hancock and Adams, I
state that more money was at stake for the British Empire. The First
Continental Congress implemented a system of boycotting British goods,
which was so effective, that the importation of British goods
decreased by 97% between 1774 and 1775.
maclilus
John M. McKee, PM
Myrtle #145 AF&AM
Oklahoma City, OK
Jerusalem #3000 FAAM
Washington, DC
Torence
> On 12/21/2009 10:16 AM, Torence wrote:
> Fascinating, Torence. This is such a contrarian view of "history" that
> I'm moved to ask your sources.
remember meeting with us at the Masonic Forum on America Online? I
think that I still have that stuff on 1.44 floppy and an old KLH
Champion 386 that I own which, believe it or not, still works. There
was simply nothing like the performance of a 1200 baud dial-up modem.
John McKee has the less editorial reference. I would have to go
back through old material to prove up the story better. However, the
cannons, at least, exist. PBS aired an episode of �The History
Detectives,� Season 2, Episode 6 & again in Season 3, Episode 5 where
a woman had found one of the cannons on her property that matched the
original on display. The Discovery Channel also touches on Penman�s
role in a recent episode of Secret Passages. My understanding is that
Hancock profited from seized shipping; but had no letters authorizing
him to privateer. Again, Maclilus (John McKee) seems to have the
authoritarian explanation.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary
Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 � Crete, Illinois
-
Torence
> Hancock and Adams - both an unlikely pair - were actually returning
> from Philadelphia where they served as delegates to the First
> Continental Congress.
The arrest warrant was issued by Lord Dartmouth
> (Secretary for the Colonies) "to arrest the principal actors and
> abettors in the Provincial Congress whose proceedings appear in every
> light to be acts of treason and rebellion" - not for smuggling.
stemmed from an initial incident from 1768 when the British ship
�Romney� seized one of his ships because it was being loaded contrary
to law. Then, as our guys did again at Lexington Green, a riot ensued.
The Regulars were well beaten and the Officers made their way back to
the �Romney� to avoid further assault. A boat belonging to the tax man
was sunk and several houses belonging to loyalists were vandalized.
Skip ahead to the melee at Lexington Green, Governor Gage afterwards
granted forgiveness to all of those involved who would declare a
renewed loyalty to the crown. The pardon was for everyman�except
Hancock and Adams.
> BTW, Hancock actually believed in submitting to parliamentary
> authority when the Acts were first instituted in 1765, but as they and
> their enforcement became harsher, believed in non-violent resistance
> to these laws.
specifically against parliament. Appeals to the King for relief, which
were many and quite complimentary of him, assumed that in his high
station he was not aware of the details of the offending Acts. But now
it seems that much of this interpretation of the activity was inspired
after the fact, and in reality, smoke and mirrors.
> The basic premise is that the legitimacy of any government
> was that power came from the governed and that should the government
> work to injure rather than protect the governed, its legitimacy was
> called into question.
had Payne and Jefferson at work that headway for a more secular view
was made. How is it in England today? Do you feel that your Monarch is
in place �By the Grace of God?� Or is the office a public institution?
> While you state that profit was the motive for Hancock and Adams, I
> state that more money was at stake for the British Empire.
the day were designed to keep us in that condition.
> Continental Congress implemented a system of boycotting British goods,
> which was so effective, that the importation of British goods
> decreased by 97% between 1774 and 1775.
�Made in England� except some books printed before 1800; and of course
my valued Top Gear, Black Adder, Fawlty Towers, Dr. Who and Monty
Python collections.
Janet Wintermute
> On Dec 21, 2:59 pm, Janet Wintermute<jwinterm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/2009 10:16 AM, Torence wrote:
>> Fascinating, Torence. This is such a contrarian view of "history" that
>> I'm moved to ask your sources.
>>
> Hello Janet- Gosh it has been ages since we conversed. Do you
> remember meeting with us at the Masonic Forum on America Online?
By fall 1996, it had turned into a snakepit of Bible-thumpers. I left
after one of the enlightened ones opined that he hoped I "would cook in
hell."
During the same period, I became active on the big Freemasonry List
(solely e-mail; no Web involvement). During the early years (mid- to
late 90s), there was a CompuServe masonic forum, and I ventured onto
that only to needle the then-president of the Philalethes Society
because he was attacking a female mason from New York City whom I felt I
had to help under the circumstances.
When Scotty Fitzgerald and others started soc.org.fm around 2000, I
happily joined up. In the early years, there were lots of interesting
threads. But lately, not so much. That's why I haven't been writing to
the group much recently. Scotty arranged for me to get sof by e-mail
instead of having to fire up the old Usenet freeware and download all
the messages. Good system--wish I could explain to others how to get
sof that way....
Thanks for the references to John McKee's work and the various TV
shows. This *is* an interesting thread.
--Janet
maclilus
No, I read the HistoryDetectives transcript and looked up Paddock's
Artillery - which was a Massachussetts militia company and had owned
the cannons - meaning they were the property of the people of MA. The
commanding officer, Paddock, was a Tory and was planning to turn them
over to the British troops. Bascially, our forebears managed to get
them before the British did. First, the British never had them.
Second, they were commonwealth property. (See
http://books.google.com/books?id=CvJEg2jiPnsC&pg=RA1-PA541&lpg=RA1-PA541&dq=paddock's+artillery&source=bl&ots=Fbj8vD9fgG&sig=y4JExEpgi6M4A-N_cSs18cYSp-c&hl=en&ei=HUMwS5_xHI34nAfYwaD4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=paddock's%20artillery&f=false)
Having participated in a documentary myself, I am familiar with the
"dirty secrets" of playing up one fact nearly out of proportion with
the context of events. While HistoryDetectives, Discovery Channel and
HC's Secret Passages do present informaton not normally found in our
history books, they do take some liberties for entertainment value.
And BTW, even within the context of the HistoryDetective episode, the
cannons were not the primary reason for the foray to Concord - rather,
this was an expedition to confiscate all arms and ammunition that
could be found - the cannons were an afterthought. Talk about search
and seizure.
> � Hancock�s rap sheet was quite lengthy.
Hancock did not have a rap sheet, the complaints against him were few
but only grew whenever he made a political speech.
>The smuggling complaints stemmed from an initial incident from 1768 ...
What you refer to was the Liberty affair and Hancock did pay the duty
fee (for some cases of Madeira wine). This was the only charge of
smuggling against him, and the only "violence" was the preventing of
the tidesman to go below decks to inspect without a warrant. No
damage of private property ensued. A year later, the tidesman changed
his story declaring that he was forcibly detained. During the trial
which dragged on for months, the suit was dropped and Hancock
acquitted. Historian John W. Taylor researched smuggling during this
period and determined that there was no foundation to the claim that
Hancock was the king of smugglers, let alone conducted smuggling - he
essentially ran a legitimate operation.
> � Skip ahead to the melee at Lexington Green, Governor Gage afterwards
> granted forgiveness to all of those involved who would declare a
> renewed loyalty to the crown. The pardon was for everyman�except
> Hancock and Adams>
True, but Gage was still under directions to arrest Hancock and Adams
and could not withdraw it - they had left Concord hours before the
British arrived, left no orders for they had no authority to issue
any, and returned to Philadelphia. Gage had already used up his
credibility by that time both in MA and in London. Even Lord
Sackville remarked: "the Bostonians are in the right to make the
King's troops the aggressors and claim a victory." Shortly later,
Gage was relieved.
> � Generally speaking, all of the complaints in these early days were
> specifically against parliament. Appeals to the King for relief, which
> were many and quite complimentary of him, assumed that in his high
> station he was not aware of the details of the offending Acts. But now
> it seems that much of this interpretation of the activity was inspired
> after the fact, and in reality, smoke and mirrors.>
Well,yes, but I guess that is what was meant by no taxation without
representation. Even John Adams declared that they would have settled
for dominion status that was already given to newly conquered Canada.
What the people were facing was eventual devolution of their rights
into serfdom. What choice did they really have? If you say
otherwise, would you consent to that for yourself to follow?
> � But the privilege to rule was divinely inspired. It was not until we
> had Payne and Jefferson at work that headway for a more secular view
> was made. How is it in England today? Do you feel that your Monarch is
> in place �By the Grace of God?� Or is the office a public institution?
Actually, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 reaffirmed the Magna
Carta and the rights of representational government. Locke and
Montesquieu were already established in the political vocabulary on
both sides of the Atlantic. Lord Pitt and Edmund Burke were outspoken
in their affirmation of representational government, and John Wilkes
was considered the spokesman for Liberty in the years leading up to
the Revolution.
The Rebellion of 1745 was seen then as the last gasp of Stuart
Absolutism for all of the UK, and was never a Scottish attempt for
independence. Had Bonnie Prince Charlie succeeded, 1776 might have
been remembered as the year that both America and England declared
independence. "Tory" originally referred to the Stuart supporters and
to be called a tory later was to be accused of supporting absolutism -
the Hanover dynasty understood this proviso quite well and essentially
left Parliament alone. I have never visted England and I have no
intention to foist my political views on another country, though my
political sympathies are for liberal democracy and republicanism.
Also, I also took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
US. How do you feel about the authority of leaders?
> � But we Americans had no money, only goods and labor; and the law of
> the day were designed to keep us in that condition
We actually had little money, but wealth was measured mostly in land,
with agriculture being the chief export. But you have to admit, the
Americans tried to work within the system but were continually
rebuffed and thwarted. Manufacturing was deliberately kept to such
small levels as to make the colonists dependent on British-made goods.
> � Hmmm, must still be in effect. I have little around my home stamped
> �Made in England� except some books printed before 1800; and of course
> my valued Top Gear, Black Adder, Fawlty Towers, Dr. Who and Monty
> Python collections.
Actually, the ban mostly applies nowadays to the Britannia Beanie
Baby. We just learned we can get it cheaper from elsewhere.
S&F
JMcK, PM
Myrtle #145 AF&AM - Oklahoma City, OK
Jerusalem #3000 FAAM - Washington, DC
Torence
> Thanks for the references to John McKee's work and the various TV
> shows. This *is* an interesting thread.
If you can, please thoughtfully respond to the proposition. The
essential question is one of Ego as much as it is of Morality. Ego, of
course, being defined not only as how one views them �selfs� but also
the person that they wish to present to others. In my sight Ego and
Morality are intricately entwined. It is not enough for a Mason to
merely commit good deeds and not necessarily bad should another
Craftsman commit a bad act particularly in the name of the common
good. Demanding too much Good Order from others, such obeying Mallum
Prohibitum regulations rather than paying attention to that which is
Mallum Se, interferes with Progress. Our Craft is an Art, not a
Science, and one whereby that which promotes Good Order and those
things that inspire Progress should never be in conflict. As Masons,
IMHO, we need to go beyond merely being helpful or doing good deeds to
stand for something. The marvel of these varying points of view of the
record is how skillfully the likes of Hancock, Adams, Revere,
Washington etc. rose above their severely traitorous acts with the
whole world seeming to have benefited from the result.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary-Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 � Crete, Illinois
Stuart H.
> Even John Adams declared that they would have settled
> for dominion status that was already given to newly conquered Canada.
>
> JMcK, PM
> Myrtle #145 AF&AM - Oklahoma City, OK
> Jerusalem #3000 FAAM - Washington, DC
>
This statement is at odds with what we are taught in Canadian History.
Following several constitutional conferences, the Constitution Act
(previously named the British North America Act), 1867 brought about
Confederation, creating "one Dominion under the name of Canada" on July
1, 1867, with four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick. This was the first created "Dominion" in the British Empire,
and was so called until about 100 years later.
Stuart H.
Baseline #198 GRA
Alberta, Canada
maclilus
> This statement is at odds with what we are taught in Canadian History.
> Following several constitutional conferences, the Constitution Act
> (previously named the British North America Act), 1867 brought about
> Confederation, creating "one Dominion under the name of Canada" on July
> 1, 1867, with four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New
> Brunswick. �This was the first created "Dominion" in the British Empire,
> and was so called until about 100 years later.
Bro. Stuart, you are correct - but the term that John Adams used was
taken from a quote cited by John A. Garrity in "The American Nation
Vol. 1" (1977 ed.) - and I believe was referring to the Constitutional
Act of 1791 which gave portions of Canada local autonomy - less than
what the Americans have under their Federal Constitution, but lot more
than was under the former colonial system. Adams commented in
retrospect that had such a political solution been adapted, history
could have been different.
Torence
> Lord Pitt and Edmund Burke were outspoken
> in their affirmation of representational government, and John Wilkes
> was considered the spokesman for Liberty in the years leading up to
> the Revolution.
John Wilkes� case illustrates the questions of Masons and Civil
Disobedience probably better than some of the other events discussed
in this thread. There he was, a non-Mason, arguably infected with a
case of sour grapes after losing the election to become MP of
Aylesbury; and reacting by blasting individuals in the duly
constituted government in �The Monitor.� His assaults were tolerated
for a time but eventually earned him also a criminal warrant for
libel. Dodging the authorities, he reacted by changing publications to
�The North Briton� and went to work aggravating the establishment
further. His diatribes earned another warrant and arrest for himself
and forty-eight of his fellow employees and friends, Arthur Beardmore
and the Reverend John Entick, Grand Lodge Officers, included.
But Wilkes was not a Mason, at least not yet.
Freed on a writ of habeas corpus, he then tried election again this
time as MP for the City of London. Again, he failed. As a lark, the
citizens of Middlesex elected him and a riotous party ensued. It seems
to me that in the days before television, such scene making was the
way to while away a night or two. The Man responded by arresting
Wilkes again. I like to think myself as to be not so stuck up as to
decline joining the rabble so long as nothing but property would be
potentially harmed. Joseph Warren, the Provincial Grand Master of
Boston was not too terribly stuck up either; he sent congratulations
across the big water to Wilkes and urged him to further disobey.
Some twenty thousand gathered on St. George�s Field, what a blast,
at least until the Man started firing. Six were killed and fifteen
wounded. I also like to think that I would be among the one who know
how to duck.
Wilkes accused the government of planning the attack, and he was
expelled from Parliament. More riots and more property damage was the
response of the crowd. Brentford then re-elected him. Still
imprisoned, he partied while still in prison feasting on a swan
brought in by his supporters. Expelled again, Jerusalem Lodge No. 44
called a meeting and decided to make Wilkes and his lawyer, Bellas,
Masons. By the way, the Bellas� are family members of mine. Strong Man
Lodge No. 45 also sent Wilkes money. Thousands of pounds for his
defense were also sent across the big water organized in part by
William Palfrey, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.
Thomas Dobson, the Master along with the Officers of Jerusalem Lodge
then attended King�s Bench Prison and made Wilkes, Bellas and John
Churchill, FreeMasons. The Duke of Beaufort and Henry Somerset, GM &
DGM were also present and witnessed the occasion.
Somewhere along the decades, the attitude of many of our members
seems to have been changed. When �Escape From Alcatraz� or �The
Shawshank Redemption� plays, it seems to me, that too many of my
Brothers cheer on the wardens. Is this a correct stance for Masonry on
our century? Or is there a better one, more in keeping with the
Original Plan?