Difference between revisions of "MassachusettsNegroFreemasonry"

Revision as of 16:07, 30 July 2013

NEGRO FREEMASONRY IN MASSACHUSETTS

Since the granting of the charter to African Lodge by the Grand Lodge of England, there has been an African-American component to the Craft in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, the difficulties associated with the recognition of its regularity, the activities of the Prince Hall Masonic movement, and the unquestioned issues of prejudice and bigotry have been a part of the relationship between white and black Freemasonry since the beginning.

This page gathers references and commentary on the subject, primarily from the Massachusetts Grand Lodge A. F. & A. M. perspective. No judgment on the remarks or declarations is implied or intended; this is a historical reference only.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH PENNSYLVANIA, JUNE 1817

From Proceedings, Page III-101, in regard to allegations made by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania:

The Committee to whom was referred the Consideration of a Communication made by Brother Henry Fowle relating to a conversation which occurred at the City of Philadelphia between himself and several members of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, respectfully Report

That in their opinion a letter of the following import should be forthwith transmitted to the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, addressed to the G. Secretary:

To the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and accepted Masons in and for the State of Pensylvania

Strength Health & Prosperity

The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts send Greeting

Whereas a communication has been made to us by Bro. Henry Fowle our Grand Marshall, stating that being at Philadelphia in June 1816, he had the honor to be introduced to many Masons of high rank and eminence, among whom were Members of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania the conversation naturally turned upon the State of Masonry generally. Bro. Fowle observed that some of the Gentlemen seemed to speak with indifference of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and on enquiring the cause was much surprised to be informed by the Rt. Worshipful William McCorkle, Esq., and others that they understood that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts had granted a Charter to a number of Black Masons & patronized their Lodge; this they deemed derogatory to the honor of the Craft and was the reason that the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania had ceased to correspond with her Sister the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. . .

Bro. Fowle merely observed that they had been misinformed and that he would state the affair to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts who would no doubt immediately refute the calumny & vindicate their own honor. The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts therefore think proper to state that they have never granted a Charter to black Masons . . . That they have never heard of a Black Mason's requesting to visit a Lodge under this jurisdiction . . . That they have never countenanced the visits of Masons to the African Lodge . . . They have been informed however that prompted by Curiosity several reputable Masons have visited the African Lodge and examined their Charter, records and mode of working, and from them they learn that their Charter was obtained from the Grand Lodge of England, about the close of the Revolution.

The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, know nothing more of the African Lodge, but will be always happy to answer any Communication, which the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania may please to make, and in the mean time hope for the renewal of that friendly intercourse and Brotherly love which among Members of the same family should ever prevail.

by order of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts
EDWARD TURNER, Corresponding Grand Secretary

The above is respectfully submitted by
HENRY FOWLE,
ZACH G. WHITMAN,
Committee

The foregoing communication was read, accepted and directed to be transmitted by the Corresponding Grand Secretary

NOTE ON PRINCE HALL GRAND LODGE, MARCH 1847

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. VI, No. 5, March 1847, Page 139:

AFRICAN LODGE, IN BOSTON.

Our readers will recollect that about a year ago we had occasion, in reply to inquiries at that time addressed to us, to refer to the existence of the African Lodge in this city. Among the letters then received, asking for information on the subject, was one from the late Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of New York, - our answer to which will be found incorporated in the following report, adopted by that Grand Body, at its annual session in June last:-

To the M. W. Grand Lodge of the State of New York:

The undersigned, to whom was committed the memorial of a number of persons holding a Lodge in this city, called Boyer Lodge, No. 1, presented to this Grand Lodge in June last, has to report,- That, according to instructions, he has inquired into the facts set forth in said memorial, and finds that the memorialists have been entirely ignorant of Masonic history, and of their own particular history, or otherwise that they very deliberately attempted to impose upon this Grand Lodge as historical facts, what they knew to be untrue.

Said memorial sets forth, "that the Boyer Lodge, No.1, of the City of New York, had been some nineteen or twenty years regularly and legally constituted and installed, as a Master Masons Lodge, with a legal Warrant or Charter, issued from the Rt. W. African Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of the City of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts, whose Charter empowering them to Charter Lodges in the United States of America, is from the M. W. Gr. Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland, and is now half a century old, being dated the 29th September, A. D. 1784, and of Masonry, 5784, Robert Rolf, D. G. M., and Wm. White, G. Secretary, with the seal of the M. W. G. Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of London, signed by Lord Howard, Earl of Effingham, then acting as Grand Master, under his Royal Highness, Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland." This simple sentence presents a mass of gross absurdities and of false facts; mingling in the Fraternity of the African Lodge in Boston, the two Grand Lodges then in England, and the G. Lodge of Scotland.

To correct this statement, In part, the memorialists have recently presented another paper, in which they say: "We beg leave to state, that the Boyer Lodge, in petitioning your honorable Body in May last, that they fell into an error, if they stated that the African Grand Lodge of Boston, who Chartered us, received their Charter from the Grand Lodge of Scotland, we only intended to state that we was informed that they petitioned that body for a Charter, and in due time received one, bearing the Grand Seal of London, &c. &c. We have recently received a letter from ollr correspondent and Brother, Robert T. Crucefix, stating that the Warrant was granted to the African Grand Lodge of Boston, by the Grand Lodge of England, in the year 1784, and was numbered 459, and that the Grand Lodge of Scotland hod nothing to do with it." They then insert an extract of a letter from Dr. Crucefix, in which it will be noticed he does not call it the African Grand Lodge, as above set forth, but says that "the African Lodge of Boston received its Warrant from the Grand Lodge of England, in the year 1784, and was numbered 459, on the Registry; the Warrant was signed by Rowland Holt, D. G. Master, and countersigned by Wm. White, G. Sec'ry, the father of our present G. Sec'ry. This I find all regularly entered in the books of our Grand Lodge; consequently, any connection with the Grand Lodge of Scotland is out of the question."

1'he undersigned having requested the Rt. W. CHARLES W. MOORE, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, to endeavor to see the Charter of the so called African Grand Lodge of Boston, and if possible, obtain a copy thereof, begs leave to incorporate the following extract from Br. Moore's letter, dated July 26, 1845:-

"I called, agreeably to your request, on Mr Hilton, who, I believe, is the Master of the African Lodge in this city,-stated to him the object of my visit, and asked permission to see the Charter of his Lodge. He informed me that there was a difficulty between his and Boyer Lodgre, of long standing, - that they had nothing to do with that Lodge, nor would they have, until the difference referred to was settled. He further stilted, that they were entirely independent of all white Lodges, asked no favors of them, and would have nothing to do with them; nor would they admit a white Mason, if he should present himself as a visitor. In the course of the conversation, he distinctly said, that he had been told by them people, (meaning Boyer Lodge,) to have no communication with any body on the subject of their recognition by the Grand Lodge of New York. He also positively and repeatedly refused to allow me to see the Charter of his Lodge, or to give me any information in relation to its history or present existence. It is proper for me to add, that my convenation with him was kind and gentle. I explicitly stated to him that I did not call officially, but as a friend, and at your request, with a view to ascertain whether Boyer Lodge was a regularly constituted Lodge, such as the Grand Lodge of New York could recognize.

"This Lodge (African,) has, unquestionably, a Charter of some kind. Twenty years ago I saw it; and my impression is, that it is an ordinary Lodge Charter; but whether genuine or not, I am unable to say. I have understood that it was surreptitiously obtained, (through the agency of a Sea Captain,) from one of the two Grand Lodges then in England; but I can find no such record in the proceedings of either of those bodies. I have a list of the Lodges chartered by the G. Lodge of Scotland, up to 1804. It contains the name of St. Andrew's Lodge, in Boston, chartered in 1756, but it does not bear the name of African Lodge, nor does it furnish any evidence, nor have I ever met with any, (to my recollection,) that the Grand Lodge of Scotland ever granted a Charter for more than one Lodge in Boston, viz: St. Andrews. The only Provincial Grand Lodge ever formed in Massachusetts, under authority derived from the Grand Lodge of Scotland, was that over which Gen. Warren presided, in 1769, - and the only one by authority from England, was St. John's Grand Lodge, in 1733. If there be others, claiming such powers, they are spurious.

"The African Lodge has never been recognized by the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth. Applications have several times been made by its members for admission to our Lodges, but they have generally, if not always, been refused. Mr. Hilton stated to me, that he had once, through the influence of a friend, gained admission into one of our out-of-town Lodges. If so, the Brother who introduced him, laid himself open to censure, and would have been dealt with, had the circumstance come to the knowledge of the Grand Lodge. That the course of our Grand Lodge, in reference to African Lodge, is not the result of prejudice, it is only necessary for me to say, that within the last month, a colored Brother from England, has visited, and been kindly received, in one of our city Lodges.

"Such is the state of the case, so far as I am able to communicate it. The argument does not belong to me; but you will permit me to inquire, whether your Grand Lodge is prepared to recognize any real or pretended Lodge, existing within another jurisdiction, before it has been recoguized by the Grand Lodge of that jurisdiction ? Again,- does your Grand Lodge allow other Grand Lodges to establish Lodges within its jurisdiction? And is it ready to recognize Lodges so established?"

These three questions have been, by repeated decision of this Grand Lodge, answered in the negative; and according to the treaty stipulations entered into by this, and other Grand Lodges of this continent, soon after the revolution, and the uniform resistance of every encroachment upon the sole jurisdiction of the several Grand Lodges, down to the present time; these questions can be answered only in the negative.

The undersigned would further state, that the legality of the Body called Boyer Lodge, No. 1, has been already twice reported on by Committees of this Grand Lodge; on the 3d of March, 1812, and on the 4th of March, 1829; in the latter report, the main facts were correctly stated, and able argument sustained, and the conclusion drawn, that Boyer Lodge, No.1, can be regarded only as a clandestine Lodge; the undersigned can arrive only at the same conclusion, it being established beyond doubt, that the African Lodge at Boston was illegally established by the Grand Lodge of England, within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts; that its name has been long stricken from the roll of the Grand Lodge of England, that its assumed authority to grant Warrants was unmasonic and fraudulent; and further, that the statement contained in the memorial of said Boyer Lodge, that it has been "regularly and legally constituted and installed as a Master Masons' Lodge, with a legal Warrant or Charter," is totally unfounded.

All of which is respectfully submitted.
New York, June 2d, 1846.
JAMES HERRING, G. Sec'ry.

Since writing the letter from which the extract in the foregoing report is taken, a friend andBrother has handed us the folluwing document, which was published in the papers of this city in 1827, but had entirely escaped our recollection. We give it as an important part of the history of the Lodge in question :-

AFRICAN LODGE-No. 459. Greeting:

"BE it known to all whom it may concern - That we, the Master, Wardens, and Members of the African Lodge, No. 459, city of Boston, (Mass.) U. S. of America, hold in our possession a certain unlimited Charter, granted Sept. 29, A. D., 5784, A. D. 1784, by Thomas Howard, Earl of Effingham, 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. Be it further known, that the Charter alluded to bears the seal of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge at London, England, and was presented to our much esteemed and worthy Brethren and predecessor, Prince Hall, Boston Smith, Thomas Sanderson, and several others, agreeably to a humbla petition of theirs, sent in form to the above Grand LOdge. Be it remembered, that according to correct information as regards this instrument, and the manner in which it was given, it appears to have been confined exclusively to the Africans, and to certain conditions. Whether these conditions have been complied with by our ancestors, we are nnable to say; but we can add, that in consequence of the decease of the above named Brothers, the institution was, for years, unable to proceed, for the want of one to conduct its affairs. agreeably to what is required in every regular and well conducted Lodge of Masons. It is now, however, with great pleasure, we state, that the present age has arrived to that degree of proficiency in the art, that we can, at any time, select from among us many, whose capacity to govern, enables them to preside, with as much good order, dignity and propriety, as any other Lodge within our knowledge. This fact can be proved by gentlemen of respectability, whose knowledge of Masonry would not be questioned by anyone well acquainted with the art. Since the rise of the Lodge to this degree of proficiency, we concluded it was best and proper to make it knowlI to the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge from whence we derive our Charter, by sending written documents and monies, to fulfil the agreements of our ancestors, giving information of the low state to which it had fallen, its cause, &c., with its rise and progress; and also, soliciting further favors, whereby we might be placed on a different and better standing than we had heretofore.

And notwithstanding this has been long since done, and more than sufficient time has elapsed for returns, yet we have never received a single line or reply from that Hon. Society. In consequence of this neglect, we have been at a stand what course to pursue. Our remote situation prevents us from making any verbal communication whatever. 'raking all these things Into consideration, we have come to the conclusion, that with what knowledge we possess of Masonry, and as people of color by ourselves, we are, and ought by rights to be, free and independent of other Lodges. We do, therefore, with this belief, publicly declare ourselves free and independent of any Lodge from this day - and that we will not be tributary, or governed by any Lodge than that of our own. We agree solemnly to abide by all proper rules and regulations which govern the like fraternities - discountenancing all imposition to injure the Order - and to use all fair and honorable means to promote its prosperity; resting in full hope that this will enable us to transmit it in its purity to our posterity, for their enjoyment.

"Done at the Lodge, this, the 18th June, A. L. 5827, A. D. 1827. In full testimony of what has been written, we here affix our names.

JOHN T. HILTON, R. W. M.
THOMAS DALTON, Sen. Warden.
LEWIS YORK, Jun. Warden.
J. H. PURROW, Secretary."

There is a discrepancy between the above and the statement given by Dr. Crucefix, as to the name of the acting Grand Master by whom the Charter was granted; but in this Br. Crucefix may have been mistaken. The name, and number, and date agree; and there can be no doubt that both parties refer to the same Charter, nor that it was originally genuine. Nor have we any doubt that it was years ago' forfeited to the Grand Lodge of England, from which it was derived, and from whose roll it was stricken about the beginning of the present century.

Note: This charter is again reproduced in Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XIX, No. 4, February 1860, Page 122, with the following preamble: "It is proper to add, that the Lodge was many years ago stricken from the roll of the Grand Lodge of England, and that it has never been recognized as a regular body by the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth."

NOTE ON PRINCE HALL GRAND LODGE, JULY 1848

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. VII, No. 9, July 1848, Page 262:

AFRICAN GRAND LODGE.

We understand that a body of colored persons has recently been organized in this city, under the name of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. It claims to be a Masonic body, and to have under its jurisdiction one or more subordinate Lodges, and, we believe, one or more Chapters; or, at all events, there are colored persons connected with it, who claim to be R. A. Masons. We understand, also, that they derive their authority to form a Grand Lodge from a body, located either in New York or Philadelphia, styling itself the "General Grand Lodge of the United States."

This is about all we know respecting the matter; and our object in referring to it at this time, is merely to say, that there are no Lodges of colored Masons in this city, or any other part of the United States, that are recognised and acknowledged by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, or, to our knowledge, by any other regularly constituted Grand Lodge in this country; and the same thing is true, so far as we are informed, as regards the Chapters, and all other Masonic bodies. We have thought the statement of this fact important, in order that our Brethren in distant States may not be imposed upon.

We sometime since gave the history of the establishment of the "African Lodge" of colored persons in this city. (Vide this Magazine, Vol. VI, p. 139.) The facts were then fully and correctly stated, and need not now, theiefore, be repeated. The Charter was granted in 1784, though not received until 1787. It was obtained by a Capt. Scott, master of a London packet, sailing out of this port. We have always understood that Scott represented to the authorities at London, (the Duke of Cumberland being Grand Master,) that the petitioners were white persons, and that on the strength of his misrepresentations in this and other respects, the Charter, after having been withheld for two or three years subsequent to its date, was finally sent out, and the Lodge was organized under the immediate auspices of Mr. Prince Hall, a colored person, at that time of some distinction among his own people in this city. It was never recognized by the Grand Lodge of this State; nor has there ever been any Masonic intercourse between the two bodies.

NOTE ON LODGES OF COLORED MASONS, DECEMBER 1850

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. X, No. 2, December 1850, Page 41:

LODGES OF COLORED MASONS.

We have frequent inquiries as to the regularity of the Lodges of colored Masons, which are held in different sections of the country; notwithstanding we have on several occasions given the information asked for.

A correspondent at Niagara Falls, (attached to Hiram Lodge, Buffalo,) under date Oct. 31, says- "We are desirous of knowing whether there is, or not, a regularly constituted Lodge of Freemasons, of colored people, in the city of Boston, chartered by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts."

To this inquiry we answer, there is no such Lodge in Boston. There is a body of black persons in the city, which assumes to be a Grand Lodge, and having under its authority one or two subordinate Lodges but they are not recognized by the Grand Lodge of this State. No communication whatever is held with them; nor are black persons received into any of our Lodges.

There is not a regular Lodge of black Masons in the United States. There are many colored persons who claim to be Masons; and from what we learn from distant correspondents, we infer they sometimes succeed in gaining admission into the Lodges; but they are not lawfully entitled to the privilege of sitting in any Masonic body of competent authority.

We understand that two or three colored men have recently left this vicinity for California, with the avowed determination of offering themselves for admission to the Lodges in that State. This notice will enable Brethren there to detect the imposture, if it be attempted.

In many parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia, and in the West India Islands there are many colored Masons; but in this country the initiation of blacks has never been encouraged.

NOTE ON NEGRO LODGES, JUNE 1853

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XII, No. 8, June, 1853, Page 233:

The Committee on foreign correspondence in the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, take an extract from the address of the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Texas, and comment upon it as though the country was full of regularly authorized negro Lodges. The Committee say, either the Grand Lodges of England and Ireland "have invaded the jurisdiction of some of our sister Grand Lodges in the United States," with or without the consent of these Grand Lodges, or our sisters have themselves been guilty of wrong." Neither of these alternatives is true, and the fling at "our sisters" was uncalled for. There is not a lawfully authorized or acknowledged negro Lodge in the United States, nor are we aware that there is a negro in the country, who could rightfully claim, or properly be admitted into any lawful Masonic Lodge. That there are "associations of blacks, claiming to be Masonic", is true. They exist in this city, and in New York, in Philadelphia and in Baltimore, and probably in other cities, south and west; but they exist without authority, and their claims are nowhere recognized. The assumption of the name does not make them Masonic; and it is an assumption for which there is no remedy. Why then keep agitating the subject? No good can come out of it. It is one with which our Grand Lodges have nothing to do. The evil does not exist, in a form approachable by them, or over which they can extend their au thority.

We have so often given the history of the only black Lodge ever or ganized in this country, under anything which could be construed into lawful authority, that we had supposed it was familiar to every intelligent Brother. But in this it seems we were mistaken. It may not, therefore, be wholly unprofitable to repeat, that in the year 1784, a petition was sent out to the Grand Lodge at London, by some colored persons in this city, praying for a Charter authorizing them to open a Masonic Lodge. The petition was entrusted to a Captain Scott, master of a London packet, sailing out of this port; through whose influence, and, as alleged, misrepresentations, the prayer of the petitioners was granted. The Charter was not, however, received until 1787, when, we believe, the Lodge was organized, though we are not aware that it ever did any work. Its existence was of short duration; and as it had been illegally authorized by the Grand Lodge of England, it was soon after stricken from the register of that body. Such was the beginning and the end of the only Lodge of colored Masons ever opened in America, under the sanction of any acknowledged Grand Lodge in the world. It was never recognized by the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, nor was any intercourse ever allowed with its members.

Some years since this old Charter fell into the hands of certain colored persons, claiming to be Masons, by whom a Lodge was organized in this city. We believe it is still in existence, though of its character and the nature of its proceedings we know nothing. If its members are in the possession of any thing resembling the ritual of Masonry, they probably received it from the West Indies or St. Domingo, where the more intelligent and educated of their race are not refused admission into the Lodges. President Boyer was a Mason, as were also most of the members of his government. It is likewise probable that from this quarter has nearly all the black Masonry in this country been derived. But from whatever source it may have emanated, it is all spurious, and in no manner identified with the legitimate Freemasonry of the United States; nor is any Grand Lodge in the Union accountable for its existence or continuance. The insinuation that the Grand Lodge of a sister State would, under any circumstances, countenance a gross violation of the conceded rule in rela tion to this class of persons, is ungenerous.

But enough. The subject is not a suitable one for discussion in our pages, nor in the reports of committees of correspondence; at least not until it shall assume some more tangible shape than it at present hears.

REPLY TO THE NOTE ON NEGRO LODGES, AUGUST 1853

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XII, No. 10, August, 1853, Page 295:

NEGRO LODGES.

We give place to the following communication, in compliance with the wishes of the estimable Brother whose name is appended to it. Had he placed a discretionary power in our hands, our conviction of the great danger of agitating such a subject, would have induced us to withhold its publication. But having no such discretion, we lay it before our readers, — premising, that we shall not again obtrude the matter upon their notice. However our correspondent may regard it, the subject is neither a safe nor a profitable one for discussion in our pages, nor in the proceedings of Grand Lodges. Whether our opinion in this respect be right or wrong, is immaterial. It is based on our judgment,, and must be allowed to influence our action. We give his communication, with as few and brief notes as are consistent with the position in which we most unexpectedly find ourselves:—

Natchez, June 14, 1853.

Dear Br. Moore :— Your June number of Magazine is before me. Your comments on that part of the report of committee on foreign correspondence in Mississippi, relative to negro Lodges, has been read with some surprize. I allude to the tone of the article more particularly.

1. A simple statement of facts derived from other sources, and what was considered a legitimate conclusion therefrom, is construed by you into 'a fling,' and that 'uncalled for,' at our sister Grand Lodges. To 'fling' means, literally, to throw, and if the committee hit any other Grand Lodge than their own, it must certainly be by a fling; but modern use has attached the idea to the word fling, that the act is done with a little malice or ill will. I trust the Mississippi Committee have too much regard for their individual character, and for the dignity of their office as well as a too high respect for other Grand Lodges of the United States, to say any thing in a malevolent spirit, or under other inspiration than that of the highest motive.
2. Whether their comments were uncalled for, is a matter of opinion, and though I do not think that that difference of opinion, which might be expected to exist on this subject, has been expressed by you in the kindest and most charitable manner, I am willing, for one, to allow you considerable latitude on this subject.
3. But why the Mississippi Committee should voluntarily do an uncalled for act, which act could only inflict pain on themselves, and in which no sinister motive could be traced, must he referred to other philosophy than mine to determine. If you had published the whole of the committee's remarks on the subject of negroes and negro Lodges, and they would have occupied but little of your space, I would not have had occasion to write this letter.
4. Certainly not to defend the committee for introducing the subject of negro Masons and negro Lodges into their report; for the committee showed that the subject was before the Grand Lodges of the District of Columbia, Illinois, Texas and New Hampshire, in 1852. The Grand Lodge of Texas passed a special resolution on the subject, as did also the Grand Lodge of Illinois, and is the Grand Lodge of Mississippi alone to keep silence and not to comment upon these proceedings, nor upon the improper position of the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire? And why the Grand Lodge of Mississippi and not the Grand Lodge of Texas, and Illinois, which preceded the former in agitating the matter, was the subject of your comments, it might satisfy curiosity, though utility might not be the gainer, to inquire. I will let that pass.
5. Now a word upon the facts of the case. The committee in considering the proceedings of the Grand Lodges above mentioned, said "either the Grand Lodges of England or Ireland have invaded the jurisdiction of some of our sister Grand Lodges in the U. States, with or without the consent of these Grand Lodges, or our sisters have themselves been guilty of wrong." On what was this opinion founded? By referring to their report, it will be seen that in 1845-6, negroes had visited Lodges in Illinois — and again in that Hate, last year ; and this last visitor, it appears, presented certificates o( his having visited Lodges in Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin and Ohio, and be also showed a constitution and By-Laws of his Lodge, represent ing them as deriving authority from the " North American Grand Lodge".
6. It may be said, and said truly, that the North American Grand Lodge is not gaily constituted body, and yon say," there is not a lawfully authorized or acknow¬ ledged negro Lodge in the United States, nor are we aware that there is a negro in the country, who could rightfully claim or be admitted into any lawful Masonic Lodge." That is precisely the opinion of the committee of Mississippi, very fully and handsomely expressed, and I would only add, whether the Lodges were chartered, or the individuals initiated, by Grand Lodges in Great Britain or America. You say, that "there are associations of blacks claiming to be Masonic, is true; but they exist without authority and their claims are no where recognized." You will certainly not consider me impertinent, for inquiring by what means the blacks above mentioned visited tbe Lodges in Illinois in 1845-6, when the only question raised, in tbe discussion which resulted from their visitation, was that of expediency, and not one word was said about their want of legal qualification. If he who visited the Lodges in Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin and Ohio last year, did so only on the strength of the constitution and By-Laws of a Lodge deriving their authority from "the North American Grand Lodge," did so illegally, and certainly the remarks of the committee in this respect were not uncalled for, nor tbe subject "unsuited to the reports of committees on foreign correspondence." But in 1845-6 the legality of the Lodge and the regularity of the initiation were not questioned. In addition to this, the Grand Master of Texas, whose words were quoted by the committee, and which paper I believe you reviewed last year, without contradiction, I plead as a full justification of the committee of Mississippi.

"It will doubtless astonish many of the Brethren to learn that there are now, in several of the eastern and north-western States, bodies of negroes, who profess to be working, as regular Lodges, under Charters from the Grand Lodge of England, and from other sources."

Again, he says; "through the report of the committee on foreign correspondence of the Grand Lodge of New York, we learn that there are one or more such Lodges in New York city, one in Cincinnati, one in St. Louis, one or more in New Jersey, one in Chilicothe, Ohio ; and others in Philadelphia."

Were the remarks of the committee uncalled for? That the subject is "unworthy of the report," is no fault of the committee, but of those who furnished it. But why agitate the subject? Sure enough, why? Let those answer who are the cause.

Fraternally yours,
William P. Meller,
One of the committee of Mississippi.

(1.) The article which our Brother is pleased to consider an attack upon his report, is a frank and plain statement of the origin and existence among us, of what are called negro Lodges, and of the light in which they, and negro Masons, are regarded by the Grand Lodges in this country. Though elicited by the report submitted to the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, it is general in its terms and application, with the slight exceptions hereafter noticed. Entertaining the belief that there existed a great misapprehension of the true character of the bodies in question, and of the relation they hold to the Masonic family,— the light in which they are regarded by our Brethren whose misfortune it is to have them in their midst,— and foreseeing that any serious misunderstanding on a subject so delicate, must inevitably end in consequences highly prejudicial to the peace of the Fraternity, we deemed it our duty, as public journalists, not only to show that there were no present grounds for uneasiness, but to enter a protest against the agitation of the subject, as "uncalled for," "until it shall assume a more tangible shape than it at present bears." To the propriety of this course, we think no right minded and true Mason can or would desire to take exception. Our Brother has misconceived our purpose, or he has incautiously surrendered his generally good judgment, to his acute sensitiveness on the subject. In this last respect we are willing to allow him "considerable latitude."

(2.) We object to so much of this small criticism, as would make us impute even a " little malice," or " a malevolent spirit," to the committee. Our Brother intended to do just what his words have done, "hit" those of "our sisters" (i. e, Grand Lodges), who, as he alleges, in the event that the Grand Lodges of England and Ireland have not invaded their jurisdictions in establishing negro Lodges, " have themselvee been guilty of wrong." We are charitable enough to believe that our Brother intended no more by his "hit," than did Dean Swift by his "fling," when he wrote

"I, who love to have a fling,
Both at senate house and king."

(3.) This difference of opinion may be stated thus :—If any of our Brethren think it a part of the duty of committees on correspondence to scatter firebrands throughout the length and breadth of the Masonic community, we, on the contrary, think such incendiary work "uncalled for." That's the difference, in a nut-shell — its latitude and longitude.

(4.) The reason we did not publish this part of the report, is, that we thought it based on a misapprehension of the facts; and that, consequently, its conclusions were not just. We conceived that we were doing all that it was necessary or expedient to do in the matter, in making a simple reference to the report, and giving the facts as they really exist. There is no difference of opinion between ns and our Brother on the main question; and should the time ever come when it shall be necessary to meet it, he will find us by his side. We cannot, however, consent to play the part of the hero of Cervantes.

(5.) The subject was brought before the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia in 1852, on a petition from the President of Liberia, for a charter for a Lodge in that republic. The Grand Lodge took no official action upon it, "the subject matter having been already disposed of." Was this a cause of uneasiness ? Let us look at the subject in all its bearings, — look at Liberia as it is, see who its friends are and where they are found, — and we shall have little difficulty in coming to the conclusion, that the case is not one which calls for animadversion. Neither does it furnish any grounds for the apprehension that other similar bodies are about to pursue an opposite course. This case therefore does not help our Brother's argument. On the contrary, it makes against it; as much as it proves, that in this, as in the only other instance in this country, so far as we are informed, where a petition has ever been presented for a charter for a Lodge of colored Masons, it was promptly rejected.

We are not aware that the subject was before the Grand Lodge of Illinois in 1852. That body in 1846, disposed of the question in a manner which ought to be satisfactory to our Brother, by the adoption of a resolution, declaring— "that this Grand Lodge is unqualifiedly opposed to the admission of negroes or mulattoes into Lodges under this jurisdiction." The violation of this rule is also made to operate a forfeiture of the charter.

The subject was brought before the Grand Lodge of Texas the last year, by the Grand Master, in his address; from which we quote as follows:—

"It will doubtless astonish many of the Brethren to learn that there are now, in several of the Eastern and North-Western States, bodies of negroes, who profess to be working as regular Lodges under Charters from the Grand Lodge of England, and from other sources.

"The propriety of the action of the bodies, who have so far desecrated our time-honored institution as to issue these Charters, is not a subject to be discussed. This, as well as every other Grand Lodge within the slaveholding States, should indignantly protest against all procedure of the sort, and demand the immediate annulment of all Charters which have been granted."

Had the Grand Master of Texas been correctly informed as to the facts in the case, he would not probably have expressed himself in precisely these terms. In the first place, the Grand Lodge of England has granted no charters for Lodges in America, during the present century. This part of the "profession," was therefore false, and wholly unworthy of his official notice, besides its injustice to the Grand Lodge of England. In the next place, there is not a negro Lodge in the country, working under a charter, having the sanction of any regular Grand Lodge in the world. If such Lodges have any charters at all, they are derived from self-constituted spurious negro associations, calling themselves Grand Lodges; over which the regular Masonic authorities of this country, have no more control or power, than they have over the secret "Triad Brotherhood" of China; and of the true character of which they know as little. What, then, would our " indignant protest" amount to ? and of whom shall we demand "their immediate annulment?" Is not this running a tilt against a windmill? And yet our Brother of Mississippi takes up the strain, and charges the Grand Lodge of England with having commenced the evil "in the spirit of abolition fanaticism," by striking out the words free born from the ritual. The Grand Lodge of England undoubtedly, in this last respect, "removed one of the ancient and valued landmarks of Freemasonry;" but we are at a loss to understand how that act, which took place but two or three years ago, was the commencement of the evil of negro Masonry in this country ; for it has existed in our midst half a century. He says, in continuation, that "Ireland followed in her footsteps," — a fact of which we were not aware,— and adds, that, "either these Grand Lodges have invaded the jurisdiction of our sister G. Lodges in the U. States, "with or without the consent of these Grand Lodges, or our sisters have themselves been guilty of wrong." It "would have gratified curiosity," and "utility might have been the gainer," if our Brother had given us something more satisfactory than mere assertion, that "our sisters have been guilty of wrong." We will "let that pass." But we must still adhere to our first opinion, that the "fling" was " uncalled for."

One word touching the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire. The committee of correspondence in 1852, opened a new question, and justly exposed themselves to criticism. Their own Grand Lodge however took no action on the subject It was a question about which there is, and probably will conitnue to be, a difference of opinion. But the case supposed is one not likely to arise, and its agitation was therefore premature and ill-advised. Our Brother of Mississippi may rightfully plead justification, for his "off-set" here.

(6.) Our Brother has run fairly off the track here. The report charges that "our sister" G. Lodges "have been guilty of wrong." He now abandons this ground as untenable, and transfers his accusation to certain subordinate Lodges. On this point we have no controversy. But how stands the case in the new aspect in which he presents it? In 1845-6, a mulatto, (we think it was a single case), born of a Cherokee mother, and therefore "free born," and in point of law an Indian, though his father was an African, — was admitted once as a visitor, into a Lodge at Chicago. What was the consequence? The Lodges in the State rose almost en masse against it, and their G. Master, who was supposed to have favored the admission; and though he was subsequently exonerated of any immediate agency in the matter, it cost him his influence among his Brethren. The Grand Lodge took the case in hand; and so far from treating it as a question of " expediency," as said by our correspondent, passed the stringent resolutions referred to in the preceding note. The language of the committee who reported the resolutions was this—

"The Author of all has placed a distinguishing mark upon them, (negroes,) clearly indicating that there was a distinctiveness to be kept up; and it is repulsive to the finest feelings of the heart, to think that between them and us there can be a mutual reciprocity of all social privileges."

Does our Brother hold that this Grand Lodge, in the course it pursued on that occasion, was "guilty of wrong?" "It might satisfy curiosity, though utility might not be the gainer," to inquire why this long buried case was exhumed? It certainly does not help our Brother's argument, for the Grand Lodge of Illinois stood up squarely on his own ground. So much for the first cause of grievance in his catalogue of "facts."

His next complaint is, that a negro was, the last year, admitted into a Lodge in Illinois. We have not the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of that State for Oct. 1852, before us, and are a little surprized that our Brother should have had them when he wrote his report in January last. Such promptness is not usual. But admit the fact to be as stated, and what does it prove? Simply that the Lodge violated a solemn edict of its Grand Lodge, and in so doing forfeited its charter. If we had the facts before us, we could better judge of the merits of the case. Our Brother says, this "visitor, it appears, presented certificates of his having visited Lodges in Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin and Ohio." The evidence that these were genuine certificates, is not given; and we confess it appears to us not a little remarkable, that Lodges in Kentucky and Missouri, both slave holding States, should admit a negro as a visitor among them, — even though he did present "a constitution and By-Laws" of a Lodge, "deriving authority from the North American Grand Lodge" — a body without a soul — a thing without vitality — and so known to every even moderately informed Mason in the country. But admit all that is claimed, and what does it prove? Merely that the visitor had so much white blood in him that he was enabled to impose upon these Lodges, or that the officers of them were exceedingly stupid, and too ignorant of their duty to be longer entrusted with their Charters.

But we have said enough, — more than we had intended. The result may be summed up in few words.

1. In 1846, the Grand Lodge of Illinois, reproved one of its subordinates for admitting a half-blooded Indian as a visitor, and passed resolutions prohibiting, under severe penalty, a repetition of the offence.
2. The Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia refused to act on a petition for a Charter for a Lodge in Liberia.
3. The committee of correspondence in the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire, in 1852, thought the resolution of the Grand Lodge of Illinois, too stringent, and went into the discussion of an abstract question, that, in a whole generation to come, will not probably once be brought to a practical test. Thus giving point and force to the opinion which is rapidly gaining strength, that such reports are productive of as much mischief as good.
4. The Grand Master of Texas, under a misapprehension of the facts in the case, "discharged a big gun."
5. Certain Lodges in Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin and Ohio, are reputed to have been imposed upon by a vagrant clandestine negro Mason; for which piece of folly ithey deserve to lose their Charters.

Thus ends the sum and substance of all the grievances of which our good Brother complains. They are certainly not very alarming. And as we cannot discover in them, any "persistance in pushing the black race into the fraternity," nor yet wherein Grand Lodges "have been guilty of wrong," we must be allowed to indulge the opinion, that the evil is not of a magnitude to "destroy all harmony in the Masonic, as it has in a part of the religious and political world." If this result is ever to lie realized,— and God forbid, — the surest way to bring it about, is to agitate the subject. We have done with it.

Since this was in type, we have received the Illinois proceedings, and find in them a notice of the exception taken by the New Hampshire committee, to the rule before quoted. It is a mere explanation of the necessity for the rule, and the reasons on which it is predicated. The committee say, the rule was "infringed upon by one of our subordinate Lodges in 1851, inadvertently and without intention to violate the rule of this Grand Lodge." While there is nothing in all this to cause alarm among the most sensitive on the subject, there is much that should command their approval.

COMMENTARY ON NEGRO LODGES, MAY 1856

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XV, No. 7, May 1856, Page 220:

The following correspondence on this subject is so just in the views expressed and so wholly unexceptionable, that we transfer it to our pages, from the recent proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Vermont, as matter of information. The facts stated have been given in previous volumes of this Magazine, but may, nevertheless, be new to many of our present readers: -

I lay before the Grand Lodge also, at this time, the following described papers, and deeming them important, ask for them its attentive consideration.

• First. A letter to me from Peter G. Smith, of Montpelier, dated September 21st, 1855.
• Second. Copy of a letter from J. S. Rock, of Boston, to Peter G. Smith, dated September 6th, 1855, said Rock signing himself as "Corresponding Secretary of Prince Hall Grand Lodge."
• Third. Copy of a letter from myself to Peter G. Smith, in reply to his letter of September 21st, and embracing a reply to the contents of J. S. Rock's letter to him.
• Fourth. A letter from M. W. Winslow Lewis, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, in reply to a letter addressed to him by me on the subject embraced by the foregoing letters.

The question which these documents immediately involves is not probably doubtful in its character; but the subject possesses an interest, in view of our present position and of applications of a like kind which may be made hereafter, which makes it our duty to meet it with prudence and wisdom. There are other questions obviously related to the present one, which are glimmering in the distance, and the agitation of which may perhaps be foreshadowed by this. Although "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof", it is certainly not unwise to anticipate and be prepared for the future.

I have endeavored to place the present question upon its plain and simple merits, and have in my letter to Mr. Smith entered into it more at large than I should have done, had I not been desirous of having it thoroughly understood by all the Brethren of this Masonic jurisdiction. I have contended, and, I believe, have established the position, that the bodies of colored men in Boston, claiming to be regular Masonic Lodges, are illegitimate, spurious and clandestine, and that, consequently, no man receiving the degrees in them, whether white or colored, can be recognized as a regular Mason or received as such into any regular Lodge of Masons. With these views, however innocently or ignorantly Mr. Smith may have acted, in becoming a member of one of those bodies, my plain duty left me no other course than to instruct Aurora Lodge not to receive him as a Mason.

The following is the correspondence referred to in the foregoing:—

Montpelier, Sept. 21, 1855.

Mr. P. C. Tucker, Sir: — I went to Boston last June and joined a Lodge of Masons. When I returned to Montpelier I asked for a seat in the Lodge, and was refused, on the ground that it was said to be a clandestine Lodge. I then wrote back to Boston, not wishing to be imposed upon, and got the letter inclosed. I showed it to Mr. Washburn, of Montpelier, and he told me what you had said to him, and wished me to write to you, and you would give me the facts in the case. Sir, you will oblige me by answering this, and returning the letters.

Peter G. Smith.

Copy of letters enclosed me by Peter G. Smith, of Montpelier, Vt., and received by me September 22d, 1855.

No. 60 Southac Street, Boston, Sept. 6, 1855. A. L. 5855.

Peter G. Smith, Esq., My Dear Sir and Brother —Yours bearing date Aug. 14th, came duly to hand. You say that the Grand Master of Vermont says that the colored Masons had their Charter taken from them, and that they are now working without a Charter. We reply that the charge is no doubt innocent, but it is nevertheless false from beginning to end. The original Charter is now in our possession, and always has been, and we worked under it until some time after the war between this country and Great Britain, when the colored Masons held a Convention and declared themselves independent, the same as the whites had already done before. This was done on account of the difficulties of making the returns to the mother country. There has always been the best feeling, and our Brethren ail visit the Lodges, not only in England, but in all parts of the world. If the Grand Master of Vermont wishes any more light we are prepared to give it to him ; or, if he has a curiosity, he can see the original Charter.

Yours, Fraternally, J. S. Rock,
Corresponding Secretary of Prince Hall Grand Lodge.

Copy of letter from Philip C. Tucker, Grand Master, to Peter G. Smith.

Vergennes, Sept. 22, 1855.

Mr. Peter G. Smith, Montpelier, Sir: —I received yours of yesterday, enclosing a letter to you from Mr. J. S. Rock, of Boston, this morning. As to the Lodge of colored men existing in Boston, calling itself "Prince Hall Grand Lodge, and such Lodges as acknowledge its jurisdiction, I have to say that my understanding on the subject is this :

I suppose it to be true, that on the 20th day of September 1784, a Charter for a Master's Lodge was granted to Prince Hall and others, under the authority of the Grand Lodge of England, and that the Lodge thus chartered, bore the name of "African Lodge, No. 459," and was located at Boston. If any other Charter was ever granted, at any other time, by the Grand Lodge of England or any other Grand Lodge, to the colored persons of that city, it has never come to my knowledge.

I suppose it to be also true, that African Lodge, No. 459, did not continue its connection for many years with the Grand Lodge of England, and that its registration was stricken from the rolls of that Grand Lodge more than fifty years ago.

I suppose it further to be true, that this Lodge, No. 459 and all others which have originated from it, have always held themselves aloof from and have always refused to acknowledge any allegiance to the Grand Lodge of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I also further suppose it to be true, that on the 18th day of June, 1827, this same Lodge, No. 459, issued a declaration, and had it published in some of the Boston papers, signed by John T. Hilton, Thomas Dalton, Lewis York, Jr., and J. H. Furrow, (claiming to be Master, Wardens and Secretary thereof,) which declaration contained the following language : "We publicly declare ourselves free and independent of any Lodge from this day, and we will not be tributary or governed by any Lodge than that of our own."

And I still further suppose it to be true, that in the month of July, 1845, R. W. Charles W. Moore, the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, had a personal interview with Mr. Hilton, then Master of this same Lodge, No. 459, at which interview Mr. Hilton said, that they, (the members of said Lodge,) were "entirely independent of all white Lodges, asked no favors of them, and would have nothing to do with them; nor would they admit a white Mason, if he should present himself as a visitor.

All these things are of record, and cannot, I think, be truthfully denied in any quarter. From them I form the following opinions :

• First. Even if a Charter for a subordinate Lodge, to be located within the United States, could be lawfully granted by the Grand Lodge of England, after the close of the American Revolution, and if such Charter could be lawfully recognized by the American Lodges, its vitality would necessarily expire when the grantor substantially revoked the grant by striking it from its records and thus disavowing all connection with the grantee.
• Second. That the mere retention of a Charter, after its legal revocation, cannot preserve or retain any right, power or authority, in the original grantees or their successors, where the right to revoke is reserved, as it always is in all Grand Lodges, in the grantor.
• Third. Even if African Lodge, No. 459, had a lawful Masonic existence June 18, 1847, the declaration of that date was both unmasonic and revolutionary, and placed that body as effectually beyond recognition by either the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts or any other Grand Lodge in the United States, as was the French Lodge of Virginia, or are the German Lodges of New York.
• Fourth. Had African Lodge, No. 459, been in all things a lawful Lodge, after the declaration of its first officer of July, 1845, that "it would not admit a white Mason if he should present himself as a visitor," it would have been both humiliating and degrading to have allowed the doors of the white Lodges to stand open for a reciprocity of courtesies which were thus gratuitously and roughly declared inadmissable, in advance of any request, offer, or wish to establish them.

I have the highest Masonic authority in Massachusetts for denying that "the Brethren" of the Lodge in question "all visit the Lodges," so far as the Lodges of Massachusetts are concerned. A Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of that Commonwealth, writing at Boston, in 1848, says :— "There are no Lodges of colored Masons in this city or any other part of the United States, that are recognized and acknowledged by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, or, to our knowledge, by any other regularly constituted Grand Lodge in this country. It" (the African Lodge,) "was never recognized by the Grand Lodge of this State, nor has there ever been any Masonic intercourse between the two Bodies." The same Brother, writing at the same place in 1846, says, referring to that Lodge: "Applications have several times been made by its members for admission to our Lodges, but they have generally, if not always, been refused." Again he says : "That the course of our Grand Lodge in reference to African Lodge, is not the result of prejudice, it is only necessary for me to say, that within the last month, a colored Brother from England has visited, and been kindly received in one of our city Lodges."

I believe I am correct in stating, that the two following propositions are recognized as sound Masonic law in this country.

• First. That no Grand Lodge of any State can regularly recognize a Subordinate Lodge existing in another State, or its members, until such Subordinate Lodge is recognized by the Grand Lodge of the State in which it exists.
• Second. That no Grand Lodge, either in these United States, or any other country, can legally establish a Subordinate Lodge in any other State where a regularly constituted Grand Lodge exists.

From these views you will readily perceive why the Masonry of the United States does not and cannot recognize either "Prince Hall Grand Lodge," or its Subordinates, or their members, as regular. To our understanding, the whole of these organizations are irregular and unmasonic, and exist adverse to Masonic regulations and law. If, as Mr. Rock asserts, members of these bodies are admitted to "visit Lodges in England and all parts of the world," that admission probably rises from the fact, that the history and Masonic positions of these bodies are not as well understood elsewhere as they are in the United States.

Mr. Rock expresses an inclination to " give the Grand Master of Vermont more 
light" on this subject. As he signed himself "Corresponding Secretary of Prince
Hall Grand Lodge," I suppose him to possess all the "light" which the subject has
 in it; and whatever that light may be able to reflect upon me, of the truth of the
 past or present, will always receive the respectful attention it may deserve, from


Your obedient serv't. , Philip C. Tucker,
Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Vermont.

P. S.—I return Mr. Rock's letter, according to your request.

Office of the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.
Boston, October 3, 1855.
M. W. Philip C. Tucker, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Vermont.

Dear Sir and Brother:—In reply to yours of the 26th ultimo, I can only re-affirm all that you have stated, that the Grand Lodge of this State does not recognize the "Prince Hall Grand Lodge" or any Lodge of colored Masons in this State; that no colored Masons have ever visited or would be allowed to visit our Lodges. No white Mason to my knowledge ever entered a black Lodge. So far as I have ascertained, the blacks have once possessed a Charter from England, which Charter (a copy being taken) was returned to its source for alteration, and was never sent back to this country, and the copy of the aforesaid is all the blacks now have.

But I shall endeavor to see that Instrument, and will then notify you of the facts,
 &c. Trusting to have at some time the honor of a personal interview, I am, very
 truly and

Fraternally yours,
Winslow Lewis, Grand Master.

GRAND LODGE OF HAMBURG AND AFRICAN LODGES, NOVEMBER 1859

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XIX, No. 2, November 1859, Page 33:

We give below an interesting and ably drawn report on the subject of colored Masons and African Lodges, from the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh of the 6th May, 1858, together with the comments thereon by the committee of correspondence of the Grand Lodge of New York. It presents the strongest argument on the negro-side of the question we have met with, though the writer of the report was manifestly either not well informed or was wholly indifferent to the relations which the colored race in this country sustain to the white population. In England, or Holland, or wherever else the social equality of the races is recognized, the argument would be irresistible. But no such equality is here admitted ; or at least not to any very considerable extent. The black is here held to be the inferior race, and qualified neither by nature or habits to become the companion and equal of the white man. Without stopping to inquire whether this be just or otherwise, it may be safely assumed that it is the fixed and unalterable sentiment of the people of this country ; and all attempts to change it—to debase the white or to elevate the black race to a common level of equality, are as futile as would be an attempt to change any fixed law of nature. The thing can never be accomplished through any agency less powerful than the hand of Him who created all races of men. Call it prejudice or anything else, the fact is undeniable and unalterable. Were it expedient, therefore, to authorize the establishment of colored Lodges among us — even in the northern States, where the black race may be supposed to be as favorably considered as elsewhere in the country — there never could be any common sympathy or fraternal intercourse between them and the Lodges of their white brethren. They would be strangers to each other, though members of the same household. It is so in all the relations of society — in business, in schools, in churches, in religion. The two races are not, and cannot be brought together in equality anywhere, or under any circumstances, whether social, political, masonic, or religious. And if any of our Brethren in this country or elsewhere have succeeded in reasoning themselves into a different opinion, and hope to force it to a consummation, by removing the barriers to their admission and equality in our Lodges, we beg to suggest, in all frankness, and with due respect for their philanthropic sympathies, that the sooner they give up such expectations, the better it will be for all the parties interested.

The propriety of recognizing the so called colored Lodges in this country, and which, it should appear, have petitioned the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh for recognition, is a matter which is at once set at rest by the fact, that all such Lodges, if they exist at all, (as they doubtless do, and in considerable numbers,) are unlawful, and therefore unrecognizable bodies. There is not a masonically lawful Lodge of colored Masons in the United States, nor are there probably colored Masons enough in the country to form one,—Masons we mean, of course, who have been regularly admitted to the Institution according to the recognized forms and laws of Masonry. There are therefore no colored Lodges, and with the exception of a very few colored men, who have been made Masons in foreign countries, no colored Masons, which the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh, nor any other Grand Lodge in Europe, can recognize as Masonic bodies, without trampling under foot, not only their own solemn engagements, but those fundamental laws which underlie the whole superstructure of Masonry. The question of recognition therefore, as applied to the so-called colored Lodges in this country, is not a debatable one. It is not one that any Grand Lodge, having the facts before it, can for a moment entertain; and it is to be presumed that the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh, when more correctly informed as to the true condition of the case, will at once dismiss the subject. The report, above referred to, is as follows :—

The Grand Lodge of Hamburgh, beg leave to submit to the consideration of those sister Grand Lodges in Europe, more intimately connected with a matter of general importance, requesting them to report their opinion what action in relation thereto, might be necessary to be taken, and which at the same time might be calculated to meet the approbation of a majority of them. There exists in some of the States of N. America, besides the Lodges at Hayti, many independent Lodges of colored people, (negroes, mulattoes, &c,) as, for instance, in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland, &c. They are united under Grand Lodges under the jurisdiction oi a National Grand Lodge of America. We know little about them, because they are declared by the North American Grand Lodges as clandestine Lodges, and all Masonic intercourse with them is strictly forbidden. Their origin is unknown. The African Lodge at Boston, insists upon having obtained its charter from the Grand Lodge of England ; this is, however, doubtful. According to an assertion of some of our German brethren, who have, free from prejudice, visited negro Lodges in New York, they could find nothing tending to prevent them from pronouncing these Lodges just and perfect. In North America, however, in the land of boasted liberty, a negro or mulatto, in short, any person in whose veins a single drop of colored blood runs,—be he twice as righteous, honest, well educated, talented and scientific, is considered an outcast, and all intercourse with such person is regarded as a disgrace. The prejudice against colored people, even in those States not counted as slave States, and where none but free negroes live, as for instance in the State of New York, is of such a nature, that no white person would sit down with a negro at the same table, or travel with one in the same stage. That even our American brethren are not free from this prejudice, is a fact well known and deeply to be regretted. In the transactions of the Grand Lodge of New York, (Willard,) for 1855, the question whether colored persons could be admitted as Masons, was regarded as a monstrous proposition, and unworthy of discussion.

At the Masonic Convention, in Paris, in 1855, Bro. Cummings, representative of Washington, insinuated that the European Lodges, in consideration of the condition in America, might be induced not to admit negroes; this insinuation was, however, rejected. Under these prejudicial circumstances on the part of the North American Grand Lodges, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that colored Lodges and colored Grand Lodges never will be recognized by them. But are the Grand Lodges of Europe, where such prejudices are.unknown, thereby bound to deny the legitimacy of a great number of otherwise just and lawful Lodges, and to re/use their brethren admittance into our Lodges because they are of a darker color? The fact that a Grand Lodge of a negro State — that of Hayti, with its Subordinates — has been recognized by most of the European Grand Lodges, as a legal Grand Lodge, and that its representative at the Masonic Convention at Paris has been accredited, and furthermore and in particular, the fact that this Grand Lodge is enumerated as such on the list of Prussian Grand Lodges, is sufficient proof that such a prejudice has no existence in European Grand Lodges. The Grand Lodge of another negro State, that of the Republic of Liberia, in Africa, although too young yet and too little known, may, in the course of time, rely upon being recognized by the European Grand Lodges as well as that of Hayti.

As to the Grand Lodges and their Subordinates of colored people, the North American Grand Lodges might appeal to a monopoly, according to which only one Grand Lodge can legally exist in one and the same State; and no Lodge can legally exist in such State without the sanction of the Grand Lodge thereof. This monopoly has been created by common consent, and is not founded, as, for instance, in Prussia, on a demand of the government. The Grand Lodge of Hamburgh, in consequence of having been regardless of this monopoly, as far as it concerns German Lodges, came in conflict with them. On this ground the right of discussing the propriety of such monopoly might to the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh be denied; but here it must he premised that this action of the Grand Lodge at Hamburgh has only reference to such Lodges, which, if they bad been disposed to join the Grand Lodge of the State, would, undoubtedly, have been rejected by the same on the supposition that the members of such Lodges were unfit for reception. When American Lodges, in respect to a general prejudice prevailing there, deem it proper to reject colored persons ; when they refuse members of colored Lodges admittance, forbidding at the same time all Masonic intercourse with them, they may, politically, be in the right, but not masonically, and cannot expect European Lodges to agree with them on this point. The connection of Europe with other parts of the world, increasing from year to year, demands a discussion of this question, which ere long, may be submitted to the consideration of each European Lodge, in particular to Lodges in seaports and in Germany, but to the Lodges at Hamburgh. The Grand Lodge at Hamburgh will, at its next convention, make this question the topic of deliberation, relying thereby upon the support of its sister Grand Lodges, desiring them to communicate their views and intentions in respect to the recognition of the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Liberia, in Africa, but in particular in respect to the Lodges and Grand Lodges of colored people, pronounced by the American Grand Lodges to be clandestine."

There are some features of this report that are very singular, and would be unaccountable, but for the fact that a Mason from Hamburgh is unknown in America, and he will continue to be a stranger in this land of charities and Masonic benevolence so long as that unwise body on the continent of Europe, which bears that name, shall persist in the support and countenance of its Subordinates in this jurisdiction. Speaking of the negro "Lodges," this report says: Their origin is unknown. The African Lodge at Boston insists upon having obtained its charter from the Grand Lodge of England; this is, however, doubtful. According to an assertion of some of our German brethren, who have, free of prejudice, visited negro Lodges in New York, they could find nothing tending to prevent then to pronounce these Lodges just and perfect. In the first place, has the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh ever been appealed to by these negro Lodges to recognize them'? Not at all; Hamburgh will not so pretend. What business, then, has that body to be meddling with this matter? More than three thousand miles away ! None whatever. Do they know of the rejection of a colored individual by one of our Lodges 7 Do they know, or have they been informed of the exclusion of a single member of a "colored Lodge" from the doors of a white man's Lodge? Has it been intimated to Hamburgh that all intercourse with colored Masons has been forbidden? We present these questions only to show the inconsistency of the pretensions of Hamburgh. And these are the grounds upon which it goes out to the Grand Lodges of Europe with an earnest appeal for the recognition of colored Lodges in this country. And yet, strange as it may appear, there is not the slightest proof—there is not the shadow of evidence, that we are obnoxious to one of these charges. And yet, Hamburgh asks the Grand Lodges of Europe to recognize these bodies, when it declares their origin is "unknown," and their pretensions "doubtful." Some of the "German Brethren" have visited these negro Lodges in New York ! We respectfully submit that the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh is mistaken in this particular. No German Brother has ever visited one of these Lodges. Such a thing cannot be done—for the moment a Mason enters the portals of such a body in New York, in the character of a Mason, his panoply of Brother departs from him. There may be, and doubtless have been, white persons, perhaps Germans, who have visited negro assemblages which were called by the negroes themselves " Masonic Lodges;" but these assemblages bear about the same affinity to a Masonic Lodge that a negro clam-bake would bear to the Diet of Worms! None but irregular, clandestine or expelled Masons visit these bodies of Masons; the Mason in good standing who should visit one of these bodies would subject himself to expulsion, and would be expelled as soon as the subject could be brought before his Lodge — not so much because the body is made up of colored men, though this would cause a suspicion of his orthodoxy, but because there is not, and never has been, a negro Lodge of Masons, in the State of New York, deriving authority from a regular Grand Lodge. A moment's reflection will convince any Mason that such a body cannot be visited without a violation of the most solemn obligations.

The Grand Lodges of Europe are supposed to be without prejudice to the colored race, and are therefore asked to recognize these bodies! Extravagant credulity! Can it be possible that Hamburgh believes the other Grand Lodges of Europe will recognize negro Lodges and Grand Lodges solely because their members have dark skins? This idea presupposes an affection for the colored race on the part of the European Grand Lodges which would trample upon Masonic obligations to be gratified. Those bodies cannot commit, nor permit their members to commit so great a crime. There must be some other evidences furnished those Grand Lodges of the regularity of these negro Lodges before they will acknowledge them; and when they come to seek for this evidence it will be entirely wanting.

GRAND LODGE OF HAMBURG AND AFRICAN LODGES, MAY 1860

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XIX, No. 7, May 1860, Page 215:

Wi noticed some months since in the pages of this Magazine, the efforts making by the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh to induce the Grand Lodges of Europe to consider the propriety of recognizing the negro Lodges, both Grand and Subordinate, which exist in this country, without authority. The subject has recently received the attention of the Grand Lodge of New York and elicited from the committee of correspondence of that body, a report from which we make the following extract:—

The great object of Masonry is to cultivate peace, harmony and fraternity among the families of mankind ; it fosters none of the malignant passions which divide and destroy society ; it has none of the attributes of war, and desires not the aid of and cannot employ any of its agencies to enforce its decrees. Its greet mission is peace, its chief implement of warfare is love, and its influence among the families of men is to draw them together, and make them one Brotherhood. It looks for its maintenance, and the enforcement of its laws and decrees, to the obligations which its votaries have assumed, and the high moral tone which its ritual inculcates. Its genial and fraternizing influences extend to the remotest boundaries of civilization. All continents, all civilized nations, and even the islands of the sea, are peopled with its votaries.

Like the extended possessions of a colossal empire, the great luminary of day does not cease to shine upon its altars. It forms a golden arch which encircles human society, and its keystone is composed of the moral jewel which was repeated in the accents of Divinity, among the lessons that were taught from the Mount of Olives eighteen hundred years ago: " Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you do ye even so to them." Any Masonic government that deliberately or voluntarily removes this keystone, in its relations with other jurisdictions, deserves the reprehensions of universal Masonry, because it thereby destroys the general harmony, and introduces confusion and disorder in place of union and concord. Bat this keystone has been removed, this great maxim of Masonic faith has been violated, prostrated and destroyed, in the action of the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh. It has not withdrawn or offered to withdraw the charters of its illegitimate subordinates. Though apprised of the universal sentiment which prevails among the GranJ Lodges of the United Slates in condemnation of its acts, it persists in keeping up these Lodges in the jurisdiction of New York, in violation of our laws and in defiance of our authority. This is not all. It is, indeed, but a tithe of her offending. It is a venial, and excusable offence in comparison to a much greater which she is seeking now to perpetrate. Because we have declared her two subordinates irregular, and suspended intercourse with her till their charters are recalled, she has invented a means of reprisal, a mode of retaliation, which for deliberate revenge has no parallel in tine history of Masonry.

There are certain bodies of colored men, Africans, in the States of the American Union, at the South as veil as in the North, whose members claim to have got hold of some of the secrets, and profess to practice the rites ol Mason ry. They have no legitimate claims, and with an individual exception, as we believe, make no pretence to legitimate descent or authority from regular G. Lodges. Many of those in the Southern States as we are informed, are slaves, all are blacks and mulattoes. They have no Masonic connection with, because they are not recognized by, the Masons in this country. They are, as stated, mostly slaves and the descendants of slaves, between whom and the whites there is an irreconcilable and irradicable repugnance lo social equality. A persistent attempt to enforce this equality would be very likely to result in the destruction of Masonry in the United States, or in a war of races; ending in the extermination of the negro race.

Strange and unaccountable as it appears, it seems that the Grand Lodge of Hamburgh contemplates this stale of things with composure and complacency. She is disposed not only to recognize these bodies herself as regular and legitimate Lodges and Grand Lodges, but she is trying to persuade the other Grand Ledges of Europe to do the same thing. The following quotation from the proceedings of that body, of May 6th, 1858, will prove the scope of her designs, viz: "The Grand Lodge of Hamburgh will, at its next convention, make this question the topic of deliberation, relying thereby upon the support of its sister Grand Lodges, desiring them to communicate their views and intentions in respect to the recognition of the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Liberia, in Africa; but, in particular, in respect to the Lodges and Grand Lodges of colored people, pronounced by the American Grand Lodges to be clandestine." In another part of the Hamburgh proceedings, they refer lo " independent Lodges of colored people (negroes, mulattoes, Sic.) in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland, &c, which ate united under Grand Lodges under the jurisdiction of a National Grand Lodge of America. We know little of them," says Hamburgh, ** becanse they are declared by the North American Grand Lodges as clandestine, and all Masonic inlercoarse is strictly lorbidden." There can be, therefore, no possible misapprehension as to who and what Hamburgh seeks to recognize as regular and legitimate Masons and Masonic bodies.

In reference to the individuals composing these bodies it is proper to say, that their social status, both in the Northern and Southern Slates of the Union, is, ex necessitate rei, inferior to that or the white, and their political privileges are limited. We will not stop to argue the policy or impolicy, the justice or injustice of this state of things. We take the facts as they are, and American society as it is, and apply to them the rules of Masonic law. Among these rales, landmarks as they are called, are the following, viz.:

1. "The men made Masons must be free born, (or no bondmen,) of mature age and of good report," &c.
2. "The privilege of assembling as Masons is no longer unlimited, but shall be vested in certain Lodges, convened in certain places, and legally authorized by the warrant of the Grand Master and the consent of the Grand Lodge."

Are the persons of color in the United States, who claim to be Masons, free born? Slavery originally existed in nearly all the States of the American Union — in every one of them, we believe, except one. At the breaking out of the American Revolution we had a population, in all, of 2,800,000 souls, of whom 500,000, in round numbers, were slaves. These comprised nearly all the blacks then in the American Union; and since that day (1775) to the present, the emigration of Africans to this country has been exceedingly limited. Except in individual and isolated instances, since the year 1808 it has been comparatively and almost absolutely nothing, and anterior to that period their emigration hither was involuntary, compulsory and as slaves. Hence it will be perceived, that nearly all of African blood in the United States are either slaves or the descendants of slaves, and as such are ineligible to the degrees of Masonry under the Masonic landmark first above quoted ; but if this landmark were ignored or disregarded, there are other obstacles equally insuperable to their recognition.

Could we persuade ourselves it were necessary to argue the question of their moral and mental disabilities, or to present their inferior social status in American society, as furnishing evidences of their ineligibility to Masonic privileges, equality and honors, we should arrive at the same conclusion, that nothing but a revolution—an entire disruption and overturning of American society, could induce a recognition of the right ot the African race in America to Masonic equality and privileges; but we do not propose to discuss these questions. We know there are differences of opinion on this subject in other portions of the world as well as here in the United States. These differences in the political world are serious, apparently irreconcilable, and sometimes threatening to the harmony and integrity of the American Union. With the realization of this truth, no Mason in the United States has, in his capacity as a Mason or Masonic officer, ventured to discuss them, and no good Mason will discuss them. We all know that strife, discord and disunion among the American Grand Lodges would be the inevitable concomitants of such a discussion. Hamburgh is aware of this, and with the obvious design to bring on a collision, and to precipitate calamity and rain upon the Masonic fraternity in North America, makes the proposition to the Grand Lodges and Grand Orients of Europe, which we have above copied from her proceedings, to recognize and legitimate the negro organizations in the United Stales as Masonic!! Will the Grand Lodges of the world countenance, either by affirmative action or by inaction, this diabolical purpose! Will they suffer one of the great sisterhood of Masonic sovereignties, without rebuke or reproof, to commit an act so flagrantly violative of national comity, and to fraught with disaster to the peace and harmony of Masonry?

COMMENTARY ON COLORED MASONS, FEBRUARY 1862

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XXI, No. 4, February 1862, Page 155 (from the New York Sunday Courier):

But little is known among the regular Fraternity in the United States of the condition of Freemasonry among the negroes, and yet, during the week which closed the year 1861, a so-called Grand Lodge of that persuasion was held in the city of New York, and an election had, by which some of the sons of "Ham" were elected to the rank of Grand Dignitaries, with all the high-sounding titles in which that imitative race take so great a pride.

These "colored brudders" have, on more occasions than one, in years gone by, published their list of dignitaries in the columns of our contemporaries, and, probably with the desire of receiving the benefit of our extended Masonic circulation, this year honored us with their notice; but, though deeply sensible of the intended honor, we most respectfully declined to be the medium of communication between them and the regular constituted Fraternities in the United States.

While we have every desire to promote the interests of genuine Freemasonry, we have no inclination to give prominence to that which is bastard and spurious, and without designing any affront to the "sons of Afrio," we cannot consent, directly or indirectly, to elevate them to an equality with the white or dominant race in our columns.

The existence of these so-called Masonic Lodges among the blacks has never been recognized by any Grand Lodge Of Freemasons in the United States. Their origin was not in accordance with the laws of the Institution, and it is doubtful whether their continuance is not, from the material of which they are in part at least said to be composed, a direct infraction of that Ancient jaw which requires of all candidates for initation into the mysteries of the Society to be "freeborn" or "no bondmen."

The authority under which these negro lodges claim to derive their powers is of itself, a sufficient evidence of their irregularity; and, in order that our readers may be thoroughly posted on the subject, we will give a verbatim copy of the document upon the strength of which they have based their organization :—

"To all and every one right worshipful and loving Brethren. We, Thomas Howard, Earl of Effingham, Lord Howard, &e, &e, Acting Grand Master, under the authority of hit Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, &c, &c, he. Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, send 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 England, in North America, do hereby constitute the said Brethren into a Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, under the title or the denomination of the African Lodge, to be opened in Boston aforesaid: And do further, at their said petition, and of the great trust and confidence reposed in every one of the said above named Brethren, 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 our will that this our appointment of the above officers shall in no wise affect 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 to have been regularly made Masons, and that they do observe, perform and keep the rules and orders contained in the Book 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 Lodge together with all such rules, orders and regulations as shall be made for the good government of the same, that in nowise yon omit once in every year to send to us, or our successors. Grand Masters, or to Rowland Holt, Esq., our Deputy Grand Master for the time being, an account in writing of your said 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 shall suit the circumstances of the Lodge, and reasonably be expected, toward the Grand Charity. Moreover, we hereby will and require you, and 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 o( September, A. L. 5784, A. D. 1784.
By the Grand Master's command,
R. Holt, D. G. M.
(Attested) William White, G. S.

Under such an authority as the above is it that the colored population have ventured to establish a National Grand Lodge, which, in turn, grants Warrants to State Grand Lodges, and these latter to Subordinate Lodges.

The basis upon which the negroes have raised their superstructure according the laws which prevail among Masons, especially in the U. S., is fatally defective, and their work consequently illegitimate. In the first place, the Grand Lodge of England had no right, in 1784, to establish a Lodge in Boston, as there was a Grand Lodge, exercising authority, established there, for the State of Massachusetts. Iu the second place, the Warrant granted in 1784 to the negroes gave them no authority to establish a Grand Lodge or a National Grand Lodge,

NOTE ON COLORED LODGES, AUGUST 1863

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XXII, No. 10, July 1863, Page 310:

After a careful examination of so much of the proceedings of our Right Worshipful Sister Grand Lodges on the subject of "Colored Lodges," and the action of some of the Right Worshipful Grand Lodges of Europe in regard to it, there is a fear on our mind, that the Masonic opinion held by the Grand Lodges of the United Stales thereto, may not have been strongly and clearly laid before those jurisdictions. The argument on this question is plain and conclusive. Each Grand Lodge in the United States is a sovereign and supreme jurisdiction. No subordinate Lodge of Freemasons can regularly exist in any such jurisdiction, without its rights, privileges and powers are directly derived from such supreme sovereign authority. If any such Lodge claims to exist and work, it is not recognized as a Lodge of Freemasons — hence it is irregular or clandestine. No other Masonic authority than that of the jurisdiction can grant a right for such. a Lodge.

No Grand Lodge in the United States has ever granted a Charter to a "Colored Lodge" of Freemasons. Then Colored Lodges are not recognized, and are either irregular or clandestine. As these "Colored Lodges" claiming to exist in the United States are not recognized by any Grand Lodge of the U. States, they cannot be Masonically recognized anywhere. The principle is too plain to admit of controversy. If the Grand Lodges of the United States are supreme in their several jurisdictions, they are severally the highest Masonic authority known to such jurisdiction If they are the highest and best authority, there is not a forum, which can claim an appellate power to review or overrule their decision. Their decision on any question which they have the sole right and power to decide, is absolute and steadfast. Then, if each Grand Lodge in the United States decides that "Colored Lodges" are not recognizable as Masonic institutions within their jurisdiction, it is neither competent nor Masonic for any foreign Grand Lodge to set aside such decision. To do so would disturb the harmony, destroy the sovereignty, impair the dignity, usurp the rights and powers, and subordinate a Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of tbe United States to such foreign Grand Lodge. It would do more. It would cause its constituents to depend on any other authority but its own. The proposition thus stated is unanswerable. Thus the question stands, in the opinion of the Right Worthy Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. It cannot be made to yield to any other than indisputable Masonic principles. No other elements must be permitted to enter into the discussion. Masonry knows Masonic principles, landmarks, rights, privileges and objects only. What is not of Freemasonry, is not within the power of Masonic action. Other questions may knock at the West door, but they ought not, cannot, will never be allowed to enter into a Temple dedicated to Freemasonry — never. — Rep. G. L. Pen.

HAYDEN PETITION, DECEMBER 1868 AND AFTER

In December 1868 a petition was presented to the Grand Lodge by a group of black Freemasons; it was referred to committee during the following year.

From Proceedings, December 1868, Page VII-259:

A petition signed by Lewis Hayden and several others, claiming to be Ancient, Free, and Accepted Masons, and asking to be recognized as such, was received, read, and on motion of R. W. Bro. John T. Heard, was referred to R. W. Brothers John T. Heard, George W. Warren, Bradford L. Wales, Isaac Hull Wright, Charles Levi Woodbury, Tracy P. Cheever, and Charles W. Moore.

From Proceedings, June 1869, Page VII-454:

R. W. Br. John T. Heard, Chairman of the committee on the following petition of Lewis Hayden and others made their report:

PETITION

To the Most Worshipful Ancient and Honerable Society of Free and Accepted Masons for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

We the undersigned, represent that in the year seventeen hundred and seventy five the rites of Masonry were conferred in an Army Lodge attached to the British Army then stationed at this Port upon Prince Hall, Thomas Sanderson, Boston Smith, John Main, John Hartfield, William H. Gregory, Charles Spooner, John Carter, and others who were soon after organized as, and dispensated into, a Lodge.

Being thus organized they made application to Major General Warren for a Charter, from whom it appears encouragement was received, but after his fall no more was heard of it.

In seventeen hundred and seventy nine the petition was again renewed, We do not know that an official answer was ever returned but tradition informs us that it was made sport of in the Massachusetts Grand Lodge which fact being made known to them they said "This shall never discourage us, nor move us from our purpose we have undertaken, and we will accomplish our design, we will petition to foreigners for what is denied us at home."

The condition of the colored population of the State at that time, denied as they were of the benefits of education for the support of which-they were taxed, together with public opinion as then existing and expressed through the journals of that epoch forbade the recognition of the negro as a man and a brother. This can readily be seen from the fact that African Slavery and the slave trade were then lawful in this Commonwealth, and as a consequence, the pecuniary interests of the Masons of that age transcended their obligations to the brotherhood of man. Nor was it until seventeen hundred and eighty three that the institution of slavery was abolished; since which time no man has been born in this Commonwealth otherwise than free. We say their condition together with public opinion from the fact that Prince Hall and his associates were denied even the right of assembling except by special permit of the authorities of the town of Boston.

Laboring under these disadvantages the love of Masonry prompted and necessity forced them, to petition the Grand Lodge of England for a Charter and in the year seventeen hundred and eighty four (up to which time no official answer was given their petition by the Massachusetts Grand Lodge) it resulted in the granting of Charter 459 dated Sept. 29th seventeen eighty four, which is now in our possession a true copy of which is here annexed:

"The seal of the
Grand Lodge of
Masons London."

Effingham A. G. M. To all & every one Right Worshipful and loving Brethren, We Thomas Howard, &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 Honerable 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 England, 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 as shall be thought proper by the Brethren thereof, it being our will that this our appointment of the above officers shall in no wise affect any future election of officers of the Lodge, but that such election shall be regulated agreeable 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 one of 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 Book 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 Lodge, 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 said 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 of September A, L. 5784, A. D. 1784.
By the Grand Master's command
ROWLAND HOLT D. G. M.
Witness WILLIAM WHITE
Grand Secretary.

By the authority of this Charter they opened a regular and perfect Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons in the town of Boston, in which they initiated, passed and raised Master Masons, This they continued to do as a subordinate Lodge until the year eighteen hundred and eight at which time there being three Lodges among us, one in Boston, one in Philadelphia and one in Providence, they, under Prince Hall, organized a Grand Lodge in this town, aforesaid which Grand Lodge granted Charters to the several subordinates now existing under the titles and denominations of "Rising Sons of St. Johns' No. 3," "Union No. 2," and "Celestial Lodge No. 4.

It also granted Charters in several other States which have organized themselves into Grand Lodges.

The three first remaining, continued their existence under their old Charters until eighteen hundred and forty seven in which year the National Grand Lodge was formed.

The African Grand Lodge of Boston becoming a part of that body surrendered its charter and received its present Charter, dated, December 11th. Eighteen hundred and forty seven, under the title of Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and by which authority we this day exist as a Masonic body, and subordinate to it are the following named Lodges with their respective locality and membership.

• Union Lodge, No. 2. Boston, 40 Members.
• Rising Sons of St. Johns, No. 3, Boston, 43 Members.
• Celestial Lodge, No. 4, Boston, 52 Members.
• Union, No. 7, New Bedford, 38 Members.
• Eureka, No. 11. Savannah, Geo., 19 Members.
• Sumner, No. 12, Springfield, 29 Members.
• Hilton, No 13, Savannah, Geo., 21 Members.

Hayden Lodge, No. 8, Charleston S.C. withdrawn Oct 1868, and with other Lodges, formed a Grand Lodge for the State of South Carolina. The requisite number of Lodges out of which to form a Grand Lodge are already in existence in Georgia and we doubt not will soon organize a Grand Lodge for that State.

Notwithstanding our changed condition enjoying as we do the benefits of education, and the favorable growth of public opinion, it is questionable, after a lapse of ninety three years of unsullied Masonic existence on our part, aided by Civilization and progress, whether the Masons of to-day unlike their ancestors, free from the perplexing connection with slavery, it having been blotted from the annals of the Continent, are ready to assent to the recognition and truly cosmopolitan character of our fraternity, we are prompted to enter this our humble plea for equal Masonic manhood in the hope that we be permitted to establish our claim to Masonic rite by whatever means the most worshipful Grand Lodge may suggest.

Signed,

• Lewis Hayden, Edwd. C. Ruhler, John J. Smith. Richard S. Brown, John W. Rice, Stephen R. Dorsey, George W. Brown, Joseph P. Hawkins. Francis P. Gray, Joseph Jo. Harvey, Thomas Pritchett. John W. Johnson, Alfred R. Lewis, Thomas McCarppy, William H. W. Derby, John H. Dorsay, Charles H, Greeland. L, V, Johnson, Chas. A. Rickson, Robert Dorsay, A. B, Cannedy, D. H, Corney, Moses Olmstead, Wm Gray. Master Masons of Boston.
• Members of Union Lodge No. 7 of New Bedford: Anthony G. Jourdain Jr., George H. Mitchell, James Thomas. George Delavan, Augustus D. Piper, John A. Austin. Andrew M. Bush, Joseph M, Scott, Charles H. Brook, Charles F. Ferguson, W. M. Jackson, Henry F. Martin, James Wiggins, Edward Jackson, Parker (his X mark) Samplings, Charles H. Carter, Joseph H. Smith, John W, Davis, George H, Braywood, Daniel B. Smith, William H. Watkins, John W.

Williams, Michael Wainer, Jr., Thomas Tillman, Walter S. Tilghman.

• Members of Sumner Lodge No. 12 Springfield: Thos. Thomas, Geo. H. Queen, C. A. Purvis, W. M. Montague, David Jennings, I. J. Baptist, Paylon Washington, W. H. Adams, Charles W. Hall, I. N. Howard, J. W. Francis, Eli. S. Baptist, Samuel R. Scottron, S. E. Wright. Henry 0, Thermann. A. Glasco, Charle Dawson, C. K. Dorsey, L. B, Askin, John Q. Jones, W. J. Lynch.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

Report of Committee on the above petition.

To the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge:

The Committee to whom was referred the petition of Lewis Hayden and others would respectfully report:

That the petitioners are black men, who though they are not members or initiates of Lodges under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, nor of regular Lodges within the jurisdiction of any Grand Lodge in correspondence with it, still claim that they are Masons and desire to be recognized as such by this Grand Lodge, They plead, in the terms of the petition "for equal Masonic manhood in the hope that we be permitted to establish our claim to Masonic rite by whatever means the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge may suggest."

There are three classes of signers of the petition, namely, 1, Lewis Hayden and twenty four others, who style themselves. Master Masons of Boston. 2. Anthony P. Jourdain, Jr. and twenty five others who designate themselves as members of Union Lodge No. 7. of New Bedford. 3, Thomas Thomas and twenty others, who claim to be "officers and Members of Sumner Lodge No. 12 of Springfield. The petitioners do not avowedly represent either of these Lodges or any others: so that their statements and prayer should be regarded as expressions of individual persons, rather than the representations and request of the Lodges mentioned in the petition.

The petition refers to the origin and progress of the so-called Freemasonry to which the petitioners belong, and embraces a copy of a Charter which certain black men, therein recognized as Masons, obtained in 1784, from the Grand Lodge of England and received by them in 1787.

Your committee have examined the Charter and believe it is authentic: but as they do not deem it to be necessary at this time to investigate the historical statement contained in the petition: they have not inquired into its legal Masonic effect, nor whether any proper organization under it ever took place. The petitioners include only a portion of the persons who claim to derive privileges from this instrument, when it is obvious that the granting of their prayer for the reasons they advance, would equally benefit their associates who have not joined in the petition, and over whom therefore, this Grand Lodge would have no control. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to inquire into the validity of the proceedings of the persons named in the charter or whether the petitioners have any just claim to be considered their successors.

Lodges professing to be Masonic existing in this Commonwealth without the sanction of this Grand Lodge, are irregular and spurious, and the members of them are of course denied Masonic intercourse with members of regular Lodges, and they and their members, including the petitioners, are not recognized by the Craft.

Our Constitutions make no distinction on account of the color of persons who desire the benefits of Freemasonry, and there are no rules or regulations whereby the petitioners if "worthy and well qualified," are excluded from our fraternity, if they seek admission through duly organized Lodges.

Your Committee recommend that the petitioners have leave to withdraw.

All of which is respectfully submitted
JOHN T. HEARD,
G. WASHINGTON WARREN,
BRADFORD L. WALES,
ISAAC H. WRIGHT,
CHARLES W. MOORE
TRACY P. CHEEVER
CHARLES LEVI WOODBURY

The report was accepted.

COLORED LODGES REPORT, AUGUST 1875

From New England Freemason, Vol. II, No. 8, August 1875, Page 392:

At the Congress of the "Union of Grand Masters," held at Darmstadt, in Germany, in April last, it was decided to recommend to the German Grand Lodges the recognition of the Colored Lodges of the United States. This is only a preliminary step, as the action of the Congress is' not valid until it has been approved by the various Grand Lodges represented by it, to whom its decisions are referred as propositions merely.

It is, however, to be feared that the action of the German Grand Lodges will be in conformity with the recommendation of the Congress of Grand Masters.

It is not surprising that the Masons of Germany, separated from their Brethren of America by a distance of many thousand miles, speaking another language, enjoying only an interrupted communication, and differing materially from us on the law and practice of Grand Lodge jurisdiction, should altogether misunderstand this question of Colored Lodges as it presents itself in the United States. But it is to be regretted that the usual industry and accuracy of investigation which, on other topics of literature, has always been characteristic of the Teutonic mind, should not have been applied to the resolution of this problem.

Before adopting any further measures in reference to a recognition of the Colored Lodges — measures which may very seriously impair the harmony now existing between the Masonic powers of the two countries — the German Masons should correctly understand what is the status and the pretension in this country of those who are called "Colored Masons." We commend to their attention the following paragraph taken from the New York Graphic, a secular paper, which, however, gives to the German Masons precisely the information on this subject which they need and which they evidently do not possess:

"The Colored Freemasons, yesterday, (June 2,) held the annual meeting of their Grand Lodge in this city. The public usually mistakes the attitude of the Freemasons towards the Colored Lodges. The latter do not recognize the authority of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, and hence are a schismatic body with which loyal Masons are forbidden to hold intercourse. That these schismatic bodies happen to be composed of colored men has nothing whatever to do with the refusal of the Regular Masons to recognize them, and they would be treated in precisely the same way were they composed of white men. Unless the Colored Masons will submit to the authority of the Grand Lodge, they must necessarily be treated as rebels. This is universal Masonic law, and it is absurd to expect the Grand Lodge and its subordinates to ignore it."

The most learned Masonic jurist could not have stated the argument more correctly. There is no question of race or color implicated. If these men had been the whitest specimens of the Aryan race that ever came from the Caucasus, their position would be exactly the same. They are men practising the rites of Freemasonry without legal authority—opening and holding Lodges without Charters or warrants of constitution emanating from a recognized Grand Lodge. And although in this free country such things may be done without a violation of the municipal law, in no country where Masonry exists can they be done without a violation of Masonic law.

If the German Grand Lodges insist on the recognition of schismatic and clandestine Lodges, they will be inflicting a blow not on the independence and sovereignty of the American Grand Lodges alone, but on the purity and integrity of Masonic discipline.

Such a blow, it need not be said, will be vigorously resisted in the United States; and deplorable as may be the results of such resistance, it cannot be avoided if we would preserve the legal principles of the organization of Masonry in this country.— Voice of Masonry.

The views here expressed seem so clear and just that we are at a loss to understand how the contrary can be so persistently and voluminously maintained by some Brethren, even in this country, who ought to know better. It is, perhaps, not greatly to be wondered at that the recognition of the so-called colored Grand Lodges should be advocated by foreign Brethren, who can see no impropriety in the establishment by their Grand Lodges of subordinate Lodges in our jurisdictions, or in the admission of candidates to Masonry from any country by any Lodge in whose territory they may chance to sojourn temporarily. The very "Congress of the Union of Grand Masters" which made the recommendation above referred to, gravely discussed a proposition to affiliate with the Odd Fellows, and to allow members of that organization to be admitted to Masonic Lodges as visitors. The principal argument seemed to be, that, as the purposes of both associations were laudable and their objects- beneficent, we ought to throw down all barriers between them, and work together for the common good. The proposal was voted down by a small majority, although the only difference between the two cases seems to be that the negroes claim to be Masons, and the Odd Fellows do not. The ideas of these foreign Brethren as to the nature and objects of our Institution seem to be so diametrically opposed to those that prevail among us that it is useless to argue with them. On the questions of Grand Lodge sovereignty and the recognition of negro Lodges, they cannot or will not see the point of our arguments.

But when we are forced to hear, or to read, the same tedious and stupid outpouring of words from Brethren here at home, who know all the facts, the unreasonableness of the demand, and the untruthfulness of some of the premises, we must confess that we lose all patience, and our emotions verge very decidedly on the indignant. It is not true, (and these negrophilists know it,) that the Grand Lodges of this country refuse to recognize these spurious organizations because they are composed of black men. There are black men in good and regular standing in several of our jurisdictions, and their right to the same consideration as white Brethren is scarcely questioned,—never, except by a few hot-headed individuals whose prejudices outrun their judgment, and whose opinions, therefore, have little weight. There is at present a colored man who is a member of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, a very worthy and exemplary Mason, and no Brother ever thinks of regarding him or treating him any differently than if he were white. But these Brethren came into the Institution by the same door through which all of us unprivileged white men entered, and after due trial and strict examination. If any others of their race desire to enter our ranks, we know of no reason why they should be accorded any other or better terms than were extended to the best white men among us. "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you," was good doctrine for each of us; and, in our judgment, it is equally good for each of them.

The true reason why these men cannot, and should not, be recognized as Masons, is that they have not been made under any authority which we can recognize as legitimate. They are clandestine Masons — if indeed they are Masons at all. They are just as truly spurious and illegitimate as were those of whom Franklin tells us, who were made for a bowl of punch. Why, in the name of all that is Masonic, should we at one fell swoop tumble into the Fraternity ten thousand men who have never passed the ordeal of a committee, when there is not the slightest obstacle to their admission individually — unless their own characters furnish it?

The advocates of this making of Masons by wholesale argue, forsooth, that by refusing the desired recognition we are doing the negro injustice — depriving him of an inalienable right. Such talk is the veriest nonsense. No man — not even a black man — has an inalienable right to be made a Mason, nor to be recognized as a Mason.when made without due authority and in due form. For these men to insist upon being taken into our sanctuary upon their simple demand, is as reasonable as it would be for a Methodist to insist upon receiving the sacrament in a church of close communion Baptists. The Methodist may be as good a man and as good a Christian as the best of the Baptists in his own opinion; but that gives him no right to force himself into their company upon the most sacred occasions, and they do him no wrong by excluding him.

For the last ninety years these men and their ancestors seem to have found some satisfaction in playing at what they call Masonry, and we are not disposed to interfere with them or to interrupt their amusement. But if any of them want to be Masons, we insist that there is only one course for them to take—They must be made in a regular Lodge, one by one.

COMMENTARY ON "COLORED MASONS, SO-CALLED", DECEMBER 1875

From New England Freemason, Vol. II, No. 12, December 1875, Page 550:

We have received another batch of those pamphlets, "fearfully and wonderfully made," for which the Grand Lodge of Ohio is fast acquiring such a "bad eminence." First comes one of 48 pages, with a clap-trap heading, "1776 New Day — New Duty, 1876," a curious jumble of everything that has ever been said or written as to negro Masonry, by black or white orator or scribe — all being placed on an equality, called Brothers, and styled Grand Masters or what not, without any regard to their being legitimate or illegitimate, regular or clandestine. Next comes another edition, with eight pages added, comprising an angry and hastily written letter from Brother Albert Pike, two kindly and unconsidered trifles from Dr. Lewis (furnished by that industrious and indefatigable Masonic destructive Jacob Norton), copious extracts from Moore's Freemason's Magazine, describing the constitution of Germania Lodge, and having no connection whatever with negro Masonry — and so on to the end of the chapter, hotch-potch, omnium gatherum, hash and re-hash, until our stomach fairly rebels against it. Then, to crown all, comes a volume of Proceedings, with the same dose again, and 73 pages of so-called Masonic history, gathered from the four quarters of the globe, — a most astonishing medley of fact and fancy, truth and fiction, strung together without order or connection, — a complete muddle of non sequiturs. These publications look to us like the productions of a printer who had received carte blanche to print whatever he pleased, and forthwith he prints anything and everything. Verily we wish somebody would hold this crazy Western Brother.

We have not space to argue this question with him at present, and we doubt if he is not so blind that he will not see. But we have a little evidence to offer as to the legitimacy as a Mason of one whom he quotes approvingly, and whom some of the German Grand Lodges have appointed as their "Representative," namely: Lewis Hayden, who for some years styled himself Grand Master of Prince Hall Grand Lodge. At the Quarterly Communication of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, held on the 9th of Sept., 1846, the M. W. Grand Master submitted the following statement:

"Within a few days past I received information of a clandestine Lodge in this city, called the United Brethren, pretending they were regularly organized and under the jurisdiction of the G. Lodge of this Commonwealth, and that they had succeeded in imposing on a goodly number of innocent and unsuspecting men. The information was first communicated to the G. Secretary by two of the members, who began to suspect they had been imposed upon, and applied to him to ascertain the fact.

"Upon the receipt of this information, I invited some of the principal officers and members of the G. Lodge to meet, and with them held a consultation, which resulted in a recommendation that the most effective measures be adopted to abate the evil and to punish its authors, by the prompt application of the severest penalty known to our laws. To accomplish this, it was deemed advisable to repair to the place of their meeting, for the purpose of ascertaining all the facts in relation to the subject, by a careful examination of their records and other documents. We accordingly repaired to their hall in West Cedar Street, on the evening of the 31st ult., where were congregated some ten or fifteen colored men, who conducted themselves with great propriety, and afforded us every facility in their power in accomplishing our purpose. They presented certain spurious papers purporting to be a Dispensation from the G. Lodge, bearing date Sept., 1845, together with their records, which we were allowed to retain, and which are now in the possession of the G. Lodge. They stated to us (and we had no reason to doubt their veracity) that they were honest in their intentions, and supposed these papers to be genuine, and that they were a regular Lodge. To our enquiry how they came in possession of these papers, they answered that they received them from Benajah F. Leonard, who assured them they were in the usual form, and that they would receive a charter in one year from the date thereof.

"The Lodge consisted of about twenty members, most of whom had received the degrees therein, and it is believed were honest and sincere, but the victims of fraud and deception. It was proved to the satisfaction of all present on the occasion referred to, that B. F. Leonard, a white man, hut with a reputation infinitely blacker than the skin of his associates, (aided by Philip Ranell, a colored man,) was the principal actor in these infamous proceedings. It was he who devised and matured the plan; prepared, or caused to be prepared, the spurious papers; formed the Lodge, and conferred the degrees upon the six first candidates; received a large portion of the fees and applied the same to his own private use — violating all his Masonic obligations, and approximating so nearly to "total depravity" that its advocates may here find plausible arguments in support of the doctrine.

"After we had completed the examination, and possessed ourselves of such information as could be obtained, they were informed that all their papers were spurious, and the whole a cheat; that they could not be recognized as a lodge, nor could they continue to meet its such; that they had been deceived, and robbed of their money; and we advised them to seek redress before the Grand Jury.

"These are all the material facts in relation to the subject, and I trust will be found sufficient to justify the proceedings which have already taken place, and insure speedy action of the Grand Lodge.

Sept. 9, 1846. S. W. Robinson, G. M."

It was voted to lay the communication from the Grand Master on the table.

A petition was presented and read from sundry colored persons referred to in the above statement, praying to be "healed" and legalized as Masons. It was laid on the table.

Charges were preferred against Benajah F. Leonard for being accessory to the forming of a clandestine Lodge, and making Masons therein clandestinely, and for other gross, irregular and unmasonic conduct. It was ordered that a copy of the charges be served on him, and that he be summoned to appear and answer. The statement of the Grand Master and the petition were taken from the table and referred to a committee.

At a Special Communication, held on the 29th of Sept., Leonard appeared and pled Not Guilty. After the introduction of evidence against him, he asked that the case might be postponed until some time in Oct., to give him an opportunity to employ counsel. His request was complied with, and a committee was appointed to take further testimony.

At a Special Communication held on the 14th of October, the accused was called, but did not appear. The committee on testimony reported, and the defendant was unanimously pronounced guilty, and expelled from all the rights and privileges of Freemasonry. At the Annual Communication, December 9th, 1846, the committee on the petition of Messrs. Hayden, Thomas and others, presented a report to the effect that they had held several meetings and given the petitioners a patient hearing, but that there were insuperable objections to granting the petition, which it was not necessary to mention, especially as it was understood that the petitioners had concluded to obtain a charter from the African Lodge in Pennsylvania. Accordingly they had leave to withdraw.

Such was the Masonic birth of Grand Master Hayden, the "Grand Representative of divers and sundry European Grand Lodges. The ignorance and stupidity manifested in recognizing such a Mason is excusable, perhaps, in these foreigners; it is unpardonable in natives who have ransacked the earth for information on this subject.

1946 REPORT ON NEGRO FREEMASONRY IN MASSACHUSETTS

The following unanimous report of a Committee appointed by the Grand Master on March 22, 1946, was read by the Grand Master. Action upon the acceptance of this report and its recommendations will be taken at the March, 1947, Communication.

To the Most Worshipful Grand Master of Masons in Massachusetts:

The Committee appointed by you to consider and report upon the subject of Negro Freemasonry in Massachusetts, begs leave to submit the following report:

It has been a full half century since our Grand Lodge has considered the subject of Negro Freemasonry. Then, and in all previous studies of the subject, attention was directed primarily, if not solely, to the question of the technical regularity of the origins and early history of Negro Freemasonry. In the light of the evidence then available, it was believed it could not, according to Masonic law, be regarded an legitimate Freemasonry. On the same evidence, the same conclusions would presumably have been reached - and perhaps even more emphatically - if the individuals and Lodges in question had been white instead of colored.

In the intervening half century, Masonic historical research has made much progress, and the emphasis has changed considerably in Masonic thinking with respect to some of the factors involved in any such inquiry. The legality and regularity of each organizational act is now tested according to the law and customs of its date rather than by those of the present.

Your Committee finds that according to the then prevailing Masonic law and custom, the origin, early procedures and subsequent development of the so-called Prince Hall (Negro) Freemasonry in this Commonwealth have been, and are, regular and legitimate. Moreover, there is reliable and uncontradicted documentary evidence, dated June 30, 1784, that African Lodge, of which Prince Hall was Master, was, in 1776, granted a "Permet" by John Rowe of Boston (then Provincial Grand Master over North America where no other Provincial was appointed), "to walk on St. John's day and Bury our dead in form," etc. Rowe succeeded Henry Price in 1768. Thus for 170 years African Lodge and its successors have been functioning in Massachusetts in good faith and with the justifiable belief that their origin and procedure were as regular and legitimate as we have thought ours to be. Obviously, we do not presume to pass upon conditions prevailing in any other jurisdictions.

It is understood that there are other groups of Negroes who claim to be Masons, but we have found no evidence in support of such claims, and our conclusion thus far is that the so-called Prince Hall (Negro) Freemasonry is, alone, entitled to any claim of legitimacy among Negroes in this Commonwealth.

Members of this Committee have inspected the original charter of African Lodge, No. 459, granted by authority of H.R.H. the Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master of our own Mother Grand Lodge of England, dated 29th September, 1784, appointing Prince Hall (a Negro resident of Boston) to be its Master. This is the source of all "duly constituted" Prince Hall Freemasonry, and is now in the possession of the M.W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., of Massachusetts. Our Grand Lodge traces its history as a "duly constituted" organization 1733, and Prince Hall (Negro) Freemasonry to 1787 when African Lodge began to function under its charter. Thus for more than a century and a half, these two branches of Freemasonry have existed side by side in this Commonwealth, each by its own preference adhering strictly to its own racial sphere of activity and without intervisitation.

There is need for unifying and strengthening all influences for the improvement and uplifting of mankind. Freemasonry seeks to build character and promote brotherhood among all men. These objectives have nothing to do with race or color or economic status. In this country, the welfare and the future of the white and colored people are interdependent and largely identical. Each has its own schools and colleges and churches and societies, but both have the same ultimate aspirations; both make common sacrifices in defense of their single country; both read the same periodicals, hear the same radio programs, and enjoy or suffer together the triumphs or failures of our national well being; and each is affected by the spiritual welfare of the other.

In conclusion, your Committee believes that in view of the existing social conditions in our country, it is advisable for the official and organized activities of white and colored Freemasons to proceed in parallel lines, but organically separate and without mutually embarrassing demands or commitments. However, your Committee believes that, within these limitations, informal cooperation and mutual helpfulness between the two groups upon appropriate occasions are desirable.

Your Committee makes no recommendation except that this report be accepted, approved and recorded.

Fraternally submitted

Joseph Earl Perry, Chairman
Melvin M. Johnson
Arthur D. Prince
Claude L. Allen
Albert A. Schaefer
Arthur W. Coolidge

This declaration, with accompanying documentation, was read and approved at the March 12, 1947 communication of the Grand Lodge.

1949 RECONSIDERATION OF REPORT

Direction given by the Grand Master in March, 1949; Page 1949-41.

"The Grand Master stated that in view of the misinterpretations by some Grand Lodges of the action taken by this Grand Lodge in March, 1947, he had referred this matter back to the original committee of Past Grand Masters for further clarification and for recommendations as to further action. This Committee, to which M.W. Samuel H. Wragg was added, is requested to report to Grand Lodge at the Quarterly Communication of June 9, 1949."

On June 8, 1949, the following report was submitted and approved; Page 1949-99.

"To the Most Worshipful Grand Master of Masons in Massachusetts:

"As requested by you on March 9th, your Committee has reconsidered the subject of Negro Freemasonry. It has given careful and sympathetic attention to the various comments of certain other Grand Lodges relative to its earlier report of November 25, 1946, as approved by the Grand Lodge on March 12, 1947, and has re-examined the original source material on which its earlier report was based, but we believe it will serve no good purpose to re-open the discussion.

"Misunderstandings and statements which we feel to be erroneous have produced unfortunate events. The net result is producing disharmony in American Freemasonry, whereas unity is what we need more than anything else. Unity and harmony are vastly more important to the Fraternity than debates about Negro Freemasonry.

"Therefore, in the interest of Masonic harmony, we recommend that the vote of the Grand Lodge on March 12, 1947, whereby our earlier report was approved, should be rescinded."

Fraternally submitted

Joseph Earl Perry, Chairman
Melvin M. Johnson
Arthur D. Prince
Claude L. Allen
Samuel H. Wragg
Arthur W. Coolidge

Relations with Negro Masonic organizations remained essentially a dead letter until the revival of interest in the 1990s. This report was in response to adverse reactions from other Grand Lodges.

Massachusetts Main Page