TEN

The Brothers Who Were Excluded in the Name of the Great Principles

Article III of Anderson’s Constitutions

Freemasonry can proclaim both its fraternal and universal natures all it likes, but the fact remains that it had no fear about excluding blacks in the name of some very odd principles. American Masonic obediences have long evoked the famous article 3 of Anderson’s Constitutions, which casts the same discredit on women and slaves.

The Persons admitted Members of a Lodge must be good and true Men, free-born, and of mature and discreet Age, no Bondmen, no Women, no immoral or scandalous Men, but of good Report.¹

It is how the text is read that has turned out to be the most crucial thing. It so happens that the white American grand lodges chose the most restrictive reading, while the Grand Lodge of England opted for a more flexible interpretation. This is a good illustration of the fact that the text does not always have the force of law and often inspires subjective interpretations that can conceal inadmissible motivations, which, in this case, would be racist.

In fact, when the freedman Prince Hall, an emancipated slave, requested that he and his friends be accorded the right to found a lodge in Boston, he obtained the charter from the English without Anderson’s famous article ever being invoked in opposition. Neither John Rowe, grand master of the Saint John Grand Lodge of Boston, a lodge affiliated with the English Modern Grand Lodge, nor Joseph Warren, worshipful master of the Saint Andrew’s Lodge and grand master of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, felt any need to invoke Anderson’s Constitutions to definitively shut the door to the former slaves, even though neither granted the famous charter.

Prince Hall maintained excellent relations with the Grand Lodge of England in the years following the African Lodge’s obtaining of the charter, so excellent, in fact, that Grand Secretary William White asked him to lead an investigation on the whole of Freemasonry in Massachusetts, both the black and white lodges that were affiliated then with the Grand Lodge of England. White therefore granted no importance whatsoever to his correspondent’s skin color, as shown by the letters they exchanged in 1792. Prince Hall completed his task and brought White abreast of the situation of lodges n° 12, n° 88, n° 91, n° 93, and n° 142, white American lodges that appeared on the register of the Grand Lodge of England at the side of African Lodge n° 459. Prince Hall verified that all were meeting regularly with the exception of lodge n° 91.²

White could have turned to the worshipful master of any one of these lodges to perform this task. However, it was Prince Hall specifically he chose to do this work, probably because he knew him personally, contrary to the others. Perhaps White also desired to show the confidence he had in Prince Hall by this gesture and show the white lodges the legitimacy of the African Lodge.

The English decision to grant a charter to a black lodge created a precedent, even before the 1847^*43 change that replaced the expression “free-born” with “free.” Starting at this date it would no longer be necessary to be “free-born,” it would be sufficient to be free at the time one requested admission. As it happens, American Masons did not think it good to make the same alteration. To the contrary, Albert Mackey gave new strength and vigor to the exclusion of slaves, and therefore all American blacks, in Landmark n° 18.^*44

Certain qualifications of candidates for initiation are derived from a Landmark of the Order. These qualifications are that he shall be a man—unmutilated, free-born, and of mature age. That is to say, a woman, a cripple, or a slave, or one born in slavery, is disqualified for initiation into the Rites of Freemasonry.³

There was never any question of following the English brothers onto this slippery and dangerously tolerant terrain. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the Americans took shelter behind Anderson’s text, then Mackey’s Landmarks, to exclude blacks.

The Validity of the Charter

There is no doubt that the charter of the first Prince Hall Lodge held symbolic value for both black and white Masons. Martin Robison Delany gives it such importance that he stated in his 1853 speech, without the slightest evidence, that Joseph Warren, the Massachusetts grand master, had granted them one but that it had been lost when he was killed on the battlefield of Bunker Hill in 1775. Delany claimed that the black Masons kept their charter in a secret place due to their great reverence for it and that, in despair at losing it on Warren’s death, they had the grand master’s body exhumed, thinking he might have carried it with him to his grave. Here legend ends, to be replaced by history.

It is said, that at an early period of its existence in this country, entertaining a kind of superstitious idea of its sacredness, the Masonic warrant was kept closely in some secret place, prohibited from the view of all but Masons. Consequently when General Warren—who was the grand master of Massachusetts—fell in the revolutionary struggle, the warrant was lost, and with it Masonry in Massachusetts. All Masons are familiar with the fact that Grand Master Warren was raised from his grave and a search made, doubtless, supposing that the warrant might have been found concealed about his person.⁴

It is naturally impossible to state that any such document ever existed, but it is likely that Warren had made promises. It would seem likely that at the very beginning of black Freemasonry, Grand Master Rowe of the Saint John Grand Lodge of Boston granted the black brothers a permission in the place of a charter. No one contests today that the African Lodge n° 459 obtained a proper charter from the Grand Lodge of England dated September 29, 1784. However, because Prince Hall and his friends did not receive this charter until 1787 (see chapter 2, “The Birth of Black Freemasonry”), because of travel mishaps, Prince Hall took the trouble to dissipate any misunderstanding on the matter by sending the following communiqué to the local press.

The Columbian Sentinel—May 2, 1787; “African Lodge,” Boston, May 2, 1787.

By Captain Scott, from London, came the charter, etc., which his Royal Highness, the Duke of Cumberland, and the Grand Lodge have been graciously pleased to grant the African lodge in Boston. As the brethren have a desire to acknowledge all favors shown them, they, in public manner, return particular thanks to a certain number of the fraternity, who offered the generous reward in this paper some time since, for the charter supposed to be lost; and to assure him, though they doubt of his friendship, that he has made them many good friends.

Prince Hall ⁵

In this way Prince Hall brought to a definitive close the debate on the charter’s existence. It can be guessed that tongues were wagging and that the Prince Hall Lodge was the butt of some Bostonians’ jokes, because the announced charter never arrived. It is likely that the brother mentioned in this communiqué had derisively offered a reward for the lost charter. This unrefined gesture on the part of a Mason would have given some publicity to the Prince Hall Lodge and earned it some sympathizers, as Prince Hall seems to be saying with tongue in cheek.

Whatever the case may be, no one could deny the existence of the charter dated 1784. Unfortunately for the Prince Hall Masons, and probably because of the same financial negligence that caused the first delay, the lodge vanished for good from the rolls of the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813.^*45 In 1784 some brothers with few scruples had neglected to deliver the money intended for the charter to the grand secretary of London. It would also seem that subsequently the Prince Hall Lodge was not consistent in paying its dues to the English lodge. According to author John M. Sherman, the lodge number was changed in 1792, and African Lodge n° 459 was given the number 370. This seems quite likely given the fact that a large number of English lodges vanished from the rolls of the Modern Grand Lodge for nonpayment of dues.^†46 6

So there is no need to see any ill intent directed at the African Lodge in particular: the English simply did not wish to keep any undesirable members, that is to say, those who were bad payers. The peremptory tone adopted by John M. Sherman in Ars Quatour Coronatorum in 1980 is therefore cause for some surprise.

In 1813 . . . the African Lodge was erased from the rolls of the Grand Lodge of England for failure, since 1797, to submit returns to the Grand Lodge and to make any payments to the charity fund. This “striking from the rolls” automatically made the Charter void since its Grand Lodge sponsorship had been withdrawn; the fact that the lodge had retained the certificate made no difference to its status. Therefore the certificate was nothing more than a historic document, having no force and the lodge, meeting without authority, had become clandestine.⁷

Sherman should have acknowledged that the Prince Hall Lodge was not the only one to be erased from the rolls at that time, thereby minimizing the significance of the British Masons’ decision. With this snap judgment he instead did a favor for the American grand lodges that had excluded blacks and continued to follow a racist policy toward them. Sherman adds that in 1824^*47 the African Lodge had formulated a new request for the renewal of its charter but that the United Grand Lodge of England denied it on the grounds that the lodge was asking for the authority to confer the 4th degree, that is to say, that of the Royal Arch, and that the English obedience did not practice this degree in its lodges.⁸

The white American grand lodges based their argument that the Prince Hall Lodge was irregular on the fact that it had been stricken off the rolls in 1813. They employed this argument for two centuries, probably because it seemed impossible to wear down. Examples abound. I will simply cite that of the New York Grand Lodge in 1898. William A. Sutherland, grand master of that lodge, was outraged at the intention of the Washington Grand Lodge to recognize black Freemasonry and ended his letter to his colleague, Washington grand master William H. Upton, with these words:

 

My dear brother,
There are some essentials in the making of a Mason. One of these is that he must be made in a duly constituted Lodge. Another of these is that Lodge must be furnished with the Great Light of Masonry, and still another is that it must be furnished with a proper charter.⁹

These remarks reveal that the New York grand master was deliberately ignoring the existence of the charter awarded to Prince Hall and his friends. Close to a century later a group of white Masons, the Masonic Research Associates, published a collection of violently racist statements that had been made against black Freemasonry and ended their pamphlet with an official condemnation of all Prince Hall members. The presentation brings to mind those well-known wanted posters that Western sheriffs posted against outlaws. This text does not open with the word wanted in capital letters, but it does start with this warning written in bold letters.

IMPORTANT FOR REGULAR MASONS (READ CAREFULLY).¹⁰

The authors believe that the charter held by the African Lodge is nothing more than “a worthless scrap of paper devoid of any Masonic authority, validity, force, or effect.”¹¹

The bad faith of white Masons was shattered even further, for, as observed by the committee of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, the charter sent to Prince Hall is undoubtedly the sole charter granted by the Grand Lodge of England to Masons meeting on American soil that has been preserved to this day.

That charter is in existence today in a safe deposit box in the City of Boston, Massachusetts, and has been inspected by members of your Committee. There is no question of its authenticity. Moreover, it is believed to be the only original charter issued from the Grand Lodge of England which is now in possession of any Lodge in the United States.¹²

This statement cannot be described as chauvinism as it was issued by a committee named by the white Massachusetts Grand Lodge.^*48 13 Loretta Williams confirmed this information in 1980 in her book Black Freemasonry and Middle-Class Realities.¹⁴ She specifies that the charter survived several mishaps—including a serious conflagration—thanks to the dedication of the African Lodge brothers. Here too history is erased for the benefit of several fine legends. Some claim that a brother heroically entered the building where the lodge customarily met to rescue the charter (kept in a metal tube) from the flames. Others maintain that it was hidden for four years in the trunk of a tree, an oak tree to be precise, to protect it from the evil designs of white brothers who wanted to steal it! Whatever the true circumstances may be, the fact remains that the charter was physically preserved, and no one can challenge its existence today.

The Principle of Territorial Exclusivity

With the independence of the country, commenced the independence of Masonic jurisdiction in the US.

MARTIN ROBISON DELANY,
THE ORIGINS AND OBJECTS OF ANCIENT FREEMASONRY
AND ITS INTRODUCTION INTO THE UNITED STATES
AND ITS LEGITIMACY AMONG COLORED MEN

Delany made the above declaration somewhat casually in 1853, as if the principle of exclusive territorial jurisdiction was self-evident. He did not take into account all its consequences for the black Masonic obediences. Yet he was right in presenting it as a typically American principle. This doctrine does not appear in such stark terms in the British texts, no doubt because the geopolitical context is different. Each American state was concerned with preserving its full Masonic autonomy. Consequently, only one grand lodge was proclaimed legal, which, in actual circumstances made the coexistence of a white grand lodge and a black grand lodge totally impossible. In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, the grand lodges seem to have adopted a more flexible policy. This is what prompted Harry Davis, a black Mason and lawyer, to say in 1946 that the British advocated the doctrine of “rivalry” and not territorial exclusivity, a statement that is probably more demagogic than scientific.¹⁵

History shows once again that texts are interpreted in accordance with immediate needs. Some American grand lodges flout these geographical restrictions today. Mackey, who could never be accused of Jesuitical tendencies, only mentions the quarrels with the Grand Orient of France under the heading of “exclusive territorial jurisdiction.”¹⁶ Mentioning the exclusion of the black Masons in the name of this principle would have only allowed the specter of the white grand lodges’ racism to rear its ugly head again.

The grand master of the white obedience in New York, William H. Upton, rightfully noted that the doctrine of territorial exclusivity did not exist in Prince Hall’s time, so it is dishonest to criticize the African Lodge, in the name of a principle that was still up in the air, for granting a warrant to the Pennsylvania Masons.

Inasmuch as it has been assumed and asserted that granting this “license” was an “invasion” of “the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania,” it may be well to note that—assuming that such a thing as exclusive territorial jurisdiction existed at that day, which I do not think any Masonic scholar will admit to have been the case—there were no Lodges or Grand Lodges in Pennsylvania at that time which the Grand Lodge of England—of which Prince Hall was for twenty years a member—admitted to be “regular” bodies.¹⁷

Let’s salute the perseverance of this white grand master who spent his life trying to rehabilitate black Freemasonry in the eyes of his compatriots. Upton clearly shows how specious the argument of territorial exclusivity is. Applying it a posteriori to the first black lodges amounts to writing a biased history, which has often been the case.

The viewpoint of a German Mason, Gottfried Joseph G. Findel, is not lacking in interest, be it only for the fact that he obtained the recognition of black Masons. In 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts named him past grand master of honor and delegate of all the Prince Hall Grand Lodges in Germany as thanks for working to achieve the recognition of the black American obediences. This is a unique example in Masonic history.¹⁸

Findel, to counter the negative report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodges written by the representative of the white New York Grand Lodge in Germany, Brother von Mensch, compared the theory of territorial exclusivity to the Monroe Doctrine. Just as this famous 1823 doctrine stated any European interference on American territory between the Arctic and Tierra del Fuego would be deemed inacceptable, the white grand lodges sought this pretext to preserve their monopoly over any competition from the black lodges. There is nothing Masonic about this attitude, says Findel.¹⁹

The Prince Hall Masons condemned the harmful effects of this doctrine on several occasions. In 1877 the Grand Lodge of Arkansas performed an extensive study of this matter. It listed in great detail all the Masonic incidents attributed to the said doctrine, not only among blacks but whites as well. For example, a white lodge of Nebraska was reprimanded by a white Indiana lodge for organizing the Masonic funeral of a member of the Indiana lodge who lived in Nebraska. The black Ohio Grand Lodge obtained the recognition of foreign obediences in France, Italy, Hungary, Germany, Peru, and the Dominican Republic but not that of the white Grand Lodge of Ohio.^*49 20 Not without humor, the author of the report wrote:

We have thus far given a brief sketch of the controversies relative to Jurisdiction, which agitated our Grand Bodies during the past year, and as the first result, are driven to wonder how Brothers Solomon, Hiram of Tyre, and Hiram Abiff managed to “rock along” so easily when they exercised concurrent jurisdiction over the temple. . . . It is an American doctrine, or rather a United States, white man’s doctrine, for the forty colored Grand Lodges of the United States repudiate it, and the Grand Bodies of other portions of North America know it not, excepting the Canadian Grand Lodge to a partial extent. . . . A nation may acquire jurisdiction by force; a Masonic organization only by concession.²¹

It was precisely during this era that the problem of the existence of a black federal grand lodge, the Compact Grand Lodge, or National Grand Lodge, arose.²² I have already mentioned the reservations about the lodge of many Masonic historians, such as Joseph Walkes. Even the Alaska Grand Lodge, which denied that there were any good grounds for the principle of territorial exclusivity, seemed in agreement with the convention of the Prince Hall Grand Lodges that met in Chicago on September 4, 1877, and voiced their desire that this national organization would put a halt to its activities.²³ Despite their repeated condemnations of the doctrine of territorial exclusivity, paradoxically, black Masons did not want to be caught red-handed. In other words, they sought an utterly convincing historical justification for the expansion of the first Prince Hall Lodges on American soil, but in 1877 they were sticklers on maintaining exemplary behavior. To show that they were attached to Masonic principles, even henceforth that of territorial exclusivity, they demanded the Compact Grand Lodge to cease its activities.

Subsequently, Prince Hall Masons repudiated “irregular” black Masons in the name of this same principle. With only a few lines between his statements, Williamson pulled off the trick of condemning the white doctrine of territorial exclusivity, then referred back to it to exclude the black Masons who were not members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. It seems that whatever weapon comes to hand is good: even the dullest blade.

What effect does the “Doctrine” have upon Prince Hall Masonry?

Absolutely none. The American Grand Lodges refuse to initiate men of color into their Lodges, consequently they have absolutely no control over men in our racial group as Masonic Material. . . .

Why does the Prince Hall Order adhere to that same “Doctrine” of exclusive territorial jurisdiction?

Because the records prove that the Prince Hall Fraternity is a direct descendant of a Grand Lodge of legitimate origin, while there are no records extant which prove any of the “unrecognized” bodies are such descendants.²⁴

Williamson then provides a list of “irregular” black Masons who have organized lodges outside the Prince Hall obedience.²⁵

This clearly reflects the consistent and highly ambiguous attitude of black Freemasons. They condemned the white grand lodges who opposed them with a certain number of principles in order to exclude them. They were fully aware that these principles were only pretexts. But in their turn they used the same procedure against the black Masons they considered undesirable in order to prove their own concern for legitimacy, at the risk of being extremely legalistic and intolerant themselves. One always needs to find someone weaker than oneself.

The principle of territorial exclusivity still fueled many polemics during the twentieth century, always in a fairly delusional way. While the British appear to be less imprisoned by this doctrine than their American brothers, they invoked it in fairly crude fashion in 1941 to turn down a gift of fifty dollars from the New York Prince Hall Grand Lodge for the London Hospital on the grounds that the United Grand Lodge of England had formal ties with the white grand lodge of this state only.²⁶

It was still in the name of this doctrine that the Rhode Island grand master refused to recognize the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of his state in 1992.²⁷ This grand lodge reconsidered this decision in 1998. During the 1990s the Congress of North American Grand Masters, which represented the white obediences, established the Commission on Information for Recognition. Although aware of the hindrance to the recognition of the black obediences formed by the doctrine of territorial exclusivity, this commission released the following statement.

There can be no question about Exclusive Jurisdiction. It is a basic principle that a Grand Lodge must be autonomous and have sole and undisputed authority over its constituent Lodges. This cannot be shared with any other Masonic council or power. But the question of exclusive territorial jurisdiction is not so clear-cut. In some European and Latin American countries, a geographical or politically self-contained unit may be served by two or more Grand Lodges. If these Grand Lodges and hence their constituent Lodges are working in amity, and both are worthy of recognition in all other respects, this joint occupation of a country, state, or political subdivision should not bar them from recognition.²⁸

The commission’s statement clearly shows that the doctrine of territorial exclusivity made it possible to exclude the black obediences, which, paradoxically, they themselves used in turn to expel “irregular” Masons. Masonic principles have given rise to the widest variety of interpretations. Some brothers have invoked an article from Anderson’s Constitutions, others the validity of a charter through the ages or the doctrine that Mackey made popular. All have sought bad pretexts to drive away black Freemasons without displaying their racist motives.