“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”

- Albert Einstein

 

READ A GOOD BOOK LATELY? My wife has a true passion for reading. I often find her curled up in a lounge chair wholly immersed in a popular or classic novel. When we first started dating, she once asked me, “Don’t you enjoy reading a good book?” She looked surprised when I told her, “No, I don’t enjoy reading at all.” She laughed and said that I must be joking as I could almost open a public library sub-station with my collection of books. She could not believe me when I told her that not once in my life have I ever read a book for the sake of enjoyment. I was telling her the absolute truth. There is no enjoyment in reading for me. I read to learn something. If I want to enjoy myself, I will listen to music or watch a movie. For most of my life I did not attempt to understand why this was the case, I simply accepted it as part of being me.

 

About 20 or so years ago, my doctor put me through a series of tests and gave me a perplexing diagnosis. He said that I had dyslexia. I had never heard of dyslexia and had no idea what to expect. The doctor told me that since I was an adult I would probably not even notice it, but that the knowledge of my dyslexia might help explain some of my growing up years. I really didn’t understand what that might mean, and since he did not elaborate, I filed the information away for possible later use. That “later use” came a little over 10 years ago when my, then, seven-year-old son was also identified as having dyslexia. I had noticed traits in him, as well as his manner of interacting with others and methods of problem solving, that were eerily familiar. I began a study of dyslexia. It was then that the good doctor’s words, and much of my painful childhood, started to become clear.

 

The only time during my school years that was not incredibly frustrating for me was kindergarten. I imagine that this was because pretty much all that was expected was to say “please” & “thank you,” not make noise in class or beat anyone up at recess. Trouble began when more was expected. The whole of my school experience can best be summed up as a battle of wits where my teachers seemed to want something from me, but I could never fully get hold of exactly what it was that they wanted. The vast majority of things that were quickly understood by the class were, for the most part, nearly impossible for me to master. In contrast, the very few times that material was presented that seemed to stump the class, I was able to understand nearly before the words came out of the teacher’s mouth. I could not understand why I seemed to be so very different … and being different had to be bad.

 

Ron Davis is the author of The Gift of Dyslexia. It is a book that has helped me greatly in understanding dyslexia and has also provided valuable help for my son. As a child, Mr. Davis (a dyslexic) was labeled “mentally retarded” and was functionally illiterate until the age of 38. It was then that he developed a system that enabled him to teach himself to read. He went back to school and ended up earning a degree in Engineering. He was hardly retarded. In 1982, Mr. Davis and Dr. Fatima Ali, Ph.D., opened the Reading Research Council Dyslexia Correction Center in California, achieving great success in helping dyslexics overcome their reading difficulties.

 

In addition to helping dyslexics properly deal with dyslexia, Mr. Davis’ work has contributed in helping the general population arrive at a better understanding of dyslexia. It has been the long-standing misunderstandings, misdiagnoses, mistreatments and preconceived opinions of dyslexics that have caused such hardships for those with dyslexia. Regardless of how it is perceived, being dyslexic does not have to be any more of a handicap or disability than is being left-handed – unless it is made so. Being left-handed is, in fact, only a difference, a different way of operating. When allowed to operate in their natural manner, left-handed students function like all other students – just using their left hands. The same is true of those with dyslexia. Dyslexia is a different way of mentally processing information. When a dyslexic child is unidentified, they can be labeled as slow, having learning/mental disabilities or just being lazy. The child will know that something is wrong, both in their performance and the evaluations of them. They will not, however, be able to identify the actual problem and the result will be great frustration and loss of self-esteem.

 

The most common form of dyslexia is visual dyslexia. The exact manifestations of dyslexia, however, can differ from dyslexic to dyslexic. It is rare that dyslexia will manifest itself exactly the same in two individuals. A general trait of the visual dyslexic is that the thought process will be in images. Visual dyslexics mentally manipulate images to create ideas, concepts and thoughts. The written language is comprised of letters formed into words, which are symbols of concepts or ideas. A writer communicates his thoughts on a subject by use of letters formed into words so that the reader will understand those thoughts. Since a dyslexic thinks in images, a symbol for an image (a word) must be translated into the image it represents before the dyslexic can possess the idea. When a dyslexic reads the word “ball,” they must mentally translate that symbol into an image of a ball before the symbol (word) can be understood. When dyslexia is undiagnosed, reading will be very difficult and most frustrating for a dyslexic child. Even so, most dyslexics will find methods or work-arounds to their reading difficulties by the time they are adults. No dyslexic will ever enjoy reading for the sake of reading, but most will find ways to function in this medium that seems so annoying to them.

Having a dyslexic child read out loud in class presents a classic opportunity for misevaluation. Let’s say that a dyslexic child is asked to read the sentence, “The ambulance has a loud siren.” The dyslexic student will likely stumble at the very beginning of the sentence. The assumption will likely be made that the word “ambulance” was a problem for the child. If the word “ambulance” is considered to be a word that should be in his or her vocabulary, then the child could be evaluated as having a limited vocabulary and/or having learning disabilities. Such an evaluation fails to take into account how dyslexics process information. Written words must be mentally translated into images for a dyslexic to process them. When no image can be created for a word, a mental “blank card” is replaced for the troublesome word. When reading out loud, a “blank card” will cause a stumble for a dyslexic reader.

 

Let’s look again at the sentence that the child was asked to read. “The ambulance has a loud siren.” The entire sentence creates an exciting image for most any child. Most children are thrilled at the sight of an emergency vehicle rushing down the road with lights flashing and sirens blasting. A dyslexic child should have no problem at all creating an image for an ambulance. But what image can you create for the word “the”? It was the very first word of the sentence that caused the stumble for the child, not the word “ambulance.” Articles and pronouns are some of the “land mine words” for dyslexics because there are no images that can be readily created for them. Because of the manner in which non-dyslexics process information, teachers untrained in dyslexia often completely ignore words like “the” or “that,” not even considering that they could be the problem. They will focus on the larger words which, based on their personal experience, are problematic for “slow” students. The teacher will make an incorrect assumption that will lead to an incorrect evaluation of the child. The child, having no idea as to how the teacher arrived at her conclusion, will realize that they have no problem with the words they are accused of not understanding, but will be unable to defend himself or explain the stumble. Frustration follows.

 

Undiagnosed dyslexic children, being clueless as to the nature of dyslexia or that they even have it, will not only have to figure out how to translate words, but they will have to deal with words that are untranslatable. They will also be required to solve all of these problems with no assistance whatsoever and while having to deal with the false labels of being “slow” or “lazy.” And this is only when we consider the reading challenges dyslexics face. Spelling, math and a host of other school subjects present equal problems for the dyslexic child. It is small wonder that most all dyslexics have extremely low self-esteem. The “battle wounds” and lifelong scars received when undiagnosed dyslexics begin down the path of learning by “standard methods” come normally at an age when a child’s self-esteem is developing. Dyslexics often feel that their problem is “their problem” and most have no idea that they are far from alone.

 

Dyslexia affects far more individuals, at varying levels, than many realize. Some of our most noted artists, scientists, businessmen and world leaders have had dyslexia. Most dyslexics who “rise to the top” in their field do so by unconventional methods stemming from their unconventional manner of learning – learning which often takes place in spite of, rather than because of formal education. A few famous dyslexics include: Pablo Picasso, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Tom Cruise, Danny Glover, John Lennon, Winston Churchill, Nelson Rockefeller & Walt Disney.

 

Ron Davis writes:

 

“Once as a guest on a television show, I was asked about the “positive” side of dyslexia. As part of my answer, I listed a dozen or so famous dyslexics. The hostess of the show then commented, ‘Isn’t it amazing that all those people could be geniuses in spite of having dyslexia.’

 

“She missed the point. Their genius didn’t occur in spite of their dyslexia, but because of it!

 

“Having dyslexia won’t make every dyslexic a genius, but it is good for the self-esteem of all dyslexics to know their minds work in exactly the same way as the minds of great geniuses. It is also important for them to know that having a problem with reading, writing, spelling, or math doesn’t mean they are dumb or stupid. The same mental function that produces a genius can also produce those problems.”

 

An interesting characteristic of dyslexia is that while many of the common school lessons presented to students will be extremely difficult for the dyslexic student to master, they will excel at many of the more abstract concepts or abilities that seem to be problematic for the non-dyslexic student. It is here that the gift of dyslexia manifests itself. Most dyslexics are very analytical, creative and capable of multi-dimensional thinking. If these gifts are not suppressed during the standard educational process, dyslexics can sometimes use the very process that gives such trouble in school to achieve what may seem to be surprising successes.

 

In my own case, one “surprising success” came as a result of Freemasonry. I joined right after my 21^st birthday, with the “school experience” fresh in my mind. My EA initiation was, without doubt, one of the most moving and profound experiences of my life. But after my initiation, I received news that made me wonder if my short Masonic career was over. I was told that I would be assigned an instructor who would teach me what was needed to pass an exam in open Lodge. I was told that this was necessary for me to advance to the next degree. This was about the last thing that I expected or wanted to hear. My entire school experience was a nightmare. I could not see myself passing any sort of exam. After many delays, I finally met with my instructor. I was incredibly surprised. Had my instructor handed me a printed version of all of the work and told me that it was necessary for me to read it and then memorize it, I would likely be an EA today. The manner of “mouth to ear” verbal instruction was, however, something that was not only was possible for me to do, but something at which I excelled. I flew through the work, asking and answering my own questions for my FC and MM exams. I became a certified Lodge Instructor shortly after my MM degree and, in just a few years later, a District Grand Lecturer. It was not hard work that resulted in these achievements; it was the gift of my dyslexia. I simply had a gift for the memorization of things verbally presented to me.

 

Dyslexia is not an illness in need of cure nor is it a handicap that will forever deny a dyslexic the chance of living a full and rewarding life. Great advances are being made in the understanding of dyslexia as well in providing the proper tools to educators so that dyslexic children will be able to fully realize and benefit from the educational process. In addition, a number of organizations, including the Scottish Rite, have taken on the research and proper education of dyslexia as one of their target projects.

 

For additional on-line information about dyslexia, please visit the below websites. You can also call The International Dyslexia Association at: 410-296-0232, the Davis Dyslexia Association International at: 1-888-999-3324 or your local Scottish Rite body.

 

http://www.dyslexia.com

http://www.interdys.org

http://scottishrite.org/about/philanthropy-scholarships/ritecare

 

***

 

James Foulhouze

A Biographical Study

 

Mr. Pike is altogether unknown to me, and I have never seen him, which is perhaps to be regretted, because in the event he spoke to me pursuant to the information which he has received from ill- disposed individuals, I suppose that he will be sorry for having allowed his pen to write what is neither correct nor rational.

- James Foulhouze, 1858.¹

 

JAMES FOULHOUZE was, unquestionably, the arch-nemesis of Albert Pike in Pike’s early days as Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, USA. Judge James Foulhouze, former Roman Catholic priest, Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the Grand Orient of France and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Louisiana in the pre-Concordat of 1855 period along with some of the leading New Orleans Masons, including the very respected Judge T. Wharton Collens and the powerful United States Senator Pierre Soulé, may have nearly destroyed the concordat between the New Orleans and Charleston Supreme Councils - a concordat which was the breath of life to the newly reorganized Charleston Supreme Council. Who was this man who could have caused such a disturbance ? Did he cause the disturbance or was he, himself, swept along in a tidal wave of events?

 

The following is a glimpse into the life and tumultuous Masonic times of a most significant, but highly controversial, figure in the history of the US Scottish Rite. It is to be regretted that no photograph or likeness of Foulhouze is known to exist. It is, also, unfortunate that some areas of his life are simply lost in the mists of time.

 

On 1 October 1800,² Jacques Foulhouze was born to Michel and Jeanne Cronier Foulhouze in Riom, France. The young Foulhouze received a Catholic education at the Seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris culminating in his ordination as a Roman Catholic priest. The Reverend James Foulhouze traveled to the United States and labored in the Diocese of Philadelphia in 1834 and 35.³ The next found record concerning Foulhouze in the US comes in 1835 when his name appears in a Philadelphia court records book of aliens declaring their intention to take the oath of allegiance to the United States.⁴ Foulhouze would not long remain a priest nor keep his domicile in Philadelphia. An 1858 New Orleans publication contains interesting comments about Foulhouze and his possible reasons for leaving the priesthood. The comments were written by Charles Laffon de Ladébat, a leading figure in mid 19th century New Orleans Scottish Rite Masonry, who will be discussed further later in this paper. Ladébat says that Foulhouze might have remained a priest had not, “Mr. (now bishop) Hughes been appointed, in his stead, to the important rector ship of a northern parish, to which Mr. Foulhouze was, for his long service, justly entitled.”⁵

John Hughes (1797-1864) was the fourth bishop and first Archbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of New York. Hughes served with Foulhouze in the Diocese of Philadelphia and founded there the Catholic Herald newspaper. Hughes was consecrated coadjutor to Bishop John Dubois of New York in 1838. He succeeded Dubois in 1842 and became archbishop of New York in 1850.⁶ Foulhouze, regardless of Ladébat’s comments, could not have been affected by the 1838 Hughes appointment as the Journal Notes of Philadelphia Bishop Francis Kenrick record Foulhouze’s faculties being suspended on 5 February 1836.⁷ As with many areas of Foulhouze’s life, it is unclear what could have taken place causing his separation from the priesthood. Foulhouze was a graduate of the highly respected Seminary of St. Sulpice. Many Catholic dioceses consider such graduates to be a highly desirable prize. The accounts of Foulhouze for that time, however, tell a different story. The records of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia,⁸ while confirming that Foulhouze was, indeed, a priest assigned to them, show had he had “no specific assignment.”⁹ This is an interesting situation. Why would the Diocese of Philadelphia not take advantage of the quality education that Foulhouze received by putting his abilities and education to use? Foulhouze, himself, may provide the answer. In 1843 Foulhouze was asked if he had taken the vows of the priesthood, he replied: “No, but it is true that they were given to me, against my will.”¹⁰ Regardless of the philosophical point Foulhouze was trying to make, his statement reflects that he may not have ever wholly embraced the priesthood. If Foulhouze’s work reflected the same lack of interest, then it is very likely that regardless of what seminary he attended, he would not have been given assignments nor appointments to higher positions. All conjecture aside, Foulhouze did leave the priesthood, pursue a career in law and move to New Orleans.

 

Foulhouze began his law career in Philadelphia after leaving the priesthood. In 1842, he published a book in Philadelphia that reflected the same interest in philosophy that was maintained throughout his life. The 200 page work was titled, A Philosophical Inquiry Respecting the Abolition of Capital Punishment.¹¹ It is possible that Foulhouze was in New Orleans when this book was released, but it is clear that he was in New Orleans the following year. Philadelphia Bishop Francis Kenrick (Foulhouze’s former superior) writes in a 1843 letter:

 

Here affairs go on smoothly but at New Orleans an infidel faction are struggling to destroy or subjugate the Episcopal authority. A fallen French priest, Foulhouze, is the editor of an impious paper,¹² the organ of the Marguillers. [...] The leaders in disorder are Freemasons, and they contrived to set apart a lot in the Cemetery for their Masonic brethren, and had it dedicated by a speech from their Grand Master who is a Marguiller.¹³

 

The Marguillers were the wardens of the St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans. The Grand Master that Kenrick spoke of was E. A. Canon, who was not only a Marguiller, but the President of the Marguillers. The Marguillers (many of whom were Freemasons) controlled the appointments of the priests for the St. Louis Cathedral during the early to mid 1800’s. There was, of course, a great division within the congregation over Freemasons having a say in the appointment of their parish priests (regardless of the fact that these Freemasons were, themselves, Roman Catholic and members of the parish). In New Orleans, Masonry and the Roman Catholic faith were tightly intertwined for a number of years in a love/hate relationship. It was a situation not without some hostile conflicts. An event that took place in 1842 is worth mentioning:

On the feast of All Saints, an incident took place in the Cathedral which was in itself trivial, but which shows to what lengths the two factions¹⁴ would go. While Father Jamey was preaching, E. A. Canon, the president of the Marguillers, entered the sanctuary by way of the choir entrance, and made a tour of the altar towards that place assigned to the president of the wardens (side opposite the door of the sacristy by which he entered). He remained there for a few minutes, but not being able to hear very well, he advanced to the balustrade of a neighboring chapel, in order to hear better. He had only heard a few words, and then decided to retire by the way he had come in, that is, behind the altar. As he was going out he was greeted by Octave de Armas, a parishioner loyal to [Bishop] Blanc, (who was also seated in the sanctuary) with the words, “Get out; you are not in your place...” Canon answered this with apparent sharp disdain and was preparing to leave when he was pushed. He was near the door of the sacristy and fell on the steps. On getting up he heard Armas distinctly cry, “I, I alone will get rid of the wardens.” The services were interrupted for about five minutes, but the Mass was soon continued and all ended calmly.¹⁵

 

The event may have ended “calmly” at that time, but the incident was far from over. As a result of his being pushed in the St. Louis Cathedral, Canon, following typical Creole custom, sought satisfaction from Armas by means of challenging him to a duel. Armas, however, refused the challenge on the grounds that he was a Roman Catholic.¹⁶ Friends of Canon would not let the matter drop and charges were filed against Armas with the City Recorder. Armas was found guilty of assault. The incident is reflective of the growing tensions between the factions within the New Orleans Catholic community. It was in this atmosphere and, likely, through the contacts with the Marguillers that Foulhouze was introduced to Louisiana Masonry. It obviously attracted him and he sought to be a member.

 

From Priest to Freemason

 

The Marguillers might have introduced James Foulhouze to Louisiana Masonry, but it was not his first exposure to Freemasonry itself. Foulhouze stated in 1857:

 

“Being a Grandson of Free-masons, I, in my early years, conceived and entertained a desire to enter the fraternity ...” ¹⁷

 

Foulhouze fulfilled that early desire by becoming a member of Los Amigos del Orden, a Spanish speaking, New Orleans Scottish Rite Lodge.¹⁸ Foulhouze also stated:

 

“Within a year from my initiation I was made a Master Mason in the same Lodge.”¹⁹

 

There are, unfortunately, no known records of the initiation of Foulhouze nor can an exact date be placed on his initiating, passing or raising. Foulhouze did state in his Historical Inquiry that he was initiated by Antonio Costa. ²⁰ Costa was Worshipful Master of Los Amigos del Orden in 1843. An 1843 initiation followed by an 1844 raising meant rapid advancement for Foulhouze. Foulhouze was, apparently, viewed as a Mason of promise. On 14 February 1845 he was appointed Grand Translator by the Grand Lodge. The office of Grand Translator did not exist prior to Foulhouze receiving the appointment. The office was created due to the growing need for French to English and English to French translations in Grand Lodge records and documents.

 

In the summer of 1845 (about a year after Foulhouze became a Master Mason) Foulhouze traveled to France carrying a letter of introduction from Robert Preaux, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and Active Member of the Supreme Council of Louisiana. During his stay in Paris, Foulhouze received all of the degrees of the A.A.S.R. culminating in the 33rd degree on 27 September from the Grand College of Rites of the Grand Orient of France. The speed in which Foulhouze received the degrees is extraordinary and certainly was not normal procedure for the Grand Orient. There is no explanation to be found as to why this very rare honor was given to such a young Master Mason nor has the contents of the letter from Preaux ever been revealed. Regardless of what activities Foulhouze later engaged in, he was, in the eyes of the U.S. Masonic community, a legitimate Sovereign Grand Inspector General. Of this event, Foulhouze comments:

 

The Scotch Rite [...] pleased me on account of its truly philosophical principles, and the more I studied it, the more I felt anxious to take its superior degrees, when a fair opportunity so to do offered itself to me in 1845.

I was in France, and on the recommendations and letters of my Scotch brothers here, the worshipful Lodge “Clémente Amitié” opened its door to me, and after a short stay among them I was made a Knight R:. + and a Knight Kadosh, which I am bound to say, rendered still clearer to my eyes and intellect the views which I had long entertained on the merits of the Scotch Rite, and for ever attached me to its admirable and useful tenets.

The favors thus bestowed on me, were unexpected, and I certainly desired no others, when on a special and unasked resolution of the Supreme Council in the Grand Orient, I was called and raised in that body to the thirty third degree.²¹

 

Following the death of Sovereign Grand Commander Jean-Jacques Conte, New Orleans Judge Jean-François Canonge, an influential Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, became the Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Louisiana on 20 September 1845. ²² Foulhouze said of Canonge:

 

As long as he lived, I had but little to do, and contented myself with studying the rite ... ²³

 

Foulhouze, who had affiliated with the Supreme Council of Louisiana in 1846, was, regardless of his comments, not idle during this period. Foulhouze was appointed Grand Secretary of the Supreme Council of Louisiana in 1847.²⁴ He, also, advanced through the chairs of Los Amigos del Orden serving as its Worshipful Master in 1847. Once serving his term as Worshipful Master, he was elected a life member of the Grand Lodge. It must also be pointed out that the invasion of the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana by the Grand Lodge of Mississippi and the creation of the Louisiana Grand Lodge in 1848 would, surely, have occupied a considerable amount of time with all the Worshipful Masters of New Orleans Lodges.

 

The Grand Lodge of Mississippi and the Union of 1850

 

A faction within the New Orleans English-speaking York Rite Masons felt that the 1844 Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana sanctioning the cumulation of the three rites worked by lodges in Louisiana (French, Scottish & York) altered the Grand Lodge into a body that was no longer a true York Rite Grand Lodge.²⁵ The decision was made by these Masons to sever their association with the Grand Lodge and organize themselves into what they felt was proper York Rite Masonry. A committee was formed and a letter of grievance was brought before the Grand Lodge of Mississippi on 23 January 1845.²⁶ The Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi was Mexican War hero and former governor of Mississippi, John Anthony Quitman. The Grand Lodge of Mississippi appointed a committee to go to New Orleans in order to examine the situation. On 21 January 1846, the committee from the Grand Lodge of Mississippi appointed to examine the charges presented by the York Masons from New Orleans presented three reports concerning the events. The first report was presented on behalf of the majority of the committee and concluded that there was “no Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons within the limits of the State of Louisiana” and that the Grand Lodge of Mississippi had “the power, and it is its duty on proper application, to issue Dispensations and Charters to bodies of Ancient York Masons within the limits of the State of Louisiana, until the constitution of a Grand Lodge within that State.”²⁷ Two “counter” reports were then presented which advised against the Grand Lodge of Mississippi issuing charters within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. The outcome of the events of 21 January (despite the efforts of the two “counter” reports) was the chartering of George Washington Lodge in New Orleans and Lafayette Lodge in Lafayette²⁸ by the Grand Lodge of Mississippi on 22 February. Relations were severed between the Grand Lodges of Louisiana and Mississippi. The Louisiana Lodges chartered by the Grand Lodge of Mississippi were declared irregular by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. In total, the Grand Lodge of Mississippi chartered seven Lodges in the New Orleans area by 1848.²⁹ These seven Lodges united to form the “Louisiana Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons” on 8 March 1848. The Grand Lodge of Mississippi received admonishment from most U.S. Grand Lodges and the majority openly condemned its action.³⁰ While the future for this splinter group of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana may have looked bleak, several events took place to not only strengthen the position of the English-speaking New Orleans Masons, but to assure them of total victory by the loss of French control over most all forms of Louisiana Masonry.

 

One of the last official acts of Grand Commander Jean-François Canonge was a speech made on 3 November 1847 in Baton Rouge in which he is reported as stating that a circular issued by the Mississippi lodges in New Orleans was “unworthy of notice.”³¹ Canonge died on 19 January 1848. On 31 January 1848 James Foulhouze was elected Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Louisiana. The Foulhouze election bypassed a number of senior members of the Council and, clearly, established the popularity of Foulhouze with the Council. Foulhouze had brought with him various rituals from France³² which he edited for the New Orleans Council.³³ During the same month as the death of Canonge and the election of Foulhouze, the Charleston Council was talking an action that greatly strengthened its own position and further weakened the hold of the French-speaking New Orleans Masons. Albert Mackey (the Grand Secretary of the Charleston Council) sent a notice to the Freemason’s Monthly Magazine ³⁴ (Boston) which read:

 

“At a special session of the Supreme Council ... for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America, our Illustrious Brother, John A. Quitman ... Major General in the Army of the United States, was elected to fill a vacancy in this Supreme Council, and was duly and formally inaugurated a Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the 33d. All Consistories, Councils, Chapters and Lodges under this jurisdiction are hereby ordered to obey and respect him accordingly.”³⁵

 

On 29 January 1849 the Grand Lodge of Louisiana published a report that Foulhouze wrote for them concerning the cumulation of the rites practiced by the Grand Lodge and on 26 February the Grand Lodge published Foulhouze’s report on the 1833 Concordat. Both reports upheld the positions of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and encouraged the continued practice of the cumulation of the rites in Louisiana.

 

On 14 September 1849 Foulhouze, along with a several other New Orleans Masons, were honored by Friends of Harmony Lodge (whose Worshipful Master was elder Past Grand Master and New Orleans Supreme Council Member John Henry Holland) by being made honorary members of the lodge. An excerpt from the Minutes of the Lodge reads:

 

“Whereas by their great ability and impartiality our well beloved Brethren Joseph Walker, Jas. Foulhouze, P. Willman, John D. Kemper & R. Preaux have earned the destination of Honorary Membership, their services in the Masonic vineyard entitling them to some suitable token or tribute of appreciation of their worth, and of the high respect entertained for their estimable personal and Masonic character - they being Brethren to whom a burdened may pour out his sorrows, to whom distress may prefer its suit; Brethren whose hands are guided by justice and whose hearts are expanded by benevolence.

Therefore be it now decreed, that the aforesaid distinguished Brethren be and they are hereby created Honorary Members of the Friends of Harmony Lodge of F & A Masons, this as a testimony of regard for the inestimable services as Masons, and their courtesy, affability and kindness as men - well worthy of initiation and the foregoing preamble and resolution being seconded and put is carried unanimously. ³⁶

 

The Union of 1850

The 1848 Louisiana Grand Lodge obtained recognition from only one other Grand Lodge — the Grand Lodge of Mississippi. In 1849 John Gedge, a New Orleans attorney, was elected Grand Master of the Louisiana Grand Lodge. Despite what would seem to be the irregularity of the Louisiana Grand Lodge and the lack of support for this new Grand Lodge within the Masonic community, the Grand Lodge of Louisiana entered into negotiations and finally merged with this body in 1850. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana was left with little choice in this matter. The fact that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana was overwhelmingly considered the “regular” Grand Lodge was not sufficient to overcome the internal problems stemming from the cultural divisions in New Orleans. By mid 1849, it was likely realized that the English-speaking lodges which had remained loyal to the Grand Lodge were showing signs that continued loyalty would, most likely, not happen. Obviously realizing that the total collapse of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana was a very real possibility, the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the Louisiana Grand Lodge entered into talks designed to merge the two bodies.³⁷ That merger took place in June of 1850 with the approval of a new Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana of Free and Accepted Masons. Under the terms of the agreement of the merger, the Louisiana Grand Lodge members became recognized as “regular” by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. All Lodges chartered by the Louisiana Grand Lodge (or by the Grand Lodge of Mississippi in Louisiana) passed under the jurisdiction of the new Grand Lodge of Louisiana. While the new constitution appeared to merge the two Grand Lodges, the Grand Lodge of Louisiana was, in effect, taken over by the Louisiana Grand Lodge. All non-York Rite Lodges were instructed to turn in their charters to receive new York Rite charters from the new Grand Lodge. Three Scottish Rite Lodges, Etoile Polaire, Los Amigos del Orden, and Disciples of the Masonic Senate, sought relief from the New Orleans Supreme Council. Of these events Foulhouze wrote:

 

“It was agreed that the Grand Lodge should no more cumulate the rites, that it would have and keep its own forms, but that each Lodge in the East might freely work according to its particular and more favorite rite and tenets.

Had that agreement been faithfully observed, another series of quiet days might have ensued in Louisiana: but the newcomers in the Grand Lodge soon showed that far from being sincere, they had crept into our bosom with the only view to tear it to pieces and to build their powers on the ruins of ours. [...] They made as I had foreseen and foretold, a Constitution by which the Scotch lodges of the East were reduced to nought and the life members of the Grand Lodge expelled from it³⁸ the better to secure the triumph and power of those invaders.

 

But from the moment that the constitution began to work, the Scotch lodges understood their mistake; and not withstanding the blame thrown upon them by the new Grand Lodge which was as it was expected, did not fail to say that they were bound by the vote of the majority at Baton Rouge, they all parted from it, averting and showing that they had been deceived, and could not thus be fetted and annihilated by a paltry trick.

 

That event occasioned a good deal of rumor. The Mississippians who had snatched the power began promulgating their bulls of excom-munication. John Gedge, like his imitators of this present Consistory, wrote his reports, made his speeches, sent his circulars, but it was to no purpose.

 

The Supreme Council of Louisiana resumed its authority on the blue lodges of the Scotch rite, and the separation was con-summated.³⁹

 

If the goal of the new 1850 Grand Lodge Constitution and the merger with the Louisiana Grand Lodge was to bring peace to all the Louisiana Masons, it was a total failure. If the goal was to remove the power base in the Grand Lodge from the French-speaking New Orleans Masons, it was, indeed, a success. The French-speaking New Orleans Masons became split after 1850. One faction, outraged at the turn of events, wished nothing more to do with the Grand Lodge and saw the Supreme Council as the only hope of maintaining the French interests. The other French faction, most likely very tired of the squabbles, remained with the Grand Lodge in the hopes of possibly still bringing unity to the troubled Grand Lodge.

 

The 1850 Union of the Grand Lodge resulted in a perceived need for action in the New Orleans Council. Foulhouze believed that he could strengthen the New Orleans Scottish Rite by expanding the number of 33rds in the Council.

 

Foulhouze says of this:

 

“Brother Canonge died and I was elected commander in his place. My first move was to promote to the 33d degree one or two members of each of the lodges then established and of some importance in the city of New Orleans, hoping that their initiation would be the best means to secure the masonic peace in our East, as it would contribute to carry light where it was most needed.” ⁴⁰

During Foulhouze’s administration of the Supreme Council of Louisiana prior to the Concordat, he elevated approximately 30 Masons to the 33rd degree in the New Orleans Council.⁴¹ Those elevated to the 33rd degree by Foulhouze included Charles Claiborne, Thomas Wharton Collens (22 June 1849), Claude Pierre Samory and Charles Laffon de Ladébat (11 February 1852). The wisdom of expanding the membership of the Supreme Council was apparently recognized by Albert Pike on 25 March 1859 (Pike’s first SC Session as Grand Commander) when he expanded the Membership in the Charleston Council from 9 Members to 33 Members.

 

Charles Claiborne assumed the post of Secretary General for the New Orleans Council and T. Wharton Collens, that of Lt. Grand Commander. The Foulhouze/Collens relationship was a very close one which continued until Foulhouze’s death in 1875 - years after both had resigned from Masonry. Foulhouze and Collens would, in the early 1850’s, even share a law office.

The Lopez Expedition and James Foulhouze

 

If the Union of 1850 between the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the Louisiana Grand Lodge, along with the many bomb shells from that event, were not enough to occupy the minds of the Louisiana Masons, an event took place simultaneously that over-shadowed the Masonic events in Louisiana and be thrust into the forefront of the minds and thoughts of all Americans. This international event directly played a part in future New Orleans Masonic “battles.”

 

In 1849 Narciso Lopez, a Venezuelan and former colonel in the Spanish Army, began a campaign to take control of Cuba and replace the Spanish government on the island with his own government. Lopez received limited support from various U.S. politicians, but was unable to raise a suitable sized army for his mission. Lopez found better luck in New Orleans where he was able to raise an army of approximately 750 men, mainly veterans of the Mexican War, and sail out of New Orleans in April of 1850 with the goal of capturing the island. The mission was a complete failure. The U.S. troops were slaughtered and Lopez was eventually captured and executed. Reports quickly came to the U.S. and the newspapers of the day reported the “murder” of the U.S. troops along with the capture and execution of not only troops, but vacationing U.S. tourists who happened to be on the island. New Orleans was an obvious “hot spot” for the Lopez Expedition as, not only did the expedition leave from New Orleans, but the city contained many Spanish speaking citizens from Cuba. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana had also chartered two Lodges in Cuba during the early years of the Grand Lodge.⁴² The tie between New Orleans and Cuba was close for both the general and Masonic population.

 

James Foulhouze became entwined in the Lopez Expedition when he traveled to Cuba at the height of the crisis. A New Orleans newspaper, the Daily Delta, ran a story on Foulhouze vehemently criticizing his trip, and suggesting that he was, possibly, a spy for the Spanish government.⁴³ The very evening following the publication of the article concerning Foulhouze, T. Wharton Collens and Robert Preaux published an article in the Daily Picayune explaining that Foulhouze’s trip to Cuba was with the goal of, hopefully, securing the release of vacationing U.S. citizens who were caught in the conflict.⁴⁴ Foulhouze, being made a Mason in a Spanish speaking Lodge, had numerous interactions with New Orleans Masons from Cuba. In addition, Foulhouze had gained the confidence of various Spanish officials on the island of Cuba through acting as legal council for them several years earlier. Along with the article published by Collens and Preaux, the Delta article on Foulhouze received censure by a number of competing New Orleans newspapers. The Delta article was exposed to be a newspaper “thriller” story with little basis in fact. One newspaper entitling an article critical of the Delta’s lack of support for its charges “Newspaper Intolerance”⁴⁵ and another paper calling a report on Foulhouze’s trip “A Mission of Humanity.” ⁴⁶ The Delta ran one more article in defense of its position claiming that the matter would be settled when Foulhouze returned to New Orleans and the entire event would be brought to the attention of the public.⁴⁷ Nothing more, however, was published on the matter by the Delta. The event passed from the public’s attention and was attributed to one newspaper’s attempt to sensationalize anything concerning a recent event with the possible goal of increasing its sale of newspapers.

 

Enter the Charleston Supreme Council

John Gedge, who in 1849 was the Grand Master of the irregular Louisiana Grand Lodge, was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana for the year 1851. On 27 March 1851 the New Orleans Council issued a manifesto in its own defense. This manifesto examined the New Orleans situation and was an appeal for the establishment of fraternal relations between the New Orleans Council and other Masonic Bodies world-wide. With Louisiana Masonry in a state of turmoil and the once powerful Supreme Council of Louisiana fighting for order and stability, the time for the Charleston Council to act was at hand.

 

At the invitation of John Gedge, Albert Mackey came to New Orleans in February of 1852 and established, for the Charleston Council, a Consistory of the 32º. Gedge served as Commander in Chief. The establishment of this Charleston Consistory in New Orleans resulted in a new wave of turmoil and paved the way for the Concordat of 1855 merging the Charleston and New Orleans Councils.

 

The Supreme Council of Louisiana responded to the Charleston Consistory in New Orleans by taking several measures. A notice critical of the new consistory was place in the New Orleans Bee by the Supreme Council of Louisiana on 27 February 1852.⁴⁸ The notice carried the names of the then 29 Active Members⁴⁹ of the New Orleans Council. The New Orleans Council, also, incorporated itself under the official name of “Supreme Council of the Thirty-three [sic] and last degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite for the United States of America, sitting at New Orleans, State of Louisiana.” The act of incorporation was signed on 7 June 1852 and approved by the Secretary of State, the noted Charles Gayarre, on 13 January 1853.⁵⁰

 

In July of 1852 Foulhouze traveled to New York to install Henry C. Atwood as Grand Commander of the “Sup-reme Council of the Thirty-third Degree of and for the Free, Sovereign and Inde-pendent State of New York” and then journeyed on to France in an attempt to enlist French support for his cause. It is noteworthy that Foulhouze embraced the concept that Supreme Councils should be limited to state jurisdictions just as Grand Lodges.⁵¹

 

The Concordat of 1855

 

The speed in which the total loss of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana by the French-speaking Masons occurred caused obvious confusion and uncertainty as to the future. James Foulhouze, as Grand Commander of the New Orleans Supreme Council, sought to unite all of the French-speaking Masons under his banner. Whether it was because of the rapid advancement of Foulhouze (resulting in uncertainty in his ability) or simply personality conflicts, Foulhouze was unable to unite all of the French Masons. The conflict of opinions within the New Orleans Supreme Council as to the direction in which to proceed can reasonably be seen as a contributing factor to the resignation of Foulhouze on 30 July 1853 and nearly all of the officers of the New Orleans Council by December of 1853. The final break for Foulhouze appears to have occurred at the 22 June meeting of the New Orleans Council. At that meeting, T. Wharton Collens, the Lt. Grand Commander, had prepared a series of resolutions to present to the Council. After a reading of the resolutions, the floor was opened for comment, but instead of addressing the points of the various resolutions, Charles Claiborne apparently began a series of attacks on Foulhouze’s clothing. The meeting fell into shouting matches and the deep rooted feelings of frustration from the events of the past years seemingly boiled up. Foulhouze, realizing that control of the meeting was lost, closed the Council and departed.⁵²

In the absence of the Minutes of the New Orleans Council during the Foulhouze years⁵³ it can only be presumed that T. Wharton Collens assumed the post of acting Grand Commander for the remainder of 1853 until his own resignation on 19 December of that year. The day following the resignation of Collens, the Grand Treasurer, Jean Baptiste Faget, turned in his letter of resignation and an undated letter of resignation from the Grand Secretary, J.J.E. Massicott, was also accepted by the Council.

On 7 January 1854, Charles Claiborne was elected Grand Commander of the New Orleans Council. Claude Pierre Samory was elected Lt. Grand Commander and Charles Laffon de Ladébat was appointed Grand Secretary. Samory and Ladébat were part of the French-speaking faction that split from Foulhouze during the 1850-53 turmoil. 1854 was devoted to negotiations with the Charleston Supreme Council. 6 & 17 February 1855 the concordat merging the New Orleans and Charleston Supreme Councils was signed. Present in New Orleans for the signing of the Concordat, and representing the Charleston Council, were Albert Mackey and John Quitman. John Gedge, who had spearheaded the movement of the Louisiana Grand Lodge and the 1852 Consistory, did not live to see the concordat between the New Orleans and Charleston Councils - he died on 13 April 1854 during a yellow fever epidemic in New Orleans.

 

The death of Gedge must have created some concern for the future of the newly reorganized Scottish Rite Masonry in New Orleans. Gedge had led a complete and total coup of the Grand Lodge, dramatically altering its nature. It was, also, Gedge who had written to Mackey to bring a Charleston consistory to New Orleans and took control of this consistory as he did the Grand Lodge. The introduction of the Charleston consistory paved the way for the Concordat of 1855. His influence on the events of the times is unquestionable. It is reasonable to assume that Gedge might have taken some position of leadership in the post concordat days - had he lived. It is logical that Gedge would have become an Active Member of the Charleston Supreme Council and led the reorganized Grand Consistory of Louisiana. The death of Gedge made this impossible, yet the basic problem remained. A powerful figure was needed to lead and unite the very fragmented New Orleans Scottish Rite. Regardless of the fact that the concordat had taken place, there were still quite a number of former New Orleans Council 33rds unaffiliated with the Charleston Council - or any Council. The potential for uprising was undeniable. In a letter to Claude Samory, Albert Mackey suggested that the man to lead and unite the New Orleans Scottish Rite Masons had been found and it was believed that only the formalities remained. Mackey wrote:

 

I hope to be present at the installation of that Bro:. as S:.G:.I:.G:. whose adhesion to us will heal all difficulties [...] The moment we receive your nomination, the nominated Bro:. will be elected.⁵⁴

 

The man Mackey wrote of was James Foulhouze. The choosing of Foulhouze to join the Charleston Council and lead the New Orleans Scottish Rite for the Charleston Council is very reasonable and, given the situation, the only logical choice that could be made. Foulhouze was viewed as a regular 33rd from the Grand Orient of France. As Foulhouze was also a former Grand Commander of the New Orleans Supreme Council who had resigned prior to the concordat, he might have been viewed as something of a prominent “free agent.” The fact that Foulhouze was a member (and even Grand Commander) of the New Orleans Council was irrelevant from a regularity stand point. If he agreed to join with the Charleston Council then this matter could be easily settled. Samory and Ladébat were also members of the New Orleans Council (and both given the 33rd degree by Foulhouze) yet both became Active Members and officers of the Charleston Council. If James Foulhouze agreed to lead the New Orleans Scottish Rite, under the Charleston Council banner, the Charleston Council would have a much easier road to travel in bringing the remainder of the New Orleans Scottish Rite Masons under their control. Foulhouze was approached by Albert Mackey and Claude Samory in the summer of 1856 and offered the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Consistory and Active Membership in the Southern Jurisdiction providing that he joined the Charleston camp.⁵⁵ Of this event Foulhouze wrote:

 

About a year or fifteen months ago, M. Antonio Costa asked me whether I had any objection to converse with M. Claude Samory about the then state of affairs with regard to the Scottish Rite in Louisiana. I answered that I had none. On the following day M. Samory together with M. Costa called on me, and in his presence, told me that he had long been anxious to see me, that he was always my friend, that the course which he and other members of the Supreme Council of Louisiana had followed since I left it was with the only view of putting an end to any further contest and quarrel both with the Grand Lodge of our state and the Supreme Council of Charleston, that many a York mason of this east was now initiated to the high degrees of the Scottish Rite, that they all had heard of me as being well versed in its tenets and ceremonies, and were anxious to see me join the Consistory thereto assume the command of the Rite in Louisiana, that indeed I had just cause to complain of the conduct of some BB:. towards me both in the Supreme Council and in the Polar Star Lodge, but that they all acknowledged it, and were ready on my joining the Grand Consistory, to offer me any apology I might wish, that there was a vacancy in the Supreme Council of Charleston which he had been offered to fill, and which he was ready to give up in my behalf if I would unite with them, that my presence in that Council would do immense good both here and at Charleston, and that the best I could do was to accept, if I desired to carry out my opinion and views with regard to the right which Louisiana has to its Supreme Council.

 

My answer to M. Samory was as follows:

 

I need no apology, for any thing which may have been done or said in any masonic body to hurt my feelings. Masonry, thank God, has taught me better desires, and it is enough for me to hear from you that all those who may have had an intention to offend me, do now regret it. As to your proposal, I can in no way or manner accept it. My position is clear and well defined. The Supreme Council of Louisiana was not founded by me. It existed before I was a mason. In 1845 I received, not in the Supreme Council of France founded by M. Grasse de Tilly, but in the Supreme Council of the Grand Orient, the 33d degree. That most Illustrious body treated me as a future member of the Supreme Council of Louisiana with which it corresponded, and I was commissioned by its Grand Commander and other members to be the interpreter of their good feelings near our Supreme Council. A short time after my return here, our Grand Commander Jean François Canonge died, and I was elected to replace him. On doing so, I bound myself to obey it and protect its rights: and I must say that after a most serious inquiry into its origin and the sources from which it emanates, I am more than ever convinced that my opinion with regard to the fundamental authority of the Scottish Rite is correct, and that the views of Charleston thereon are altogether erroneous. From the moment you and other 33rds of this East judged fit to recognize the Council of Charleston as your superior, I and two other members of our Supreme Council, did immediately exercise what, in such case we considered to be our right, and continued the work of our Supreme Council. It is true that on account of the momentary excitement which has prevailed, we have chosen to be silent, but we exist nevertheless and have resolved to safeguard our power and authority for any case of emergency. I certainly feel much honored with the proposition which you make me to accept an appointment as an active member of the Supreme Council of Charleston and as such to preside your Consistory here, but neither such a flattering offer, nor any other consideration can make me deviate from what I consider to be my duty towards a body which I have sworn to protect. I have personally no pretension whatsoever to power. I know that I am good only to make an initiation, and I acknowledge that the privilege of commanding should be better placed in other hands than mine. Many a person, no doubt, will attribute my determination to a spirit of opposition, but as I feel good will towards all and even those who condemn me both in York and Scotish [sic] ranks of Masonry, I will, happen what it may, persevere following the line which I believe to be the only correct one.

 

Thereupon, M. Samory expressed his hope that I would change my mind, and asked me whether I would like to converse with M. Albert G. Mackey on that subject. I answered affirmatively and two or three days afterward, he called at my house with that Gentleman.

 

M. Mackey began by expressing a desire that his visit to me should not be considered as official. I replied that being both knights templars, we were authorized to meet as such and talk of the questions relative to the Scotish Rite, as if we were perfect strangers to it; and it being so agreed, he repeated to me all that M. Samory had said before with regard to the desire expressed by a large number of masons that I should join the consistory, and with regard to my being made an active member of the Council of Charleston and taking as such command of the Scotish rite in Louisiana. I answered him what I had already answered M. Samory. A few words where then exchanged between him and me, with regard to the origin of the council of Charleston, the constitutions of 1786, the authority which the Supreme Council of the Grand Orient of France claims on the Scotish degrees and the differences which exists between the York and Scotish rites. He admitted that difference and that the reasons which I gave upon all the other points presented a strong matter of consideration, but that he could not accept them as conclusive, which I immediately understood and acknowledged to be with him a matter of course.

 

He then insisted that I should again consider the proposition made by Mr. C. Samory, and confirmed by himself; and in conclusion he wished me to let him know what my determination would be after more mature reflection.

I promised to do so through Mr. Samory: and this Gentleman having called on me some weeks afterwards, and repeated all that he had been kind enough to say at his first interview with me, I again answered that I could not accept: and I remember having thus addressed him in the end:

 

‘My dear Sir, in the same manner as the masons whom you now represent, express a desire to have me in your Consistory for their best interest, so a time may come when Scotish masons of this East, tired of a foreign dominion, shall be glad to know that there is in New Orleans a 33d of some value who has never varied, and can at any time be the strong hold around which they may gather as Louisianians.’

 

Thereon we parted good friends as I parted with Mr. Mackey, after due interchange of kindness and politeness. ⁵⁶

 

In 1858, Charles Laffon de Ladébat, while clearly bitter towards Foulhouze, commented on this meeting between Foulhouze, Samory and Mackey:

 

Ill Bros. Mackey and Samory knew very well that with a few persons, amoung the weak minded and the ignorant, Mr. Foulhouze was “somebody,” and that if they could prevail on him to join the Grand Consistory of Louisiana, peace would be finally restored, and it was solely for the purpose of securing that peace, that they paid him a visit, against the advise of many who knew Mr. Foulhouze better than they. ⁵⁷

 

With John Gedge dead and Foulhouze no longer in consid-eration, Claude Samory became the first New Orleans Mason to be elected an Active member of the Charleston Council. His election was on 20 November 1856. On 17 December 1856, the Grand Consistory filled the vacancy offered to James Foulhouze. The choice was a Mason of promise but of little training in the Scottish Rite. The attorney from Arkansas, Albert Pike, was unanimously (and in his absence ⁵⁸) elected Commander in Chief of the Grand Consistory of Louisiana.

 

Prior to the election of Samory and Pike, Foulhouze took part in an activity which sealed his fate with the Charleston Council. James Foulhouze, along with T.W. Collens, J.J.E. Massicott, J.B. Faget and other former members of the Supreme Council of Louisiana declared, in effect, the Concordat of 1855 invalid and publicly resumed the activities of the New Orleans Council. The date that the New Orleans Council was re-opened is sometimes disputed. Foulhouze stated in November of 1857:

From the moment I had noticed of that nameless act [the Concordat of 1855], I called upon some 33ds, whom I knew to be true to their obligations, and with them I immediately opened the Supreme Council and continued its work, in order that it might not even be said that it had slept a single instant ... ⁵⁹

 

If such a meeting of 33rds did take place, it was still not until 9 October 1856 that J.J.E. Massicott would be elected Grand Commander of the reorganized Supreme Council of Louisiana and their activities become public. That action was the “shot” which started a new round of Masonic turbulence which dramatically altered the nature of the U.S. Scottish Rite.

 

The re-origination of the Supreme Council of Louisiana

 

The days/months/years following the concordat were a time of great uncertainty with many New Orleans Masons. The arguments made by all sides sounded somewhat reasonable. An examination of who chose to associate with the Charleston Council after the concordat, who choose to associate with the revived New Orleans Council and who chose to associate with neither body provides an interesting look into the divided, confused and emotional state of affairs. Of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana officers who were Active Members of the New Orleans Council in the pre-concordat days, two of the five Past Grand Masters⁶⁰ chose to affiliate with neither body. One affiliated with the Charleston Council⁶¹ and two with the revived New Orleans Council.⁶² Of the eight senior Grand Lodge officers, two chose to affiliate with neither body,⁶³ two with the Charleston Council⁶⁴ and four with the revived New Orleans Council.⁶⁵ Of the non- Grand Lodge New Orleans 33rds in the pre-concordat days, 8 chose to associate with neither body, 15 with the Charleston Council and 4 with the revived New Orleans Council. The totals then would be: 12 choosing to affiliate with neither body, 19 with the Charleston Council and 10 with the revived New Orleans Council. These figures should not, however, be viewed as the final tally as they were, over the following years, modified as members moved from one body to the other in a most disconcerting manner. L. E. Deluzain, who was a participant in the 1855 Concordat affiliating with the Charleston Council, re-affiliated with the revived New Orleans Council upon its revival. Joseph Lamarre, who was created a 33rd in the revived New Orleans Council on 25 February 1858, was tried and expelled by that Council on 22 May 1858. He then affiliated with the Grand Consistory of Louisiana becoming an Honorary 33rd. Neither side could truly claim clear victory as the severely bitter strife left both sides with ragged edges. Many of those who chose one side or the other eventually retired from any Masonic affiliation.

Possibly concerned over the reorganization of the New Orleans Council, the Grand Consistory of Louisiana sought to organize itself into a state corporation in early 1857. On 19 March 1857 the General Assembly of the Louisiana State Senate and House of Representatives approved the incorporation of the Grand Consistory of Louisiana. Listed as members were two future Sovereign Grand Commanders of the Charleston Council - Albert Pike and James C. Batchelor. On 22 April 1857 Foulhouze was elected Grand Commander of the revived New Orleans Council. T. Wharton Collens resumed his former position as Lt. Grand Commander. With Foulhouze back in command, the New Orleans Council began to grow in strength and size. 1858 was a pivotal year for Foulhouze and the reorganized New Orleans Supreme Council. In February, Albert Pike delivered a lecture before the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. His lecture was a sharp assault on Foulhouze and the New Orleans Council. The lecture by Pike, and arguments against it, occupied most of the March 1858 issue of the Masonic Delta.⁶⁶ Clearly the Charleston camp had found a Mason as capable of the “stinging pen” as Foulhouze. February 1858 also brought a commanding new (returning) member to the New Orleans Council. The announcement in the Masonic Delta was sure to cause great concern in the Charleston/New Orleans camp:

 

We are happy to say that our most Ill:. and worthy Bro:. Pierre Soulé has joined the Supreme Council of the 33d, in and for the Sovereign and Independent State of Louisiana. This eminent citizen and learned Freemason admits thus the State Rights masonically as well as politically.⁶⁷

 

The return of this fiery and powerful former United States Senator and U.S. Minister to Spain to the rolls of the New Orleans Supreme Council was the equivalent of a shot of adrenaline for the New Orleans Council. Soulé was created a 33rd on 8 March 1838 by Jean Jacques Conte and was, actually, a Member of the New Orleans Supreme Council prior to the election of Foulhouze as Grand Com-mander. Soulé apparently resigned from the Council at some point following Foulhouze’s election as his name is no where to be found in any of the records concerning the Concordat of 1855. There are no known record giving the reasons for the resignation of Soulé from the Council nor his Masonic activities during, or thoughts of, the concordat. Soulé was elected a U.S. Senator in 1847 and served in that office until 1853 followed by his appointment as Minister to Spain from 1853-55. Soulé was a vocal, resourceful and respected addition to the New Orleans Council.

 

The addition of Pierre Soulé as an Active Member of the New Orleans Council would seem to be answered one month later by the addition of Albert Pike as an Active Member of the Charleston Council on 20 March 1858. ⁶⁸ At the very session which elected Pike as an Active Member, Foulhouze was formally “expelled” from the Scottish Rite by the Charleston Council. Since Foulhouze was never a member of any Body controlled by the Charleston Council, this action was more of a public statement of disapproval than an actual expulsion. What followed next was a series of “sledge hammer” verbal and written attacks from and upon both the New Orleans and Charleston Councils. The extremely bitter attacks surpassed even the Cerneau “war” which resulted in the death of all “High Grade” Scottish Rite Masonry in the U.S. with the exception of in New Orleans. Foulhouze released his Mémoire à Consulter in French in 1858 and, then in 1859, issue his Historical Inquiry into the Origin of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in English.⁶⁹ The book served as the platform from which Foulhouze stated his case, defined his actions and views on regularity as well as his concepts of the history of the Scottish Rite. Foulhouze also used the Masonic Delta as a platform. This monthly publication was he official organ of the revived Supreme Council of Louisiana. Joseph Lamarre released his A Masonic Trial in New Orleans in French in 1858 and Charles Laffon de Ladébat translated and added notes to the work for an English edition. The next major New Orleans Masonic publication was a work designed to answer Foulhouze’s Mémoire à Consulter and further state the position of the Charleston Supreme Council. A Dissection of the Manifesto of Mr. Charles Bienvenu was released 1858 and opened a very regrettable door for the Charleston Council. The work, while originally issued as an anonymous publication, was later learned to be the work of Albert Pike and Charles Laffon de Ladébat. While the Dissection was as harsh in tone as Foulhouze’s Mémoire à Consulter, it went back to the Lopez Expedition period and re-printed in the end of the booklet the article published on Foulhouze by the Daily Delta and the retort by T. Wharton Collens and Robert Preaux. What was not published, nor mentioned, was the response of nearly all of the competing New Orleans newspapers condemning the yellow journalistic style of the Delta’s article on Foulhouze. The illusion created in the Dissection was that the Delta’s article on Foulhouze was factual and Collens and Preaux were only attempting to deny the obvious. In 1873, James Scot published his Outline of the Rise and Progress of Freemasonry in Louisiana and reveal that the Dissection influenced his thinking and beliefs (and assuredly that of many others) of Foulhouze. Scot says of Foulhouze:

 

At this time [1850] he [Foulhouze] was charged with being a spy of the Spanish Government, and was afterwards denounced as such in the newspapers of the day when the news of the fate of the Lopez expedition reached New Orleans. During the excitement he was concealed by some friends to prevent his falling into the hands of the mob, until he was able to effect his escape to Havana. He afterward returned, and resigned his membership in the Supreme Council, July 30, 1853. ⁷⁰

 

James Foulhouze was not viewed as one who simply held a very strong opposing Masonic opinion and followed a course of action that he felt was correct, he was now portrayed as a charlatan of low moral character. This was quite a different picture than the Mason who was approached by Albert Mackey to become an Active Member of the Charleston Supreme Council. The statement by Scot is erroneous. The only newspaper which published such a opinion of Foulhouze was denounced by the balance of the newspapers in New Orleans. Foulhouze went to Havana in an attempt to secure the release of American citizens prior to the article by the Delta. He did not “escape” to Havana. The Scot quotation is an example of the emotional and confused state of affairs in Louisiana Masonry and the fact that inaccuracies were, sadly, sometimes accept as fact.

 

On 3 October 1858 Foulhouze informed the New Orleans Council, in Session, of a communication he received from the Grand Orient of France. Foulhouze, as a Grand Orient 33rd, was officially instructed to disassociate himself from the revived New Orleans Council. Foulhouze refused this mandate. On 4 February 1859 the Grand Orient of France struck Foulhouze’s name from its list of 33rds.

 

Despite the actions taken and the decrees and publications written against Foulhouze and the New Orleans Council, there was no sign that the Council was weakening. In fact, the New Orleans Council showed every indication of strengthening. By 1859 the Supreme Council of Louisiana was at its peak of power in the post concordat days. Twenty-five active lodges were under its jurisdiction⁷¹ and the Council was composed of thirty-four Active Members.⁷² Of the lodges under the jurisdiction of the New Orleans Council, seven were located outside of New Orleans in various regions of Louisiana. The make-up of the lodges reveal that the popularity of the New Orleans Council was not solely with the French speaking New Orleans Masons. Twelve lodges worked in the French language, seven in the English language, two in German, one in Italian and one in Spanish. Remembering the fact that the Louisiana Grand Lodge (with its “irregular” stamp) grew in power and took over the Grand Lodge of Louisiana in 1850 with no outside support, save the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, the matter of the New Orleans Council had to be addressed. It was not simply a growing threat to the Charleston Council, but, also, to the Grand Lodge of Louisiana.

 

With no real structure, rituals or organization, the Charleston Council apparently began to realize that it was, indeed, in trouble. Of this time Charles S. Lobingier, 33º, G.C. writes in his 1931 The Supreme Council, 33º:

 

Both Pike and Mackey had by this time decided that the Supreme Council needed reform. On January 20, 1858, the former had written the latter urging an increase in the membership and the introduction of the elective system. ⁷³

 

For reasons that are, at best, ambiguous, Grand Commander John Honour resigned his office in the Charleston Council on 13 August 1858. It was not until 2 January 1859 that Albert Pike was proclaimed, by Albert Mackey, elected to the office of Grand Commander of the Charleston Supreme Council. It is logical that the actions of Foulhouze and the New Orleans Council influenced the change of command in the Charleston Council. Pike immediately began to reform the Charleston Council and make the changes necessary for its survival.

 

In 1860 Foulhouze was elected to the judgeship of the Second District Court in Plaquemines Parish. In 1861 Foulhouze moved his domicile from New Orleans to Plaquemines Parish. That same year former judge and Lt. Grand Commander T. Wharton Collens was elected Judge of the Seventh District Court in New Orleans. On 2 January 1861 the New Orleans Council re-incorporated itself taking officially, for the first time, the name “The Supreme Council of Louisiana.” Due to the pressures of his new position, T.W. Collens resigned in 1861 as Lt. Grand Commander of the New Orleans Council. He was replaced by Sam Brown, who was created a 33rd by Foulhouze 5 March 1860.

 

The Civil War

 

Arguably there has been no lower point in the history of the United States then the Civil War years of 1861-65. The divided country nearly destroyed itself in four years of devastating war, the effects of which plagued the county for a century to follow. While there has been numerous accounts of Masonic acts of charity during the war years, the war weakened Masonry in the U.S. due to the loss of life, property and the economic hardship that followed the war years. There is no sign or record that any of the Supreme Councils in the U.S. were active during the Civil Wars years. Pierre Soulé was imprisoned for a time upon the capture of New Orleans in 1862. Upon his release from prison, he lived out the remaining war years in Cuba. Albert Pike was charged with war crimes stemming from the Battle at Pea Ridge (his only war command) and was left out of the general amnesty afforded at the close of the war. Pike fled to Canada awaiting a Presidential pardon allowing him to return to the U.S.

 

There are no known records of the Supreme Council of Louisiana during the war years and it is unknown what events, if any, took place in the Council during this time. James Foulhouze, who prior to the war was a district court judge is shown to be a Parish Attorney for Plaquemines Parish following the war. There are no records of the exact date that he left office as a judge, nor giving the reasons. It is possible that the then 65 year old Foulhouze simply retired from his judgeship or his leaving office might have been required by the Union in the post war years. A series of events that can best be described as “amazing” then takes place concerning Foulhouze and the New Orleans Council.

 

On 3 May 1866, T. Wharton Collens, Pierre Soulé and 8 other 33rds of the New Orleans Council signed an “oath of allegiance” to the New Orleans Council.⁷⁴ Foulhouze’s name is not included in this apparent reorganization. On 10 May 1866, the New Orleans Council obtained the oath of allegiance of Robert Preaux and created two 33rds. One of the 33rds created was a New Orleans music teacher, music shop owner and composer of moderate note who corresponded with many of the artistic and literary figures in Europe including Victor Hugo. His name was Eugene Chassaignac. On 7 January 1867, Chassaignac was elected Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Louisiana. It is unknown who was Grand Commander or “acting” Grand Commander at the time that Chassaignac was elevated to the 33d degree or why Chassaignac was selected to lead the New Orleans Council. There is a total veil of mystery over the election of Chassaignac and the departure of Foulhouze.

 

The 1 May 1867 minutes of Liberty Lodge #19 (under the New Orleans Council’s jurisdiction)⁷⁵ show that O.J Dunn, Grand Master of the Eureka Grand Lodge of Louisiana (Prince Hall) and five other Prince Hall Lodges in various locations in the U.S. had officially accepted the invitation to attend Liberty Lodge and noted that this Lodge admitted visitors with no regard to race. The Worshipful Master of Liberty Lodge was Eugene Chassaignac. The New Orleans Council, likewise and that same year, officially announced that membership to its lodges were not be based on race. That announcement, in itself, seems curious as the Supreme Council of Louisiana (and the whole of New Orleans Masonry) had a long history, prior to the Civil War, of having little concern over race and Masonic membership.

 

In an amazing and dramatic move, the Grand Orient of France, ignoring its past action against James Foulhouze, re-recognized the Supreme Council of Louisiana on 5 November 1868. Eugene Chassaignac commented on James Foulhouze and the relations with the Grand Orient of France in the April-May 1869 issue of the Bulletin: ⁷⁶

 

It is true that in 1858, following the writings of Mr. J. Foulhouze, (writings that were not at all the acts of the Supreme Council) our relations with the Grand Orient were interrupted; but since I have had the honor of being the Grand Commander and Grand Master of the Scotch Rite, in Louisiana, I had the pamphlets disavowed by a solemn resolution; on the other hand, Mr. Foulhouze not being any longer a member of our order, there no longer exists a reason for the relations between the Grand Orient of France and the Supreme Council of Louisiana to be interrupted.⁷⁷

What happened? Without James Foulhouze the reorganization of the New Orleans Council would have failed before it started. The Chassaignac statement can only be viewed as incredible and shows an almost contempt for Foulhouze. Why? There is no clue as to what could have taken place during the Civil War years. Prior to the war the New Orleans Council was at its height of power and could have in a matter of a few years, realistically, overpowered the Charleston Council and seriously threatened the Grand Lodge of Louisiana had the war not interrupted its growth. James Foulhouze was the power and the driving force of this movement. It simply could not have happened without him. There is not a hint as to why Foulhouze left office, why Chassaignac was made a 33rd, why Chassaignac was elected Grand Commander or why Chassaignac seemingly turned on Foulhouze. Just as perplexing as the Chassaignac statement on Foulhouze is the re-recognition of the New Orleans Council by the Grand Orient. The Grand Orient had stripped Foulhouze of his 33rd Degree for his participation in the reorganization of the New Orleans Council. Why would they now recognize that very same Body? The re-recognition of the New Orleans Council by the Grand Orient of France unquestionably caused great concern in the Supreme Councils SJ and NMJ. In a bold move, relations between the Grand Orient and the SJ and NMJ were suspended by a join resolution of the SJ and NMJ dated 2 May and 15 June 1870. The resolution made the following points (presumably written by Pike).

“The Grand Orient of France well knew, for it had so decided in a sane interval, in 1858, that an Inspector-General created by itself could exercise no powers within the jurisdiction of another Supreme Council. It knew that the Chassaignac body was created by the sole authority of M. Jacques Foulhouze, whom it had denuded of his privileges as an Inspector-General, for “forfaiture d’honneur,” in establishing it. And yet, without any new light upon the subject, without any reconsideration or reexamination, without restoring M. Foulhouze, and while in alliance with us, it recognized this spurious organization as a lawful Supreme Council.” ⁷⁸

 

The Death of James Foulhouze

 

There is no suggestion that Foulhouze had any connection with Masonry following the Civil War years. In 1869 Foulhouze co-authored a book with William M. Prescott titled The Ordinances of the Police Jury of the Parish of Plaquemines. Foulhouze is listed as “Parish Attorney” and Prescott as “Parish Judge.” Foulhouze apparently busied himself with legal matters and spent the remainder of his life in the Mississippi River town of Pointe-a-la-Hache, Louisiana.

 

On 21 December 1875 the following article appeared in the New Orleans Bee:

 

“Deceased the 18th of December 1875 at Pointe-a-la Hache, parish of Plaquemines, the Hon. James Foulhouze at the age of seventy-five. A native of Riom, Auvergue, France.”

 

Foulhouze was buried at St. Thomas the Apostle Church Cemetery in Pointe-a-la-Hache, Louisiana. T. Wharton Collens, who had by then also resigned from all Masonic activities, handled the legal matters concerning Foulhouze’s succession. Collens wrote of Foulhouze:

 

“I was very intimately acquainted with the late James Foulhouze during the thirty years that preceded his death. He was a native of Riom in France, and during the thirty years that I knew him he frequently spoke to me of his relatives in that country, and showed me his correspondences with them. His father died previous to 1830, his mother a few years before he ‘J. Foulhouze’ did. He had a brother who died before he did - that brother left one heir a daughter. Foulhouze himself was never married.” ⁷⁹

 

While Foulhouze not, by any means, a man of great wealth, he did own a home in Pointe-a-la-Hache and some property. Foulhouze’s entire estate was willed to Odéalie Collens McCaleb, the married daughter of his long time friend T. Wharton Collens and Odéalie’s son, James Foulhouze McCaleb.

 

The many unanswered questions concerning Foulhouze, and the events surrounding him may never be fully answered or understood. It is clear, however, that James Foulhouze followed a path which he honestly felt to be correct. Regardless of which side of the issue one takes, it must be objectively recognized that the impact that Foulhouze had on the whole of U.S. Scottish Rite Masonry was substantial. It must, also, be pointed out that those who supported and held the same opinion as Foulhouze were neither “weak minded” nor “ignorant” as sometimes charged. Differing opinions are frequently held by intelligent people. It is unfortunate when judgment is colored by emotion and it is tragic when erroneous conclusions born of skewed judgment makes its way into accepted history.

Notes:

 

1. The Masonic Delta March 1858.

2. This date was obtained from the tombstone of James Foulhouze located in St. Thomas the Apostle Church Cemetery, Pointe a la Hache, Louisiana.

3. Personal letter: Christine McCullough, Assistant Archivist, Archdiocese of Philadelphia to Michael R. Poll, 23 April 1993.

4. Passenger and Immigration List Index Vol. I P. William Filby, Mary K. Meyer Editors. (Detroit, Michigan: Gale Research Co., 1981) 314.

5. Charles Laffon de Ladébat, translator, notes of A Masonic Trial in New Orleans . (New Orleans, LA: J. Lamarre, 1858) p. 62.

6. Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. XI (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1965) 814.

7. McCullough to Poll, 23 April 1993. It should be noted that a priest having his faculties suspended is akin to a physician having his medical license suspended. The affected priest would no longer be able to carry out the duties of a priest such as hearing confessions, preforming wedding, baptisims, Mass, etc. While a priest who has had his faculties suspended is, in fact, prevented from doing all that makes one a priest, it is only the Vatican who can separate a priest from his vows as a priest. This would mean that Foulhouze might have, technically, remained a priest, without powers, until his death.

8. At the time that Foulhouze was a priest, Philadelphia was a “Diocese” and not yet an “Archdiocese.”

9. McCullough to Poll, 23 April 1993.

10. Ladébat, notes, A Masonic Trial in New Orleans p. 62.

11. Philadelphia : U. Hunt, 1842.

12. The paper which Bishop Kenrick mentions was Le Penseur (The Thinker).

13. Records of the American Catholic Historical Society Vol. VIII, 1896 Bishop Kenrick to Dr. Cullen 23 November, 1843. 311-312.

14. Masonic and anti-Masonic

15. The Louisiana Historical Quarterly Vol. 31, No. 4 October, 1948. New Orleans, LA 918.

16. Roman Catholic law forbid duels regardless of the fact that, for many years, the traditional site for duels was in the gardens directly behind, and on the grounds of, the St. Louis Cathedral.

17. The Masonic Delta November 1857 edition.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. James Foulhouze, Historical Inquiry into the Origin of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (New Orleans: True Delta Job Office, 1859.) 17.

21. Masonic Delta November 1857.

22. Canonge served the Grand Lodge of Louisiana as Grand Master in 1822-24 & 1829 and, also, served as Commander in Chief of the Grand Consistory of Louisiana from 1843-46. Canonge had served as the Grand Senior Warden of the Cerneau Grand Council of Princes of the Royal Secret, 32º in Philadelphia in 1818 and was an early member of the Supreme Council of Louisiana, being appointed Grand Expert on 7 November 1839. It was during Canonge’s administration as Commander in Chief of the Grand Consistory that this body passed under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Council of Louisiana. Prior to his election to the office of Sovereign Grand Commander, Canonge served as the Lt. Grand Commander of the Supreme Council. Canonge had the reputation of being a “no nonsense” and “ready to act” individual with an amazing memory. As a criminal court judge he once ordered the arrest of the entire state Supreme Court for interfering in one of his capital trials. New Orleans Times Democrat 8 January 1893 “Louisiana Families”

23. Masonic Delta November 1857.

24. Foulhouze, Historical Inquiry p. 62.

25. See: The Elimination of the French Influence in Louisiana Masonry (New Orleans, LA: Michael Poll Publishing, 1996).

26. Report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence of the Louisiana Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons. (New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co., 1849.) 5.

27 Ibid. 5.

28. The town of Lafayette was a suburb of New Orleans in the 1800’s located in what is now considered the “uptown” area of New Orleans.

29. George Washington, Lafayette, Warren, Marion, Crescent City, Hiram & Eureka.

30. Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana Report and Exposition (New Orleans: J.L Sollée, 1849) 5-34.

31. James B. Scot, Outline of the Rise and Progress of Freemasonry in Louisiana 1873 (New Orleans, LA: Cornerstone Book Publishers, reprint 2008) 76.

32. Charles Laffon de Ladébat, Ancient and Accepted Rite. Thirtieth Degree. (New Orleans: 1857). xxvii.

33. Ladébat states in a footnote of his published 18º ritual: “The philosophical explanation of this and of all the other Degrees from the First up to the Thirtieth inclusive, is taken from the work of Ill.: Bro.: J. Foulhouze, 33d, with some slight alterations, of which, the author willingly assumes the responsibility.” Ladébat, Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite. Eighteenth Degree (New Orleans: 1856) 123. Foulhouze had, also, rewritten the 33º for the New Orleans Council. See: James D. Carter History of the Supreme Council, 33º SJUSA (1861-1891). (Washington, D.C.: The Supreme Council 33º, 1967). 37.

34. The title of this magazine is sometimes given as Freemasons’ Magazine.

35. Charles S. Lobingier, The Supreme Council , 33º (Louisville, KY: The Standard Printing Co., Inc., 1931). 172; Ray Baker Harris, James D. Carter, History of the Supreme Council, 33º SJUSA (1801-1861), (Washington, DC: The Supreme Council 33º, 1964.) 236.

36. Minutes Book, Friends of Harmony Lodge #58 14 September 1849.

37. James Scot, Outline of the Rise and Progress of Freemasonry in Louisiana. New Orleans, LA: Cornerstone Book Publishers, reprint 2008. 78-80.

38. Prior to the Grand Lodge Constitution of 1850 Past Masters of the constituted lodges were made Life Members of the Grand Lodge with voting rights in the Grand Lodge. Following the Constitution of 1850, voting rights were only given to Grand Lodges Officers, the three principal members of each lodge, Past Grand Masters and Grand Lodge Committee members.

39. The Masonic Delta November 1857.

40. The Masonic Delta November 1857.

41. The numbers vary according to the source. The Annual Grand Communication of the Supreme Council, 1859, VIII lists 26 new 33rds. Albert Pike, Official Bulletin VIII, 1886 page 571-572 lists 31 new 33rds.

42. Reunion Fraternal de Caridad in Havana 12 July 1815 and El Templo de la Devina Pastora in Matanzaz 12 July 1818, Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana 1995 (A-2 & 3).

43. New Orleans Daily Delta 31 May 1850.

44. The Daily Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana 31 May 1850.

45. The Daily Crescent New Orleans, Louisiana 1 June 1850.

46. Daily Orleanian, New Orleans, Louisiana 2 June 1850.

47. New Orleans Daily Delta 1 June 1850.

48. New Orleans Bee 27 February 1852.

49. James Foulhouze, T.W. Collens, Charles Claiborne, J.B. Faget, Felix Garcia, F.A. Lumsden, Joseph Walker, John L. Lewis, Robert Preaux, Charles Murian, S. Heriman, Jean Lamothe, Antonio Costa, A. P. Lanaux, G.A. Montmain, F. Correjolles, J.H. Holland, R.D. Fanis, J.E. Jolly, J. Bachino, Aug. Broué, M. Prados, F. Ricau, J.J.E. Massicott, François Meilleur, C.M. Emerson, H.G. Duvivier, C. Samory & Charles Laffon.

50. The Masonic Delta August 1857.

51. An interesting document resides in the New Orleans Scottish Rite Library and Museum. It is a handwritten copy of the 1846 General Regulations of the New Orleans Supreme Council. This document is of special interest as it was used as a “working copy” for the 1848 General Regulations which were approved on 20 July 1848. The document contains the notes and changes throughout made by James Foulhouze with his signature. Clearly the various changes were presented to the Council for approval. The official name “The Supreme Council for the United States of America Sitting in New Orleans “ at the head of the Regulations has portions scratched out leaving the only “The Supreme Council sitting in New Orleans.” In addition, the side margins contain the proposed changes. In addition to the official name being altered to remove “for the United States of America” the proposed change to “for the State of Louisiana” written in the margin was also scratched out. Presumably the new title did not pass the vote of the Council or Foulhouze decided not to propose this name change - at that time. It is significant, however, to realize that Foulhouze, from the early days of his administration, considered the Supreme Council structure as possibly being limited to state boundaries just as Grand Lodges.

52. This account can not be confirmed in totality by any existing official record, but is recounted in an old unsigned handwritten paper located in the New Orleans Scottish Rite Library and Museum. In the notes of the 1859 A Masonic Trial in New Orleans, Charles Laffon de Laébat writes of the event: “... An opportunity offered and that was the address of Ill:. Bro. Chas. Claiborne who, instead of arguing the point at issue, that is, the merits and demerits of the 20 articles, amused himself by ridiculing the masonic costumes of Mr. Foulhouze. Mr. Foulhouze was stung to the quick and swore, in leaving the hall, that he had done with Masonry! He sent in his letter of resignation on the 30th of July 1853.” page 43.

53. Alain Bernheim located the Minutes of the Supreme Council of Louisiana from its creation to 15 February 1847 in the BN in Paris in 1987. This writer located the Minutes of the Supreme Council of Louisiana from the election of Charles Claiborne to the Concordat of 1855 in the Library of the New Orleans Scottish Rite Bodies in 1994.

54. Official Bulletin VIII 1886 p 536.

55. Foulhouze, Historical Inquiry 78. The Masonic Delta, August 1857 & March 1858. Charles Laffon de Ladébat, Translator, A Masonic Trial in New Orleans (Lamarre’s Defense) (New Orleans, J. Lamarre, 1858) 43-44. Note: A Masonic Trial in New Orleans was written by Joseph Lamarre and originally published in French. The work was translated into English and republished that same year. The name of the translator is not given in this work. Charles Laffon de Ladébat states on page 83 of Dissection of the Manifesto of Mr. Charles Bienienu (New Orleans: privately published, 1858) that he was the translator for Lamarre’ work and author of the notes in that book.

56. The Masonic Delta August 1857.

57. Ladébat, A Masonic Trial in New Orleans page 43.

58. Michael R. Poll, In His Own (w)Rite, (New Orleans, LA Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2011) "Albert Pike, His Addrtess before the Grand Consistory of Louisiana" page 5.

59. The Masonic Delta November 1857.

60. Felix Garcia, Lucien Hermann.

61. John Henry Holland.

62. Jean Lamothe & Robert Preaux.

63. Ramon Vionnet & Stephen Herriman.

64. François Meilleur and Charles Murian.

65. Jean B. Faget, Jean J.E. Massicott, Romain Brugier and Joseph Lisbony.

66. The revived New Orleans Council’s monthly publication.

67. The Masonic Delta February 1858.

68. Although Pike was elected an Active Member in March, it was not until 7 July that Mackey would send the official general notification of his election. Harris, Carter History 260. Mackey would, however, inform Claude Samory of Pike’s election on 8 May 1859. Official Bulletin VIII, 544.

69. Foulhouze’s Historical Inquiry can not be viewed as an English translation of his Mémoire à Consulter. Upon examination by Alain Bernheim, it has been determined that the Historical Inquiry, while closely following Mémoire à Consulter, has enough significant changes to consider it a rewrite rather than a translation.

70. Scot, Outline. 4.

71. The Masonic Delta September 1859.

72. The Masonic Delta April 1860.

73. Lobingier, Supreme Council, 249.

74. Original document in the George Longe Collection in the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana.

75. Photocopy reproduction of the minutes in The Perfect Ashlar (publication of the Supreme Council of Louisiana) October 1969.

76. The Bulletin replaced The Masonic Delta in 1869 as the official publication of the Supreme Council of Louisiana.

77. Eugene Chassaignac Bulletin (New Orleans, A. Simon, 1869) 28.

78. Carter, History 431.

79. Foulhouze Secession Papers, 1875, Court House Pointe a la Hashe, Louisiana.

 

***

 

Quantity or Quality?

 

ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS about living in New Orleans is the food that we often take for granted. When I moved back after living away for almost 10 years, it was the simple Po-Boy sandwich that gave me such joy. I delighted in finding cozy, hole in the wall places where I could discover new taste sensations. In one such place I saw a sign advertising the “largest Po-Boy in New Orleans.” Well, I had to try this place out. The ad was correct; the sandwich was so big that it could really feed two people with some left over. But, to my great disappointment, it tasted terrible. It was a simple Ham & Swiss, but the cheese was hard and the ham was some sort of nasty, discount deli reject. Even the lettuce was soggy and turning brown. It was sure big, but it was a total waste of my money. Clearly, the biggest is not always the best.

 

I also remember years ago when I first started college. I enrolled at the University of New Orleans (it was then Louisiana State University at New Orleans). I took a civics class and when I walked in on my first day, I found it was in an auditorium with something like 300 in the class! I came from a small high school and was overwhelmed. How was I going to learn anything with a sea of people all around me? The following year I transferred to Loyola University in New Orleans and found the class size much more to my liking. In one music class, it was just the instructor and myself. That was a learning experience for me. But, that’s just my taste. The mileage for others may vary.

 

The fact is that I am far more comfortable in small settings. I would be more drawn to an intimate, quite dinner with my wife and a few friends than dining at the Hard Rock Cafe with hundreds of others. But, don’t misunderstand me, I’m all for a bargain. If that big, ole sandwich had tasted good; I would have been a happy camper. I could have fed my wife and I for the price of one. The problem with my college civics class was not only that it was very large, but that they had not prepared properly. They accepted too many students and when at the last minute, they realized that there were too many for the classroom; they moved the class to the auditorium. Because of the quick change of venue, they did not think about a microphone. It was only the few sitting in the very front who could properly hear the man. They didn’t prepare properly. Mistakes were made and the class suffered.

 

I am interested in quality experiences. Yes, if all things were equal, I would prefer a small gathering for dining, but if the food was bad and the food at the Hard Rock Cafe was outstanding, then the overall winner would be the Hard Rock Cafe. It is no different with Masonry. I want quality and while I prefer small groups, it should not be understood to mean that I place numbers (large or small) first. I place quality first.

 

I remember when the big “One Day, All The Way” classes began and I expressed my concern about them. One argument always seemed to come back at me which totally missed the point I was trying to make. When I expressed concern about the quality of the event, it would invariably be argued that “bad” degrees were often seen in small lodge setting. SO WHAT? That’s like telling me that it is OK to eat bad food at a convention center because you can get bad food in a small restaurant! I don’t want bad food anywhere! You can’t sell me on something bad because something bad is also offered somewhere else.

 

A successful lodge can be one that is small or large. It is successful because it does its work properly. And, “work” does not just mean ritual. No worshipful Master should rush into a lodge meeting with no idea of what the secretary will read or announce. The WM should be completely aware of all that will happen in the lodge on any given night. He should also be prepared of how to handle the occasional unexpected event. In other words, no one would be elected WM of a lodge without spending a good many years in training for the office. Knowing the ritual is only one small part of what is necessary for one to become a successful WM.

 

A lodge should work as a solid unit. Little groups that develop in Masonic bodies spell death for the body. “I’m in and you are not” games should have no place in the lodge. The successful lodge moves and acts as one.

 

It is not the large or small lodge that has any advantage by their number. The lodge with the advantage is the lodge that expects and provides quality work.

 

***

 

Who Am I?

A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO I was visiting my doctor for a check-up. As I was outside in the waiting room, I picked up a medical magazine and started flipping through it. An article caught my attention. It was titled “Who Am I?” As I started to read it, I became enthralled.

 

The article told the story of a man in his mid to late 30s who was found by the Chicago police around Midnight on a downtown street. He was unconscious and lying in a pool of blood from an injury to the back of his head. The man was wearing a business suit, but had no money, credit cards or any other identification on him. He was the apparent victim of a mugging.

 

After spending several days unconscious in the hospital, the man finally awoke. He was completely disoriented. He had no idea how he came to be in the hospital or what might have happened to get him there. As his mind started to clear, instead of an improving situation, things became much worse. He began to realize that not only did he not know how he came to be in the hospital, but he also did not know his name, where he was from or anything at all about himself prior to waking up in the hospital bed. He had complete and total amnesia.

 

The police sent photos of the injured man to the local media and sent his fingerprints off for possible identification. Neither proved helpful. Because of the number of large hotels in the area where he was found, the police felt that he could have been a businessman traveling to the city from almost anywhere.

 

The doctors told the man that with his type of injury, amnesia was not uncommon. They told him that they could not give any sort of firm prognosis as there was simply too much that was unknown about this type of injury. There was no way to know if all of his memory, some of it, or any of it would return. The doctors also said that they could not give him any sort of time frame on when he might expect to see any changes or improvements. Uncertainty was the only thing of which they were certain.

 

The man realized that the money and credit cards that were taken from him were insignificant. What they took of true value was his life. If he could not regain his memory, then the man he had been before waking up in the hospital bed was dead.

 

Think about this man’s situation. Each one of us has a personal history in our memories. We remember childhood, our family, friends, and events both happy and sad. We remember school, early jobs, dating, marriage, children and everything that has gone into shaping us. Who we are today is based, in a large part, on the total memory of our experiences. Now, think about all of those memories disappearing into dust in a snap of your fingers. Who would you be? What would you be? In that situation, and especially if you were alone with no one around who knew you, how could you be the same person?

 

This loss of identity and self is not limited to individuals. Groups of people and even whole societies have suffered the same fate. It was known long ago that if one group wanted to defeat another group, then it was necessary to overpower the enemy’s military. But, if one group wanted to completely destroy another group, then they would need to wipe out the enemy’s history. Look at the Mayan Indians. Their vast library was destroyed and all of their books, save just three, were burned to dust. And what do we know of the Mayan society and people today? What do the decedents of the Mayans know about their own history? Next to nothing.

 

Even when there was no deliberate attempt at destroying another’s history, the lack of history can still create vacuums in our knowledge of the past. In north Louisiana there is an area known as Poverty Point. There are several large and impressive Indian mounds where a considerable amount of pottery has been excavated. Archaeologists know that this significant civilization existed several thousand years ago and that it is the largest and most complex site of its type discovered in North America. But, because of the lack of any written records and very little information on the people themselves, it is a true lost society.

 

Our past is vital to us. The practical reality of the existence and nature of each of us depends on the continued knowledge of our nature and existence. When we die, the continued knowledge of us will only exist if our history is recorded and preserved. If not, then when we die, all knowledge of our achievements, work and self dies with us.

 

Freemasonry is no different. Want to start a debate? Go into any Lodge and ask whether Freemasonry has its roots in the Knights Templar. In some Lodges, such a debate might end up in an argument. The simple truth is that we have little knowledge of the very early history of Freemasonry. The same is pointedly true of the early history of the Scottish Rite. Jurisdictional wars, destruction of early records, and “edited” histories designed to strengthen the argument of one or the other side makes our available knowledge questionable to the objective researcher.

 

The history of our Lodge or other Masonic body should not just be passed off as the concern of “those library types.” It is our history and we all share in its proper preservation … or its loss. We need to be sure that not only are proper records taken and kept, but that we take all necessary steps to preserve old documents and records.

 

When we look at the injured man’s situation, we can feel sympathy for him. But we are really only disinterested parties. We don’t know the man, and while we can realize the terrible situation he is in, we do not feel his pain. In Masonry, our loss of history is personal. We are not disinterested parties. It is our history and our personal loss when we are not able to answer questions about ourselves that we should be able to answer. The horrible mistake so many make is in believing that the preservation of our history is someone else’s job or duty – as if we play no part in it. If we don’t care, we don’t exist. It’s as simple as that.

 

***

 

What is Truth?

An Address Before the Louisiana Lodge

of Research – 02/05/2010

 

A FEW WEEKS AGO I tuned in to one of the educational channels on TV and watched a show on archeology. It was an interesting show dealing with the history of archeological practices from the early “Indiana Jones” style to today’s standard of documentation. I found a general similarity between the growth and development of archeological excavation standards and those of Masonic research. The show pointed out that in the early days of archeology, researchers would find an important site and boldly their way in to take whatever they felt was valuable or important with little regard for detailed documentation or preservation of the site. Today, great care is taken at excavation sites. It is realized that value and importance are not only with items, but where they are located, what might be near them and the general condition of everything having to do with the site. In the old days of Masonic research, importance was given to special events, but less care was made in verifying the events or knowing what was going on at the time of the event. It is realized today that the whole story, and the understanding of the whole story, entails far more than isolated events.

 

Technology being developed today is also of great importance to both archeology and Masonic research. Ground penetrating radar allows archeologists to “see” below ground. When these devices are rolled over an area with buried ruins of past civilizations, the whole area becomes visible and they know where they should begin their dig. In addition, satellites are being employed to help with archeological excavation in overgrown forest areas such as South America. The satellites are able to filter the forest and discover sites which previously would have been discovered only by luck.

 

Likewise, Masonic research has been greatly aided by advances in technology. Where at one time a Masonic researcher would need to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to sit in a Masonic library to wade through large stacks of paper documents, today the computer and internet can put all of the world’s great libraries at his fingertips. Databases of information and documents can allow a Masonic researcher to locate, read and copy documents physically located most anywhere in the world from the researcher’s home computer.

 

While technology allows researchers to locate items of value far more quickly than in past times, the need to understand an item of interest and what it means remains vital. Finding an old Masonic diploma means little more than momentary interest if you know nothing of the individual or body for which the diploma was issued.

 

And this brings us to Louisiana.

 

There are few places with a richer research potential than Louisiana. Simply put, Louisiana is a Masonic researcher’s gold mine. When we couple the large amount of unanswered questions in our Masonic history with modern technology, the potential for great discoveries is enough to excite any thinking researcher. We have an opportunity in Louisiana that is greater than many realize.

 

But, there is another side to every coin. In this case, the other side of the coin is lack of understanding. It is one thing to find or possess an important Masonic document. It is another thing to properly understand it. The danger exists for important old documents to be found, appreciated only as “something old” and then hidden away in private collections unavailable and lost to all.

 

Louisiana is, by any way you look at it, unique. Our government, laws and Masonry are, to this day, different than in other parts of the United States. Louisiana was founded as a French territory. It was French in nature, language and custom. French Masonry was introduced into Louisiana some sixty years prior to the creation of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana.¹ The five lodges who created the Grand Lodge of Louisiana were French-speaking lodges.² This was not done because of any particular loyalty to France or any desire to not be a part of the U.S., but simply because this is what the vast majority of the Louisiana Masons knew. They spoke French, not English, and they practiced their Masonry in the manner in which they knew it.

 

And what of the English-speaking Americans who began arriving in New Orleans soon after it became a U.S. territory in 1803? Most of the rank and file Americans traveling to the city did not speak French. Yet, the government, shops and pretty much everywhere you went was French-speaking. Sure, the educated on both sides were multi-lingual and able to function in either society, but the majority of the population were not the educated leaders. The same was true in Masonry. English-speaking Masons arriving in New Orleans on business trips wanted to visit lodges. But, the language being used in New Orleans lodges was mostly (save one or two) not to their understanding and even the furnishings and practices that could be understood were not the same American-Webb ritual familiar to them. What visiting Masons saw in New Orleans was mostly very different from what they knew. And, at that time, “different” was not a good thing.

 

Unrest was born in both the population of the city of New Orleans and in Louisiana Masonry. On one hand, the English-speaking Masons of New Orleans demanded that change take place and Masonry in Louisiana be turned into the Masonry of the rest of the country. On the other hand, the French-speaking Masons saw no need to bring about such change when their Masonry had been the same for as long as they knew it. It was the establishment in Louisiana. It was the Masonry as worked in Europe and the Masonry with which they were comfortable. Both sides were unyielding and unwilling to work with the other side.

 

In 1851, John Gedge was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. His election places him in a status held by no other Grand Master of our Grand Lodge. You see, prior to his election as Grand Master, MWBro. Gedge was viewed by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana as being an irregular Master Mason. Not only was he viewed to be an irregular Mason, he was the Grand Master of a Grand Lodge viewed to be irregular. But, it does not end there. Gedge was Grand Master of this Grand Lodge in 1848, 49 and 50. Without missing a beat, he stepped from being Grand Master of a Grand Lodge viewed as irregular to Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Why? How? Of course, we are talking about the Louisiana Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons and its 1850 merger with the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, but why did the Grand Master of the “irregular side” step right over to become the Grand Master of our Grand Lodge? This event can be seen as one of the catalysts to the great unrest, division and bitterness in New Orleans Masonry in the mid 1800’s, but who was right and who was wrong? Do we have enough information to form any sound conclusion?

 

During the trial of Jesus, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate asked what would seem to be a straightforward question: “What is truth?” Since that time, philosophers have pondered and debated both the question and its answer – many times with less than satisfactory conclusions.

 

In the 1970’s, a movie was released that has risen today to the status of a classic - Star Wars. Designed to be a science fiction/adventure film, the move had a few surprising philosophical elements - possibly from one of the script advisors, Joseph Campbell. With a careful eye, Masons might find some things of value in the events presented in the tale.

 

The story is about a young boy, Luke Skywalker, who lived on a farm in a far away galaxy. Luke was raised by his aunt and uncle after the death of his parents. He worked and lived simply, but was aware of a war taking place in far-away parts of his galaxy. That was the truth that he knew.

 

One day, while he was away, the war came to Luke’s planet. His home was attacked and his aunt and uncle killed. An old man, who was viewed by Luke as something of a hermit, took him in. His name was Obi-Wan Kenobi. Luke began to learn amazing things from and about this old man. He learned that Obi-Wan had been a warrior in the very war that was being fought – a Jedi Knight who was highly skilled and possessed great powers. But, Luke learned more. He learned that the powers of a Jedi are passed down from parent to child. Luke learned that he possessed these same powers because his father was also a Jedi Knight who fought in the very same war. Luke knew nothing of this and his reality began to change. What he knew as “the truth” was not actually the truth. Luke asked about the actual fate of his father. Reluctantly, Obi-Wan told him that his father was killed. He told him that a gifted student of his turned to the “dark side” and killed his father. The student’s name was Darth Vader.

Luke continued to train and grow in power. Then one day he left to face the man who killed his father. Luke and Vader faced each other in Jedi battle. When Vader realized who Luke was and that he was trained by his former master, he asked Luke if Obi-Wan told him of his father. In anger, Luke told him that he was told enough, that he knew that Vader killed his father. In the bombshell of the movie, Darth Vader then tells Luke, “No, Luke, I am your father.” Luke was devastated. He screamed in anguish and broke away from the fight. It was not only clear that he, once again, did not know the actual facts about his father, but now he must face that his own father was the ultimate villain causing so much trouble in the galaxy. Luke’s concept of truth seemed to be proven faulty time and again. What was the truth?

 

When Luke again saw Obi-Wan, he wanted to know why he had been told falsehoods. Surprisingly, Obi-Wan told him that what he told Luke was the truth, “from a certain point of view.” He explained that his father, Anakin Skywalker, was a good man and when he fell to the “dark side” the good man was killed by the evil that became Darth Vader. Obi-Wan then said, “Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.”

 

I needed to think long and hard about that line by Obi-Wan. Maybe sometimes truth is subjective.

 

In matters of religion, truth does seem to fall very much in line with the thoughts of Obi-Wan. My truth may or may not be your truth. It depends upon our own point of view. How many wars have been fought in the name of religious truth? How many men have been willing to die, or kill, in the name of religion? How do you prove a religious truth? The poet Kahlil Gibran wrote, “Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.” Religious truth is accepted as such simply because we believe it.

 

In its wisdom, Masonry realized early on that good, honest men could have very different religious views. As such, pointed religious (or political) discussions are not allowed in lodge. The outcome of such discussions could result in disharmony. It is the combination of the passion in which a religious or political view is held along with the inability to conclusively prove such views that result in such discussions being emotional powder kegs. One simply does not prove the correctness of a religious view or political opinion in the same manner that they would prove a mathematical equation.

 

Religion and politics are not the only subjects which can result in passion for a Mason. Masons have a passion for Masonry. Masons very often have a strong passion for Masonry. Want to see a good fight? Get two Grand Lecturers together who disagree as to if it should be “on” or “upon.” We are taught to subdue our passions, but, truthfully, do we always?

 

So, let’s go back to the mid 1800’s and keep these thoughts of “passion” and “truth” in our minds.

 

In New Orleans, the city that care forgot, there were two groups facing off. They differed in language, Masonic customs, Masonic rites, and points of view. They were emotional. They were passionate. They were unyielding. It was not a case of two friends sitting down with one ordering strawberry ice cream and the other chocolate and enjoying each others company. It was a case of two angry opponents sitting down disgusted that the other would dare to order something different than their flavor. The truth held by each was that their flavor was the best! Period. They were childish. Each group of Masons held to their own “flavor” of Masonry and would tolerate no difference of opinion as to the validity of their view. It was not a case of “you are mistaken;” it was a case of “you are a liar.” It was a sad, sad time.

 

The two sides in New Orleans refused to bend or try to understand the other. Rather than withdrawing to avoid disharmony, they openly engaged each other in lodge or in public settings with bitter and unMasonic attacks upon the character of their brothers.³ It was a war. It was a nasty war. It was not necessary.

 

From a strictly historical standpoint, we know some of what took place, and some of the “why.” But, there is much that remains unknown or unclear about the events prior to the “wars.” We know but bits and pieces of pre-1850 Louisiana Freemasonry.

 

We have lessons and opportunities.

 

The lessons should be obvious. We are taught to subdue our passions. We are taught to not speak evil of our brothers – either to their face or by private character assassination. We should try to help each other, not wage war on each other because we have differences of opinion as to the nature of Freemasonry. We should advance the Light of Masonry, not the darkness of ignorance, falsehood and ambition.

 

Our opportunities should also be obvious. Never before has technology been available to make the work of Masonic research easier and more possible for anyone with the desire. We have clear standards of how our research should be conducted, documented and presented. We know that we should not present ideas as facts, or allow “Masonic politics” to color or sway our research or presentation. We have the chance to do meaningful, objective work that can benefit the Freemasonry of today as well as the future.

 

The brothers of the mid 1800’s were quick to point the finger of blame at “the other guy” for all the perceived wrongs in Masonry during that time. But, were the wrongs with Masonry itself or the individual Masons of the time? Was Masonry flawed on either side or were the individual Masons flawed? Can we see the opportunity to help Masons of today by a study of the unfortunate events of the past?

 

When our ego allows us to see clearly, we realize that Masonry is better than us. Masonry is not improved because of our membership; we are improved because of our membership.

 

We have an opportunity. We have the tools to do the real work of Masonic research. We have the knowledge to know the nature of the real work of Masonic research. It is up to us to either do that work and earn our keep as Masons or succumb to the three villains.

 

What is truth? It may depend on what we are made of and our own points of view.

 

Notes:

 

1. On Sunday, July 16^th, 1752, Loge de la Parfaite Harmonie was created in New Orleans under the direct jurisdiction of Loge de la Parfaite Union de Martinique. Sharp Document #40.

2. Parfaite Union #1, Charité #2, Concorde #3, Persévérance #4 & Etoile Polaire #5.

3. Among other works, see: A Masonic Trial in New Orleans by Joseph Lamarre, tans. by Charles Laffon de Ladébat (1858); Mémoire à Consulter by James Foulhouze (1858) and A Dissection of the Manifesto of Mr. Charles Bienvenu by Albert Pike and Charles Laffon de Ladébat (1858).

 

***

 

Deadly Apathy

The Journal of the Masonic Society, Issue 10, 2010

 

WE HAVE ALL READ or heard stories of individuals who have taken drastic steps to save their own lives. Recently I read of a man who was doing some repair work on his water heater. He needed to reach far into the tank while lying on his back. While working in that position, his arm became wedged in the tank and he found that it was impossible to remove it. He screamed for help, but was alone in the house and no one was near enough outside to hear his cries. The man had spent several days trapped with his arm hopelessly wedged when he noticed a disturbing smell coming from inside the tank and around his arm. The man later recounted that instinct must have taken over. He managed to reach a saw and began to cut off his arm. The next day, several family members – concerned at not being able to reach him – found him unconscious on the floor in a pool of blood, his arm severed at the elbow. The man was taken to the hospital where he recovered, but the doctors gave him a sobering report. Gangrene had set into his arm, and he was told that if he had not removed it when he did, he would have died. The doctors also noted that if he had waited any longer to remove the arm, it would have been too late. The poison would have spread through his body and nothing then would have saved him. The man’s life was saved not just because he took action, but when he took action.

I joined Masonry in the mid-’70s. While a number of my family members had been Masons, I knew next to nothing of the philosophy or history of Freemasonry. All that I knew was that it was a “good” organization. It took my joining to find out what “good” meant. Such ignorance of the philosophy of Freemasonry prior to joining is becoming more of the exception than the rule today. Many of the young men who join Masonry already know much of its philosophy. They have read the popular, new and exciting books on Freemasonry. They arrive at the door of the Lodge with an awareness of a wonderful, mysterious, moral and enlightened group of seekers. They want to share in and be a part of such an organization. But, sadly, this is not exactly what they always find when they join.

 

The numbers of demits, NPD, and non-participation are growing at an alarming rate. The new reports paint a dismal picture. Yes, new members are coming fast, and sometimes in very good numbers, but we seem to be having trouble keeping them. So, why is this happening and what do we do?

 

What seems to be happening is the young men come to Freemasonry with an idea of what it should be and find that it is something very different. Many come with the hopes of finding enlightening discussions, intellectual programs designed to lift us to new heights and help us learn more of ourselves and our world. Yet, sometimes all they find is “good ole boys” seeking to add another title, gain a bit more authority or power, and be more of the “big fish” in whatever pond they thrive. There is lots of coffee, but little real enlightenment. The young Masons become upset at the reality of their Masonry when they compare it to what they believed of Masonry before they joined. Some make their displeasure known – loudly. At times, such pointed objections by the young brothers are met with disapproval. It is perceived that the young Masons know nothing of what they are talking about, are out of place, need to “get with the program” and stop “being so negative.” The upset young Masons are viewed as the trouble-makers and their cries for Masonry as they believe it should be are viewed more as the cries of malcontents. They are often ignored and sometimes ostracized. The Masons become disillusioned and wonder why they ever joined.

 

What happens next takes us back to the man with his arm wedged in the tank of the water heater. At the moment he began to smell something very bad, he had a choice. He could act or he could wait and see. Acting in a decisive manner saved his life; waiting to see if the situation changed on its own would have cost him his life. As in many cases, timing is everything. In Freemasonry, our gangrene is apathy. If apathy towards Freemasonry, or any body of Freemasonry, sets into anyone then they stop caring. Once they stop caring, Masonry does not matter to them and they turn their back, demit, stop paying their dues or just live as a card carrier. The positive force that could have been dies. We all lose.

 

And, whose fault is it if a Mason stops caring about Masonry? If we believe or say that it is in some way the fault of the disillusioned Mason, that he would “do better to bring about changes on the inside” or some other such criticism designed to shame him into remaining a member, then we add insult to injury. We have missed the point and are only making a bad situation worse. It would be the same as if we saw the man with his arm wedged in the tank and we advised him to be patient and hang on a bit longer as things will certainly get better if he just waits out the unpleasant situation. When does “hanging on” reach the point of gangrene and result in death no matter what is done after?

 

In all cases, objectivity, recognition of the actual situation and the courage to do what needs to be done must be paramount. If a dedicated, serious Mason ceases to care about some Masonic body, then the “blame game” of identifying who is at fault is pointless. Apathy has won and Masonry loses.

 

The time to act is when we see the first signs of actual trouble. The first thing the man with his arm wedged did was try to free his arm. He twisted it, moved it this way and that and did everything he could do to free it. This is the same as if we belong to a dysfunctional Masonic body and we try to suggest ways to improve the body, work for changes and do all we can to correct the situation as a member. If nothing works, then we must take the next step.

 

When all his own efforts could not free his arm, the man began yelling for help. He was clearly not in a position to effect any positive change in the situation; maybe someone else could render him aid. In Masonry, the calling for help would come in the form of seeking out superiors who might be able to correct the situation. When our own best efforts fail, and they sometimes do, we need to seek help from those in a position who might be able to grant what we need.

 

And what do we do if no help comes? In all cases, we need to act responsibly. We can not act in haste, foolishly or without considered thought. But at some point we need to act. Failure to take any action is often just as reckless and foolish as an action taken too quickly. At some point, the man with his arm wedged knew that something was very wrong. He may not have known all the details or possessed all the medical knowledge of the situation, but he knew that he needed to take drastic action to correct the situation. Oh yes, help did arrive just the next day. But, it was too late. The doctors told him that if he had waited those additional hours, the poison would have gone through his body and then nothing would have been able to save him. He took the necessary action and he took it in time to save his life.

 

No one told us that being a Mason was always going to be easy. If someone did, they told us a story. Throughout our degrees, we are given lessons of honor, integrity and courage. We are given lessons that are sometimes very difficult to put into practice. In my Craft Masonry, we use the Scottish Rite Craft ritual. We are taught that the three “villains” in craft Masonry represent ignorance, falsehood and ambition. If we have a deficiency of the former or allow any of the later to gain hold of us, then we do not live Freemasonry as we were taught. Our goal is to control and advance ourselves. We must live our own lives as Masonry teaches us. We have no control over another, even our closest brother, but we must always have total control over ourselves.

 

Freemasonry is going through a revolution of sorts. Gone are the days of the “good ole boy” clubs, the power brokers or the joining of one organization only because it is viewed as a prerequisite for another organization. The young Masons come to us with an understanding of the value of what we teach, not the shiny trinkets we wear. The beauty of what is taught in the various bodies is desired. The leadership of every single body in Masonry must provide quality education, leadership and teach what is supposed to be learned by the new members. If it is in any way unclear as to what is supposed to be taught in any Masonic body, then that should give the clear signal that a change is in order in those bodies. When the ones who must teach don’t know themselves, the whole body suffers. Stand up, do the work that you need to do or allow another to do the work.

 

Luckily, in many cases we find that only the first step is necessary in dysfunctional Masonic bodies. We are finding more and more cases of the new members realizing that something is very lacking, standing up and taking control of the lacking Lodges and making the positive changes themselves. In those bodies where the membership is not in a position to make such changes on their own authority, then assistance from superiors is necessary or the body will crumble. Period.

 

Apathy is the cancer we can not allow to set into any Mason. Our new, young Masons have a foundation that brings with them a hope for our future that is too valuable to ignore. We must do all in our power to see that their interest, dedication and hunger for Masonry is not trampled by the unworthy or their death grip on their perceived power.

 

We are in new wonderful times. We must always look to tomorrow if we have any hope of a future than includes Freemasonry.

 

***