-
Articles/Ads
Article THE COLOURED MASON QUESTION. ← Page 2 of 3 Article THE COLOURED MASON QUESTION. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Coloured Mason Question.
inform us of your very existence ; our Grand Lodge , therefore , not only erased tho African Lodge in 1813 , but your St . John ' s Lodge , with forty other American Lodges besides , were so erased . It really seems that you wero ashamed to write a line to our Grand Lodge until after your misdeeds were forgotten here . On the other hand , tho African Lodge paid us four guineas for its Charter—just
twice the sum you paid for your .-j ; and between tho years 17 S 9 and 1797 , the African Lodge generously donated to our Charity Fund the sum of £ 5 14 a 5 d . And , though you knew very well that tho African Lodge was legally constituted , yet , because thoy wero Africans , you would not acknowledge them , and your Whites unscrupulously invented all manner of falsehoods about tho said Lodge . Tho Africans
merely neglected to correspond with our Grand Secretary , for which neglect thoy apologised in 1824 ; and it was not until after waiting three years in vain for an answer before they declared their Masonic independence . " Jonathan . — "You will at least admit that , after 1792 , when the Lodges of Scotch and English origin united , that our Grand Lodge
then became a Grand Lodge de facto , as well as de jure , and that all Masons in our jurisdiction must then have become amenable to its laws . Now , in 1827 , when the Blacks began to charter Lodges , our Grand'Lodgo had been in operation for thirty-five consecutive years , wo wero visited by foreigners , and we visited foreign Lodges all over the world ; we , therefore , had a prescriptive right , according to
all laws , Masonic and otherwise , and the Blacks wero certainly guilty of violating Masonio laws by invading a jurisdiction already established ; in fact , they rebelled against our authority . " John Bull . — " My dear Brother , these aro mere legal quibbles , for if the Blacks had organised a Grand Lodgo in Boston , in 1776 , you Whites would not have cared about their prescriptive rights , nor about
their claim of de facto and de jure . Your Grand Lodgo of 1792 did not invite the African Lodge to participate in the making of your laws j the Africans wero , therefore , not amenable to those laws , nor are they now ; they never were your subjects , and thoy consequently never rebelled against your authority ; and your own unjust laws precluded them from being subject to your authority . Now ,
whenever a government presumes to establish injustice by law , the aggrieved are justified to appeal to the higher law , a law which overrides all other human laws—I mean the law of necessity . By that law we have tried and condemned a king for treason , and expelled a legal dynasty ; by that law George Washington made your nation independent , and Abraham Lincoln freed your slaves ; and by
the same law have you assumed your Masonio independence . Bro . Gardner , your P . G . M ., now Judge of your Superior Court , could claim no higher legality for your Grand Lodge than that of revolution and assumption . On our part , wo admitted your necessity and forgave your shortcomings . In 1827 , the African Lodge also had cause to appeal to that higher
law ; its offences to us were less than yours , and its necessity was much greater . The African Lodge paid for its Masonry , and was equally , with your Lodge , entitled to all Masonio privileges . Your St . John's Lodge , while still subject to our Grand Lodge , for it did not then acknowledge any other Grand Lodge , ignored the rights of the African Lodge ; and after 1792 , your Grand Lodge , in conjunction
with the other American Grand Lodges , entered into a conspiracy to rob tho Africans of their Masonic rights . After our Grand Secretary refused to notice their humble petition , their Masonic life , which was as dear to them as it is to us , became seriously endangered . Selfpreservation , therefore , the very highest kind of necessity , compelled and justified them to form a Grand Lodgo , to scatter Masonio Lodges
among their people in their native land , and to create for themselves Masonic homes all over the country . The case may now be summed up . Three distinct Grand Lodges were successively organized by revolution and assumption in Boston—namely , in 1777 , 1792 , and in 1827 . The two former were organized by white Masons , and the latter by coloured . If the White brethren had a right to revolution
and assumption , the same right must be also conceded to the Blacks , especially as their necessity was most urgent , and it wholly arose through the unmasonic conduct of the white Masons . Viewing , therefore , the question from every point , I really can see no reason in your Boston notion that you aro all right , and he is all wrong . " Jonathan . — "You may , if you please , call my arguments legal
quibbles , but I say law must be respected . I don ' t care for Mr . Lincoln ' s abolition of slavery , nor about shortcomings of the past , either , to your Grand Lodge or the negroes . All I havo to say is this : You have tacitly acknowledged the legality of our Grand Lodge , and it is now your bounden duty to respect our laws . " John Bull . — " The drift of your argument amounts to this , Law is
paramount to justice ; if a Black man offends against the law , he must be rigorously punished ; but if a White man offends , then you don't care about it . These ideas of yours are truly a violation of tho laws of Masonry and humanity , and we cannot respect such laws . According to my opinion , Bro . Black is either legitimately , or illegitimately , legally , or illegally ( which yon please ) , your Masonic equal , and unless you can prove him otherwise unworthy , I must
extend to him the same privileges as I will extend to you . Our Yankee visitor is a Democratic stump orator ; the chief article in his political creed is , that " a nigger is not equal to a white man . " Bro . John Bull ' s remarks , therefore , touched his most tender spot . The wrath which he had hitherto kept bottled up , now began to escape ; and , like the steam of a locomotive , it began to issue in distinct puffs , and as its rapidity increased , it became a continuous roar , and now comes out his true reasons .
Jonathan . — "I say nothing against Black ' s character ; he is a decent sort of a man , and upright too ; but you can't make me believe that a nigger is my equal . No , Sir ! he is of an inferior race . Did you ever hear of a nigger Shakeapere , or a Sir Isaac Newton ? Would
you like your daughter to marry a nigger ? I tell you a nigger is a nigger , and if you want to see niggers , go to a plantation in South Carolina ; a nigger is not my equal . You don't know what a nigger is . " John Bull . — " Aa it is now time to open the Lodge , I oan . here only
The Coloured Mason Question.
; ay that vie have nothing to do with race , but only with individuals , for we are of all kindreds . Yon have admitted that Black is an upright man ; it is , therefore , my duty to admit him . Wo may hereafter resume onr discussion . At present , I beg to invito you to the
hospitality of our Lodgo . " Jonathan . — " No , Sir ! I won't sit with a nigger in a Lodge , aud I won't discuss with you . We believe that the niggers are clandestine , iiicl you have no right to question my belief . " [ Evit Jonathan .
Nothing now remains but , according to ancient custom , to shako hands with my plucky antagonist , aud part as friends . There was no malice between us , and there ought to bo no envy when tho judges shall havo awarded the belt to tho deserving champion . And , in plain English , I sincerely thank my opponent for having permitted me to have my say .
[ Our esteemed contributor , Bro . Jacob Norton , will , we doubt not , recognise the propriety of closing tho argument on this vexed question . Tho subject is not ono to which wo consider wo should be justified in devoting further
space . We opened the ball—to use a familiar expressionwith an article calling on our Grand Lodge to lay down somo rule for the guidance of Lodge officers should they be ever called upon to decide as to the admission or non-admission of a member of one of these Coloured Masonio organisations .
At the same time , we indicated our belief that should one present himself he ought not to be admitted . Beyond this the subject has no interest for English Masons . However , in dismissing the matter , Bro . Norton will , perhaps , excuse us for saying that his conduct reminds us of the general ,
who , finding his enemy ' s position to be impregnable , marches his army all round it , fires off a few rounds of artillery in any direction but the right one , and then retires in the belief he has gained a substantial victory . Bro . Norton ' s arguments have not affected our position in any
way . Wo have poundecihim till he has not a word to say on the real point at issue , which is not whether " African " Lodge was or was not illegal , but whether a body of Masons has a right to invade the jurisdiction of another body of Masons . We say , emphatically , it has not ; and , wero it
possible for a Lodge or Lodges to be established iu any one of our English provinces , claiming to exist as a Masonic body or bodies , without paying allegiance to our Grand Lodge , we have a very firm belief that the latter would decline to recognise it or them . Bro .
Norton asks , if our Grand Lodge , England , has i-ecognised the claim advanced by American Grand Lodges to exclusive jurisdiction over their several states or
territories ? Our answer is , decidedly , Yes ; and the proof—that several of the American Grand Lodges interchange representatives with our English Grand Lodge . Then , Bro . Norton adduces a case in which the
Massachusetts Grand Lodge chartered a Lodge in Valparaiso , and still claims it as a daughter Lodge , though there is in Chili a supreme Masonic authority . Were we called upon to decide this case upon the circumstances as described to us by Bro . Norton , we should rale that this act of tho
Massachusetts Grand Lodge was an invasion of the ri ghts of tho Chili Grand Orient . The next case which Bro . Norton adduces of the Lodge of Hebrew Masons chartered at Frankfort-on-the-Maine , by our late Grand Master the Duke of Sussex , is no help to him whatever , and we are
surprised so skilful a dialectician as Bro . Norton should have committed so grave an error as he has done in this paragraph of the above commentary . In the first place , when the Duke of Sussex was Grand Master , Frankforton-the-Maine was a free Imperial city , having its own
government and laws , bnt no supreme Masonic authority ; and if it chose to place itself Masonically under the wino- of our English Grand Lodge , there was no power on earth could say it nay . It was only at the conclusion of tho Seven Weeks' war in 1866 , that this Frankfort became
incorporate with the North German Confederation , and it is now part and parcel of the German Empire . This Lodge is no longer on the roll of the Grand Lod ^ e of England , and therefore this illustration is a serious detriment instead of an assistance to Bro . Norton ' s
argument . But the most egregious error which onr amiable contributor has fallen into is in affirming that what the Duke of Sussex did , during his tenure of the Grand Mastership ( 1813-1843 ) , in the way of violating a German jurisdiction which did not at the time exist , justified an
irregular action on the part of Grand Master the Duke of Cumberland , who reigned , Masonically , from 1782 to 1790 —the year of his death . We see clearly enough that a precedent established by the Duke of Cumberland would justify the conduct of any one of his successors , but not how the conduct of any Grand Master would serve aa a
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Coloured Mason Question.
inform us of your very existence ; our Grand Lodge , therefore , not only erased tho African Lodge in 1813 , but your St . John ' s Lodge , with forty other American Lodges besides , were so erased . It really seems that you wero ashamed to write a line to our Grand Lodge until after your misdeeds were forgotten here . On the other hand , tho African Lodge paid us four guineas for its Charter—just
twice the sum you paid for your .-j ; and between tho years 17 S 9 and 1797 , the African Lodge generously donated to our Charity Fund the sum of £ 5 14 a 5 d . And , though you knew very well that tho African Lodge was legally constituted , yet , because thoy wero Africans , you would not acknowledge them , and your Whites unscrupulously invented all manner of falsehoods about tho said Lodge . Tho Africans
merely neglected to correspond with our Grand Secretary , for which neglect thoy apologised in 1824 ; and it was not until after waiting three years in vain for an answer before they declared their Masonic independence . " Jonathan . — "You will at least admit that , after 1792 , when the Lodges of Scotch and English origin united , that our Grand Lodge
then became a Grand Lodge de facto , as well as de jure , and that all Masons in our jurisdiction must then have become amenable to its laws . Now , in 1827 , when the Blacks began to charter Lodges , our Grand'Lodgo had been in operation for thirty-five consecutive years , wo wero visited by foreigners , and we visited foreign Lodges all over the world ; we , therefore , had a prescriptive right , according to
all laws , Masonic and otherwise , and the Blacks wero certainly guilty of violating Masonio laws by invading a jurisdiction already established ; in fact , they rebelled against our authority . " John Bull . — " My dear Brother , these aro mere legal quibbles , for if the Blacks had organised a Grand Lodgo in Boston , in 1776 , you Whites would not have cared about their prescriptive rights , nor about
their claim of de facto and de jure . Your Grand Lodgo of 1792 did not invite the African Lodge to participate in the making of your laws j the Africans wero , therefore , not amenable to those laws , nor are they now ; they never were your subjects , and thoy consequently never rebelled against your authority ; and your own unjust laws precluded them from being subject to your authority . Now ,
whenever a government presumes to establish injustice by law , the aggrieved are justified to appeal to the higher law , a law which overrides all other human laws—I mean the law of necessity . By that law we have tried and condemned a king for treason , and expelled a legal dynasty ; by that law George Washington made your nation independent , and Abraham Lincoln freed your slaves ; and by
the same law have you assumed your Masonio independence . Bro . Gardner , your P . G . M ., now Judge of your Superior Court , could claim no higher legality for your Grand Lodge than that of revolution and assumption . On our part , wo admitted your necessity and forgave your shortcomings . In 1827 , the African Lodge also had cause to appeal to that higher
law ; its offences to us were less than yours , and its necessity was much greater . The African Lodge paid for its Masonry , and was equally , with your Lodge , entitled to all Masonio privileges . Your St . John's Lodge , while still subject to our Grand Lodge , for it did not then acknowledge any other Grand Lodge , ignored the rights of the African Lodge ; and after 1792 , your Grand Lodge , in conjunction
with the other American Grand Lodges , entered into a conspiracy to rob tho Africans of their Masonic rights . After our Grand Secretary refused to notice their humble petition , their Masonic life , which was as dear to them as it is to us , became seriously endangered . Selfpreservation , therefore , the very highest kind of necessity , compelled and justified them to form a Grand Lodgo , to scatter Masonio Lodges
among their people in their native land , and to create for themselves Masonic homes all over the country . The case may now be summed up . Three distinct Grand Lodges were successively organized by revolution and assumption in Boston—namely , in 1777 , 1792 , and in 1827 . The two former were organized by white Masons , and the latter by coloured . If the White brethren had a right to revolution
and assumption , the same right must be also conceded to the Blacks , especially as their necessity was most urgent , and it wholly arose through the unmasonic conduct of the white Masons . Viewing , therefore , the question from every point , I really can see no reason in your Boston notion that you aro all right , and he is all wrong . " Jonathan . — "You may , if you please , call my arguments legal
quibbles , but I say law must be respected . I don ' t care for Mr . Lincoln ' s abolition of slavery , nor about shortcomings of the past , either , to your Grand Lodge or the negroes . All I havo to say is this : You have tacitly acknowledged the legality of our Grand Lodge , and it is now your bounden duty to respect our laws . " John Bull . — " The drift of your argument amounts to this , Law is
paramount to justice ; if a Black man offends against the law , he must be rigorously punished ; but if a White man offends , then you don't care about it . These ideas of yours are truly a violation of tho laws of Masonry and humanity , and we cannot respect such laws . According to my opinion , Bro . Black is either legitimately , or illegitimately , legally , or illegally ( which yon please ) , your Masonic equal , and unless you can prove him otherwise unworthy , I must
extend to him the same privileges as I will extend to you . Our Yankee visitor is a Democratic stump orator ; the chief article in his political creed is , that " a nigger is not equal to a white man . " Bro . John Bull ' s remarks , therefore , touched his most tender spot . The wrath which he had hitherto kept bottled up , now began to escape ; and , like the steam of a locomotive , it began to issue in distinct puffs , and as its rapidity increased , it became a continuous roar , and now comes out his true reasons .
Jonathan . — "I say nothing against Black ' s character ; he is a decent sort of a man , and upright too ; but you can't make me believe that a nigger is my equal . No , Sir ! he is of an inferior race . Did you ever hear of a nigger Shakeapere , or a Sir Isaac Newton ? Would
you like your daughter to marry a nigger ? I tell you a nigger is a nigger , and if you want to see niggers , go to a plantation in South Carolina ; a nigger is not my equal . You don't know what a nigger is . " John Bull . — " Aa it is now time to open the Lodge , I oan . here only
The Coloured Mason Question.
; ay that vie have nothing to do with race , but only with individuals , for we are of all kindreds . Yon have admitted that Black is an upright man ; it is , therefore , my duty to admit him . Wo may hereafter resume onr discussion . At present , I beg to invito you to the
hospitality of our Lodgo . " Jonathan . — " No , Sir ! I won't sit with a nigger in a Lodge , aud I won't discuss with you . We believe that the niggers are clandestine , iiicl you have no right to question my belief . " [ Evit Jonathan .
Nothing now remains but , according to ancient custom , to shako hands with my plucky antagonist , aud part as friends . There was no malice between us , and there ought to bo no envy when tho judges shall havo awarded the belt to tho deserving champion . And , in plain English , I sincerely thank my opponent for having permitted me to have my say .
[ Our esteemed contributor , Bro . Jacob Norton , will , we doubt not , recognise the propriety of closing tho argument on this vexed question . Tho subject is not ono to which wo consider wo should be justified in devoting further
space . We opened the ball—to use a familiar expressionwith an article calling on our Grand Lodge to lay down somo rule for the guidance of Lodge officers should they be ever called upon to decide as to the admission or non-admission of a member of one of these Coloured Masonio organisations .
At the same time , we indicated our belief that should one present himself he ought not to be admitted . Beyond this the subject has no interest for English Masons . However , in dismissing the matter , Bro . Norton will , perhaps , excuse us for saying that his conduct reminds us of the general ,
who , finding his enemy ' s position to be impregnable , marches his army all round it , fires off a few rounds of artillery in any direction but the right one , and then retires in the belief he has gained a substantial victory . Bro . Norton ' s arguments have not affected our position in any
way . Wo have poundecihim till he has not a word to say on the real point at issue , which is not whether " African " Lodge was or was not illegal , but whether a body of Masons has a right to invade the jurisdiction of another body of Masons . We say , emphatically , it has not ; and , wero it
possible for a Lodge or Lodges to be established iu any one of our English provinces , claiming to exist as a Masonic body or bodies , without paying allegiance to our Grand Lodge , we have a very firm belief that the latter would decline to recognise it or them . Bro .
Norton asks , if our Grand Lodge , England , has i-ecognised the claim advanced by American Grand Lodges to exclusive jurisdiction over their several states or
territories ? Our answer is , decidedly , Yes ; and the proof—that several of the American Grand Lodges interchange representatives with our English Grand Lodge . Then , Bro . Norton adduces a case in which the
Massachusetts Grand Lodge chartered a Lodge in Valparaiso , and still claims it as a daughter Lodge , though there is in Chili a supreme Masonic authority . Were we called upon to decide this case upon the circumstances as described to us by Bro . Norton , we should rale that this act of tho
Massachusetts Grand Lodge was an invasion of the ri ghts of tho Chili Grand Orient . The next case which Bro . Norton adduces of the Lodge of Hebrew Masons chartered at Frankfort-on-the-Maine , by our late Grand Master the Duke of Sussex , is no help to him whatever , and we are
surprised so skilful a dialectician as Bro . Norton should have committed so grave an error as he has done in this paragraph of the above commentary . In the first place , when the Duke of Sussex was Grand Master , Frankforton-the-Maine was a free Imperial city , having its own
government and laws , bnt no supreme Masonic authority ; and if it chose to place itself Masonically under the wino- of our English Grand Lodge , there was no power on earth could say it nay . It was only at the conclusion of tho Seven Weeks' war in 1866 , that this Frankfort became
incorporate with the North German Confederation , and it is now part and parcel of the German Empire . This Lodge is no longer on the roll of the Grand Lod ^ e of England , and therefore this illustration is a serious detriment instead of an assistance to Bro . Norton ' s
argument . But the most egregious error which onr amiable contributor has fallen into is in affirming that what the Duke of Sussex did , during his tenure of the Grand Mastership ( 1813-1843 ) , in the way of violating a German jurisdiction which did not at the time exist , justified an
irregular action on the part of Grand Master the Duke of Cumberland , who reigned , Masonically , from 1782 to 1790 —the year of his death . We see clearly enough that a precedent established by the Duke of Cumberland would justify the conduct of any one of his successors , but not how the conduct of any Grand Master would serve aa a