-
Articles/Ads
Article COLOURED MASONRY. ← Page 2 of 3 Article COLOURED MASONRY. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Coloured Masonry.
importance whatever , the colour of a man ' s skin ; be it black , brown , or white , he is equally eligible for admission into our Society , provided only ho fulfils the above conditions . Nor does it appear to us to by a matter of very great
moment whether we adopt tho reading of the old charge or regulation , and require a man to bo " free-born , " or that of the more modern constitution , and require him to bo onl y " a free man ; " unless , indeed , it can be shown that in
thoso countries which still adopt the former , Masonic communities exist , successive members of which , from their first constitution till now , have not been free-born . Such communities would undoubtedly bo irregular . We have not , however , heard of the time when , in some parts of the
world , there have not been free-born men of colour of African origin . In order , then , to decide on this ground against the legality of these coloured or African communities , it would have to be proved that tlie original warrant or warrants under which thev erect their claim to be Masonic
Communities , was or were irregularly issued , that is to say , was or were issued to persons not legally admissible into Freemasonry . We have , however , the right to assume , in the absence of any proof to the contrary , that the said warrant or warrants was or were issued by a competent
body to competent persons . So long , too , as the law requires that a Mason must be free-born , that law must be acted upon , and any person who was not free-born , but notwithstanding such defect , had been made a Mason , would not be entitled to any of the rights of Freemasonry .
A Lodge thus concerned in making such irregular Masons would become liable to punishment , even to the extent of being struck off the rolls of that constituent body , of which it formed a part . But though the circumstance of a man not being free-born would unquestionably vitiate his
" making , " and justly exclude him from all participation in the rights and privileges of our Society , the Lodge that made him , if permitted to remain on the Register , would certainly continue to enjoy a perfectly legal constitution , so long , indeed , as it contained a sufficient number of
legally-made Masons to satisfy the prescribed condition of " perfection . " In order to show that these African or coloured Masonic Communities enjoy no legal status , from a defect in their origin , we must prove that either the bod y to which they owe their origin was itself illegal , or was
vested with no legal power to confer Masonic rights and privileges on other persons . If , however , the contention is that though their origin was legal , there has been a break in what we will describe as tbe continuity of this legality , we must prove a lapse of warrant or other sufficient cause .
Fortunately , the line of argument thus far indicated , being based on the assumption that the burden of proof rests , not with the African Grand Lodges , but with their antagonists , or , in other words , that the latter are under tbe disagreeable necessity of proving a negative—or shall we
say , a series of negatives ?—This argument , we say , need not be pursued to any greater length . In the first place , it is the duty of the African Grand Lodges to make out their claims to recognition as legally constituted Masonic
communities ; in the next , the real issue is much simpler in reality than at first sight it appears to be , being , in fact , neither more nor less than a mere question of jurisdiction , Can two Grand Lodges co-exist in the same State ?
We cheerfully abandon the duty of establishing a complete chain of evidence in support of their legality to these coloured or African Grand Lodges themselves . We imagine they will experience much difficulty in producing any that will convince unprejudiced persons of the justice
of their claims . Their case is far from being a clear one . We may even go further and say , that in a pretty long course of Masonio study it has not often been our lot to find one which rests more on assertion , less on positive proof . This is saying a great deal , considering the general
darkness which prevails in Masonic history . Let us , however , assume , for the sake of argument , that these Lodges trace back clearly , link by link , a chain of evidence establishing their legal origin and the continuity of their legal being . Are there , even in such case , any just reasons why
they should now be recognised as separate and distinct Grand Lodges ? Hitherto they have not been so recognised and what new aspect has their case assumed that we should be called upon to do now what we
have steadfastly declined to do in times gone by ? Let us take the case of Ohio as an example . What say the Wardens of American Union Lodge No . 1 , writing from "Marietta , Ohio , " under date of "May 5 , 5791 , " as to Masonic Jurisdiction in America ? " We found that
Coloured Masonry.
previous to the late Revolution , all Masonic jurisdiction in America was derived from Europe , delegated to Grand Masters in and over certain districts . That since the war the Masonic bodies in the different States have considered themselves independent of Europe ; have formed their
Grand Lodges by electing a Grand Master and other officers necessary to compose tho same ; that this system has taken place where there was no Grand Lodge previous to the Revolution , as well as in those States where Grand Masters had been appointed from Europe . " They then justify the
" opening a Lodge within the Territory North-west of the Ohio , " and proceed as follows : — " Accordingly tho Master with a duo number of the former members being present , the Lodge Avas opened in ample form and incorporated
agreeably to the ancient customs of the Royal Craft , and we have to request that we may be recognised as such in the different Grand Lodges in our Sister States in America . " Reasons aro then wiven which "will soon make it
necessary for tho full enjoyment of the benefits of "Masonry that more Lodges be established within the Territory , " and these are followed by the important declaration " that in pursuance of the example of some of the Confederate States who had no Grand Master previous to tho
Revolution , and have since formed a Grand Lodge by electing a Grand Master , wo conceive ourselves as being the Masonic Body corporated within the Federal territories and duly invested with every power necessary to constitute , rule , and govern the same agreeably to the
constitutions and ancient customs of the Royal Craft throughout the world . " Here , then , we have the establishment , in Western Territory , of the first germ of an Independent Grand Lodge , claiming to exercise the powers of right belonging to such a Body . Here , too , we have it
announced that the Masonic dependence of America on Europe ceased with the termination of the war of Independence 1783 . How much earlier other Provincial Grand Lodges declared their Masonic Independence is not material to the issue . Taking the facts described by Bro .
Drummond , P . G . M . Maine , in his article in the Masonic Beview for July , on " Coloured Masonry " as the basis of this portion of our argument—and we are not aware they are denied by those who differ with him—taking his facts , we say , we find that application was made by Prince Hall
to the Grand Lodge Moderns of England for a charter , in March 1784 , the year following the cessation of American Masonic dependence on Europe . The charter was received , or African Lodge organized under it , in 1787 . Two other Lodges were chartered subsequently , either by African
Lodge or Prince Hall , one in Philadelphia , one in Providence , R . I . In 1808 these three organised a Grand Lodge in Boston . In 1824 a petition was sent to England for a renewal of the charter . In 1827 , no answer having been received , African Lodge published a Declaration of
Independence . In 1847 a National Grand Lodge was formed . Thus we have , on the one hand , the statement in May 1791 by the Wardens of American Union Lodge No . 1 , located at Marietta , Ohio , that the Masonic dependence of America on Europe had ceased eight years previously—that is , in 1783 ,
when the war of Independence terminated ; on the other , an application to England in 1784 , for a charter for that very Masonic Lodge , from which have sprung the various coloured Masonic organisations now existing in the United States . We are quite aware the Masonic Independence of
the United States was not recognised in England at the same time as its political Independence . In the 1807 edition of Aldman Bezon , we find included in the list of " Foreign Lodges under the Grand Lodge" ( Ancients ) " of England , " two Charleston Lodges , three New York Lodges , and the
Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania . Yet , as was shown in our review of the Early History and Transactions of the Grand Lodge of Neio York , long before 1807 , the Grand Lodge of New York strenuously and successfully insisted on its position of complete and absolute Masonic authority in the
State . In the same work , too , we find under date , " New York , September 3 rd 1788 , " the following Note : — " A communication was received from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania , announcing its having become au Independent Grand Lodge . " Moreover , Bro . Drummond
mentions in his article already referred to , that African Lodge was dropped from the roll of England at the Union r > f the Ancients and Moderns . The limits of different
territorial Masonic jurisdictions were not , in the days we are referring to , very clearly defined , nor , indeed , are they even now as distinctly marked as they might be . England , therefore , might claim to grant charters for the forma-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Coloured Masonry.
importance whatever , the colour of a man ' s skin ; be it black , brown , or white , he is equally eligible for admission into our Society , provided only ho fulfils the above conditions . Nor does it appear to us to by a matter of very great
moment whether we adopt tho reading of the old charge or regulation , and require a man to bo " free-born , " or that of the more modern constitution , and require him to bo onl y " a free man ; " unless , indeed , it can be shown that in
thoso countries which still adopt the former , Masonic communities exist , successive members of which , from their first constitution till now , have not been free-born . Such communities would undoubtedly bo irregular . We have not , however , heard of the time when , in some parts of the
world , there have not been free-born men of colour of African origin . In order , then , to decide on this ground against the legality of these coloured or African communities , it would have to be proved that tlie original warrant or warrants under which thev erect their claim to be Masonic
Communities , was or were irregularly issued , that is to say , was or were issued to persons not legally admissible into Freemasonry . We have , however , the right to assume , in the absence of any proof to the contrary , that the said warrant or warrants was or were issued by a competent
body to competent persons . So long , too , as the law requires that a Mason must be free-born , that law must be acted upon , and any person who was not free-born , but notwithstanding such defect , had been made a Mason , would not be entitled to any of the rights of Freemasonry .
A Lodge thus concerned in making such irregular Masons would become liable to punishment , even to the extent of being struck off the rolls of that constituent body , of which it formed a part . But though the circumstance of a man not being free-born would unquestionably vitiate his
" making , " and justly exclude him from all participation in the rights and privileges of our Society , the Lodge that made him , if permitted to remain on the Register , would certainly continue to enjoy a perfectly legal constitution , so long , indeed , as it contained a sufficient number of
legally-made Masons to satisfy the prescribed condition of " perfection . " In order to show that these African or coloured Masonic Communities enjoy no legal status , from a defect in their origin , we must prove that either the bod y to which they owe their origin was itself illegal , or was
vested with no legal power to confer Masonic rights and privileges on other persons . If , however , the contention is that though their origin was legal , there has been a break in what we will describe as tbe continuity of this legality , we must prove a lapse of warrant or other sufficient cause .
Fortunately , the line of argument thus far indicated , being based on the assumption that the burden of proof rests , not with the African Grand Lodges , but with their antagonists , or , in other words , that the latter are under tbe disagreeable necessity of proving a negative—or shall we
say , a series of negatives ?—This argument , we say , need not be pursued to any greater length . In the first place , it is the duty of the African Grand Lodges to make out their claims to recognition as legally constituted Masonic
communities ; in the next , the real issue is much simpler in reality than at first sight it appears to be , being , in fact , neither more nor less than a mere question of jurisdiction , Can two Grand Lodges co-exist in the same State ?
We cheerfully abandon the duty of establishing a complete chain of evidence in support of their legality to these coloured or African Grand Lodges themselves . We imagine they will experience much difficulty in producing any that will convince unprejudiced persons of the justice
of their claims . Their case is far from being a clear one . We may even go further and say , that in a pretty long course of Masonio study it has not often been our lot to find one which rests more on assertion , less on positive proof . This is saying a great deal , considering the general
darkness which prevails in Masonic history . Let us , however , assume , for the sake of argument , that these Lodges trace back clearly , link by link , a chain of evidence establishing their legal origin and the continuity of their legal being . Are there , even in such case , any just reasons why
they should now be recognised as separate and distinct Grand Lodges ? Hitherto they have not been so recognised and what new aspect has their case assumed that we should be called upon to do now what we
have steadfastly declined to do in times gone by ? Let us take the case of Ohio as an example . What say the Wardens of American Union Lodge No . 1 , writing from "Marietta , Ohio , " under date of "May 5 , 5791 , " as to Masonic Jurisdiction in America ? " We found that
Coloured Masonry.
previous to the late Revolution , all Masonic jurisdiction in America was derived from Europe , delegated to Grand Masters in and over certain districts . That since the war the Masonic bodies in the different States have considered themselves independent of Europe ; have formed their
Grand Lodges by electing a Grand Master and other officers necessary to compose tho same ; that this system has taken place where there was no Grand Lodge previous to the Revolution , as well as in those States where Grand Masters had been appointed from Europe . " They then justify the
" opening a Lodge within the Territory North-west of the Ohio , " and proceed as follows : — " Accordingly tho Master with a duo number of the former members being present , the Lodge Avas opened in ample form and incorporated
agreeably to the ancient customs of the Royal Craft , and we have to request that we may be recognised as such in the different Grand Lodges in our Sister States in America . " Reasons aro then wiven which "will soon make it
necessary for tho full enjoyment of the benefits of "Masonry that more Lodges be established within the Territory , " and these are followed by the important declaration " that in pursuance of the example of some of the Confederate States who had no Grand Master previous to tho
Revolution , and have since formed a Grand Lodge by electing a Grand Master , wo conceive ourselves as being the Masonic Body corporated within the Federal territories and duly invested with every power necessary to constitute , rule , and govern the same agreeably to the
constitutions and ancient customs of the Royal Craft throughout the world . " Here , then , we have the establishment , in Western Territory , of the first germ of an Independent Grand Lodge , claiming to exercise the powers of right belonging to such a Body . Here , too , we have it
announced that the Masonic dependence of America on Europe ceased with the termination of the war of Independence 1783 . How much earlier other Provincial Grand Lodges declared their Masonic Independence is not material to the issue . Taking the facts described by Bro .
Drummond , P . G . M . Maine , in his article in the Masonic Beview for July , on " Coloured Masonry " as the basis of this portion of our argument—and we are not aware they are denied by those who differ with him—taking his facts , we say , we find that application was made by Prince Hall
to the Grand Lodge Moderns of England for a charter , in March 1784 , the year following the cessation of American Masonic dependence on Europe . The charter was received , or African Lodge organized under it , in 1787 . Two other Lodges were chartered subsequently , either by African
Lodge or Prince Hall , one in Philadelphia , one in Providence , R . I . In 1808 these three organised a Grand Lodge in Boston . In 1824 a petition was sent to England for a renewal of the charter . In 1827 , no answer having been received , African Lodge published a Declaration of
Independence . In 1847 a National Grand Lodge was formed . Thus we have , on the one hand , the statement in May 1791 by the Wardens of American Union Lodge No . 1 , located at Marietta , Ohio , that the Masonic dependence of America on Europe had ceased eight years previously—that is , in 1783 ,
when the war of Independence terminated ; on the other , an application to England in 1784 , for a charter for that very Masonic Lodge , from which have sprung the various coloured Masonic organisations now existing in the United States . We are quite aware the Masonic Independence of
the United States was not recognised in England at the same time as its political Independence . In the 1807 edition of Aldman Bezon , we find included in the list of " Foreign Lodges under the Grand Lodge" ( Ancients ) " of England , " two Charleston Lodges , three New York Lodges , and the
Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania . Yet , as was shown in our review of the Early History and Transactions of the Grand Lodge of Neio York , long before 1807 , the Grand Lodge of New York strenuously and successfully insisted on its position of complete and absolute Masonic authority in the
State . In the same work , too , we find under date , " New York , September 3 rd 1788 , " the following Note : — " A communication was received from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania , announcing its having become au Independent Grand Lodge . " Moreover , Bro . Drummond
mentions in his article already referred to , that African Lodge was dropped from the roll of England at the Union r > f the Ancients and Moderns . The limits of different
territorial Masonic jurisdictions were not , in the days we are referring to , very clearly defined , nor , indeed , are they even now as distinctly marked as they might be . England , therefore , might claim to grant charters for the forma-