MassachusettsHamiltonHistoryCh10
CHAPTER 10: THE COMING OF NEGRO MASONRY
While these events were taking place something occurred which did not directly concern the Grand Lodge, but had consequences of considerable importance. It was nothing less than the foundation of Negro masonry in the United States.
Perhaps it will be best to deal with the whole matter at this point. What follows is drawn mainly from two sources: Negro Masonry by William H. Upton, Boston, 1901, and Official History of Freemasonry Among the Colored People in North America by William H. Grimshaw, The Broadway Publishing Co., 1903. Upton was a Past Grand Master of Masons (white) in the State of Washington. Grimshaw was a Past Deputy Grand Master of Masons (colored) in the District of Columbia. Upton was a careful and competent investigator who tried honestly to present the facts as he saw them, The conclusions he draws are quite another matter on account of his very strong pro-negro bias. His book is a brief for Negro Masonry, Grimshaw's book is even more a piece of special pleading. He was a much less able man than Upton and is far less reliable.
The Upton book referred to was published by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and is a reprint of a report prepared for the Grand Lodge of Washington in 1898. In 1775 an Army Lodge, No. 58 on the roster of the English Ancients, conferred the Masonic degrees on one Prince Hall and fourteen other colored men. Hall was born September 12, 1748, at Bridgetown, Barbados, British West Indies. His father was an Englishman, his mother a free woman of French descent, but undoubtedly of mixed blood. Hall was always considered a negro. His father was a leather dealer in a small way and placed the boy as an apprentice with a leather worker when he was twelve years old. The family were respectable, but very poor. The boy eagerly desired to go to America, but was not encouraged by his parents.
After years of waiting he got an opportunity to work his passage to Boston, where he arrived in March, 1764. Friendless, penniless, and uneducated he set to work with energy and determination to make a place for himself. Working at his trade by day and studying by night he acquired a fair education and accumulated sufficient money to become at twenty-five a real estate owner and a voter. Not long afterward he joined the Methodist Church and soon became a minister with a church in Cambridge. He saw service in the Revolutionary army and at the close of the war married and settled in Boston. The income from his preaching was not sufficient for his support and he worked at his trade in connection with his ministerial labors until his death, December 7, 1807, at the age of fifty-nine. The portraits and accounts we have of him show him to have been a small man with refined and agreeable features and a very intelligent expression. His published papers and sermons show that he was a man of unusual ability, fully deserving the place of acknowledged leadership which he held among his people.
It is claimed that Lodge 58 authorized Hall and his associates to organize a Lodge and work under Dispensation until they could obtain a Charter. If this is true, it was certainly a stretch of authority for an Army Lodge to set itself up as a Mother Lodge of civilian Lodges. This was the first, but by no means the last, of the questionable proceedings we shall find in Negro Masonry. In any event, on July 3, 1775, the same day on which Washington took command in Cambridge, Hall organized and opened a Lodge in Boston and the Lodge proceeded to hold meetings. But Hall wanted a Charter. Grimshaw says that he applied to Warren for a Charter, but the death of Warren prevented any action. This must have happened, if at all, before he opened his Lodge. Grimshaw also says that he then applied to Howe, but was refused on account of color. The records of the two Provincial Grand Lodges show, as might be expected, no record of these applications. These statements of Grimshaw's are made on the authority of a petition for recognition submitted to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1869 by Lewis Hayden and other negro Masons.
Hall's own account is somewhat different. In a letter to William Moody,(Master of Perseverence Lodge, Westminster) dated March 2, 1784, and referring to his application to the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns) for a Charter he says: "I would inform you that this Lodge hath been formed almost eight years and we have had only a Permit to Walk on St. John's Day and to Bury our Dead in manner and form. We have had no opportunity to apply for a Warrant before now, though we have been importuned to send to France for one, yet we thought it best to send to the Fountain from whence we received the Light, for a Warrant: and now Dear Brother we must make you our advocate at the Grand Lodge, hoping you will be so good (in our name and Stead) to Lay this before the Royal Grand Master and the Grand Wardens and the rest of the Grand Lodge, who we hope will not deny us nor treat us Beneath the rest of our fellowmen, although Poor yet Sincere Brethren of the Craft."
There is no suggestion here of any previous application for a Warrant, but rather a fairly clear implication that none had been made. The "Royal Grand Master" was H. R. H. Frederick Henry, Duke of Cumberland. Cumberland was a younger brother of George III and was Grand Master from 1782 until his death in 1890, when he was succeeded by George, Prince of Wales, who held office until he ascended the thrown in 1813 as George IV.
It is clear that Hall was ignorant of the procedure of the Modern Grand Lodge. Then, as now, all Lodges were warranted by the Grand Master. "The Grand Wardens and the rest of the Grand Lodge" had nothing to do with the matter. Hall and his group had been initiated by an Ancient Lodge. They did not meet with their Mother Lodge at all, but in a room of their own on Water Street, and their Mother Lodge had left Boston with the rest of the army. Although Ancients they appear to have had no contact with the Massachusetts Grand Lodge. For about seven years they had been practically without Masonic contacts. Very possibly this ignorance may explain some things which are otherwise difficult to account for.
The desired Warrant was granted under date of September 29, 1784. The regularity of this Warrant and of the standing of African Lodge under it has been questioned, but not on adequate grounds. The issue of a Warrant by the Modern Grand Master to a group of petitioners who were Ancients was a matter entirely within the competence of the Grand Master, and the very fact that he issued it healed any irregularity in the petitioners. We have already dealt with a similar question in discussing the original Charter of St. Andrew's Lodge. It was not an invasion of jurisdiction. St. John's Grand Lodge was still functioning, however feebly, under Rowe's Warrant. It had not, and never did, set up as a sovereign Grand Lodge, much less been recognized as such. The English Grand Masters never gave up their right to warrant Lodges even where Provincial Grand Masters ruled. It was not an invasion of the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge from any point of view. If still regarded as a Scotch Provincial Grand Lodge the chartering of an English Lodge within its territory was not to be questioned, another point settled in the original St. Andrew's discussion. If its claim to be a sovereign Grand Lodge be considered, two points are raised, in the first place nobody had as yet recognized it, and in the second place it did not then, or ever, claim authority except over Ancient Lodges. The original Warrant of African Lodge must be admitted to be perfectly valid.
The Warrant remained in London until arrangements could be made to have it brought to Boston. This was done in 1787, and the Lodge was formally organized and constituted on May 6.
On February 16, 1792, Hall signs a certificate for one John Dodd as "Grand Master."
On August 20, 1792, William White, Grand Secretary, writes to Hall addressing him as "Right Worshipful Brother." At this time the Masters of Lodges were usually called Right Worshipful. Upton prints this letter and an undated reply, probably written promptly, which is signed simply "Prince Hall."
So printed by Upton, who says he had the letter copied in London. Grimshaw prints the letter with the signature "Prince Hall, G. M." and date of September 5. Upton (A. Q. C., XIII:61) distinctly states that the letter is undated, but could not have been written earlier than September 1792. Grimshaw ties the matter up tidily by completing the signature and supplying the date, both without authority. Neither letter contains the slightest hint that Hall was anything but the Master of his Lodge.
In 1795 Dr. Belknap, the historian, wrote to Judge Tucker, a professor in the University of Virginia. He speaks of Hall as a leader among the colored people and says "he is a Grand Master of a body of Masons, composed entirely of blacks, and distinguished by the name of African Lodge xxxxx the Lodge at present consists of thirty persons." Belknap, not a Mason, is loose in his wording. A Grand Lodge of thirty is just a Lodge, Grand Master is only a Master.
Hall's letter book contains a copy, without signature, of a letter dated Philadelphia, March 2, 1797, presumably from one Peter Mantore. The letter reads as follows:
Mr. Hall, Master of African Lodge.
Dear Brother of the African Lodge in Boston:
We congratulate you all in the name of the Most Holy and Adorible Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost for a Dispensation a Warrant for the African Lodge. We, in Philadelphia, are all ready for to go to work. We have all but a Warrant. We have all been try'd by five Royal Arch Masons. The white Masons here say that they are afraid to grant us a warrant for fear that the black men living in Virginia would get to be Free Masons too. But we had rather be under our dear brethren in Boston than the Pennsylvania Lodge, for if we are under you, then we shall always be ready to assist any of you.
There are eleven of {us} black{s} five of which are M. Masons. Please to send the warrant by one of the brethren of the Lodge, and direct him to the Rev. A. Jones, Minister of the African Church, and the charges shall be paid and the money will be ready. By this certificate {enclosed} you will find some of our names."
To this letter Hall replied as follows:
Boston, March 22d, 1797
Mr. Peter Mantore,
Sir:- I received your letter of the 2 which informs me that there are a number of blacks in your city who have received the light of Masonry, and I hope they got it in a just and lawful manner. If so, dear Brother, we are willing to set you at work under our charter and Lodge Mo. 459, from London; under that authority, and by the name of African Lodge, we hereby and herein give you license to assemble and work as aforesaid, under that denomination as in the sight and fear of God. I would advise you not to take any in at present till your officers and your Master be in{stalled} in the Grand Lodge, which we are willing to {do} when he thinks convenient, and he may receive a full warrant instead of a permit."
Upton, in quoting this letter in his A. Q. C. article calls noteworthy; Hall's reference to a "Grand Lodge" in which he would install officers, and his confidence in his power to grant "a full warrant."
Nothing of the sort, however, happened. In the same article Upton gives "an exact transcript of the minutes of the first meeting" of the Philadelphia Lodge.
"Minutes of the African Lodge, No. 459.
Closed.
December 27th 5797.
The African Lodge No. ___ Opened in due order and form on the first step in Masonry, the Revd Absalom Jones, Master; James Forten, Senior Warden; Wm. Harding, Junior Warden; R. Venable, Sen. Deacon; John Davis, Jun. Deacon; Peter Richmond, Secretary; and Jonathan Harding, Treasurer.
Bro. Jones Delivered a fine Prayer and an excellent Sermon alluding to the Foundation of Masonry and the advantages thereof also gave us a short lecture and then Called off to refreshment, after refreshing ourselves at the Lodge room Whent to John Coates's Where we dinned Very agreeably.
After Dinner Returned to the Lodge Room, Called on, and then Installation took place and the following officers were installed:"
Then follows a list of the officers and members present. There appear to have been no visitors. The installation was a home-made affair, and we never hear anything more about a full warrant, Grimshaw says, apparently with no warrant except Hall's letter to Mantore, that Hall installed the officers.
On June 10, 1797 Hall issued authority to open a Lodge in Providence. Of the details of this action we are not informed. Upton says it was for the benefit of members of African Lodge who lived in Providence.
Upton says "The first negro Grand Lodge is ordinarily dated from 1808. (We shall come to this presently.) This is proper enough; but there are traces of an earlier organization, in the time of Prince Hall - and possibly antedating the organization of the white Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, March 5, 1792. These traces are far too slight to give us any idea of that organization; or to tell us whether, like the white organization of 1779 in the same state, and so many others, it originated 'in assumption,' or was a stage in the natural development of a Mother Lodge, or was based upon some authority contained in some, now lost, letter from the Grand Secretary of England; but xxx these slight traces demonstrate that something must have occurred to make them." (The italics are Upton's.)
The "traces" have all been set forth, and Upton's comment on their slightness is certainly justified. They show clearly the confusion common at that period between the terms "Master" and "Grand Master," "Lodge" and "Grand Lodge." They show that Hall had a perfectly valid Warrant from England for African Lodge, that under that Warrant he presided over African Lodge until his death in 1807, that he signed one, probably more, certificates as "Grand Master," and that he authorized a group in Philadelphia to meet and act as a Lodge under the Warrant of African Lodge, using its name and number, and that he authorized another group in Providence to meet and act, probably under the same conditions.
This is all that Upton knew in 1898 when after a most painstaking investigation, he made his report to the Grand Lodge of Washington, and all the Prince Hall Grand Lodge knew when he published his report in book form in 1901. Before 1898 the advocates of negro masonry had published extensively on the subject. Upton made free use of this material, much of which is in the Library of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. An examination of it fails to add anything to Upton's statement of the case. These points are stressed because of what is now to be presented.
In 1903 Grimshaw lays before us some surprising information. He transcribes a Commission to Prince Hall as "Provincial Grand Master of North America and Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging." This document is dated January 27, 1791, and is signed by Lord Rawdon, who was Acting (or as we now say Pro) Grand Master during the entire administration of Grand Master, Prince George of Wales. Grimshaw says this "document was found among the old manuscripts of African Lodge, No. 459, of Pennsylvania, xxx. There is no doubt but what Prince Hall gave them a copy of his authority when he established the Lodge in 1797."
Grimshaw then informs us that on June 24, 1791, a general assembly of the Craft was held in the apartments of African Lodge for the purpose of organizing a Grand Lodge of Masons for Massachusetts, and that African Lodge declared itself by the assumption of power, duties, and responsibilities of a Grand Lodge, independent and sovereign, holding Jurisdiction absolute and entire throughout the United States, and a provincial Jurisdiction in other states and countries recognizing at the same time the mother Grand Lodge of London, England. It is interesting to note that this account of the "assumption of power" is largely verbatim the same as William Sewall Gardner's account of the creation of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, a very different matter. (See 1870 Mass. p. 32.) He then proceeds to tell us of the election, appointment and installation of a list of occupants of the following offices:
- Grand Master
- Deputy Grand Master
- Senior Grand Warden
- Junior Grand Warden
- Grand Secretary Order as in Grimshaw
- Grand Treasurer Order as in Grimshaw
- Grand Chaplain
- Senior Grand Deacon
- Junior Grand Deacon
- Senior Grand Steward
- Junior Grand Steward
- Grand Marshal
- Grand Pursuivant
- Grand Standard Bearer
- Grand Sword Bearer
- Grand Tyler
This statement bristles with points which need explanation. When was the Commission discovered? Why was it not referred to when the African Grand Lodge was organized in 1808? Why was there no trace or even tradition of it in 1901?
The Commission itself presents some difficulties. Unlike all the other Massachusetts Commissions except Oxnard's it provides no limits or exceptions to the authority conferred. It purports to be granted on the application of Hall himself, a feature unique in such commissions. It completely ignores Rowe's Commission under which, although Rowe himself was dead, the St. John's Grand Lodge was still functioning, under the titular direction of Gridley, the Deputy Grand Master, and the actual direction of John Cutler, the Senior Grand Warden. It does not make Hall a Provincial Grand Master of negro Masons, but sets him over all Masons, white and black on the whole continent. One wonders whether Rawdon, who was a very able man, would ever have issued such a Commission.
If Hall had had such a Commission in his possession for six years, why did he give the Philadelphia men permission to act under the Warrant, name, and number of African Lodge No. 459? Surely the obvious procedure would have been to give them a Warrant as an independent Lodge, which he would have had full authority to do. The same question arises regarding the less well known Providence group.
Where did Grimshaw get his information about the installation meeting of June 24, 1791? So far as is known there were in existence in 1901 only very fragmentary notes of meetings of African Lodge from 1779 to 1787 and a disputed record book (which we need not here discuss) beginning in 1807.
Why, on that occasion, did African Lodge assume the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a Grand Lodge? The normal procedure would have been to organize a Provincial Grand Lodge and set it at work quite apart from African Lodge, leaving African Lodge to go on its appointed way as a particular Lodge, Grimshaw's account would have African Lodge a hybrid, not definitely one thing or another. The list of officers is particularly noteworthy. Hall, as Master of African Lodge, was acting under the English Constitution of 1784 (Noorthuok's recension). These Constitutions know nothing of Grand Deacons, a Grand Marshal, Grand Pursuivant or Grand Standard Bearer. They do provide for Grand Stewards, but they were a Board appointed, as now, for a particular function. The Grand Lodge of England did not then and does not now have Senior and Junior Grand Stewards. How did it happen that Hall appointed five officers not known to his Mother Grand Lodge?
Even a cursory examination of the alleged Commission and Provincial Grand Lodge makes the conclusion almost irresistible that the whole thing is fiction and not very good fiction at that,
Writing to Charles W. Moore under date of November 11, 1868, John Hervy, Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England, said "I should say most decidedly, that the said Prince Hall was never appointed D. G. M. or had power to grant Warrants for the establishment of Lodges in your country." It is said that Hervy afterward withdrew some of the statements in this letter, but not this one.
It may be said in passing that when the Masonry of Massachusetts was fused into the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1792 the regularity of St. Andrew's Lodge, in the obedience of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, and of African Lodge, in the obedience of the Grand Lodge of England, was not thereby adversely affected. It is a well established principle in Masonic law that when Lodges in the territory where there is no sovereign Grand Lodge unite to form a Grand Lodge adhesion to the new Grand Lodge is entirely voluntary and Lodges declining to adhere retain their full Masonic regularity. As examples there are two old Lodges in Montreal and one in Halifax that are still on the roster of the United Grand Lodge of England and two in the Republic of Panama which are on the roster of the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
On the death of Hall in 1807 the negro Lodges in Boston, Philadelphia, and Providence organized "African Grand Lodge,"and proceeded to act accordingly. African Grand Lodge issued Charters to Lodges in several states.
When the Ancients and Moderns united to form the United Grand Lodgi of England in 1813, the Lodges were all renumbered. Many Lodges which had joined other Grand Lodges, were making no contributions to Grand Lodge funds (African Lodge's last contribution was in 1797), or were, or supposed to be, dormant, were dropped from the roll, African Lodge was one of the dropped, or "erased." This was not exactly the same as the forfeiture or cancellation of the Charter. It simply meant that African Lodge, no matter what had happened to it, was no longer on the roll of the English Grand Lodge. Later, in 1824, the Master and Wardens and some other members of African Lodge wrote to England to "humbly solicit the renewal of our Charter to authorize us legally to confer the same" (the four Chapter degrees). Exactly what is meant is not clear, very likely was nt)t clear to the petitioners themselves, as the letter (whose spelling is corrected in the quotation) shows that it was the work of men of very little education. No attention was ever paid to this petition, perhaps, as has been suggested, because it never reached London, but more probably because the petitioners were not considered as having any standing. It was not a proper request for reinstatement on the English roster; the Grand Lodge of England would certainly not charter any Lodge in the United States in 1824", and no English Lodges ever conferred the four degrees in American Capitular Masonry.
In 1815 a second negro Grand Lodge was formed by the Pennsylvania Lodges under the name of African Grand Lodge No. 1 of North America.
Under date of June 18, 1827, African Lodge published in a Boston newspaper a declaration of independence signed by the Master, Wardens, and Secretary. After a rather long preamble in justification of their act they go on to say: "We do, therefore, with this belief, publicly declare ourselves free and independent of any Lodge from this day, and that we will not be tributary, or be governed by any Lodge than that of our own." It is quite clear that up to that time they considered themselves an English Lodge co-operating with but not subject to the African Grand Lodge. It will be remembered that St. Andrew's took exactly the same position with regard to the Massachusetts Grand Lodge. This declaration certainly voided the English Warrant and there is no evidence that they ever took out a Charter from the African Grand Lodge.
In 1847 two or three negro Grand Lodges had been formed in different parts of the country. In that year they combined to form a National Grand Lodge. Apparently it was formed after the analogy of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar and issued Charters to State Grand Lodges. In 1869 a petition was presented to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts signed by seventy-two negro members of three Lodges in Massachusetts, setting forth their claims to Masonic regularity and praying for "equal Masonic manhood." The first signer was Lewis Hayden, who is accepted as the author of the document. He says: "The African Grand Lodge of Boston, becoming a part of that body {the National Grand Lodge} surrendered its Charter and received its present Charter, dated December 11, 1847, under the title of Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and by which authority we this day exist as a Masonic Body."
Commenting on this statement Upton says: "What the petitioners meant by 'surrendered its Charter" is not clear. They may have supposed African Grand Lodge possessed some kind of authority in writing, or the expression may have been a careless one for surrendered its independence. It has misled some into supposing the old Warrant of Lodge No. 459 was surrendered."
In this comment Upton does not display his usual acumen. Hayden was Grand Master of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. Presumably he knew exactly what he was talking about. All that we know about him, including the petition itself, shows that he was neither ignorant nor in the habit of "careless expression." Upton overlooks the fact that certainly two and probably all three of the Lodges which formed the African Grand Lodge in 1808 were working by permission of Prince Hall under the Warrant of Lodge 459. This was the Charter of African Grand Lodge. Upon this and this alone rested its authority. Unless and until this was surrendered the National Grand Lodge could not assume authority over the African Grand Lodge. In spite of the declaration of independence of 1827 this Warrant was still the basis of all claims to regularity. This was unquestionably the "Charter" that was surrendered in exchange for the new Charter from the National Grand Lodge. The fact that the document itself remained physically in possession of African Lodge is irrelevant.
It is not necessary for the purpose of this narrative to follow further the story of Negro Masonry. So much, however, seems to be called for by the fact that organized Negro Masonry originated in Boston. The story presents ample reason why the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has never recognized the Negro organization. One comment may fairly be made. The men who founded and developed Negro Masonry were honest and well-meaning. What they did can only be fairly considered by remembering the conditions under which they worked. Hall had the Noorthouck Constitutions of 1784 and little or nothing else. Everyone who has had experience in Masonic administration, whether in a Grand Lodge or in a particular Lodge, knows that he needs much more than a book of Constitutions. He needs some familiarity with the Common Law of Freemasonry, with decisions and precedents, with custom-and practice. This familiarity must be gained by contact with the governing body and with other workers in the field. All this was denied to these men. For a little while they had rare contacts by correspondence with the distant Grand Lodge. They were not permitted contact and association with white Masons. Driven in upon themselves, they had to do the best they could by themselves. The wonder is that they did as well as they did.
