The problem of national control versus state control of actions within states had been a cause of widespread disputation during the nineteenth century in the history of the United States. Nationalism was in continuous conflict with statism in the first half of the century. Even the Civil War did not bring a settlement to the issues involved in this dispute. The states were jealous of their power and sovereignty and unwilling to abandon these to any outside power. With racism added to these issues, this period of history witnessed the discussion of several not the important issues in Masonry.
This issue of Nationalism versus Statism was repeated in the history of Freemasonry among colored Americans. Ohio took the leading part in this struggle, through a committee composed of William T. Boyd, Justin H. Holland and Peter H. Clark. However, the issue originated in Pennsylvania in which the struggle began over the legality of the authority of two Grand Lodges in Pennsylvania - the First Independent African Grand Lodge of the State of Pennsylvania, and the Hiram Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania which was organized July 17, 1837, having had its origin in Hiram Lodge No. 4. This lodge had declared its independence from the First Independent Grand Lodge in 1818. The matter, the regularly constituted lodge, appealed to the Mother Grand Lodge, Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, to settle this issue and also to consider plans for the organization of a National Grand Lodge. A call was issued for a general assembly of Masons to convene in Boston, Massachusetts mi June 24, 1847, to give answer to this.
In response to this call, delegates of the Craft assembled on this date with the following present: From Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Boston, Massachusetts - Brothers John T. Hilton, Henry Harris and William A. Bruce; from African Grand Lodge of North America, Philadelphia - Bothers James Bird, Dr. James J. G. Bias, and James Richmond; from Hiram Grand Lodge-Samuel Von Brockle, Phillip Buchanan, Emory Cronikin, James Newman, Jonathan Lopenware, James Powell and John Anderson; from Boyer Grand Lodge, New York - Brothers Alexander Elston, William H. Clark, and Lewis Hayden.
After hearing the delegates from Hiram Grand
Lodge and a temporary organization was completed, a resolution
was adopted unanimously to organize a National Grand Lodge under
the title "The Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge of Free
and Accepted Ancient York Masons of the United States of North
America and the Masonic Jurisdiction there-unto Belonging."
Colored Americans have had no warrants from the "Ancients"
to whom this reference is made and no group of them had been chartered
as "Ancient York Masons." This was an illegal assumption
of Masonic power and authority. Historian William T. Boyd claimed
that there was no meeting on June 24, but that a subsequent meeting
organized this Compact. However in the following years, this lodge
made itself the supreme Masonic power in the United States for
colored America. Its authority was extended to the granting of
warrants to state Grand Lodges, and Grand Lodges not under its
authority were regarded by it as spurious and clandestine.
In commenting pointedly upon this matter, Parham and Brown state
the fundamental Masonic view on this organization, "The condition
of this compact was a departure from all Masonic history, tradition
or precedent. It was the deliberate making of an innovation in
Masonry which no man, nor body of men has the right to do. In
all the history of the Craft, beginning with the general assembly
convened and held by St. Albans, A. D. 293, the first Grand Lodge
or semblance of a Grand Lodge was held, succeeded by the Grand
Lodge of York, A. D. 926, under Edwin son of King Athalstan; and
that succeeded by the Grand Lodges respectively of York under
the Earl of St. Albans in 1663, and our own Mother Grand Lodge,
the Grand Lodge of England held at Apple Tree Tavern in 1717,
a Grand Lodge has always been the supreme Masonic authority of
and over its jurisdiction, neither knowing nor recognizing any
power or authority superior to itself. When these Grand Lodges
formed this compact or agreement to subordinate themselves to
another body, a Grand Lodge of Grand Ledges, something Masonically
unprecedent and unauthorized historically or traditionally, but
on the contrary precluded by law and custom, their action was
void from the beginning necessarily so, There can be no such Masonic
paradox as a subordinate Grand Lodge. A Masonic Grand Lodge cannot
even of its own volition and motion subordinate itself in its
own jurisdiction to some other organization and yet remain a Grand
Lodge."
For several years, events moved smoothly for the National Grand Lodge, but it was not long before 4ifferences arose. In 1849, the National Grand Lodge expelled the old New York Grand Lodge, after forming a new Grand Lodge. The same result occurred in Pennsylvania and in New Jersey. Grimshaw asserts, "The National Grand Lodge was continually upon the war path. The colored brother believed like his white brother in state rights and hence the fight."
Ohio's Prince Hall Grand Lodge was granted
a warrant by National Grand Lodge on June 24, 1850. Little attention
was given to this relationship until 1856, when request was made
for a report from the Oho Grand Lodge to the National Grand Lodge.
At the 1857 Grand Lodge in Columbus, "a resolution of withdrawal
from the jurisdiction of the National Lodge was taken up, and
after being fully discussed, a vote was had thereon which resulted
in a tie, whereupon the Grand Master, John Parsons, gave the casting
vote for withdrawal." Finally on the last day of this session,
another reason was adopted resolving "that the different
subordinate lodges under this jurisdiction be instructed through
their and representatives to consider the importance of
withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the National Grand Lodge
of North America and express their opinion and wishes through
their representatives to this Grand Lodge at its next annual communication."
At the next session in June, 1858, the committee on unfinished business made the following report which was adopted, "WHEREAS, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge it not expedient to take any further action at present with reference to the withdrawal from the Jurisdiction of the National Grand Lodge, therefore; Resolved that the several subordinate lodges under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge for the State of Ohio, be instructed to report at the next Annual Grand Communication." This action was temporary, for the Grand Lodge was called back into special session three days after its close on June 22, 1858, to receive the National Grand Secretary of the National Grand Lodge, Brother S. W. Chase of Baltimore, Maryland. He said that the purpose of his visit was to induce them not to give further consideration to withdrawal and to wait for the 1859 session of the National Grand Lodge. The members of the Ohio Grand Lodge listened patiently to him, but there were evidences of opposition.
This opposition continued to develop as the years passed. Again in 1865, at the annual session of the Ohio Grand Lodge, another resolution was presented calling for a convention to consider withdrawal but it was deferred indefinitely. A resolution was adopted in the session of 1866, stating that no subordinate lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Ohio should admit as a visitor any member of any subordinate lodge that had withdrawn from the National Grand Lodge nor should any member of the Grand Lodge of Ohio be allowed to visit such a lodge.
At the Ohio Prince Hall Lodge Grand session in 1868, Grand Master Goff recommended that determination be made of the Lodge's relationship to the National Grand Lodge. Said he,, "If we are subordinate, let it be understood, if we are independent, say so in words unmistakable." The Committee on Grand Master's address recommended that dues to the National Grand Lodge be paid in full but that the Grand Lodge for the State of Ohio and its jurisdiction dissolve its connection with the National Grand Lodge to take effect from the adoption of this resolution. The resolution was adopted.
A special session was then called on September 21, 1868 at Lebanon. Grand Master W. D. Goff addressed the session and repeated action on the question. He agreed that it was possible "for two Grand Lodges to exist in the same state or territory, having rights in common, without any violation of ancient landmarks." But he added, "We claim that each state Grand Lodge is, and ought to be, an independent organization; and further, that according to the best Masonic authorities, there really exists no higher power in Masonry than the Grand Lodge."
The committee to whom this recommendation was referred, reported a declaration of the causes for the withdrawal. It was denied that the National Grand Lodge had "any will, power, authority or jurisdiction over this sovereign Grand Lodge for the State of Ohio, whatever." The declaration was made that "making a state Grand Lodge subordinate to that national authority is an innovation unknown, unprecedented, un-Masonic and not in accordance with the ancient landmarks of the Order." It was stated that the National Grand Lodge had no authority to declare state Grand Lodges spurious and clandestine. The committee declared that the Grand Lodge for Ohio was independent of the National Grand Lodge. The resolution was approved by the Grand Lodge officers and all lodge representatives present at the session.
The National Grand Lodge through a circular letter of its Grand Master Richard Howell Gleaves and Jonathan Davis, its Grand Secretary quoted its constitution to the effect that no Grand Lodge c6uld exist or exercise any Masonic privileges without the sanction of the National Grand Lodge. The circular declared that the Grand Lodge for Ohio was suspended until the next session of the National Grand Lodge and that "all Masonic intercourse or fellowship with said body or any of the lodges or members of its jurisdiction is hereby interdicted and forbidden by any lodges or members under the jurisdiction of the National Grand Lodge, so long as they persist in occupying their present position." This letter was approved by the National Grand Lodge at its session in 1871 in Chicago, Illinois.
In the meanwhile, the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia were suspended by the National Grand Lodge. Within the next five years, Hiram Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, and the Grand Lodges of Alabama, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ontario, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, following the action of Ohio, had severed their relations with the National Grand Lodge and declared themselves independent of it.
However, Ohio was the second strongest Grand Lodge. In 1865, there were fourteen Negro Grand Masonic Lodges in the United States. The largest in membership was the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania with 569 members. Ohio was second on the list with 531 members. Its action as an important lodge was influential on other lodges. Between 1868 and 1869 thirteen states severed their connections with the National Grand Lodge. The assumption of supreme authority by the National Grand Lodge over the state grand lodges led to these separations, and the gradual falling apart of the Lodge as a national body. Only fourteen persons were present at the Lodge session in 1874 in St. Louis, Missouri.
Finally, in 1877, the few remaining members met at Wilmington, Delaware and passed the following resolution:
"Resolved, That each state is its sovereign head and that each delegate is directed to report to his state Grand Lodge the action taken by this body.
And be it further
Resolved, That the National or Compact Grand
Lodge is and the same is hereby declared to be an irregular and
unheard of body in Masonry and is hereby declared forever void."
Ohio took a leading part in the determination of this question.
Its action was followed by other states.
It was thus determined that there could be only one Grand Lodge of Masons in each state deriving its authority ultimately through the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. The Grand Lodge for Ohio had made its appearance in history as a legitimate Grand Lodge and despite the conflict over national authority and state rights, this Lodge continued its onward march as a legal Prince Hall Grand Lodge for Ohio, sovereign and independent.
When the services of an organization are distributed over a wide area, it often happens that its efficiency is impaired. This condition may not be too apparent while the organization is young and growing, but it becomes more evident when the area has been reduced and attention is devoted to a smaller area. This result was developed in the history of the Ohio Grand Lodge.
Through its Grand Masters, Lodges had been established in Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi and Michigan. The Mother Lodge in Ohio had also been establishing lodges within its own state. By 1869, these lodges were twenty-one in number. These also required the attention of the Grand Lodge administration, while the correspondence alone with these out-of-state lodges was a great task in itself. It was not strange that it would become clearer to these states as their Masonic work developed that it was to their advantage to develop it by and for themselves within their own states, and to seek separation from the Grand Lodge of Ohio. Equally was it clear to Ohio that its best interest lay in the development and consolidation of its state work rather than the continued diffusion of its interests over wide areas of other states.
The first evidence of this separation trend began in 1856. The report of this action was made by Grand Master John Jones in his report to the Grand Lodge session in Columbus, Ohio, June 18, 1857. He said that five subordinate lodges in Indiana had withdrawn and formed the Grand Lodge of Indiana on September 13, 1856. These lodges were Union Lodge No. 5 at Indianapolis; King Solomon Lodge No. 8 at Madison; Britton Lodge No. 13 at Richmond; Dames Lodge No. 15 at Terre Haute and R. Phillips Lodge No. 17 at Carthage. There was no friction or dissatisfaction reported as a result of this withdrawal. When the Grand Lodge of Ohio assembled in 1859, the Grand Master of Indiana, Brother John G. Britton and the Grand Master of Ohio, Brother Richard H. Gleaves joined in receiving the lodge "with becoming respect in due form."
When the Grand Lodge assembled in Xenia, Ohio, June 21, 1859, Grand Master Gleaves stated that the lodges of Louisiana intended to establish a Grand Lodge under the National Compact. Even after this statement, a lodge, Cyprian Lodge was set up by District Deputy Grand Master John Parsons in Iberville, Louisiana in 1860. In 1861 the three lodges, Richmond No. 4, Stringer No. 11 and Parson's Lodge No. 18 reported and paid their dues but Cyprian Lodge did not pay its dues. The next year, more of these lodges reported and in 1863, the Eureka Grand Lodge was established with Brother John Parsons, formerly of Ohio, elected as the first Louisiana Grand Master.
The Grand Lodge of Missouri was established in July, 1865 in St. Louis, Missouri, by the three lodges, the H. McGee Alexander Lodge No. 8, Prince Hall Lodge No. 10 and Lone Star Lodge No. 22 of St. Louis. Official notice of this withdrawal was given by the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Ohio to the 'Ohio Lodges in his report in 1867.
In Kentucky, the delegates of Mt. Moriah No. 6, Merriweather Lodge No. 13, St. Thomas Lodge No. 20, all of Louisville and David Smith Lodge No. 15 of Lexington, met in Louisville and organized a Grand Lodge, August 18, 1866. The Grand Secretary reported that official notice of this organization had been received, November 3, 1866, and was accompanied by the lodge warrants and dues. This lodge was formally installed by the National Grand Master on January 30, 1867.
The Illinois Lodges, North Star Lodge No. 12, Chicago; G. T. Watson Lodge No. 16, Alton, and Central Lodge No. 19, Springfield, met in Springfield and organized the Illinois Grand Lodge, February 15, 1867. Grand Master Jones announced the withdrawal of the lodges in these three states, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois and stated that as proxy for the National Grand Master, he had installed the Grand Lodge of Illinois at Springfield, May 6, 1867.
The Grand Lodge of Ohio had granted a charter to establish King Solomon Lodge No. 1 in Newberne, North Carolina. It was organized September 22, 1865, with Bishop J. W. Hood of the A. M. F. Zion Church as its first Worshipful Master. Giblem Lodge No. 2 at Wilmington and Eureka Lodge No. 3 at Fayetteville were also organized under Ohio authority. These three lodges held a convention at Wilmington and organized a Grand Lodge for North Carolina with Bishop J. W. flood, Grand Master; F. R. Dudley, Deputy Grand Master, George B. Willis, Grand Senior Warden, and Hezekiah Reed, Grand Junior Warden.
In Tennessee, three lodges, Rock City Lodge No. 17, East Star Lodge No. 20 and Job Thompson Lodge No. 33 assembled August 31, 1870, and established the Grand Lodge for Tennessee. Grand Master William T. Boyd in announcing this organization declared, "God speed our young sister Grand Lodge of Tennessee." This expression revealed the attitude of Ohio in regard to this withdrawal. In the same year, representatives of Alabama, Olive Branch Lodge No. 6, Strangers Lodge No. 27 and Hiram Lodge No. 28 of Mobile, organized a Grand Lodge for Alabama, September 27, 1870, with Franklin D. Taylor as Grand Master and Frank Vaughan as Grand Secretary.
This development was the result of action by the Grand Lodge of Indiana, which was warranted by the Grand Lodge of Ohio. Dispensations were then granted to four lodges in Michigan which organized the Grand Lodge of Michigan in 1865 at Niles. When the break was made with the National Compact, representatives of Hiram Lodge No. 10, Mt. Pavan Lodge No. 33 of Detroit and North Star Lodge No. 15 of Grand Rapids, having received dispensations from the Grand Lodge of Ohio met with representatives from other lodge Jurisdictions for the organization of the Grand Lodge for Michigan Detroit, September 23, 1872, with Harrison J. Lewis, Master and Wilmot A. Johnson, Grand Secretary.
Two years later, the representatives of Kansas in Western Star Lodge No. 32 at Lawrence; Euclid Lodge No. 30 at Topeka, and Mt. Olive Lodge No. 14 at Leavenworth assembled in convention at Lawrence on March 9, 1876, organized a Grand Lodge for Kansas. The Grand Master was Rev. D. G. Lett and the Grand Secretary was Rev. H. H. White. Three lodges in Kentucky which held to their warrants from this Grand Lodge, surrendered their warrants to this Lodge and transferred them to the Grand Lodge of Kentucky.
These Grand Lodges for Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee were offsprings of the Grand Lodge of Ohio and were given its blessings as they separated from it and established themselves as independent Grand Lodges. Parham and Brown state, "The manner of the withdrawal of these lodges excited some little unpleasantness and disturbed temporarily the fraternal relations between the two Grand bodies, but under the benign influence of the precepts and spirit of Masonry these little differences were adjusted and healed, which both bodies now realize as well as exemplify."
Another active factor within the state of Ohio as it affected Masonry among Negroes was racism. This had already manifested itself in the separate lodges, one for white Masons and the other for colored Masons. In its theory and traditions, Masonry had no racial divisions, for its membership privileges were for all qualified free men. There were colored and whites Masons who were troubled by this division solely on the basis of color. They were also of the opinion that there should be more friendly relations existing between the two groups. In pursuit Q£ the latter objective, a resolution was approved by the Grand Lodge June 23, 1865 as follows:
"Resolved, That this R. W. Grand Lodge appoint a committee of three to visit the Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Ohio (White) at their next annual communication, to ascertain the reason, if any, why the right of visit is not general among Masons regardless of color."
Pursuant to this resolution, a petition was drawn up by a committee for presentation to the white Grand Lodge. This petition was as follows:
"To The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Ancient Masons of the State of Ohio:
Whereas, On the 29th day of September, A. D., 1784, a warrant was granted to Prince Hall, Boston Smith, Thomas Sanderson and several other brethren residing in Boston, New England, North America, by Thomas Howard, Earl of Effingham, Lord Howard, etc., etc., etc., Acting Grand Master, under the authority of His Royal Highness, Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, etc., etc., Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, the various Lodges of colored Masons in this country, including those of Ohio, have, by regular succession, grown out of this legitimately organized Lodge, and we have continued and are at this time, in good working order and thriving condition, and that, deploring the inharmony existing, and which may by some, be charged to the existence of two Grand Lodges in the same territorial jurisdiction, and,
Whereas, We are desirous that all in harmony
between Masons, and all real or supposed causes for the same should
be removed; and in order to initiate such steps as may lead to
so desirable a result, we do most respectfully and fraternally
pray your honorable body, that you extend to the colored Lodges
and Masons working under the Grand Lodge of Colored Masons of
Ohio and its Jurisdiction, your full and ample recognition, by
granting to the above named Lodges your warrants to work as subordinate
Lodges in lieu of the warrants they now hold from the Colored
Grand Lodge of Ohio. And we further pray that, should you not
agree to grant this prayer, that you extend to the aforenamed
Grand Lodge and the Lodges under its jurisdiction, your full and
ample recognition as an independent Grand Lodge of F. and A. A.
Masons. And we deem it proper to declare to you that this movement
is not made for the purpose of obtaining indiscriminate access
in your Lodges, knowing full well that that is a matter each Lodge
and each member of a Lodge can control for itself or myself; but
realizing that Masonry is sadly false to its professed principles
of the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man, if so shallow
a pretext as complexion shall be the open or covert cause of division
or non-recognition. We are
willing to do all that seems incumbent upon us to remove all obstacles
to a practical realization of the glorious principles proclaimed
by the Order everywhere.
This petition is most respectfully and fraternally presented in the name and behalf of the one thousand colored Masons of Ohio and its jurisdiction.
W. T. BOYD, Grand Master
Attest: John R. Blackburn."
Accompanying this petition, there was a copy of the charter of authorization of September 29, 1784, signed by R. Holt, Deputy Grand Master and William White, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of the Society of Free and Accepted Masons, London, England, constituting Prince Hall and Associates into "a regular Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, under the title and denomination of the African Lodge, to be opened in Boston." This memorial was received and noted by Grand Master A. H. Newcomb. He said that this question should be answered by decision of the Grand Lodge. He added that he had been informed that the Grand Lodge of Illinois had recognized the rights of colored Masons there.
The select committee to which the petition was referred submitted a report in 1869, stating that "Whereas, this Grand Lodge is disposed to do justice to all men without regard to color, race or religion; therefore, Resolved, That, the resolution adopted by this Grand Lodge in 1847, and which is as follows, Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, 'it would be inexpedient, and tends to ruin the present harmony of the Fraternity to admit any persons of color-so-called-into the Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge,' be, and the same is hereby, rescinded."
It was also resolved that the committee should report at the next Grand Communication of the Grand Lodge. It was announced by the committee that the Grand Orient of France had declared that "Humanity and Masonry were outraged when color, race or religion are sufficient reasons for preventing a profane from entering the great Masonic family," and that there was no rule whereby persons of the Grand Lodge of Ohio could be excluded if they sought admission through duly organized lodges.
Again in 1870, a select committee reported that by the repeal of the 1847 resolution "the Grand Lodge has left its subordinates at perfect liberty to confer the degrees of Masonry on any man and to admit to membership any lawful brother who has the necessary qualifications. The regulations make no distinction oil account of color of persons who desire the benefit of Masonry. There is no rule whereby persons who compose the 'Grand Lodge of Ohio and its jurisdiction,' if 'worthy and well qualified' are excluded from our Fraternity, if they seek admission through duly organized lodges." The committee then requested its own discharge. A motion to lay this report on the table was lost and the report was adopted.
Replying to this action, Grand Master Boyd declared in 1871, that this action was right and proper, but said he, "our petition did not pray for the right of profanes, but for the rights of brother Masons. We are Masons. Masons whom Brother Sparrow and a plenty of other white Masons have sat with in Lodge." He stated that the purpose of the petition had been served and that "we can now go with a good grace to the European Grand Lodges and Orients, and ask admission to the sisterhood of Grand Lodges." Then he added, "and who knows but that the time is not far in the future when that, a white brother wishing to travel in Europe must first seek admittance to one of our Lodges in order to be recognized in the Grand East of Ancient Freemasonry."
The first attack on colored Masons was on the basis of their legitimacy. Race seemed at first not to have been made so prominent an objection. In 1851, Grand Master W. B. Hubbard of the Grand Lodge of Ohio rendered a decision that "all so-called Negro (Masonic) Lodges in Ohio are clandestine." However, the views of Grand Master Bramlette of Texas on this question were known by the Ohio Grand Lodge. These were reported in the Proceedings of 1874. He said, "The great inferiority by nature of the Negro race precludes them from our society. We cannot accept such into the precincts of a Masonic Lodge, where all stand on the same level." While this point of view was expressed, there was no general acceptance of it. In fact, the report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence at this Grand Lodge declared that, "the greatest service to these men of the new liberty, no doubt, will be to recognize their independence, which they now seem to manage with success," and it was added that, "European Grand Lodges propose to do this."
There were occasions in these years when the racial lines were crossed in Masonic lodges. Brother Andrew B. Lewis, who was first Grand High Priest of the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of Ohio Prince Hall Affiliation, had also been first Commander of Appolo Commandery, Knights Templars, Chicago, Illinois. He was described as a mulatto of Indian and African family background. He was suspended subsequently but returned to Ohio and his Masonic relationships there. Dr. Leonidas Wilson, a dentist, and John H. Hope, both of Cleveland, were members of white lodges during the seventies. White Masons have been known also to have been members of Negro lodges. For many decades, colored Americans have moved back and forth across the color line. Those who were light in color in large cities and in some small towns where their families were well known had no difficulty in joining so-called white organizations. On most occasions, such persons were known by their individual family names and not as colored persons. However, some were accepted by the courageous in spite of their known racial origin.
This petition of Ohio's colored Masons was brought up again at the Ohio Grand Lodge session in 1872. After discussion, it was postponed indefinitely, but the issue was not dead and like Banquo's ghost, it would not be downed. At the Grand Lodge session of white Masons at Columbus on October 19, 1875, the Grand Master, Asa H. Battin delivered his annual address and presented this question in the perspective which should have earned for it an affirmation by the Grand Lodge. He said,
"It is well known to us all that the coming year is the centennial of the nation. One hundred years ago our Patriot Fathers proclaimed to the world those noble words embodying great truths, that shook the thrones of monarchs as an earthquake. All men are created free and equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were the foundation of a great Republic, which, having stood the test of time, the shocks of foreign and intestine wars, is now at the close of its first century, greater, stronger, more powerful than ever before, and, like the Temple of Solomon, the wonder and admiration of the world. Our people are indeed free. Prejudice has given way to reason, passion to judgment, and all men of every race, without regard to previous condition, are invested with equal rights and immunities. The summit of perfection in free government has been reached, not only in theory, but in fact, by liberating the bondsmen and placing all upon an equality in rights.
"That which is true of the nation should be of the Great Masonic Brotherhood. For near a century, there has existed in this country an organized body of men who are generally known as 'Colored Masons.' They claim to be in possession of the same secrets with us; that the principles and objects of their organization are identical with ours; that they derive their authority from legal sources, and are in every sense of the term legal Masons. For many years they have been seeking recognition at the hands of their sister Grand Lodges; and while but making little progress in our own country, their claims have been recognized by Grand Lodges in other Jurisdictions. The United Grand Lodges of Masons of Germany, at their meeting in Darmstadt, in the month of May last, adopted the following resolution:
'With regard to the motions made by the Grand Lodge, "Prince Hall" (Massachusetts), and the Grand Lodge of Ohio Colored, the convention of Grand Lodges declares that these Grand Lodges appear properly constituted, and that the German Lodges will accord the members of those Lodges and their sister Lodges, without reserve and joyfully, acceptance into their lodges.'
"It will thus be seen that the Colored Masons of America are securing that recognition abroad which is denied them at home; and, it seems to me that, upon the anniversary of our nation's birth, the time has come when it is not only proper but right that we should take some definite and decisive action in good faith to ascertain the actual status of these organizations. I have not had time or opportunity to examine the question as I should have done, owing to the long illness of my father, to whom I devoted my whole time for weeks in August and September; but it is very apparent to every one either that they are Masons or they are not. If they are such, the fact can be readily ascertained; if they are not, it can as easily be determined. If they are possessed of the same knowledge which we claim, then the legality of their organizations becomes involved; and here a question arises that can probably never be settled in a manner entirely satisfactory to the Masonic World. But whatever may have been their Origin, their existence is undisputed; their Grand and Subordinate Lodges are in our midst; they are recognized as Masons by Grand Lodges of respectability abroad; they are asking recognition at the hands of the Grand Lodges in America, and the question must be met by us. Brethren, why should we longer defer it?
"Shall it be because his skin is not colored like our own we shall spurn the colored Masons with contempt? Or shall we not rather examine into the condition of the organization of which he is a member and in which he has received light, with a view of effecting a complete union of the great Masonic family in our country, when each may recognize the other as a brother, traveling the same great highway of life to a common destiny? I am aware of the prejudice against the African race. I am not entirely free from it myself. We all have our passions and prejudices, and we should use our utmost endeavor to keep them within due bounds. But whether he comes from the jungles of Africa, the swamps of Carolina, the plains of Hindoostan, the sands of Arabia, the snowcapped summits of Norway, the Emerald Isle, the sunny fields of France, or from whatever nation or clime he may have traveled, if he is a Mason and can prove himself such, he should be welcomed as a man and a brother into our Lodges and entitled to equal rights in our great brotherhood. The boast of Masons has been that its votaries possess the same mystic language in every clime, that its language is universal, entitled to recognition wherever heard or manifested, and that all Masons in the character of Masons, stand upon the most perfect equality. At present, in our own country, we cannot recognize Masons receiving light in colored lodges.
"We are presented in our own state with the anomaly of two Grand Lodges, each with a great number of subordinate lodges, all teaching the same great truths, speaking the same language, and yet the one not permitted to recognize the other, and all intercourse between the two prohibited. In this great centennial year, whilst liberty and equality are shed abroad throughout our great nation, is it not right and proper that we, as Masons, shall at least attempt to bring about, by proper means and in a legal manner, a union of these two Grand Lodges in one State. If there is any illegality in the organization of either, let it be healed. It has been done before, and it can be again.
"Let us then, with that charity and liberality which characterize all Masons, extend the fraternal hand of fellowship to our brethren of every nation, clime, race and kindred under Heaven. And let it be, too, not only in name, but in spirit and in truth. Let us illustrate our teachings by example. And as the crowning glory of republican government is the equality of all men before the law, so should the crowning glory of our Mystic Temple be the equality of all men without regard to race or previous condition.
"Brethren, this question must be met. We may, for the present, pass by on the other side, we may look upon it, fold our mantles around us, and pass on; but the Good Samaritan is coming, has come, and is pouring the oil of fellowship into the wounds, binding up the bruises and taking the sufferers to his own house. Why should we longer delay? I am vain enough to believe that we are capable of meeting it fairly. I have faith in our people. I have faith in their sense of justice and magnanimity. I cannot believe that many years can elapse before the great body of colored Masons will be recognized as a part of the great Masonic family, and accorded their rights as such.
"I have candidly expressed my opinion and I leave the matter to you for your consideration, earnestly hoping that you may have wisdom to devise some means by which the Masons of Ohio may be united into one family and brotherly love prevail. If within the great centennial year this result can be accomplished, or measures taken looking to such results, we shall have reason to rejoice that the march of progress is onward and upward, and the universal brotherhood of man, on the Western Continent, fully, fairly, and unchangeably established, and the world made better by our example."
On the same day that this address was made, F. J. Werner of Hauselmann Lodge, Cincinnati, presented a statement directing attention to the recognition of the United Grand Lodges of Masons of Germany of the Grand Lodge of colored Masons in the United States and inquiring about the influence of such actions upon Masonry for white Americans. He said that the members of the colored lodges were either Masons or were not and that "if they are, we have no earthly right no excuse whatever, to let things go as heretofore, and not recognize them as such. If they are not Masons, if they are imposters, then we must proclaim it to the world." He urged that a committee be appointed to inquire into the legitimacy of the claims of colored Masons so that the necessary steps may be taken to bring a fair settlement to the matter. For as he regarded the matter, "this Negro question should be looked squarely into the face, as it will create not less an irrepressible conflict in the Masonic world than it did in the political world."
He then presented the following statement:
"Believing that the Grand Lodge of Masons for the State of Ohio is aware of the existence in this State of organized bodies of colored citizens who claim to be in possession of signs and secrets of Free and Accepted Ancient Freemasonry, the undersigned regards it as the paramount duty of the Grand Lodge of white Masons to appoint a committee, whose duty it shall be to inquire into the legitimacy of said claim; and if upon examination, it shall appear well founded, then I respectfully urge that the necessary steps be taken to utilize this timber, rather than condemn it as rotten and unfit for use, without having subjected it to a fair, candid and impartial test.''
The special committee to whom the question was referred made its report on "the proposed recognition of the colored Grand Lodge of Ohio," stating that they were "satisfied beyond question that colored Freemasonry had a legitimate beginning in this country, as much as any other Freemasonry, in fact, it came from the same source." It was said that they had formed more than forty lodges of colored Masons with over eight hundred members. The Committee reported that "this Grand Body will recognize the so-called Grand Lodge of Colored Freemasons of the State of Ohio as a legitimate and independent Grand Lodge, on condition that the so-called colored Grand Lodge shall change its constitutional title, so that it shall read as follows: The African Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Ohio. When this action was approved, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ohio (white) would proclaim the same "to the Grand Lodges throughout the world."
At the next session of this Grand Lodge in October, 1876, at Columbus, Ohio, when the resolution of recognition with its condition was presented, a constitutional question was introduced and a point of order was raised. The Grand Master ruled against the point of order, but he was not sustained by the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge of white Masons thus failed to meet squarely the issue of recognition. In the annual session of 1877, the Grand Lodge of Ohio (white) was again presented the question of recognition by the memorial previously mentioned of F. J. Werner of Hauselmann Lodge of Cincinnati, but a motion to lay the proposal on the table was adopted.
In this way, the white Masons of Ohio disposed of the petition of their colored brothers in Masonry. Some Masons who were favorable to the use of the term "African" stated that they intended no "stigma or disgrace" in suggesting its use, and that "the insinuations about a Negro pew or Negro quarter, was never dreamed of by those noble, generous brethren who composed that committee, and who made sacrifice of their personal popularity in the Grand Lodge by doing what they thought a great Masonic duty."
The reaction of Negroes to this proposal was based upon a correct use of the term "African." This was expressed clearly by Brother William H. Parham, who wrote, "In objecting to the title 'African,' we did so because our lodges are not made up of Africans. I cannot now recall to mind one brother in all these lodges of whom it can, with certainty, be said, 'He is an African.' 'African descent,' says one, 'How about that?' So far as that is concerned, thanks to the late departed 'institution,' there is as much Caucasian as African, if not a little more.
"I admit that we should stand up for our ancestral native country, but having two sets of ancestry, should we not stand up for both? Would it be right and honorable to 'make fish of one and flesh of the other? ' Shall we proclaim from the housetops the departed greatness of the fatherland of our ancestors on the one side, and pass by in silence the existing greatness of our ancestors on the other side, and that, too, our own place of birth? I should say not. If a number of French gentlemen come here from France, Irish gentlemen from Erin, German gentlemen from Germany, or Swiss gentlemen from the land of Tell, and desire to establish lodges and moved to indicate their nationality, there can be no objection. I do not, however, see that that is a reason why we, not foreigners, but Americans by birth and largely by parentage, should misname our organizations."
The three factors of Nationalism, Statism
and Racism had played their parts in the history of Masonry among
Negroes in Ohio. They had helped to build the fraternity, and
in each case, the fraternity and its leadership had taken high
ground on these issues. Facing them with courage and forthrightness,
as they did, they were contributing to the building of the integrity,
maturity, and promise of Masonry for colored Americans in the
State of Ohio.
Back to Prince Hall Previous Next
