Author’s preface

This essay appears somewhat dated in 2004. It was written ten years ago, before the United Grand Lodge of England recognized its offspring, the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. The essay also contains some small inaccuracies, having been written before the author had the opportunity to examine original documents held by the United Grand Lodge of England, including several written by Prince Hall himself, and also because the author did not then have the opportunity to further his studies on the Internet and to correspond by email with many Prince Hall brethren.

The paper was presented in Sydney in October 1994 to brethren of all Australian Masonic jurisdictions, and has been published in the Proceedings of the Australian Masonic Research Council (AMRC 1994), in Masonic Research in South Australia (vol 1, 1995), and in the Phylaxis magazine (commencing September 1994).

In theory, Freemasonry acknowledges no colour bar, but opens its doors to ‘just, upright and free men of mature age, sound judgement and strict morals’, regardless of race, colour or creed, provided they believe in the Supreme Being. In practice, this has not always been so,^[1] and is not so today. In the United States of America a system of segregation developed and has been maintained for over 200 years.^[2] From time to time isolated and unsuccessful attempts were made to change this situation. Now a more determined effort has been initiated and is gathering momentum. The acknowledged goal is not complete integration but mutual recognition and intervisitation.

This paper will outline the origins and separate development of Freemasonry among African‑Americans, touch gently on the problems of regularity of origin and modern rules of recognition, and record the journey towards desegregation. Where distinctions are made on the basis of race or colour, the terms Black and White are used throughout this paper (except in direct quotations), as plain and neutral descriptions, devoid (one hopes) of offensiveness. The opinions expressed are those of the person to whom they are attributed. The personal opinions of the author, whether express or implied, are not necessarily shared by any organisation with which he is associated.

The principal participants in the modern situation are the Black Grand Lodges of Prince Hall Affiliation and the White Grand Lodges of the United States of America and (to a lesser extent) the Grand Lodges of Canada. The United Grand Lodge of England is an ‘interested party’, both historically and by its current pronouncements, which carry great weight with English-speaking Grand Lodges among the ‘spectators’.

The average Australian Mason knows nothing of Prince Hall. Those of us who have studied the subject over the past few years are in much the same position. There are three substantial handicaps for the Australian researcher who would determine the historical facts: first, the ‘tyranny of distance’, which effectively precludes the search for and examination of primary sources; second, the unreliability of many secondary documents, which include mistakes, personal bias and outright invention; third, the very real differences of historical outlook of Black and White Americans, their history having been written mainly by and for Whites. Nevertheless, some facts can be established beyond reasonable doubt, and others can be substantiated to varying degrees of likelihood, enabling the application of both logical reasoning and Masonic principles towards achieving a satisfactory conclusion.

 

Part I—Prince Hall, African Lodge and Black Grand Lodges

Prince Hall and African Lodge

Two hundred and ten years ago, almost to the day, the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns) issued warrant number 459 to ‘African Lodge at Boston New England’.^[3] The lodge was renumbered 370 in 1792^[4] and, like all other lodges in the former American colonies under the Antients or Moderns, was erased from the rolls by the newly-constituted United Grand Lodge of England in 1814.^[5]

The foundation Master of African Lodge was a man named Prince Hall. Much has been written about him—mostly based on imagination or conjecture. His date and place of birth, his parentage and his initiation are all subjects in dispute. William Grimshaw, a Grand Master of the Black Grand Lodge established in the District of Columbia as Union Grand Lodge, wrote that Prince Hall was born in Bridgetown, Barbados, West Indies, in 1748, the son of an Englishman and a ‘colored’ woman of French extraction.^[6] This version was adopted in the Prince Hall Masonic Year Book, an official publication sponsored by the Grand Masters’ Conference of Prince Hall Masons of America,^[7] and by the White author and Masonic researcher, Harold Voorhis,^[8] among many others. None of this can be substantiated, and Grimshaw has been totally discredited as an historian.^[9]

From more reliable sources, it would appear that Prince Hall was born no earlier than 1735, no later than 1742, and probably in 1737/8. Notices in Boston newspapers of his death in December 1807 referred to him as ‘aged 72’.^[10] A founder of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Dr Jeremy Belknap, in a letter dated 1795, referred to Prince Hall as ‘a very intelligent black man, aged fifty-seven years’. A deposition dated 31 August 1807 reads: ‘I, Prince Hall of Boston in the County of Suffolk, Leather Dresser and Labourer, aged about 70 years . . .’^[11] The question was considered in the 1906 Proceedings of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and preference was expressed for 1738 as the correct date of birth, based on the Belknap letter, but among the other dates calculated from various sources was one for 1742.^[12]

His place of birth and parentage have significance on the issue of whether or not he was ‘freeborn’. That was almost certainly the reason for Grimshaw’s invention. Others have claimed Prince Hall to have been born in Maryland,^[13] England, and Africa. The basis for England as his place of birth is slender but attractive. In 1899 William Upton, a Grand Master of the White Grand Lodge of Washington and Quatuor Coronati local secretary for the state of Washington, had the opportunity to study some documents in the possession of the Black John T Hilton Lodge, Massachusetts. One of these, known as Prince Hall’s Letter Book, contains a handwritten record of correspondence to and from Prince Hall, and its authenticity and the accuracy of some of it is confirmed by records of the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns). In this book is a copy of a letter from Prince Hall to Rowland Holt, Deputy Grand Master of the Moderns, dated 4 June 1789, in which he reported: ‘. . . received into the Lodge since August two members, namely John Bean and John Marrant, a black minister from home but last from Brachtown, Nova Scotia’.^[14] The phrase ‘from home’ might, in Upton’s opinion, ‘lead some to look to England for his nativity’.^[15] Joseph Walkes, author and editor of Prince Hall publications, referring to this letter and others in the letter book, commented:

. . . there is a very good chance that Prince Hall was from England for it seems strange that an uneducated Black man living in Boston during that time could have had the contacts in England that Prince Hall obviously had.^[16]

The arguments for Prince Hall being born in Africa are no stronger. George Draffen of Newington, a Past Master of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, noted that Prince Hall seemed to have always referred to himself as an ‘African’, and expressed the view that he was born free and seized in Africa as a youth and sold in America as a slave. He conceded that the youth might have been born into slavery in Africa, or that he might have been born a slave in America.^[17] However, Walkes explained the use of the term ‘African’ as a preferred synonym for ‘Negro’:^[18]

Using the January 14, 1787 Petition of African Blacks to [the] General Court for aid in establishing an African Colony, which Prince Hall signed, as their basis, there are those who believe that Hall’s place of birth was Africa. But it must be remembered that during this period the term “Negro” was seldom used by Blacks; hence such terms as “The African Church”, “The African School”, or “African Lodge” were more in keeping with what Blacks considered themselves.

Draffen’s conviction that Prince Hall was at one time a slave was based on his acceptance of a document of manumission as authentic and relating to the Master of African Lodge. The document in question was published in the White research magazine, Philalethes, of April 1963:^[19]

This may certify [to whom] it may concern that Prince Hall has lived with us 21 [or possibly 25] years and has served us well upon all occasions for which reasons we maturely give him his freedom and that he is no longer to be reckoned a slave, but has been always accounted as a freeman by us as he has served us faithfully upon that account we have given him his freedom as Witness our hands this Ninth day of April 1770.

The document was witnessed by William, Susannah, Margaret and Elizabeth Hall and dated ‘Boston 12th April, 1770’. It was from the papers of Ezekiel Price (c 1728–1802), in the Boston Atheneum Library, and was published as part of an article by John Sherman, Grand Historian of the White Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, who stated that William Hall (c 1696–1771) was a leather-dresser and property owner, and probably set up his freed slave, Prince Hall, in business as a leather-dresser. Harold Wilson, Grand Historian of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New York, disputed Sherman’s assumption that the Prince Hall referred to in the manumission was the eponymous Master of African Lodge, commented that there were several men of that name in Boston in that period, and also pointed out that the document published was a facsimile of a private record kept by Price of his activities as a notary, and not an original notarised document.^[20] Walkes made unsuccessful efforts to locate the original document and to obtain a public record of anyone named Prince Hall manumitted in 1770.^[21] These points were reiterated by Jerry Marsengill, editor of the Philalethes magazine:^[22]

Another case concerns the manumission certificate which appeared originally in the Philalethes magazine. It is a copy of the original which was made by Ezekiel Price for his records. As far as I personally know, no one has seen the original. Regardless of this, if the certificate is a true and exact copy, it does not prove that the certificate was issued to the ‘Masonic’ Prince Hall. More than one man named Prince Hall resided in and around Boston at that time.

Records show that during the War of Independence there were at least three soldiers and one seaman named Prince Hall, who came from Boston or its vicinity, and there were at least seven marriages of persons named Prince Hall. They could not all have been the same man.^[23] There is no evidence that the future Master of African Lodge was born into slavery, and none that he was a slave after 1770. Therefore, there are no grounds to say that Prince Hall was not both freeborn and free at the time of his initiation. It matters not, Masonically, that he may have been a slave in the interim.

Initiation

On the subject of the initiation of Prince Hall into Freemasonry, Draffen quoted the Prince Hall Masonic Year Book:^[24]

On March 6, 1775, Prince Hall and fourteen other free Negroes of Boston were made Master Masons in an army lodge attached to one of General Gage’s regiments, then stationed near Boston This lodge granted Prince Hall and his brethren authority to meet as a lodge, to go in procession on St John’s Day, and as a lodge to bury their dead, but they could not confer degrees nor perform any other Masonic ‘work’.

For nine years these brethren, together with others who had received the degrees elsewhere, assembled and enjoyed limited privileges as masons. . .

Walkes frankly admitted that it is not definitely known when and how Prince Hall became a Mason, ‘as documentation showing dates have not been found’, but went on to quote from the Belknap papers (the source of Dr Belknap’s information presumably being Prince Hall, himself):^[25]

. . . I must inform you that he is grand master of a Lodge of free masons, composed wholly of blacks, and distinguished by the name of the ‘African Lodge’. It was begun in 1775, while this town was garrisoned by British troops; some of whom held a lodge, and initiated a number of negroes. After the peace, they sent to England, and procured a charter under the authority of the Duke of Cumberland and signed by the late Earl of Effingham.

Walkes went on to say:^[26]

Harry E. Davis, in his history of Prince Hall Freemasonry [A History of Freemasonry Among Negroes in America, 1946], wrote that Hall had been initiated in Lodge 441 which was a military lodge working under the Grand Lodge of Ireland and attached to one of the regiments in the Army of General Gage, and that the Master was a “Brother J B Batt”.

It is difficult to ascertain the validity of this. The minutes of African Lodge which have survived raise as many questions as they answer. Prince Hall Freemasonry accepts that date and counts its beginning from that time. Much confusion exists concerning that period. Blacks were formerly uneducated, being restricted by law from acquiring an education, with “Black Codes” legally restricting more than two or three Blacks from assembling or holding meetings. To put the entire period in proper perspective one would need to understand the racial conditions of the time. One can not judge the events of the period in the same context as one judges the early beginning of the Caucasian Colonist. . .

Draffen compiled a list of British regiments stationed in or near Boston in 1775 that included the 38th of Foot (South Staffordshires), which had a lodge warranted by the Grand Lodge of Ireland, number 441. A member of the lodge was John Batt, whose name was registered with the Grand Lodge of Ireland on 2 May 1771. He served in the regiment from 1759 until his discharge at Staten Island (New York) in 1777. Draffen commented:^[27]

Any minutes of the lodge while working as a military lodge are lost and it is impossible to say if John Batt was the Master in 1775. It is equally impossible to say whether or not the meeting at which Prince Hall was initiated was held regularly under the lodge warrant or was a clandestine affair with John Batt ‘initiating’ some gullible Negroes and pocketing the money they paid him. None of those made masons by John Batt on 6 March 1775 are recorded as being members of the lodge in the registers of the Grand Lodge of Ireland. I do not say that this is what happened, merely that it is possible. On the other hand the difficulties of communication with Dublin in the middle of a civil war were enormous and the fact that Prince Hall and his friends were not registered in Dublin is, in itself, no proof that their admission was not perfectly regular.

Before the warrant

In a letter to William Moody, a member of Lodge of Brotherly Love and later Master of Perseverance Lodge, London, dated 2 March 1784, Prince Hall wrote:^[28]

Dear Brother

[paragraph omitted]

. . . I would inform you that this Lodge hath been founded 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 Br. 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.

Davis published a similar but longer version of this letter, dated 30 June 1784, reproduced by Draffen,^[29] evidently not copied into the letter book and thus unknown to Upton. It is not completely clear whether these were separate letters or two versions of one letter, but the second version was received by the Grand Lodge of England prior to the issue of the warrant.^[30] The most significant difference between the two is the statement in the later version ‘. . . and had no Warrant yet but only a Permet [sic] from Grand Master Row [sic] to walk on St John’s Day and Bury our dead in form which we now enjoy.’ Thus we have two versions of the origin of the permit or dispensation to African Lodge—Master Batt, of Lodge 441 IC, and John Rowe, Provincial Grand Master for North America (Moderns) from 1768 to 1787^[31]—or there may have been two such permits, one from each source. A permit from Rowe may explain in part why Masons made in an Irish lodge should apply to England for a warrant, but does not explain why Rowe himself did not issue the warrant. Sherman, however, speculated:^[32]

The phrase, ‘a permit from Grand Master Rowe’ has masonic implications, and seems to indicate that he recognized them as masons, but the word ‘Permit’ seems out of place here. one would expect it to be a ‘Dispensation’. on the other hand John Rowe, outside his masonic connection, was active in local politics. He had been a Selectman of the town of Boston for a number of years and a Representative in the Massachusetts Legislature and on 3 June 1781 he was elected Town Moderator.

The first death among the members of African Lodge No 1 was that of a Peter Beath on 23 February 1781, and this was recorded in the minutes. These show that the lodge then purchased a ‘Paul’ [pall] which the members could use thereafter when burying their dead. They were required to purchase a share for each one at the time of joining the lodge. It may have been necessary for them also to obtain a permit from the town authorities to go on parade and to hold a funeral as a group. This is conjecture [italics added] but it would explain how Prince Hall might have obtained a permit from John Rowe as a public official, but not in his masonic capacity. In his letter to Mr Moody, Prince Hall may have realized that his reference to the permit might be recognized at Grand Lodge as granting him local recognition as a freemason.

Henry Coil adopted this conjecture as fact and went a step further, announcing:^[33]

So far from recognizing the Negro Lodge No 1 at Boston, Provincial Grand Master Rowe, acting in his civil capacity as a town officer of Boston, issued a denial of lodge action or authority by granting them only a ‘a permet [sic] to march on St John’s day and bury their dead in form’. [his italics]

If there were any substance in Sherman’s conjecture or Coil’s assertion, one would expect John Rowe (or, after his death, the individual Moderns lodges) to have advised the Grand Lodge of England of any objections to African Lodge having been granted a warrant. There has never been even the suggestion of a scintilla of evidence of such correspondence.

Robert Nairn, a Canberra researcher, commented:^[34]

It must be concluded that London issued the warrant for a Lodge without reference to their own Provincial Grand Master in Boston. Perhaps this was due (later justified) to suspicions of strained relations over the War of Independence or due to delays in correspondence or perhaps London believed Rowe was not being fair to Prince Hall.

Ralph Castle, of Queensland, summarised the activities of the White lodges in Massachusetts during and immediately after the War of Independence, and pointed out:^[35]

For the next eight years, 1784–1792, Massachusetts was divided under three Masonic authorities, all somewhat irregular. The semi-active St John’s Grand Lodge under England [Moderns], the unauthorized leadership of Joseph Webb of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Scotland, termed the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, and the schismatic Independent [Grand] Lodge of the Rising States Lodge. So there you have it in early 1784, when Prince Hall wrote to London. . .

Among the documents examined by Upton in 1899 were ‘a few tattered sheets of paper, upon which are written rough minutes of African Lodge from 1779 to 1787’. They appeared to be notes from which the lodge minutes could be ‘written up’ and, unfortunately, contained nothing of significance to our present quest.^[36] Walkes demonstrated that other ‘minutes’ of African Lodge were inaccurate transcripts of lost originals, made no earlier than 1817 and probably dating from 1825. He concluded: ‘It is clear that the rewritten minutes of African Lodge cannot be used as [a] basis for Masonic research. They have been proved to be completely unreliable.’^[37] This view was endorsed by Marsengill: ‘The few records which exist cannot be depended on. One such record is the minute book of African Lodge . . . Since the minutes were rewritten (and most probably altered) by John Hilton, it is difficult to use them as a source of good evidence.’^[38] Sherman, in an endnote to his paper ‘The Negro “National” or “Compact” Grand Lodge’, reported that a microfilm reproduction of the records of African Lodge from 1779 to 1846 was made in 1960 (or 15 February 1950^[39]), on the recommendation of the White Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, with the cooperation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.^[40]

Draffen stated:^[41]

The earliest record of freemasonry among coloured people in the United States is to be found on a sheet of paper in the archives of African Lodge in Boston. The document is dated 6 March 1775 – the final digit is only just legible – and has the heading:

By Marster Batt wose made these brothers

Prince Hall                            Thomas Sanderson

Peter Best                             Buesten Singer

Cuff Bufform                         Boston Smith

John Carter                           Cato Spean

Peter Freeman                     Prince Taylar

Fortune Howard                   Benjamin Tiber

Cyrus Jonbus                       Richard Tilley

Prince Rees

At the foot of the sheet are certain figures which would seem to show that on the same date, or previously, some fourteen men were made ‘Marsters’, three ‘Crafts’ and thirteen ‘Prentices’. A second sheet shows payments of 45½ guineas which would indicate an initiation fee of approximately three guineas. There is nothing to indicate whether or not all three degrees were conferred on 6 March 1775 but even if this were so it would be nothing to cavil at. It was quite customary for a lodge to confer all three degrees at one meeting in those days, and if the lodge was a military lodge then it might be almost essential for the lodge to confer all three degrees at one meeting – who could tell when the lodge would next be able to meet? The date, 6 March 1775, is important for it was but a few weeks before the first shot of the War of Independence was fired at Lexington, itself but a few miles from Boston.

Christopher Haffner, commenting on the date of the above entry, wrote:^[42]

This date has been contested in American research with the statement that the ‘5’ is a recent defacement of an original ‘8’. An early microfilm shows a figure too faint to read and the ‘8’ is assumed to have been correct from other pages accompanying the first sheet of paper.

On a separate occasion, he remarked:^[43]

Harold Voorhis wrote an article (which he never published) in which he disputed the date of Prince Hall’s initiation, and thus ‘proved’ that he must have been made outside a chartered lodge. (How is it that no-one else had noticed this previously, and that after Voorhis had handled the original document it was found to have been defaced?)

Of course, the fact that the ‘top’ figure is a 5 is no indication that the original figure was not also a 5; it depends on the motive of the person defacing the original—and, in any event, none of the above researchers has pointed to evidence authenticating the document or given its provenance.

Voorhis gave the same list as Draffen, but then claimed:^[44] ‘The candidates paid fifteen guineas for Entering; seven for Passing; and three for Raising.’ He cited no source for this statement.

Among the rewritten minutes of African Lodge which Walkes found to be completely unreliable was a list of fifteen names, giving dates when each was ‘Maid Marster’, during the period 1778–81.^[45] The list is headed ‘Prince Hall—Grand Marster 1778’, and of the other fourteen names about half are identical or very similar to those of the 1775 list given by Draffen and Voorhis. At the end of Sherman’s review of Wesley’s book are photographic reproductions of two documents, Appendixes 1 & 2, which appear to contain the lists ‘Prince Hall—Grand Marster 1778’ (Appendix 1) and ‘By Marster Batt wose made these brothers’ (Appendix 2).^[46] Some entries are indecipherable, and some names are spelled differently or appear in a different sequence from those published by Draffen and Voorhis.

Prince Hall, in his first letter to William Moody, intimated that the lodge had met from 1776, and other evidence of it meeting before the issue of the warrant in 1784 are the by-laws dated 1779,^[47] and a newspaper article in December 1782, to which Prince Hall responded with a letter signed as ‘Master of African Lodge No 1, Dedicated to St John’. It is apparent from Upton’s paraphrase of the first paragraph of Hall’s first letter to Moody^[48] that the latter and his lodge had received and aided visiting brethren from African Lodge prior to March 1784. There is no clear evidence whether or not the lodge performed degree work before the issue of the warrant, but Hall’s letter implies that it did not.

African Lodge No 459

Although the warrant for African Lodge was issued in September 1784 it did not arrive in Boston until May 1787. The story of the delay may be ascertained from the letter book.^[49] Since three of his brethren were in London when the warrant was issued, Prince Hall assumed that they would pay the fees and collect the warrant. When one of them, Prince Spooner, advised that they had not done so, Prince Hall sent £6.0.8 via a ship’s steward, Hartfield; asked Spooner to give the lodge’s hearty thanks to Brother Moody; and wrote direct to the Duke of Cumberland, promising:^[50]

I shall in all my lectures endeavour to advance the things as, by the blessing of God, may redound to the honour of the Craft, and also use that discipline in the Lodge as shall make the guilty tremble, and at the same time establish the true honest brother.

In June 1785 Moody wrote to Hall, formally requesting that the lodge pay the fees and collect the warrant, the fees being £4.4.0 for the warrant, £1.1.0 for enrolment in the list of lodges and 10/6 for ‘the under Secretary’. Hall sent two letters in response, in August and December, explaining that he had sent the money via Hartfield on Captain Scott’s ship, and asking Moody to act on the lodge’s behalf. Moody replied that he had not received the money and Hartfield denied having been given any. Hall sent more,^[51] and Moody wrote in March 1787, reporting that he had received the money, obtained the warrant and delivered it to Capt Scott. In May, Prince Hall proudly advertised the arrival of the warrant in a local newspaper, the Columbian Centinal, presumably to confound the wiseacres who had published a report about ‘St Black’s Lodge’^[52] and had inserted the following advertisement:^[53]

The warrant, which survived a fire in 1869, has been preserved. It bears the standard wording of an English warrant of the time, and appoints Prince Hall as Master, Boston Smith as Senior Warden and Thomas Sanderson as Junior Warden.^[54] The Master wrote to William White, the Grand Secretary, thanking him for the warrant, and enquiring whether it empowered the setting up of a second lodge^[55]—to which there is no recorded reply.

The by-laws of 1779 and the list of members included with it are of considerable interest. A photocopy of this document (Historical Correspondence File 28/A/1) in the possession of the United Grand Lodge of England has been supplied by John Hamill, librarian and curator, who describes the original as ‘a single folio now in a delicate condition’.^[56] The original (as photocopied) measures approximately 12 inches by 7½ inches. This has been reduced to 65% of the area of the original for inclusion with this paper (Appendix A). A transcription is given below. The text of the document implies that the by-laws were adopted by the lodge before or during January 1779, and this implication has not been challenged. Probably Prince Hall wrote, signed and dated the document as indicated in the text—but only as far as the line ‘and in the year of our Lord 1779’.

Transcription of by-laws of African Lodge, 1779, and list of members

The General Regutalions of the African Lodge 1 As all Mosons are obliged to obey the morral law we therfore Exclud from this Lodge all stupid Athest and Irreligous libertines : yet at the same time we alow Everey man to Inioy his one Religion so that thay be men of Honesty and Honour & freeborn 2 We admeet none but [illegible] of a Peaceble subjects to the civeil Powers were thay live free from all Plots and conspiraies against the Peace of the same 3 No member of this Lodge is sufered to be absent therefrom when worned to appear without given sum good Reson for his so doing or Pay the sum of three shillings as a fine to the Lodge 4 We admete none into this Lodge under the Age of Twentey one and haveing a tung of a Good Reporte for this Reson no man can be admitted a member of the same till he hath ben Proponded at lest one mounth that the Brethren may inquire into his charectter 5 All perferment amonge us is by Real worth and Personel merit only for fear of slander being Brought upon the Nobel order and a Disgrace to our Lodge 6 No man can be admitted a member of this Lodge for les money then three pounds and tow good Bondsmen for his good behover within and without the Lodge 7 When met in the Lodge we forbed all perfain Langage all indecent behover in the Lodge under the Pelentey of paying to the Lodge the sum of ten shillings and be leiabel to be expeal’d for six monts

These and all other Laws that the Lodge shall think Proper to make you are to observe as true and sencear men from God that the Nobel Craft may not be Desgraced by your bad conducte by thouse that are Without ; Aman so let Be Prince Hall Mr in the Lodge Rume         Boston Janurey [?15] 5779                                             and in the year of our Lord 1779 The subscribers ar a Lest of the membres Masters [this word is written in the left margin, sideways] Cyrus [?] Forbes Thomes Sarndson   JW      Intered a Prenteses Brister Sl[?]ener                    Cuff Buffom Prince Taler                           Po[?]me[?] Speer Boston Smeth           SW      Phiplep Boston Fotain Howard                      Seoczes Speer John Carter                            Coto Rusel John Meanes                        Jorchy Cudmerch Cato Underwood       Si       John Bown Jube Hill                    Tr         Sipeo Lard William Gorgi Gregrey         Bristol Merrandis Gorge Medelton        JD       Jemes Smeeth     [?] Boston Fadey                        James Horkens   [?] John Brown               SD Retcherd Pollord   Mershel These are a true Lest Ceser Speer                PM    of the Leving member of Prince Spooner                     the Africon Lodge at Present John Hopte                            thou there is a number absent                                                  at this time : we shall Craftes                                    Collect for the found of Ceser Fleet                            Cherrety the Next Quarterly Sipeo Dolton       Cl[?]rk       meeting and send it the Cear Cambel                        first opertunity we can get Pompey [?]eads   Tiler        after words after whishing His Royal Highnes our Nobel Grand and the Grond Lodge all Happness Hear and hearafter I Humbley Beg Leve to Subscribe my self your Humble                                                  Servent & Br Prince Hall

obverse

reverse

NB     The obverse of this document may have been written during or before January 1779, but the reverse was probably completed in 1787 (see text). A reduced photocopy of the original document is contained in Appendix A of this paper.

As shown, there follows a list of members, and a statement apparently addressed to an official of the Grand Lodge of England in terms consistent with the warrant for African Lodge having been granted. It refers to a forthcoming collection for charity, to be forwarded at the first opportunity. This is consistent with letters written by Prince Hall to William White, Grand Secretary, and Rowland Holt, Deputy Grand Master, dated 17 May 1787, both referring to sending a copy of the by-laws and list of members.^[57] Voorhis mistakenly assumed that the whole document was created in 1779, and constructed elaborate hypotheses to avoid the consequent conclusion that the lodge made Masons before receipt of the warrant.^[58] The list comprises 18 Master Masons other than Prince Hall, 4 Fellow Crafts and 11 Entered Apprentices. From the earlier list of 14 made with Prince Hall in 1775/8, nine names appear in the present list (allowing for variations in spelling)—eight of them as Master Masons and one, Cuff Buffo(r)m still an Apprentice! Given that the lodge was warranted in 1784 and the list supplied in 1787, there are no grounds here to suppose that the lodge was doing degree work before the warrant was issued.

The spelling in the document is no better than that of some modern Australian undergraduates, but has been faithfully retained in the transcript for the purposes of comparison and study. The by-laws, termed ‘General Regulations’, are clearly derived from Anderson, but the spelling and omissions suggest that they were recorded from memory, rather than copied. It is evidence that here is no ‘hedge mason’, one of 15 ‘gullible negroes’ who went through a fraudulent ceremony and were swindled of their money by a fly-by-night army deserter in 1778, as some have claimed, but rather an intelligent man of limited education, who had spent a substantial time under instruction, or in private study of the Craft.

The words ‘regulations’, spelled ‘Regutalions’, ‘penalty’, spelled ‘Pelentey’, and ‘enjoy’, spelled ‘Jnioy’, or ‘Inioy’ (capital I and capital J are written the same) might suggest to a layman the possibility of mild dyslexia.^[59] Note that in this list ‘Masters’ is spelled correctly, unlike in the lists previously mentioned. The officers listed are Senior and Junior Wardens, Secretary, Treasurer, Senior and Junior Deacons, Marshall, Clerk and Tyler (a Fellow Craft). An illegible word after the names of two Apprentices (Smeeth and Horkens) might be a misspelt ‘Steward’. The fact that the Tyler was a Fellow Craft suggests that not only Master Masons were members of the lodge, as is the case in America now. The office of Marshall is similar to that of Director of Ceremonies, but ranks below Junior Deacon. The purpose of a clerk, in addition to the secretary, is not indicated. The office of Deacon was unusual in a Moderns lodge and one wonders where Prince Hall got the idea—perhaps from a certain military lodge with an Irish warrant. Sinclair Bruce, in an appendix to his Prestonian Lecture on deacons,^[60] said that the office was not unknown in America, and referred to a Moderns lodge in New York in 1771 which had a deacon. He went on to state that in present day American lodges the Junior Deacon performs the duties we allocate to the Inner Guard. He gave a list of Moderns lodges with deacons before the Union of 1813, but did not include any from America.

By-law (regulation) 6 reads (with spelling corrected): ‘No man can be admitted a member of this Lodge for less money than three pounds^[61] and two good Bondsmen for his good behaviour within and without the Lodge.’ This was taken by a Bro Denis Scott^[62] to refer to feudal bondage, the ‘no bondman’ requirement of the old Charges and Anderson’s Constitutions. He asked: ‘Does this mean that Bondsmen were members of his lodge?’ Scott further assumed that Prince Hall was unaware in 1779 of the requirement that a Mason be ‘freeborn’. He was mistaken on both counts. The context of by-law 6 clearly indicates that ‘Bondsmen’ was used in the legal sense of a surety for good behaviour, and by‑law 1 contains the phrase ‘men of Honesty and Honour & freeborn’. Curiously, Daniel Brathwaite, foundation Senior Warden of the Prince Hall Lodge of Research of New York, accepted the ‘freeborn’ requirement as a valid ‘landmark’ as late as 1943,^[63] although Walkes asserted that Prince Hall lodges had always been prepared to initiate ex-slaves.^[64] Bernard Jones, in his Prestonian Lecture, dealt fully with the requirement to be ‘freeborn’ or ‘free’. He referred to a court case in England in 1771–72 and commented:^[65]

. . . Lord Mansfield directed judgment in which these words occur:

the state of slavery . . . is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law . . . I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.

From that moment any slave arriving in England could say “I breath free breath”.

Nevertheless, it was not until 1845 that the United Grand Lodge of England changed the requirement from freeborn to free. However, this very change is a clear indication that the requirement was not a landmark. Christopher Haffner argued that we should not take the ‘freeborn’ requirement ‘legalistically’, on the basis that the old Charges are exhortations, not regulations; we do not comply to the letter with others of the old Charges—to initiate only youths; that every Mason must be his own Master (self-employed); that all Masons shall work honestly on working days (so Masons who retire from work must retire from Freemasonry); that the parents of candidates must be honest (and therefore investigated before ballot).^[66]

From the letter book it is apparent that African Lodge faithfully sent contributions to the Grand Charity, via Capt Scott and others, but not all the contributions were received^[67] and not all letters were acknowledged by the Grand Secretary. Hall sent the list of members of the lodge in 1787 and updates in 1792 (?), 1798 (16 new members since 1792), and 1802 (8 deceased & 18 new members). In 1792 the Grand Secretary asked Prince Hall to report on the other Moderns lodges in New England, ‘as we have never heard from them since the commencement of the late war in America, or indeed, long before: and in case they have ceased to meet, which I rather apprehend, they ought to be erased from our list of lodges’. This implies that the Moderns Provincial Grand Lodge and John Rowe had not been in touch with England since 1775. Prince Hall responded with the information that two lodges had amalgamated ‘since the death of their Grand Master, Henry Price’^[68] and that a third lodge met regularly, and some of their members visited African Lodge. It is odd that the Grand Secretary did not mention to Prince Hall that African Lodge had been re-numbered earlier that year, and equally odd that Hall said nothing to the Grand Secretary about the recent formation of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

That African Lodge was not entirely ignored by White Masons is evident from Hall’s letter to Moody (18 May 1787) thanking him for what is assumed to be a copy of Noorthouck’s Constitutions of 1784, which Hall said he had shown to Masters of other lodges,^[69] and from his statement (1792) that some members of Moderns lodge number 142 visited African Lodge. on the other hand, we have the report of the Rev John Eliot, DD, a member of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow of Harvard College and a future Grand Chaplain of the White Grand Lodge of Massachusetts:^[70]

There is much harmony between blacks and whites. We seldom have contentions, except in houses of ill-fame, where some very depraved white females get among the blacks . . . otherwise, they do not associate. Even religious societies, those not of public fellowship, are separate in the town of Boston. And, what is still more remarkable, white and black masons do not sit together in their lodges. The African Lodge in Boston, though possessing a charter from England, signed by the Earl of Effingham, and countersigned by the Duke of Cumberland, meet by themselves; and white masons, not more skilled in geometry than their black brethren, will not acknowledge them. The reason given is that the blacks were made clandestinely in the first place, which, being known, would have prevented them from receiving a charter. But this enquiry would not have been made about white lodges, many of which have not conformed to the rules of Masonry. The truth is they are ashamed of being on equality with blacks.

(Belknap Papers, 1795)

In any event, when the several White lodges and Grand Lodges of Massachusetts got together in 1792 and formed the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, African Lodge was not invited to participate. The doctrine of ‘exclusive territorial jurisdiction’ was being developed in America at this time, and when the successors of Prince Hall and African Lodge No 459 formed their own Grand Lodge, they were declared clandestine on the basis of this doctrine. In turn, this rejection led to a counterclaim that Prince Hall and his brethren had formed a Grand Lodge in 1791, before the creation of the White Grand Lodge. If they had indeed formed a Grand Lodge, they concealed it in their correspondence with England. This claim of priority of origin should be kept in mind when examining subsequent events.

Towards independence

William Henry Grimshaw was a doorkeeper and library assistant in the main reading room of the Library of Congress.^[71] In 1902 he sent a typewritten letter on official Library of Congress notepaper to the Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England and enclosed a typewritten copy of an alleged patent granted by the Earl of Moira to Prince Hall as ‘Provincial Grand Master, with power to constitute and establish a provincial Grand Lodge in Boston, and other Lodges in America . . .’ dated 27 January 1790. Grimshaw requested a search of records to verify the issue of this document. Henry Sadler prepared a reply, which was sent under the hand of the Grand secretary, pointing out a number of mistakes and anachronisms which clearly indicated that the document was not genuine.^[72] When Grimshaw published his book, official History of Freemasonry Among the Colored People of North America, in 1903, it contained a much-revised version of the ‘patent’, now dated 27 January 1791.

Although Grimshaw’s ‘patent’ has been disavowed by Prince Hall researchers such as Harry Davis (1946) and Joseph Walkes (1979), the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts claims to have been founded on 24 June 1791.^[73] Walkes ascribed this date merely to ‘tradition’^[74] and Voorhis described the event as ‘A general assembly of Colored Masons’ who ‘elected’ Prince Hall as Grand Master.^[75] He cited no specific authority for this statement, but went on to say: ‘It was, in effect, a Provincial Grand Lodge.’

In support of this claim, he referred to Grimshaw’s ‘patent’ and to three instances where Prince Hall was styled ‘Right Worshipful’—a letter from the Grand Secretary of England dated 20 August 1792; a printed pamphlet of a ‘charge’ given by ‘the Right Worshipful Master, Prince Hall’ to African Lodge on 25 June 1792; and a letter from a Peter Mantore of Philadelphia, dated 2 March 1797, to ‘Right Worshipful Prince Hall’.^[76] To these examples might be added another, a printed pamphlet of a ‘charge’ delivered to African Lodge on 24 June 1798 by ‘the Right Worshipful Prince Hall’, which is in the archives of the United Grand Lodge of England.^[77]

However, the style ‘Right Worshipful’ does nothing to advance the claim to promotion. As we are well aware, to this day the ruler of a Scottish lodge is the Right Worshipful Master. The same usage was prevalent in Moderns lodges in the latter half of the 18th century^[78] and occurred in the minutes of an Irish lodge as late as 1827.^[79]

On the other hand, Upton reported an entry in the letter book, with details of a certificate issued to a Bro John Dodd, signed by ‘Prince Hall, GM’, ‘Cyrus Forbes, SGW’ and ‘George Middleton, JGW’, dated ‘Boston, February 16, 1792’.^[80]

Pre-dating all of these is the title page of a printed pamphlet of a sermon by ‘the Reverend Brother Morrant, Chaplain’ on 24 June 1789, ‘at the request of the Right Worshipful the Grand Master Prince Hall, and the rest of the brethren of the African Lodge’.^[81] This was John Marrant, ordained in England in 1785. Copies of the sermon were apparently sent to the Grand Lodge of England, but the elevation of rank on the title page seems to have received no official comment. ‘Grand Master’ coupled with ‘African Lodge’ suggests that this is merely a distinction drawn between Master Mason and Master of a lodge, sometimes encountered in the 18th century.

It appears that in 1797 Prince Hall issued warrants for two lodges, one in Philadelphia on 24 June and the other in Providence, Rhode Island, on 25 June.^[82] Although this action certainly was not authorised by the warrant of African Lodge—and undoubtedly would have incurred the displeasure of the Grand Lodge of England (perhaps even expulsion and erasure) had it become known—Prince Hall may have been acting in good faith. Researchers such as George Draffen,^[83] Joseph Findel,^[84] Christopher Haffner,^[85] Wallace McLeod,^[86] Allen Roberts^[87] and Harry Williamson^[88] have cited examples of other lodges (some warranted and some claiming ‘time immemorial’ status) which have warranted other lodges.

William Bathurst gave an example of a group of three lodges at Chester in 1725 which elected their own Provincial Grand Master and sent their returns to London, showing the Provincial Grand Master, his Deputy and Wardens as the four principal officers of the senior lodge.^[89] This was recognised by the Grand Lodge of England, in spite of the fact that appointment of a Provincial Grand Master was the prerogative of the Grand Master. Bathurst gave other examples of the ‘pocket Provincial Grand Lodge’, where it was contained within a single lodge, but exercised authority over other lodges.^[90]

Then, too, we have frequent examples of military or colonial warranted lodges, or a committee such as the Leinster Committee in New South Wales or the Standing Committee in Tasmania, issuing a dispensation for another lodge to be formed, pending an application to a Grand Lodge. Who can say with certainty that Prince Hall knowingly exceeded his authority?

Indeed, the letter book indicates that Prince Hall continued to write to England as from the Master of a constituent lodge to Grand Secretary. On 15 June 1802 he wrote:^[91]

. . . my brethren of the African Lodge, which the Grand Lodge hath highly honoured me to take the charge, and have by the blessing of God endeavored to fulfil my obligations and the great trust you have reposed in me.

I have sent a number of letters to the Grand Lodge and money for the Grand Charity, and by my faithful brethren as I thought, but I have not received one letter from the Grand Lodge for this five years, which I thought somewhat strange at first; but when I heard so many were taken by the French, I thought otherwise, and prudent not to send.

Still without a reply from England since 1796, in August 1806 Prince Hall apparently instructed one of his brethren, Nero Prince, to send to Grand Lodge the returns of members for the past 10 years. This was his last entry in the letter book, and William Upton commented:^[92]

This ends our manuscript, with a melancholy picture of the way the Grand Secretary’s office was conducted at that time, and a more pleasant one of the faithful old Mason making Lodge returns to the last. Prince Hall died sixteen months later. Nero Prince succeeded him as Master of African Lodge.

In Black Square & Compass, Joseph Walkes said of Prince Hall:

Prince Hall Masonry began with a remarkable individual, Prince Hall, a man who was a credit to his race, his country, universal Freemasonry and himself.^[93]

In order to measure the greatness of Prince Hall, one must review the written documents left by him, his petitions to the Senate and House of representatives of Massachusetts, his Letter Book and his Charges to African Lodge. . . His lack of a formal education, his bondage, and the racial conditions of the time merely enhance the character of this outstanding individual. His many accomplishments in overcoming all of these handicaps, and the abuses, mistreatment and often viciousness that was heaped on him, his lodge, and later the fraternity he founded, is more than proof that Prince Hall was indeed ‘The Master’.^[94]

In ‘The Antient Charges and Prince Hall’s Initiation’, Christopher Haffner concluded: ‘Without painting a hagiographic picture of Prince Hall, all that we know of this Mason is wholly admirable, and his achievements display him as a man who worked freely for the good of his own race and the whole of the community.’

Prince Hall died on 4 December 1807 and was interred with Masonic ceremony, but the several newspaper notices do not state where he was buried.^[95] There is an epitaph on the back of the gravestone of Sarah Ritchery, who may have been Prince Hall’s first wife. It reads: ‘Here lies ye body of Prince Hall / First Grand Master of the Colored Grand Lodge of Masons in Mass. / Died Dec. 7, 1807’. The incorrect date of death suggests that the inscription was made years later. His last wife, Sylvia, was appointed ‘administratrix’ of his estate.^[96] Draffen observed that the interment records were missing.^[97] Many years later, a monument to the memory of Prince Hall was erected in the same graveyard; there is an attractive photograph of it in Roy Wells’ book, The rise and development of organised Freemasonry, (1986) at page 149.

From Nero Prince to J T Hilton

Upon the death of Prince Hall, Nero Prince succeeded him as Master of African Lodge. Grimshaw claimed that he was a white man, a Russian Jew. Draffen described this as ‘one of his wilder stretches of imagination’.^[98] According to Draffen, Bro Prince was raised in African Lodge in 1799; he was a baker who became a sailor and made two voyages to Russia between 1810 and 1812. He then entered the service of a Princess Purtossof and later joined the staff at the court of Tsar Alexander.^[99] He died in Russia in 1825 (Voorhis) or 1833 (Draffen).

The next Master was George Middleton,^[100] who had been recorded as Junior Deacon in the 1779/87 list, and was shown as ‘JGW’ on Bro Dodd’s certificate in 1792. According to Voorhis, Middleton granted a warrant for another lodge in Philadelphia, Union Lodge No 2. He was succeeded by Peter Lew, who served from 1811 to 1817 and warranted three lodges—Laurel No 5 and Phoenix No 6, both in Philadelphia in 1811, and Boyer Lodge No 1 in New York in 1812.^[101] Voorhis did not cite his source, but it was probably one of the several rewritten ‘minutes’ of African Lodge, shown by Walkes to be inconsistent and unreliable. Other minutes show Boyer Lodge applying for a warrant in 1826.

Voorhis described Nero Prince, George Middleton and Peter Lew as Grand Masters. He asserted that a convention of ‘Negro Masons’ was held at Boston on 24 July 1808 with representatives of the three lodges—those of Boston, Philadelphia and Providence—present, at which Nero Prince was elected Grand Master, and the Grand Lodge was named ‘Prince Hall Grand Lodge’.^[102] Dr Eugene Hopp^[103] reported the date as 8 June 1808. These statements are at odds with reliable evidence. They are probably taken from a book headed ‘The Book of Records of the Grand African Lodge, No. 459, Boston, November 25, A.L.5825’. This book contains entries dated from 1807 to 1846. From the beginning to mid-1826 the handwriting is in a single hand, and an entry of 21 November 1825 indicates that John T Hilton was authorised to purchase a book and transcribe existing records into it. From mid-1826 onwards, the entries are in several different handwritings.^[104]

On 5 January 1824, the then Master of African Lodge, Samson H Moody, wrote to ‘the Right Worshipful the Grand Master, Wardens and Members of the Grand Lodge of England’, petitioning for a renewal and extension of the ‘charter’ of African Lodge. Moody extended greetings from himself and ‘other Companions who have been regularly exalted to the Sublime degree of Royal Arch Masons’, some of whom he named, and gave details of the original warrant. He remarked that this warrant only permitted three degrees to be conferred, and sought authority to ‘confer the other four degrees’.^[105] The signatories were Samson H Moody, WM; Peter Howard, SW; C A DeRandamie, JW (all Companions) and William J Champney, Secretary.^[106] There is no record, in England or elsewhere, of any reply to this petition.

Finally, African Lodge accepted its isolation and declared its independence in a notice dated 18 June 1827 and published in the Boston Advertiser of 26 June 1827. The notice was headed ‘African Lodge No 459’ and signed by John T Hilton, RWM; Thomas Dalton, SW; Lewis York, JW; and J H Purrow, Secretary.^[107] From 25 June 1827, the minutes of the lodge refer to ‘The African Grand Lodge No 459’ or ‘The Grand African Lodge’.^[108] John Telemachus Hilton was the ‘Right Worshipful Master’ of the lodge at the declaration of independence and became the first Grand Master. It is difficult to determine precisely which details of the history of African Lodge were ‘revised’ by him.

Black Grand Lodges

Walkes considered that Pennsylvania was the first independent Black Grand Lodge. It was established in Philadelphia on 27 December 1815,^[109] well ahead of the declaration of independence by African Lodge at Boston in 1827. But Pennsylvania illustrates the problems of regularity of origin and historical accuracy which bedevil the whole Prince Hall scene.

It was in March 1797 that Peter Mantore wrote to Prince Hall and the brethren of African Lodge, congratulating them on their warrant, and reporting that there were 11 brethren in Philadelphia (including five Master Masons) who were ready to ‘go to work’. He named the brethren, and the lodges where some of them were made, and stated that they had been tried by five Royal Arch Masons. He wrote: ‘The white Masons here say that they are afraid to give us a warrant for fear the black men living in Virginia would get to be Free Masons, too.’^[110] He added that he and his brethren would rather be under African Lodge, and asked that a brother be sent with the warrant, and expenses would be reimbursed.^[111]

Prince Hall replied that he hoped the brethren had received the light of Masonry in a just and lawful manner. He continued as follows:^[112]

If so, dear brother, we are willing to set you to work under our charter and Lodge No. 459, from London; under that authority and by the name of African Lodge, we hereby and herein [or hereon] 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 in any 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.

It will be noted that Prince Hall was writing as if he had assumed the authority of, at least, a Provincial Grand Master. Voorhis stated that the warrant was granted on 24 June and the lodge formally constituted by Prince Hall on 22 September 1797.^[113] The lodge received a copy of the English warrant, and took the name African Lodge No 459 of Philadelphia. The first Master was Absalom Jones, mentioned in Peter Mantore’s letter, but not among the 11 listed as tried Masons. According to Walkes,^[114] Jones was a wholly admirable man. Born into slavery, he educated himself, purchased the freedom of his wife, bought a house, and finally purchased his own freedom. He went into business and studied for holy orders. He was ordained Deacon in the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1795, at the age of 49, and was ordained Priest in 1804. No one appears to have recorded where or when this just and upright man of mature age—but not freeborn—was made a Mason.

The minutes of the lodge from 27 December 1797 to 15 February 1800 have been preserved and William Upton published some interesting extracts.^[115] This lodge, a Moderns lodge ‘once removed’, also had Deacons; there is no mention of a Marshall or a Clerk. On more than one occasion the lodge had visitors whose names and lodge numbers were recorded. Upton assumed the visitors to be White.

As previously mentioned, Voorhis stated that the successors to Prince Hall warranted three more lodges in Philadelphia: Union No 2, Laurel No 5 and Phoenix No 6, and Walkes concurred.^[116] These four lodges formed the First Independent African Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, in 1815. In 1837, two lodges (Union No 2 and Harmony No 5—whatever happened to Laurel No 5?) broke away, or were expelled, and ‘with others’ formed the Hiram Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.^[117]

Meanwhile, it would appear that there were several lodges of Blacks in the city of New York. Hopp^[118] stated that Prince Hall Grand Lodge (by which he meant African Lodge, of Boston) chartered lodges numbered 2, 3 and 4 in New York in 1826. Voorhis named similar lodges as Celestial No 2, in New York City; Rising Sun No 3, in Brooklyn; and Hiram No 4, in New York City.^[119] He did not specifically state that they were warranted from Boston, but this was implied by the context. It is possible that First Independent African Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania also warranted lodges in New York.^[120] Walkes mentioned only one lodge warranted from Boston, Boyer Lodge. According to Voorhis, Peter Lew issued the warrant for Boyer Lodge in 1812^[121] but, according to the minute book written by John Hilton, application was made in January 1826 and the matter dragged on until at least August 1827.^[122]

At least two Grand Lodges were formed in New York, Philanthropic Grand Lodge in 1844 (Sherman)^[123] and Boyer Grand Lodge in 1845 (Walkes, Draffen).^[124] Voorhis stated that Boyer, Celestial, Rising Sun and Hiram Lodges formed Boyer Grand Lodge, and made no reference to Philanthropic Grand Lodge.^[125] The suspicion arises that Philanthropic Grand Lodge was considered by pro‑Prince Hall researchers to have been clandestine, and that Sherman included it for that very reason, because in his view all were clandestine.

African Grand Lodge of Maryland was also organised in 1845 but the origin of the constituent lodge or lodges was not recorded by either Walkes or Draffen.^[126] What of Rhode Island? Voorhis stated that Hiram Lodge No 3, of Providence, Rhode Island, was warranted by Prince Hall in 1797. It was composed of members of African Lodge who had moved there from Boston. In 1813 most of the members migrated to Liberia (established as a republic in 1847) and the lodge became dormant.^[127] African Lodge warranted a second lodge at Providence in 1826, Harmony Lodge.^[128] Hopp described this as a re-activation and renaming of Hiram Lodge.^[129]

The gap in recorded activity in the various States between 1827 and 1845 may well have been caused by the Morgan affair which so devastated the White fraternity. Certainly, in Boston, African Grand Lodge had problems in the 1830s and 1840s. After a succession of Grand Masters, John Hilton was re-elected in 1836 and continued in office until 1847. Even Sherman paid tribute to him:^[130]

He was an effective organizer, and if any one man deserves most of the credit for keeping it alive during the late thirties and early forties it was he. He called together the small circle of members remaining active for meetings at his home in the early forties and presided at them.

A National Grand Lodge

By 1847 there was considerable dissension between Black lodges and Grand Lodges in several States. In Pennsylvania there was intense rivalry between the Hiram Grand Lodge, which was gaining adherents, and the First Independent African Grand Lodge, which was losing members,^[131] and in New York there was ill-feeling between the individual lodges.^[132] With good intentions, African Grand Lodge issued a general invitation to attend a Grand Convention at Boston in June 1847. Who responded, and when, and precisely what took place is impossible to ascertain, but a National Grand Lodge of North America was formed, with jurisdiction over State Grand Lodges, and John Hilton was the first National Grand Master.

When the delegates from Boyer Grand Lodge returned to New York, that Grand Lodge refused to endorse the action of its delegates, which caused a schism, some members accepting a warrant from the National body and others re-organising as an independent Grand Lodge. The Hiram Grand Lodge of Delaware opposed the formation of a National Grand Lodge and issued a pamphlet attacking the legitimacy of African Grand Lodge.^[133]

The National body proceeded to warrant the formation of Grand Lodges in States which already had one, and generally demonstrated that the ‘cure’ was worse than the ‘disease’. Not all State Grand Lodges were opposed to the ‘Compact’, however. African Grand Lodge accepted a warrant as Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and proceeded to split the original African Lodge into three new lodges: Union No 1, Celestial No 2 and Rising Sun No 3.^[134] The two rival bodies in Pennsylvania united under a warrant from the National Grand Lodge, as Grand Lodge for the State of Pennsylvania. This union was short-lived, and former members of Hiram Grand Lodge withdrew in 1849.^[135] Former members of the First Independent Grand Lodge withdrew the following year.

Ohio withdrew from the Compact in 1868 and within a few years so did many other State bodies. The list given by Walkes^[136] is formidable. Almost all the Grand Lodges that withdrew from the Compact eventually added the name Prince Hall to their titles, and now form part of the Prince Hall Affiliation. They take the view that the National (Compact) Grand Lodge was dissolved in 1877. Sherman and some other White researchers take a contrary view, pointing to documentary evidence that someone continued to operate under this title. According to John Hamill, there are still 27 Grand Lodges operating under warrants from the National Grand Lodge.^[137]

Walkes and other voices from the Prince Hall Affiliation retort that these are clandestine, spurious and fraudulent. Certainly, there have been and still are bogus ‘Masonic’ groups among African-Americans as well as on the fringe of ‘mainstream’ Masonry. The National Compact is silent, having no access to the ears of ‘mainstream’ Masons.

Prince Hall Affiliation

The first Black Grand Lodge established beyond the confines of the United States was the Widow’s Son Grand Lodge of Canada, at Hamilton, Ontario. It later registered the name ‘Grand Lodge of Ontario’,^[138] and now bears the title Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Province of Ontario. Walkes and Draffen both gave the date of establishment as 1851, but recent correspondence from the Grand Lodge itself claims 1856,^[139] which is corroborated by Wallace McLeod.^[140]

A Grand Lodge was erected in the Republic of Liberia in 1867 but, tragically, Freemasonry was extinguished in that country in 1980, when the Grand Master and other officers of Grand Lodge were publicly murdered. They were members of the government which was overthrown by a military coup led by army sergeant Samuel Doe, who issued a total ban on Freemasonry in Liberia. Five years later, President Doe was persuaded to lift the ban, and in 1987 the senior surviving Grand Officer, DGM Philip Brumskine, was installed as Grand Master. Since then, under his leadership and with the support of other Prince Hall Grand Lodges, he has begun a cautious restoration of the Craft in that country.^[141]

Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the Commonwealth of the Bahama Islands was erected in 1951. Union Grand Lodge of Florida, established in 1870, now incorporates a Central American country within its jurisdiction, and is known as Most Worshipful Union Grand Lodge Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity, Free and Accepted Masons, Prince Hall Affiliation, Florida & Belize, Central America Jurisdiction. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Alaska was organised in 1969, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Nevada in 1980,^[142] and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the Caribbean (based at Barbados) as recently as April 1993.^[143]

Only ten States do not have a separate Prince Hall Affiliation Grand Lodge. Of these, three have one or more lodges warranted from other States: Wyoming from Colorado, Idaho from Oregon and North Dakota from Minnesota. California, which used to have subordinate lodges in Hawaii, now shares jurisdiction as The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the States of California and Hawaii.^[144] In Canada, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ontario has lodges in Quebec, and some of the other Provinces have lodges warranted from south of the border. Alberta has lodges from Minnesota, and previously had some from Washington State. Minnesota is also represented in Manitoba, and there are Washington lodges in British Columbia. Massachusetts has lodges in Trinidad and Tobago; until last year New York had lodges in Guyana, St Lucia, Dominica and Barbados, and may still have lodges in Guyana, St Lucia and Dominica.^[145]

Ever since the American Civil War there have been National Compact or Prince Hall Affiliation lodges in military units, and their story was told at length by Joseph Walkes in Black Square & Compass.^[146] The 1976 Prince Hall Year Book recorded more than 60 military lodges in England, Asia, Europe and the Canal Zone (Panama). Christopher Haffner listed more than 20 lodges in Guam, Hawaii, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand between 1950 and 1981. He said of the modern military lodges:^[147]

the military lodge concept

Perhaps the most important thing that is apparent is that, although called ‘Military Lodges’, these differ quite considerably from the early concept of such lodges under England and Ireland, as well as from that envisaged by the first rules for Prince Hall [National Compact] Military Lodges in 1865. The older concept is that such a lodge is attached to a regiment and moves with it to any part of the world; they have travelling warrants. The only reason that the newer lodges referred to in this paper are ‘military’ seems to be that they are located on military bases.

Haffner realised the implications, not only for his own District of Hong Kong and the Far East, but also for his United Grand Lodge, when he noted that there were (in 1981) five Prince Hall lodges in England,^[148] and quoted a statement from Phylaxis that there were White brethren actively engaged in Prince Hall Masonry in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe.

Blacks in White lodges

On the evidence, few Blacks have been admitted to membership of White lodges. It may well be, particularly with the Prince Hall alternative, that few have applied, even in jurisdictions without a regulation specifically excluding Blacks from membership. Certainly, there are recorded examples of the rejection of men who appeared to be well-qualified, except for the colour of their skin, such as a group of Blacks who were not Freemasons, Prince Hall or otherwise, whose requests were denied by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1847.^[149]

Voorhis was able to give only a brief list of Blacks in White lodges: a visitor to a lodge in New Jersey in 1838 and another to a lodge in Delaware in 1850; a man who was initiated in an Army lodge in 1846 so that he could serve as Tyler; and four men who were admitted to full membership, between 1867 and 1898, in lodges in Indiana, Massachusetts (2) and Vermont.^[150]

In 1904, Bert Williams, described as ‘Negro comedian and song writer of the American stage’, was made a Mason in a lodge in Scotland. When he died in 1922, the Grand Lodge of Scotland requested that a White lodge in New York (an actors’ lodge) conduct a Masonic service for him, which they did.^[151] There is no record of Bro Williams ever having applied to join a White lodge in America.

St Andrew’s Lodge, of Boston, seems to have been an exceptionally enlightened lodge, having initiated at least nine Blacks in the mid‑19th century. In 1871, eight of them applied to the White Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for a dispensation for a new lodge, to be called Thistle Lodge. The petition was rejected.^[152]

In 1870 a group of Prince Hall Masons applied to the White Grand Lodge of New Jersey to be recognised and to be granted a warrant under that Grand Lodge, for a lodge to be called Cushite Lodge. The application was rejected.^[153]

Because of this rejection, a group of White Masons presented a petition for a new lodge at Newark, New Jersey, to be called Alpha Lodge. The petition was granted and the lodge was formed with nine members, all White. At its first meeting, petitions were read from 13 candidates, 12 of them Black, including all the Prince Hall Masons who had petitioned for Cushite Lodge. At a subsequent meeting, before a ballot could be conducted, a representative of the Grand Master demanded and took possession of the warrant, on the grounds that it was alleged to have been obtained by deceit and misrepresentation. The matter was subsequently determined by Grand Lodge, and the warrant was restored by a majority vote of one.^[154]

Of the 12 Black petitioners, nine were admitted and three rejected. In 1872, the first year of operation, all nine were initiated, passed and raised, as were three White applicants. There was considerable opposition from some of the other lodges in New Jersey. The nine members of Alpha Lodge who were former Prince Hall Masons applied for a warrant for another lodge, Surgam Lodge, but this was refused. Five years later, one of them became Master of Alpha Lodge, the first Black Master in a White jurisdiction. From statistics obtained from Voorhis, between 1871 and 1938 the lodge had 198 members, 19 of them White, 176 Black, plus ‘2 Indians and 1 Hindu’.

Jack Chasin reported in 1943 that members of Alpha Lodge visited a White lodge in New York and were welcomed.^[155] Ernest Rubin quoted Charles Gosnell, Grand Master of the White Grand Lodge of New York, as saying in 1970:^[156] ‘From time immemorial we had a few black men in our ranks. Some years ago, in upstate New York, one received a fifty year medal.’

In contrast, Walkes wrote, in A Prince Hall Masonic Quiz Book (page 88):

From time to time this writer has received letters from members of Alpha Lodge No 116, bitterly complaining of the treatment they receive at the hands of Prince Hall Freemasons, who treat them as clandestine. My standard reply is: there is no reason for a Alpha Lodge No 116 so long as there is a Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New Jersey. They are treated like second class citizens when they travel outside of the State of New Jersey. Mainstream Freemasonry doesn’t want them, and Prince Hall Freemasonry rejects them! Also, over the years, I have received letters from mainstream members of the Craft stating that they attended communications with Alpha Lodge with none expressing that sitting in Lodge with Blacks was a ‘fraternal experience’ but rather a curiosity.

Voorhis recorded only two Grand Lodges that took any action because of the existence of Alpha Lodge, although others expressed disapproval. In 1872 the Grand Lodge of Delaware instructed its lodges to have no Masonic intercourse with Alpha Lodge No 116 of New Jersey. In 1908 the Grand Master of Mississippi severed fraternal relations between his Grand Lodge and New Jersey. His letter read, in part:^[157]

Yours of August 25th., advising me that negroes are initiated and affiliated in your Grand Jurisdiction is received.

Our Grand Lodge hold differently. Masonry never contemplated that her privileges should be extended to a race, totally morally and intellectually incapacitated to discharge the obligations which they assume or have conferred upon them in a Masonic Lodge. It is no answer that there are exceptions to this general character of the race. We legislate for the race and not for the exceptions.

We hold that affiliation with negroes is contrary to the teachings of Masonry, and is dangerous to the interest of the Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons.

Fraternal relations were quietly resumed 20 years later, although Alpha Lodge still thrived.

To this list Walkes added the Grand Lodge of Oklahoma, which severed relations in 1910 but later resumed relations on the understanding that all Masons from New Jersey except members of Alpha Lodge would be welcomed in Oklahoma lodges, and then, 30 years later, he continued:^[158]

Proceedings for February 14, 1940:

The Grand Lodge of Oklahoma again discovered the existence of Alpha Lodge No 116, at Newark, and again severed fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of New Jersey, but these were resumed again on February 11, 1942.

He also quoted the Grand Master of the White Grand Lodge of Texas, commenting on Article XV of the Constitutions and Laws of that Grand Lodge, as saying in the Texas Proceedings for 1947:^[159]

I suppose it is wholly unnecessary for me to point out that it is the law of our Grand Lodge that the Grand Lodge of Texas does not recognize as legal or Masonic any body of Negroes working under any character of charter in the United States without regard to the body granting such charter, and that this Grand Lodge regards all Negro Lodges as clandestine, illegal and un-Masonic and this Grand Lodge regards as highly censurable the course of any Grand Lodge in the United States which shall recognize such bodies of Negroes as Masons.

Walkes concluded: ‘Therefore, this would mean that although the Grand Lodge of Texas recognizes the White Grand Lodge of New Jersey, a censure of that grand body is implied over the existence of Alpha Lodge No. 116.’

That bigotry is still alive and well is illustrated by an item in the Virginia Masonic Herald of October 1989 (reproduced in full as Appendix B). Grand Master Cabell Cobbs found it necessary to intervene on behalf of a Black candidate who had twice been rejected on the ballot on racial grounds.^[160]

In 1990 the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of South Africa, responding to an article in the California Freemason, wrote:

The Grand Lodge of South Africa has never discriminated against persons of colour and in fact it has the proud record of leading Masonic protest against such practices in South Africa.

In 1977 the Grand Lodge of South Africa chartered and consecrated two lodges, namely Lodge Perseverance No 126 and Lodge Phoenix No 127. The charters of the Grand Lodge do not permit discrimination.

The founding members of these two lodges were former members of Prince Hall Lodges in South Africa who desired to be full participants and accepted into Freemasonry in South Africa. Further, members of these lodges have advanced to be holders of Grand Rank in the Grand Lodge of South Africa.

He concluded: ‘The Grand Lodge of South Africa is very proud of its leadership in this.’^[161] Perseverance meets at Cape Town and Phoenix at Kimberley.^[162]

According to Bob Nairn and Juan Alvarez of New South Wales, there had been 40 brethren in two lodges chartered by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, and they returned their warrants and were accepted en masse by the Grand Lodge of South Africa.^[163] Denys Luckin, a South African who moved to Tasmania, provided a more detailed report, including moves from as early as 1972, and the Grand Lodge’s approach to the government. He outlined the re-initiation, passing and raising of the 40‑odd Prince Hall Masons, the consecration of the two lodges and installation and investiture of officers by the Grand Master, and added:^[164]

Initially, it was not known how the new Freemasons would be received by the Lodges of the sister Grand Lodges, and they were instructed not to undertake any fraternal visits until the sister Grand Lodges [England, Ireland and Scotland, whose District and Provincial Grand Lodges share the territory with the Grand Lodge of South Africa and a single lodge of the Grand East of the Netherlands] accepted their regularity, which they eventually did.

Voorhis mentioned a Black lodge under the Canadian Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia. In 1856 five ‘regularly initiated’ Blacks were granted an English warrant for a lodge in Nova Scotia, and transferred to the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia in 1869.^[165] He commented:

For many years it did good work, when it was in the hands of capable brethren and when they confined their candidates to men of Color. About 1910, however they started accepting petitions from any man, and no matter where he resided, whether in Nova Scotia or British Columbia, and occasionally from the United States. About this time the Secretary got short in his accounts too. After an investigation by Grand Lodge, the Charter was forfeited in June, 1916, and the lodge has not functioned since.

In the Grand Lodge of Alberta Bulletin of June 1990 was an article by RWBro Bob Shaw, DDGM, District 10. It revealed that Bro Shaw was originally a Prince Hall Mason who was required to ‘repudiate his membership in that Craft’ to join ‘Alberta Masonry’. In his article on Prince Hall Masonry in Canada, Shaw said:

Our current position is that Prince Hall Masons would have to sever all ties with Prince Hall Masonry and then take all three degrees in our Lodges. Whatever your feeling toward black men who are Prince Hall Masons and their Craft, you cannot currently sit in lodge with a Prince Hall Mason. Our Grand Lodge does not recognize that body of Masons. The traditional view held in Canada is that the situation is wrong but it is an American domestic problem. Fortunately, in Canada there is no Masonic colour barrier. To have one must be a violation of the spirit of Freemasonry and we have many black Masonic brethren in the Craft.

Voorhis enumerated ‘just a few of the many cases’ of Whites admitted to Prince Hall Masonry.^[166] They included a group of 26 men of Italian parentage who joined a New York lodge between 1908 and 1910, a group of four Whites who joined a Prince Hall lodge in Georgia in the 1860s, and a case in Michigan where a lodge had agreed to elect a White applicant of good repute—but someone dropped a black ball into the ballot.

For a short time there was an entire lodge of Whites, except for the Secretary, who happened to be the Grand Secretary of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New York. The lodge was warranted in February 1870. Its returns for that year showed 25 members, almost all of them with Jewish names. By 1874 the lodge had changed allegiance. The Proceedings of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge for that year reported: ‘Progress Lodge No 12, New York City, changed to Shakespear Lodge No 750 under the Jurisdiction of the New York Grand Lodge (white).’^[167]

It is two centuries too late for the admission of Blacks into mainstream lodges to be the answer in the United States, and even in Canada, which does not share the same history of refusing to admit Blacks to the Craft. Nevertheless, the creed of both branches of Masonry demands that the option must always be open. As Allen Roberts said:^[168]

We should never refuse to accept a petition from any good man because of his race, creed, religion or color. In the case of Black men, however, we should inform them about Prince Hall Masonry and its need for good leaders. These men should then be left to make their own choice with no persuasion in any way on our part.

The answer for today is a compromise, the recognition of Prince Hall Masonry as regular and equal, allowing intervisitation and whatever other exchanges of mutual respect and appreciation may be required and agreed. For the future, perhaps generations in the future, lies the ideal of merger, the creation of lodges as they should have been from the start, and are in fact in other parts of the world inhabited by a mix of races.