About Us Our Officers Our Magazine Membership News Our Convention Our Programs Links Photo Gallery

Copyright ©

Post Ofice Box 5675
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5675


 • CONTACT US
 • SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
 • EDITORIAL POLICY
 • TERMS OF USE
 • SITE OVERVIEW
 • DATA MIGRATION
 • LOGIN

Home      Phylaxis      Our Magazine     Sample Articles     Grimshaw

Search: Just this site WWW

                   | Print Page |

The Grimshaw Offensive

by John B. Williams

This article was originally published in the Summer 2007 edition of The Phylaxis magazine.

     On this page, we continue our discussion on William Grimshaw. I encourage you to review the lead article in the spring 2007 edition of The Phylaxis.

If you have not seen Grimshaw’s Official History of Freemasonry Among the Colored People in North America, let me assure you that it is a major work: almost four hundred pages and over fifty chapters. It has a history of more than thirty Prince Hall grand lodges, as well as a history of several of the Scottish Rite and York Rite bodies. It has administrative forms that can be used by Masonic lodges. It has a burial ceremony. It has a chapter on Distinguished Men Who Are Masons. It even has a chapter on the Eastern Star. For its time, it is an impressive accomplishment.

     We have been cautioned by a few grand historians, with respect to our Grimshaw Offensive, not to toss out the baby with the bath water—don’t disregard the many historical sketches that so many grand lodges and other allied bodies are indebted to Grimshaw for publishing. Some of our grand historians owe a debt of gratitude to Grimshaw. In some cases, their version of history agrees with the Grimshaw version, so they rightfully acknowledge Grimshaw as a valued historical source. For the most part these are jurisdictional matters and are not the concern of the Phylaxis Society. Each jurisdiction presumably has its original minute books and proceedings, so they are in the best position to confirm or deny anything Grimshaw published about their jurisdictions. The rest of us might take a special interest in the history of African Lodge and African Grand Lodge, both of which are part of the inherited heritage of all descendent grand lodges. But those who rely on Grimshaw for the official history of their grand lodge have a right to do so. If they have confirmed the Grimshaw account using independent sources, preferably sources published prior to Grimshaw’s book of 1903, they can rest assured that they have the most credible facts available to them.

     Of everything written by Grimshaw, the story of Prince Hall and various incidents relating to African Lodge and African Grand Lodge have been subject of controversy, and this amounts a very small portion of his book. Very little of Grimshaw’s massive volume has been discredited by independent evidence, but at the same time, the discredited parts are the only parts that have been subjected to intense scrutiny and have been investigated by a large contingent of competent researchers. I say this because those historians examining the history of African Lodge might outnumber those researching the history of the Grand Lodge of Montana, and I have the highest regard for Montana. Our point is that Grimshaw has been most thoroughly discredited in those situations that have undergone the greatest scrutiny.

     We cannot say that just because Grimshaw is the only source of the data that the facts surround the history of those thirty grand lodges examined by Grimshaw are inaccurate. But if Grimshaw is the only source, to what extent can we count on the accuracy of his data?

     If we examine Grimshaw’s motivation and his methods, we get a better idea how to proceed. It seems clear to several writers that Grimshaw had an agenda that motivated him to adopt the approach he used to write his book. He wanted a manuscript that was complete, that was interesting, and that presented Prince Hall Masonry in a pleasant light. His motivation was excellent; it was his method that brought him disrepute.  Historians gather bits and pieces of data, and they use these bits and pieces to reconstruct objectively as accurate a picture as possible of events that transpired. Historians use eye witness accounts and other evidence to establish veracity. Like coroners, historians may be able to piece together a better account of the events than an eye witness can. An eye witness observes a man stabbed with a knife and concurrently hit with a crow bar; he may not be able to tell with certainty which incident was the cause of death. The coroner, who pieces together objective evidence under the cool light of reason, has a good chance of getting it right. So historians might have an advantage over a participant if the historian uncovers facts that the eye witness did not observe.

     Grimshaw was a doorman at the library of Congress, so he was surrounded by the most impressive accumulation of knowledge known to mankind. Grimshaw’s weakness in his quest for a complete accounting is that, when gaps appear in his story, he fills them with inventions whose only source was his imagination.

     We cannot say that the bulk of Grimshaw’s book is inaccurate, but this is because we have not given the bulk of the book the kind of scrutiny we have given to the Prince Hall story. We do say this: we have exposed Grimshaw’s methods of invention and it is not unreasonable to suppose that Grimshaw used similar methods throughout his massive work. Grimshaw had the option to omit statements on matters where facts were not in evidence; he chose instead to speak on matters of which he had no knowledge and to pass off his inventions as the Official History of Freemasonry Among the Colored People in North America. As a consequence, we will struggle with Grimshaw for years to come looking for verification of his so-called official history.

     On a bright note, the great service that William Grimshaw has done for our Order is to force us to do what historians do: confirm, Confirm, CONFIRM!  

Grimshaw Offensive
Reference Number One
Prince Hall Was Born in 1748

This is Grimshaw: Prince Hall was born September 12th, 1748.[1]

Wesley: Prince Hall was born in 1735, since his death certificate states that he was 72 years of age at this death in 1807.[2]

Draffen: The statement by Grimshaw, which has been repeated many times by other writers on the subject of freemasonry among the African-American people in the United States of America, that Prince Hall was born 'about September 12, 1748' does not stand up to any examination. Even Davis admits in his book that Grimshaw was inaccurate in respect of Prince Hall's birth. Prince Hall's death was reported in the Boston Gazette for Monday, 7 December 1807:DEATHS. On Friday morning, Mr. Prince Hall, aged 72, Master of African Lodge. Funeral this afternoon at 3 o'clock from his late dwelling in Lendell's Lane; which his friends and relations are requested to attend without a more formal invitation. Dying at the age of seventy-two would infer a birth date of about the year 1735. We have some confirmation of this possible date in a letter written by Dr Jeremy Belknap, a founder of the Massachusetts Historical Society, with regard to a survey he had undertaken on the history of slavery in Massachusetts. Dr Belknap interviewed Prince Hall to whom he refers as 'one of my informants . . . a very intelligent black man, aged 57. He is the Grand Master of a LODGE of free masons, composed wholly of blacks, and distinguished by the name of 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.' If this statement by Dr Belknap is accurate then Prince Hall would have been born about the year 1738. Apart from these two points, no evidence of any kind has ever been produced to support Grimshaw's statement that Prince Hall was born in Barbados in 1748.[3]

Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts: In 1795 Prince Hall told the Rev. Dr. Belknap he was fifty-seven years of age, which would make the year of his birth 1738; Brother John D. Caldwell appears to quote Bro. William S. Gardner as saying that when initiated, March 8, 1775 Prince Hall was 32 years, 3 months and 28 days old, which would make the date of birth Nov. 9, 1742; and Bro. Bruce quotes brother Grimshaw—who really does not know anything about it—as saying Sept. 12, 1848. Our preference is for the year 1738 being based upon Hall’s statement to Belknap.[4]

 

Raymond Coleman:

Q: When was Prince Hall born?

A: While 1748, 1735, 1738 and others have been given as the year of Prince Hall’s Birth, 1738 has been authenticated.

     Prince Hall, in August of 1807, four months before his death, described himself as a man of “about 70 years.”  Jeremy Belknap, a very good friend of Prince Hall said that he was born in 1738, and finally, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in their 1906 Annual Proceedings said that Prince Hall was born in 1738.

     The monument at his grave site, the stone at the Prince Ha Temple, and many other places give his birth as 1748. This date comes from another Prince Hall of Medford, Mass., not Prince Hall ,the Masonic leader, of Boston, Mass.[5]

 

  Reference Number Two

Prince Hall Was Born in Barbados

 

This is Grimshaw: Prince Hall was born at Bridgetown, Barbados, British West Indies.[6]

 

Wesley: Where Prince Hall was born is not known. His country may have been Africa from where he was brought as a slave and sold in the slave mart as were so many others of his people. The births of slaves were not usually recorded by officials. His place of birth may have been England to which he gave some attention in a letter to the Countess of Huntington telling her of the preaching of Reverend John Marrant, a Chaplain of African Lodge, and using the words “from home” when referring to Marrant. Prince Hall may have been born in the Colony of Massachusetts, but no actual record of his birth has been found, despite the assertion that he was born in Barbados. He may have been born a slave for a manumission paper we filed for him in 1770 by his owner, William Hall, giving him his freedom and stating that “he is no longer to be reckoned a slave.”[7]

            …Grimshaw indulged his imagination and permitted it to roam in placing Prince Hall’s birth place in Bridgetown, Barbados, on September 14, 1748. This was something of an estimation, without any documentary proof of the birth as to place and time. Nevertheless, these statements have been accepted, repeated in publications and addresses across the years, so credibility has been given to them as almost constituting a tradition. It is now time for correction and admission of the lack of historical proofs. This can be done, without harm to its founder or its history.[8]

 

Coleman:

Q: Where was Prince Hall born?

A: We really don’t know for sure. We do know that Prince Hall, at one time, referred to England as “home.” He did sign a petition “from African blacks,” which means he could have come from Africa. We also know that in none of his records or papers, or those by others that knew him personally, was there ever any indication that he came from Barbados, as Grimshaw and other have stated.[9]

 

  Reference Number Three

Prince Hall’s Father Was an Englishman

 

This is Grimshaw: His father, Thomas Prince Hall, was an Englishman and his mother a free woman of French descent.

 

Wesley: It has also been said that William Hall was the father of Prince Hall and that his mother was a free woman of color. No substantiation of this assertion has been found.[10]

 

Draffen: Grimshaw states, again a statement repeated ad nauseam by subsequent writers, that Prince Hall was freeborn. The fact is that he was not. There exists in the Boston Athenaeum Library, among the notarial papers of one Ezekiel Price, a Certificate of Manumission, dated 9 April I770, and signed by William Hall, together with three other members of the Hall family, giving Prince Hall his freedom. This document states that he (Prince Hall) had worked with the Hall family for twenty-one years, i.e. since 1749. The fact that Prince Hall was a slave rules out the extraordinary statement by Grimshaw that he was the offspring of a union between a free African-American woman of French extraction and an Englishman. That statement by Grimshaw shows him at his most inventive. 

Coleman:

Q: Was Prince Hall a slave?

A: It depends on how you look at it. Legally, he was a slave, but in practice, he was not. He was a servant to William Hall (where the name Hall derives) from 1749 to 1770. A month after the Boston Massacre he was “freed.” The manumission paper reads in part that “he is no longer to be reckoned a slave, but has always been accounted as a freeman by us.”[11]

 

  Reference Number Four

Prince Hall Was a Minister and Pastor

 

This is Grimshaw: He joined the ministry and became an eloquent preacher. With the grace and dignity of a gentleman, he stood armed in the sanctuary of God to animate and encourage the Sons of Liberty.[12]

 

Wesley: There is no documentary evidence that Prince Hall was a Methodist Minister nor the pastor of a church. This may be a figment of Grimshaw’s imagination. We do have evidence that in November, 1762, he was a member of a Congregational church of which Reverend Andrew Croswell was the minister until it was disbanded after Reverend Croswell’s death in 1785. He was received in full membership, “in the Congregational Church on School Street, Boston.”[13]

 Draffen: There is no doubt that Prince Hall was, as the official story says, ‘religiously inclined' - but the facts are not as recorded in the Prince Hall Masonic Year Book.[14] In a Deposition, which is recorded in the Suffolk County, Massachusetts, Register of Deeds, made by Prince Hall in August 1807, just a few months before he died, he stated that he was a leather-dresser by trade; that he was 'about seventy'; that in November 1762 he had been received into the full communion of the Congregational Church which had its meeting place in School Street, Boston. There is no record of Grimshaw's flight of fancy that Prince Hall ever held a Charge at Cambridge.

  Reference Number Five

African Lodge Was Formed in 1775

 

This is Grimshaw: On July 3d, 1775, Washington unfurled for the first time the national flag over the camp at Cambridge, and Prince Hall on the same day organized and dedicated to God and to the memory of the holy St. John the first Lodge of Colored Masons in North America.[15]

 

Wesley: Brother Grimshaw says Prince Hall organized and dedicated African Lodge, July 3, 1775. As a matter of fact, he did nothing of the kind until May 6, 1787. How could he have organized and dedicated his lodge prior to the receipt of the warrant? He also emphasizes the statement by saying that on July 3, 1775, the Stars and Stripes first floated over the Continental camp in Cambridge, Mass. It did not, as it was first shown at the Battle of the Brandywine, September 11, 1777, and again a national flag would not have been chosen prior to the Declaration of Independence.

 

Coleman:

Q: When was African Lodge #1 organized?

A:  African Lodge #1, with Prince Hall as the Worshipful Master, was organized July 3, 1776. It was not a regular lodge but was a lodge “under dispensation” given by Worshipful Master John B. Batt, of the military lodge aforementioned.[16]

 

  Reference Number Six

African Grand Lodge Was Formed in 1791

 

This is Grimshaw: On June 24th, 1791, a general assembly of the Craft was held at Masonic Hall, Golden Fleece, Water Street, Boston, Mass., for the purpose of organizing a Grand Lodge of Masons for Massachusetts, etc. African Lodge, No. 459, declared itself by the assumption of powers, duties and responsibilities of a Grand Lodge, independent and sovereign, holding jurisdiction absolute and entire, throughout the United States, and a provincial jurisdiction in other states and countries, recognizing at the same time the mother Grand Lodge of London, England.[17]

 Draffen: The exact date at which African Lodge assumed the powers of a Grand Lodge is impossible to pinpoint. That it functioned as a normal lodge for some years and made returns to the Grand Lodge of England with fees to the Charity Fund is beyond dispute. It was finally struck off the Register of the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns) at the Union in 1813 because no returns or fees had been made for many years. In that respect Prince Hall's Letter Book shows a certain laxity on the part of the secretariat of the Grand Lodge, for his letters to Grand Secretary contain numerous complaints that his correspondence is not being answered. Doubtless there were transmission difficulties but one cannot think that all his letters to Grand Secretary were never received.     If the criterion for being a Grand Lodge is the exercising of the right, de jure or de facto, of issuing warrants for the erection of a lodge, then African Lodge can be said to have acted as a Grand Lodge from the year 1797. If the criterion be that of a declaration of independence and surrender of allegiance then African Lodge did not assume the functions of a Grand Lodge until 1827 when the Boston Advertiser Of 26 June carried an official declaration of independence over the signature of John Hilton, then Master of the lodge. Between these two dates much had happened.

  Reference Number Seven

Prince Hall Was Provincial Grand Maser

 

This is Grimshaw: [The following is an extract from the purported deputation of Prince Hall as a Provincial Grand Master]

     Whereas application has been made unto us by our Right Worshipful and well beloved Brother Prince Hall, in behalf of himself and several other Brethren now residing in New England aforesaid Free and Accepted Masons, that we would be pleased to nominate and appoint a Provincial Grand Master of Free and Accepted Masons in North America, aforesaid. Now Know Ye that we have nominated, ordained , constituted and appointed and by these presents nominate, ordain, constitute and appoint our said [p 86] worshipful and well beloved Brother Prince Hall, Provincial Grand Master of North America and Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging with full power and authority to nominate and appoint his Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens.…[18]

… The preceding document was found among the old manuscripts of African Lodge, No. 459 of Pennsylvania, Peter Richmond, its first secretary. There is no doubt but what Prince Hall gave them a copy of his authority when he established the Lodge in 1797.[19]

… It is very likely that Prince Hall was appointed Provincial Grand Master by Lord Rawdon, although the records of the English do not show this to be a fact.[20]

 

Wesley: He says Prince Hall was appointed Provincial Grand Master, January 27, 1781, by the G. L. of England, which was more than three years before the existence of African Lodge was made known to the Grand Lodge: that Prince Hall was chosen Grand Master by the G. L. of Massachusetts, June 24, 1791. This was nearly nine months before said G.L. was in existence, even if we admit the absurdity of one G. L. electing the Grand Master to preside over the destinies of another portion of the Craft. He locates General Gage’s headquarters on Copp’s hill and Copp’s Hill in Boston harbor.  Copp’s hill is a burying ground in the northern part of the city of Boston. All these are preventable mistakes, each and every one of which might have been avoided if he had made proper use of the books of reference of which the Congressional Library is full, and to which he had free access.[21]

 

Draffen: Grimshaw states that Prince Hall was appointed Provincial Grand Master for North America on 27 January 1791, presumably in place of John Rowe. Grimshaw goes so far as to print the text of the alleged Patent. The Patent is said to have been signed 'Rawdon, Acting Grand Master'. The Masonic Year Book Historical Supplement shows Francis, 1st Marquess of Hastings, as Acting Grand Master from 1790 to 1813. According to Burke's Dormant and Extinct Peerages the Barony of Rawdon was conferred upon Francis, eldest son of John, 1st Earl of Moira, on 5 March. He did not succeed to the title of Earl of Moira until 1793 and was created Marquess of Hastings on 7 December 1816. It follows that the alleged Patent of Appointment of Prince Hall as Provincial Grand Master for North America was correctly signed, for 'Rawdon'. would have been the proper signature of the Acting Grand Master at that time. Davis expressed grave doubts as to the existence of this Patent and there is, of course, no record whatever in the archives of the United Grand Lodge of England of the issue of such a Patent. Davis goes on to say: `Furthermore, there is no evidence that anyone ever saw the original deputation. It is strange indeed that such an important document was not exhibited to the masons of that day in Boston. Prince Hall was on friendly terms with a number of Boston's leading masons. He freely exhibited the Charter and Book of Constitutions to white brethren in that city, and mentioned their receipt in the daily press. It is hard to believe that Hall would withhold such an important document from his friends - a document which would be of supreme importance to the little band of colored masons then in Boston, and of equal importance to Prince Hall himself, conferring, as it did, great honor and dignity upon him, and elevating him to a rank equal to that of any American mason of his day.'     Equally difficult to understand is the complete absence of any mention of such a Patent, or 'Deputation' as it was called in those days, in Prince Hall's Letter Book. Prince Hall's methodical methods are well illustrated in his Letter Book and the very issue of such a Patent would require some correspondence. The alleged Patent cites an application - and this could hardly escape some reference in his Letter Book.     Davis is not the only African-American mason to express doubts as to the authenticity of the Provincial Grand Master's Patent. Davis states: `The late W. T. Boyd, Past Grand Master of Ohio (Prince Hall) and Frederic S. Monroe of Massachusetts (PH), both careful investigators in the historical field of Negro masonry, expressed strong dissent on the validity of the alleged Patent.'     I think we must take it that the alleged Patent appointing Prince Hall as Provincial Grand Master for North America is another of Grimshaw's inventions. It must be said, however, that the inventor was astute enough to have the correct signature appended to the text. It might here be noted that Grimshaw was appointed a library attendant in the Library of Congress on 1 October 1897 and as such would have had access to books dealing with the English peerage. Francis, 1st Marquess of Hastings would only have signed 'Rawdon' between 1783 and 1793. The titles became extinct on the death of Henry, 4th Marquess, on is November 1868. 

Coleman:

Q: Was Prince Hall ever a Provincial Grand Master”

A: Some sources tell us that Prince Hall was made a Provincial Grand Master on January 27, 1791. A copy of the deputation is shown in Grimshaw’s Official History of Freemasonry Among the Colored People in North America.

     Although this is challenged by some, one thing is absolutely certain: as early as August 20, 1792, the Grand Secretary of England was requesting information from “Right Worshipful Bro. Prince Hall” about the several lodges located in the Massachusetts area. It is also shown that Prince Hall was supplying this information to the Grand Lodge of England. If he was not a Provincial Grand Maser, he certainly was acting as a Provincial Grand Master.[22]

 

  Reference Number Eight

The General Assembly in 1808

 

This is Grimshaw: A general assembly of the craft was called July 24th, 1808, in Boston, Mass., by D. G. M. Nero Prince, for the purpose of paying tribute to the memory of Grand Master Prince Hall and to elect a Grand Master. Lodges from Philadelphia, Providence and New York were represented. …

      R. W. Brother Nero Prince was elected M. W. G. M., and the name of African Grand Lodge was changed to Prince Hall Grand Lodge, in honor of the late Grand Master, Prince Hall.[23]

 

Wesley:  On June 8, 1808, it was alleged by Grimshaw without documentation, that representatives of three lodges, African Lodge of Boston, African Lodge of Providence and African Lodge of Philadelphia assembled and organized an African Grand Lodge with the following officers: Nero Prince, Grand Master; . . .

     Again, it can be stated that there is now no documentation for this meeting. While such a session was inevitable, and the next step to be taken by African Lodge, we have no proof that this session was held. The Minutes do not mention or refer to it.[24]

 

Coleman:

Q: When and how was African Grand Lodge organized?

A: African Grand Lodge was organized by an assembly of the three lodges then in existence: African lodge #459, Boston; African Lodge #459, Philadelphia; and Hiram Lodge #3, Providence, in December 1808. Although African Lodge was not organized until 1808, he following should be noted:

     When Prince Hall was appointed a Provincial Grand Master in 1791, it set in motion a Provincial Grand Lodge. Since African Lodge was the only lodge in the jurisdiction, it assumed this position. Our grand master was still the Grand Master of England, but Prince Hall, as Provincial Grand Master, wielded a great deal of power.

     However, he could not issue charters to new lodges. This is why he set Philadelphia and Providence t work under the charter of African Lodge #459.

     Because the lodge in Philadelphia and Providence were formed in this manner (under the #459 charter), African Lodge #459 in Boston is often referred to as a “mother Lodge.”[25]

Grimshaw Challenge Sierra Leone