Masonic Education Series
Recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges in America
A presentation to the Phylaxis Society March 5, 1993
it was rather pointedly made clear to the United Grand Lodge of England that the jurisdictions represented were serious about their recognition of Prince Hall and that this not a whim or a temporary type of thing.
A movement is spreading within the Masonic Order that is bringing Masons of Caucasian Grand Lodges into formal communication with Masons of predominantly Black Prince Hall Grand Lodges. Grand Lodges in several states have established fraternal ties ranging from rights of visitation to full and unrestricted Masonic recognition. Nothing like it has been seen in the long history of Masonry in America.
The practice of Freemasonry among American men of African descent has been exercised in America longer than the country has existed and dates back to the year 1775. Until recently, and for more than two centuries, lodges consisting of Black Masons existed along with lodges of Caucasian Masons, each operating separately, along parallel lines, just as their they did in a society historically divided along racial lines. Yet, even two centuries ago Masons recognized the incongruity of teaching the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man while denying Black Masons equality on the square. In 1795 John Eliot of Massachusetts wrote that, "White masons, not more skilled in geometry than their black brethren, will not acknowledge them. ...The truth is they are ashamed of being on an equality with blacks."[1]
In time, perhaps in an attempt to rationalize this exclusion of Blacks, certain Caucasian Masons levied charges of irregularity against the Black Order and advanced the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction as a bar to recognizing more than one Grand lodge in the same geographical region. Other Masons and scholars came to the defense of the Prince Hall Order. The Deputy Grand Master of Scotland in 1897 presented a paper in which he concluded that "Prince hall masonry was legitimate according to the customs of the times," and that "African Lodge warranted other lodges exactly as the white lodges did."[2] In 1879 the Grand Master of Massachusetts, William Sewall, said that he had no doubt the Black Masons were legitimate.[3] Even the distinguished author of the Pike Principle, Albert Pike, who said, "When I have to accept Negroes as brethren or leave Masonry, I shall leave it," acknowledged in 1875 that, "Prince Hall lodge was as regular a Lodge as any lodge created by competent authority. It had a perfect right to establish other lodges and make itself a Mother lodge." Another writer points out that whether one applies modern standards or applies the standards of the times in which African Lodge 459 was formed, the granting of a charter by the mother grand lodge made the lodge regular, and ensured that its members were legitimate Masons.[4]
In 1897, two Black Masons wrote to the Grand Lodge of Washington asking that a way be found so that they might visit a subordinate lodge of that jurisdiction. When the matter was brought before the Grand Lodge, after a few objections, "speaker after speaker rose to champion those who sought the privilege of visitation."[5] The Grand Master appointed a committee headed by William H. Upton that studied the matter and convinced themselves that Prince Hall Masonry was indeed legitimate and recommended that the Prince Hall Order be granted recognition by the Grand Lodge of Washington. In an unprecedented move, the Grand Lodge of Washington embraced the report of the Upton Committee and voted to recognize the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry.[6] No fewer that seventeen American Grand Lodges subsequently severed relations with the Grand Lodge of Washington, and the following year the Grand Lodge of Washington voted to rescind their early vote.
In 1947, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, after some research, voted to acknowledge the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry in their state. Again, American Grand Lodges severed relations, and a year later, Massachusetts rescinded their earlier vote just as Washington had done.
For several decades, Grand Lodges that wished to establish relations with their Prince Hall counterparts keep their contacts on an informal level. The Grand Lodge of Wisconsin entered into informal discussions with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin in 1960.[7] In Connecticut that same year, two Caucasian past grand masters testified in the Court of Common Appeals "to the recognized legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge," as opposed to the spurious Black Grand Lodge that was party to the suit.[8] By 1966, the Masons of both the Caucasian and the Prince Hall Grand Lodges had joined together in a "Brotherhood-in-Action" program.[9]
In 1972 the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin amended its Masonic Code to read, "In accordance with the basic principles and the ancient landmarks of Masonry, every petition for membership in a constituent lodge of this Grand Lodge shall be received and acted on without regard to race, color or creed of the petitioner.[10] This action apparently raised the moral consciousness of the craft, because the following year three lodges in Milwaukee presented a resolution at the annual communication to "implement the prohibition of discrimination..." The resolution was so broad in scope and so sweeping in authority that it was defeated, but the Grand Master, A. D. Anderson, appointed a special "blue ribbon committee," that would be known as the Curry Committee, to study the matter and report back to the Grand Lodge.[11] In 1975 the Curry Committee Report "indicated that the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction was not a bar to fraternal recognition." Based on the committee's report, the Grand Master canvassed the craft to determine the next step to be taken and in 1977 the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin voted to acknowledge the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry. According to one source, "No official criticism by any other Masonic jurisdiction was received by the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin relating to its 1977 acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin."[12]
By 1980, the Grand Master of Wisconsin thought it proper to go farther and wrote to the Grand Master of Prince Hall Masons of Wisconsin. "Separate but equal is not a good Masonic or social solution. An integrated Fraternity, accepting each other as equals, is the ideal solution to an age-old problem. The Grand Lodge F.& A.M. of Wisconsin is desirous of continuing discussion of a merger."[13] This bold step was too much for the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. Fraternal recognition was their immediate goal.
Members in other Grand Lodges pursued the matter of Prince Hall recognition and by the end of the decade of the eighties the movement to embrace Prince Hall Grand Lodges picked up momentum. In North Dakota in 1988 a resolution was introduced, but had to be withdrawn when its author realized that "we had not done our homework."[14] At the meeting of the Grand Masters of North America held in Washington D.C. it was reported that "... the consensus of the discussion, which seemed to be in agreement with all the Grand Masters present was: It is time to recognize Prince Hall because their legitimacy is without question."[15]
Back in Wisconsin, two more lodges, these outside the city of Milwaukee, submitted a resolution to the Grand Lodge in 1989 proposing full recognition of the companion Prince Hall Grand Lodge but withdrew the resolution when told that agreement had not been reached between the two respective Grand Lodge committees.[16] The Grand Master of Wisconsin expressed hope that the resolution would be approved the following year.[17]
As the committees in Wisconsin proceeded with due deliberation, comparable committees in Connecticut completed their work with great dispatch and in October of 1989, brought before the Grand Lodge a resolution of "Recognition and Visitation Rights. " The resolution passed by a large majority[18] making Connecticut the first Regular Grand Lodge of the present era to grant Masonic recognition to a Prince Hall Grand Lodge. The Grand Master of Connecticut said, "It is frequently asked whether or not any members of our Grand Lodge voted against the Resolution providing recognition of Prince Hall Masonry. There were a few, but you may be surprised to know that nearly all of the negative votes were because of the concern the members had about the impact of our resolution on other Grand Lodges."[19]
In an article in the Connecticut Square & Compass, Kenneth Hawkins explained that "this recognition is extended to Connecticut Prince Hall Masons and should other Prince Hall Jurisdictions desire recognition, they must follow the procedure that every other Grand Lodge must: that is, to apply through our Fraternal Relations Committee."[20] He went on to say, "The possibility of other Grand Lodges withdrawing recognition of our Grand Lodge for our actions was considered. It was decided that we have no control over other Grand Lodge's actions and our vote should not have been influenced on what could possibly happen..."[21]
The following month, the Grand Lodge of Nebraska approved the recommendation to enter into relations with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its state. It was said that the recommendation was adopted by the Grand Lodge "on a 99+% majority."[22] The action taken in Nebraska was unique as they explain in a news release: "The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Nebraska, together with the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Nebraska have, by formal resolution, officially recognized each other as legal Masonic Grand Lodges. This action on the part of the two Grand Lodges goes beyond a similar action by the Connecticut Masonic Bodies. Thus, this action by the Grand Lodges of Nebraska constitutes the first such mutual recognition action by any of the Grand Lodges in the United States that grants full, complete, and unrestricted Masonic recognition of each other."[23]
On April 3, 1990 Grand Master Donald P. Smith of Colorado appointed a special committee to study the origins, history, and Masonic legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Colorado. This action implemented a recommendation of the previous Grand Master, Dwight A. Hamilton of Colorado, who recommended in his annual report: "I strongly believe that discussions should be commenced with the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge to determine the feasibility of mutual recognition and rights of visitation. Therefore, my second recommendation to this Grand Lodge is that a committee be appointed to investigate the feasibility of recognizing and providing rights of visitation between the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Colorado and the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F.&A.M. of Colorado and its Jurisdiction."[24]
By the spring of 1990, the committees in Wisconsin had come to an agreement regarding their next action, and the Grand Master of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge corresponded with the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin requesting that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge be granted Masonic recognition.[25]
Also in 1990, the Grand Lodge of Kansas decided to move on the question of relations with Prince Hall Masons in their state. The report of the Foreign Relations Commitee stated: "Last year this committee report stated in its introduction, ‘within the USA there is a growing awareness of the value of Prince Hall Masonry and the need to address, in the light of new understandings of recognition and fraternity our situation.' This awareness was manifest in 1989-90 by the growing recognition of many Grand Jurisdictions of the importance of their relationship to Prince Hall Masonry. RECOMMENDATION: we recommend that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to contact Prince Hall Freemasonry in Kansas in regard to common centers of interest."[26]
By the end of the year 1990, the Grand Lodges of Washington and Wisconsin had joined Connecticut and Nebraska in extending fraternal recognition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodges in their state and the Grand Lodge of Colorado joined the foray in January of 1991. Up to this point, no American Grand Lodge had severed relations with any of the Grand Lodges that had extended recognition to Prince Hall Grand Lodges in their states nor had there been much in the way of dissension, but in February of 1991 and again in March of 1991, the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) propagated its "Overseas Visitation Rule" stating that "Masons from 'Prince Hall' Grand Lodges which are not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England, are likely to be present in Lodges under the Grand Lodges of Connecticut, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and the State of Washington. Brethren of the English Constitution should not visit these jurisdictions."[27] UGLE further stated that it will continue to welcome members of the offending jurisdictions at its meetings. It did not sever relations. In fact, UGLE invited the five Grand Lodges to meet with them in Massachusetts to discuss the matter of recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges. This meeting was held on April 11, 1991, hosted by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and attended by each of the five Grand Lodges that had established relations with their respective Prince Hall counterparts.
The UGLE representative, Cdr. M.B.S. Higham, Grand Secretary, discussed UGLE's role as protector for the various Grand Lodges and used a situation in France as reason for concern. He explained that there are three Grand Lodges in France, one of which is very political as well as anti-Catholic. UGLE was forced to withdraw recognition from this Grand Lodge as it was fearful "that individuals will meet and become influenced by these types of 'Masons' who do not have the same Masonic ideals, do not subscribe to the basic principles of Grand Lodge recognition, and do not ascribe to the ancient landmarks of the Craft."[28]
Past Grand Master Tye of Nebraska reports on that meeting, "Without going into great detail, it was rather pointedly made clear to the United Grand Lodge of England that the jurisdictions represented were serious about their recognition of Prince Hall and that this not a whim or a temporary type of thing."[29] "It was explained to the visiting English brother that as of the present time, five American Grand Lodges now recognize Prince Hall Grand Lodges in their jurisdictions, (now six with MN's recognition following the meeting) and that number will grow to thirteen within two years."[30] Representatives of the American Grand Lodges pointed out some difficulties with UGLE's position, to wit, "...it will be noted that the United Grand Lodge of England recognizes the Grand Lodge of Paraguay. The Grand Lodge of Nebraska does not recognize the Grand Lodge of Paraguay, nor does the Grand Lodge of Colorado, nor does the Grand Lodge of Connecticut.... This raises the dilemma, in that if our Grand Lodges are to take the type of action taken by the United Grand Lodge of England, we would have to restrict visitation of our members with any Lodges under the jurisdiction of the United Grand Lodge of England because a member of the Grand Lodge of Paraguay or El Salvador or Mexico, whom we do not recognize, may be present."[31]
Regarding one of UGLE's objections to recognition of Prince Hall Masons, the sharing of jurisdiction, "It was pointed out that the full context [of the regulation of 1956] is often omitted, and that it specifies that a Grand Lodge has exclusive jurisdiction of all matters in it's territory unless it is shared by mutual consent and/or treaty."[32] Regarding UGLE's statement that irregularities have been noted in the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Past Grand Master Thomas W. Tye of Nebraska "expressed that Prince Hall Grand Lodges have a better pedigree than any Grand Lodge in the United States and that the Grand Lodge of England should apply their standards equally."[33]
Furthermore, "It was the consolidated opinion of the five American Jurisdictions present that when visiting in a foreign jurisdiction, you visit at the will and pleasure of the host lodge, ascertaining of course that the lodge visited is regular and recognized. As you are assured that the Worshipful Master has ascertained that all present are worthy and well qualified to remain, it is the visitors duty to accept that determination and enjoy the visitation without fear of contamination by other visitors."[34]
Two days after this meeting, the Grand Lodge of Minnesota voted to extend fraternal recognition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in their state, bringing the total of those who had done so to six.
On April 12, 1991 Grand Master Charles E. Forsythe of West Virginia issued an edict that forbade visitation in Nebraska by members of his jurisdiction.[35] The Grand Master of Nebraska, James N. DeMoss, responded to the edict saying that he did not intend to take exceptions to the West Virginia Grand Master's action as his power within his jurisdiction was unquestionable, but that when Masons of Nebraska visit, "we accept the word of such Master that all others present are entitled to be seated therein under the law of that jurisdiction. In that way we exhibit our acknowledgement of the sovereignty of such jurisdiction and do not intrusively question the legality of actions of our host, since we do not consider it our right to do so."[36]
In June of 1991 North Dakota became the seventh Regular Grand to recognize a Prince Hall Grand Lodge. At its annual meeting in June, the Grand Lodge of North Dakota approved a resolution exchanging fraternal recognition with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Minnesota.
In August of 1991, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Quebec took exception to the policy of the United Grand Lodge of England, even though that policy did not at the time affect them or those within their jurisdiction: "This Grand Lodge wishes to go on record as being sadly disappointed with the myopic decision made by your board of General Purposes on March 13th, 1991 and subsequently expanded on June 12th, 1991 concerning the prohibition of visitations by members of your Grand Lodge to lodges in North America currently recognizing Prince Hall jurisdictions.... It should be noted that the Grand Lodge of Quebec, A.F.& A.M. has been in dialogue with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in our jurisdiction for the last three years. To date we have found nothing by which we feel compelled to refuse recognition for inter-visitation purposes. There is no possibility of amalgamating the two bodies because these men are as justifiably proud of their Freemasonry and its history as we are of ours. While it cannot be stated positively at this time, yet it is our sincere hope that the desired recognition will be enacted in 1992. We will be as resolute in our decision as are the Grand Lodges which have already entered into inter-visitation recognition.... Upon occasion masons must do that which is right because it is right and not be intimidated by those with less noble agendas."[37]
Upon occasion masons must do that which is right because it is right and not be intimidated by those with less noble agendas.
At their annual communication in 1991, Georgia Masons approved a resolution to "strongly disapprove and condemn "those grand lodges that have exchanged fraternal recognition with the Prince Hall Grand Lodges.[38]
On October 25, 1991 the Grand Master of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington wrote to the United Grand Lodge of England regarding the possibility of opening communications between the two Grand Lodges. UGLE sidestepped the request stating that they, UGLE, should "start by exploring the situation in Massachusetts where the movement started."[39]
On December l, 1991 the Grand Lodge of Belgium corresponded with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts requesting dialogue which they hoped to consummate in a treaty of friendship.[40]
Idaho became the eighth Regular Grand Lodge in America to recognize a Prince Hall Grand Lodge. At its annual communication, it voted to establish fraternal relations with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Oregon. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Oregon maintains one lodge in the state of Idaho in the town of Mountain Home. The action on the part of the Grand Lodge of Idaho took the Caucasian Grand Lodge of Oregon by surprise. The Grand Master of the Caucasian Grand Lodge of Oregon quickly severed relations with the Grand Lodge of Idaho, citing a direct conflict with his Grand Lodge's exclusive jurisdictional laws. He declared Idaho's recognition of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Oregon to be "an unlawful invasion of Oregon's exclusive territorial jurisdiction."[41]
Despite the occasional rebuttal to their actions, the Grand Lodges that have extended recognition to Prince Hall Grand Lodges appear to be firm and resolute in maintaining their position. Some have reported widespread acceptance within the craft. James N. DeMoses of Nebraska said "I know of not one member of our Grand Lodge who has given up his dues card as a result of this action."[42] This is not to say that resolutions granting recognition to Prince Hall Grand Lodges have not met with a degree of opposition and will not continue to do so. As has been pointed out by a Prince Hall Mason, "There are those within our beautiful fraternity [Prince Hall] who want the status quo to remain, that want no dealings with whites, who are just as racist and bigoted as some of our counterparts."[43]
On the other hand, there are legal as well as moral imperatives forcing the issue of mutual recognition between Black and White Masons. In Colorado, the city and county of Denver recently enacted ordinances that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin and applies that law to "clubs and lodges."[44] One writer speaking on the subject suggested that this ordinance should be of some concern to organizations that are divided along racial grounds. A Past Grand Master and lawyer from Virginia makes a legal case for acceptance of Prince Hall Masonry because "we are seeing a steady march of the law, legislative and judicial, to eliminate discrimination from our social fabric, be it private or public."[45] There is hope that the all-male standing of the fraternity may stand, but ipso facto segregation will not long survive the legal system.
1 John Eliot of Massachusetts, quoted by Wallace McLeod, Toronto Canada, Phylaxis, Vol XV, No IV, 4Q89P8
2 Gail Nelson Smith, GM Connecticut, presented at the Conference of Grand Masters in North America at Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb 20, 1990
3 ibid.
4 Wallace McLeod, Toronto Canada, Phylaxis, Vol XV, No IV, 4Q89P7
5 An address by John D. Keliher, June 8, 1991, Wala Wala, WA, Phylaxis, Vol XVII No III, 3Q91 P3)
6 ibid.
7 Wisconsin Masonic Journal, Summer, 1990, page 9 (8) Gail Nelson Smith, GM Connecticut, presented at the Conference of Grand Masters in North America at Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb 20, 1990
8 Gail Nelson Smith, GM Connecticut, presented at the Conference of Grand Masters in North America at Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb 20, 1990
9 Gail Nelson Smith, op cit.
10 Allan E. Iding, May 3, 1991, Phylaxis, Vol XVII No III, 3Q91P12
11 ibid.
12 ibid., p13
13 ibid., p14
14 Allen Ohrt, GM ND, July 25, 1991, in letter to Robert A Klinger, Grand Secretary, CA
15 Quote of Grand Master Robert E. Moore, "Free at Last," Phylaxis, Vol XV, No III, 3Q89P3)
16 Allan E. Iding, op. cit., p14
17 Quote of Grand Master Robert E. Moore, op. cit.
18 Unpublished summary, R. Stanley Harrison, PGM, Grand Secretary, CT
19 Gail Nelson Smith, op cit.
20 Kenneth B. Hawkins, "Regardless of Race, Creed or Color," Connecticut SQUARE & COMPASS, 1990 Feb/Mar/Apr, page 5
21 Kenneth B. Hawkins, ibid, page 12
22 John M. McHenry, DGM, GM Elect, NE, in a letter to Grand Lodges in Amity with GL NE, Feb 5, 1990
23 Press release GL NE and PHGL NE, Feb 5, 1990
24 Dwight A. Hamilton, GM CO, Report to Grand Lodge, Jan 22, 1990
25 Wisconsin Masonic Journal, Summer, 1990, page 10
26 Quote from the Foreign Relations Committee report, Phylaxis, Vol XVI No III, 3Q90P30
27 Thomas W. Tye, PGM and Don E. Rasmaussen, Grand Secretary NE, Apr 24, 1991, Report of the UGLE meeting of April 11, 1991, Phylaxis, Vol XVII No III, 3Q91P16
28 ibid.
29 ibid, p17
30 James 0. Wood, PGM Washington, Report of UGLE meeting, Phylaxis, Vol XVIII No II, 2Q92P12
31 Thomas W. Tye and Don E. Rasmaussen, op cit., p18
32 James 0. Wood, PGM Washington, Report of UGLE meeting, Phylaxis, Vol XVIII No II, 2Q92P9
33 ibid.
34 ibid, p12.
35 Edict of the Grand Master, April 12, 1991, West Virginia
36 James N. DeMoss, Grand Master Nebraska, in a letter to GM West Virginia, April 24, 1991
37 Letter, Grand Lodge of Quebec, K.W. Aldridge, Grand Secretary, August 1, 1991, to Brother Higham, UGLE, Phylaxis, Vol XVII No IV, 4Q91P18
38 Phylaxis, Vol XV, No IV, 4Q89P27
39 Phylaxis, Vol XVIII No II, 2Q92P13
40 ibid.
41 ibid., p18
42 James N. DeMoses, GM NE, letter of March 6, 1991 to Edward Ling, CA
43 Walkes, Joseph, "Address to the Phylaxis Society," Phylaxis, Vol XVI No II, 2Q90P6
44 Dwight A. Hamilton, PGM CO, Report of Special Committee Prince Hall Masonry
45 Cabell F. Cobbs, PGM Virginia, Phylaxis, Val XVII No III, 3Q91P23