Fraternal co-existence

From as early as 1845 there were attempts to obtain recognition of Prince Hall Freemasonry, in order to establish fraternal links. In 1845 Boyer Lodge presented a memorial to the White Grand Lodge of New York, seeking recognition, and was rejected.^[1]

In 1868 a petition signed by 72 members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was submitted to the White Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for recognition. Grand Master William S Gardner made a detailed investigation and scholarly report which was unfavourable to the application, and the petition was denied. The whole investigation is documented in Mackey’s History of Freemasonry and has been much quoted elsewhere. William Upton described it as ‘the ablest attack upon the Negro Masons we have seen’, and Harold Voorhis commented: ‘An examination of the report will show that it will not withstand the test of the “square and level”.’^[2]

A Prince Hall petition to the Grand Lodge of Ohio in 1869 was unsuccessful. Six years later a White lodge presented a resolution to the Grand Lodge of Ohio, proposing that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ohio be accorded fraternal recognition if it agreed to change its name to African Grand Lodge and confine its work to ‘persons of African descent’. The resolution was put to the vote in 1876,^[3] and was lost 332 to 390.^[4]

A few years earlier, support for the Prince Hall quest for recognition had come from a surprising quarter, the research of the German historian, Findel. His History of Freemasonry was first published in 1861. Writing of the development of the Craft in Massachusetts, he said:^[5]

Besides these Grand Lodges with their daughters, there had been established during the war, Lodges of colored people, which worked separately. It was long doubted whether these were legally constituted, until Br. Dr. R Barthelmess of Brooklyn, demonstrated from the history of their first beginning, that such was the case, so that their recognition can no longer with any show of reason, be withheld.

He went on to give an account of African Lodge and the formation of African Grand Lodge, and mentioned that Prince Hall’s correspondence, including the Letter Book, had been published in the German Masonic magazine Bauhütte in 1861. Concerning ‘exclusive territorial jurisdiction’ in the United States, he said:^[6]

The right of district, which permitted but one dominant Grand Lodge to exist in each state, and interdicted single lodges from joining any other foreign masonic superior power, was suffered in 1809 to pass into a law, though narrowmindedness and the love of power gave it birth.

These sentiments so pleased and heartened Prince Hall Masons that Lewis Hayden, Grand Master of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, bestowed honorary membership and rank of Grand Master on Findel, sent him the appropriate regalia, and dedicated his own book, Masonry Among Colored Men in Massachusetts, to Findel.^[7]

The Prince Hall Grand Lodges of Ohio, Massachusetts, Missouri and New York began to seek Masonic recognition abroad, with some measure of success, as reported by Gould in his History of Freemasonry a few years later:^[8]

These coloured or “lesser Grand Lodges,” have been more or less recognised as legally constituted bodies in France, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Peru and Liberia …

I am inclined to think that the claim of the Black Mason to be placed on a footing of equality with the White one, is destined to pass through a somewhat similar ordeal in America, to that which has been (in part) undergone by the famous Jewish question in Germany.

To the list of foreign recognitions, Walkes added the Dominican Republic,^[9] and Oscar Biggs, of Tasmania, added Switzerland, but cited no authority.^[10]

The next move was made in the far northwest of the United States. In 1897 there was no Prince Hall Grand Lodge in the State of Washington. Two Prince Hall Masons who lived there wrote to the White Grand Lodge and asked if a way could be devised to permit them to visit a lodge in that State. One Past Grand Master is reported as saying: ‘Throw it in the wastebasket.’^[11] After some debate, the request was referred to a committee under the chairmanship of the Grand Senior Warden, William H Upton. He was California-born and the other two committee members, the Grand Secretary and a Past Grand Master, hailed from Kentucky and Alabama—on the face of it, not a committee likely to favour racial integration.

However, Upton, a Superior Court judge and a student of Masonry, made a careful and comprehensive study of Prince Hall Masonry, and his findings convinced the other members of the committee. They reported back in 1898 with a series of resolutions which were printed verbatim in Mackey’s History of Freemasonry,^[12] and which may be summarised as follows:

1  Neither race nor colour is a proper test of fitness of a candidate.

2  Washington lodges and their members are entitled to recognise, as brother Masons, Blacks who have been initiated in lodges which trace their origin to African Lodge No 459.

3  Having regard to social conditions and preferences, if regular Masons of African descent wish to establish lodges (and eventually a Grand Lodge) in Washington, wholly or mainly for brethren of their own race, and regulated according to the landmarks and Masonic law, then the Grand Lodge of Washington would not regard this as an invasion of jurisdiction.

The Grand Lodge of Washington adopted the resolutions unanimously, and elected Upton Grand Master, but he was obliged to spend his year defending the action of his Grand Lodge against the outcry from other American Grand Lodges, not all from the south. After 17 Grand Lodges had severed relations with Washington, the following year a resolution was passed (with only three dissentients): ‘upholding our historic contentions, but consenting to waive them in practice’. The only benefit from this debacle was the publication of the original report, in pamphlet form, entitled Light on a dark subject, and in extended form by Upton as a book, Negro Masonry, being a critical examination.

Upton felt so strongly about the issue that he assigned publication rights to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and made a provision in his will that no monument should be erected over his grave until Black and White Masons could stand beside it as brothers.^[13] Among the ways in which Prince Hall Masons have honoured Upton is to name lodges after him, in Montana (since defunct), South Carolina and Washington State.^[14]

A second fiasco was to occur in Boston almost 50 years later. In 1947 a committee reported to the White Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, acknowledging the legitimate origin of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. The committee did not recommend formal recognition or intervisitation, merely an acknowledgment of legitimacy. The committee’s report was adopted. As with Washington, so with Massachusetts. Other Grand Lodges withdrew recognition and in 1949 Massachusetts rescinded its resolution.^[15] Ralph Castle commented: ‘How can men of high mind and heart surrender principles to expediency . . . ?’^[16]

Twenty years later, White brethren of Massachusetts wrote an open letter to their Grand Lodge:^[17]

. . . The 1949 committee report concluded with the pusillanimous decision that unity and harmony are vastly more important to the Fraternity than debates about Negro Freemasonry. This statement, questionable then, today is clearly untrue.

. . . In 1947, the Grand Lodge had the courage and the moral conviction to do what was right rather than what was most expedient. Since 1949 it has remained intimidated, lacking the wisdom to realize that what is righteous and just will survive any storm. . .

Let us remember that all that is necessary for injustice to prevail is that good men do nothing.

. . .

The letter was signed by Masters, Past Masters and officers of four lodges, and three brethren who bore ‘outside’ appointments—the editor in chief of the Christian Science Monitor, the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Commissioner of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Recognition in the United States

Times were already changing. From a cautious beginning in Wisconsin in 1960 and a brave practical application of brotherhood in Connecticut in 1966 have grown the present positive moves in many parts of the United States and Canada. In recent years the situation has become more complex and, for the sake of clarity, in this section of the paper, events will be recorded according to the type of action taken, rather than follow a strictly chronological sequence. This section will rely heavily on articles in the Fall 1993 issue of the Prince Hall research journal Phylaxis, to supplement the information available from White sources, and is particularly indebted to the scholarly paper presented to the Phylaxis Society by John B Williams, FPS, ‘Recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges in America’.^[18]

Black and White Grand Lodges in Wisconsin began formal discussions, moving cautiously towards an accord. In Connecticut the Black and White Grand Lodges jointly sponsored a ‘Brotherhood-in-Action’ community programme, in which they were joined by the (Roman Catholic) Knights of Columbus and the (Jewish) B’nai B’rith. The two Masonic bodies also combined in a blood-donor scheme, together with Eastern Star, Rainbow, DeMolay, Shrine and Red Cross groups.

After 12 years of contact, the White Grand Lodge of Wisconsin felt sufficiently confident to amend its Code, to make it crystal clear that it had no colour bar, and three years later it endorsed a report that the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction was not a barrier to fraternal recognition. In 1977 the Whites of Wisconsin acknowledged the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry. Then, in 1980, the White Grand Master proposed to the Black Grand Master that they consider complete integration—a merger of the two Grand Lodges. As John Williams put it: ‘This bold step was too much for the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. Fraternal recognition was their immediate goal.’

After 23 years experience of working together outside the temples, Black and White Masons in Connecticut felt that they could work harmoniously inside, at least to the extent of visiting each other. In September 1989 the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut made a formal request for fraternal recognition. The preliminaries were quickly attended to, and on 14 October 1989 both Grand Lodges met separately and voted to extend fraternal recognition and visitation rights to the other. If the Whites prayed for courage to stand fast and not wilt before the storm, as Washington and Massachusetts had before them, their prayers were answered. Only one Grand Lodge went so far as to withdraw recognition.^[19] The response of other Grand Lodges varied.

A month after Connecticut Masons agreed to recognition and intervisitation, Nebraska Masons went a step further. The Black and White Grand Lodges granted full, complete and unrestricted Masonic recognition of each other.^[20] From Connecticut, the White Deputy Grand Master attended a Northeast Conference, at which Prince Hall Masonry and racism in Masonry were discussed, and the White Grand Master attended the Conference of Grand Masters of North America, in Utah, where he gave an address on ‘Connecticut and Prince Hall Masonry’ which was well received.^[21] Black and White Masons visited each other in lodge and Grand Lodge on a number of occasions, with many expressions of good will.

By the end of 1990, Washington State and Wisconsin had joined Connecticut and Nebraska in establishing fraternal relations in their own States. In Washington it was made clear that the Master of a lodge could invite a Prince Hall Mason or any other visitor to perform degree work, provided it was ‘Washington’ work.^[22] Early in the new year Colorado was added to the growing number. In April, Minnesota agreed to mutual recognition, but the White Grand Master instructed his brethren that intervisitation could not be implemented until both Grand Lodges had agreed on proper identification methods. There is no Prince Hall Grand Lodge in North Dakota, but there are lodges warranted by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Minnesota. Consequently, the Black Grand Lodge of Minnesota and the White Grand Lodge of North Dakota recognised each other in June 1991.

As in North Dakota, there is no Prince Hall Grand Lodge in Idaho but there is a lodge warranted from elsewhere, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Oregon. The difference is that in Oregon, unlike Minnesota, the Black and White Grand Lodges have not reached fraternal accord. Therefore, the White Grand Lodge of Idaho risked censure when it entered into negotiations with the Black Grand Lodge in neighbouring Oregon. In September 1991 a special committee reported to the Grand Lodge of Idaho that they recommended full recognition of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Oregon, on the Nebraska pattern, stating: ‘In our research during the past year we find no Masonic Law, regulation, or custom which provides for partial recognition of a Grand Lodge; it is either regular and entitled to recognition or it is not entitled to any recognition at all.’ The recommendation was adopted. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Oregon had already accorded full recognition in June, subject to reciprocity.

At last the conditions could be met for a headstone to be placed on the grave of William Upton. In June 1991 the Grand Lodge of Washington and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington met in special communication and then, together, an estimated 400 Masons, Black and White, marched to the graveside for the ceremony. Also present were four descendants of Past Grand Master Upton, a grandson, a granddaughter and two great-granddaughters. Following the invocation by the White Grand Chaplain, the Prince Hall Grand Lecturer gave the keynote to the dedication ceremony, the oration was given by the White Grand Orator and the benediction by the Prince Hall Grand Chaplain. In the words of Brother Clemon Modisett, the Prince Hall Grand Lecturer, ‘Our meeting today to lay the headstone upon Brother Upton’s grave is evidence that his work was not in vain. His dream is now realized! His request is now fulfilled!’^[23]

In October 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. The reply was to the effect that it would be more appropriate, initially, for England to confer with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. Such talks have been instituted, and are continuing.^[24]

Juan Alvarez reported (November 1993) that the White Grand Lodge of Connecticut is in the process of extending recognition to all Prince Hall Grand Lodges that establish fraternal relations with the White Grand Lodge of their own State, but this had not been achieved when the Pantagraph 1994 List of Lodges, Masonic went to press. For the record, the White Grand Lodge of Idaho seems to have been the first to recognise a second Prince Hall Grand Lodge; the 1994 List of Lodges, Masonic credits Idaho with recognition of Oregon and Washington.

John Williams, commenting on the general situation, remarked that White Grand Lodges that have extended recognition appear to be firm and resolute in maintaining their position. He added:^[25]

This is not to say that resolutions granting recognition to Prince Hall Grand Lodges has not met with a degree of opposition and will not continue to do so.

As has been pointed out [by Joseph A Walkes Jr], ‘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.’

On the other hand there are legal as well as moral imperatives forcing the issue of mutual recognition between Black and White Masons . . . A Past Grand Master and lawyer from Virginia [Cabell F Cobbs] 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.’ There is hope that the all-male standing of the fraternity may stand, but ipso facto segregation will not long survive. . .

Intermediate measures

Several Grand Lodges or Grand Masters, while not extending formal recognition to a Prince Hall body, made the decision to permit their members to visit lodges in jurisdictions where Prince Hall Masons might be visiting. These included New Hampshire in 1991,^[26] Montana^[27] and California^[28] in 1992, and the Canadian Grand Lodges of Manitoba (specifically for visiting in Minnesota and North Dakota)^[29] and British Columbia (for Washington).^[30] Some other Grand Lodges do not find it necessary to make a separate provision, because their practice, on the question of regularity of persons present in a lodge they visit, has always been to accept the judgement of the Master and the sovereignty of the Grand Jurisdiction in which they visit. Others would consider this attitude naive and insist on protecting their visiting members from Masonic association with members of a body not recognised by the visitors’ Grand Lodge. These conflicting practices existed in the United States and elsewhere, even before the modern question of Prince Hall visitors arose. Most British and Australian Grand Lodges, for example, have long specified the circumstances under which their visiting members must politely leave the lodge they are visiting.^[31]

In December 1991 the Grand Lodge of Belgium, where American NATO troops were stationed, requested the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts to discuss a treaty of friendship.^[32] A committee appointed by the Grand Lodge of New York sought contact with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New York.^[33] The results of these moves, like the outcome of similar initiatives in California, Kansas and Rhode Island, are not yet known.

Alaska took a different approach. In an article in that Grand Lodge’s publication, North Star, the Grand Master wrote:^[34]

Brethren, many of you have expressed an interest in granting some type of fraternal recognition to Prince Hall Lodges in this state. Others have said, ‘No way.’

For this Grand Lodge to legally recognize Prince Hall we will have to make some constitutional changes to our Masonic Code. This will take 2 or 3 years to accomplish.

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to determine how many of you would like to see fraternal recognition granted to Prince Hall Lodges. If the majority of you would like to recognize Prince Hall, we will draft resolutions to make the necessary changes in our code.

However, if the majority do not want to grant this recognition, there is no reason to waste a lot of time on an issue that will be defeated. Let us know how you feel. The opinion of all Master Masons is welcome.

In Iowa, a committee reported back to its Grand Lodge after talks with a committee from the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Iowa, with the recommendation that Grand Lodge wait until England should act upon the request from the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington for recognition.^[35] They were either unaware of England’s response or chose this method to sit on the fence. Even more peculiar was the recommendation of the Grand Master of Massachusetts in 1990 that it would not be advisable to ‘go against the United Grand Lodge of England’, which had not recognised Prince Hall Grand Lodges,^[36] a sentiment which amazed Past Grand Master Kenneth Aldridge, of Quebec, among others.^[37] Michigan, also, decided to ‘wait and see’.^[38]

Adverse responses

In 1989 the White Grand Master of Louisiana, a brother by the name of Love, quickly issued an edict severing all fraternal ties with Connecticut—but no one else followed suit. Observers are not in agreement on subsequent events.^[39] However, the 1993 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana indicate the following: the edict was approved by Grand Lodge in 1990, just before Bro Love handed over to the new Grand Master, Bro Tidwell. At the end of his year, Bro Tidwell recommended that the edict be revoked and a ‘Grand Master’s statement of position’ on clandestine and irregular Masonry be published and forwarded to all Grand Jurisdictions. This recommendation was approved unanimously by Grand Lodge, but the incoming Grand Master, Bro McDuffie, decided to delay implementation of the recommendation. At the end of his year, Bro McDuffie submitted a resolution to restore recognition to Connecticut. The resolution was defeated at the 1992 annual communication. The incoming Grand Master, Bro Delaney, thereupon issued an edict, reiterating that Connecticut members were not permitted to visit Louisiana lodges, and prohibiting Louisiana members from visiting in Connecticut. This did not extend to prohibiting Louisiana members from visiting lodges in recognised jurisdictions where a Connecticut visitor was also present. At the annual communication in 1993 this edict was considered by the Committee on Masonic Law and Jurisprudence, which ruled that the edict was effective during his term of office, but would only be effective thereafter if approved by the delegates at the annual communication. It was not approved by the delegates. Instead, they voted in favour of resolution number 1993–6, to rescind the original edict and issue a position statement, just as Bro Tidwell wanted in 1991. It would appear that for technical reasons this resolution, although successful, would have to be re-submitted in 1994 and then obtain a two-thirds majority vote. The 1994 Proceedings, when available, should contain the answer.^[40]

When the White Grand Lodge of Idaho recognised the Black Grand Lodge of Oregon, the White Grand Lodge of Oregon was not pleased. Grand Master Ivan Rinck said:^[41]

We have no rules against black men petitioning in our fraternity. We do have black members. In fact, the Senior Warden of Research Lodge No. 198 of Oregon is a black brother.

I had a letter from one of our members asking me to send him a list of all black members in Oregon, with names and addresses and phone numbers. My reply to him was, ‘We do not keep records of the color of our members, our petitions do not ask the question and we have no desire or reason to know.’ I further related to that brother that his question about color was un‑Masonic. If Prince Hall members want to belong with us they should join us in our regular lodges.

. . . Many brothers in this jurisdiction, and others, try to convert this problem to a black and white issue, which it is not. The facts are simple: the Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Idaho now recognizes two Grand Lodges in Oregon when we do not.

Grand Master Rinck declared Idaho’s action ‘an unlawful invasion of Oregon’s exclusive territorial jurisdiction’ and severed relations with Idaho in December 1991. Cabell Cobbs, a Past Grand Master of the White Grand Lodge of Virginia and a strong advocate of recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges, described Oregon’s action as based on jurisdictional grounds rather than obstructionism.^[42] The Oregon entry in the 1994 List of Lodges, Masonic reads: ‘At publication the Grand Lodge of Oregon does not recognize the Grand Lodge of Idaho.’

Georgia severed relations with Idaho in 1992, in support of Oregon, a fact duly noted in the List of Lodges, Masonic. The Grand Master of Georgia instructed his lodges that no visitor from a Grand Jurisdiction which had granted recognition to Prince Hall Masonry was permitted to visit a lodge in Georgia without his permission. A resolution was also passed in Georgia that ‘[We] strongly disapprove and condemn the action of any other Grand Lodge’ which thereafter makes such recognition.^[43]

Several other southern White Grand Lodges took steps to register their disapproval, short of the withdrawal of recognition. West Virginia, by successive edicts of the Grand Master, has forbidden brethren to visit lodges in the jurisdictions which have recognised Prince Hall Grand Lodges.^[44] South Carolina declared its position in a resolution adopted in 1992:

It has been the position of this Grand Lodge for many years that Prince Hall Grand Lodges are clandestine and visitation by South Carolina Masons is forbidden. South Carolina has recognized only one Grand Lodge in each Grand Jurisdiction as Regular; however, we have recognized the right of any Grand Lodge to establish relations with whomsoever they desire. Because of these recent actions all South Carolina brethren should be alert if visiting in one of the above mentioned Jurisdictions. Should a Mason from a Lodge considered to be irregular be present, the South Carolina Mason must excuse himself and leave.

The White Grand Master of Mississippi reported that he had attended the Grand Masters Conference in Utah, and continued:^[45] ‘We learned that some states are making what we feel are radical changes, reducing memory work required, and recognizing masonry we consider clandestine.’ He subsequently issued a letter warning his brethren that if they visited lodges in Connecticut or Nebraska and encountered Black Masons, it would be their responsibility to determine if they were Prince Hall or ‘regular’ Masons; they were not to converse with or sit in any lodge with Prince Hall Masons.^[46] Kentucky took similar action.^[47]

American problems

There can be no doubt that racial bigotry still exists in the United States, and not only in the south. That it still finds its way into Masonic lodges is attested by Black and White Americans,^[48] as well as by visitors.^[49] Indeed, it is confirmed by some of the pronouncements of some of the Grand Lodges. However, not all of the problems concerning recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges can be ascribed solely to bigotry.

We have seen that there remain questions of the regularity of initiation of Prince Hall and his brethren, and of the propriety of some of the actions by African Lodge and its Master—which are more convincingly answered by the issue of the warrant from the Grand Lodge of England, and by demonstrating that greater irregularities than these, by other lodges and Masters, have been healed, forgiven or quietly overlooked, rather than by attempting to prove regularity and propriety, point by point. Similarly, the irregularities in the formation of the various Prince Hall Grand Lodges in the 19th century are in some instances excusable on the ground of necessity, and with others the ‘crime’ is much less than that of those ‘regular’ Grand Lodges which categorically denied the privileges of Freemasonry to every African‑American on the basis of race. Surely it would be better for the Craft as a whole if all concerned could forget the past, and concentrate on the present and the future. No evidence of present irregularity has been advanced.

There remains, however, a question of Masonic jurisprudence yet to be resolved in some States. That is the American doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction. Some Grand Lodges, such as Virginia, have no problem with this particular issue because their constitutions provide for the possibility of sharing jurisdiction by mutual consent.^[50] As Henry Coil pointed out, exclusivity has not been practiced uniformly by American Grand Lodges, which have been prepared to make exceptions when they chose.^[51] All that is needed is the will to change.

Of course, not all have the will, or the capacity, to change, but even in the south Grand Lodges are at least discussing the problem and some members are speaking out in favour of it, as evidenced by the Southeastern Masonic Conference, held at Atlanta, Georgia, in August 1993. Even more encouraging is the decision by the Grand Master of North Carolina to organise seminars to re-educate his brethren. This training includes admissions of racial intolerance, that until recently the Code prohibited the admission of African-American applicants, and that there are no Black members of North Carolina lodges, but encourages members to receive ‘regular’ African-American Masons from other jurisdictions as visitors, and to welcome petitions from African-Americans. It teaches something of the history of Prince Hall and the development of Prince Hall Masonry—not very accurately, but the mistakes are mostly favourable to Prince Hall—and falls just short of advocating recognition.^[52] And in the northwest, Bob Jensen, Master of Walter F Meier Lodge of Research, summarised as follows:^[53]

When I see all the differences in opinion on the Prince Hall recognition question, I realize that some of us will always be seeing Brotherhood in a different light . . . [Let] me say that I am proud of Washington State and all the others that have recognized Prince Hall Masonry. I have enjoyed a number of meetings with my Prince Hall Brethren, and have learned from them. I now believe I have a better understanding of what Masonry should be.

Robert Nairn put the issue squarely in his paper in Sydney last year:^[54]

There must be a method of granting recognition which over-rides these problems of historical regularity or at least considers them to be of less importance. Surely the most relevant questions are: ‘Are they good Masons?’ [and] ‘Do they reflect Freemasonry’s principles today?’

Cabell Cobbs added the weight of his legal training: ^[55]

Aside from the moral and legal aspects of recognition of Prince Hall Masonry and the compelling argument that its regularity and genuine Masonic structure has been established by two hundred years of history, it is submitted that any scholarly and unbiased examination of its origins, its Masonic practices, and its attachment to the principles which the so-called regular Grand Lodges espouse, make it clear that it is entitled to reception as a full and honorable partner in the spectrum of our Fraternity.

Preston Pope, chairman of the Prince Hall Recognition Committee which worked with its ‘mainstream’ counterpart in Connecticut, said:^[56]

. . . the separation between Masons across the country should never have occurred in the first place. It was wrong then and it is still wrong today . . . I am proud to say to the Freemasons of Connecticut, Well Done, Brothers, And Rightfully So.

Joseph Walkes pointed out that the issue has not been fully resolved:^[57]

Until such time as the Prince Hall Freemason can knock on any Masonic Lodge door in the United States, and be allowed entry, then American Freemasonry will remain a mockery.

Recognition in Canada

There is only one Black Grand Lodge in Canada, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ontario, established in 1856. It is the second-oldest Grand Lodge in Canada—only the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario is older, by one year. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge also has lodges in Quebec, and some American Prince Hall Grand Lodges have lodges in some of the other Provinces of Canada.

Masonic protocol requires the junior Grand Lodge to petition the senior for recognition. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ontario, being the second-senior, foresaw complications with this, and took the unprecedented step of declaring that it would agree to exchange fraternal recognition and intervisitation with any of the Grand Lodges in Canada (which it listed) if that Grand Lodge should so desire.

Among the leading White advocates in Canada of the regularity of Prince Hall Grand Lodges are PGM Kenneth Aldridge, the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Quebec, and Prof Wallace McLeod, a PM of Quatuor Coronati Lodge and Grand Historian of the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario. In 1992, after papers had been presented by these two, and others, a resolution was presented at the 1992 annual conference of the nine independent Grand Lodges of Canada and the English and Scottish District Grand Lodges of Newfoundland, as follows:^[58]

The Conference of Grand and District Grand Lodges of Canada held in Winnipeg on March 21, 1992, unanimously recommends the acceptance of Prince Hall Grand Lodges, as approved by the Conference of Prince Hall Grand Lodges, as being regular Masonic Grand Lodges.

The representatives of the nine Grand Lodges and the two District Grand Lodges passed the resolution unanimously, and it was taken back to the various Grand Lodges. This was an acknowledgement of regularity, not a recommendation for recognition of a specific Prince Hall Grand Lodge.

The resolution was presented to at least seven of the nine Grand Lodges at their next communication, and Alberta, Manitoba and Canada (in Ontario) formally adopted the resolution. Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have gone further. In September 1993, the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Quebec reported:^[59]

The situation in Canada is that the Grand Lodges of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec all recognize the M.W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ontario and Jurisdiction. The recognition has included the exchange of Grand Representatives. [italics added] To say that the recognition reaction was positive would be a gross understatement. Inter-jurisdictional lodge visits have been numerous and the reports fed back to this office indicate that meetings were attended with high levels of emotional brotherhood. Nothing in the history of the Grand Lodge of Quebec has so captured the genuine spirit of brotherhood as these history-making inter-lodge visits.

The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ontario has lodges only in Ontario and Quebec,^[60] but its members have now been accorded the right to visit ‘mainstream’ lodges in four Provinces. Three others, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia, have Prince Hall lodges warranted from Minnesota and Washington—where Black and White Grand Lodges have reached accord. Two of these three Canadian Grand Lodges (Manitoba and British Columbia) already permit their members to visit American lodges where Prince Hall Masons may be present. Advance news from the 1994 annual communication of the Grand Lodge of New Brunswick includes a recommendation of the fraternal relations committee for recognition of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut. Further moves may be contemplated. No problems have arisen in Canada, so far.

England

The official attitude of the United Grand Lodge of England is that the present practices of Prince Hall Grand Lodges appear to be regular, but their origins were unconstitutional, even by the standards in force at the time of origin.^[61] For most of this century, England has required as one of its ‘basic principles’ that for a Grand Lodge to be recognised by England it must have a regular origin, defined as having been ‘established lawfully by a duly recognized Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges’. This creates a substantial barrier to recognition by England of Prince Hall Grand Lodges, a barrier which England is attempting to surmount by discussion with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the offspring of African Lodge No 459 and progenitor of the other Prince Hall Grand Lodges.

Meanwhile, in June 1990 the United Grand Lodge of England warned its members that (from its point of view) Prince Hall Grand Lodges were ‘unrecognised’, and that brethren visiting North America should be more than usually alert to avoid sitting in lodge with brethren under unrecognised Grand Lodges. This warning was followed, in March 1991, with a specific instruction that until further notice brethren should not visit lodges under the Grand Lodges of Connecticut, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Washington. Brethren from those Grand Lodges would still be welcome to visit English lodges. The following June the Grand Master, HRH The Duke of Kent, added Colorado to the list, and said:^[62]

We all hope it will not be long before a solution to this particular problem is found, but in the meantime bans like this, which are not imposed lightly, are essential if we are to continue to adhere to the basic principles for Grand Lodge recognition. The principles are important as guardians of Masonic regularity, and I wish those concerned well as they work to preserve Freemasonry as we and other regular Grand Lodges know it.

Thereafter, England added names to the list as they occurred. In April 1991, the White Grand Lodge of Massachusetts hosted a meeting of representatives of the White Grand Lodges of Colorado, Connecticut, Nebraska, Washington and Wisconsin with representatives of the United Grand Lodge of England. From several sources it appears that views were frankly, even forcefully, exchanged, but the problem was not resolved.

Historically, a number of English-speaking Grand Lodges have adopted the English ‘basic principles’, and therefore the natural inclination to follow England’s lead in recognition of Grand Lodges is reinforced by this agreement of ‘principles’. It so happens that South Australia is among those which have adopted the first of them, which provides this writer with an excuse to examine the pronouncement in some detail.

There is a preamble to the English list:

Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition

Accepted by Grand Lodge, September 4, 1929

The M.W. The Grand Master having expressed a desire that the Board would draw up a statement of the Basic Principles on which this Grand Lodge could be invited to recognize any Grand Lodge applying for recognition by the English Jurisdiction, the Board of General Purposes has gladly complied. The result, as follows, has been approved by the Grand Master, and it will form the basis of a questionnaire to be forwarded in future to each Jurisdiction requesting English recognition. The Board desires that not only such bodies but the Brethren generally throughout the Grand Master’s Jurisdiction shall be fully informed as to those Basic Principles of Freemasonry for which the Grand Lodge of England has stood throughout its history. [italics added]

There follows a list of eight ‘principles’, of which numbers 2–8 are indeed principles of Freemasonry which have been practiced by the United Grand Lodge of England since the Union in 1813. Whether they were all uniformly practiced prior to that date by both the Grand Lodges forming that Union is open to debate, but that is not germane to the issue. Nor is the fact that the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland have adopted a list similar to principles 2–8. What is significant is that Scotland has not adopted the leading item, regularity of origin, as a ‘basic principle’ for Grand Lodge recognition. Wisely, Scotland has left the question of origin undefined, providing room for variation where it might be justified. George Draffen of Newington said of this:^[63]

That does not, of course, necessarily mean that the Grand Lodge of Scotland does not take account of the question of origin in dealing with requests from new Grand Lodges for recognition. It may be that Scotland, in making no mention of origins, was influenced by a letter sent to a Grand Master Mason in about 1878 by Albert Pike . . . [who] wrote: ‘There must come a time, in the nature of things, when enquiry into the original title of a Masonic Power is barred by lapse of time . . . ’. Pike was here referring to something that had taken place as recently as in 1845, some thirty years before the date of his letter. It is well-known that laws may become time-barred or fall into desuetude.

Some Grand Lodges have a regularity-of-origin requirement worded slightly differently from that of England. For example, the list used by the Grand Lodge of Alberta, called ‘rules’, not ‘basic principles’, requires that the Grand Body seeking recognition ‘has been lawfully established by three or more regularly constituted Lodges; by this Grand Lodge or by a Grand Body recognized by this Grand Lodge’ [italics added]. South Australia, while omitting the English preamble, echoes the first of the English ‘basic principles’ verbatim:^[64]

1.     Regularity of origin; i.e. each Grand Lodge shall have been established lawfully by a duly recognised Grand Lodge, or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges.

This ‘rule of three’ has provided material for several interesting papers, as to its origin, practice and validity,^[65] but its only relevance at this point is in the English requirement, as adopted by South Australia and others, as a ‘basic principle’. It cannot accurately be described as one of ‘those Basic Principles of Freemasonry for which the Grand Lodge of England has stood throughout its history’, because England has not always adhered to it. The prime example is the French National Grand Lodge [GLNF], formed by two lodges which broke away from the Grand Orient of France in 1913, and immediately recognised by England. As Cyril Batham pointed out:^[66]

It is sometimes contended by opponents of regular Freemasonry that as this Grand Lodge [GLNF] was founded by only two lodges it cannot be considered regular, as the conditions for Grand Lodge recognition stipulate a minimum of three founding lodges. As these conditions were not introduced until 1929, however, they obviously could not apply in 1913, and so the argument is groundless.

Luxembourg claims a foundation date of 1868, but was only recognised by England in 1969.^[67] According to Wallace McLeod, it was formed by a single lodge.^[68] Among the other Grand Lodges formed by fewer than three lodges, subsequently recognised by England, are Georgia (formed by two lodges in 1786), New Hampshire (two lodges in 1784) and Rhode Island (two lodges in 1791).^[69] New Jersey was neither warranted by another Grand Lodge nor erected by a group of lodges—it was formed by an assembly of Masons in 1786—but it has been recognised by England.^[70] In New York, a committee was appointed in 1787 to consider methods of forming an independent Grand Lodge. The committee concluded that its Provincial Grand Lodge was already acting independently, and required only a change of name.^[71] England has since recognised this accidentally-formed Grand Lodge. South Australia also recognises all these Grand Lodges, even though they do not meet the requirements of the first ‘basic principle’. So do the other Australian Grand Lodges, with the exception that New South Wales and Western Australia do not recognise Luxembourg.^[72]

All but one of these examples occurred well before the English pronouncement of 1929. Clearly, they were not taken into account when the ‘basic principles’ were formulated. It may merely be a question of semantics. John Hamill writes:^[73]

For England to go the same way [as Connecticut, Nebraska and the others] would require us to stand our Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition on their head. If principles are to mean anything they cannot be set aside for expediency’s sake.

Perhaps ‘basic principles’ is the wrong phrase. Perhaps Alberta’s ‘rules’ is a better term. We do tend to be rather rigid about principles, but more flexible about rules. If a principle is something England has always adhered to, as intimated in the preamble to the English list, then by definition the first item on that list cannot be a principle, since England has ignored it so often, at least prior to 1929. On the same basis, South Australia is precluded from calling the first item on their list a principle. A list of rules may well include a list of principles, plus other rules. If we call the list rules, we may then amend or even delete those which do not consist solely of a dogmatic statement of principle.

Alternatively, if the semantic argument is not acceptable, we may bravely admit: ‘We got it wrong. When we formulated the principle, we did not word it correctly. We gave it a retrospectivity which did not accord with historical fact. We may have erred in other ways. It may be that the principle, as worded, is only valid as a criterion for Grand Lodges which are erected after the date of this pronouncement, not for those formed a century or more ago. Let us re-examine the principle itself, and see if we can improve upon our wording of it.’

Perhaps England and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts have already examined this approach. Only time may tell. Wallace McLeod, as Master of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, remarked on Christopher Haffner’s paper on regularity of origin: ‘We always like to think that the premier Grand Lodge is itself immutable, at least so far as essentials are concerned, and that it is the arbiter of regularity. Yet Bro Haffner’s collection of precedents makes it clear that English Freemasonry is evolving too.’^[74]

Australasia

The six Grand Lodges of Australia and the Grand Lodge of New Zealand share a common heritage and geographical region, and consequently make intermittent attempts to achieve a measure of uniformity within the group. For example, each Grand Lodge makes its own provisions for determining recognition and maintaining fraternal links with other Grand Lodges of the world, but liaison between members of the Australasian group is the responsibility of a designated brother, the fraternal relations co-ordinator. In recent years, this office was filled by RWBro Frank Oldfield, of Victoria, until his death in 1992, and is now held by RWBro Murray Yaxley, of Tasmania.

In April 1994, officers of all the Australasian Grand Lodges came to Adelaide for the installation of a new Grand Master of South Australia. A few hours prior to the Grand Installation, fraternal relations representatives of the seven Grand Lodges met under the chairmanship of Bro Yaxley, with Prince Hall Masonry as one topic on the agenda. Before dealing with the agenda items, the chairman reviewed the procedure for granting recognition, and the representatives unanimously agreed that:

[If] an application for recognition is received by any one Grand Lodge, a copy be forwarded to the Coordinator and he circularise all other Grand Lodges to see if they have received an application. The Coordinator then seeks a response from each Grand Lodge regarding its attitude towards granting the recognition, investigates the matter, and advises all Grand Lodges of his recommendation. If the Coordinator recommends granting recognition, all should then follow to make recognition uniform, at least to the point of recommending to [the Board of General Purposes] that recognition be granted.

In each of these Grand Lodges, except South Australia, it is the Board of General Purposes which makes the decision on recognition, subject to the Grand Master’s approval. In South Australia, the decision is made directly by the Grand Master. The delegates further agreed that each Grand Lodge should have two documents readily available—guidelines for recognition of Grand Lodges; and a ‘Declaration of Principles’ of the Grand Lodge.

Prince Hall Masonry was item 9 on the agenda. It was pointed out that undoubtedly Prince Hall Masons come to Australia and New Zealand, particularly as sportsmen and as members of the US armed forces.^[75] The question was posed: ‘Morally, how can we exclude them from our lodges?’ It was the general opinion of the representatives that Prince Hall Masons should be allowed to visit Australasian lodges, in the same way as other visitors, and that Australian and New Zealand Masons should be permitted to visit Prince Hall lodges. It was agreed that any American Mason should be asked for a current dues card and then tested in the normal way.

The Grand Lodge of Tasmania acted swiftly on the recommendation. On the instruction of the Board of General Purposes, in May the Grand Secretary issued a notice to all lodges, to be read to all brethren, which included the following item:

RECEPTION OF AMERICAN MASONS

It is normal for American brethren to carry a current dues card. After the brother has presented the dues card he should be tested in the normal way. All American brethren including members of Prince Hall Lodges should be treated in the same way.

The second part of the April recommendation, permission to visit Prince Hall lodges, has not resulted in any specific instruction to Tasmanian brethren. They are well-informed about contemporary Masonic events around the world, by their lively newspaper, the Tasmanian Mason, and have a standing instruction to consult the Grand Secretary or the Fraternal Relations Officer, before visiting overseas. Implementation of this part of the recommendation, therefore, would depend on what advice the Fraternal Relations Officer (Bro Yaxley) would be prepared to give. Personal enquiry elicited the following: ‘My advice would be to visit only if invited and accompanied by a Prince Hall Mason.’ With regard to visiting a lodge overseas where a Prince Hall visitor is present, Bro Yaxley takes the pragmatic view: ‘. . . if the WM of the lodge is happy with his individual visitors, then the visitors ought to be happy with each other.’

In Queensland, the Board of General Purposes received the report at their April meeting and supported the recommendation at the Grand Communication in June, whereupon it was adopted. No written instruction has been issued to lodges, but a reliable source reports that the United Grand Lodge of Queensland has no objection to Prince Hall Masons visiting, subject to the usual requirements, regardless of the fact that the Prince Hall Grand Lodges have not been formally recognised by Queensland. On the other hand, Queensland brethren are only permitted to visit lodges in jurisdictions where there is formal recognition.

The South Australian Liaison Officer for Fraternal Relations expressed a minority opinion, that Australasian Grand Lodges should wait until the result of talks between the United Grand Lodge of England and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts is known. He has since stated that he does not intend to make a recommendation to his Grand Master. In New Zealand, the matter was referred to their Fraternal Relations Committee in May, and the committee merely agreed to keep the matter under review.^[76] Contacts in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia have reported no action as yet, so there is a possibility that one or more will also decide to admit Prince Hall visitors.

Who else in the world but Australians would be prepared to ignore protocol, precedent, and Masonic jurisprudence completely, and without a qualm, if they conflict with an innate sense of justice and fair play? It remains to be seen whether any problems arise from this attitude, and whether others will follow the lead set by Tasmania and Queensland.

Conclusion

There will always be some doubts in relation to the origin of Prince Hall Freemasonry. On the one hand, it must be accepted that Prince Hall was a free man when he was initiated, and there is no evidence that he was other than freeborn. On the other, there is no conclusive proof that the initiation itself was regularly conducted—something which could be said of many an 18th-century Mason. If there were irregularities before September 1784, it is strongly argued that any such irregularities were cured by the issue of the warrant for African Lodge. The attacks on the validity of the warrant itself are twofold: that England had no right to issue the warrant; and that it was obtained by deception. The argument in support of the first objection is weak, and of the second is pathetic.

There is some substance in some of the claims of irregularities after the issue of the warrant. It may be that there were degree workings conducted before receipt of the warrant at Boston in 1787, but returns of membership were faithfully made and the Grand Lodge of England did not demur. It is possible that Prince Hall sometimes acted as if he had the authority of at least a Provincial Grand Master, but the enforced isolation of African Lodge, and the example set by some of his alleged betters, mark these complaints as petty. There is no doubt that Prince Hall led his brethren well for 30 years, that he and they understood and lived their Freemasonry, and were a credit to the Craft.

Technical irregularities in the formation of Grand Lodges derived from African Lodge cannot be denied. It does not make them regular to point out irregularities in the formation of other Grand Lodges now accepted as regular. What it does do is support the contention that they are being discriminated against on the basis of race, that whatever legitimate objections there may be are tarnished by illegitimate and shameful motives. If, after 200 years of discrimination and isolation, brethren of the Prince Hall Affiliation are regular in their conduct and beliefs, they deserve better than that. How many of us could have kept the faith in such circumstances? It is submitted that they have earned the right to forgiveness, over and over again, for the sins of their forefathers—real or imagined. That really is the key to acceptance, the undisputed fact that modern Prince Hall Masons have the same qualifications as ‘mainstream’ American Masons, the same organisational structure, work the same ritual, and share the same beliefs.

Those lodges and Grand Lodges which truly practice Masonry admit worthy men to their ranks regardless of skin colour or alleged ‘race’, and thus there are some Blacks in ‘mainstream’ lodges and some Whites in Prince Hall lodges, but the proportion is very small. The ideal solution would be the merger of both Orders, and a complete intermingling of Blacks and Whites, but it is impossible to set back the clock 200 years. In many instances, with the best will in the world, this would not be harmonious because of cultural and social differences. It would also be asking too much of the Prince Hall brethren, to forgive the slights and discrimination of two centuries, and to place their trust so completely in the hands of the White majority, by surrendering their autonomy. ‘Mainstream’ Freemasonry will have to earn that trust in the coming years.

The practical solution at this stage is for both Orders to agree that the other is regular, and to accord each other the privileges of fraternal recognition, to visit and get to know each other, and to work together. It will take time and understanding, forgiveness and good will on both sides. The good news is that a start has been made, and that those involved are standing firm against opposition—which is not as virulent as it was a century ago.

The actual number of recognitions so far is quite small. In the United States it involves only seven Prince Hall and eight ‘mainstream’ Grand Lodges, but some of these extend beyond State boundaries. The straightforward recognitions are between the ‘mainstream’ and Prince Hall Grand Lodges of Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington and Wisconsin. The more adventurous recognitions are between ‘mainstream’ North Dakota and Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Minnesota, and ‘mainstream’ Idaho and the Prince Hall Grand Lodges of Oregon and Washington. In Canada, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ontario has exchanged recognition with four of the nine other Grand Lodges, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick has extended beyond national boundaries to exchange recognition with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut. This is a total of 28 acts of recognition. A full list of Grand Lodges of the Prince Hall Affiliation is given in Appendix C, showing lodges warranted outside State boundaries, and recognition exchanged to date.

Reaction in other ‘mainstream’ Grand Lodges has varied from withdrawal of recognition, to forbidding members to visit in ‘offending’ jurisdictions, or merely warning members to withdraw from lodges where Prince Hall Masons are also visiting, but some ‘mainstream’ Grand Lodges place no restriction on visiting, or have varied their regulations to permit visiting where Prince Hall Masons are present.

In Australasia, at least two Grand Lodges have sidestepped the legal tangle and declared by their actions that they consider all American Prince Hall Grand Lodges to be regular. Without requiring formal exchange of recognition, Queensland and Tasmania are prepared to admit Prince Hall Affiliated American Masons to their lodges on the same basis as ‘mainstream’ American Masons, and the Grand Lodge of Tasmania will allow its brethren to sit in lodge with Prince Hall Masons overseas. Others may follow suit.

Why should Australia be concerned in the Prince Hall quest for acceptance? Because the de facto exclusion of African-Americans from regular Freemasonry is a blatant breach of one of our inviolable principles, and we all share in the shame. Let us remember with the Psalmist:

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.

Acknowledgments

Many brethren have helped in the compilation of this paper, contributing facts, suggestions and encouragement. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged, and particularly that of the following brethren: Kenneth Aldridge (Canada), John Hamill (England), Kent Henderson (Australia), Ralph Herbold (USA), Wallace McLeod (Canada), Robert Nairn (Australia), Jack Neilson (Australia), Allen Roberts (USA), Joseph Walkes (USA) and Murray Yaxley (Australia).