Prince Hall Masonry - (Apologies for any lack of political correctness - 
African Americans will herein be called Negro's)
By: Charles H. Tupper  MPS
It is beyond doubt that there were some informal Masonic communications 
in Boston Massachusetts prior to 1733 but the official history begins 
around July 30th of that year.  (It may have been as late as the end of 
August, however)  The first Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was 
founded at that time with Henry Price as Provincial Grand Master 
(supposedly with a deputation from Right Honourable Anthony Browne, 
Viscount Montagu, Grand Master of England from April 19, 1732 to June 7, 
1733)   This Grand Lodge was founded at the same time as the "Old First
Lodge" (#126 on the roll of the Grand Lodge of England).  The Lodge was
erased from the UGLE roll in 1813 along with African Lodge #370 and a 
host of others.
The second Provincial Grand Master deputation in the English Grand Lodge 
minutes is to Roger Lacy by Viscount Weymouth, Grand Master, 1735-36 for 
a Lodge at Savannah, Georgia.  The third was to Robert Tomlinson to be 
Provincial Grand Master of New-England by the Earl of Loudoun, Grand 
Master 1736-37.  There is no mention of the deputation of Henry Price in 
the Grand Lodge of England Minutes and it is not mentioned in the list 
of those sent beyond the seas in Andersons Constitutions of 1738.  The 
deputation of Daniel Coxe by the Duke of Norfolk is, however, in the 
minutes of June 5, 1730 as Provincial Grand Master.   The Coxe 
deputation was for a period of two years and included Pennsylvania, New 
York and New Jersey and the Provincial Grand Master was to be locally 
elected upon the expiration of the term.
William Allen succeeded Coxe and probably only presided over one Lodge 
in 1731-32 and he was succeeded by Humphrey Morrey.  In 1734 Benjamin 
Franklin was elected and he wrote to Henry Price and requested 
clarification of Prices Provincial Grand Master status as related to 
area.  His answer came as a newspaper article in the "American Weekly
Mercury" of Philadelphia.  It said that Franklin had been appointed by
Price as Provincial Grand Master of Pennsylvania. 
Franklin never used this appointment, probably because he questioned its 
authenticity.  The only authority that could appoint Provincial Grand 
Masters was the Grand Master of England.  A provincial Grand Lodge 
could, and can, only warrant Lodges.
Robert Tomlinson was appointed Provincial Grand Master by the Earl of 
Loudon, Grand Master of England 1735-36 and it seems that this 
deputation superseded that of Price.
Tomlinson died in 1740 and was succeeded by his Deputy Grand Master 
Thomas Oxnard.  In 1743 John, Viscount Dudley and Ward, Grand Master of 
England made him official as Provincial Grand Master
Poor Ben Franklin was again appointed Provincial Grand Master in 1749 by 
Oxnard but Oxnard did not have the authority to do this either.  
In 1750 Lord Byron, Grand Master of England appointed William Allen 
Provincial Grand Master and he appointed Benjamin Franklin Deputy Grand 
Master, which he did have the power to do.
Thomas Oxnard died in 1754 and good old Henry Price became Acting 
Provincial Grand Master.  In 1755, Jeremy Gridley was appointed 
Provincial Grand Master by James, Marquess of Carnarvon.  Gridley died 
in 1757 and Price again took over the reins until 1768 when John Rowe, 
Gridleys Deputy, was elected, confirmed from London and, on November 
23, 1768, Rowe was installed as Provincial Grand Master of North 
America. (except were no Provincial Grand Master had ever been 
appointed)  
Rowe was the first Grand Master in the United States to be popularly 
elected and execute the prerogatives of the office.  By 1772 there were 
about 70 Lodges which had sprang from the original Provincial Grand 
Lodge.
The thing that should be noticed from all of this is that no proof has 
ever existed that Henry Price was, in fact, the Provincial Grand Master 
in 1732.  His name does not appear on the English Engraved List until 
1770 as a Provincial Grand Master of North America.  He is responsible 
for the founding of Old First Lodge.   As a side note it should be said 
that Peter Pelham, Grand Secretary in 1750 supposedly copied Prices 
alleged Deputation and this Deputation gave Price the authority to 
constitute Lodges.  
   In 1752 a group of Masons began to hold meetings in the Green Dragon 
Tavern in Boston, Massachusetts and opened a Lodge under Ancient Usage.  
(self constituted)  Some of these Brethren had been members of Old First 
Lodge and it is not known where the original Lodge membership of the 
others originates.  In 1754 this Lodge petitioned the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland for a charter.  The charter was issued in 1756 but was not 
expedited until 1759, probably because the Masonic credentials of some 
of the members was in question and possibly because the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland did not want any problems with the Grand Lodge of England.  It 
was received in 1760 by the Lodge.  This Lodge was named Lodge of St. 
Andrew.

   On March 6, 1775, Lodge #441, Irish Constitution, John Batt - Master, 
who was a sergeant in the British Army stationed under General Gage at 
Castle Williams, Boston, Mass., initiated Prince Hall and fourteen other 
Negro men of Boston into the mysteries of Freemasonry.  From that 
beginning, with small additions from foreign countries, sprang the 
Masonry among the Negros of America.  These fifteen brethren were 
probably authorized by the Lodge which made them to assemble as a Lodge.  
At any rate, they  did so.  It does not appear that they did any 
work until after they were regularly warranted.  They applied to the 
Grand Lodge of England for a warrant, March 2, 1784.  It was issued to 
them as 'African Lodge #459,' with Prince Hall as Master, September
29, 1884.  The charter was not received until May 2, 1787.  The Lodge 
was organized under the warrant on May 6, 1787.  It remained upon the 
English registry until the amalgamation of the rival Grand Lodges of the 
Moderns and the Ancients into the present United Grand Lodge of 
England.  In 1813, it and the other English Lodges in the United States 
were erased.  Incidentally, African Lodge #459 had been renumbered #370 
in 1792 but the Lodge was unaware of this.

   Brother Prince Hall worked diligently in the cause of Freemasonry.   
From 1792 until his death in 1807 he exercised all the functions of a 
Provincial Grand Master.  The year 1792 is noteworthy because this is 
the year that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was organized.  Two 
Lodges were not part of this event:  St. Andrew's Lodge and African
Lodge.  St. Andrews Lodge was accepted into the Grand Lodge of 
Massachusetts in December l, 1809 after years of negotiation and 
pressure from the Massachusetts Grand Lodge.  The African Lodge was 
roundly ignored from the outset.

   In 1797 Prince Hall issued a license to thirteen black men who had 
been made Masons in England to assemble and work as a Lodge in 
Philadelphia.  Another Lodge was organized under his authority in 
Providence Rhode Island.  In 1808 these three Lodges joined in forming 
the "African Grand Lodge of Boston."  Negro Freemasonry in the United
States was off and running.

   The second Negro Grand Lodge was formed in 1815 and was called the 
First Independent African Grand Lodge of North America in and for the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.   The third was the "Hiram Grand Lodge
of Pennsylvania."   These three Grand Lodges recognized each other
formally in 1847 and formed a National Grand Lodge.  Practically all 
Negro Lodges in the Country are descended from one of these three 
original Grand Lodges.

It should be noted that, in the early days, the African Lodge was freely 
visited by the white Masons.  Gradually, especially after some white 
Grand Lodges, acting upon the slight information that was accessible in 
those days, questioned their standing.   Over time, the advantages of 
exclusive territorial jurisdiction became apparent and visitation slowed 
and stopped altogether.  They had become more or less irregular until 
this became the rule of the land.  It should also be noted that the term 
"irregular" is seldom utilized correctly.  Prince Hall Lodges should
be more correctly titled "unrecognized."  This has nothing to do with
whether or not a particular Prince Hall Lodge or Grand Lodge practices 
Freemasonry according to the Ancient Landmarks.  It is simply a tool 
whereby Grand Lodges do not allow inter-visitation between the members 
of their jurisdiction and the Prince Hall Lodges.
Following is the text of the application for the English Warrant by 

Prince Hall:
Wm. M. Moody
Most W. Master

Permit me to return you my hearty thankes for your brotherly courtesy to 
my Brothers Read and Mene, when in a strange land and in a time of need, 
you was so good is to receive them as Brothers, and to treat them so 
cordially as they informed me you did.  What you have done to them I 
luck upon as done to me and the hole of us, for which I give you meney 
thanks, and like wise to all the lodge.  I hope they behaved themselves 
as men and masons with you; if not I would be glad if you would be so 
good as to let me know of it and they shall be dealt with accordingly. 
Dear Br.  I would inform you that this lodge hath been founded almost 
this eight years and had no Warrant yet But only a Permet from Grand 
Master Row to walk on St. Johns day and Bury our dead in form which we 
now injoy.  We have had no opportunity tell now of aplieing for a 
warrant through we were prested upon to send to France for one but we 
refused for reasons best known to ourselves.  We now apply to the 
Fountain from which we received light for this favor, and Dear Sir I 
must beg you to be our advocate for us by sending this our request to 
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland Grand Master, and to the Right 
Honourable Earl of Effingham acting Grand Master, the Deputy Grand 
Master and Grand Wardens and the rest of the Brethren of the Grand Lodge 
that they would graciusly be pleased to grant us a Charter to hold this 
Lodge as long as we behave up to the spirit of the constitution.
This our humble petition we hope His Highness and the rest of the Grand 
Lodge will graciously be pleased to grant us there.
Though poor yet sincear brethren of the craft, and therefore in duty 
bound ever to pray, I beg leave to subscribe myself
Your Loving Friend and Brother
Prince Hall
Master of African Lodge No 1
Following is the text of the original Warrant granted by the Grand Lodge 
of England to African Lodge #459.
To All and Every:
Our right worshipful and loving brethren:  We, Thomas Howard, Earl of 
Effingham Lord Howard; etc.; Acting Grand Master, under the authority of 
his Royal Highness, Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, etc.; Grand 
Master of the Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted 
Masons, send greeting:
Know ye that we at the humble petition of our Right Trusty and well 
beloved brethren, Prince Hall, Boston Smith; Thomas Sanderson, and 
several other brethren residing in Boston, New England, and North 
America do hereby constitute the said brethren in to a regular Lodge of 
Free and Accepted Masons, under the title or denomination for the 
African Lodge, to be opened in Boston, aforesaid; and do further; as 
their said petition and of the great trust and confidence reposed in 
every one of the said above named brethren hereby appoint the said 
Prince Hall to be Master; Boston Smith, Senior Warden; and Thomas 
Sanderson, Junior Warden for the opening of said Lodge, and for such 
further time only as shall be thought by the brethren thereof, it being 
our will that this our appointment of the above officers, shall in no 
wise effect any further election of officers of said Lodge, but that 
such election shall be regulated, agreeable to such by-laws of the said 
Lodge as shall be consistent with the Grand Laws of the Society, 
contained in the Book of Constitutions; and, further, that you do from 
time to time cause to be entered in a book kept for that purpose, an 
account of your proceedings in the Lodge, together with all such Rules, 
Orders and Regulations as shall be made for the good government of the 
same that in no wise you omit once in every year to send to us for our 
predecessors, Grand Masters or Royland Holt, Esq., our Deputy Grand 
Master for the time being an account of your said proceedings and copies 
of all such  Rules Orders and Regulations as shall be made as aforesaid, 
together with the list of the members of the Lodge, and such sum of 
money as may suit the circumstances of the Lodge and reasonably be 
expected toward the Grand Charity.
Moreover, we will, and require of you; the said Prince Hall, as soon as 
conveniently may be, to send an account in writing of what may be done 
by virtue of these presents.
Given at London under our hand and seal of Masonry, (seal) this 29th day 
of September A.L. 5784, A.D. 1784; by the Grand Masters command
R. Holt, Deputy Grand Master                            Attes: William 
White, Grand Secretary


John T. Hilton was master of African Lodge and was Grand Master of the 
African Grand Lodge when the next phase in the evolution of Prince Hall 
Masonry began. He was probably the most efficient Master that African 
Lodge ever had, sensing the need for a Grand Lodge, attempted to 
accomplish this by a self-declaration of Grand Lodge status, at the same 
time attempting to escape the existing limitations upon him by declaring 
independence of all other Masonic bodies in the world.  He became the 
first Grand Master of the National Compact.
By the time John Hilton did this, Mother Kilwinning and Lodge Melrose 
St. John had done the same thing previously so this was nothing that had 
not already been done.  Kilwinning was chartering lodges as early as 
1749.
This phase in the history of the Prince Hall Grand Lodges was the 
forming of the National Grand Lodge, commonly called the Compact and 
formally named the National Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Ancient 
York Masons.  This Grand Lodge was rife with discontent among the 
brethren of the various Grand Lodges Lodges from the beginning.  This 
discontent started at the convention at Boston, Mass. on June 23, 1847 
where the Compct began. The Lodges had obstensively met, at the 
invitation of the African Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, to exchange 
ideas as to the fraternal relations between the various Lodges.  Also, 
for the brethren of the various Grand Lodges to celebrate St. Johns Day 
with a parade and an oration.  This was accomplished to the satisfaction 
of all involved.
The Masons from Philadelphia arrived too late to take part in the 
business of this convention.   They, evidently with the consent of the 
original callers of the convention, re-opened it on June 24, 1847.  This 
group did, in fact, pass legislation and formed a Grand Lodge that set 
itself above all others that were formed from the original Prince Hall 
Lodge.  It wrote a Constitution that made it the sole authority over the 
three symbolic degrees of Masonry.  It also made itself the sole body 
that could warrant Grand Lodges in the United States. 
This National Compact took no notice of any body but itself.  It refused 
to listen to the constituent Lodges when they complained about the high 
handed way that it ran things.  The various Grand Lodges that did not 
become part of it were invaded by it as it chartered Lodges in their 
spheres of influence despite having an agreement not to do this.  
In 1848 it established a Grand Lodge in New York which already had one.  
In 1855 it did the same in Delaware.  Later, it did the same in 
Maryland, Rhode Island, Virginia, and other states.  If there was a 
rival Grand Lodge in a State it constituted Lodges within the sphere of 
that Grand Lodge.  
At a convention in Chicago, Illinois on September 4 - 6, 1877 a 
resolution was passed by fifteen Grand Lodges to dissolve the National 
Compact.  It was ignored by that body, probably because there was 
nothing left of it by this time.
On May 10, 1878 another convention was held and it formed a union of 
Grand Lodges and again passed a resolution.  This time asking the 
National Compact to disband.  The power of the National Compact had been 
broken by this time and no Grand Lodges were present at the meeting in 
Wilmington, Delaware in 1877.  It was, in effect, dead as an entity.  
The dates that the Prince Hall Grand Lodges withdrew from the 
National Compact and/or formed are as follows:
1848 -	New York, Boyer Grand Lodge, June 7 - reorganized with Nat. 
Compact Lodges to form the "United Grand Lodge" on December 27,
1878
1849 -	Pennsylvania, Hiram Grand Lodge, November 9 - Independent 
grand body, June 28, 1850 - United with Compact Lodges to form the 
presently named "Prince Hall Grand Lodge" on December 24, 1882
1850 -	New Jersey, Independent, April 29 - Consolidated into what 
is now known as the "Prince Hall Grand Lodge," December 29, 1875
1850 -	Delaware, Independent Grand Lodge, July 1
1867 -	Virginia,  Independent grand body, October 14 - united with 
Compact Lodges formed what is now the Prince Hall Grand Lodge 
on December 15, 1875
1868 -	Ohio, September 21 and formed what is now known as the 
Prince Hall Grand Lodge.
1868 -	Ontario, Canada, Exact date unknown - Formed what is now the 
Prince Hall Grand Lodge.
1870 -	Tennessee, Independent, August 3,  - reorganized with 
Compact Lodges on June 12, 1888 to form what is now the Prince 
Hall Grand Lodge.
1871 -	Missouri, Independent, July 31
1872 -	Florida, Independent and Compact Lodges formed what is now 
the "Union Grand Lodge" on June 12, 1872
1872 -  North Carolina, formed what is now the "Prince Hall Grand
Lodge," exact date unknown.
1873 -	Indiana, June 23
1873 -	Michigan, Compact dissolved, September 22 - formed with 
Unity Grand Lodge to form what is now the Prince Hall Grand 
Lodge, September 23
1873 -	Prince Hall Grand Lodge, December 18
1874 -	California, Conventional Independent Grand Lodge and Compact 
Lodges consolidated into what is now the "Prince Hall Grand
Lodge," June 24
1874 -	Georgia, Independent formed, June 23 - consolidated with 
Compact Lodges to form what is now the "Prince Hall Grand
Lodge." June, 1888
1874 -	Louisiana, Eureka Grand Lodge and the Union Grand Lodge 
(Compact) consolidated to form what is now the "Prince Hall Grand
Lodge," exact date unknown.
1875 -	Kentucky, exact date unknown
1875 -	Rhode Island, Union Grand Lodge and Harmony Grand Lodge 
(Compact) reorganized into what is now known as "Prince Hall
Grand Lodge," October 17
1876 -	Kansas, King Solomon Grand Lodge formed what is now known as 
the "Prince Hall Grand Lodge," between March 7 and 9
1876 -	Maryland, First Independent Colored Grand Lodge and Union 
Grand Lodge (Compact) reorganized into what is now the "Prince
Hall Grand Lodge,"  September 12


The main objection raised today against intervisitation between Grand 
Lodges in the same State has to do with a purely American doctrine - 
exclusive jurisdiction.  This doctrine had its beginnings during and 
after the Revolutionary War when the Grand Lodges began to form.  The 
various States began to form Grand Lodges and would then Charter Lodges 
only within the territory of their State and the areas that did not have 
an existing Grand Lodge.  Gradually the concept of exclusive 
jurisdiction became the norm.
In 1796 the Grand Lodge of New York passed a resolution stating that it 
would not issue a Charter to any group in a State where there was 
another Grand Lodge in existence.  The concept spread by common consent 
and not rules as most Masons believe today.  There were exceptions to 
this rule in the early days but they were all ironed out in the end.
The important thing about this is that it is being used as a reason to 
not recognize the Prince Hall Grand Lodges in many jurisdictions.

   Many books have been written about the Black Lodges in North America 
over the years.  Probably the most read is A Documentary Account of 
Prince Hall and Other Black Fraternal Orders by Henry Wilson Coil, Sr.   
This book is the first of a series that I will use the arguments against 
regularity from and attempt to answer them.  These objections are as 
follows:
				---------------------------

Ob:   "The supposed acting army lodge, in recognition of the fact that
Masonic degrees can be conferred only in a lodge, turned out to be no 
more than a lone former sergeant named John Batt in the British forces 
who, having been discharged therefrom, enlisted in the American Army at 
Boston for a short period until he deserted.  Since it was a financial 
venture for him, it is difficult to see why he selected Blacks for his 
prey, none of whom seem to have been overburdened with wealth, though 
the needs of White petitioners were supplied by the several lodges in 
that city."
 
Doc:   The supporting documents for these claims found  in this tome 
are: 1) Reproduction of the record of the fees paid for the degrees, 2) 
Reproduction of the record of the degrees conferred, 3) Reproduction of 
British General Robert Pagets Regimental Roster showing the discharge 
of John Batt on February 3, 1777, 4) Reproduction of War records of Col. 
Henleys Regiment (American) showing enlistment and desertion of John 
Batt (enlisted 2/20/1778 and deserted 6/10/1778, 5) Listing of John 
Batts military services in 1777-78, 6) Listing of English Muster Rolls 
for John Batt for 1775-77, 7) Pay receipt for 5/28/1778 with John Batts 
signature, and 8) War record of Henleys Regiment for enlistment bonus 
dated 5/28/1778

Ans:   This claim is a very deliberate attempt to put the date of the 
initiation, passing and raising of Prince Hall and his fellows to a time 
when this could not have legally happened.  A perusal of the documents 
show that the year of the event is missing and this makes the claim 
possible.  It is reasonably certain that John Batt did, in fact, sell 
degrees in 1778 but nowhere is Prince Hall or any of his Brethren 
mentioned in the documentation.  I submit that, since Military Lodge 
#441 was, in fact, active at Castle William in 1775 that it is not up to 
the Prince Hall Masons to prove that he was legally initiated, passed 
and raised at that time, as Prince Hall himself claimed but, rather, is 
up to those who do not believe this to disprove it.

   It must be remembered that Masonic Records for this period are 
fragmentary in many places and the lack of a positive document to show 
the fact of conferral is missing for a great many men who are claimed by 
our Fraternity as true and trusty brothers.

				---------------------------------

Ob:   "African Lodge ceased after 1797 to pay Grand Lodge dues and to
correspond with the London office, for which reason it was dropped from 
the joint roll of the UGLE in 1813 along with 352 or 363 other 
delinquent lodges.  In this or any similar case, those who "creep under
the tent" to enter the Fraternity, by that very act, declare their lack
of Masonic qualities, for no Masonic body rejects good material."

Ans:   Oh really?  It is an established fact that Grand Lodges 
throughout the United States have, for over two hundred years, rejected 
"good material" because of the color of their skin.  This racial
bigotry has even been, at one time or other, been written into the 
Masonic Code in many Grand Jurisdictions.  Following are some 
representative examples: 1) Louisiana - 1924 - decision of GM - "A
mixture of white and Negro blood made a man ineligible for the degrees"
2) South Carolina - Ahiman Rezon - ".....that a candidate must be of
free white parents." 3) Texas - Constitution and Laws - 1948 - "This
Grand Lodge does not recognize as legal or Masonic any body of Negroes 
working under any character of charter in the United States, without 
regard to the body granting such charter, and they regard all Negro 
lodges as clandestine, illegal and un-Masonic, and moreover, they regard 
as highly censurable the course of any Grand Lodge in the United States 
which shall recognize such bodies of Negroes as Masonic Lodges."  4)
Illinois - Proceedings - 1899 - "Therefore to have Lodges exclusively
of Negroes, would be dangerous to the high character of our Order.  And, 
to associate them in Lodges with white brethren , would be impossible."
5) Delaware - Proceedings - 1867 - contained in obligation of Master 
Mason - "**********of any Negro, mulatto, or colored person of the
United States *******************"

   As can be seen from these examples it was impossible for the Negro to 
petition a Lodge for the degrees or for Negro Lodges to petition 
anywhere for entrance into any Grand Lodge in the Country.  I submit 
that Freemasonry itself does not draw barriers on the basis of the color 
of skin.  Since the general practice in the United States is to draw 
this line, the Negro Lodges are left with no choice but to be separate.  
Just who is the un-Masonic party here?

   When the UGLE dropped the Lodges in the United States from the rolls 
in 1813, the UGLE had a problem on their hands because every Lodge 
wanted a low number.  The re-numbering process left out all Lodges that 
had not been regular in their Charity donations for a period of time.  
This had nothing to do with whether or not the Lodges were worthy of 
being Lodges.	
		
			----------------------------------------------

Ob:   "The Blacks failed to appreciate the honor and nobility of the
Freemasonry which was being exhibited before their eyes in the 
Provincial Grand Lodges and lodges in Boston."

Ans:   When the two existing Grand Lodges in Massachusetts consolidated 
in 1792 there were two Lodges that were not invited: St. Andrew's and
African Lodge.  The Grand Lodge immediately put pressure on St. Andrew's
to join which it did in 1809.  African Lodge was totally ignored from 
the outset.  I wonder what "nobility" "was being exhibited before
their eyes in the Provincial Grand Lodges in Boston?   Is it any 
wonder that they did not wish to intrude?  Is it any wonder that they 
felt the need to go their own way?  I think they did what they felt they 
had to do under the circumstances.

			------------------------------------------------------
-----

Ob:   "The Blacks, flouted the provisions of the very Grand Lodge which
had so imprudently given them the warrant of 1784-87 and paid no heed to 
the English General Regulations of 1721-23, eventually ignoring the 
Grand Lodge itself."
   
Ans:   HRH and the Earl of Effingham evidently did not feel that it was 
imprudent to issue the warrant to African Lodge and there is no 
basis from which to make such a statement.  Investigation was certainly 
carried out as to the worthiness of Prince Hall prior to the issuance as 
is the norm in Freemasonry.  As to the rest of this, I wonder why the 
brush is only used to paint African Lodge and none of the other 352-363 
Lodges that were in the same position at the time? 

			------------------------------------------------------
------

Ob:   "Irrespective of the reasons, those Blacks occupied a depressed
social, educational and economic position and lacked the number of men 
sufficient to maintain a Masonic lodge.  Hundreds of White lodges have 
expired for the same reasons."  "There are no preserved minutes of
the lodge between 1788 and 1807, inclusive, though minutes before and 
after that period are preserved.  It was during this period that the 
communications with London ceased."

Ans:   Hundreds of white lodges and even some Grand Lodges have also 
resurrected after a period of dormancy.  The most common occurrences 
were the time following the "Anti Masonic period" in the 1800's.  I,
personally, know of Lodges in my own jurisdiction that have lost minute 
books and they certainly are not being closed because they can not prove 
that they met for the years that are missing.  Again, an attempt to 
paint the Negro Lodges with a different brush.

------------------------------------------------------


Ob:   "The African Lodge took no notice of the erasure of its name and
number from the Grand Lodge roll in 1813, though it could have 
petitioned for restoration."

Ans:   Neither did the other Lodges that were stricken from the rolls 
who had their Lodges in the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ob:   "African Lodge could not under regulations of the Grand Lodge do
aught but make, pass and raise Masons, nor could it create other lodges 
or a Grand Lodge."

Ans:   Neither could Mother Kilwinning Lodge or St. Andrews Lodge but 
they, among others, did the same thing and I do not see them being 
attacked for doing it nor are the Lodges they chartered deemed 
clandestine.
------------------------------------------------------


Ob:   "By this time, Prince Hall had become the forgotten man, His name
is mentioned in no record or transaction from 1788 until the middle of 
the nineteenth century, when he was rediscovered.  There were no Prince 
Hall Lodges or Grand Lodges, the first to bear that name coming in 
1848."

   The convention that formed the National Compact was then held.

   "Then followed thirty years of considerable confusion and
dissension, largely seeming to grow out of the disposition of some 
National Grand Masters to exercise their overlordship too vigorously and 
to alienate many of the state Grand Lodge officers.  Although the 
National body met triennially and should have issued ten reports of 
proceedings down to 1877, only four were printed and made available to 
the public.  This has enabled the Blacks of either establishment to 
circulate statements about their activities, many of which seem vicious 
or misleading.  Unsupported rumor and propaganda were so widespread that 
the rebels against the National Compact who withdrew succeeded in 
setting themselves up as the conservative patriots defending states 
rights and claiming the Nationals to be frauds or clandestine.  As 
proof of their Masonic purity of origin, they adopted after some years 
and one by one the name Prince Hall and asserted that the National 
Grand Lodge had been dissolved in 1877.  The facts are that the 
Triennial Proceedings in printed form have been available in recent 
years and it is said that there are Compact subordinate lodges in 
twenty-seven states."

Ob:   Any statements made by one Grand Lodge to or about another during 
the time of the National Compact are not material to the regularity so I 
have no comment on this.

   Every Prince Hall Grand Lodge can, and does, trace its ancestry to 
one of the three original Negro Grand Lodges and this is an attempt to 
mislead.

   Since the various Grand Lodges had, by 1877, severed relations with 
the National Compact and the statement is it is said I submit that 
the National Compact did, in fact, dissolve in 1877.  If proof of the 
contrary exists, why is the statement worded thus?

   As for the Triennial Proceedings.  The Prince Hall organization has 
had Proceedings of their York Rite Triennials right along.

                 ---------------------------

In 1897 two Negro Masons named Con A. Rideout and Gideon S. Bailey wrote 
a letter to the Grand Lodge of Washington asking if there was some way 
that they could be recognized as regular Masons.  The Grand Lodge 
appointed a committee consisting of MW Thomas M. Reed PGM,  William F. 
Upton, DGM and James E. Edmiston PGM to investigate the regularity of 
their credentials.  
In 1898 the committee returned their report and stated that indeed they 
were in order and their regularity was without doubt.  The GL of 
Washington then voted on a four part resolution which, in part, stated 
that: 1)  "neither race nor color are among the tests proper to be
applied to determine the fitness of a candidate for the degrees of 
Masonry.   2)  "in view of recognized laws of the Masonic Institution,
and of facts of history apparently well authenticated and worthy of full 
credence, this Grand Lodge does not see its way clear to deny or 
question the right of its constituent Lodges, or of the members thereof, 
to recognize as brother Masons, Negroes who have been initiated in 
Lodges which can trace their origin to African Lodge, No. 459."  3)
This Grand Lodge deems it to the best interest of Masonry to declare 
that if regular Masons of African descent desire to establish, within 
the State of Washington, Lodges confined wholly or chiefly to brethren 
of their race, and shall establish such Lodges strictly in accordance 
with the Landmarks of Masonry, and in accordance with Masonic Law as 
heretofore interpreted by Masonic tribunals of their own race, and if 
such Lodges shall in due time see fit in like manner to erect a Grand 
Lodge for the better administration of their affairs, this Grand Lodge, 
having more regard for the good of Masonry than for any mere 
technicality, will not regard the establishment of such Lodges of Grand 
Lodge as an invasion of its jurisdiction, but as evincing a disposition 
to conform to its own ideas as to the best interests of the Craft under 
peculiar circumstances;  and will ever extend to our colored brethren 
its sincere sympathy in every effort to promote the welfare of the Craft 
or inculcate the pure principles of our Art.  4)  "The Grand
Secretary be instructed to acknowledge receipt of the communication from 
Gideon S. Bailey and Con A. Rideout, and forward to them a copy of the 
printed Proceedings of this annual communication of the Grand Lodge, as 
a response to said communication."
This created a firestorm of protest and declarations of non 
communication with the Grand Lodge of Washington.  Much to the shame of 
the Grand Lodge it buckled under and rescinded this resolution in 1899 
bringing a cloud over Freemasonry for another 90 plus years in 
Washington.
The thing that is most interesting about this period is the 
investigation into the regularity of the Prince Hall Lodges.  Much of 
the material contained therein is being used today as a basis for 
declarations of coexistence and mutual visitation in the various Grand 
Lodges that have recognized Prince Hall Masonry and those who are 
presently in process of considering doing the same.  There are still 
portions of this Country, however, that stop acting like Freemasons when 
the question of Negro Masonry comes into the picture.  They forget that 
Freemasonry only looks for the truth and is open to any good man, 
regardless of race.
Another interesting thing that happened in 1898 is that the UGLE issued 
a written statement that it did not want to discuss "Colored Masonry"
with the Grand Lodge of Washington as it was not directly concerned with 
the question.
Following are the findings of the Grand Lodge of Washington which have 
proved to be accurate over the test of time and the objections and 
answers to those objections as found by the investigation.
				------------------------------

Additional objections to the initiation of Prince Hall and his 
brethren:
Ob:    They were made Masons illegally because a Provincial Grand Lodge 
in Boston had forbidden army Lodges to initiate civilians.

Ans:   This objection comes as an allegation that the UGLE issued this 
injunction but, even if true, the brethren were regularized in 1784 by 
virtue of the Warrant issued by the Grand Master of the UGLE.    
Subsequent to the time of this objection, is falsity obvious, the 
objection was transferred to Provincial Grand Master Warren issued this 
injunction in 1773 but there is no proof of this.  Failing in having 
this objection hold up a third surfaced.  This one has the Grand Lodge 
of Ireland had a regulation prohibiting the practice where there was a 
Towns Lodge where the Regiment was quartered.   Despite any 
injunction prohibiting the practice, any man made a Mason within a 
regularly constituted Lodge of Masons is a Mason and this action is 
absolute.  The Lodge may be reprimanded for the action but the man 
remains a regular Mason. 

				-------------------------------

Ob:    Negroes are ineligible to be made Masons
Ans:  Excerpt from the "Grand Lodge MS, No. 2, circa 1650:
"28.  That noe person shall be accepted a free Mason but Such as are of
able body, honest parentage, good Reputacon, & observers of ye Lawes of 
the Land."
These are some of the ancient rules that we follow in our Fraternity and 
they do not have a word in them about skin color.
				---------------------------------

Ob:   The Lodge had no warrant or charter until 1787 and still met as a 
Lodge

Ans:   This fact was abundantly clear to the Grand Master of the UGLE 
when he issued the Warrant as it was stated in Prince Halls prayer for a 
Warrant and he did not have objections to this.  If he did not and  
issued the warrant, which he did, then no one has a right to object.

				----------------------------------

Ob:   England lost the right to warrant Lodges in the United States when 
the independence of this Nation was recognized.

Ans:   "To travel in foreign countries, work and receive masters
wages."  Masons work and receive their wages in Lodges of Masons.  The
objection is impossible if this is a fact.  The UGLE does not do this as 
a simple courtesy today.

				------------------------------------

Ob:   The warrant was an invasion of the jurisdiction of a Massachusetts 
Grand Lodge.

Ans:  The American doctrine rears its head again.  As I have pointed out 
before, this is not according to ancient usage.  It is only an agreement 
entered into over time in North America.
				-------------------------------------

Ob:    African Lodge was never formally constituted

Ands:    Read the warrant.  The Lodge was constituted upon issuance of 
the Warrant.  It states so on its face.

				-----------------------------------

Ob:   The organization of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1792 
invalidated the further existence of African Lodge.

Ans:    Exclusive jurisdiction again.  Even the action of the Grand 
Lodge of Massachusetts in 1797 which stated that "The Grand Lodge will
not hold communication with, or admit as visitors, any Masons, residing 
in this State, who hold authority under, and acknowledge the supremacy 
of, any foreign Grand Lodge," does not invalidate the existence.
Besides, this was passed simply to coerce St. Andrews Lodge, which met 
at the Green Dragon, into joining.  The wording in no way questions the 
Masonry of any other Lodge.  It is probable that this injunction made 
the African Lodge unrecognized in Massachusetts as of that time.

				----------------------------------

Ob:  That it surrendered its warrant to the UGLE in 1824.
Ans:   In 1824 African Lodge stated in a letter to the UGLE that they 
were Royal Arch Masons and that the warrant they had only authorized 
them to confer the first three degrees.  They wished to confer the four 
RA degrees and so solicited the "Renewal of our Charter."  There is no
mention of surrendering any charter and the objection is not worthy.
				-----------------------------------


Ob:   African Lodge declared itself independent in 1827.

Ans:   This came because African Lodge published in a newspaper, after 
being unsuccessful in communicating with the UGLE, the following:

   "Taking all these things into consideration, we have come to the
conclusion that with what knowledge we possess of Masonry, and as people 
of color by ourselves, we are, and ought by rights to be, free and 
independent of other Lodges.  We do, therefore, with this belief, 
publicly declare ourselves free and independent of any Lodge from this 
day, and that we will not be tributary, or be governed by any Lodge but 
our own.  We agree solemnly to abide by all proper rules and regulations 
which govern the like Fraternity, discountenancing all imposition to 
injure the Order, and to use all fair and honorable means to promote its 
prosperity, resting in full hope that this will enable us to transmit it 
in its purity to our posterity for their enjoyment." . . . "We did no
more than the Massachusetts Grand Lodge did on the 6th day of December, 
1782, when it, in full Grand Lodge, adopted the following resolution , 
and made it part of its constitution:  'That this Lodge be hereafter
known and called by the name of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge of Ancient 
Masons, and that it is free and independent, in its government and 
official authority, of any other Grand Lodge or Grand Master in the 
Universe.' "

   "Did this declaration of independence destroy the legality, if it
had any, of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge?  Was its existence brought to 
an end by this act?  We believe not.  Then why should it destroy the 
legality of African Lodge, or terminate its existence?  We demand that 
you measure both of us by the same rule, and we will abide the result; 
any other course is dishonest, unfair and unjust."

   At the time this was written the Lodge did not know it had been 
removed from the roll of the UGLE.  Although it had acted as a Mother 
Lodge, it still thought of itself as a Lodge on the roll of the UGLE.
The rest of the objection is put aside as the statement indicates.  What 
is good for the goose is good for the gander.
				---------------------------
Ob:     Prince Hall Lodges can not be recognized because the Grand Lodge 
of Massachusetts has declared them clandestine.

Ans:    Even if there was such a decision it would be binding only on 
Prince Hall Lodges within the sphere of the Grand Lodge of 
Massachusetts.  Since there is not and never has been, this fact is of 
no consequence.  In order for the Prince Hall Lodges to become 
clandestine in Massachusetts the Massachusetts Grand Lodge must 
first officially expel some or all of the Lodges in the Prince Hall 
Grand Lodge.  (Sort of like the Popes did when there were three of them)  
This, they have never done so the objection is without foundation.

   Also, The GL of Massachusetts declared Prince Hall Masons "regular"
In 1947.
				----------------------------

Ob:   That we should not be compelled to associate with Negroes on a 
basis of social equality- (i.e. bigots)

Ans:   "Freemasonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion and
conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise remain 
perpetually at a distance."

   No matter what ones opinion of the social standing of a Negro is, it 
is not Masonic to refuse to meet them upon the level based on this 
opinion.  Freemasonry is not built upon the foundation of opinion, it is 
built upon the concept of the brotherhood of man.  Blacks come under 
that heading.

				------------------------------

Let us take a look at differences and deal with Comity, right and wrong 
and the American Doctrine once again.  Following is the text of the 
answer to these things as written by MW William H. Upton PGM of 
Washington in 1899.  This is as true today as it was when it was written 
and no one has ever said these things better.
		--------------------------------------------

". . . . I take it that it is undeniable that the unaffiliated Mason,
and the Mason whose Grand Lodge has not bound his action in the matter, 
should accord to the Negro Masons just that standing which his 
individual judgment and conscience tell him they are entitled to,- 
neither more nor less.  It seems to me, also, that as members of that 
Universal Fraternity the existence of which is too often almost 
forgotten, the individual Mason has certain rights and duties, and bears 
certain relations towards all other members of that Fraternity-even 
towards those who may be technically non-regular, from a Grand Lodge 
standpoint,-with which Grand Lodges ought to interfere as little as 
possible; and that, as our committee suggested last year, a Grand Lodge 
ought not, by a mere majority vote upon what is largely a question of 
history and a matter of opinion, to bind each individual Mason of the 
Grand Jurisdiction either on the one hand, to spurn one who is in his 
judgment a true and lawful brother, or, on the other, to converse 
Masonically with one whom he honestly believes to be a clandestine 
Mason."
"Subject to these limitations, I take it as fundamental that each Grand
Lodge-Kentucky and South Carolina no less than England and Washington-
ought to determine for itself, but of course for no one else, how it 
will treat these people and their organizations.  This seems to me the 
only course consistent either with Masonic harmony or with that great 
principle of "self-government, subject to the Landmarks only" which
lies at the very base of all Masonic law.  I have no right or desire to 
bind the consciences or the judgment of my Kentucky brethren; and they 
SHALL NOT bind mine.  If this view be adopted, we must expect to see 
Negro Masonry accorded, as is the case to-day, a different standing in 
one State or country from that which it has in another.  In 
jurisdictions where prejudice-I will not say against Negroes, but 
against Negro Masons, if you please-is the strongest, and the principles 
of Masonry the least appreciated, we may expect that, perhaps for 
another century, Negro Masons will be denounced as "clandestine and
spurious," and all intercourse with them will be absolutely prohibited.
In others, of a little higher order of intelligence, and where the light 
of Masonry burns a little brighter, while the Negro organizations may be 
treated as invaders, individual Negro Masons may be treated as 
unrecognized rather than as spurious Masons.  In others, where darkness 
and error, passion and prejudice, have shrunk even more before reason 
and knowledge, "sweetness and light," it may perhaps be held that the
rise of Negro Masonry in America-as the rise of Ancient Masonry did 
in England-divided our fraternity into two distinct Societies, between 
which "there was very little in common, except the wearing of aprons
and the cultivation and practice of charity"; but both of which were,
according to their lights loyal members of one indivisible FRATERNITY.  
And, best of all, may we not hope to see-if not yet, still in the not 
too distant future-some jurisdictions wherein will exist that happy 
condition which Dermott longed for but did not live to see-a general 
conformity and universal unity between the worthy masons of all 
denominations? - a condition which was wrought to pass, so far as 
England was concerned, in 1813, by the happy union of those who had 
theretofore regarded each other as "a mob of impenitent Schismatics."
The question whether-after we reach the stage of development which 
enables us to see that the Masonry of the Negroes is Masonry and has a 
right to exist-we should absorb them into our organizations or encourage 
them to maintain separate ones, is beyond the scope of this paper.  The 
American writers who have written most strongly against one of these 
plans would have written more strongly against the other, had that other 
been under consideration at the time:-their object being to discourage 
action of any kind.  My own opinion is, that the former course is most 
consistent with the genius of the Masonic Institution and will 
ultimately prevail; but that there are few parts of America in which 
race feeling will not cause the latter to be preferred for a generation 
or two longer.  I am entirely clear that each Grand Lodge must settle 
this question for itself; but agree that all information that might be 
obtained by a full discussion of both plans ought to be carefully 
weighed.
   "Whether the rights of Negro Masons are finally to be recognized or
denied; whether or not Masonry shall be able to vindicate its 
catholicity even when tried by the severe test of race feeling; whether 
we are destined to realize that the two Societies already alluded to 
are but branches of one Universal Fraternity, or are to see the breach 
between white Mason and black Mason widened into a gulf of hatred and 
war; until these questions are settled, there is a demand upon all true 
lovers of the Masonic Institution, for the exercise of the highest 
degree of patience, forbearance, toleration and tact.  Upon this point-
as well, I believe, as of the relative positions of the Past, the 
Present and the Future upon the main question is more affected by 
prejudice.  Blood is thicker than creed.  Differences of religious faith 
among Masons would not create one-tenth part of the commotion, as the 
raising of this question of race does.  On this question of affiliation 
with races of all colors, or of one particular color, the men of the 
Past, the men of the Present, and the men of the Future have distinct 
ideas and feeling.  The first say No to the petition, under any and 
all circumstances, absolutely and emphatically, No.   The second say, 
We do not seek it; we do not object to it under some circumstances; 
with restrictions we would be willing, without restrictions, unwilling.  
In fact, we have not made up our minds.   The third say, We accept it, 
freely accept it, as the logical sequence of our being Masons, of our 
professing Masonry; for Masonry knows no race, knows all races alike.  
The first has undergone ossification, is already fossil.  The second is 
playing at tilting; see-saw; up and down; this way, that way; undecided; 
timid; too moral to do an injustice and defend it; too feeble in spirit 
to dare to be just.  The third, positive, progressive, in harmony with 
the tendencies of the age, hopeful, full of faith, actuated by feelings 
in accordance with the doctrines of the common fatherhood, universal 
brotherhood, and the claims of truth and justice to service and 
submission from every human soul.  The first would deny justice to the 
colored Masons; the second would not deny, would not demand, would be 
under the influence of the first; the third would insist on the whole 
truth being told, on the admission of every proper claim.

   Where such differences as these exist; in a Fraternity whose boast 
has been that she formed a center of union between men who must 
otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance, and has kept her 
votaries free from even the dissensions which flow from theological 
controversies, by leaving their particular opinions to themselves, 
dogmatic assertion, intolerance of differences, threats, and anathemas 
are out of place.  Washington cannot say to Kentucky, Thou shalt; 
nor can Kentucky say to Washington, Thou shall not;   For the 
brethren of Kentucky and of Washington are not only Free Masons, they 
are free men.  Least of all can Kentucky say to Washington, There is 
no question, for Washington hears the voice of Abels blood crying 
from the ground.  Nor can Kentucky tell us that another has settled this 
question for us; for that is but the deceitful voice of the women who 
weep for Tammuz.

It may be that in one State it is impracticable, yet, to even discuss 
the question of recognizing Negro Masons; that in another it is best 
that white and black Grand Lodges should profess ignorance of the 
others existence; that in a third the practicable plan is to recognize 
one Fraternity, divided, temporarily, into two Societies-friendly or 
hostile, as you will; while a State may exist in which one Grand lodge 
for all worthy masons of all denominations may even now be possible.  
May it not be that our brethren of the South know better than we what is 
for the best interests of Masonry in the South, as the South now is?  
May it not be that we, here on the shores of the prophetic Pacific, know 
better than they what is best for us?  In any event, it is the 
immemorial law of Masonry that we should regulate our affairs; they, 
theirs.  And have we forgotten that it is also the law that we should 
judge with candor, admonish with friendship, and reprehend with 
justice; and that, if submission is impracticable, we must carry 
on our contention without Wrath and Rancor, and saying or doing 
nothing which may hinder Brotherly Love and good Offices to be renewed 
and continued; that all may see the Benign Influence of Masonry, as all 
true Masons have done from the Beginning of the World, and will do to 
the End of Time.
Amen So Mote It Be
			-------------------------------------

In the past Grand Lodges have not recognized or had to really deal with 
the question of the regularity of the Prince Hall Grand Lodges for two 
reasons:  1) They had not been asked to and, 2) That the American 
Doctrine made it inadvisable to deal with it.  Things change and we must 
be willing to change also.  We are now faced with the question.  What we 
do with it in the United States will not change the fact that the Prince 
Hall Grand Lodges not only live but, are prospering.  They are not going 
to go away. 
We need to remember that we have no room to complain about the existence 
of these Grand Lodges for they occupy a field that we have long 
abandoned.  In most places in North America it has been the practice to 
admit only Caucasians into the Fraternity.  This has been no more than 
an attempt to shut Freemasonry away from all but those who we would seem 
to be the most comfortable with.  It has prevented us from truly uniting 
all men one with the other.   From the earliest days of this activity 
the Prince Hall Lodges have fulfilled a need in our fraternity to see 
that men of Every Country, sect and opinion have had access to our 
wonderful Fraternity and its teachings.  
Since they occupy a niche that we have not cultivated it should mean 
nothing to us to recognize the existence of these Grand Lodges at the 
very least.  This would go a long way toward making the Fraternity what 
it professes to be.  This also should not materially affect the 
American Doctrine either for, as I stated before, we have ignored 
these men anyway and there is not a Grand Lodge in the Country that has 
not known about these Lodges for generations.
Prince Hall Grand Lodges in existence at this time are as follows:

The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM Jurisdiction of Alaska 
- P.O. Box 736   Anchorage 99510

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM Jurisdiction of Arkansas - 
4th & State St.  Pine Bluff, 	71601
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of the State of Arizona and 
Jurisdiction, Incorporated
	2032 Calle Campana De Plata   Tucson, 85705

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Alabama - 1630 N. 4th 
Ave.  Birmingham   35203

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of the Commonwealth of the 
Bahama Islands and
Jurisdiction - P.O. Box F3121  Freeport, Grand Bahama, Bahamas
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM, State of California, 
Incorporated - P.O.Box 8 Vallejo
94590
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM, Colorado and Jurisdiction 
- 1244 Euclid Avenue  	Pueblo   81004

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Connecticut, 
Incorporated - 106 Goffe St.  New
Haven  06511
The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Delaware - 612 South 
Heald Street  	Wilmington	19801

The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, F&AM, PHA, District of 
Columbia Incorporated 
	1000 You St. N.W.   Washington D.C.   20001

Most Worshipful Union Grand Lodge Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity 
F&AM, PHA, Florida & Belize
	410 Broad St.   Jacksonville, FL   32202

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM, Jurisdiction of Georgia - 
330 Auburn Avenue, N.E.  
	Atlanta   30335

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM, State of Illinois - 809 E 
42nd Pl.   Chicago   60653

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, F&AM, Jurisdiction of Indiana - 
653 Northwest St.
Indianapolis  46202
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Iowa and Jurisdiction - 
1340 Idaho St.  Des Moines
50306
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Kentucky - 215 E Walnut 
St.  Midway   40307
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM for the State of Louisiana 
and Jurisdiction 
	1335-37 N Boulevard  Baton Rouge   70821 

The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM State of Maryland and 
Jurisdiction 	1307 	Eutaw 	Pl.   Baltimore   21217

The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Michigan - 3100 
Gratiot Ave.  	Detroit  	48207

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM, State of Minnesota and its 
Jurisdiction 	3832-	4th Ave 	South     Minneapolis   55409

Most Worshipful Stringer Grand Lodge, F&AM, Prince Hall Affiliation, 
Jurisdiction of Mississippi 
1072 John R. Lynch St.   Jackson  39203
The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, F&AM of Missouri and 
Jurisdiction 	4525 Olive St.   	St. Louis   63108

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Nebraska and its 
Jurisdiction - 2414 	Ames 	Avenue  Omaha   68111

The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Nevada - 2700 Colton 
St.  North Las Vegas	89030

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM, State of New Jersey - 188-
190 Irvine Turner Blvd.
	Newark   07108

Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of New Mexico - P.O. Box 5358  Albuquerque   
87185

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and 
Honorable Fraternity of F&AM of the
	State of New York - 454 W 155th St.  New York City   10032

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM, Jurisdiction of North 
Carolina - 1405 E. Washington 	St.    Greensboro   27420

The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ohio F&AM - 50 Hamilton 
Park  Columbus   43203

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM Jurisdiction of Oklahoma - 
5048 N Peoria St.   Tulsa
74126
The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM Province of Ontario and 
Jurisdiction - 7141
Lancaster Ave   Mississauga   L4T 2PZ
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Oregon, Incorporated - 
116-20 N.E. Russell St.
	Portland   97212

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of the State of Rhode 
Island - 883 Eddy St   Providence
02905
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of F&AM of the State of South 
Carolina - 2324 Gervais St.
	Columbia   29204

Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Tennessee - 253 S. Parkway    West 
Memphis  38109 

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia F&AM, Incorporated - 
1800 Monsview Pl.	Lynchburg   24504

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM, Washington and 
Jurisdiction - 306-24th Ave. E.  	Seattle	98144

Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of West Virginia - 513 Elm St.   Institute   
25112

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Incorporated F&AM of Wisconsin 
- 600 W. Walnut St. Suite 	30     Milwaukee   53209

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------

Since this paper first appeared on the CompuServe Masonry Forum some 
additional comments have been made in response to questions asked about 
it.  Some of these will help to appreciate where the Grand Lodges and 
Freemasons in the United States stand on the subject today.
These additions are as follows: (comments by the author)
Questions from Brother Conrad Lake, Hiram Grand Lodge,    NY,NY
<<<. Question: We are in the year 1994, are we still practicing Masonry 
the way (ideals) they did it in the 1800's-1900's. Or do things change
but really remain the same?>>>
Unfortunately, in many places in this Country things seem to remain the 
same.  In Washington, the PHGL and the MWGL have recognized one another, 
but only for visitation.  Joining a Lodge in the other jurisdiction is 
prohibited unless one demits from the present one.  The agreement here 
is not universally deemed as being good for the Masons or good for the 
Fraternity by Masons in both Jurisdictions.   The MWGL of Oregon is not 
in fraternal amity with the MWGL of Idaho at this time because Idaho 
voted to recognize the PHGL with jurisdiction in Idaho.  It happens to 
be the MWPHGL of Oregon and Oregon claims invasion of their territorial 
boundaries by this recognition.
Eight Grand Lodges at this time have mutual recognition and a few more 
are on the verge.  Some are waiting to see which way the wind blows and 
some have decided that Hell will freeze first.  Some Prince Hall Grand 
Masters feel this way also
I visit Lodges a lot and visit at least two Prince Hall Lodges each 
month.  I am the only non Prince Hall Mason who has his picture in the 
Washington Prince Hall Grand Lodge yearbook of Lodges for 1993.  In my 
travels I see prejudice on both sides.  This is not going to go away 
over night, even in states like this where we have visitation rights. 
<<< There are a great many Black Masons trying to bridge the gap between 
White Masons
and Black Masons (PH or Non PH)>>>
This is not a one way street.  There are many white Masons attempting 
to do the same thing.
<<< where are we going?>>>
Two of the main problems in States that are close to recognition are the 
ideas that the "elephant" is going to swallow the "fly" and that
some unhappy camper will cause a problem that will make news.   Part of 
this is due to the history of one GL or the other.  No one wants 
their GL to merge with another.  The same holds true in most Lodges.  
The other is possible if someone decides to resort to unscrupulous, 
illegal means to stop the process.  It is a very real possibility in 
some places
In Washington (I keep using this as it is where most of my experience in 
the subject lies)  the Prince Hall Lodges are outnumbered by a factor of 
over 10 to 1.  This made it difficult to get together on how the 
recognition would take place.  The process took eight years from the 
time the two Grand Jurisdictions held their first joint public meeting.  
Some of this time was due to the fear that the PHGL would lose its 
identity and some of it was due to the fact that it took that long to 
soften up the troops enough to give the resolution a chance at 
passage in both Grand Lodges.   
The stampede to visit one another has not materialized and it has been 
almost four years now.  Most of the time I am the only white Mason at 
the PH meeting and I have been told that the mutual visitations are very 
rare.  This, I feel, is unfortunate as we have much to offer one 
another, on both sides.  You can lead a horse to water but you cannot 
make him drink. 
Each year for the past three Thomas M. Reed Lodge #225 (where I am SW) 
has had a Prince Hall appreciation Table Lodge at a stated 
communication.  The speakers are the DGM of the MWGL of WA and the GM of 
the MWPHGL of WA.  The PHGM brings his retinue and we foot the bill for 
all.  The visitation at this event by the Brothers of the constituent PH 
Lodges is dismal.  We average about 85 to 100 Masons at this affair each 
year but there are about 10 PHGL officers and maybe, if we are lucky, 10 
brothers from PH.  Periodically we take all of our officers and visit a 
Prince Hall Lodge together.  Return visits are zero at this time.   We 
are trying to bridge the gap but it is not easy.  Distrust seems to 
permeate the whole process at the grass roots level.
<<< The real problem are the grand bodies.>>>
Ah, it were only that simple.  We live in a country that has made a fine 
art out of prejudice for over two hundred years.  1964 to 1994 is a drop 
in the bucket in that time.  Only one generation has grown to adulthood 
and the second are yet teenagers.  The vast majority of the membership 
in the Fraternity is over sixty years of age.  These men had already 
formed their opinions on the subject before Dr. King began to change the 
way the American Public deals with the issue.  It is all very fine for 
you or I to say that this way or that way is the way it should be and 
perhaps we would be right.  This all seems to go right out the window 
when the ballot is on the line.   Like it or not, the Officers of the 
constituent Lodges are Grand Lodge and can do as they wish in any matter 
not in conflict with the landmarks recognized by that GL when the Grand 
Lodge convenes.  This does not happen as most, in my experience, are 
sheep at the annual session and do as they are led to do, except when it 
comes to issues involving prejudice.   This has nothing to do with what 
is right and proper in any circumstance.
<<<Masons one on one make things work.>>>
No truer thing than this.  The converse is also just as true.
<<< Grand bodies tell you not to speak to this group because
they did not pay money to get into a Book.>>>

I am of the opinion that it is not up to any Grand Lodge to tell the 
Masons in their Jurisdiction who they can or can not visit.  But, they 
do this and it is not within my power or yours to end the practice.  The 
part about the money makes no sense as this has nothing to do with 
money.  IMO, It has everything to do with territorial power.
It is up to all of us to both know and understand the history and 
barriers and to help one another to see that future history changes and 
the barriers become a thing of yesterday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Questions from Brother Edward Bloom,  Indiana
(Brother Bloom requested information on his Grand Lodge and the question 
of Prince Hall)
What I have learned about the subject here in Washington came from a 
great deal of research, time and effort on my part.  I have gone through 
all of the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge looking for material, I have 
looked at every book in the King County Masonic Library and have 
purchased twelve books on the subject at various times.  Although other 
Grand Lodges have cropped up in the work, my actual knowledge of the 
inner dealings of them is sketchy.  I do, however, have an accurate 
picture of how the Grand Lodges in the United States are dealing or not 
dealing with the subject.  The actual specifics of each Grand Lodge 
would require an in depth study by someone with the time and energy to 
search out the available material in the Jurisdiction.  This material is 
accessible to any Master Mason if he takes the time to look for it.
If you have access to the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Indiana I 
suggest that you start going through the Grand Masters decisions such 
as the one in 1945 where the Grand Master ruled that a Lodge could not 
initiate a Chinese man because he was not a citizen of the United 
States.  Many times the records are written to cloud the actual reasons 
for something that has happened.  
In the process of your study on the subject I would caution you to 
always remember that history deals with the world of yesterday.  People 
change and events change with them.   In many Grand Lodges the Grand 
Lodge Officers would not be adverse to the recognition of the Prince 
Hall Masons but, until the younger Grand Lodge requests the older to 
recognize it, there is nothing that will be done.
When recognition is requested there comes a great deal of negotiation as 
the Grand Lodge is entering waters it is unfamiliar with.  The 
Fraternity is over 275 years old and some things take time.  This is not 
only because your Grand Lodge will be cautious but also the Prince Hall 
Grand Lodge will be.  Both need assurances of their niche in the scheme 
of things in the State.  
The paper I wrote had several examples of the actions of Grand Lodges in 
the past.  This was done to point out that there has been, in the past, 
discrimination against the Black Masons in this Country.  The todays of 
the Fraternity on this subject I will not get into on this forum.   
There are active Masons who are good men and true here that belong to 
Grand Lodges that they would not like to see dragged through the mud of 
accusation.  Even though it can be documented. 
<<<  Regardless of the fact that the GL of IN has never officially 
looked into the matter (as a GL at convention), surely the minutes of 
every meeting are detailed similar to a court room.>>>
What is written down usually is that the subject was discussed.  Nothing 
else.  I would be surprised if the available minutes of any meeting 
where the subject has arisen say anything else unless a public statement 
was the result.   If that is the case you will probably be able to get 
the text of the statement.  Whether or not they should be they are 
usually written in the same form as you hear at the Lodge.  i.e.  This 
or that was discussed.  So and so talked about.  This was voted upon and 
the result was.  Minutes are usually written like that.  Unless there 
are papers that were used as the subject of discussion, I am afraid that 
the aforementioned type of information is all you will obtain.  I have 
hit my head on this wall too many times to have much faith in getting 
hard information about the actual subject matter of any meeting.   You 
may strike paydirt though.  There is always a first time.

<<<  I personally know several Masons who are openly against recognition 
of PHM and admitting a man of color to our Brotherhood.  My mentor for 
the memory work even went so far as to say the "a man, free borne" was
expressly put into the work to keep the men of African decent out (he 
said that "Abe gave them their freedom, they weren't free borne".>>>
I am glad that you brought this one up as I forgot to include it in 
the paper.  To this charge the answer is as follows:
Halliwell Manuscript (Regius Poem)
Articulus quartus
The fowrye artycul-yys mofte be,
yar ye mayfter hym wel be-fe,
yat he no bonde mon-prentys make,
Hy for no couetyfe-yo hym take;
Ffor the lord that he ys bonde to,
May fache the prentes wherfeuer he go. 

Which means:
Fourth Article
The fourth article this must be,
That the master him well besee,
That he no bondman prentice make,
Nor for no covetousness do him take;
For the lord that he is bound to,
May fetch the prentice wheresoever he go.

This manuscript is the earliest known version of the original charges of 
Freemasonry.  This manuscript does not call for a man to be "Free-
born."  It only calls for him to be a free man.
Besides this, for the Black Mason of today the charge does not hold 
water.  Only in the context of the origination of the Prince Hall order 
could this have ever had any meaning.  That meaning is blown out of the 
water by the ancient text.  The idea of Free-born appeared in the 
Anderson Constitutions of 1723 and have been with us ever since.  This 
does not make it a landmark in any jurisdiction, only a modern rule in 
those that have this. 
<<< I for one would welcome the change.  I have met many men who are 
PHM's in my 13 year long military career.  These men exhibited
everything a Mason should.>>>
Work toward this goal.  You have herein stated the reason as well as 
anyone could.
<<<I know that there would be wide spread disharmony if this subject 
would ever be brought up.  I have heard that a low level discussion 
between several of the GLIN and PHMIN officers did take place with 
little good coming from it. >>>
Usually the GL Officers have a pretty good feel for how the jurisdiction 
will react and will quietly go about either selling the idea to the 
Brothers or forgetting about it as it would only cause a rift in the GL.   
Keep smiling and do what you can to make the waves smaller.  The water 
will never be smooth as glass but we work to make them safe for small 
craft.
<<<, I see the Fraternity with many members of an era where racial 
tension still exists.  I personally do not see any changes coming until 
I am called to the Lodge on High.>>>
I have a feeling that the pressures of acceptance will be brought to 
bear long before you reach that lofty perch.   People have a tendency to 
not want to look bad in this world and when this begins to happen you 
will see some changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Bibliography:
The Beginnings of Freemasonry in America - Melvin N. Johnson
A Documentary Account of Prince Hall and Other Black Fraternal Orders - 
Henry W. Coil Sr.
A Prince Hall Masonic Quiz Book - Joseph A. Walkes Jr.
Freemasonry Through Six Centuries - Henry Wilson Coil Sr.
Freemasonry Among Negroes and Whites in America - Harvey Newton Brown
Coils Masonic Encyclopedia - Henry W. Coil
Freemasonry in American History - Allen E. Roberts
Colonial Freemasonry - Various - Published by the Missouri Lodge of 
Research
Light on a Dark Subject - William H. Upton
Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Washington 1897, 8 &9 - GL of 
Washington
Negro Masonry in the United States - Harold V.B. Voorhis
A History  of Freemasonry among Negroes in America - Harry E. Davis
Prince Hall Yearbook 1993 - MWPHGL of Washington and Jurisdiction
Black Square and Compass - Joseph A. Walkes Jr.
Great Black Men of Masonry - Joseph Mason Andrew Cox
The Regius Poem - Unknown  (Halliwell Manuscript)

