🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in response to Brother Robinson's series of
informational posts on Prince Hall Masonry.

First, I would like to thank him for providing a better
insight for everyone on the net into an aspect of Masonic
history which seems to be neglected to a great extent.

On a couple of occasions, Quatuor Coronati Correspondence
Circle has published papers concerning Prince Hall or
Revolutionary War Masonry.

I have a couple of nits on your paper, and then I'll move
on.  First, in section 2/3 (post #449) you state that:
"In May of 1879, the Deputy Grand Master of Scotland presented
a lengthy paper in the Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati
Lodge..."  First, I trust that this was either a typo on your
part, or a garble in communications.  QC was not even chartered
as a research lodge until 1884, so it would be difficult to
publish a paper in 1879.  Second, the D.G.M. was the late
Wor. Bro. George Draffen, and his paper was published in AQC
volume 89 (1976) pps. 70-91.

Indeed, Wor. Bro. Draffen's conclusions were as you state, but
you overlooked the comments following the article by the
Master of QC Lodge 2076 and other brethren present which
expressed concern over some minutiae and other sticking points.

In a followup paper on the subject, Bro. A. Cerza (who was at
the meeting at which Wor.Bro Draffen presented his paper)
published a paper in AQC volume 90 (1977), pp 218-230, entitled
"Colonial Freemasonry in the United States of America."  No
mention is made of Prince Hall Freemasonry in that paper, but
it would provide some interesting background material into the
workings of colonial lodges, military lodges, and so on.

Much later, Bro. John M. Sherman in AQC 92 (1979) published:
"The Negro 'National' or 'Compact' Grand Lodge" in which much
new information was revealed that was not available for the
Draffen paper.  Brother Sherman made contact with Dr. Charles
H. Wesley, a well-known writer and prominent lecturer in Prince
Hall Freemasonry circles and was provided access to a great
deal of the background information which has historically been
in dispute.

What he found was:
(1) In 1813, as Brother Robinson stated, the African Lodge was
removed (along with 350-370 other lodges world-wide) from the
rolls of the Grand Lodge of England for failure, since 1797,
to submit returns to the Grand Lodge and to make any payments
to the charity fund (both conditions for continuation of their
charter or warrant - whatever you choose to call it).  Now,
before the throngs attack en masse, I should point out, that
this particular period of time was not exactly the most amicable
in Anglo-American relations.  After all, we had just been in
a second war (War of 1812) with the British, so you can see
where the GLoE might not be particularly disposed to communicate
amicably with a former lodge in the New World.

(2) The striking from the rolls AUTOMATICALLY made their charter
null and void since the Grand Lodge sponsorship had been withdrawn.
Apparently, the PH Grand Lodge made no attempts to secure
charters from other prospective sponsors.

(3) It was not until 1824 that a petition was sent to GLoE for a
"renual" of their charter with the privileges of conferring
the "other four degrees" (referring to their desire to confer
Royal Arch degrees) -- Unfortunately, for a number of reasons,
some valid and others not, GLoE chose to ignore the request.

(4) On 18 June 1827, a letter of "independence" was sent to
the GLoE declaring that they were totally independent of
outside authority for masonic purposes.  But in the body of
the letter, the signatories agreed to "...abide by all proper
rules and regulations which govern the like fraternities."

One of the many picky-points that people questioning the
"regularity" of PH lodges pick up on is that the letter of
independence was signed 14 years after the charter was
withdrawn and that many of the signatories to the letter
were initiated AFTER the charter was withdrawn.  Once with-
drawn, the possession of the charter is nothing more than
an interesting artifact of history...it has no effect or
force.

Now, many of those arguments are for the Masonic lawyers
in our midst, but one of the most telling, and I think
appropos statements in Wor.Bro. Draffen's article says:

"I took great care to avoid the whole question of 'Regularity
of Origin' in the text of my paper and I would be sorry to
think that any misreading might lead some to think that
the United Grand Lodge of England has in any way changed
its views on this point.  On the other hand, we must not
apply to 1770-90 statements of policy which only came
into existence in the 1920's."

In sum, I think one can argue about the "regularity" of
the creation of the PH Grand Lodges, but then those same
arguments can be applied to a number of other more "regular"
US and world-wide lodges which now enjoy full recognition.

It is worthy of note, I think, that Masonic etiquette
dictates that the "junior" Grand Lodge request recognition
from the "senior" -- to my knowledge, Prince Hall Grand Lodge
has not recently requested recognition from GLoE, GLoS, or
GLoI.  I would like to think that the determination of
"regularity" would be tempered more along the lines of
Wor. Bro. Draffen's reasoning than those who would read
more into logistics and political problems of the 18th
and 19th centuries than is proper.

Respectfully and Fraternally,
Bill