# Question:



## MasonicAdept

Was Prince Hall a Prince Hall Mason?

Secondly, did Prince Hall subscribe to Freemasonry in the context of a BLACK EXPERIENCE?


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> Was Prince Hall a Prince Hall Mason?
> 
> Secondly, did Prince Hall subscribe to Freemasonry in the context of a BLACK EXPERIENCE?



God knows ! But I would say, no, he was not a Prince Hall Freemason according to the version I know of his initiation, he was Irish... who are, after all,  described in one famous book as the "Blacks of Europe" maybe because they were oppressed, or maybe because they were cool 

I think Prince Hall Freemasonry flowed from him, or certainly that is the Traditional History we're told here in Australia.. where many just don't get the whole emergence of Prince Hall Freemasonry because they don't understand American History, or that there were debates there about whether coloured people and "pagans"  (and I use the term on purpose to catch up Asians etc ) had a soul, were actually human, etc etc..


----------



## MasonicAdept

Prince Hall wasn't initiated under Irish Military Lodge.
The records of African Lodge shows that the initiation was done by John Batt


----------



## MRichard

MasonicAdept said:


> Prince Hall wasn't initiated under Irish Military Lodge.
> The records of African Lodge shows that the initiation was done by John Batt



I saw you mention that in the group discussion page. So was he a member of a particular lodge when he was initiated or was it Africa #1?


----------



## MRichard

MasonicAdept said:


> Was Prince Hall a Prince Hall Mason?
> 
> Secondly, did Prince Hall subscribe to Freemasonry in the context of a BLACK EXPERIENCE?



No, Prince Hall didn't come into being until later. Possibly after his death.


----------



## MasonicAdept

MRichard said:


> I saw you mention that in the group discussion page. So was he a member of a particular lodge when he was initiated or was it Africa #1?



Prince Hall was not initiated into any Lodge.
According to the records, those 15 Brothers were initiated by John Batt alone (unauthorized). They formed African Lodge No. 1 without documentation.
It wasn't until 1781, and the permit received by John Rowe, Provincial Grand master of St. John's PGL, did they have any form of documentation to truly assemble as Masons. It wasn't until 1784 that they received a charter to truly operate and function as a regular Lodge of Freemasons.


----------



## MRichard

@MasonicAdept  I heard people mention St Andrews lodge, were there Black members there before Prince Hall was initiated?


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> Prince Hall was not initiated into any Lodge.
> According to the records, those 15 Brothers were initiated by John Batt alone (unauthorized). They formed African Lodge No. 1 without documentation.
> It wasn't until 1781, and the permit received by John Rowe, Provincial Grand master of St. John's PGL, did they have any form of documentation to truly assemble as Masons. It wasn't until 1784 that they received a charter to truly operate and function as a regular Lodge of Freemasons.


Why do you say the initiation was unauthorized?

Do you believe John Batt was a member of Irish Lodge 441?  It has been reported that the GL shows he was?

Who was the master of that Lodge at the time?


----------



## MasonicAdept

MRichard said:


> @MasonicAdept  I heard people mention St Andrews lodge, were there Black members there before Prince Hall was initiated?



I actually have St. Andrew's Lodge records 1762-1801, and there is no record of any Black men in America receiving the degrees or being raised in any Lodge in America before 1784.


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> Why do you say the initiation was unauthorized?



Because John Batt, although a member of Irish Military Lodge No. 441 performed the initiations in 1778 on March 6. Irish Military Lodge was not present in Boston at that point. They had evacuated Boston March 17, 1776, and never returned.

The Grand Lodge of Ireland has already confirmed that there is no record of any initiation or membership of Prince Hall or any other of those listed on the registry on records of Irish Military Lodge.



Glen Cook said:


> Do you believe John Batt was a member of Irish Lodge 441?  It has been reported that the GL shows he was?



Yes, I have John Batt listed as a member of Irish Military Lodge. There is no record of his being Master of Irish Military Lodge. This was a point raised long after African Lodge No. 459 was established.
John Batt, left with Irish Military Lodge in 1776, but was discharged in 1777, and returned to Boston and joined the Continental Army Dec. 1777, and remained there until June 1778, when he deserted the Continental Army. His military records show this.

In the book, I actually had Don Hagist as a source for a lot of the Military information during the Revolutionary War...He is an expert.


----------



## MasonicAdept

I actually wished there was a method to posting documents and files, but it seems that I cannot.


----------



## MRichard

MasonicAdept said:


> I actually wished there was a method to posting documents and files, but it seems that I cannot.



You should be able to depending on file type. Upload a file includes pdfs, zip, txt, jpeg, jpg & others. It would probably depend on what you are using to access the site.


----------



## MasonicAdept

I am looking at the buttons on the formatting bar, and I don't see a means of uploading a file (pdf).
There is a insert image url button, a media embed button, but no insert a file button.


----------



## MRichard

MasonicAdept said:


> I am looking at the buttons on the formatting bar, and I don't see a means of uploading a file (pdf).
> There is a insert image url button, a media embed button, but no insert a file button.



Next to post reply, do you see a "Upload a File" button?


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> Who was the master of that Lodge at the time?



The entire matter of who did the initiation of Prince Hall and the other 14 members of African Lodge No. 1 revolve around when the initiation was done.
According to record attached to this comment (Thanks to Bro. Mark), John Batt was the first Master of the Lodge until after June 1778.

The first thing you will notice on the record is the top portion that says, "Boston March 6, 1778", there is another document that shows what John Batt was paid that proves that this was the date of the initiation.

The Second thing you will notice is that the records shows that EAs, FC and Masters were MAID BY, the worthy and amiable GRAND MASTER BATT.

This immediately raises questions, because according to the Grand Lodge of Ireland, John Batt was never a Grand Master of their Grand Lodge, which is the only means by which any member under their Jurisdiction could designate themselves as such. This come directly from the Grand Archivist, Rebecca Hayes.
John Batt was neither a Grand Master under St, Andrew's (Scottish) or St. John's (Moderns) Provincial Grand Lodges in Boston (where he resided in March of 1778). So, it shows that John Batt was considered the first Master of African Lodge No. 1 prior to the Charter in 1784. As you can see in the third column, under masters, Prince Hall is also listed as GRAND MASTER (or the head of the Lodge). This tells us that the document was composed after March 6, 1778, at a time when Prince Hall had taken charge of the Lodge, after the desertion of John Batt. We know this for certain, because Prince Hall in a December 28, 1778 record was now doing the initiation.

What is most interesting about this point is that the record shows THREE COLUMNS, one for EA, the other for FC and Master, and you will see that most of the names are the same throughout the columns, which shows a progression of a particular member through the degrees. What has to be paid attention to is that the Masters column has dates associated with the names, and those dates are when those members were MAID MASTERS. And, all of them are AFTER March 6, 1778, with the exception of Prince Hall. We know that Prince Hall was initiated on March 6, 1778 (not raised), because his name appears on the listing of those INITIATED on March 6, 1778. So, the initiation didn't happen on March 6, 1775, but on March 6, 1778; this would exclude Irish Military Lodge from taking part in this initiation, because they were in New York fighting the New York Campaign. Irish Military Lodge eventually became a founding lodge of the Grand Lodge of New York (MS) in 1781, they eventually left New York for England in 1783.

So, according to the records, John Batt was the FIRST MASTER, and he did the initiations all by his lonesome...African Lodge No. 1 was not a regular group until 1784, six years after their initial Initiation....


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> The entire matter of who did the initiation of Prince Hall and the other 14 members of African Lodge No. 1 revolve around when the initiation was done.
> According to record attached to this comment (Thanks to Bro. Mark), John Batt was the first Master of the Lodge until after June 1778.
> 
> The first thing you will notice on the record is the top portion that says, "Boston March 6, 1778", there is another document that shows what John Batt was paid that proves that this was the date of the initiation.
> 
> The Second thing you will notice is that the records shows that EAs, FC and Masters were MAID BY, the worthy and amiable GRAND MASTER BATT.
> 
> This immediately raises questions, because according to the Grand Lodge of Ireland, John Batt was never a Grand Master of their Grand Lodge, which is the only means by which any member under their Jurisdiction could designate themselves as such. This come directly from the Grand Archivist, Rebecca Hayes.
> John Batt was neither a Grand Master under St, Andrew's (Scottish) or St. John's (Moderns) Provincial Grand Lodges in Boston (where he resided in March of 1778). So, it shows that John Batt was considered the first Master of African Lodge No. 1 prior to the Charter in 1784. As you can see in the third column, under masters, Prince Hall is also listed as GRAND MASTER (or the head of the Lodge). This tells us that the document was composed after March 6, 1778, at a time when Prince Hall had taken charge of the Lodge, after the desertion of John Batt. We know this for certain, because Prince Hall in a December 28, 1778 record was now doing the initiation.
> 
> What is most interesting about this point is that the record shows THREE COLUMNS, one for EA, the other for FC and Master, and you will see that most of the names are the same throughout the columns, which shows a progression of a particular member through the degrees. What has to be paid attention to is that the Masters column has dates associated with the names, and those dates are when those members were MAID MASTERS. And, all of them are AFTER March 6, 1778, with the exception of Prince Hall. We know that Prince Hall was initiated on March 6, 1778 (not raised), because his name appears on the listing of those INITIATED on March 6, 1778. So, the initiation didn't happen on March 6, 1775, but on March 6, 1778; this would exclude Irish Military Lodge from taking part in this initiation, because they were in New York fighting the New York Campaign. Irish Military Lodge eventually became a founding lodge of the Grand Lodge of New York (MS) in 1781, they eventually left New York for England in 1783.
> 
> So, according to the records, John Batt was the FIRST MASTER, and he did the initiations all by his lonesome...African Lodge No. 1 was not a regular group until 1784, six years after their initial Initiation....



This is all interesting stuff.... Do you think the man Prince Hall was ever a "regular" Freemason ?

It's hardly surprising to read of Freemasons being made without warrant. It was common in the 1700's. Even here in the 1860's they were doing that.. how we think of regularity now encompassing men being initiated under warrants was not always followed.. 

If Prince Hall was never a regular Freemason, does it rally matter 200+ years on with Prince Hall GLs being regular ? Some might say it does, and those saying that would either be racists, dogmatic zealots, or Freemasons looking to absorb large groups of members.

Gee, are you getting some hate mail on this ?


----------



## MasonicAdept

Bloke said:


> This is all interesting stuff.... Do you think the man Prince Hall was ever a "regular" Freemason ?



Yes, African Lodge achieved Regularity in 1784 with the issuing of the Charter from England (Modern GL). Keep in mind, the records of African Lodge provide three stages of development for African Lodge:

1. African Lodge No. 1 (1778-1783)
2. African Lodge No. 459 (1784-1826)
3. African Grand Lodge (1826-1847)

My book deals with only the FIRST developmental stage of African Lodge (the formative years), the years prior to the charter in 1784. it can be shown without a shadow of doubt, that March 6, 1775 is an incorrect date for the initiation of the first members of African Lodge; that July 3, 1776 is an incorrect date for the formation of African Lodge No. 1; there was no permit provided by Irish Military Lodge and no participation from them in any of the actions of John Batt.



> It's hardly surprising to read of Freemasons being made without warrant. It was common in the 1700's. Even here in the 1860's they were doing that.. how we think of regularity now encompassing men being initiated under warrants was not always followed..



I am aware of the fact that much of the way we view regularity and what is considered standards were not in place during the time, but one thing for sure is this, John Batt had NO AUTHORITY to confer degrees on any person, let alone 15 persons in ONE DAY. I suspect John Batt of degree peddling, and Prince Hall and those brothers wanting to embrace Freemasonry as a means of setting their community on the le vel with white society of Boston (then) were duped into believing they were regularly receiving the degrees.
The light brought to this point is the letter that Prince Hall wrote to William Moody (WM of Brotherly Lodge Lodge No. 55 London) in 1784. He failed to disclose any connection to John Batt or any permit from him or Irish Military Lodge, he only mentioned the permit African Lodge received from Provincial Grand Master John Rowe. I think this was strategic on the part of Prince Hall to place the years of operation implicitly under the permit of Rowe. The mention of John Batt, and his solo conferral would have raised eyebrows among the brothers of England and hurt the cause and objective of receiving the long sought after warrant of constitution.



> If Prince Hall was never a regular Freemason, does it rally matter 200+ years on with Prince Hall GLs being regular ? Some might say it does, and those saying that would either be racists, dogmatic zealots, or Freemasons looking to absorb large groups of members.
> 
> Gee, are you getting some hate mail on this ?



1778 has no bearing on the Modern standing of any Grand Lodge under the PHA designation. 1784 healed any deviations or irregularities.
Hate mail?
LOL, no, just some very reluctant Elders who are trying to ignore the book for as long as they can...


----------



## MRichard

@MasonicAdept Did Prince Hall and the others petition Boston St John's Lodge? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Hall  says he did and cites 3 sources but we all know that Wikipedia is not always correct


----------



## MasonicAdept

@MRichard, it is very well possible that they did peition St. John's Provincial GL, they did receive a permit from PGM John Rowe. I would conclude that he petitioned them and the permit was the result of the petition (I have my own thoughts on the permit).
There is no record with the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts showing any "formal" petition, but we know that to receive the permit, they had to have had some contact with the Provincial Grand Lodge (St. John's).
I think that after receiving the permit, although said document did not give provision to make masons, African Lodge did do so, and had been making masons since 1778. African Lodge saw the handicap in the permit received from St. John's and decided to go to the source.

An interesting point to contemplate is the fact that African Lodge did not go through the Provincial Grand Lodge to obtain the warrant, but went AROUND them...The Provincial Grand Lodge could have been the liaison between the Grand Lodge of England and African Lodge, but African Lodge went through Brotherly Love Lodge No. 55 and WM William Moody...That was interesting.

To further support a contention, at the formation of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1792, although African Lodge had a BONA FIDE WARRANT from the very same place St. John's Provincial Grand Lodge had received, both warrant and dispensation, they were excluded in the formation of that Grand Lodge. Had they been invited and received, there would be no such thing as Prince Hall Freemasonry, and there would have been ONE GRAND LODGE per State.


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> @MRichard, it is very well possible that they did peition St. John's Provincial GL, they did receive a permit from PGM John Rowe. I would conclude that he petitioned them and the permit was the result of the petition (I have my own thoughts on the permit).
> There is no record with the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts showing any "formal" petition, but we know that to receive the permit, they had to have had some contact with the Provincial Grand Lodge (St. John's).
> I think that after receiving the permit, although said document did not give provision to make masons, African Lodge did do so, and had been making masons since 1778. African Lodge saw the handicap in the permit received from St. John's and decided to go to the source.
> 
> An interesting point to contemplate is the fact that African Lodge did not go through the Provincial Grand Lodge to obtain the warrant, but went AROUND them...The Provincial Grand Lodge could have been the liaison between the Grand Lodge of England and African Lodge, but African Lodge went through Brotherly Love Lodge No. 55 and WM William Moody...That was interesting.
> 
> To further support a contention, at the formation of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1792, although African Lodge had a BONA FIDE WARRANT from the very same place St. John's Provincial Grand Lodge had received, both warrant and dispensation, they were excluded in the formation of that Grand Lodge. Had they been invited and received, there would be no such thing as Prince Hall Freemasonry, and there would have been ONE GRAND LODGE per State.



Thanks  - you provably want to dump that pic from your signature, people often complain of such a large signature on this board..

So, how and why do you think the story of the Irish Lodge became established lore ?


----------



## MRichard

Bloke said:


> Thanks  - you provably want to dump that pic from your signature, people often complain of such a large signature on this board..



If it doesn't violate the site rules, then it shouldn't be an issue. Some people complain about anything.


----------



## MasonicAdept

Bloke said:


> So, how and why do you think the story of the Irish Lodge became established lore ?



The origin of the error begin with Jeremy Belknap, Founder of the Massachusetts Historical Society in 1795. The why was to explain how these 15 men were "legitimately" initiated into Freemasonry. It was the PG version of the events surround the African American entrance into Freemasonry.


----------



## MasonicAdept

MRichard said:


> If it doesn't violate the site rules, then it shouldn't be an issue. Some people complain about anything.



It's all good Brother...Who wants to hear a bunch of complaining anyway?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

Okay, so where was PH made a mason, and who made him one ?


----------



## MRichard

Travelling Man91 said:


> Okay, so where was PH made a mason, and who made him one ?



Look at post #5 and continue reading from there.


----------



## MasonicAdept

Travelling Man91 said:


> Okay, so where was PH made a mason, and who made him one ?



Was Prince Hall made a mason? You decide...

1. Prince Hall was initiated, passed and raised by John Batt.

2. John Batt was not authorized to confer any degree of Freemasonry on any person.

3. African Lodge operated from 1778-1784 without charter or permit.

4. The charter covered the Lodge and all of the illegal work done on Prince Hall.

So, technically, no, he wasn't regularly made a mason. But the illegal work conferred on him was covered and healed by the 1784 charter from the Grand Lodge of England. 1784 African Lodge became a just and duly constituted Lodge of Freemasons.


----------



## Glen Cook

MRichard said:


> ...Some people complain about anything.


Oh, you've met my mother-in-law then.


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> Was Prince Hall made a mason? You decide...
> 
> 1. Prince Hall was initiated, passed and raised by John Batt.
> 
> 2. John Batt was not authorized to confer any degree of Freemasonry on any person.
> 
> 3. African Lodge operated from 1778-1784 without charter or permit.
> 
> 4. The charter covered the Lodge and all of the illegal work done on Prince Hall.
> 
> So, technically, no, he wasn't regularly made a mason. But the illegal work conferred on him was covered and healed by the 1784 charter from the Grand Lodge of England. 1784 African Lodge became a just and duly constituted Lodge of Freemasons.


What wording of the warrant indicates that he was healed or the lodge's prior acts were ratified?


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> What wording of the charter indicates that he was healed or the lodge's prior acts were ratified?



Bro. Glen Cook, there is no wording on the charter that would indicate that he was healed, or that the Lodge's prior acts were ratified. The reason being is because England in 1784 were UNAWARE of any interaction between African Lodge and John Batt.

There is no letter between Prince Hall or African Lodge or England that would disclose any prior initiation by John Batt, under the circumstances in which it happened. 
The letter written by Prince Hall to William Moody, that enlisted the assistance of William Moody in the cause of securing a charter, he never mentions John Batt. He mentions ONLY the permit that was issued by John Rowe, and the letter would lead the reader to believe that they had worked under that permit from John Rowe the entire time.

There was no investigation of African Lodge by the Grand Lodge of England. They issued the charter on the word of William Moody who actually came into contact with two of the members of African Lodge in England, Prince Reed and John Means.

So why would you think that the charter would indicate either circumstances?

Even when Lodges are officially healed over into regular Jurisdictions, there is nothing in the wording of the new charter that would implicate that the newly healed Lodges was ever irregular or clandestine...

I am interested in why you thought that the charter would provide that information...Have you seen a charter with the wording that would indicate the prior condition of a Lodge before becoming regular?


----------



## MasonicAdept

@Glen Cook here is the transcription of the Prince Hall letter to William Moody. This transcription comes from the United Grand Lodge of England website:


"Mr. Moodey


  Most W. Master



Sir,

  Permit me to return you my hearty thanks for your brotherly […] to Brothers Reed and Means […] in a strange land, and when in a time of need you were so good as to receive them as brothers and to treat them as kindly as they inform me you did. What you have done to them, I look upon as done to me and the whole of us, for which I give you many thanks and likewise to all the Lodge. I hope they behaved themselves as men and as 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 Brother, I would inform you that this Lodge has been founded almost this eight years, and had no warrant yet but only a permit from Grand Master Rowe to walk on St. John’s Days and to bury our dead in form which we now enjoy. We have had no opportunity till now of applying for a warrant though we were pressed upon to send to France for one, but we refused it for reasons best known to ourselves.* We now apply to the fountain from whom we received lights for this favour 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 graciously 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 sincere 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 the African Lodge No. 1, June 30th 1784 in the year of Masonry 5784, in the name of the whole Lodge. C. Underwood, Secretary."

Questions:

1. Where is the name of John Batt?

2. Where is Irish Military Lodge No. 441 mentioned?

Reading the letter, and the embolden portion would led the reader to believe that the only contact that Prince Hall and African Lodge had with Freemasonry was John Rowe. But the truth is that African Lodge No. 1 was operating long before they received the permit from John Rowe.


----------



## MasonicAdept

@Glen Cook here is the actual copy of the letter preserved in Prince Hall's letter book. If you have the ability to enlarge it and read it, compare this letter to the one transcribed by the UGLE, and notice some differences between the two...


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> Bro. Glen Cook, there is no wording on the charter that would indicate that he was healed, or that the Lodge's prior acts were ratified. The reason being is because England in 1784 were UNAWARE of any interaction between African Lodge and John Batt.
> 
> There is no letter between Prince Hall or African Lodge or England that would disclose any prior initiation by John Batt, under the circumstances in which it happened.
> The letter written by Prince Hall to William Moody, that enlisted the assistance of William Moody in the cause of securing a charter, he never mentions John Batt. He mentions ONLY the permit that was issued by John Rowe, and the letter would lead the reader to believe that they had worked under that permit from John Rowe the entire time.
> 
> There was no investigation of African Lodge by the Grand Lodge of England. They issued the charter on the word of William Moody who actually came into contact with two of the members of African Lodge in England, Prince Reed and John Means.
> 
> So why would you think that the charter would indicate either circumstances?
> 
> Even when Lodges are officially healed over into regular Jurisdictions, there is nothing in the wording of the new charter that would implicate that the newly healed Lodges was ever irregular or clandestine...
> 
> I am interested in why you thought that the charter would provide that information...Have you seen a charter with the wording that would indicate the prior condition of a Lodge before becoming regular?



Because you stated,

 "4. The charter covered the Lodge and all of the illegal work done on Prince Hall.

So, technically, no, he wasn't regularly made a mason. But the illegal work conferred on him was covered and healed by the 1784 charter from the Grand Lodge of England. 1784 African Lodge became a just and duly constituted Lodge of Freemasons."

So, it appears there is no wording indicating the charter [sic] "covered" the illegal work and healed Prince Hall.  

You appear to rely on the modern practice of healing a lodge over as ratifying  the unauthorized acts.   What examples do you have of the English constitutions healing an entire lodge? Is this not primarily a Prince Hall practice?  Are you aware of any CGMNA GL healing an entire Lodge?

Further, as you indicate the EC had no knowledge of the irregularities, this really was not a healing, was it?

Additionally, under the  facts you relate, was he not a clandestine Mason, rather than an irregularly made a mason? 

You'll  note my concern with the word "charter." Was it not a warrant?


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> @Glen Cook here is the transcription of the Prince Hall letter to William Moody. This transcription comes from the United Grand Lodge of England website:
> 
> 
> "Mr. Moodey
> 
> 
> Most W. Master
> 
> 
> 
> Sir,
> 
> Permit me to return you my hearty thanks for your brotherly […] to Brothers Reed and Means […] in a strange land, and when in a time of need you were so good as to receive them as brothers and to treat them as kindly as they inform me you did. What you have done to them, I look upon as done to me and the whole of us, for which I give you many thanks and likewise to all the Lodge. I hope they behaved themselves as men and as 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 Brother, I would inform you that this Lodge has been founded almost this eight years, and had no warrant yet but only a permit from Grand Master Rowe to walk on St. John’s Days and to bury our dead in form which we now enjoy. We have had no opportunity till now of applying for a warrant though we were pressed upon to send to France for one, but we refused it for reasons best known to ourselves.* We now apply to the fountain from whom we received lights for this favour 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 graciously 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 sincere 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 the African Lodge No. 1, June 30th 1784 in the year of Masonry 5784, in the name of the whole Lodge. C. Underwood, Secretary."
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1. Where is the name of John Batt?
> 
> 2. Where is Irish Military Lodge No. 441 mentioned?
> 
> Reading the letter, and the embolden portion would led the reader to believe that the only contact that Prince Hall and African Lodge had with Freemasonry was John Rowe. But the truth is that African Lodge No. 1 was operating long before they received the permit from John Rowe.


Umm, not the point I was addressing


----------



## MasonicAdept

@Glen Cook the portion I put in bold text (UGLE transcription) can be found in this portion of the copy preserved by Prince Hall, what are the differences that you see?

Not even a mention of John Rowe....Hmmm. The initial letter written by Prince Hall omitted the name of John Rowe, then the letter that was actually received by William Moody has the same wording, but only the mention of the name John Rowe...Why do you think John Rowe's name was ommitted from the copy preserved by Prince Hall, but mentioned in the letter that he actually sent to William Moody?

Where is the name of John Batt or Irish Military Lodge mentioned in the letter preserved by Prince Hall?


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> Was Prince Hall made a mason? You decide...
> 
> 1. Prince Hall was initiated, passed and raised by John Batt.
> 
> 2. John Batt was not authorized to confer any degree of Freemasonry on any person.


[/QUOTE]

How do you know John Batt was not authorized?


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> Because you stated,
> 
> "4. The charter covered the Lodge and all of the illegal work done on Prince Hall.
> 
> So, technically, no, he wasn't regularly made a mason. But the illegal work conferred on him was covered and healed by the 1784 charter from the Grand Lodge of England. 1784 African Lodge became a just and duly constituted Lodge of Freemasons."
> 
> So, it appears there is no wording indicating the charter [sic] "covered" the illegal work and healed Prince Hall.



@Glen Cook NO CHARTER or WARRANT will indicate that a Lodge was clandestine or regular prior. So, you need to see the wording of a charter indicate such is a stretch. You are asking for something that isn't even done in Freemasonry. The charter did heal the illegal work, because from that point, African Lodge was no longer a clandestine Lodge, but a regular one. And without England RE-CONFERRING ANY DEGREES, it sounds like a healing (in the technical sense).




> You appear to rely on the modern practice of healing a lodge over as ratifying  the unauthorized acts.   What examples do you have of the English constitutions healing an entire lodge? Is this not primarily a Prince Hall practice?  Are you aware of any CGMNA GL healing an entire Lodge?



Now, you're SPLITTING HAIRS Glen. What I stated was that the charter healed the illegal acts, not the Grand Lodge of England. African Lodge's reception of the charter made them regular. That is the bottom line, unless you are saying that the charter didn't impact their prior condition.
By all records and facts, African Lodge No. 1 was clandestine. Yet, in 1784 the were on the rolls of a Regular Grand Lodge. The charter CHANGED the condition of African Lodge. England didn't make them masons and then give them a charter, they chartered a whole lodge of, what we NOW KNOW were clandestine masons.



> Further, as you indicate the EC had no knowledge of the irregularities, this really was not a healing, was it?



Not in the formal sense, No. as there was really no formal healing between the members of the Modern and Antient GLs in England either when the members and lodges would switch allegiances, hence an example you asked for....



> Additionally, under the  facts you relate, was he not a clandestine Mason, rather than an irregularly made a mason?



Yeah, you can say clandestine. In fact I use the term clandestine in my book.



> You'll  note my concern with the word "charter." Was it not a warrant?



Just so we can discontinue the attempt to cloud up the thread with technicalities, yes it was called a warrant...The results were the same, a clandestine lodge was made regular with the warrant/charter.


----------



## MasonicAdept

How do you know John Batt was not authorized?[/QUOTE]

@Glen Cook , Because the Grand Lodge of Ireland, whom I had been in constant contact with for documentation and other things, stated that Ireland at no time in their history had ever allowed any ONE mason to confer the degrees without aid of a Lodge, and especially to confer the degree on 15 people at one time was UNAUTHORIZED.

There is no record of John Batt being WM of Irish Military Lodge, and even if he was, he still would not have the authority to confer the degrees on any ONE person, let alone 15 by himself...John Batt was not a member of St. Andrew's Lodge, St. John's Lodge or any of the Lodge around Boston. That angles was investigated to through RW Walter Hunt and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

So, if Ireland says they didn't give him authority, he was no member of any Lodge in Boston in March of 1778, please let me know who would have give one man authority, without aid of the Lodge to confer the degrees on 15 people at one time?

I am interested to hear your theory...


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> @Glen Cook NO CHARTER or WARRANT will indicate that a Lodge was clandestine or regular prior. So, you need to see the wording of a charter indicate such is a stretch. You are asking for something that isn't even done in Freemasonry. The charter did heal the illegal work, because from that point, African Lodge was no longer a clandestine Lodge, but a regular one. And without England RE-CONFERRING ANY DEGREES, it sounds like a healing (in the technical sense).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you're SPLITTING HAIRS Glen. What I stated was that the charter healed the illegal acts, not the Grand Lodge of England. African Lodge's reception of the charter made them regular. That is the bottom line, unless you are saying that the charter didn't impact their prior condition.
> By all records and facts, African Lodge No. 1 was clandestine. Yet, in 1784 the were on the rolls of a Regular Grand Lodge. The charter CHANGED the condition of African Lodge. England didn't make them masons and then give them a charter, they chartered a whole lodge of, what we NOW KNOW were clandestine masons.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the formal sense, No. as there was really no formal healing between the members of the Modern and Antient GLs in England either when the members and lodges would switch allegiances, hence an example you asked for....
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you can say clandestine. In fact I use the term clandestine in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so we can discontinue the attempt to cloud up the thread with technicalities, yes it was called a warrant...The results were the same, a clandestine lodge was made regular with the warrant/charter.



Correct, from the point of the warrant (the correct term), the lodge's acts were regular from that point forward.  That does not  remedy the prior unauthorized acts.   You have pointed to no evidence that this was either meant to be a healing, or even acted as a healing, or that healing was even practiced by English GLs.  A Ratification requires specific language to act in an ex post facto manner.

No, the merger of the two GLs was  not a healing process. 

Note, I've not quarreled with the historical facts of Prince Hall's initiation, but the other conclusions you are drawing about Masonic Jurisprudence which are not warranted, as it were, in m view.


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> How do you know John Batt was not authorized?



@Glen Cook , Because the Grand Lodge of Ireland, whom I had been in constant contact with for documentation and other things, stated that Ireland at no time in their history had ever allowed any ONE mason to confer the degrees without aid of a Lodge, and especially to confer the degree on 15 people at one time was UNAUTHORIZED.

There is no record of John Batt being WM of Irish Military Lodge, and even if he was, he still would not have the authority to confer the degrees on any ONE person, let alone 15 by himself...John Batt was not a member of St. Andrew's Lodge, St. John's Lodge or any of the Lodge around Boston. That angles was investigated to through RW Walter Hunt and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

So, if Ireland says they didn't give him authority, he was no member of any Lodge in Boston in March of 1778, please let me know who would have give one man authority, without aid of the Lodge to confer the degrees on 15 people at one time?

I am interested to hear your theory...[/QUOTE]
Well, we know that Alfred Lodge in England (since erased) deputized officers to make Masons.  Has a search been made of the lodge's records to see if such a  deputation was granted?  We  know that the haute grades were disseminated in the 18-19th C  in a less formal manner than now used.  I quite believe you accurately quote what you were told by the grand Lodge of Ireland; that doesn't mean I believe they were accurate. I would suggest a better statement is that there is no current evidence that he had authority to confer the degrees

Control of lodge activities  by GL was much more fluid in the 18th century ( though, to be fair, there are lots of things that Grand Lodge is don't know now!).


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> That does not  remedy the prior unauthorized acts.   You have pointed to no evidence that this was either meant to be a healing, or even acted as a healing, or that healing was even practiced by English GLs.



@Glen Cook England, I think you are attempting to be a bit too technical, and you're missing a very simple point. African Lodge No. 459 from the time of the issuing of the charter despite their prior condition, were then REGULAR. You are attempting to inject terminology that I haven't used at all, neither the concept thereof. I SIMPLY STATED, that the charter and its reception healed all the illegal work, because they went from being clandestine to regular by way of the charter. There is ample examples of the transfer of allegiances between the Modern and Antient GLs (both Lodges and members) and I am surprised that this isn't more clear to you. Let me say this again, so you can stop building straw men...I am not saying that the Grand Lodge of England provided African Lodge a charter as an act of healing them, because they were unaware that they were clandestine at the time. WHAT I AM SAYING is that the reception of the charter covered/healed/fixed/did away with/dispensed with/removed/changed the condition of all the illegal work conferred on those Brothers. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances.



> A Ratification requires specific language to act in an ex post facto manner.



Glen, please stop using the word, RATIFICATION. I NEVER USED IT. There was no need for a ratification, because there was nothing, in England's mind, to ratify. They gave a charter to a group of Masons who, they thought, were operating under a permit from John Rowe for several years. What the charter did do, beyond any technical verbiage that could be mustered, is do away with the prior condition of African Lodge, whether England knew it or not, they made African Lodge a REGULAR LODGE.



> No, the merger of the two GLs was  not a healing process.



Glen, I am not speaking on the merger of 1813, I am talking about the change of allegiance of some members and Lodges prior to the merger. You do know that did occur, right? Can you explain how that was dealt with?



> Note, I've not quarreled with the historical facts of Prince Hall's initiation, but the other conclusions you are drawing about Masonic Jurisprudence which are not warranted, as it were, in m view.



Glen, enlighten me on what Jurisprudence was codified in 1778-1784?


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> Well, we know that Alfred Lodge in England (since erased) deputized officers to make Masons.  Has a search been made of the lodge's records to see if such a  deputation was granted?




@Glen Cook, can you explain, why it is so hard for you to accept that John Batt conferred the degree unauthorized? He degree peddled, it is just that simple.
I have researched and asked regarding ANY authority given to Batt to confer the degrees, NO ONE GAVE HIM AUTHORITY...Not Ireland, Not Sctoland, Not England, NOT ANYONE.

[QUOTE]We  know that the haute grades were disseminated in the 18-19th C  in a less formal manner than now used.  I quite believe you accurately quote what you were told by the grand Lodge of Ireland; that doesn't mean I believe they were accurate. I would suggest a better statement is that there is no current evidence that he had authority to confer the degrees[/QUOTE]

LOL, now you're stretching, Glen, are you saying that the Grand Lodge of Ireland don't know who they gave authority to and the regulations they had in place? Come on, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to contradict what they have stated from their own records and registry...

[QUOTE]Control of lodge activities  by GL was much more fluid in the 18th century ( though, to be fair, there are lots of things that Grand Lodge is don't know now!).[/QUOTE]

Which would certainly prove that he had no authority, if they didn't know....


----------



## MRichard

@MasonicAdept If memory serves me correct, Brother Glen Cook has served in several capacities as a member or committee member of the CGMNA. He has expertise in recognition matters.


----------



## MasonicAdept

MRichard said:


> @MasonicAdept If memory serves me correct, Brother Glen Cook has served in several capacities as a member or committee member of the CGMNA. He has expertise in recognition matters.



@MRichard the topic at hand is not a matter of RECOGNITION.


----------



## MRichard

MasonicAdept said:


> @MRichard the topic at hand is not a matter of RECOGNITION.



It's above my pay grade regardless.


----------



## MasonicAdept

@Glen Cook an example of a healing by the Modern Grand Lodge of England is in the case of the Old Lodge of Antiquity in 1790.


----------



## MasonicAdept

MRichard said:


> It's above my pay grade regardless.



You're good Brother @MRichard...


----------



## MasonicAdept

@Glen Cook,

Laurence Dermott was a Mason who was initially raised under the Moderns, but changed allegiance to Antient.

Can you tell me of any documentation of his healing, since both Grand Lodges deemed each other clandestine?

I would like to know what method was used to have him received into the Antient Lodge?

If there was no formal ceremony they called "healing" then we cannot be dogmatic about seeing formal acts of the Lodge or Grand Lodge regarding healing.

I am not making a case for the GL of England Modern healing African Lodge, but just making a point, that GLs didn't make a habit of using elaborate ceremonies or processes to accept Brothers from Lodges they deemed clandestine or rechartering (rewarranting) Lodges under Grand Bodies they deemed clandestine.

In some case they simply just gave them a warrant under their jurisdiction and went on about their business.


----------



## Bloke

I don't think we can be "too technical" in this - indeed the whole question rests in the detail and technicalities..

I hate this word "healing".... its simply a question on if you are regular, irregular, or clandestine - the latter being two words which people used in different ways... "healing" seems a mainly American thing ? Would that be true to say ?
*
The answer would lie in the process of the late 18th Century. *Here, I know in the 19th Century, if an irregular or clandestine group of masons wanted to become regular, they would be re initiated in the regular jurisdiction using a regular warrant OR they would be accepted in a regular lodge without too many questions being asked. Others I've read of in the 1700's, a group of masons got together without a warrant and made masons - sometimes legitimizing those degrees by later obtaining a warrant with support of  local district Grand Master, or writing directly to a mother Grand Lodge in Europe. Such was the case with Victorian Naval and Military Lodge #49 which started meeting in 1865 but did not get its warrant until 1866 - but I don't know if they actually made masons in that year without a warrant.. Being founded in 1788, the Moderns and Ancients split does not figure much in Australian's Masonic History...

I'd say Bro Cooke is *the most *experienced Bro here on Jurisprudence - but that's in today's world.. but he's probably got a good idea about what used to happen in the 1700's. As a lawyer he has a legal approach, as a member of CGMNA he is in the thick of this sort of thing...

This topic is interesting - but let's remember its not about being right or wrong, but trying to get at the murky truth.. It will be interesting to see the status of "Landmarks of our Fathers" in 10-20 years... I'll look out for it as an e-book...


----------



## Glen Cook

"WHAT I AM SAYING is that the reception of the charter covered/healed/fixed/did away with/dispensed with/removed/changed the condition of all the illegal work conferred on those Brothers. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances."

Yes, that is what we call ratification: the confirmation or adoption of an act that is already performed.   No, you didn't use the word, but that's what it is called, However, ignoring that word, you've provided no citation to any authoritative  source that the prior errors were "covered' ( I'm not sure where you got the term), healed, etc.  Acceptance of a lodge for which you credibly indicate England was unaware was clandestine, does not mean acceptance of the -prior- acts.  Again, I would welcome citation to an authoritative source that it were otherwise. 

Yes, members moved between the GLs cited, and with the GL at Wigan.  Not the subject.  The issues are (a) healing of a lodge being an accepted process at all, (b) healing being accomplished when there was no intent to do such because the clandestine nature was unknown; and (c) healing being a ratification of prior acts.

You see, you are arguing legal principles, but have provided (cited) no source to support your argument.  You are trying to argue implied ratification, that the warrant placed the prior acts in the same position as if they had been authorized, even though the document fails to mention such. However, you cite to no source which indicates this, and as England was unaware of the error,ratification (by whatever word would not seem to apply).

Using the correct word for the document authorizing a lodge to work I guess could be considered "technical", but if you are discussing a foreign (to you)  legal systen's processes, shouldn't we use the correct name for those processes?  

It may be that you are correct, that the new warrant made the prior acts hunky dory (now there's a legal word for you), but you've provided no competent evidence or even analysis that  this was so.  

Again, it is not the facts you've adduced with which I quarrel at this point, but the conclusions you are attempting to draw from those facts without citation to a credible source.


----------



## Bloke

Glen Cook said:


> "WHAT I AM SAYING is that the reception of the charter covered/healed/fixed/did away with/dispensed with/removed/changed the condition of all the illegal work conferred on those Brothers. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances."
> 
> Yes, that is what we call ratification: the confirmation or adoption of an act that is already performed.   No, you didn't use the word, but that's what it is called, However, ignoring that word, you've provided no citation to any authoritative  source that the prior errors were "covered' ( I'm not sure where you got the term), healed, etc.  Acceptance of a lodge for which you credibly indicate England was unaware was clandestine, does not mean acceptance of the -prior- acts.  Again, I would welcome citation to an authoritative source that it were otherwise.
> 
> Yes, members moved between the GLs cited, and with the GL at Wigan.  Not the subject.  The issues are (a) healing of a lodge being an accepted process at all, (b) healing being accomplished when there was no intent to do such because the clandestine nature was unknown; and (c) healing being a ratification of prior acts.
> 
> You see, you are arguing legal principles, but have provided (cited) no source to support your argument.  You are trying to argue implied ratification, that the warrant placed the prior acts in the same position as if they had been authorized, even though the document fails to mention such. However, you cite to no source which indicates this, and as England was unaware of the error,ratification (by whatever word would not seem to apply).
> 
> Using the correct word for the document authorizing a lodge to work I guess could be considered "technical", but if you are discussing a foreign (to you)  legal systen's processes, shouldn't we use the correct name for those processes?
> 
> It may be that you are correct, that the new warrant made the prior acts hunky dory (now there's a legal word for you), but you've provided no competent evidence or even analysis that  this was so.
> 
> Again, it is not the facts you've adduced with which I quarrel at this point, but the conclusions you are attempting to draw from those facts without citation to a credible source.



We don't have warrants this early, but in asking for one, would you just list out the WM, SW & JW or the whole membership of the lodge... if the whole membership, would that some way give defacto or dejure legitimacy to the names on such a list - even if those bros were made without a warrant - would the GL issuing the warrant care much if the request was from someone who was legitimate ?


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> @Glen Cook, can you explain, why it is so hard for you to accept that John Batt conferred the degree unauthorized? He degree peddled, it is just that simple.
> I have researched and asked regarding ANY authority given to Batt to confer the degrees, NO ONE GAVE HIM AUTHORITY...Not Ireland, Not Sctoland, Not England, NOT ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, now you're stretching, Glen, are you saying that the Grand Lodge of Ireland don't know who they gave authority to and the regulations they had in place? Come on, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to contradict what they have stated from their own records and registry...
> 
> 
> 
> Which would certainly prove that he had no authority, if they didn't know....




Because you have yet to prove your assertion.  That is part of publishing: your work is reviewed. 
You failed to answer my question: did you search the lodge records to determine if a deputation was granted to Batt? That's just a yes or no.  No need to post an irrelevant document. If not, the best you can say is no evidence has been adduced that he had authority, but not all sources have been reviewed. 

My point, which may not have been clear, is that GLs did not hold all the power at that time.  We know that Lodge Alfred in England (not the GL) deputised officers to make members in 1776, our time period. Mendoza_, Ars Quator Coronatarum_ 2076, 1980.  This was because the member had Army duties.  _Id_.  We know that mother Kilwinning in Scotland warranted lodges.

As to record keeping by GLsit is useful to review Lanes's recapitulation of 1777-1894, now held at Cornell (strangely, to me).  He notes lacks of warrants, various errors jn records, meeting places of lodges were  inserted when they could be reliably obtained .   Further, and importantly, there were Lodges which had no formal document of any kind but acted upon the personal "Constitution" of  the lodge by the grandmaster --or his deputy for the time being--/.  Of  particular note was his complaint of Lodges warranted  by provincial Grand Masters, notably in India in America, which were originally formed and  worked for years without the slightest recognition by Grand Lodge because the Grand Lodge was entirely ignorant of their existence, provincial Grand Masters having failed to make any return of them year after year. 

So, the records held by GL are of little comfort in concluding a point as to what exists. 

So, I would suggest you have more work to do before you can exclusively establish that Batt had no authority and that the new warrant rectified past errors.. At this point,  it seems you've left poor Prince Hall in perpetual clandestinism.


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> We don't have warrants this early, but in asking for one, would you just list out the WM, SW & JW or the whole membership of the lodge... if the whole membership, would that some way give defacto or dejure legitimacy to the names on such a list - even if those bros were made without a warrant - would the GL issuing the warrant care much if the request was from someone who was legitimate ?


Excellent questions. I had wondered if founding members would be included on a warrant.   It may be that granting The warrant would waive the magic wand of ratification., but we have no authoritative citation of such, and so it should be treated as a possibility, and not as a proven fact.


----------



## Bloke

Glen Cook said:


> Excellent questions. I had wondered if founding members would be included on a warrant.   It may be that granting The warrant would waive the magic wand of ratification., but we have no authoritative citation of such, and so it should be treated as a possibility, and not as a proven fact.



"..it should be treated as a possibility, and not as a proven fact."

Indeed. 

The lineage is all well and good... but practice and precedent is also important; the rub comes when Prince Hall Brothers were denied recognition by their local counterparts.. but in 2016, that's not the case.. However, I would think in 1780, if my Grand Master or District Grand Master had arranged for a warrant with my name on it, carrying that warrant, I cannot see how I could be denied entry into another lodge under the same jurisdiction on the basis of "irregularity" .. and by logic, I would argue any Freemasons made so under the same circumstances as I (regardless of any unusual circumstances) should likewise be regular... one thing which has been missed in all this is if they were in good standing (having paid their dues) - another question is, would that be as significant  as it is today..

Bro Hairston's statements seem to raise more questions than they answer; but the central one is calling into question the Irish Initiation of Prince Hall.. at least these questions are being raised from within Prince Hall and not without; for if raised from without it would be seen as an attack on the whole PH system... (the logical thing to do is to read the book  )

Bro Glen,,, should Prince Hall and his companions and immediate masonic descendants be proved to be irregular or clandestine, would it have any effect on today's general recognition of Prince Hall GLs ? I would hope not...


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> "..it should be treated as a possibility, and not as a proven fact."
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The lineage is all well and good... but practice and precedent is also important; the rub comes when Prince Hall Brothers were denied recognition by their local counterparts.. but in 2016, that's not the case.. However, I would think in 1780, if my Grand Master or District Grand Master had arranged for a warrant with my name on it, carrying that warrant, I cannot see how I could be denied entry into another lodge under the same jurisdiction on the basis of "irregularity" .. and by logic, I would argue any Freemasons made so under the same circumstances as I (regardless of any unusual circumstances) should likewise be regular... one thing which has been missed in all this is if they were in good standing (having paid their dues) - another question is, would that be as significant  as it is today..
> 
> Bro Hairston's statements seem to raise more questions than they answer; but the central one is calling into question the Irish Initiation of Prince Hall.. at least these questions are being raised from within Prince Hall and not without; for if raised from without it would be seen as an attack on the whole PH system... (the logical thing to do is to read the book  )
> 
> Bro Glen,,, should Prince Hall and his companions and immediate masonic descendants be proved to be irregular or clandestine, would it have any effect on today's general recognition of Prince Hall GLs ? I would hope not...



 Wait. I have to read the book? I can't wait for the cliff notes? 

No, I Really don't think it would have an impact on the present understanding of Prince Hall. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances At least from that point forward  they were considered regular. That pretty much  closes the book in my view
Absent  of course, the purported recognition with Grand Lodge of France


----------



## Bloke

Glen Cook said:


> Wait. I have to read the book? I can't wait for the cliff notes?
> 
> No, I Really don't think it would have an impact on the present understanding of Prince Hall. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances At least from that point forward  they were considered regular. That pretty much  closes the book in my view
> Absent  of course, the purported recognition with Grand Lodge of France


Thanks 

In the interest of thread drift, how did you become a member of a UGLE Lodge ?


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> Thanks
> 
> In the interest of thread drift, how did you become a member of a UGLE Lodge ?


 I'm a sailor. I know how to drift .

They  wished to save a Cheshire warrant by making it an emergency services lodge. I am a former EMT and a (now retired) retired US naval officer.   Meetings were only four times a year and that was something I could do. I was invited to go through the line when they saw I was  serious about attending.   I then joined the  Royal Arch chapter and went through that line.    After 13 years, I have dear friends there. I have a second home in Scotland, and so will often spend time up there around my English meetings , but also attending Scottish meetings.  As part of my US duties, I attend international meetings and so can spend time in the UK for that purpose .   Regrettably, both my Lodge and Chapter folded. A number of us went to two other lodges. I am joining a chapter where I have a number of acquaintances and have been asked to go through the line there,  as one of the middle officers had to drop out due to very tragic family issues, and they do not wish to move the young men up too quickly 

It's  been one of the most rewarding aspects of my Masonic career. Coupled with the challenge of learning new rituals when I was, perhaos, a bit jaded by the ones I had used and taught as a grand lecturer, it was also a new Masonic culture.  My lodge had  an organisational sense of humor, as EMS folk will do.  It was a great time. So, October I shall be over for lodge and chapter.


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> Yes, that is what we call ratification: the confirmation or adoption of an act that is already performed.   No, you didn't use the word, but that's what it is called, However, ignoring that word, you've provided no citation to any authoritative  source that the prior errors were "covered' ( I'm not sure where you got the term), healed, etc



@Glen Cook, now who is using modern application or usages to define past events?
Ratification may be what ius called now, but surely wasn't what it was called THEN. 
Let me say this once more, then I will leave to interpret the statement however you may, and you can split all of the hairs you need.

The Grand Lodge of Modern did not have to ratify anything because they were unaware of any prior condition of African Lodge.
What they did do BY THEIR ACTION OF ISSUING A WARRANT, was CHANGE THE CONDITION OF THAT LODGE FROM CLANDESTINE/IRREGULAR TO A REGULAR AND DULY CONSTITUTED LODGE.

I got the word healed by definition of REMEDYING AN AFFLICTION. 

Please tell me that you understand that the concept of healing was developmental just as the other matters of masonic jurisprudence. There was strict set of standards to weigh whether the issuing of a warrant/charter healed/fixed an irregularity.

It is an irrefutable fact that what we can now call being healed was practiced by both the Grand Lodges of England back before the Union in 1813.

I have provided TWO WELL DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES, for which you have failed to acknowledge or even address.

Now let me say this, the AUTHORITIVE CITATION for the covering of the illegal work by John Batt is the fact that they were clandestine/irregular and then the Grand Lodge of England provided them a charter and African Lodge was no longer clandestine but were now REGULAR. The very fact that African Lodge No. 459 was accepted and placed on the rolls of the Premier Grand Lodge of England is a fact that the condition that African Lodge once held (clandestine) was remedied or healed.

That is as simp!e as I can put it. Also understand that I am seasoned enough to know and understand that just because you may refuse to accept my usage of the tern healed, doesn't make you right. Neither does it bolster the credibility of your position. You would rather debate a minor technicality than engage in the vibrant discussion of the main point: the status quo narrative that has been in place for the past 200 years has been exposed as false.



> Acceptance of a lodge for which you credibly indicate England was unaware was clandestine, does not mean acceptance of the -prior- acts.



No one said England accepted  prior acts. What I said was that they were UNAWARE of the prior acts. Yet, whether they accepted them or didn't is of no consequence at this point, because they issued the charter/warrant that healed the condition of African Lodge prior to 1784.



> Again, I would welcome citation to an authoritative source that it were otherwise.



Glen the authrotivie source you are asking for is moot, because you are building a meaningless strawman argument based on a flawed interpretation of what I stated.



> Yes, members moved between the GLs cited, and with the GL at Wigan.  Not the subject.  The issues are (a) healing of a lodge being an accepted process at all, (b) healing being accomplished when there was no intent to do such because the clandestine nature was unknown; and (c) healing being a ratification of prior acts.



Glen, the concept of healing was a process. I have cited two examples, either refute the example with your own documentation or concede that you're being dogmatic for the purpose of having some type of argument. Masonic concepts such as healing and even the conferral of the degrees were not as codified and pristine processes as you attempt to imp!y. They were developed over time. I used the word heal because it defines what England did whether they intended to do it or not, their action  healed the illegal work of John Batt and remedied the handicapped permit of John Rowe.

That is the point.



> You see, you are arguing legal principles, but have provided (cited) no source to support your argument.  You are trying to argue implied ratification, that the warrant placed the prior acts in the same position as if they had been authorized, even though the document fails to mention such.



Glen, YOU SIR, ARE ARGUING LEGAL PRINCIPLES. I am simply stating that England by their action of issuing a warrant to African Lodge, healed their condition of beiung clandestine prior to the issuing of the charter. If you want to remain stuck in the legal technicalities of how it doesn't fit your into your reasonings, feel free, but don't accuse me of doing it. You are building straw men arguments. 

I want to make sure that I place this question here so you don't miss it, because you have failed to answer it already...what was the process of accepting a member or lodge into either of the Grand Lodges in England when those members or lodges came from the rival Grand Lodge?

Answering this question would clear up the confusion you are creating, trying to argue a point I am not even debating.




> However, you cite to no source which indicates this, and as England was unaware of the error,ratification (by whatever word would not seem to apply).



I think you are debating your own interpretation at this point, and you have a hard enough job trying to refute my position with the book.

I stand on two things that are supported by documentation and historical as well as modern events.

1. England was unaware of the prior condition of African Lodge.
2. Even though they were unaware of their prior condition, England's decision to issue them a charter, healed that very condition.

Accept it or not, those are the facts. It isn't a matter of "legal principle', it is a simple matter of the prior condition of African Lodge (documented and irrefutable) and the action of England and the result of that action (documented and irrefutable).



> Using the correct word for the document authorizing a lodge to work I guess could be considered "technical", but if you are discussing a foreign (to you)  legal systen's processes, shouldn't we use the correct name for those processes?



Glen, their process obviously is foreign to you as well. Since you're so bent and religiously beholden to a strict conformity to your interpretation...please provide a documented regulation for the Grand Lodge of England (Modern) for healing or how  they were to accept members or lodges from jurisdictions they deemed clandestine.

If you cannot, then dimish the credibility of your own argument. It is simple, itnwas an ancient practice that has a modern name. Whether England was aware isn't the major issue, the RESULT of the action is. The warrant CHANGED THE CONDITION OF AFRICAN LODGE. You can't refute that.



> It may be that you are correct, that the new warrant made the prior acts hunky dory (now there's a legal word for you), but you've provided no competent evidence or even analysis that  this was so.



It is you close your eyes and believe that you're invisible. I am correct in the fact that the warrant healed the prior condition, that is irrefutable. I have sat here and explained my position and you are just being difficult. I have already provided evidence that African Lodge was clandestine. I have provided evidence that the warrant issued by England healed it.

Your argument is merely that my use of the term "healed" doesn't conform to your definition and methodology of today's standard. You want the warrant to indicate such, but no masonic charter or warrant would ever do such. 



> Again, it is not the facts you've adduced with which I quarrel at this point, but the conclusions you are attempting to draw from those facts without citation to a credible source.



You just like to quarrel Glen.
I tell you what, publish your contentions. My position is in print, has been and being reviewed by as bright a mind as your own. They seem to understand what I have stated and are clear on my usage and position. Join the ranks of reviewer, and put you point to pen, and you will be told that you're splitting hairs and being way too technical...


----------



## Ripcord22A

So when PH sent that letter to England he purposely remitted facts about how he and other members were MADE Masons?  He lied.  He lied for the purpose of getting a Warrent.  So the history of PHA was fabricated amd the truth was a lie? Hmmm.....I agree with you @Bloke at least these issues are being raised by PHA member amd not from.wothout

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> I would suggest you have more work to do before you can exclusively establish that Batt had no authority and that the new warrant rectified past errors.. At this point,  it seems you've left poor Prince Hall in perpetual clandestinism.



I will only address this portion of your comment because the rest is meaningless when I did in fact answer the question of a search for any authority given to Batt by any Lodge or Grand Lodge to make masons. 

I stated that I checked with the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the Grand Lodges of Ireland, Scotland sand England, and there is NO RECORD OR KNOWLEDGE OF ANY DEPUTIZATION OR AUTHORITY GIVEN TO BATT BY ANYONE.

So, please stop being arrogant and actually read my comments. If those Grand Lodges state that Batt was not authorized under their Grand Lodge to make masons, my work is done on that point. If you sir, want to raise the issue that he was deputized by some authority, then do so at your own peril.

1. You will have to PROVE that John Batt was still active in a lodge.

2. You will have to prove which lodge.

3. You will have to prove then that that lodge gave him authority to make masons.

What you are merely doing is offeriung your BASELESS SPECULATION which has no merit because you cannot prove the first point.

So please by all means retrace my steps and get the answers I already have. I did the research, your job is to refute it with facts NOT SPECULATIONS.


----------



## Glen Cook

MasonicAdept said:


> I will only address this portion of your comment because the rest is meaningless when I did in fact answer the question of a search for any authority given to Batt by any Lodge or Grand Lodge to make masons.
> 
> I stated that I checked with the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the Grand Lodges of Ireland, Scotland sand England, and there is NO RECORD OR KNOWLEDGE OF ANY DEPUTIZATION OR AUTHORITY GIVEN TO BATT BY ANYONE.
> 
> So, please stop being arrogant and actually read my comments. If those Grand Lodges state that Batt was not authorized under their Grand Lodge to make masons, my work is done on that point. If you sir, want to raise the issue that he was deputized by some authority, then do so at your own peril.
> 
> 1. You will have to PROVE that John Batt was still active in a lodge.
> 
> 2. You will have to prove which lodge.
> 
> 3. You will have to prove then that that lodge gave him authority to make masons.
> 
> What you are merely doing is offeriung your BASELESS SPECULATION which has no merit because you cannot prove the first point.
> 
> So please by all means retrace my steps and get the answers I already have. I did the research, your job is to refute it with facts NOT SPECULATIONS.


Sigh.  Name calling, really?  I did read your comments.  That is why I responded.  

You have the burden of proof backwards.  You have asserted facts and do not have a factual basis.  You have the obligation to persuade, not me. As best can be determined, you did not check with the Lodge to determine if there had been a deputation. Grand Lodges weren't the only ones who provided authorizations, and an example has been provided to you.  You have not provided information as to the concept of being healed under England in the 18th C. You admit that the warrant itself had no such language.  

My job isn't to prove anything, but to point out you have drawn unsupported conclusions.  I have done so, and may well do so in other fora.


----------



## Ressam

John Batt!
What a Great Guy! He listened to his heart!
And did what he should do! Truly!We are all Humans!
We will always look on the things through -- our personal "emotional/sensual prism"!
Always! That's The Law!
Different perceptions! How difficult To Unite!


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> You have the burden of proof backwards.  You have asserted facts and do not have a factual basis.  You have the obligation to persuade, not me.



@Glen Cook, I have asserted facts that have been researched and tested. You sir, have provided contentions in the form of speculations that have no base. Your citation of Alfred Lodge in NO WAY supports your speculation that John Batt was deputized to make Masons. In fact, my research has ruled that out. Just because YOU think otherwise is of no consequence to the fact that to make it a possibility, you have to at least make ONE connection between John Batt and some "authority" who deputized him...YOU SIR, have to prove that. I have the emails of four Grand Lodges stating that they have no record of any authority given to John Batt. SO, you may want to slight the GLs and their records, but you have failed to even give the name of a Lodge that would possibly give him the deputization...Was it Irish Military Lodge? Can you show documentation that they ever gave deputization to members to make Masons without the aid of the Lodge? Can you provide documentation that Batt was even active in Irish Military Lodge after 1777? 

Sir, with all due respect, you LACK OF DOCUMENTATION, and inability to support your SPECULATION with one shred of evidence beside Alfred Lodge did it, is enough for me to know that my position is firm, in addition to the answers provided to me from the possible Grand Lodges and the Lodge that could have given that authority...

I have done enough research in circles to know that the REVIEWER has the SAME RESPONSIBILITY as the author. If you want to question or refute my position, PRESENT YOUR FACTS. What you presented and ONLY presented was the instance in which Alfred Lodge gave deputization...But you FAILED to provide documentation that John Batt received it...You have some work to do Glen.




> As best can be determined, you did not check with the Lodge to determine if there had been a deputation. Grand Lodges weren't the only ones who provided authorizations, and an example has been provided to you.



No, as best as can be determined, is that you are in this deliberate state of denial, believing that it is making your point. I have already stated there is NO RECORDS with Irish Military Lodge has ANY DEPUTATION given to ANY OF ITS MEMBERS to make Masons without aid of the Lodge. This was checked by the Grand Archivist of Ireland. In addition to finding NO SUCH AUTHORITY given to John Batt, I asked if it was common practice under the Grand Lodge of Ireland to do so, in which answer returned was NO. Any such initiation by John Batt was ILLEGAL. Now, if you disagree, then PROVE that Irish Military Lodge gave the deputization, I have already looked. Prove that Ireland gave that type of authority. Prove that some Lodge gave him authority.

You offer merely instances of ANOTHER LODGE UNCONNECTED TO THE TOPIC DID SO, and raising it as a "valid opposition" to the fact that John Batt had no authority...In debate YOU MUST PROVE YOUR POINT OR SUPPORT YOUR SPECULATIONS. I have went to the SOURCES and researched, you have merely an instance of a Lodge that deputized its members to make members of its Lodge, but haven't YET provided one shred of evidence that this was the case with John Batt. And the most intriguing part is that you continue to accuse me of not doing the research, but it would seem that you want to throw up baseless speculation and make me do the work to disprove them...That doesn't fly in real research circles sir. YOU MUST PROVE YOUR POINTS OF OPPOSITION. I have the word and records of the Grand Lodges and the Lodge that have NO RECORD of ANY DEPUTIZATION of John Batt. Either provide support in John Batt's instance, or I will relegate your speculation as a opinion and unsupported opposition.




> You have not provided information as to the concept of being healed under England in the 18th C. You admit that the warrant itself had no such language.



I believe that I have the history and the warrant, and the fact that PHA descended from African Lodge and is accepted as a REGULAR BODY. If I was trying to say that England was aware of their prior condition of African Lodge and moved to remedy the circumstances, then I would have to "jump through the hoop" you hold up as a standard then. The concept existed and I gave TWO instances. Accept them or not, you cannot say I didn't provide them, you can only say YOU DON'T ACCEPT THEM.



> My job isn't to prove anything, but to point out you have drawn unsupported conclusions.  I have done so, and may well do so in other fora.



On the contrary my dear Brother, you have the job of proving your opposition. You cannot attempt to discredit my work and research with mere speculations and baseless instances that have NO CONNECTION to the topic at hand. You have the responsibility of providing meaningful and significant sources that will prove what you are proposing an an alternative narrative...You have yet to do that...I am waiting...


----------



## MasonicAdept

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> So when PH sent that letter to England he purposely remitted facts about how he and other members were MADE Masons?  He lied.  He lied for the purpose of getting a Warrent.  So the history of PHA was fabricated amd the truth was a lie? Hmmm.....I agree with you @Bloke at least these issues are being raised by PHA member amd not from.wothout



@jdmadsenCraterlake211, I want to make sure that you aren't painting with a broad brush and becoming gung ho.
Prince Hall history must be examined within the context of the society it developed.

It is easy to sit back in 2016, and say, "Oh Prince Hall lied, and the whole story was fabricated!"

That wouldn't be fair. You have to look at the circumstances, and the society and perspective held of black people in that society. You have to then understand the movement of those who existed under the pressures of the day and then evaluate their actions as either an attempt defraud England or the survival of the aspirations of a journey of 15 men to place African American men on the same footing as those whit men in their society, and believing that Freemasonry was a means of accomplishing that objective.

Be careful with that my Brother.

This why Prince Hall members were very distrusting of white masons and their researchers, because they sometime viewed the history of Prince Hall from the comforts of white privilege and without giving context to the actions and movements of Black men in Slave States and societies of segregation.


----------



## MRichard

@MasonicAdept Brother Cook is an attorney. This is what he does for a living. 

@Glen Cook Has any of this changed your views on PHA Masonry? Do you still think they are regular and deserve recognition by UGLE?


----------



## MasonicAdept

MRichard said:


> @MasonicAdept Brother Cook is an attorney. This is what he does for a living.



@MRichard if the matter was one of CIVIL LAW, then your point would be understood. But it isn't. We are speaking of an action by England healing and covering the illegal work of John Batt. While he is seeking for some "formal" declaration from England that they were using the warrant to heal African Lodge, the FACT IS, the warrant healed the illegal work of John Batt.

Unless, he can prove that African Lodge was still clandestine AFTER reception of the charter, his point of seeing some wording in the warrant is insignificant.


----------



## MRichard

MasonicAdept said:


> @MRichard if the matter was one of CIVIL LAW, then your point would be understood. But it isn't. We are speaking of an action by England healing and covering the illegal work of John Batt. While he is seeking for some "formal" declaration from England that they were using the warrant to heal African Lodge, the FACT IS, the warrant healed the illegal work of John Batt.
> 
> Unless, he can prove that African Lodge was still clandestine AFTER reception of the charter, his point of seeing some wording in the warrant is insignificant.



That's not really my point. I understand Brother Cook as I have a JD as well even though I don't practice nor am I in good standing for financial reasons. He is who he is.


----------



## MasonicAdept

MRichard said:


> That's not really my point. I understand Brother Cook as I have a JD as well even though I don't practice nor am I in good standing for financial reasons. He is who he is.



Ah, I get it now, thanks Bro. @MRichard.


----------



## Ripcord22A

MasonicAdept said:


> @jdmadsenCraterlake211, comforts of white privilege .


You had me right up untill then.  Im done.  White privilege?  Really? 


Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MRichard

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> You had me right up untill then.  Im done.  White privilege?  Really?
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Would racism be better? Cause it still exists in the craft.


----------



## MRichard

@coachn What do you think of this new information?


----------



## MasonicAdept

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> You had me right up untill then.  Im done.  White privilege?  Really?



@jdmadsenCraterlake211 don't take the statement personally. This mindset has pervaded through the minds and writings of white writers and Masonic historians for years regarding Prince Hall History, that is just the truth.

The same sentiment can be held for black masons who say that they would have done this or that differently. In 2016, we have the luxury of judging the actions of those Masons who existed in a society very much different from our own, and critically examine and make judgments on their actions.

Many may not like my views, but they are supported by plenty of documentation.
If you believe that this book is a problem for Prince Hall Jurisdictions, wait until my second book is released, called SEPARATE BUT EQUAL: ADDRESSING MASONIC SEGREGATION...


----------



## Glen Cook

MRichard said:


> @MasonicAdept Brother Cook is an attorney. This is what he does for a living.
> 
> @Glen Cook Has any of this changed your views on PHA Masonry? Do you still think they are regular and deserve recognition by UGLE?


Yes, I do, as the subsequent warrant legitimized the acts from thence forth.

The statements about white privilege are mislaid in my instance. I am a past board member of my local NAACP, a life member of the organization, and a former attorney of the year for my chapter. I sat as a pro tem officer in a PHA lodge the first time c. 1997

Since it was brought up, yes, I am an attorney, but was applying Masonic  law,  which has its own private body of law.  I indicate this to explain that it is that body of law which I am applying , not the civil law, in noting my concerns with the conclusions that I find poorly supported or unsupported.  Readers may go through the discussion and determine for themselves if there is validity in my comments.

Ad hominem attacks typically express more about the person making them than about the one attacked.  It is often taken as an acceptance that no legitimate response can be made.


----------



## Ripcord22A

MRichard said:


> Would racism be better? Cause it still exists in the craft.


Yeah it woukd have been.  Saying racism is WAY different the "WHITE PRIVILEGE"  ill tell you right now the only thing im privilge to as a white man is nothing!  In fact ive missed out on a few things because im white.  FASFA, college admission(these were when im younger) ability to be a basketball player(ok im being facicious there)  but white privilige come on man.  If i walked up to a swankey club and was like "hey im white ya gotta let me in"  theyd throw me off the balcony...but if say....colin kaepernick walked up theyd let him right in.....not cause hes black i get that but u get my point.  What about blackpeoplemeet.com, BET, JET magazine, NAACP...if i made any of these things for only white people the NAACP and ACLU would have me in court so fast....

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MasonicAdept

Ressam said:


> John Batt!
> What a Great Guy! He listened to his heart!
> And did what he should do! Truly!We are all Humans!
> We will always look on the things through -- our personal "emotional/sensual prism"!
> Always! That's The Law!
> Different perceptions! How difficult To Unite!



I can understand your sentiment, but there is no proof John Batt conferred the degrees illegally as a matter correcting any wrong on the part Boston Lodges.
There is no proof that Prince Hall or any members had petitioned any Lodges in Boston prior to being initiated, so what would he have been correcting?

John Batt got paid to confer the degrees, it wasn't like he did it for free or as a charitable act.


----------



## MasonicAdept

Glen Cook said:


> Yes, I do, as the subsequent warrant legitimized the acts from thence forth.



@Glen Cook you just made the VERY POINT I WAS MAKING...I emphasize, in your comment, "*the subsequent warrant legitimized the acts*", I just used the word, "healed". And I won't even turn your very line of questioning on you to show that it was a pointless line of questioning.  We are saying the EXACT same thing, you used the word, LEGITIMIZE, I used the term HEALED.

Thank You.

No Ad Hominem attacks, I just stated that you were being arrogant in trying to accuse me of not doing the research, when I sat there and stated multiple times that I had indeed did the research.


----------



## MasonicAdept

You guys do not have to begin listing your black affiliations and organizations you belong to.
The statement of "white privilege" was stated in a general context.

But you know what they say...


----------



## Ressam

Money ain't problem, Sir Adept!
It's all about -- Souls! Black, White, Yellow! Doesn't matter! The Essence of Souls is same! One Creator! Everyone is precious!
It's all about The Aliens. And "miracles". We love miracles.


----------



## MasonicAdept

Ressam said:


> Money ain't problem, Sir Adept!
> It's all about -- Souls! Black, White, Yellow! Doesn't matter! The Essence of Souls is same! One Creator! Everyone is precious!
> It's all about The Aliens. And "miracles". We love miracles.



Ok.


----------



## Ressam

Mr.Adept!
Can I, please, ask You couple questions?
1. The Origins. The Founders of Freemasonry. If I understood correctly -- it's "The Group of People", not "One Person"?
2. Do you know -- Will.I.am from The Black Eyed Peas! Is he Freemason? Just interesting!


----------



## MRichard

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Yeah it woukd have been.  Saying racism is WAY different the "WHITE PRIVILEGE"  ill tell you right now the only thing im privilge to as a white man is nothing!  In fact ive missed out on a few things because im white.  FASFA, college admission(these were when im younger) ability to be a basketball player(ok im being facicious there)  but white privilige come on man.  If i walked up to a swankey club and was like "hey im white ya gotta let me in"  theyd throw me off the balcony...but if say....colin kaepernick walked up theyd let him right in.....not cause hes black i get that but u get my point.  What about blackpeoplemeet.com, BET, JET magazine, NAACP...if i made any of these things for only white people the NAACP and ACLU would have me in court so fast....
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Well, I can tell you this. You are free to petition any state grand lodge and not worry about being blackballed because of the color of your skin. I have to drive almost 90 minutes to get to my lodge on meeting nights. There are many lodges that are closer including about 5 within a 10 mile radius of my house.

Right before I was initiated, I sold a riding lawn mower through one of local buy/sell/trade Facebook groups. The gentleman that eventually bought it was an older Caucasian man. When he came to look at it, I knew he was a freemason cause he was wearing a hat with the Square & Compasses. I told him I was going to be initiated next week. He told me what lodge he belonged to. It was local and one I thought about petitioning. I told him I had concerns if I petitioned. Surprisingly, he admitted that there were still some members of that lodge where race would be an issue. It confirmed to me that I made the right decision.


----------



## MRichard

MasonicAdept said:


> Ok.



Ressam is a profane. Got him on ignore but the emails will still show the posts.


----------



## coachn

MRichard said:


> @coachn What do you think of this new information?


Bro., it's a long thread and admittedly I have not been following.  To what new information do you refer?


----------



## MRichard

coachn said:


> Bro., it's a long thread and admittedly I have not been following.  To what new information do you refer?



Look at post #6 on page 1. Brother Hairston has written a book documenting that some key dates for PHA Masonry are wrong.


----------



## coachn

MRichard said:


> Look at post #6 on page 1. Brother Hairston has written a book documenting that some key dates for PHA Masonry are wrong.


First thoughts: I'd like to see what is written in "Warrant No. 459", if only out of curiosity.

Other than that, although I don't have a dog in the fight, it appears by the question, "Was Prince Hall a Prince Hall Mason?", that Prince Hall was a Freemason of outstanding influence; enough influence to have a whole version of Masonry named after him.

That being said, I think the question to ask is: Was he alive when "Prince Hall" Masonry was officially named after him?

And just a side question: Why would the original poster get this thread started with two questions that he appears to have already had answered for himself?


----------



## MasonicAdept

coachn said:


> And just a side question: Why would the original poster get this thread started with two questions that he appears to have already had answered for himself?



@coachn 

The answer is: Because the original poster was getting other people's opinions and why they held them.


----------



## coachn

MasonicAdept said:


> @coachn
> 
> The answer is: Because the original poster was getting other people's opinions and why they held them.


Ah!  Makes sense.  Thanks.  I've done that myself quite a few times.  How's the research coming along?


----------



## MasonicAdept

@coachn, the research is going great. Just gearing up for book two. I may enlist some of your views on the subject.

Thanks for asking.


----------



## Ripcord22A

MRichard said:


> Well, I can tell you this. You are free to petition any state grand lodge and not worry about being blackballed because of the color of your skin. I have to drive almost 90 minutes to get to my lodge on meeting nights. There are many lodges that are closer including about 5 within a 10 mile radius of my house.
> 
> Right before I was initiated, I sold a riding lawn mower through one of local buy/sell/trade Facebook groups. The gentleman that eventually bought it was an older Caucasian man. When he came to look at it, I knew he was a freemason cause he was wearing a hat with the Square & Compasses. I told him I was going to be initiated next week. He told me what lodge he belonged to. It was local and one I thought about petitioning. I told him I had concerns if I petitioned. Surprisingly, he admitted that there were still some members of that lodge where race would be an issue. It confirmed to me that I made the right decision.


Thats called racism not white privilege.  And ive been told by PHA masons that it works the other way too.... that they know a white man would get blackballed in their lodge.

By saying "white" privlige your saying that just hy being white ima get something.  No...not true.  In fact i was once profiled in Fayetteville, nc by a WHITE cop.  I had gotten lost(had only been stationed there for about 3 days) amd was trying to get back to base and got pulled over.  He conducted a felony trafgic stop on me...thats where they get outta the car, guns drawn using the PA system to walk you back to them....handcuffed me and searched my car with our saying a word to me. And i didnt say or argue with him as i knew i hant done anything wrong.... Once they didnt find anything in my car he asked me what i was doing where i was.  I told him i had just gottem stationed at Ft Bragg as a Military Policeman and was trying to get back to base.  I then asked him why i was stopped.  He laughed amd said cause ur white.  Only time white people come to this neighborhood is to buy girls or drugs.  He took the cuffs off and told me how to get back to post.  

Call it white privilge if u want cause i got let go with out getting beat i call it "cause I was respectful and didnt argue or question i just did as i was told."

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MRichard

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Thats called racism not white privilege.  And ive been told by PHA masons that it works the other way too.... that they know a white man would get blackballed in their lodge.
> 
> By saying "white" privlige your saying that just hy being white ima get something.  No...not true.  In fact i was once profiled in Fayetteville, nc by a WHITE cop.  I had gotten lost(had only been stationed there for about 3 days) amd was trying to get back to base and got pulled over.  He conducted a felony trafgic stop on me...thats where they get outta the car, guns drawn using the PA system to walk you back to them....handcuffed me and searched my car with our saying a word to me. And i didnt say or argue with him as i knew i hant done anything wrong.... Once they didnt find anything in my car he asked me what i was doing where i was.  I told him i had just gottem stationed at Ft Bragg as a Military Policeman and was trying to get back to base.  I then asked him why i was stopped.  He laughed amd said cause ur white.  Only time white people come to this neighborhood is to buy girls or drugs.  He took the cuffs off and told me how to get back to post.
> 
> Call it white privilge if u want cause i got let go with out getting beat i call it "cause I was respectful and didnt argue or question i just did as i was told."
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



We will agree to disagree. I am well aware of what racism is.


----------



## Ripcord22A

That's probably best my brother I don't want to get into an argument that cannot be won by either side

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Bloke

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> You had me right up untill then.  Im done.  White privilege?  Really?
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Really. As white guy, I think in a historical context you can use the phrase "white privilege... just as I come from a Irish Catholic background and might use the phrase Protestant Privilege.. (and there was = enshrined in law in the UK).. really even today such things exist. I think in the context of the 1700 & 1800's you're on completely safe ground using the phrase "white privilege" and probably the same all the way until post ww2. Sadly, it's still they way is some places, but make no mistake, "white privilege" and "racism" are not the same thing.. 



jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> So when PH sent that letter to England he purposely remitted facts about how he and other members were MADE Masons?  He lied.  He lied for the purpose of getting a Warrent.  So the history of PHA was fabricated amd the truth was a lie? Hmmm.....I agree with you @Bloke at least these issues are being raised by PHA member amd not from.wothout
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


That remains to be seen... but he might have just made omissions or not included all the facts.. he mighta been thinking like a salesperson or lawyer who really needed to get a warrant......


----------



## Bloke

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> That's probably best my brother I don't want to get into an argument that cannot be won by either side
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



I should have read the whole thread first


----------



## Brother JC

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Fayetteville



My dad spent 26 years at Bragg, made it all the way to Raeford, and then Whispering Pines, after he retired.


----------



## MasonicAdept

> That remains to be seen... but he might have just made omissions or not included all the facts.. he mighta been thinking like a salesperson or lawyer who really needed to get a warrant......



@Bloke 
You hit the nail on the head. This was my point. We have to understand the historical context to understand the actions of Prince Hall.
Yes, Prince Hall omitted John Batt and his conferral of the degrees on African Lodge, it could have cost them their charter.


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> @Bloke
> You hit the nail on the head. This was my point. We have to understand the historical context to understand the actions of Prince Hall.
> Yes, Prince Hall omitted John Batt and his conferral of the degrees on African Lodge, it could have cost them their charter.



I will say goodnight, but the text of the charter would be interesting.... some lodges were given special rights and privileges in their warrant...


----------



## MasonicAdept

The text of the charter is easy to find, it has been documented and published in a plethora of places.
Here is a link to the text:
http://masonicworld.com/ph/PRINCEHALLCHARTER.htm


----------



## Ripcord22A

MasonicAdept said:


> @Bloke
> You hit the nail on the head. This was my point. We have to understand the historical context to understand the actions of Prince Hall.
> Yes, Prince Hall omitted John Batt and his conferral of the degrees on African Lodge, it could have cost them their charter.


So he at best purposefully mislead

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MRichard

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> So he at best purposefully mislead
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Given the circumstances, he made a shrewd move. End of discussion. What else was he supposed to do given the time period he was in and the racism he had to deal with?


----------



## MasonicAdept

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> So he at best purposefully mislead



@jdmadsenCraterlake211
Let's, for a moment, accept your current comment as is, that Prince Hall purposefully misled.
Can you understand why?


----------



## MRichard

Let's look at the facts. It had already been determined that Prince Hall Masonry had an irregular formation. There were other US grand lodges that were formed irregularly as well, that was deemed acceptable considering time period.

http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

You never hear anyone complain about the irregular formation of these other grand lodges. In fact they are all recognized by the UGLE and the grand lodges that won't recognize their PHA counterpart due to its  irregular formation.

Shocking!


----------



## Ripcord22A

Im not saying i dont recognize them....ive sat in a PH lodge and had PH bros sit in our lodge.  They are regular now and i understand that they were irregularly formed...but they got a warrent even though they were black.  So the rascism has nothing to do with it.  I think if he had explained that they were missled by Batt they still woulda got their warrent.  

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MRichard

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Im not saying i dont recognize them....ive sat in a PH lodge and had PH bros sit in our lodge.  They are regular now and i understand that they were irregularly formed...but they got a warrent even though they were black.  So the rascism has nothing to do with it.  I think if he had explained that they were missled by Batt they still woulda got their warrent.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Racism had nothing to do with it. You lost me there.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Inwas refering to what @MasonicAdept said

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MasonicAdept

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Im not saying i dont recognize them....ive sat in a PH lodge and had PH bros sit in our lodge.  They are regular now and i understand that they were irregularly formed...but they got a warrent even though they were black.  So the rascism has nothing to do with it.  I think if he had explained that they were missled by Batt they still woulda got their warrent.



@jdmadsenCraterlake211, you may be right in that sentiment, that maybe they would have received the warrant if he would have disclosed the initial illegal work of John Batt, but maybe he wasn't taking any chances.
Again, we have the luxury of sitting in 2016 making judgments on what could have or what would have been.

We can make those judgments, but we have to make them fairly...

I don't think Racism was an issue in the granting of the Charter by the Grand Lodge of England, but the fact that they were not members of the ALREADY ESTABLISHED LODGES in Boston may be a product of that.


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> The text of the charter is easy to find, it has been documented and published in a plethora of places.
> Here is a link to the text:
> http://masonicworld.com/ph/PRINCEHALLCHARTER.htm



Thanks !

"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, North America, *do hereby constitute the said brethren into a regular Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons,* under the title or denomination of the African Lodge, to be opened in Boston, aforesaid, and do further, at their said petition and of the great trust and confidence reposed in every of the said above-named brethren, hereby* appoint the Prince Hall t*o be Master; Boston Smith, Senior Warden and Thomas Sanderson, Junior Warden, for the opening of the 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 said officers, shall in affect any further election 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 Law of the society contained in the Book of Constitutions: and we hereby will, and *require of you the said Prince Hall, to take special care that all and every the said brethren are to have been regularly made Masons, and that they do observe, perform, and keep all *the rules and orders 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,"

My bolds.... interesting - a regular lodge can only be comprised if regular brethren...


----------



## Bloke

MRichard said:


> ......You never hear anyone complain about the irregular formation of these other grand lodges. In fact they are all recognized by the UGLE and the grand lodges that won't recognize their PHA counterpart due to its  irregular formation.



It's a good point.. but we're not talking about regularity of Prince Hall GL but the formation of the lodge under Prince Hall.. and I'm not "complaining" - I'm interested in a rich part of masonic history


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> @jdmadsenCraterlake211, you may be right in that sentiment, that maybe they would have received the warrant if he would have disclosed the initial illegal work of John Batt, but maybe he wasn't taking any chances.
> Again, we have the luxury of sitting in 2016 making judgments on what could have or what would have been.
> 
> We can make those judgments, but we have to make them fairly...
> 
> I don't think Racism was an issue in the granting of the Charter by the Grand Lodge of England, but the fact that they were not members of the ALREADY ESTABLISHED LODGES in Boston may be a product of that.



There was such a _neatness _to pointing out that Prince Hall arose because some Irish Freemasons were NOT racists but initiated a group of coloured men in Boston.... you're wreaked out story


----------



## MasonicAdept

Bloke said:


> Thanks !
> 
> "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, North America, *do hereby constitute the said brethren into a regular Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons,* under the title or denomination of the African Lodge, to be opened in Boston, aforesaid, and do further, at their said petition and of the great trust and confidence reposed in every of the said above-named brethren, hereby* appoint the Prince Hall t*o be Master; Boston Smith, Senior Warden and Thomas Sanderson, Junior Warden, for the opening of the 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 said officers, shall in affect any further election 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 Law of the society contained in the Book of Constitutions: and we hereby will, and *require of you the said Prince Hall, to take special care that all and every the said brethren are to have been regularly made Masons, and that they do observe, perform, and keep all *the rules and orders 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,"
> 
> My bolds.... interesting - a regular lodge can only be comprised if regular brethren...



@Bloke
Keep in mind, that England had NO KNOWLEDGE of how Prince Hall was made, all they knew was what Prince Hall told William Moody, which was that they had been operating under a permit from John Rowe.
John Rowe was a Provincial Grand Master under the Grand Lodge of England, and in their mind was where Prince Hall and the other brothers received their degrees.

In addition, the statement, "do hereby constitute the said brethren into a regular Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons..." only indicated the power of the Charter, and that by virtue of the charter, they would be Free and Accepted Masons.
The charge to make sure that all brothers were Regularly made mason was a charge to be applied from the issuing of the charge and not retroactive.
Truth of the matter was there were many of them irregularly and clandestinely made.

The permit from John Rowe did not provide African Lodge No. 1 with the power to MAKE MASONS. Yet, from 1778-1784 we find about 40+ members from the original 15...How many of them were regularly made in 1784? NONE OF THEM.


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> @Bloke
> Keep in mind, that England had NO KNOWLEDGE of how Prince Hall was made, all they knew was what Prince Hall told William Moody, which was that they had been operating under a permit from John Rowe.
> John Rowe was a Provincial Grand Master under the Grand Lodge of England, and in their mind was where Prince Hall and the other brothers received their degrees.
> 
> In addition, the statement, "do hereby constitute the said brethren into a regular Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons..." only indicated the power of the Charter, and that by virtue of the charter, they would be Free and Accepted Masons.
> The charge to make sure that all brothers were Regularly made mason was a charge to be applied from the issuing of the charge and not retroactive.
> Truth of the matter was there were many of them irregularly and clandestinely made.
> 
> The permit from John Rowe did not provide African Lodge No. 1 with the power to MAKE MASONS. Yet, from 1778-1784 we find about 40+ members from the original 15...How many of them were regularly made in 1784? NONE OF THEM.



Well, the main question then becomes; is that typical? And if atypical, does it really matter because i doubt it was unique....

Does the "permit " from John Rowe specifically prohibit the working of degrees under it ?


----------



## MasonicAdept

Bloke said:


> Well, the main question then becomes; is that typical? And if atypical, does it really matter because i doubt it was unique....Does the "permit " from John Rowe specifically prohibit the working of degrees under it ?



@Bloke Prince Hall stated that the permit only gave them the power to assemble as masons, march in procession and bury their dead. The permit gave them no power to make masons, hence one of the reason he sought the Charter.

Here are more interesting questions:

1. If Prince Hall approached John Rowe for some form of documentation to operate as a Lodge, why would he not either provide the charter for them or act as a liaison for him to get it from England?

2. Why would the permit he provided only provide those three specific powers?

3. Why after the reception of the permit wasn't African Lodge then brought under the Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts?

I would say the circumstance were indeed unique....


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> @Bloke Prince Hall stated that the permit only gave them the power to assemble as masons, march in procession and bury their dead. The permit gave them no power to make masons, hence one of the reason he sought the Charter.
> 
> Here are more interesting questions:
> 
> 1. If Prince Hall approached John Rowe for some form of documentation to operate as a Lodge, why would he not either provide the charter for them or act as a liaison for him to get it from England?
> 
> 2. Why would the permit he provided only provide those three specific powers?
> 
> 3. Why after the reception of the permit wasn't African Lodge then brought under the Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts?
> 
> I would say the circumstance were indeed unique....



Really unique ? What makes it so is the Masonic Limbo Prince Hall lodges latter found themselves in, but there are probably other cases, lost in the mists of time because they are now not seen as so important...

Provincial GMs seem notorious for this sort of thing - leaving or creating messy situations; they were here. Google tells me Rowe was a slaver, that might have been a factor... .

Rowe was the Provincial GL "from England" ? The Moderns or Ancients ? If Africa Lodge was working under England, they are hardly going to necessarily join GM Massachuetts - who I assume were Ancients ? .. (We've still got a lodge here working under UGLE 130 years after our local GL was formed... ) as I assume the traditional lodge where Prince Hall was initiated were also Ancients...... to say nothing of the American War of Independence  placing a wedge between lodges in England and what would become the USA...  There's  lot of apples and oranges going on even in what you've told me; its hard to compare apples and oranges ..


----------



## mrpierce17

MasonicAdept said:


> @Bloke Prince Hall stated that the permit only gave them the power to assemble as masons, march in procession and bury their dead. The permit gave them no power to make masons, hence one of the reason he sought the Charter.
> 
> Here are more interesting questions:
> 
> 1. If Prince Hall approached John Rowe for some form of documentation to operate as a Lodge, why would he not either provide the charter for them or act as a liaison for him to get it from England?
> 
> 2. Why would the permit he provided only provide those three specific powers?
> 
> 3. Why after the reception of the permit wasn't African Lodge then brought under the Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts?
> 
> I would say the circumstance were indeed unique....



Interesting questions indeed I always wondered about number 3 myself


----------



## MasonicAdept

Bloke said:


> Really unique ? What makes it so is the Masonic Limbo Prince Hall lodges latter found themselves in, but there are probably other cases, lost in the mists of time because they are now not seen as so important...



Interesting...I think this was a first for African American and the dilemma of issuing a charter to Free Negroes.



> Provincial GMs seem notorious for this sort of thing - leaving or creating messy situations; they were here. Google tells me Rowe was a slaver, that might have been a factor... .



Could have been, the only issue is why issue anything at all? Rowe could have simply refused the request.
Plus, Slavery didn't end until 1783 in Massachusetts...



> Rowe was the Provincial GL "from England" ? The Moderns or Ancients ? If Africa Lodge was working under England, they are hardly going to necessarily join GM Massachuetts - who I assume were Ancients ? ..



Yes, Rowe was the Provincial Grand Master for the St. John's Provincial Grand Lodge which was under the Moderns Grand Lodge of England. The St. Andrew's Provincial Grand Lodge was considered Antient, but it was really under the Constitution of Scotland.



> (We've still got a lodge here working under UGLE 130 years after our local GL was formed... ) as I assume the traditional lodge where Prince Hall was initiated were also Ancients...... to say nothing of the American War of Independence  placing a wedge between lodges in England and what would become the USA...  There's  lot of apples and oranges going on even in what you've told me; its hard to compare apples and oranges ..



Firstly, and most primarily, Prince Hall was NOT initiated in ANY LODGE. So, the point of him being initiated in an Antient Lodge is a no go.
Prince Hall was initiated by John Batt without the assistance or presence of ANY LODGE.
Prince Hall received a permit from the St. John's PGL, and a Charter from the Governing Body of that entity, and was still excluded from the formation of the GL of Massachusetts in 1792 of which St. John's Provincial GL was the primary entity in its formation.

It was unique in the sense, that no other Lodges would have received that snub. Even St. Andrew's was invited and they were rivals.


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> .... Prince Hall was initiated by John Batt without the assistance or presence of ANY LODGE...



Do you think he was "initiated" in the presence of John Batt alone; without any other Freemason being present ?


----------



## MasonicAdept

That is what the documentation states, and this is what I wholeheartedly know was the case. The entirety of my book deals with this subject.


----------



## Ripcord22A

So did he just obligate him then?  I dont know how one man could do the entirety of a degree?

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MasonicAdept

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> So did he just obligate him then?  I dont know how one man could do the entirety of a degree?



How the degrees were conferred isn't known, whether there was an obligation of some sort, but I know for a fact it was ONE person involved, and he initiated all 15 on the same day...They were passed and raised at different times.

I posted a document in the Prince Hall Research portion of the forum, that shows the registry.
On that registry, John Batt is designated GRAND MASTER.

Was John Batt making masons on sight?

Just a question...

We know that no Lodge was involved, and that John Batt had no authority to confer the degrees on ONE PERSON, let alone 15 one one day. This reeks of degree peddling.


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> .... Was John Batt making masons on sight?
> Just a question...
> We know that no Lodge was involved, and that John Batt had no authority to confer the degrees on ONE PERSON, let alone 15 one one day. This reeks of degree peddling.


I would imagine you have formed a view in your book,,,


----------



## MasonicAdept

Bloke said:


> I would imagine you have formed a view in your book,,,



I have presented my research and finding...


----------



## dfreybur

No matter the details of the back story, the charter from the Premier Grand Lodge of England establishes the Brothers of African Lodge 459 as regular.  We don't necessarily know if getting that charter counted as healing for some or all of them but having that charter settled the matter.  As I've been reading the discussion I've been thinking of all the parts of the story and that's the piece that fell into place for me.  Charter equals regular.  Name on a charter equals acceptance.  History before that goes form crucial to interesting, even fascinating.  History before that is history.

It was racism that kept 459 from being accepted into the forming GLs of New England.  It is still racism that keeps recognition from happening in both directions in many states.  I accept that once 459 was large enough to hive other lodges it was time for them to do that and once there were at least 3 it was time to organize their own jurisdiction.  Not the usual process but it's the only choice they had at the time.  It took until the 1980s for that process to be retroactively declared regular.  So here too history goes from crucial to interesting, even fascinating.  History before that is history.

I'm a history buff so I love history.  Reading through this discussion it took a while for me to realize that two transitions are involved - Regularity guaranteed at the point of receiving a charter.  Regularity guaranteed at the point of receiving recognition.


----------



## MasonicAdept

dfreybur said:


> No matter the details of the back story, the charter from the Premier Grand Lodge of England establishes the Brothers of African Lodge 459 as regular.  We don't necessarily know if getting that charter counted as healing for some or all of them but having that charter settled the matter.  As I've been reading the discussion I've been thinking of all the parts of the story and that's the piece that fell into place for me.  Charter equals regular.  Name on a charter equals acceptance.  History before that goes form crucial to interesting, even fascinating.  History before that is history.
> 
> It was racism that kept 459 from being accepted into the forming GLs of New England.  It is still racism that keeps recognition from happening in both directions in many states.  I accept that once 459 was large enough to hive other lodges it was time for them to do that and once there were at least 3 it was time to organize their own jurisdiction.  Not the usual process but it's the only choice they had at the time.  It took until the 1980s for that process to be retroactively declared regular.  So here too history goes from crucial to interesting, even fascinating.  History before that is history.
> 
> I'm a history buff so I love history.  Reading through this discussion it took a while for me to realize that two transitions are involved - Regularity guaranteed at the point of receiving a charter.  Regularity guaranteed at the point of receiving recognition.



Great Observations Bro. @dfreybur:

In the preface of my book I explain that the book doesn't deal with any period in African Lodge's formative years but the years 1778-1784.
Many of the PHA hardliners want a pristine history clear of any irregularities. Even the sympathizers will attempt to "cover" the irregularities as well. The facts are the facts, and it is better to have the entire history put on the table and addressed, than to have to sit through another century acting as if these findings weren't there and failed to be addressed by past historians.

Thank you for your honesty.


----------



## chrmc

MasonicAdept said:


> any of the PHA hardliners want a pristine history clear of any irregularities. Even the sympathizers will attempt to "cover" the irregularities as well. The facts are the facts, and it is better to have the entire history put on the table and addressed, than to have to sit through another century acting as if these findings weren't there and failed to be addressed by past historians.



Not to derail the discussion, but have you felt push back from the PHA community about getting the true historical facts out there? As you allude to I could imagine that many people would not be interested in exposing the irregularities further, though they will be inconsequential these days. 
Or has this book and historical reinterpretation largely been accepted positively by the PHA community?


----------



## Brother JC

MasonicAdept said:


> Many of the PHA hardliners want a pristine history clear of any irregularities.



The further we travel this line called "time" the more difficult it becomes to find history that is "pristine," in any facet of our lives. But it certainly does stay interesting!


----------



## Bloke

dfreybur said:


> No matter the details of the back story, the charter from the Premier Grand Lodge of England establishes the Brothers of African Lodge 459 as regular.  We don't necessarily know if getting that charter counted as healing for some or all of them but having that charter settled the matter.  As I've been reading the discussion I've been thinking of all the parts of the story and that's the piece that fell into place for me.  Charter equals regular.  Name on a charter equals acceptance.  History before that goes form crucial to interesting, even fascinating.  History before that is history.
> 
> It was racism that kept 459 from being accepted into the forming GLs of New England.  It is still racism that keeps recognition from happening in both directions in many states.  I accept that once 459 was large enough to hive other lodges it was time for them to do that and once there were at least 3 it was time to organize their own jurisdiction.  Not the usual process but it's the only choice they had at the time.  It took until the 1980s for that process to be retroactively declared regular.  So here too history goes from crucial to interesting, even fascinating.  History before that is history.
> 
> I'm a history buff so I love history.  Reading through this discussion it took a while for me to realize that two transitions are involved - Regularity guaranteed at the point of receiving a charter.  Regularity guaranteed at the point of receiving recognition.



It's an intersting discussion! Masonic Adept is passionate enough about it to publish, and i'm just curious. I too love history, and as i said somewhere, it will be intersting how MAdept's book is regarded in the furture, as a bleep, or the moment an axiom was proved false; always interesting in itself. I did that recently with a well known masonic artifact....

Most students of history will "know" how Prince Hall was initiated into an Irish Lodge with a traveling warrant: that story might become like the Ramsey Address.

This thread got me reading on Prince Hall contemporary Freemasonry in India in the 1700's.... because i know "regularity" and warrants were not used or considered in the same way in the 1700's as today. (Even in ww2 POW camps they "worked degrees" - although I'm not sure that's means the initiated men.) And i was interested how Indians were treated ( you know the British initiated native american leaders (in Canada?)  prior to the war if independance , yes?) at the same time: there would be some similarities between India and Boston at that time, albeit putting the EIC aside...

India is interesting, because the same GLs were involved and the first Indian initiated was apparently

"The first Indian Mason was Omdat-ul-Omrah, Nawab Carnatic initiated in 1775"  but the doors got slammed until the 1800's.... it's a common theme, Freemasonry is colour blind and accepting of other religions until, from stage right, the freemason pharisees enter

( btw http://www.masonindia.in/index.php/faqs-on-indian-freemasonry/ )

I've tried to find early  Australian Aboriginal initiations, tricky because they took or were given basically western names, but i can't find them.... nothing until the 20th  century, but I'll keep looking...


----------



## MasonicAdept

Bloke said:


> It's an intersting discussion! Masonic Adept is passionate enough about it to publish, and i'm just curious. I too love history, and as i said somewhere, it will be intersting how MAdept's book is regarded in the furture, as a bleep, or the moment an axiom was proved false; always interesting in itself. I did that recently with a well known masonic artifact....
> 
> Most students of history will "know" how Prince Hall was initiated into an Irish Lodge with a traveling warrant: that story might become like the Ramsey Address.
> 
> This thread got me reading on Prince Hall contemporary Freemasonry in India in the 1700's.... because i know "regularity" and warrants were not used or considered in the same way in the 1700's as today. (Even in ww2 POW camps they "worked degrees" - although I'm not sure that's means the initiated men.) And i was interested how Indians were treated ( you know the British initiated native american leaders (in Canada?)  prior to the war if independance , yes?) at the same time: there would be some similarities between India and Boston at that time, albeit putting the EIC aside...
> 
> India is interesting, because the same GLs were involved and the first Indian initiated was apparently
> 
> "The first Indian Mason was Omdat-ul-Omrah, Nawab Carnatic initiated in 1775"  but the doors got slammed until the 1800's.... it's a common theme, Freemasonry is colour blind and accepting of other religions until, from stage right, the freemason pharisees enter
> 
> ( btw http://www.masonindia.in/index.php/faqs-on-indian-freemasonry/ )
> 
> I've tried to find early  Australian Aboriginal initiations, tricky because they took or were given basically western names, but i can't find them.... nothing until the 20th  century, but I'll keep looking...



Good Stuff there...


----------



## Bloke

MasonicAdept said:


> Good Stuff there...



Thanks. I answered your questions because I once similarity asked the Dorthy Dixer "what is Freemasonry" to some people who did not know I was a member and got some really interesting results.


----------

