|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 20, 2004 11:53:34 GMT -5
4. A Grand Lodge must have been established by: a) a recognised Grand Lodge, or b) three (nowadays) or more regularly constituted private Lodges, formed in accordance within the rules and customs of a regular Grand Lodge.
5. A Grand Lodge must have undisputed authority over Craft (or basic) Freemasonry within its jurisdiction, and not be subject in any way to or share power with any other Masonic body.
6. This principle is expressed overseas as exclusive Territorial jurisdiction, but has recently been qualified as being "subject to exceptions" This qualification means the principle is not violated if Grand Lodges agree to share territory while remaining authority over Brethren under their jurisdiction (e.g., our recognition of four Grand Lodges in Colombia; the acceptance of the Grand Lodges of New Zealand and South Africa (etc.) of Lodges under the UGLE (etc.) in their territory, and the fact that Lodges under the Grand Lodge of the State of Washington work in the territory of the Grand Lodge of Alaska). Agreement by one Grand Lodge to share its territory with another does not imply license for other Grand Lodges to insert Lodges into the territory of the first Grand Lodge.
7. England's view, of jurisdiction over the Brethren in its constitution regardless of where their Lodges meet, has the merit of simplicity, and is compatible with the territorial view described above. In practice, England does not ignore territorial sovereignty when it considers recognition.
RECOGNITION
8. Recognition is a series of bi-lateral relationships between Grand Lodges. If a Grand Lodge seeks recognition from England, and in due course is recognised, the mutual recognition between it and England cannot bind a third Grand Lodge.
9. England's recent policy on recognition has been described as needing to be convinced that it should be granted, rather than noting an absence of reasons why it should not.
SHORT HISTORY OF PRINCE HALL MASONRY
1. On 29 September 1784 a warrant was granted by the premier Grand Lodge of England to 15 men in Boston, Massachusetts (including Bro Hall, whose first name was Prince) forming them into African Lodge, No. 459 on the English Register.
2. African Lodge contributed to the Charity Fund until 1797 and was in correspondence with the Grand Secretary until the early 19th Century. Grand Lodge's letter books for this period are, however, incomplete and it is not impossible that correspondence on both sides may have seemed to have been ignored. After 1802, largely due to effect on transport to and communications with North America of the Napoleonic War, contact was lost.
3. In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808.
4. At the amalgamation of the two Registers after the Union of the two Grand Lodges in England in 1813, African Lodge (and many others at home and abroad) was omitted from the register, there having been no contact for many years. African Lodge was, however, not formally erased.
5. What is now the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania was formed in 1815.
6. In 1827, having been refused acknowledgment by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, African Lodge declared itself to be an independent Grand Lodge, the African Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. African Lodge was then (or later) disbanded.
7. In the 1830s and 1840s the new Grand Lodge and other Lodges which it had formed made various unsuccessful attempts to form a National African Grand Lodge. The style "Prince Hall Grand Lodge" became current in the 1840s, Prince Hall Grand Lodges were formed and survive in most of the United States of America. Some Lodges work overseas, especially in the West Indies.
8. All Prince Hall Grand Lodges are descended from what is now the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts
RELATIONS WITH BRETHREN OF OTHER GRAND LODGES
10. Visitors and visiting R.125 of the Book of constitutions requires Masters of our Lodges to ensure that visitors are from Grand Lodges recognised by the UGLE. This requirement is the subject of an annually repeated article in "information for the Guidance of Members of the Craft" (1991 Edition, p.6). The corollary is the annual notice on "Attendance at Lodges overseas" (Ib. p.5), which should be printed once a year in every Lodge's summons and which includes advice to withdraw from accidental contact with Brethren from unrecognised Grand Lodges. (Note: This is to avoid potentially difficult and possibly unharmonious situations, and is not an attempt to impose any particular view on Grand Lodges overseas.)
RESOLUTION FOR GRAND LODGE
The Grand Registrar to move that, notwithstanding its unusual formation, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts should now be accepted as regular, and be recognised.
[This resolution was adopted by the United Grand Lodge of England in December 1994.]
|
|
|
|
Post by PaNedu1 on Sept 21, 2004 0:06:37 GMT -5
Carter, Good question! Now as a student of Freemasonry, you are aware of the many transitions that freemasonry had since America was no longer under british rule. African Lodge 459(370) claimed it independence from all in 1827. Therefore, doing the same what all Gls did after the end of british rule. Funny, but you did not asked the question, nor issued the challenge. I am waiting for the person who needs to truly read, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" to come forward. He called PH Masonry "Uncle Tom's", now it is time to see if he truly knows what he is talking about!  Barry, stay out of it. You still got some more research to do.... BTW, You pic Barry reminds me of a Afro Sheen Commercial. You know the hook, "Beautiful People, Use Afro Sheen." First of all Ralphy boy, I am not here to particularly debate- what i was pushing you to do, was simply answer my Brother's question (in which you have done a great job in stalling, or either giving unsatisfactory answers). I am aware of the story of Uncle Tom's Cabin, but (as you already knew)I was coming from it's modern day term of use. It seems to me, that you are up here just trying to sound heavy and deep, to bolster your Masonic plane of ego. You argue that there is supposed not to be any racism in Masonry, but in reality, there is! The same ones that y'all seek recognition from, is the very one's that deny y'all the priviledge. But it seems after much pleading and begging, y'all are just starting (in times of recent) to receive some form of acknowledgement. Shame! Here I rest speechless, as I attempt to euphemise what I aught not to say... This conversation has nothing to do (I mean really, let's just knock it off), with Uncle Tom's Cabin (I'm familiar with the one by Harriet Beecher Stowe). So if you really just wanted to build on that, then fine. But I can run some stuff down to you concerning our legitamacy, and so forth. No we are not, and will not seek for recognition from no European Lodge of England, or anything else that they speculate under! Now, I rather come to you like a brother, but if not, then let us part in peace, because I am not the one for this frivilous internet, or indifferent cultural ruckus. So, if i've offended you in some way, or came off wrong to you, then I am Man enough to offer my apologie's. But I will Forever be a Good Nuwaupian Mason, to the best of my abilitie's, and so forth. I can not (nor will I) dedicate my time and energies, toward the minute quarrelings of this internet pit-fall, while we have a worthy Brother in distress! Whether you agree or not, this is my Stand with The GSC, and the Canopy under which we represent! For Us (I can't speak for y'all Ralph ) we have Truely and Surely found Brother John! My brother Carter sees something in you worth entertaining you... My brother is also rather keen in decison's as well. And truthfully this is the major reason that I'm taking this time out to respond. And no! I will not reply back to all your comment's and questions. If what you have is working for you, and you're content with that, then let's just let it be... But at the same time, how about we just stop all the down talking of one another, and just try to get along for the better, shall we? Maybe one day in the near future we will come to know each other, and may even come to re-spect each other. But right now my greatest battle at the time, is to aid and assist in getting Dr. Malachi Z. York out of the dungeon's of the beast. If you are not supportable or conducive to this, then please do not obstruct, slander nor ridicule our efforts to do so. Shalum! |
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 21, 2004 15:59:51 GMT -5
First of all Ralphy boy, I am not here to particularly debate- what i was pushing you to do, was simply answer my Brother's question (in which you have done a great job in stalling, or either giving unsatisfactory answers). I am aware of the story of Uncle Tom's Cabin, but (as you already knew)I was coming from it's modern day term of use. It seems to me, that you are up here just trying to sound heavy and deep, to bolster your Masonic plane of ego. You argue that there is supposed not to be any racism in Masonry, but in reality, there is! The same ones that y'all seek recognition from, is the very one's that deny y'all the priviledge. But it seems after much pleading and begging, y'all are just starting (in times of recent) to receive some form of acknowledgement. Shame! Here I rest speechless, as I attempt to euphemise what I aught not to say... This conversation has nothing to do (I mean really, let's just knock it off), with Uncle Tom's Cabin (I'm familiar with the one by Harriet Beecher Stowe). So if you really just wanted to build on that, then fine. But I can run some stuff down to you concerning our legitamacy, and so forth. No we are not, and will not seek for recognition from no European Lodge of England, or anything else that they speculate under! Now, I rather come to you like a brother, but if not, then let us part in peace, because I am not the one for this frivilous internet, or indifferent cultural ruckus. So, if i've offended you in some way, or came off wrong to you, then I am Man enough to offer my apologie's. But I will Forever be a Good Nuwaupian Mason, to the best of my abilitie's, and so forth. I can not (nor will I) dedicate my time and energies, toward the minute quarrelings of this internet pit-fall, while we have a worthy Brother in distress! Whether you agree or not, this is my Stand with The GSC, and the Canopy under which we represent! For Us (I can't speak for y'all Ralph ) we have Truely and Surely found Brother John! My brother Carter sees something in you worth entertaining you... My brother is also rather keen in decison's as well. And truthfully this is the major reason that I'm taking this time out to respond. And no! I will not reply back to all your comment's and questions. If what you have is working for you, and you're content with that, then let's just let it be... But at the same time, how about we just stop all the down talking of one another, and just try to get along for the better, shall we? Maybe one day in the near future we will come to know each other, and may even come to re-spect each other. But right now my greatest battle at the time, is to aid and assist in getting Dr. Malachi Z. York out of the dungeon's of the beast. If you are not supportable or conducive to this, then please do not obstruct, slander nor ridicule our efforts to do so. Shalum! Shareef, My young brother, You put out the challenge, yet you have failed to answer the questions. You stated that I did a great job in stalling? It was a thread that I forgot all about, unlike yourself who was missing for five or more days. It is brethren such as yourself who have mislead the communty by calling people "Uncle Tom". If you have truly read the story, the name calling would not have came out of your mouth. Read the book once more. For you to call someone an "Uncle Tom" tells me that you did not read the book, but are contributing to the misnomer. You tell a lie, it will become the truth. I can understand.why you feel the way that you do. Age has a lot to do with what comes out of our mouths and also the way that we dress. You have proven that point thus far. I am not up trying to sound heavy and depp. You must have read my thousand or more postings,therefore, you have come to a conclusion. Refute anything that I have stated, if you can. Once it is written, it is history, so read anything that you think is not so deep and come correct. Looking over your post, it seems as if you are behind the times. If you are truly a mason, then you would know about subduing your passion. You have failed test number one. If you are truly a mason, you would be trying to EARN your wages. You have failed test number two. Had you truly earned your wages, then you would have read some of my babble and given your scholarly views on them. You have failed test number three. In masonry, things come in threes. Can't past the test, if you have failed all three. Now, recognition was given in 1784, did you know that? Have you seen the charter that was granted to Prince Hall? Do you actually know what that charter was used for other than Freemasonry? You should be shamed my brother. Your lifestyle that you enjoy was fought for by Prince Hall Masons. Did you know that? Many Prince Hall Masons died so that you can walk around in your baggy jeans and tims. Did you know that? The laws for the schools that you attended were financed by PH masons so that the schools can be disgregated. Did you know that? Now I have many historical docs, show me where there was pleading and begging for recognition. Do you have that? But you have the stage. Run down your legitimacy my brother and prove to me and many others on this board why the Nuwaupian GL is legitimate. You cannot seek recognition from anybody. Didyou know that? Are you aware that your GM is an expelled PH mason? Nowyou can come to me as a brother, I have dealt with all types in my 18 years as a mason, but prove to me that you are legitimate. We can still part in peace. Either your research will be faulty, or mine. The main thing is that the list can be educated. No apologies needed my brother. We are all on here to learn something. if yo can re-invent the window, then God bless your young soul.. As far as Al Carter? He is a good man. He should be sitting someplace within your lodge hall so that all can see his works and the example that he sets. You can learn something from him. Don't run, I am not talking down to you. I just want to see if someone has finally turned the stone and can show me why the NGL is legit. Take a look once again at your post. You are challenging in one statement, and saying that you do not want to debate in another. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Post by nuwaubianhotep on Sept 22, 2004 9:33:52 GMT -5
Why do you Ralph McNeal feel the need to attack a Man's character when trying to prove your point? Can't you see brethren how immature and petty that is? It serves no real purpose other than to reveal to the concise and intelligent reader your infamy and blunder. At any rate.. Prince Hall did receive his charter from the Grand Lodge of England in 1784 as you have mentioned @ Ralph. However, they were REMOVED from the rolls Brah. Kicked out, rejected, banned.. how many ways can I say this? This is why the Prince Hall Lodge applied again in 1988. At this point they were apparently 300,000 Masons strong and was still REJECTED!!! (Wow....) The English Grand Lodge tried to be nice in their decision not to accept ya'll so they added all sorts of pleasant statements to their decision to soften the blow. I'm not trying to hate on the Prince Hall Lodge.. i'm just a factologist. Nas: "Walkin talkin dead, though we think we're livin (black zombies)
We just copy-cat, followin the system (black zombies)
Walkin talkin dead, though we think we're livin (black zombies)
We just copy-cat, followin the system (black zombies)" |
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 22, 2004 11:33:31 GMT -5
Why do you Ralph McNeal feel the need to attack a Man's character when trying to prove your point? Can't you see brethren how immature and petty that is? It serves no real purpose other than to reveal to the concise and intelligent reader your infamy and blunder. At any rate.. Prince Hall did receive his charter from the Grand Lodge of England in 1784 as you have mentioned @ Ralph. However, they were REMOVED from the rolls Brah. Kicked out, rejected, banned.. how many ways can I say this? This is why the Prince Hall Lodge applied again in 1988. At this point they were apparently 300,000 Masons strong and was still REJECTED!!! (Wow....) The English Grand Lodge tried to be nice in their decision not to accept ya'll so they added all sorts of pleasant statements to their decision to soften the blow. I'm not trying to hate on the Prince Hall Lodge.. i'm just a factologist. Nas: "Walkin talkin dead, though we think we're livin (black zombies)
We just copy-cat, followin the system (black zombies)
Walkin talkin dead, though we think we're livin (black zombies)
We just copy-cat, followin the system (black zombies)"Freddie, Freddie!! Immature?? Who is trying to be 20 again by presenting some old pics from the 80s? I am glad that we can now see how you truly look. You look 46. Prince Hall masonry did their thing my brother. They did their thing for their community, and you cannot deny that. We had our communities and the only thing that we are guilty of is to carry on what our founder wanted. WE are guilty of ensuring that anybody who travels overseas can have the confort of attending a lodge meeting in a strange country, or getting help from the same. YOu are a factologist, eh? I know you did not write this: "Christ’s Diet When you’re sitting around the table on Christmas day feasting on the flesh of swine or holiday ham, remember: Christ (still an unproven being), ate fish, he did not eat pork!!! You Christians know it says right in your Bible not to eat of the animals with the clovefoot (Deut. 14:7) and even during Yashuas (Jesus) time he cast demons into swine (Matthew 8:29-32). No where will you find mention of Yashua eating pork. The pig and its variants are grafted creatures from three animals (dog, cat, and rat), by fusing the nucleus of these cells, created to clean up the cadavers that were claimed by the curse of leprosy during the time of Abraham." Slandering and telling the truth are two different things. So am I slandering you Barry or telling the truth? |
|
|
|
Post by nuwaubianhotep on Sept 22, 2004 12:07:17 GMT -5
More personal attacks based in infamy @ Ralph?
I'm not ashamed of my age or how I look. I don't know what you're hoping to acccomplished by using this line of assault.
I will consider this discussion a closed item. You are unable to refute the facts I bought forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 22, 2004 13:57:54 GMT -5
More personal attacks based in infamy @ Ralph? I'm not ashamed of my age or how I look. I don't know what you're hoping to acccomplished by using this line of assault. I will consider this discussion a closed item. You are unable to refute the facts I bought forth. Barry, I have wasted my time with you. YOu state that your skin was smooth by bringing up pics when you were a veggie, then you post pics after you devulged the pig. Face it, you got weak my brother. There are plenty of muslims who have sickness that still do not eat hog. That country aroma in your kitchen on a Saturday morning got to you. Now you debates were elementary. I gave you the answers and also told you where you can find others. Take some time off of this board and research my brother...  Your rep preceeds my brother... |
|
Master-9
Apprentice
You can't stop NUWAUBU!!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by Master-9 on Sept 22, 2004 18:08:55 GMT -5
Bro. Sharif(Pa-Nedu1) has informed me that he doesn't see any value in this site, therefore he will not be visting this site as often.
Nuwaubian-Hotep has a point...
I have a question?
Why is there a Main Stream Grand Lodge and PHA Grand Lodge sharing jurisdiction in the same state? That is a clear sign of Racism!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 23, 2004 13:15:19 GMT -5
Bro. Sharif(Pa-Nedu1) has informed me that he doesn't see any value in this site, therefore he will not be visting this site as often. Nuwaubian-Hotep has a point... I have a question? Why is there a Main Stream Grand Lodge and PHA Grand Lodge sharing jurisdiction in the same state? That is a clear sign of Racism! Master-9, It figures. He could have always answered my questions offline. As far as two GLs per jurisdiction? You are correct,it is a clear sign of Racism. It has been knocked down over the years. There are many PHGLs that have fraternal recognition. The problem now is the south. My feeling is that once the soldiers come back from fighting, many things will change with this generation. Master-9, You told me that this brother could bring it. Bring what? |
|
|
|
Post by PaNedu1 on Sept 27, 2004 19:03:51 GMT -5
PRINCE HALL FREEMASONRY
BY BRO. GEORGE DRAFFEN OF NEWINGTON, P.J.G.D., P.M.
Deputy Grand Master, Grand Lodge of Scotland
Fellow The Phylaxis Society
(13 May 1976)
In the United States of America, in Canada and in the Bahamas there are forty Grand Lodges of Prince Hall Freemasonry. There is also in Liberia a Grand Lodge of Prince Hall origin. These Prince Hall Grand Lodges exercise authority over more than five thousand lodges. They claim descent, directly , from the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts which in turn, is the offspring of African Lodge No. 459 warranted by the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns) on 20 September 1784. The great majority of these Prince Hall Grand Lodges incorporate the words 'Prince Hall' in their title. This was done following upon a recommendation made at a conference of Prince Hall Grand Masters held at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in January 1944. The object of adding the words 'Prince Hall' to the titles of the Grand Lodges was to overcome the confusion which had arisen among African-American members of the community in the United States where African-American freemasonry had been subjected to an interminable number of schisms and clandestine 'Grand Lodges'-all aimed at the gullible. While the Prince Hall Grand Lodges are not recognized by the Grand Lodges in the United States they are regarded by most of them as having a certain authenticity as opposed to the spurious and clandestine African-American Grand Lodges which have sprung up from time to time.
On March 6, 1775, Prince Hall and fourteen other free Negroes of Boston were made Master Masons in an Army lodge attached to one of General Gage's regiments, then stationed near Boston. This lodge granted Prince Hall and his brethren authority to meet as a lodge, to go in procession on St John's Day, and as a lodge to bury their dead, but they could not confer degrees nor perform any other Masonic 'work'.
For nine years these brethren, together with others who had received the degrees elsewhere, assembled and enjoyed limited privileges as masons.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaNedu1 on Sept 27, 2004 19:32:59 GMT -5
There is no record in the archives of African Lodge as to the actual lodge in which Prince Hall was initiated. From outside evidence, however, it would appear that Prince Hall and his fourteen companions were admitted to freemasonry in an Irish lodge, No. 441. In support of this one must examine the details of the regiments under General Gage's command in and around Boston in 1775. The Ministry of Defense tell me that they have no official list of these regiments. However, in the first volume of Henry Belcher's The First American Civil War there is an appendix, which he compiled from regimental histories, giving, as far as is known, the names of the regiments engaged in the various actions in the war of Independence. From that appendix I have compiled a smaller list (see the appendix to this paper) of those British Army units which were stationed in or near Boston in 1775 and which had in them lodges under any of the British Grand Lodges. There were fourteen military lodges in and around Boston in 1775. Of these one was English, four were Scottish and the remainder were Irish. There seems to be very little doubt, having consulted the Grand Lodge Registers that Irish Lodge No. 441, in which John Batt was a member, was the lodge in which Prince Hall was initiated. John Batt is registered as a member of Lodge 441 in the register in Dublin under the date of 2 May 1771. Lodge 441 was warranted on 4 July 1765 to meet in the 38th Regiment of Foot(1st Battalion South Staffordshires). The lodge warrant was subsequently, in 1840, returned to the Grand Lodge of Ireland. The number 441 was later, in 1918, reissued to the T.W. Braithwaite Lodge, meeting in Belfast. Any minutes of the lodge while working as a military lodge are lost and it is impossible to say if John Batt was master in 1775. It is equally impossible to say whether or not the meeting at which Prince Hall was initiated was regularly under the lodge warrant or was a clandestine affair with John Batt 'initiating' some gullible Negroes and pocketing the money they paid him. None of those made masons by John Batt on 6 March 1775 are recorded as being members of the lodge in the registers of the Grad Lodge of Ireland. I do not say that this what happened, merely that is possible. On the other hand the difficulties of communication with Dublin in the middle of a civil war were enormous and the fact that Prince Hall and his friends were not registered in Dublin is, in itself, no proof that their admission was not perfectly regular. John Batt is recorded in the Muster Rolls of the regiment from 1759 until his discharge from the British Army when stationed in Staten Island in 1777. There is some faint evidence that after his discharge he may have enlisted in the rebel forces. The detractors of Prince Hall Freemasonry have frequently stated that his initiation by a military lodge was in direct conflict with Regulation XXVII of the Constitution & Laws of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, which regulation forbade the initiation in a military lodge of any person living in a town where there was a town lodge. The regulation is in the following terms: Regulation XXVII of 1760. No Army lodge shall for the future make any Townsman a mason where there is a warranted lodge held in the Regiment, Troop or Company, or in the Quarters to which such man blongs. Any Army or other lodge making a mason contrary to the rule to be fined One Guinea. This regulation could, of course, only apply to lodges under the Grand Lodge of Ireland- and there never was a 'Town lodge' in Boston nor, indeed, anywhere else in Massachusetts, under the Grand Lodge of Ireland. The regulation is specific in its penalty for breach- a one guinea fine on the lodge. There is no statement whatever that any mason so made is clandestine or irregular.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 27, 2004 19:48:22 GMT -5
Hopefully while you are posting, you are reading also....
Got something for you also..
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 27, 2004 20:37:10 GMT -5
There is no record in the archives of African Lodge as to the actual lodge in which Prince Hall was initiated. From outside evidence, however, it would appear that Prince Hall and his fourteen companions were admitted to freemasonry in an Irish lodge, No. 441. In support of this one must examine the details of the regiments under General Gage's command in and around Boston in 1775. The Ministry of Defense tell me that they have no official list of these regiments. However, in the first volume of Henry Belcher's The First American Civil War there is an appendix, which he compiled from regimental histories, giving, as far as is known, the names of the regiments engaged in the various actions in the war of Independence. From that appendix I have compiled a smaller list (see the appendix to this paper) of those British Army units which were stationed in or near Boston in 1775 and which had in them lodges under any of the British Grand Lodges. There were fourteen military lodges in and around Boston in 1775. Of these one was English, four were Scottish and the remainder were Irish. There seems to be very little doubt, having consulted the Grand Lodge Registers that Irish Lodge No. 441, in which John Batt was a member, was the lodge in which Prince Hall was initiated. John Batt is registered as a member of Lodge 441 in the register in Dublin under the date of 2 May 1771. Lodge 441 was warranted on 4 July 1765 to meet in the 38th Regiment of Foot(1st Battalion South Staffordshires). The lodge warrant was subsequently, in 1840, returned to the Grand Lodge of Ireland. The number 441 was later, in 1918, reissued to the T.W. Braithwaite Lodge, meeting in Belfast. Any minutes of the lodge while working as a military lodge are lost and it is impossible to say if John Batt was master in 1775. It is equally impossible to say whether or not the meeting at which Prince Hall was initiated was regularly under the lodge warrant or was a clandestine affair with John Batt 'initiating' some gullible Negroes and pocketing the money they paid him. None of those made masons by John Batt on 6 March 1775 are recorded as being members of the lodge in the registers of the Grad Lodge of Ireland. I do not say that this what happened, merely that is possible. On the other hand the difficulties of communication with Dublin in the middle of a civil war were enormous and the fact that Prince Hall and his friends were not registered in Dublin is, in itself, no proof that their admission was not perfectly regular. John Batt is recorded in the Muster Rolls of the regiment from 1759 until his discharge from the British Army when stationed in Staten Island in 1777. There is some faint evidence that after his discharge he may have enlisted in the rebel forces. The detractors of Prince Hall Freemasonry have frequently stated that his initiation by a military lodge was in direct conflict with Regulation XXVII of the Constitution & Laws of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, which regulation forbade the initiation in a military lodge of any person living in a town where there was a town lodge. The regulation is in the following terms: Regulation XXVII of 1760. No Army lodge shall for the future make any Townsman a mason where there is a warranted lodge held in the Regiment, Troop or Company, or in the Quarters to which such man blongs. Any Army or other lodge making a mason contrary to the rule to be fined One Guinea. This regulation could, of course, only apply to lodges under the Grand Lodge of Ireland- and there never was a 'Town lodge' in Boston nor, indeed, anywhere else in Massachusetts, under the Grand Lodge of Ireland. The regulation is specific in its penalty for breach- a one guinea fine on the lodge. There is no statement whatever that any mason so made is clandestine or irregular. Grand Hierophant? Those degrees were outlawed by Regular Masonry in the late 1800s. The only men of color who possess those degrees now practice Bogus masonry. |
|
|
|
Post by PaNedu1 on Sept 30, 2004 2:18:40 GMT -5
The point being made here is that, You all are suspect (clandestine) in the eyes' of your mainstream Masonic buddies, and to think that y'all would huff and puff at the ones that are Masons by Birthright, and Blood.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Sept 30, 2004 13:53:52 GMT -5
The point being made here is that, You all are suspect (clandestine) in the eyes' of your mainstream Masonic buddies, and to think that y'all would huff and puff at the ones that are Masons by Birthright, and Blood. 72.5% Do the math my brother. Do you truly know the story? There was a majority, but 2/3rds was the rule.... |
|
