 |
| Photo: WGBH |
THIS STORY HAS BEEN UPDATED ON JUNE 25, 2025 AT 1:00PM
On Memorial Day, the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts celebrated a true milestone for their unique branch of the fraternity of Freemasonry, marking the traditional 250th anniversary of the raising of Prince Hall and 14 other free black men as Masons in Boston. The Boston Memorial Day event saw a large procession to Copp's Hill burial ground, led by Grand Master Justin A. Petty, where a striking monument to WB Hall stands today.
Early Prince Hall Masons pushed hard for abolition, education, and community uplift, sponsoring schools, signing petitions, providing for impoverished families, offering scholarships, and more. Arguably, they became as important and influential within their communities as the black churches, frequently cooperating on countless programs.
Their downtown temples and grand lodge buildings often became important office hubs for black professionals like doctors, dentists and attorneys. During the 1950s and 60s, these places often were home to the headquarters of civil rights organizations. Within the rolls of Prince Hall Grand Lodges you'll find politicians, educators, entertainers, sports figures, community leaders and businessmen.
So, for Prince Hall Freemasonry to grow, thrive and survive for 250 years as the nation's oldest black fraternal organization is a very big deal.
Today, Prince Hall Affiliated Freemasonry shares recognition with so-called 'mainstream' grand lodges in all but four states in the U.S.: Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia.
In 1775, Boston’s Prince Hall broke Freemasonry’s racial barrier. His global movement marches on.
* I say "the longstanding story" for a reason. Several years ago, researcher John Hairston (a Prince Hall Mason in Washington state) published Landmarks of our Fathers: The Critical Analysis of the Start and Origin of African Lodge No. 1 in which he painstakingly looked into the existing evidence of the formation of African Lodge. What he found alters the dates of the degrees of Hall and his 14 brethren to 1778, after the Revolution was already underway, and shows that the Irish military lodge had nothing to do with the event. Former sergeant John Batt, who conferred their degrees, was a dicey character who had left the British Army and may very well have been a degree peddler who took advantage of the situation and duped the black men into thinking he had authority he didn't possess. None of that alters the ultimate legitimacy of African Lodge once it received its English charter, and certainly has no bearing on the long heritage of Prince Hall Freemasonry, but calling into question anything about their founding risks the slaughter of sacred cattle. The 1775 date was loudly defended for more than 150 years as white Masons refused to accept the Prince Hall/African Lodge story as legitimate and would use any excuse or deviation from the original story to attack them. There's probably no harm in the general acceptance of the 1775 story when it comes to legendary heritage. Nevertheless, Brother Hairston's evidence should not be ignored or discounted by serious researchers and historians.
At some point it becomes time for the other "mainstream" Grand Lodges in the US to transfer their recognition in those four states.
ReplyDeleteOf the two Grand Lodges in those states, nothing obliges us to pick the one which has vanishingly little morally to stand on to justify their recalcitrance.
Regrettably, I live in a state that still does not recognize PH. Looking forward to the day when we can all legitimately be considered Brothers.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Brother John Hairston (in his excellent book, "Landmarks of Our Fathers: A Critical Analysis of the Start and Origin of African Lodge No. 1", which includes photos of early Prince Hall-related documents), the initiation/passing/raising of the original Prince Hall Masons takes place on March 6, 1778, with John Batt presiding. Sgt. Batt's Irish regiment, and the lodge associated with it, had left the area, and Batt had been discharged in 1777. That certainly doesn't make our Prince Hall brethren "illegitimate" in any way, but I'm wondering how Brother Hairston's evidence (which includes photos of many documents) fits in with Prince Hall Masonry's history today. Can someone enlighten us?
ReplyDeleteI have a problem. I've looked at the photographic reproductions of the period published in his two books and I personally accept Brother Hairston's evidence and assertions as to what happened and when. My problem is they're not the dates and places and 'facts' that are almost universally accepted by the overwhelming majority of Prince Hall Masons. Like you, I don't believe it dents PHA legitimacy one bit to say 1778 instead of 1775, or to accept that John Batt was probably an unscrupulous degree peddler who had mustered out of the British Army three years before he conferred their degrees. The hallowed Lodge of St. Andrews wasn't legitimately founded either, but it doesn't make it less important in Masonic history. But John Hairston's two books made a ripple for about a year, and then disappeared again. It doesn't help that they were never made available on Amazon, nor were they widely promoted. The website they have to be ordered from is cumbersome, has no PayPal or other quick pay option, and adds almost $12 to the cover price for shipping and a "service charge." I wish he'd republish them through Macoy, Mike Poll's Cornerstone Publishing or Paul Rich's Westphalia Press, but I think the whole experience left him extremely disappointed. I suspect half the Prince Hall world came down on him like a ton of exceptionally angry bricks for questioning what is considered holy writ by now.
DeleteI've just added a major footnote to this story. Thanks for keeping me honest.
DeleteI think we have to allow that so-called mainstream freemasonry is filled with awkward uncertainties around the eighteenth century, and nobody generally uses that as a reason to cast doubt on the lodge down the street. A look at the transactions of ALR shows a rather substantial amount of "and there is no evidence of ..." all the time. But again, nobody uses that as the basis for saying "and therefore grand lodge such-and-such is illegitimate".
DeleteHowever, legitimate Prince Hall groups have been subjected to a lot of that for a long time now, and we know it was not because of a legitimate concern, or a tender care for historical accuracy, but because of a racist desire to continue an unmasonic practice of segregation (which four American grand lodges persist in, to *all our shame*).
So we have that background, in which people have poked around at the dates and the rest of the history of Prince Hall not because they are trying to get the facts right, but because they are trying to justify their own racism. As long as that persists (and we know it still persists from the simple fact of those four grand lodges continuing their choice), I think we can understand a fair amount of prickliness.