tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post6120453961305530705..comments2023-05-28T10:22:30.280-05:00Comments on The Beehive: Peter Renzland & Squire Bentley Answer Charges of McCarthyismFrederic L. Millikenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00375574953455842623noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-50108050691085999122008-09-18T12:03:00.000-05:002008-09-18T12:03:00.000-05:00Why fight over ETJ or racism? Join the GOUSA and s...Why fight over ETJ or racism? Join the GOUSA and start focusing on Free-Masonry and brotherhood.Howard Roarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06330868779452286221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-63548868851020273382008-09-11T06:53:00.000-05:002008-09-11T06:53:00.000-05:00At the 1810 session of Grand Lodge it was "Resolve...At the 1810 session of Grand Lodge it was "Resolved, that the several Charters surrendered to this Grand Lodge by the Lodges under its jurisdiction be endorsed by the Grand Secretary, 'surrendered and canceled in due form, by order of the Grand Lodge,' and then returned to the respective Lodges to remain in the archives thereof for safe keeping; subject, however, to the order of the Grand Lodge at all times. " <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Up until this time American Union Lodge No. 1 had maintained itself in an independent position as concerns proper and subordinate relationships with the Grand Lodge of Ohio. Regardless of this fact, Grand Lodge saw fit to reserve the number one position on its roster for American Union Lodge because of its age and military service during the Revolutionary War. A letter of invitation to identify itself with the Grand Lodge of Ohio was received from that body by American Union Lodge and read in open lodge in 1814. The following action was considered necessary: "On motion, it is Resolved, that it is pre-expedient to resign the present Warrant to the Grand Lodge of Ohio; or to any other Lodge; because that in so doing it will annihilate the Royal Arch Chapter working under said Warrant. Therefore this Lodge rejects any jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Ohio over this Lodge." <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>This controversy between the Grand Lodge of Ohio and American Union Lodge continued for several years. The situation was finally brought to a head in 1823 when several worthy brethren who had previously broken away from the old Lodge petitioned the Grand Lodge of Ohio for the right to revive and organize the defunct American Union Lodge No. 1 under jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Ohio. The Grand Lodge, after due investigation, granted the Charter, thus ending the long and unfortunate controversy between American Union Lodge and the Grand Body."<BR/><BR/><BR/>This is an interesting statement: "The situation was finally brought to a head in 1823 when several worthy brethren who had previously broken away from the old Lodge petitioned the Grand Lodge of Ohio for the right to revive and organize the defunct American Union Lodge No. 1 under jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Ohio."Tubal Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00704479584240584425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-918930147678901882008-09-09T16:32:00.000-05:002008-09-09T16:32:00.000-05:00Except that although the Grand Lodge at York might...Except that although the Grand Lodge at York might not have liked what happened, it was powerless to do anything about it. The doctrine was not institutionalised and enforceable until the Unlawful Societies Act was passed by Parliament in 1799.<BR/><BR/>By that time The Grand Lodge of London had recruited nobility, with sufficient Whig influence in Parliament in the support of the Hanoverian Royal Dynasty to ensure that it became the "approved" brand. The primarily Catholic Grand Lodge at York was driven underground. We do have records of our members meeting together as late as 1810. However, as early as 1720 some of our members, exiled in Paris continued their Freemasonry by inaugurating La Grande Loge in Paris.<BR/><BR/>You see, the history of Freemasonry is a lot more complicated than most realise.Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-51817461500051354152008-09-09T15:43:00.000-05:002008-09-09T15:43:00.000-05:00Peter: I thought had read something about that so...Peter: I thought had read something about that some time ago but could not find it again for the current discussions. Thanks for sharing that. That now pushes what we recognize as ETJ back to at least 1773 - at least from the York GL point of view.<BR/><BR/>I still believe that it goes back further, but I agree that the sources I have used thus far can be open to some amount of interpretation. Admittedly, it will hard to produce concrete proof prior to the mid 1700s since the mere thought of there being more than one GL anywhere probably hadn't even crossed most Masons' minds. That would have been liking passing speed limits before the automobile was invented.The Palmetto Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08049500796697782077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-50760954093858769202008-09-09T12:37:00.000-05:002008-09-09T12:37:00.000-05:00This is the earliest reference that I can find doc...This is the earliest reference that I can find documenting the deliberate invasion by one Grand Lodge upon the territory of another Grand Lodge in England:-<BR/><BR/>"The Earl of Crawford seems to have made the first encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in the city of York, by constituting two lodges within their district; and by granting, without their consent, three deputations, one for Lancashire, a second for Durham, and a third for Northumberland., This circumstance the Grand Lodge of York highly resented ..." (SOURCE: Illustrations of Masonry by Dr William Preston)<BR/><BR/>There are confirmations in several historical references, the latest being Revd Neville Barker Cryer's book, "York Mysteries Revealed" (2006).<BR/><BR/>The year that this took place? Between April 1773 and April 1774.Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-72760898816986057792008-09-09T03:43:00.000-05:002008-09-09T03:43:00.000-05:00palmettobugYou excluded me from posting on The Mas...palmettobug<BR/><BR/>You excluded me from posting on The Masonic Line because I had the audacity to claim that your Moderns form of freemasonry was and is not the one "true" Freemasonry, but as we can see here Masonic history is not your strong point.<BR/><BR/>"One GL in 1809 and you suspect?".<BR/><BR/>Is this the best you can do? This is the basis for your claim?<BR/><BR/>We know, and we have already stated that the doctrine of ETJ was in existence in 1809.<BR/><BR/>The Unlawful Societies Act came into force in England in 1799, 10 years earlier, and this motivated all Moderns, who wedded themselves to hegemony; rationalisation; rigid control and the ruthless elimination of any opposition.<BR/><BR/>ETJ did not take 10 years to reach the shores of America. Its success in England would have been duly noted, and obvious to all concerned.<BR/><BR/>That is what caused Benjamin Franklin's original Old York Lodge to disappear from view, and Washington's original Old York Lodge to be subsumed into the Moderns system.<BR/><BR/>The Prince Hall situation is different. The American War of Independence was in full swing and the question of freedom and slavery was a vital issue.<BR/><BR/>It cannot be so over-simplified into a case of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, or even just racial prejudice.<BR/><BR/>The question is, should PHA Freemasonry be recognised by AF&AM Grand Lodges today?<BR/><BR/>As Paul Bessell pointed out, this can be done quite easily and completely within the rather flexible rules of The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America which re-wrote the dictionary definition of the word "exclusive" many years ago.<BR/><BR/>Exclusive: not shared (Oxford English Dictionary)<BR/><BR/>Exclusive: shared whenever considered convenient to COGMINA (Commission on Information for recognition)Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-44259764227009654192008-09-08T17:32:00.000-05:002008-09-08T17:32:00.000-05:00From Peter: "palmettobug would you plesse direct ...From Peter: "<I>palmettobug would you plesse direct us to the 'historical data' that you refer to because if you can establish the basis for your claim that the doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction" was in operation in America before it was institutionalised in England, then your name will go down in Masonic history because nobody else has ever claimed this to my knowledge.<BR/><BR/>A list of reliable sources and references please.</I><BR/><BR/>I have used sources on The Line, in case you haven't noticed. There is no doubt that ETJ was codified as least as early as 1809 by one US GL. I suspect there were more GLs that were the same way, I just don't have access to their GL minutes. Also and in that same state, the Ancients were being referred to as invaders in 1783 - another clear indication that ETJ was being observed.<BR/><BR/>Squire: Thanks for posting stuff from Paul Bessel. Here is something else from that esteemed gatherer of information: "<I>It should be noted that the Commission said this applies where Grand Lodges in the same territory are 'in amity,' and repeated this in 1986, saying, 'The Commission recognizes that the American doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction is subject to exceptions, one of which is an agreement on the part of the Grand Lodge located in a territory that another Grand Lodge may operate within that territory.' In 1997, the Commission refused to recommend recognition of the new 'Regular Grand Lodge of Andorra,' because even though 7 lodges in Andorra formed that Grand Lodge, there are 2 Lodges in that country under the National Grand Lodge of France and 1 under the Grand Lodge of Spain. Thus, the Regular Grand Lodge of Andorra 'does not share territorial jurisdiction by mutual consent or treaty.'</I>"<BR/><BR/>It kind of looks like, based on that last quote, that someone thinks ETJ actually means something.The Palmetto Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08049500796697782077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-17203968279660160392008-09-08T13:19:00.000-05:002008-09-08T13:19:00.000-05:00Thank you Paul.Clear as a bell as usual, but I sus...Thank you Paul.<BR/><BR/>Clear as a bell as usual, but I suspect that there are those who will not act upon this policy of The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America, binding upon its Grand Lodges in Conference, along with their Lodges and their members.<BR/><BR/>The doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction is only consistent in the way that it is applied so inconsistently, both in America and Europe.Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-17596321878789975092008-09-08T10:32:00.000-05:002008-09-08T10:32:00.000-05:00In addition to the problems already mentioned, the...In addition to the problems already mentioned, there is a great difference between what most people think the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction means, and what the authoritative Masonic body in the United States on this subject says it means.<BR/><BR/>The Commission on Information for Recognition has had to deal with the subject of the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction in great detail, and its conclusions are entitled to great weight. The Commission's definition of this doctrine is different from what most Masons think the doctrine means, and from the definition provided in Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia. The Commission said:<BR/><BR/>"There can be no question about Exclusive Jurisdiction. It is a basic principle that a Grand Lodge must be autonomous and have sole and undisputed authority over its constituent Lodges. This cannot be shared with any other Masonic council or power. But the question of exclusive territorial jurisdiction is not so clear cut. In some European and Latin American countries, a geographical or politically self-contained unit may be served by two or more Grand Lodges. If these Grand Lodges and hence their constituent Lodges are working in amity, and both are worthy of recognition in all other respects, this joint occupation of a country, state or political subdivision should not bar them from recognition."(31) (emphasis added)<BR/><BR/>In other words, the Commission on Information for Recognition has said that the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction means that all the Lodges chartered by a particular Grand Lodge give their loyalty only to that Grand Lodge, but there can be lodges chartered by different Grand Lodges in the same territory. There can be several Grand Lodges in a single geographic territory, all with many lodges under them, so long as each lodge gives its loyalty to only one Grand Lodges, and the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction is not violated, according to the 1975 statement by the Commission on Information for Recognition as reported and accepted by the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America.<BR/><BR/>Freemasonry's ritual teaches the importance of honesty in all our dealings in the world, particularly with brother Masons. Therefore, it is important to eliminate any confusion about whether or not it is possible under Masonic law to recognize a Grand Lodge in the same state or territory as another Grand Lodge, or to accept the lodges under that Grand Lodge as being just as regular as ours. There is no question that the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction does not prevent this from happening, and there is nothing at all improper or irregular in those Grand Lodges in states and countries that have recognized Prince Hall or other Grand Lodges in the same places where other recognized Grand Lodges exist.<BR/><BR/>There is also nothing in the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction that would in any way hinder the Grand Lodge of any state in the United States from, for example, recognizing the Grand Lodge of France at the same time that the National Grand Lodge of France is also recognized, or from changing the situation where the United Grand Lodge of England, on the one hand, and all the United States Grand Lodges, on the other hand, recognize different Grand Lodges in Italy and Greece. Each one could recognize both of the Grand Lodges in those countries, if they wished to.<BR/><BR/>In short, decisions about which Grand Lodges to recognize should be made on the basis on which ones meet the standards established by each Grand Lodge, and not on the basis of the elusive, confusing, and often-violated doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction. In fact, it might be clearer if the doctrine were simply declared to be no longer useful or in force<BR/><BR/>Paul BesselFrederic L. Millikenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00375574953455842623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-85767066738386144982008-09-08T04:34:00.000-05:002008-09-08T04:34:00.000-05:002 Bowl Cain,"They refused ETJ". A concl...2 Bowl Cain,<BR/><BR/>"They refused ETJ". A conclusion, but no historical data.<BR/><BR/>March 11, 1807 - Eerie Lodge No. 47 on the rolls of The Grand Lodge of Connecticut resolves to correspond with other Masonic lodges meeting within the borders of Ohio to determine if there was sufficient support to form a Grand Lodge of Ohio. (SOURCE: Eerie Lodge No.3 and the Creation of The Grand Lodge of Ohio, "Lodge Educational Short Talks", Bicentennial of the Grand Lodge F&AM of Ohio, 200 Years of Ohio Freemasonry.<BR/><BR/>This does not suggest that prior to 1808 that a decision was necessary based upon the doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction. This suggests an open state without Grand Lodge jurisdiction.<BR/><BR/>Please list your historical sources, as I have, otherwise we are going nowhere with this debate.Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-69698450527878495602008-09-08T04:12:00.000-05:002008-09-08T04:12:00.000-05:00"These American Pioneers to the Northwest Territor..."These American Pioneers to the Northwest Territory arrived at the confluence of the Ohio and Muskingum rivers, on April 7, 1788, and established Marietta, Ohio as the first permanent American settlement in the Northwest Territory. Putnam went on to serve as a Supreme Court judge for the Northwest Territory. Brother Putnam established American Union Lodge No 1 in Marietta, but American Union Lodge did not start out in Ohio. Since this was a military Lodge, it was chartered in Boston Mass. in 1776"<BR/><BR/><BR/>they refused Grand Lodge o Ohio authority.<BR/>they refused ETJ, why<BR/>they were true FREE masons and revolutionary war vets. they bend knee to no oneTubal Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00704479584240584425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-12011652358875637122008-09-08T03:44:00.000-05:002008-09-08T03:44:00.000-05:00palmettobug would you plesse direct us to the "his...palmettobug would you plesse direct us to the "historical data" that you refer to because if you can establish the basis for your claim that the doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction" was in operation in America before it was institutionalised in England, then your name will go down in Masonic history because nobody else has ever claimed this to my knowledge.<BR/><BR/>A list of reliable sources and references please.Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-58594427394022650952008-09-07T18:52:00.000-05:002008-09-07T18:52:00.000-05:00Peter; It is my understanding from looking at the ...Peter; It is my understanding from looking at the historical data that the GL at London was able to issue a charter to a Lodge in Massachusetts in 1784 because it no longer recognized that there was an existing GL in that state. There was some little spat called the War of Independence going on during those years that caused a disruption in recognition between the GLs of the British Empire and the GLs in the American Colonies. The GL of Mass. actually went dark (or quiet) for a time during those years. When issuing a charter to African No 1, the GL at London was not violating ETJ - at least not on paper. That doesn't change the fact that ETJ was the <I>modus operandi</I> in those days.The Palmetto Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08049500796697782077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-87058233467760115012008-09-07T13:16:00.000-05:002008-09-07T13:16:00.000-05:00palmetto bug is confusing racial discrimination an...palmetto bug is confusing racial discrimination and also the doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction.<BR/><BR/>Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction is an English Masonic doctrine that was imported into The United States of America after the introduction of the The Combinations Act of 1801. It was not a policy before 1813.<BR/><BR/>ETJ is the reason why Benjamin Franklin's original Old York Lodge disappeared from view, and why George Washington's original Old York Lodge was given a number and was affiliated to the Moderns form of freemasonry.<BR/><BR/>Black men were not excluded from Freemasonry just because of racial discrimination.<BR/><BR/>They were excluded because the vast majority of American black men were not Free men, and therefore were not eligible for Free Masonry.<BR/><BR/>Thank goodness times have changed.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting to note that George Washington and his family were enthusiastic slave owners:<BR/><BR/>"George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate."! (SOURCE: Mount Vernon Estate Press Office)<BR/><BR/>What may not be realised (or it is ignored), is that the Washington Family, and other families, indentured white slaves as well as black slaves. They too were not eligible for Free Masonry.<BR/><BR/>So, many black men and a small number of white men were excluded due to the rules against slaves being made Free Masons.<BR/><BR/>Prince Hall was not a slave. He was a landowner and a registered voter in Boston, a free man.<BR/><BR/>He was not excluded from Free Masonry due to racial prejudice, in fact he and a 14 of his associates became Free Masons in Military Lodge No. 441 (a traveling Military Lodge) under the jurisdiction of The Grand Lodge of London.<BR/><BR/>When this Lodge returned to England (1776), Prince Hall should have either travelled with it, or joined another American Lodge, because technically he and his colleagues became "unattached" Masons.<BR/><BR/>Why they did not do this, or whether they applied and were rejected, we simply do not know?<BR/><BR/>In 1784, eight years later, they chose to petition for a "Charter" from the Grand Lodge of London to start up a Lodge in the same State as the Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.<BR/><BR/>The Charter arrived in 1787, three years later, and so there must have been a lot going on between London and Massachusetts. This was not just an admin. problem!<BR/><BR/>This Provincial Grand Lodge had received a Charter from the same Grand Lodge of London in 1733.<BR/><BR/>It must come as no surprise to anyone that when the Grand Lodge of London granted a limited dispensation for African Lodge No. 1, under direct jurisdiction from London, but not authorised to carry out the normal functions of a proper Lodge, that problems arose between that Lodge and the Prov.GL of Mass.<BR/><BR/>The crucial time period is 1776-1784 and the truth is that we do not know the reason why the Masons of African Lodge No. 1 did not apply to a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Prov. GL of Mass. or were rejected as a Lodge or as individuals.<BR/><BR/>This is not a firm enough historical basis to claim either ETJ, racial discrimination, or other reasons about which we do not know.<BR/><BR/>What we do know is that it is unlikely that The Grand Lodge of London used a doctrine of ETJ in a dispute between its own Lodge, and its own Provincial Grand Lodge.<BR/><BR/>In fact, by granting a charter to African Lodge, even a limited one, it would have been granted in direct opposition to a policy of ETJ.<BR/><BR/>They would not have done this had the policy existed.<BR/><BR/>It is possible that Massachusetts would not co-operate, for reasons unknown, but that is a long way from being able to positively claim that ETJ existed as a policy, which it didn't, or pure racial discrimination.<BR/><BR/>We must move on and ensure that we learn the lessons from that period.Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-65164999278046909802008-09-07T11:03:00.000-05:002008-09-07T11:03:00.000-05:00I have made a comment on The Masonic Line and am a...I have made a comment on The Masonic Line and am awaiting approval.Frederic L. Millikenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00375574953455842623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-26541804786080728162008-09-07T07:28:00.000-05:002008-09-07T07:28:00.000-05:00There's a hot and heavy discussion of Exclusive Te...There's a hot and heavy discussion of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction going on on the blog "The Masonic Line." It's getting a bit acrimonious, as these things seem to do.Gingermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17903281372336437371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-87319821069752420982008-09-06T19:08:00.000-05:002008-09-06T19:08:00.000-05:00Do you consider coil's a reliable source?" This do...Do you consider coil's a reliable source?<BR/><BR/>" This doctrine was one of the arguments used to prevent the recognition of Prince Hall Masonry. " -- Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, "American Doctrine" p37 1996Frederic L. Millikenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00375574953455842623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-56600187943853570712008-09-04T17:00:00.000-05:002008-09-04T17:00:00.000-05:00Squire; I must address a couple of things."BAD TAS...Squire; I must address a couple of things.<BR/><BR/>"<I>BAD TASTE??? I'll tell you what is in bad taste. when I came to Texas I made the rounds of GL of Texas Lodges in a wide sweep of my house. I had many to choose from.<BR/><BR/>After Lodge, sipping tea and cookies with the Brothers of one Lodge, one Mason said, 'So you are from Massachusetts? Let me tell you the difference between Northern Masonry and Southern Masonry, especially in Texas. We don't allow no niggers in Lodge around here.'</I>"<BR/><BR/>I agree - that is bad. It does not, however excuse what you said: "<I>They want to control it and force Prince Hall to practice Masonry the White, er right way.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Two wrongs don't make a right.<BR/><BR/>From the edited portion of your original post: "<I>Hereafter Prince Hall pushed for Recognition starting most publicly with Washington State in 1897. But Mainstream Masonry seeing what was coming had decades before adopted The Right of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction to block Prince Hall from Recognition consideration and to offer a 'legal' reason that would hide their racism.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Please offer proof - and I don't mean some person's or body's opinion - to support the factual nature of that last sentence. I have already offered proof - here and on my blog - that supports my position. ETJ was not created to deal with PHA. ETJ predates PHA and has been applied at least since 1783. I have already produced the proof. I will now start researching earlier history to see how far back - before 1783 - I can find evidence of ETJ.The Palmetto Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08049500796697782077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-41110467152443079042008-09-04T15:17:00.000-05:002008-09-04T15:17:00.000-05:00All Freemasonry in the United States of America ca...All Freemasonry in the United States of America can be traced back to Anglo-Masonry, Scots-Masonry, or in the case of the PHA to Irish-Masonry.<BR/><BR/>Irish-Masonry is derived from the original Grand Lodge at York.Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-2366151431414245252008-09-04T15:09:00.000-05:002008-09-04T15:09:00.000-05:00"While attending PHA raisings, I saw freemasonry b..."While attending PHA raisings, I saw freemasonry being practiced that I had not experienced in the Anglo system. "<BR/><BR/>Funny--PHA derives from your boogeyman the "Anglo" system. <BR/><BR/>While they are, in part very serious, you cannot say other lodges in the "mainstream" are not so. <BR/><BR/>So get off your labels--you're becoming too confused by them and it affects your ability to even look objectively at history.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18261625757817962672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-10479618377437876482008-09-04T15:03:00.000-05:002008-09-04T15:03:00.000-05:00FYI:The correct spelling is Caucasian NOT "caucasi...FYI:<BR/><BR/>The correct spelling is <I>Caucasian</I> <B>NOT</B> "caucasion".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18261625757817962672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-22212914999820270742008-09-04T10:37:00.000-05:002008-09-04T10:37:00.000-05:00The beginning of use and misuse of the doctrine of...The beginning of use and misuse of the doctrine of "Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction" may be pinpointed to 1813, the establishment of The United Grand Lodge of England by the Act of Union between The Grand Lodge of London (The Modern) and the Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons According to the Old Institution (The Antients).<BR/><BR/>Between 1794 and 1801, the Free Masons of England and Scotland were subjected to a catalogue of repressive legislation beginning with the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act (1794) and culminating in the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800.<BR/><BR/>This legislation included the: Treasonable Practices Act (1795); Seditious Meetings Act (1795); Unlawful Oaths Act (1797); Newspaper Publications Act (1797); Corresponding Societies Act (1799); Unlawful Societies Act (1799).<BR/><BR/>QUOTE: '... nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to prevent the meetings of the Lodge or society of persons which is now held at Free Masons Hall in Great Queen Street in the County of Middlesex, and usually denominated The Grand Lodge of Freemasons of England, or of the Lodge or society of persons usually denominated The Grand Lodge of Masons of England, according to the Old Institution, or of the Lodge or society of persons which is now held at Edinburgh, and usually denominated The Grand Lodge of Free Masons of Scotland, or the meetings of any subordinate lodge or society of persons usually calling themselves Free Masons, the holding whereof shall be sanctioned or approved by any one of the above mentioned lodges or societies...' (SOURCE: Unlawful Societies Act, 1799)<BR/><BR/>QUOTE: "The amendment (to the Unlawful Societies Act) envisaged a system whereby the Grand Secretaries would each year deposit with the clerks of the peace a certificate containing details of the time and place of meeting of all approved lodges in the county, together with a declaration that the lodges were approved by the Grand Master. All lodges were to keep a book in which each member was to declare, on joining, 'that he is well affected to the constitution and government of this realm, by King, Lords, and Commons, as by law established'. This book was to be kept open for inspection by local magistrates. The Grand Lodges were thus to be made responsible for policing freemasonry; lodges whose names did not appear on the return made by the Grand Secretaries would be criminal conspiracies." (SOURCE: The Unlawful Societies Act 1799 - The Centre for Research into Freemasonry)<BR/><BR/>QUOTE: "I have pledged myself to His Majesty's ministers that should any set of men attempt to meet as a lodge without sanction, the Grand Master, or Acting Grand Master (whomsoever he might be), would apprise parliament." (SOURCE: statement by Lord Moira, Acting Grand Master)<BR/><BR/>The Grand Lodge of All England at York, outlawed and branded "a criminal conspiracy" is forced underground, its Lodges suspended, its Free Masons under threat of seizure of property, bankruptcy, prosecution, imprisonment, exile.<BR/><BR/>The doctrine of "Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction" and its misuse had begun.Peter Clatworthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030262957884154625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-16814639341022513052008-09-04T06:59:00.000-05:002008-09-04T06:59:00.000-05:00something I found....Prince Hall Freemasonry deriv...something I found....<BR/>Prince Hall Freemasonry derives from historical events in the early United States that led to a tradition of separate, predominantly African-American Freemasonry in North America. <BR/><BR/>In 1775, an African-American named Prince Hall[14] was initiated into an Irish Constitution Military Lodge then in Boston, Massachusetts, along with fourteen other African-Americans, all of whom were free-born. When the Military Lodge left North America, those fifteen men were given the authority to meet as a Lodge, form Processions on the days of the Saints John, and conduct Masonic funerals, but not to confer degrees, nor to do other Masonic work. <BR/><BR/>In 1784, these individuals applied for, and obtained, a Lodge Warrant from the Premier Grand Lodge of England (GLE) and formed African Lodge, Number 459. When the UGLE was formed in 1813, all U.S. based Lodges were stricken from their rolls – due largely to the U.S. and British War, 1812 to 1815. Thus, separated from both UGLE and any concordantly recognised U.S. Grand Lodge, African Lodge re-titled itself as the African Lodge, Number 1—and became a de facto "Grand Lodge" (this Lodge is not to be confused with the various Grand Lodges on the Continent of Africa). As with the rest of U.S. <BR/><BR/>Freemasonry, Prince Hall Freemasonry soon grew and organised on a Grand Lodge system for each state. <BR/><BR/>Widespread segregation, in the 19th- and early 20th century North America, made it difficult for African-Americans to join Lodges outside of Prince Hall jurisdictions—and impossible for inter-jurisdiction recognition between the parallel U.S. Masonic authorities. <BR/><BR/>Prince Hall Masonry has always been regular in all respects except constitutional separation, and this separation has diminished in recent years. At present, Prince Hall Grand Lodges are recognised by some UGLE Concordant Grand Lodges and not by others, but appear to be working toward full recognition, with UGLE granting at least some degree of recognition.[15] There are a growing number of both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges that have ethnically diverse membership.Tubal Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00704479584240584425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-21549450043016467832008-09-04T03:45:00.000-05:002008-09-04T03:45:00.000-05:00Oh the drama P Bug....The last bastion of pure and...Oh the drama P Bug....<BR/>The last bastion of pure and ancient freemasonry...<BR/><BR/>The idea of ETJ is schoolyard mentality. <BR/><BR/>While attending PHA raisings, I saw freemasonry being practiced that I had not experienced in the Anglo system. The men were professional, and showed myself and brothers so much love and respect, we almost became addicted.<BR/>They are a tight bunch of free born men, spreading brotherly love.<BR/><BR/>for any american to still believe their is merit in segregation in a fraternity that espouses universal brotherhood is living a hypacritical masonic life.<BR/><BR/>And I'll bet there was no ETJ in 1717...... american grand lodges were chartering lodges in other states before their own grand lodges were formed.<BR/><BR/>It is a seperatist ideal and goes aginst the true spirit of freemasonry, that is if you believe Freemasonry has a Spirit?<BR/>if you do, then a spirit is not bound by man made petty racist and territorial insecurity rules for control.<BR/><BR/>America is about freedom. PERIODTubal Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00704479584240584425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4085261678477746076.post-74448940862069448372008-09-03T23:16:00.000-05:002008-09-03T23:16:00.000-05:00What strikes me is that this is an argument over a...What strikes me is that this is an argument over a hunk of paper that was argued over 150 years ago.<BR/><BR/>With that said, what is it that empowers that document to predicate how we act today?Greg Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17688459525360750872noreply@blogger.com