I like Charles; he’s young and progressive minded, and he’s the kind of person I have in mind whenever I hear the (sadly clichéed) expression “The future of Masonry.”  Charles has consistently pushed for our Grand Lodge to adopt new technologies in order to reach — and be relevant to — the newer members of our fraternity. He’s bright, and well-spoken, and modest about his achievements.

And he prefers Apple computer products.

Apparently, I have so little going on in my own life right now that I have taken to ribbing friends about their choice of technology, much in the way many people poke fun at one’s favorite sports team, choice of automobile, or taste in literature. This ribbing is further driven by the fact that for the last year, my office and home networks have been plagued by more computer problems than I’ve ever seen; obviously I’m envious of anyone who is actually happy with their computer, and confess to some distrust at anyone who doesn’t have some anger, annoyance, or irritation with their gadgets.

To his credit, Charles has refused to take the troll bait; although for that matter, I don’t particularly think about Apple products except when I hear from him or a few other similarly inclined friends.

Until yesterday, that is.

Some of you may remember that last year I wrote a post that made light of the similarities between Freemasonry and the GNU/Linux community. I should have remembered that satire is based in reality.

Yesterday, while reading Lifehacker, I ran across a couple of articles about how Apple is introducing a new way to get software, entitled respectively, Why the Mac App Store Sucks, and Why You Might Really Like the Mac App Store In The Long Run. And suddenly, the pictures jumped out at me. Why?

Here’s the logo for the Mac App Store:

Umm… does this look familiar to you?

For reference, here’s a couple of random images from a Google image search.

A Past Master's symbol from some areas of the world.

An older, lesser known version

I mean, of all the possible combinations that the graphic artists could come up with, they riff on the Square and Compasses?

Coincidence? I think not.

Although I’ve long explored the twisted logic of the conspiracy theorists, I don’t have any background with regard to the twisted logic of Apple users. I believe, however, that this bears looking into.

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our eighth installment, we examined the responses nationwide and worldwide when both Grand Lodges overwhelmingly approved resolutions of mutual recognition. This is the final installment in a series of stories in Connecticut Freemasons that have celebrated the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

Part of the reason for the publication of this series of articles was to collect and preserve the memories of those who were a part of the process of achieving mutual recognition two decades ago. Being able to speak with both Gail Smith’s, Lew Myrick, Ken Hawkins, and others who, it can be argued, made the recognition happen, provides a valuable historical record for the future, removed as far as possible from speculation and conjecture.

Graphic: joint recognition pin from 1989, probably Day Spring Lodge No. 30.

It should not have come as a surprise, then, when information not previously available to this author came to light after the publication of the October 2009 Connecticut Freemasons. MWPGM Richard A. Hodgson, now retired to Arizona, was a part of the meeting held at the request of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) to discuss recognition. Slightly excerpted, his account follows.

“The day following my installation, together with Past Grand Masters Harrison, Desmond, and Lorenson, I went to Boston to meet with the Grand Secretary and Chairman of the Committee of General Purposes of the Grand Lodge of England, a board having duties similar to our Committee of Recognition. Unfortunately I do not remember the name of the Chairman. [Editor’s note: presumably this was Michael Higham of the UGLE.] Most Worshipful Darling [Charles Darling, MWGM of Massachusetts] met us at the Grand Lodge to host the meeting but declined to take part.

“On arrival we were met by Most Worshipful Brother Don Smith and Right Worshipful James Wood, Grand Master and Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Washington. As well as Grand Master, Brother Don was a Judge of the Supreme Court of Washington…MW Don asked that although I was entitled to conduct the meeting as the Grand Master of Connecticut, that I consider allowing Most Worshipful Brother Dean Massey, Grand Master of Wisconsin, then also Dean of Law at the University of Wisconsin, to conduct, as he had come prepared with a great deal of research.

“I then welcomed and introduced all and asked Brother Massey to present his questions and concerns to the English brothers. Brother Dean had indeed come prepared.

“England had denied that Prince Hall was chartered by the Grand Lodge of England, which was indeed true. However, they chartered African Lodge 459, which later changed its name to honor Prince Hall. Brother Dean then brought out the yearly assessments paid by the Grand Lodge of African/Prince Hall, to the Grand Lodge of England up to the mid 1800′s, and that lodge being dropped from the rolls although they maintained their payment beyond that of several other American Grand Lodges who were not (dropped).

“At the conclusion of Brother Dean’s presentation, Brother Higham remarked that he could not repudiate Brother Dean as they (the English) were not as well informed as he, and they would have to go home and research Dean’s challenges and questions.

“We enjoyed a nice lunch and fellowship provided by Most Worshipful Brother Darling and departed in peace and good will. The result of this meeting was the removal of the restriction on visitation by the Grand Lodge of England, which had had, little if any effect.
“The record in a nut shell by one who was there.”

As noted in a prior article, the UGLE recognized the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts before the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge did so. This was an odd circumstance, made even more so by the historic recognition of Prince Hall Masonry by that Grand Lodge in 1947.

It is more than a bit sad that 20 years after the first Grand Lodges A.F. & A.M. and P.H.A. opted for brotherhood, there are so many American Masons that have not yet accepted the concept of brotherhood that is not based on racial characteristics.

This failure borders on the absurd when these same Grand Lodges recognize African and Caribbean lodges chartered by the Grand Lodge of England in which all of the members have the same racial background as those Prince Hall Masons whom they shun here.

Has recognition worked? A Prince Hall grand officer put it well: “Not everything everybody feared happened, some things people hoped for happened, and some things people expected didn’t happen.”

What did happen was the opportunity for Masonic brothers – who all express belief in Deity, take the same obligations, and meet on the same level – to do so on a broader basis, with artificial barriers removed. On this basis alone, recognition has certainly worked.

Brother Ben Franklin once wrote that the biggest secret in Masonry was that there were no secrets. He later expanded his commentary on Masonic secrets to note that “The good effects … have subdued the rancor of malevolence and broken down the barriers of political animosity and sectarian alienation.”

To that we may add that progress has been made in breaking down racial barriers that divide, rather than unite, men and Masons. To those who took these bold steps two decades ago, we owe our thanks. To those who will lead our fraternity in the future, we urge their efforts to continue the good work begun by different Grand Lodges two decades – and six decades – and a century ago.

Thus may we honor our obligations as men and Masons. So may it ever be. So mote it be.

I can’t believe that this is my fourth time blogging about Friendship Lodge at the Southington Apple Harvest Festival. My first time was in 2006 when I was Master of the lodge, and really, not all that much has changed. Local businesses and street vendors still cross their fingers about the weather (apparently, those weather-changing HAARP beams aren’t supposed to be used frivolously), and the same members of Friendship still show up for the entire weekend to keep the food going. This year, however, we decided not to sell the “Philly” steak & cheese sandwiches that Friendship has sold for the last 15 years or so., and to concentrate just on selling the fried apple wedges that we’ve been perfecting for the last eight or nine years.

This was not an easy decision to make. Although it became clear that the sandwiches actually lost money during the last few years, the sheer amount of work involved to make them created a camaraderie that certainly added to the harmony of the members. How can you be upset with somebody who stood next to you, slicing the onions that you were peeling? And few things help develop common trust like knowing that somebody will show up for the important, but oft-overlooked cleanup work.

Our initial weekend was marred by cloudy, drizzly weather that became a downpour by Saturday afternoon. But Sunday was warm and sunny, and the crowds were out in droves to taste the typical fair fare, to browse some of the craft booths, and to enjoy the weather.

This being the lodge’s largest (and essentially only) fund raiser, we count on good weather and healthy appetites for the two weekends that the festival takes place. The first weekend ended up doing fairly well, allowing us to cover our initial expenses. We’re hoping that next weekend will be even more successful.

Maybe we’ll see you there?

Reflections on Recognition, 20 Years Later

The Votes are Tallied

by Carl G. Ek

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our first six installments, MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition and Connecticut Masons and Prince Hall Grand Lodge leaders enthusiastically supported this proposal. How would the craft vote? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

Dateline: Cromwell, Connecticut, October 14, 1989. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge met in annual communication, and voted on the recognition resolution first. In the parlance of sports, the vote was a slamdunk, with only one member voting in the negative.

That brother later approached then Prince Hall Grand Master Lewis Myrick, Sr., asking to change his vote. “Hell no!” replied the Grand Master. “That’s how you voted, and that’s how it stays.”

With the requirement of ‘all or nothing,’ it was Prince Hall’s turn to wait to see if the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge would likewise approve mutual recognition at their special communication, being held at Sheehan High School in Wallingford.

As it became clear that the special Prince Hall Recognition Committee chaired by Grand Senior Deacon Kenneth B. Hawkins, Sr., would report favorably on the plan, brothers who may not have been in favor carefully attempted to have influence on the decision.

A Past Grand Master approached MW Gail N. Smith to suggest that given the magnitude of the proposed change, some brothers might desire a written, private ballot to express their feelings. Bro. Smith agreed that he was correct – thinking that some would use ‘privacy’ as an excuse to retain the status quo while not appearing to be racially motivated. Still, Grand Master Smith directed Grand Secretary and MWPGM R. Stanley Harrison to prepare paper ballots for the recognition vote – knowing that they would never be used.

As some in Prince Hall Masonry feared being overwhelmed by the much larger A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge, so some A.F. & A.M. Masons expressed a concern that their meetings might be visited by large groups of Prince Hall Masons. Why, others asked, would that be a problem? Lodges that ‘blitz’ might arrive unannounced at a visited lodge with 10, 20, even 30 members (and, politely, with a large quantity of refreshments). Why would a visit from a Prince Hall delegation make any difference to the visited lodge? Unless, of course, there were other, unspoken, considerations….

Then Senior Grand Warden of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge Michael Bivans focused on some of those concerns while speaking to Compass Lodge No. 9, Wallingford in the weeks leading up to the votes. RW Mike had been invited by Compass WM Charles Rogers to speak to his lodge to give a history of Prince Hall Masonry. After his formal presentation, Mike responded to a question about visitation between jurisdictions.

“Do all of your (A.F.& A.M.) members show up at your meetings? Of course not,” Mike answered his own question, looking at vacant seats in the nearly full lodge room. “And do all of my (P.H.A.) members show up at all of our meetings? Same thing. So what makes anybody think that when we approve mutual recognition, all of ‘your’ members are going to start going to ‘our’ meetings, and all of ‘our’ members are going to going to start to ‘your’ meetings? Won’t happen,” he concluded. History has proven him correct.

From Prince Hall Recognition

Image: MW Lew Myrick and RW Carl G. Ek, Worshipful Master. Unity Lodge No. 148, New Britain, at the Recognition Table Lodge. MW Myrick was protagonist for recognition twenty year ago, and RW Ek is the author of this series.

Dateline: Wallingford, Connecticut, October 14, 1989. The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. special communication being held at Sheehan High School had several items on the agenda, most of which were disposed of as preludes to what everyone understood to be the main topic of business. Brothers learned about plans for the next inspection cycle and filled out a questionnaire concerning the then-Grand Lodge quarterly publication, Connecticut Square and Compasses.

The questionnaires filled out and collected, Grand Master Gail Nelson Smith announced, “We will now take up the Prince Hall Recognition…” and stated that there could be no amendments to the resolution since it was the same resolution being acted upon – at the same time – by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. After opening remarks, Bro. Smith asked subcommittee chairman Hawkins to read the recommendations of his group.

Issues of Masonic legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, the ‘sovereignty issue’ of only one Grand Lodge per jurisdiction, and the potential for other Grand Lodges to withdraw Masonic recognition from Connecticut should the vote be in the affirmative were discussed. The first two were simple to resolve; as to the last, the report stated, “… we have no control over their actions, and our vote must not be influenced by what might happen, but rather what is prudent in this Grand Jurisdiction.”

Past Grand Master Morris I. Budkofsky, chairman of the Fraternal Relations Committee, reported complete satisfaction with the legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and recommended that approval of “Fraternal Recognition, including rights of visitation, be granted…” The original motion was reread and opportunities for remarks allowed.

Grand Master Smith then asked those in favor of the resolution to stand, be counted, and those opposed to stand. The final tally was not recorded in the Grand Lodge Proceedings except to say that “a large majority” had approved the resolution at the historic communication of the Grand Lodge.

Bro. Smith then reported – to great applause – the Prince Hall Grand Lodge’s vote of approval and concluded the agenda of his own session. Thereafter, Bros. Smith and Hawkins made a short drive to close a centuries-old gap in Masonic brotherhood, becoming the first A.F.& A.M. Masons to be formally received into the tiled Prince Hall Grand Lodge session.

Joint news releases would spread word of the good work publicly, but the pre-Internet Masonic grapevine spread the word faster, that recognition was reality. Response would be rapid….

Four Fellowcrafts and an Entered Apprentice walk into a bar…

[...]

…and so the bartender replied “You know, the jokes were a hell of a lot funnier back in my year.”

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve gone to a couple of degree rehearsals, have seen three Fellowcraft degrees in my district, filled in for my counterpart (who came down with something the night he was supposed to recite the Letter G lecture) down south in the 4th District , and finished up by going to a nicely done Entered Apprentice degree in one of my other lodges, the one that’s not quite up in Massachusetts.

Whew!

Don’t get me wrong – I really enjoy degree work. I enjoy watching it, and even more, I enjoy doing it.

But why do we shmush them all into the same time period?

Oh, yeah, I remember; because most lodges in Connecticut start their year in January, so they schedule an EA for February, and then follow up a month later with an FC. Then they give themselves a bit of a breather, and sometime in May, the Master Mason degree season will be upon us. Guaranteed there will be one scheduled on my wife’s birthday, too, so not only will my gas bill and dry cleaning bill be up, I’ll need to put aside something for the florist bill.

Anyway, one of the neat things about seeing so many degrees so close together is that I can really compare little details that I might otherwise have forgotten. Most notable among these is the floorwork of the ceremonies; the positions, the walking paths, the stances, and all those other little things that aren’t found in our ritual book.

Yes, it’s true: As I’ve mentioned before, Connecticut does have an “official” ritual manual, which is occasionally even used by some of our own lodges. Unfortunately, the ritual is, in places, somewhat unclear (some would say “ambiguous”) in the matter of floorwork. Without boring anybody with the details, we take it for granted that at certain times different people will walk from place to place in the lodge in order to do certain things. How they manage to get there, though, is sometimes open to interpretation. And that is what makes for the interesting differences from lodge to lodge.

It would be easy to suggest that we simply write a floorwork manual, as they use in some other states. That would, of course, necessitate that we rewrite our actual ritual monitor, which would correct the mistakes in our current monitor, which had already been rewritten to correct that mistakes that the previous rewrite was supposed to have done.

Did you get all of that?

I’ve heard this suggested for several years now, and at one time I agreed with the idea. Now, however, I’m of a different mind. There is an old expression that what passes for a lodge tradition is really a mistake that somebody made, and then the people behind him continued. I admit to finding that amusing, but when you give it some thought, it’s a very cynical way of looking at the variety of fascinating idiosyncrasies displayed by the various lodges around the state. Yes, no doubt that some lodges have a tradition that actually did originate as a result of a mistake or a careless interpretation of a section. But of those lodges that insist that they do things “because that’s the way we’ve always done them,” I’m sure that you can go back in time – in some cases, less than a decade – to discover when it actually did happen. More likely, when somebody in a lodge claims that “we’ve always done it that way,” what he means is that “that’s the way I always remember it being done,” which is really something quite different.

But as to the idea of traditions or customs always arising from a mistake in the workings, not only is it cynical, it’s also wrong. Lodges perform the workings differently from each other simply because our own interpretations of the workings are always going to vary over time and distance, especially when those workings leave room for interpretation.But that doesn’t mean – and some of you may be surprised that I’m writing this – that I’m in favor of codifying our floorwork, or even making our ritual so ironclad that it leaves no room for interpretation. To the contrary, I think that the evolution of ritual is a natural and even necessary process.

I’m aware that some jurisdictions are very strict about passing down their workings “from mouth to ear” and that officers are watched very closely for even the smallest transgressions. While I applaud their determination, I often wonder what’s the point? What are they preserving? Our own ritual in Connecticut is one of the many variations of the Preston-Webb workings that were developed and spread thought out the US after the Civil War in the mid-1800s. Those workings are a compilation of ritual that was performed in England, where there are several other workings which don’t even resemble what is typically done in the US. Even Canada, our neighbor to the north, has a variation of the Preston workings, plus their version of the Emulation workings (which is seen in other parts of the UK) and at least one other set that isn’t quite either one.

I have a copy of the workings from a jurisdiction in Australia, which is a variation on the Emulation workings. I’m calling it a variation because it’s almost, but not quite like the version of Emulation used in parts of Canada, and again, not quite like what is used in parts of England. But it’s defintiely recognizable as Emulation, just as despite the variations from state to state, anyone from the US will recognize workings in any other state.

My point is that ritual – our workings – have evolved over time and space. At what point did some committee of ritualists decide to pick and choose which version would be the “official” workings? And after that, when and why was it changed? Because there has to be a reason that while we are all Freemasons, we use so many small and fascinating variations on workings that, in actuality, aren’t even all that old?

Now, there’s no question that I like some of those variations better than others. In fact, after watching one of the degrees last week, I was discussing the small differences between that lodge and my own, and I had to ask myself if I was biased in my preference simply because Friendship does something differently. That question, in fact, is something that I ask myself just about every time I help out a lodge at a rehearsal; I want a lodge to do their own variation in the best way possible, but sometimes I have to stop myself from suggesting that they do something differently, simply because it’s what I learned, and not because it’s inherently better.

In the last few years I’ve been to about twenty different lodges around the state, and no two of them do things alike. I know that this makes some of the purists absolutely crazy, but lately I’ve begun to appreciate the little differences. And I’ll really try to keep that in mind when I do the next round of degrees in another month.

Reflections on Recognition, 20 Years Later
Timely and Good – a Paper Republished
by Carl G. Ek

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our first three installments, MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition and we learned that other Grand Lodges had also done so in the past. Would Connecticut Masons support this proposal? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

In the closing moments of the March 29, 1989 Grand Lodge session Past Grand Master Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution calling for the mutual recognition of Prince Hall Masonry immediately after installing his son, Gail Nelson Smith, as the new Grand Master. The craft would come to learn that this proposal had been made in at least three states previously, and that two had already passed – and then rescinded – recognition.

In the 1870’s, the question came before the Grand Lodge of Ohio, where it was ‘narrowly defeated.’ In 1897, the Grand Lodge of Washington was presented with the request of two transplanted Prince Hall Masons for the opportunity for fraternal interaction. The appointed committee, led by Deputy Grand Master William H. Upton, chose to examine “the large(r) question of… legitimacy” of lodges that were the ‘offspring’ of African Lodge No. 459 and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge that coalesced in 1808.

The result Bro. Upton’s committee’s work was simple: a ‘white’ Grand Lodge had legitimized Prince Hall Freemasons for the first time. Their report discussed the possible reaction from other Grand Lodges, but did not expect there to be significant problems. In that they were sadly surprised, and by the next Grand Lodge communication, it was necessary to rescind recognition of Prince Hall Masonry.

Now Past Grand Master Upton made his feelings clear: there was to be no monument, marker, or other identification on his grave that he was even a Mason until the Washington Grand Lodge again recognized their Prince Hall brothers.

A span of fifty years passed before another Grand Lodge would essay recognition. Much had changed in the world. Most Worshipful Past Grand Master of Missouri Harry S Truman had succeeded Bro. Franklin D. Roosevelt as President, and one of his executive orders provided for the desegregation of the United States military at all levels. Enlightened people questioned issues of race, and the civil rights movement was stirring.

In Massachusetts, the home of African Lodge No. 459, the Grand Lodge agreed with the conclusions reached a half-century earlier by a Grand Lodge a continent away. Grand Master Melvin M. Johnson was a strong proponent for recognition, which was passed in March 1947. Again, sadly, this was short-lived as Grand Lodges around the nation brought fraternal pressure to bear. Two years later, recognition was rescinded.

These activities at Connecticut’s northern border caught the attention of Bro. Raymond H. Dragat, a member of Level Lodge No. 137 and Philosophic Lodge of Research (PLR). Bro. Ray had been raised in Cosmopolitan Lodge No. 125 in New Haven while attending Yale Law School. Returning to his native Hartford, he changed his affiliation to a lodge that was initially built on the premise of alternating Christian and Jewish Worshipful Masters year by year.

The secretary of Level Lodge and PLR for more than 50 years aggregated, Ray ascended to the Oriental Chair in Philosophic Lodge in 1959. In that year he presented his paper, Prince Hall Masonry in the United States of America. This well-researched paper earned Ray the lifelong respect and numerous honors from Prince Hall Masonry.

Then Grand Lecturer and eventual Prince Hall Grand Master John E. Rogers ¬– and friend of Gail L. Smith at the Masonic Home – wrote to Bro. Dragat, “I cannot find the proper words to type my appreciation of your interest and inspiration. But I will give you this promise in return; I will ever in my lectures and future instructions to my younger brothers stress love and tolerance so that the spirit of Dragat, Upton and Melvin Johnson will always be reflected by those Prince Hall men with whom I come in contact.”

Bro. Dragat’s paper caused a stir at the time of its publication, especially when it noted that “the procedure of forming African Grand Lodge in 1791 was more properly accomplished than was the formation of white Grand Lodges in Massachusetts and other states.” He concluded, as had many before him, that there was no Masonic reason not to recognize Prince Hall Masonry.

Within a few years, though, it was generally forgotten. Ray updated the work in 1978 to reflect several court cases where ‘white’ Grand Lodges had supported Prince Hall Masons’ efforts to suppress clandestine black groups claiming the name of ‘Masons.’ One court expressed amazement that there was no record ever of any adversarial court action between Prince Hall Grand Lodges and their AF & AM counterparts!

Ray’s paper may have remained ‘forgotten’ had not Philosophic Lodge of Research begun a program to bring more Masonic light to the craft. Under the leadership of WM Frank H. Icaza in 1984, the lodge began selling 10 different papers from its archives. Bro. Dragat’s Prince Hall paper, the most expensive simply due to reproduction costs, was by far the best seller of the group.

Papers were available at Committee on Masonic Information officer seminars through the late 1980’s, and many brothers who owned the paper were voting delegates at the 1989 Grand Lodge session. Craft leadership was thus aware that Prince Hall Masonry was Masonically legitimate. They had every reason to support recognition.

A strong case can be made that when Gail Linnell Smith “… request(ed) fraternal recognition from the Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons of Connecticut, Prince Hall Affiliation;” and those hundreds of brothers rose as one to enthusiastically, urgently “Second!” this motion, they were expressing their understanding of a paper written 30 years earlier by a brother who would receive his 80-year pin at the age of 102. Fortunately, Brother Ray Dragat lived to see the premise of his paper accepted and recognition accomplished, the greatest honor he could have ever received.

Reflections on Recognition, 20 Years Later

“The large(r) question of… legitimacy…”

by Carl G. Ek

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our first two installments, the stage was set and MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition. Would local lodge leaders be knowledgeable enough to support this proposal? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

In the closing moments of the March 29, 1989 Grand Lodge session, three brothers revealed their plan. New Grand Master Gail Nelson Smith, his father, Past Grand Master Gail Linnell Smith, and newly installed Grand Senior Deacon Kenneth B. Hawkins, Sr., had agreed on the presentation of the Prince Hall recognition resolution, which was met with unrestrained positive response from the craft.

An observer would have believed that craft leadership present understood the complexities of the issue, knew that Prince Hall Masonry was as Masonically legitimate – and perhaps more so – than many or most North American lodges, and that there was no Masonic reason to oppose recognition. Perhaps they did, even though Bro. Smith’s resolution had included none of his research.

In large measure, most of the work necessary to establish the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry had been conducted by the Grand Lodge of Washington in their preparation to recognize Prince Hall Masonry in 1897. This work was updated by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts just after World War II and they recognized the descendants of African Lodge No. 459 in 1947. Regrettably, both Grand Lodges withdrew recognition soon after due to pressure from other continental Grand Lodges.

On this point, the trio behind Connecticut’s proposal was in agreement. There would only be one chance for recognition to be mutually approved, so the work done by the special committee authorized in the resolution would have to get it right. They also agreed that once recognition was approved – as they confidently expected – there would be no turning back.

MWGM Smith quickly appointed his special committee. RW Hawkins would chair, and six Worshipful Brothers who had supported Prince Hall recognition would make up the committee. They were: John H. Blennerhassett, Jr., Annawon No. 115, West Haven; William L. Greene, Uriel No. 24, Merrow; Robert L. Hodgson, Bay View No. 120, Niantic; Edward N. Jones, Wooster No. 10, Colchester; W. John Nissen, St. John’s No. 3, Trumbull; and John E. Suomala, Hiram No. 98, Bloomfield. Several would later wear ‘the purple of the fraternity,’ but the committee intentionally excluded permanent members of the Grand Lodge. Recognition, if it were to occur, would come as the desire of the craft, not as an imposition from the Grand Lodge. But what evidence could be offered as to the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry? PGM Smith had done his work well in mining a mountain of research from recognized Masonic authorities.

In 1897, the Grand Lodge of Washington received a report of the “Special Committee on Negro Masonry,” prepared by Deputy Grand Master William H. Upton and “most heartily concurred in” by the committee. With no Prince Hall lodges then in Washington state, Prince Hall brothers Gideon S. Bailey and Con A. Rideout – a justice of the peace and an attorney, both with impeccable Masonic credentials – requested that the Grand Lodge “devise some way whereby we [the writers of the letter] as true, tried and trusty Masons, having been regularly initiated, passed and raised, can be brought into communication with, and enjoy the fraternal confidence of the members of the Craft in this State.”

The committee recognized the larger issue than two transplanted Prince Hall Masons hoping to attend lodge; namely that “what they really seek is recognition of the right of the bodies in which they were initiated to make Masons. In other words, they raise the large question of the legitimacy of the so-called ‘Negro Masonry’ of the United States.”

They noted:

“The question of the legitimacy of the Lodges existing among the colored men of the United States is no new one. It has been warmly and ably discussed from time to time: and was quite fully examined over twenty years ago, when a proposal in the (white) Grand Lodge of Ohio — recommended by the Grand Master and favorably reported by the committee to which it had been referred — to recognize as a lawful body the negro Grand Lodge which has existed in that State since 1849, was defeated by a very slender majority.”

The Washington State Grand Lodge committee recited the history of what is now known as Prince Hall Masonry:

“On March 6, 1775, an army Lodge, warranted by the Grand Lodge of England… initiated Prince Hall and fourteen other colored men of Boston into the mysteries of Freemasonry…. They applied to the Grand Lodge of England for a warrant, March 2, 1784. It was issued to them, as ‘African Lodge No. 459,’ with Prince Hall as Master, September 29, 1784, but not received until May 2, 1787. The Lodge was organized under the warrant four days later.”

“Brother Prince Hall a man of exceptional ability, worked zealously in the cause of Masonry; and, from 1792 until his death in 1807, exercised all the functions of a Provincial Grand Master [licensing lodges in Philadelphia and Providence, Rhode Island]… In 1808 these three Lodges joined in forming the ‘African Grand Lodge’ of Boston — now the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts – and Masonry gradually spread over the land.”

To support these actions, the committee quoted Brother and General (and racist son of the slave-holding antebellum South) Albert Pike: “Prince Hall Lodge was as regular a Lodge as any Lodge created by competent authority, and had a perfect right (as other Lodges in Europe did) to establish other Lodges, and make itself a mother Lodge. That’s the way the Berlin Lodges, Three Globes, and Royal York, became Grand Lodges.”

After several additional pages of supporting material, the committee set forth recommendations that were adopted:

“Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, Masonry is universal; and, without doubt, neither race nor color are among the tests proper to be applied to determine the fitness of a candidate for the degrees of Masonry. Resolved, That in view of recognized laws of the Masonic Institution, and of facts of history apparently well authenticated and worthy of full credence, this Grand Lodge does not see its way clear to deny or question the right of its constituent Lodges, or of the members thereof, to recognize as brother Masons, negroes who have been initiated in Lodges which can trace their origin to prince hall Lodge, No. 459.”

A ‘white’ Grand Lodge had legitimized Prince Hall Freemasons for the first time.

To be continued…

Part Two: A Craft Ecstatic

Reflections on Recognition, 20 Years Later

by Carl G. Ek

(Author’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our first installment, the stage was set as MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith rose to present a resolution proposing mutual recognition. What led MWPGM Smith to the belief that this was necessary and proper? And how would local lodge leaders react to such a proposal? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.

Closing moments of the March 29, 1989 Grand Lodge session, approaching 6 PM, at the hot, un-air conditioned Park Plaza Hotel in New Haven; the business of the session – much highly contentious – had been accomplished, the new Grand Lodge officers elected and installed, and everyone anxious to close and go home.

There were three brothers in the room who had other plans.

“Is there anything further to come before this Grand Lodge session?” asked newly installed Grand Master Gail Nelson Smith of the silent gathering.

“Yes, Grand Master, there is!”

The growl seemed to resonate from the past. Gail Linnell Smith, 1968 Grand Master, father of the new Grand Master, strode from his seat in the corner of the Grand East dais. The crumpled paper he took from his pocket was placed on the podium. Father and son stood together as the elder Smith read a resolution he had hoped to offer for more than a decade.

“WHEREAS – Qualified Masonic scholars and several in-depth investigations have demonstrated conclusively that the Prince Hall body of Freemasonry is completely legitimate;

“WHEREAS – Eminent and distinguished members of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, A.F. & A.M. have, more than once, attested in the courts of the land to the legitimacy of the Prince Hall Masons in Connecticut;

“WHEREAS – The doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction is a myth, and a device formulated by American Grand Lodges without any basis in Masonic custom and usage and not universally practiced by the originators;

“WHEREAS – Division among Men and Masons claiming to practice the Brotherhood of all Man under the Fatherhood of one God is contrary to the basic and ancient tenets and teachings of Freemasonry;

“THEREFORE – Be it resolved that this Grand Lodge, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Connecticut, request fraternal recognition from the Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons of Connecticut, Prince Hall Affiliation;

“And be it further resolved that the Grand Master is hereby authorized to appoint a special, temporary sub-committee to the Committee on Fraternal Relations for the sole purpose of contacting Connecticut Prince Hall Masons and advising the full Committee.

“I move that this resolution be accepted, printed in the proceedings and referred to the Committee on Fraternal Relations with instructions to present a report with a recommendation at the next communication of this Grand Lodge on October 14, 1989.”

Hundreds of brothers rose as one to enthusiastically, urgently “Second!” this motion. The Grand Lodge Proceedings reported the approval as unanimous. Moments earlier, a hot, tired, gloomy craft awaited the end of an unpleasant session. Suddenly, a sense of jubilation gripped the craft. The issues of earlier in the day were forgotten; all that was important was that we were recognizing Prince Hall Masonry! Brethren all but floated out of the Grand Ballroom after a closing that no one heard as they discussed among themselves what they had just occurred.

From Prince Hall Recognition Pictured are the son/father Grand Masters: Gail N., left, and Gail L, at a recent discussion of Prince Hall recognition.

What brought the senior Brother Smith to believe that this was a necessary and proper course for Connecticut Freemasonry to take?

PGM Gail Smith had done his research well. He knew that twice before, ‘white’ Grand Lodges had recognized their Prince Hall counterparts, only to withdraw that recognition in the face of protests from other Grand Lodges throughout the nation. What made him think that Connecticut could successfully pursue the recognition that had eluded the Grand Lodge of Washington in 1897 and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1947?

After Bro. Gail retired from the state police, he came to the Masonic Home and Hospital in Wallingford as director of admissions. He assumed that position only a few years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A part of the Act provided that recipients of Medicare and similar health care payments could not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, or color when providing those services. Those who did would lose their right to government payments.

The Masonic Home and Hospital was never segregated, but it was only open for Masons and their families. Connecticut lodges in the 1960’s likely had no black members. However, the Grand Lodge was well acquainted with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, which it deemed the only legitimate – though not recognized – Masonic group for black men.

In 1960, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. had appeared in Superior Court to support the petition of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge against other black organizations trying to use the name “Masons” in public events and parades. Past Grand Masters and lawyers Frank L. Wilder and George R. Sturges, and future Grand Master Irving E. Partridge, then Deputy for Scottish Rite, appeared as ‘friends of the court’ to state unequivocally that Prince Hall Masonry was the only black group that had the right to use the term “Mason.” They pointed to the long history of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, including the chartering by the Grand Lodge of England of African Lodge No. 459 in 1774, as reasons to support the Prince Hall position. The court agreed, issuing the requested injunction.

In 1966, The Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. united with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and the statewide groups from the Knights of Columbus and B’nai Brith to form “Brotherhood in Action.” The goal was to bring together fraternal organizations of men doing good work in their communities to multiply their successes. Local units were encouraged to follow suit, giving the ‘white’ and ‘black’ Grand Lodges a chance to work with their Roman Catholic and Jewish counterparts – and, perhaps most importantly, with each other.

Against
that backdrop, Prince Hall brothers and their families were welcomed and encouraged to apply for residence at what is now called the Masonicare Health Center in Wallingford. Thus did PGM Smith meet MW Bro. John Rogers, a Prince Hall Past Grand Master who spent the last several years of his life as a guest in Wallingford. Bro. Rogers was a scholar and educator, and in their frequent talks, Bro. Smith became convinced that there was no good reason why the two Grand Lodges could not extend recognition to one another, visit each other’s meetings, and truly practice the Masonic brotherhood that we speak about. He set about doing the research necessary to have such a change – a monumental change – made.

to be continued…

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our first five installments, MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition and Connecticut Masons enthusiastically supported this proposal. But what of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

1989 is when it all changed.

The state of Connecticut has a not-undeserved reputation for being “the land of steady habits,” populated with staid (some might say “stodgy”), old-fashioned conservatives. But in 1989, Connecticut was on the forefront of the first wave of mutual recognitions between the AF & AM Grand Lodges and their MWPH counterparts. And while it’s true that Oregon made an attempt to recognize PHA lodges in 1890, and Massachusetts made an attempt right after World War II, both states quickly rescinded those decisions in the wake of opposition from other Masonic jurisdictions. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that the political climate was ripe enough to allow other states to revisit the issue.

The following article by RW Carl Ek is reprinted from the January 2009 issue of The Connecticut Freemasons publication, which is running a series of articles celebrating the 20th anniversary of our mutual recognition.

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M.,Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. Two decades later, almost 80% of United States Grand Lodges have formally recognized Prince Hall Masonry, including several south of the Mason-Dixon line. How did these Connecticut organizations bring together under the umbrella of recognition two old and proud bodies? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

Prince Hall Recognition

“Is there anything further to come before this Grand Lodge session?” The newly installed Grand Master asked the question perfunctorily, almost as though it was a necessary piece of the ritual.

The craft – more than 500 uncomfortable, tired brothers, seated in the ballroom of the Park Plaza Hotel in New Haven that day in March 1989 – were sure they knew the answer to that question. They looked forward to the closing of what would surely be recalled as the most rancorous Grand Lodge session in decades, if not ever.

The heating and cooling systems of the era were often mutually exclusive, providing either heat or air conditioning, and not easily shifting from one to the other. Less than a week into spring, it was not expected that the outdoor temperature would rise to nearly 80? on March 29. In the ballroom, brothers’ tempers would raise that figure significantly.

The year 1989 was already an historic year for Connecticut Masonry. The Grand Lodge had been chartered in 1789 and a New Haven brother installed as the first Grand Master. Thus, New Haven was an appropriate city to host the Grand Lodge kickoff of the bicentennial. Further, the Masonic Charity Foundation was celebrating its centennial, having been incorporated in 1889. There would be much to celebrate in the coming year.

To help Masonry grow into its third century, a ‘task force’ had been commissioned to learn what was good and what needed to be changed about the fraternity to make it more relevant, especially for young men who would be desirable prospective members. Consultant Dudley Davis, a non-Mason, was employed to survey Masons and non-Masons alike, distill their thoughts, and offer proposals for change in an organization not noted for embracing that concept.

Most Worshipful Grand Master John Gonsalves had the unenviable task of presiding over the session. The task force had presented five recommendations, three of which the voting delegates approved as a package, apparently unanimously, by voice vote. A controversial proposal to change the requirement to reject a candidate for Masonry from one black cube to three was also approved, but only by a one-vote majority. As a by-laws change needed a 2/3 majority, this proposal failed, but showed an amazing degree of open-mindedness among the craft.

The ‘leadership’ proposal was the most controversial, and the Grand Master announced that there would be two hours allotted for commentary from the craft before the vote would be taken. He then began calling upon appointed Grand Lodge line officers to read supportive speeches that had been prepared by the task force. The delegates, ready to have their say, remained respectful as RW Bro. Ken Hawkins read his tract. Then RW Bro. Sam Walker took the microphone.

By midpoint in the presentation the craft had had enough. They realized that someone had planned to use as much of the debate time as possible by having line officers read “their” remarks, thus allowing little or no time for the lodge delegates to express their positions. This these delegates would not allow.

Past Grand Master Herbert L. Emanuelson, Jr., who was shepherding the task force proposal, took the microphone in the Grand
East. Acknowledging the obvious – that the craft would not be excluded from being heard – he asked that the floor be opened for comments. It was clear to even the most enthusiastic backer of the task force’s work that the last proposal would not even reach the slim one vote victory.

The work of the day completed, it was time for the concluding events of every Grand Lodge session – the then private installation of the Grand Lodge officers, the roll call of lodges, and closing. For those who had been in the ballroom for more than eight hours, lunch excepted, closing could not come soon enough.

MW Past Grand Master Gail L. Smith, 1968, took the Grand East for the unique opportunity of installing his son, Gail N. Smith, as Grand Master for the Bicentennial year. The elder Smith installed his son and the corps of officers with dispatch. The usual presentations of jewels, past and present, followed. Departure would be soon for those occupying the delegate seats.

“Is there anything further to come before this Grand Lodge session?” Newly installed Grand Master Gail Nelson Smith paused, silence being the expected response for all but three brothers sitting in that session.

“Yes, Grand Master, there is!”

The growl thundered from the southeast corner of the all-but deserted dais in the Grand East. Past Grand Master Gail Linnell Smith stalked back to the podium, pulling a crumpled sheet of paper from his pocket as he went. The exhausted brethren were all but beside themselves. What could he possibly need to do now, well past 5:30 p.m.?

Gail Linnell Smith needed to change the history of Freemasonry in Connecticut.

Brother Smith read a resolution proposing that, with the approval of both Grand Lodges, there be mutual Masonic recognition between the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, A.F. & A.M. and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, Inc.

Once a year, on the second Tuesday of December, the Past Masters of Friendship Lodge No. 33, along with the Past Masters of Harmony No. 20 of New Britain (which merged with Friendship back in the 1990s), and any other Past Master that happens to be within asking range gather together for an evening of complaining conviviality and story-telling, and of course, eating and drinking.

Friendship Lodge Past Master’s Dinner 2008

Like many new Masons, I figured that all lodges were like Friendship, and I had some eye-opening moments when I started visiting and really watching what happens in some other lodges. In Friendship Lodge, those “old Past Masters” do not sit around the lodge hemming and harrumphing, complaining about the state of ritual or how things were done “back in my year.” And we are very fortunate in that we only “repeat” a Past Master through the chairs about once every 25 or 30 years – a fact to which I can attest, having checked the dates once.

Oh, there’s no question that some of our PMs are active. Sometimes one will stay on as a Chaplain, and we always have them serving as a Treasurer and Secretary. Our PMs run the Trowel Club picnics and several other functions. The most recent PM is usually the Trowel Club President, and will take charge of the Past Master degree (usually a MM degree held in the fall). And the next to last PM gets stuck running the annual Past Master’s Dinner.

Because our lodge is active, we do like to joke that the PMs are no longer needed; at each annual dinner, we award the outgoing WM with a new name tag which he is to wear after the next WM is installed. It symbolizes the esteem in which he will be held as a new PM.

It’s a Friendship Lodge badge, with the name section left blank. His new title becomes “Worshipful Nobody.”

Yes, of course it’s a joke – but there is a certain poignancy to this. For one thing, it takes several months just to get used to people addressing you as “Worshipful;” whenever I heard that title, I kept looking around for somebody else. For another thing, many of us who have served as the WM of a lodge – especially an active lodge like ours – you have a very full year, what with all the programs, meetings, visiting, degrees, dinners, and the constant phone calls and emails from people who need to check in, ask an opinion, get permission, or ask questions. You are the center of attention, most of it good, for an entire year – generally starting about 10 minutes after your installation ceremony. People look to you and look up to you for twelve solid, non-stop months.

And then, suddenly, it all stops.

I can well understand that some PMs may try to recapture a bit of that sense of importance by nitpicking ritual, or by reminding people of the customs and traditions which they, the PMs observed. In lodges that do not have a constant inflow of new officers, PMs always have an opportunity to fill in a chair, but in active lodges, I wonder how many PMs simply drop out of sight after a few years, from feeling as if they they have nothing further to contribute?