Ohio Players Revisited: Dismantling Fiction By Hon. John L. Hairston, The Quill and the Sword [Reprint from the Blue Lite Website]

      The title of this article is in reference to an article that appeared in the Winter/Spring Issue of the Compact magazine, published by the National Grand Lodge Historical and Research Society, authored by Christopher Belcher (Chairman), entitled, The Ohio Players. Said writer, in this article, attempts to map his “research” on the role of the Grand Lodge of Ohio in shaping African American Freemasonry; but in reality, presents unfounded speculations with no true substance or evidence.

                                  It is important to revisit the issue of the National Grand Lodge based on propagated misconceptions by the present PHO-National Compact adherents concerning its origins, structure, operation and eventual demise in 1878.

                                The National Grand Lodge was a sincere endeavor by the members of African American Grand Lodges and Lodges to bring about union in the Craft and secure their survival in a society that had excluded them as men and Masons. According to Massachusetts Prince Hall Grand Lodge:

“The National Grand Lodge, IN ITS DAY, did its part, to the best of its ability…outside of Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts, Masonry was at a standstill among us; and it was not until after the formation of the National Grand Lodge, in 1847, that an impetus was given to the system of Masonry among us as colored men. When slavery was at its zenith, every effort was then being put forth by its adherents for its perpetuation, even to the extent of banishing all of our people who were free from the limits of the then Slave States…Our fathers, witnessing the spirit of the age, sought for, and obtained, what they supposed would be to them a COMMON PLATFORM, upon which they could better resist the spirit of oppression…”¹

And so, The Grand Lodges located in Pennsylvania, the Grand Lodge in Massachusetts, and the lodge in New York harkened unto the call for Convention to establish a unity among Negro masons. Despite what side of the debate one sits, whether the National Grand Lodge was formed without the consent of the Grand Lodges, and that the delegates had no authority to act on behalf of the Grand Lodges, the National Grand Lodge was formed in June of 1847. The original intent of the framers of the National Grand Lodge was to create a National body of an advisory nature, not to make the Grand Lodge subjugated to their authority; yet; the National Grand Lodge began to act outside the compasses of Masonry and oppress the Grand Lodges it was created to protect and nurture. A tyranny was ensued, and Grand Lodges began to sever ties and withdraw its acknowledgment of the National Grand Lodge. This hemorrhaging of subordinate and Grand Lodges from the ranks of the National Grand Lodge led to the eventual demise of the creation in 1878 at Wilmington, Delaware.

                                 It is true that a faction of hardliners continued to hold up the banner of the National Grand Lodge, they had lost the majority of their leadership to mergers with Independent Grand Lodges, and even those who were in leadership were left without subordinate Lodges to affiliate with.

                                 Today, the “Prince Hall Origin” National Compact claim to be the direct descendants of the National Grand Lodge, citing that the National Grand Lodge, legally and constitutionally, continued its existence up to this day. They have created a National Historical and Research Society which attempts to preserve and propagate their “continued existence” theory, as well as lay charges to those Independent Grand Lodges, who withdrew from the Compact, that they rebelled against the authority of the National Grand Lodge, and formed an alliance to make victim the National Grand Lodge with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ohio at the helm.

                                 The Proceedings and pamphlets that were circulated in that day present another story, one that the National Grand Lodge present constituents fail to acknowledge or accept. The members of the Compact were loyal and wanted the endeavor to succeed, it was for our survival. But, once the leadership of the National Grand Lodge, namely Richard Howell Gleaves, William D. Matthews, and George Levere began to create tyranny, oppressing the Grand Lodges, interfering in their affairs and elections, establishing Lodges in territories already occupied by Grand lodges, burdening the lodges with heavy taxation, it became necessary to declare independence and return to the sovereignty from when they came. This article serves to refute one such testimony of a National Grand Lodge official and chairman of their Historical Society, who attempts to forge an account of an Independent Grand Lodge of Ohio as a conspirator against the National Grand Lodge initiative. But, as we will soon discover, his version (or should I say revision) of accounts are attempts to paint the National Grand Lodge as a victim and discredit a Grand Lodge history that bears such greatness and substantial impact on Prince Hall Freemasonry in America.

                                  Mr. Belcher, in a social media discussion, called his style of writing, “rhetorical”, which in this case, is historical revisionism and weak insinuations veiled as rhetorical questions-he believes that this style relieves him of having to produce any real evidence to his “conclusions”. Let’s look at this paper and view the errors and bring light to many of the “rhetorical” questions posed throughout the “work”.

  Mr. Belcher purports:

“Grand Lodges were established by Lodges in various states that were established under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Ohio. It could be easily ASSUMED that this expansion via the Grand Lodge of Ohio made their jurisdiction powerful under the National Grand Lodge.”²

Mr. Belcher attempts to establish credence to his presumption of the Grand Lodge of Ohio’s campaign against the National Grand Lodge-in subsequent years AFTER its establishment-being warranted by their leverage for power in the National Grand Lodge; as he further asks:

“Did this perceived power of the Grand Lodge [of Ohio] promote leverage?”³

Mr. Belcher’s statements are attempted inconspicuous allegations against the Grand Lodge of Ohio, that they exerted leverage against the National Grand Lodge based on their strength in numbers. This is the “cry-victim” tactic by PHO historians to paint the National Grand Lodge as victims of “rebellion” and “insidious” plots of Grand Lodge “conspirators” against the “authority” of the National body. Yet, TRUE RESEARCH of the Proceedings and correspondences of the Grand Lodge of Ohio and other Jurisdictions, prior to their withdrawal from the Compact, presents an entire different account.

                               After diligent research of the years leading up to the departure of the Grand Lodge of Ohio from the Compact, we find a LOYAL and FERVENT body of Masons in the state of Ohio-for example, in 1856 there were 5 members from the Jurisdiction of Ohio who held National Grand Lodge seats:

William Darnes as NGM

James B. Berry as NGDM of the Western District

Milton Franklin as SNG Marshal

Madison Wills as SNG Steward

David G. Harris as Junior NG Lecturer,⁴

As well, the Grand Lodge of Ohio made returns to the National Grand Lodge, in the 1856 Triennial Session for 18 lodges and a membership of 91. It is important to note that Pennsylvania also made returns for 29 lodges, with a membership of 509; can we say that because the Grand Lodge in Pennsylvania “mothered” the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and held status as an ORIGINAL member to the Compact, 509 members strong, as well as a DIRECT lineage to African Lodge #459-that they held leverage as well? Even the State of Maryland held 3 powerful seats in the National Grand Lodge, in the 1856 Triennial Session, of NGSW, NG Secretary and NG Treasurer, and their Jurisdiction only reported a return of 7 lodges and 259 members of their Jurisdiction.⁵

                               With these facts in view, we can see the assumption of leverage based on numbers dwindle, but it gets more interesting as we go into the Grand Lodge of Ohio’s Proceedings in subsequent years to the 1856 Triennial Session.

                                In 1861, the Grand Lodge of Ohio had grown 4 Lodges from 18 to 22, and according to their Report from the Committee on Accounts, at the 1861 Annual Communication, they weren’t bringing in much revenue from the Subordinate Lodges under their Jurisdiction.⁶

                                In fact, for the year of 1860, the Grand Lodge received $161.75, and paid out $157.43, and ended with $12.32 IN CASH, but $101.00 owed to the Grand Lodge from Subordinates and members.⁷In the 1861 Annual Communication, the Grand Secretary collected $45.25 in dues from the lodges and $3.00 back dues from Prince Hall Lodge #10, but reported debt of the Grand Lodge at $208.20, of which $83.60 was owed to the National Grand Lodge.⁸ Further, we find this report given on pg. 16 of said Annual Communication [1861]:

“The Committee on Accounts reported as follows:

The Committee to whom your accounts were referred, beg leave to state they have CAREFULLY EXAMINED the accounts handed to us for action, and find them as follows: The account of the NATIONAL GRAND LODGE presented for DUES ON MEMBERS of the OHIO JURISDICTION, $193.35 7/8…”⁹

According to this account, the “PERCEIVED POWER” for  the “alleged” leverage bore the burden of having to pay for members that weren’t paying Ohio. So, what REAL leverage did Ohio have with all of their members in the various states, but the lodges and members owing $101.00?

                               In 1862, the Grand Lodge of Ohio didn’t add any Lodges to their rolls, took in $163.10 in revenue, but was in debt for $179.40, of which $107.76 was owed to the National Grand Lodge for “the NATIONAL TAX up to 1862”.¹⁰

                               While Mr. Belcher is coming from a political angle in his allegation of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, a thorough research of the records will provide a more valid FINANCIAL REASON for the departure of the Grand Lodge of Ohio from the Compact.

                                 One excerpt in Mr. Belcher’s article posed this “rhetorical” question:

“If Lodges were established in other States and the National Grand Lodge granted a warrant to that state, did that end the REVENUE STREAM for the Grand Lodge of Ohio?”¹¹

Mr. Belcher is insinuating that the Grand Lodge of Ohio left the Compact due to the Constitutional Amendment in the 1865 Triennial Session, that stated:

“Therefore, be it Resolved, That it shall not be lawful for any Grand Lodge, or any member thereof, working under the jurisdiction of this M. W. N. G. Lodge, to OPEN or CONSTITUTE ANY SUBORDINATE Lodge or Lodges in ANY PLACE whatever out of their respective districts or jurisdictions, UNLESS BY SPECIAL DIRECTION OF the M. W. N. G. Master be, and W. N. G. Master. And further, that the M. W. N. G. Master be and is hereby AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO DELEGATE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE M. W. N. G. LODGE OFFICERS, to the M. W. G. Master, or other officer or officers of any Subordinate Grand Lodge, the authority to open and to constitute new Lodges in ANY DISTRICT or PARTS of the UNITE STATES OF AMERICA, where there is not a Grand Lodge working under the Jurisdiction of this M. W. N. G. Lodge.”¹²

In a Facebook discussion group, Mr. Belcher purported that the Grand Lodge of Ohio abandoned the Compact because they didn’t want the National Grand Lodge to short stop their revenue from the establishment of lodges in other Jurisdictions. This baseless position is due to a lack of thorough research of an entire proceeding, and actually utilizing the Proceedings of the State you’re writing the feature piece for a publication on. Mr. Belcher cited 9 “End Notes”, and out of the 9, there isn’t ONE SINGLE SOLITARY REFERENCE to ANY of the Proceedings of Ohio!! His claims are not substantial because from 1861-1865 [the year of the National Grand Lodge Constitutional amendment] Ohio added NO ADDITIONAL LODGES TO THEIR ROLLS. Ohio claimed the following Lodges on their rolls from years 1861-1865:

1861: Corinthian Lodge #1*, True American Lodge #2*, St. John’s Lodge #3, Richmond Lodge #4, Union Lodge #5, Mount Moriah Lodge #6*, St. Mark’s Lodge #7*, King Solomon’s Lodge #8, Canon Lodge #9, Prince Hall Lodge #10*, Stringer Lodge #11, North Star Lodge #12*, Britton Lodge #13, Eureka Lodge #14*, Darnes Lodge #15, G. T. Watson Lodge #16, Phillips Lodge #17, Parsons Lodge #18*, Central Lodge #19, St. Thomas Lodge #20, Wilberforce Lodge #21*, Lone Star Lodge #22*¹³ [Number of Lodges: 22]

Note: the (*) represents those Lodges that made returns for that year.

1862: Corinthian Lodge #1*, True American Lodge #2*, St. John’s Lodge #3, Richmond Lodge #4, Union Lodge #5, Mount Moriah Lodge #6*, St. Mark’s Lodge #7*, King Solomon’s Lodge #8, Canon Lodge #9, Prince Hall Lodge #10*, Stringer Lodge #11, North Star Lodge #12*, Britton Lodge #13, Eureka Lodge #14*, Darnes Lodge #15, G. T. Watson Lodge #16*, Phillips Lodge #17, Parsons Lodge #18, Central Lodge #19*, St. Thomas Lodge #20*, Wilberforce Lodge #21*, Lone Star Lodge #22*¹⁴ [Number of Lodges: 22]

1863: Corinthian Lodge #1*, True American Lodge #2*, St. John’s Lodge #3, Union Lodge #5, Mount Moriah Lodge #6*, St. Mark’s Lodge #7*, King Solomon’s Lodge #8, Canon Lodge #9, Prince Hall Lodge #10*, North Star Lodge #12*, Britton Lodge #13, Eureka Lodge #14*, Darnes Lodge #15, G. T. Watson Lodge #16*, Phillips Lodge #17, Central Lodge #19*, St. Thomas Lodge #20*, Wilberforce Lodge #21*, Lone Star Lodge #22*¹⁵ [Number of Lodges: 19]

1864: Corinthian Lodge #1*, True American Lodge #2*, St. John’s Lodge #3*, Ambush Lodge #4*, Boyd Lodge #5*, Mount Moriah Lodge #6*, St. Mark’s Lodge #7*, McGee Alexander #8*, Prince Hall Lodge #10*, North Star Lodge #12*, Britton Lodge #13, Eureka Lodge #14*, Darnes Lodge #15, G. T. Watson Lodge #16*, Phillips Lodge #17, Central Lodge #19*, St. Thomas Lodge #20*, Wilberforce Lodge #21*, Lone Star Lodge #22*¹⁶ [Number of Lodges: 22]

[There were 3 UD Lodges for this year, Ambush, McGee Alexander, Boyd]

1865: Corinthian Lodge #1*, True American Lodge #2*, St. John’s Lodge #3*, Ambush Lodge #4, Boyd Lodge #5, Mount Moriah Lodge #6, St. Mark’s Lodge #7*, McGee Alexander #8, Fulton Lodge #9 (U.D.), Prince Hall Lodge #10*, Excelsior Lodge #11 (U.D.), North Star Lodge #12*, Britton Lodge #13, Eureka Lodge #14*, Darnes Lodge #15, G. T. Watson Lodge #16*, Phillips Lodge #17, Central Lodge #19*, St. Thomas Lodge #20*, Wilberforce Lodge #21*, Lone Star Lodge #22*¹⁷ [Number of Lodges: 21]

The Grand Lodge of Ohio’s financial condition was such a state that they could not send a delegate to the 5^th Triennial Session of the National Grand Lodge, to be held in New York, 1862. Below is an excerpt from the correspondence written to the National Grand Lodge, from the Grand Lodge of Ohio, detailing their request of absence:¹⁸

At this point, we have presented enough documented evidence to dispel the notion that the Grand Lodge of Ohio left due to a constitutional amendment in the 1865 Triennial Session of the National Grand Lodge-that prohibited a Subordinate Grand Lodge from Opening and Constituting lodges outside of their Jurisdiction. The Grand Lodge of Ohio added NO ADDITIONAL lodges to their roster for the years 1861-1865, and they were in debt to the National Grand Lodge (as of 1865) $200.00.¹⁹ The National Grand Lodge prohibition wasn’t affecting the Grand Lodge of Ohio, but the constitutional amendment of 1865 begins to point out the greed of the National Grand Lodge. With this prohibition of Grand Lodges from expanding beyond their geographical locations, and the new given authority of the National Grand Master to set apart Lodges in Territories in those Jurisdictions that had no Grand Lodge, the National Grand Lodge would now be in a position to make revenue directly from the establishment of Lodges and Grand Lodges in those unchartered territories of the United States of America.

According Masonic author, and Researcher Honorable Alton Roundtree, in the year 1865, the National Grand Lodge had Subordinate Grand Lodges in 15 States (out of 52):

“Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Delaware, Ontario(Canada), Indiana, Rhode Island, Michigan, Missouri, Virginia, California”²⁰

With the constitutional amendment, the National Grand Lodge had the authority to establish lodges and Grand lodges in 37 States, multiply that by 3 Lodges per State and that would be 111 lodges paying the National Grand Lodge annual dues at $50.00 for Warrant or Charter for operation and/or Grand Lodge and an added 6 ¼ cent per capita tax on all Master Masons in the State²¹. Can you say, “AVARICE”? The expansion and growth of the jurisdictions was now being interfered with, which is a violation of the constitution of the National Grand Lodge; the amendment wasn’t about Ohio, but about filling the coffers of the National Grand Lodge.

                               Sufficient documentation has effectively uncovered the vast error in Mr. Belcher’s position that the Grand Lodge of Ohio left due to the amendment of 1865. In fact, the Grand Lodge of Ohio exhibited considerable loyalty to the National Grand Lodge, in stark contrast to distorted version of events presented by the Chairman of the NGLHRS. PHO attempts to paint the Grand Lodge Ohio as conspirators against the National Grand Lodge, but we have to view the facts objectively, and without prejudice.

                                In the year 1863, H. W. P. Spencer, Grand Master of the State of Ohio, in the Grand Master’s Annual Address, made a recommendation “that each Subordinate Lodge working under its jurisdiction be taxed in the sum of ten dollars, for the purpose of settling, in part, the present (1863) debt due the M. W. National Grand Lodge.”²²

 In 1864, during the Annual Communication, one Bro. E. T. Page prayed the Grand Lodge of Ohio to grant him a demit from Parsons Lodge #18, New Orleans. Parsons Lodge #18 was a Lodge constituted and chartered by the Grand Lodge of Ohio on June 23^rd 1857, with Richard H. Gleaves as its first Master (see 1863 Annual Communication Eureka GL(La.), GMs Address, GM John Parson). Even with this close connection and fraternal relations E.T. Page was denied his demit, and the sitting Grand Master, E.A. Fulton, made this statement:

“…it should be in the wisdom of this Grand Lodge, that NO MASON UNDER THE NATIONAL COMPACT shall under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES visit either of the lodges, namely; Stringer Lodge, Richmond Lodge, Parsons Lodge, or any other Lodge emanating from said Lodge of New Orleans, La.”²³

In 1863, these three lodges in Louisiana, all under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, established the Eureka Grand Lodge in Louisiana, with PGM John Parsons as its first Grand Master (more on him and Eureka Grand Lodge in a later article). Eureka Grand Lodge refused the warrant from the National Grand Lodge and claimed its sovereignty as a Grand Lodge; because the Grand Lodge of Ohio was under the National Grand Lodge and a loyal proponent of the Compact, they severed ties with the very lodges they chartered to remain in obedience to the National Grand Lodge.

In the year 1865, at the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, Grand Master, E. A. Fulton, in his Annual Grand Master’s Address, stated that he severed ties with Louisiana for the sake of the Compact.²⁴ In 1866, the Grand Lodge of Ohio passed the following resolution in regards to the Grand Lodges in Louisiana and Missouri (Grand Lodges that didn’t recognize the National Grand Lodge):

“Resolved, That no Subordinate Lodge under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge SHALL ADMIT AS A VISITOR ANY MEMBER OF ANY SUBORDINATE LODGE, THAT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE M. W. NATIONAL GRAND LODGE…”²⁵

W. T. Boyd, whom the PHO will declare was the harbinger of the campaign against the National Grand Lodge, even went further with this resolution:

“Resolution adopted, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT, offered by W. T. BOYD, to wit: NOR SHALL ANY MEMBER OF A SUBORDINATE LODGE WORKING UNDER THE GRAND LODGE FOR THE STATE OF OHIO, BE ALLOWED TO VISIT ANY SUCH LODGE, UNDER THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION OR EXPULSION.”²⁶

This resolution alone disbands Mr. Belcher’s theory that “Eureka Grand Lodge …could be viewed as the precursor of events that led to the Ohio split from the National Grand Lodge.”²⁷ Here we have the Grand Lodge of Ohio defending the Constitution of the National Grand Lodge against the newly formed Eureka Grand Lodge; and the very person that they say was the chief conspirator (W.T. Boyd), adding the penalty of suspension or expulsion to the resolution. This leads the thinking man to conclude that Ohio didn’t leave based on any decision of Louisiana to withdraw from the Compact. Ohio didn’t start out as an “enemy” of the National Grand Lodge, and W.T. Boyd didn’t initially begin condemning the National body-something happened to the relationship with the National Grand Lodge, or the Grand Lodge of Ohio came into an understanding of Freemasonry and their rights as a Grand body or both.

                                 Whenever you are receiving the revisionist theories of the PHO camp concerning the events that led to the fall of the National Grand Lodge, we never hear about the loyalty of Ohio, or that they defended the National Grand Lodge Constitution; we only receive the AFTER YEARS version of the accounts. Rather than allow Masonic conspiracy theorists to feed the public gross inaccuracies regarding the withdraw of Ohio from the National Compact; let’s allow Ohio to speak for themselves. Below is the Committee on the Grand Master’s Report, delivered September 21^st, 1868, Special Communication²⁸:

And there we have it, from the root source, the REAL REASON that Ohio withdrew from the Compact; NO SPECULATION, NO CONSPIRACY THEORY, but valid and substantiated reasons for why they would leave. And these issues that the Grand Lodge Ohio cited where the sentiments of the majority of Grand Lodges that left the National Grand Lodge.

Mr. Belcher further states:

“With regards to moves versus countermoves, [Richard Howell Gleaves] must be mentioned as a National player to events occurring in power moves made by the Grand Lodge of Ohio. At the National Grand Lodge Triennial Session of 1865 (IMPORTANT), the process of RE-DRAFTING the National Grand Lodge Constitution was in effect.”²⁸

                                Without truly giving thought to his assumption, he places R. H. Gleaves at the helm of the movement to amend the 1856 Constitution. Belcher believes that there was some power moves taking place in the Grand Lodge of Ohio, but AMPLE evidence has already reduced that notion to mere speculation on his part. Why would R. H. Gleaves lead the movement to re-draft the Constitution?

                                 R. H. Gleaves was the National Deputy Grand Master in 1865, going into the Triennial Session that year-next in line to sit in the East. If he could get the Constitution changed to allow the National Grand Master the authority to set up Lodges and Grand Lodges in the other 37 States, where there were no Grand Lodges; if they could set up lodges in the territories where there were lodges ALREADY established by subordinate Grand Lodges, but NO GRAND LODGE at that location, it spelled MUCHO DINERO for the National Grand Master. Let’s take another look at the resolution:

                                 “Therefore, be it Resolved, That it shall not be lawful for any Grand Lodge, or any member thereof, working under the jurisdiction of this M. W. N. G. Lodge, to OPEN or CONSTITUTE ANY SUBORDINATE Lodge or Lodges in ANY PLACE whatever out of their respective districts or jurisdictions, UNLESS BY SPECIAL DIRECTION OF the M. W. N. G. Master be, and W. N. G. Master. And further, that the M. W. N. G. Master be and is hereby AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO DELEGATE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE M. W. N. G. LODGE OFFICERS, to the M. W. G. Master, or other officer or officers of any Subordinate Grand Lodge, the authority to open and to constitute new Lodges in ANY DISTRICT or PARTS of the UNITE STATES OF AMERICA, where there is not a Grand Lodge working under the Jurisdiction of this M. W. N. G. Lodge.”

Remember our math equation, and the possible revenue that could be made from the re-drafting of the Constitution to give the National Grand Master the power set up subordinate lodges in territories with no Grand lodges?

                                R. H. Gleaves is elected National Grand Master at the same Triennial that the National Grand Lodge Historical and Research Society Chairman admits that Gleaves made “counter moves” to amend the Constitution(1865), but what he failed to disclose was that Gleaves as the National Grand Master profited off of the amendment. Gleaves was National Grand Master from 1865-77, and the National Grand Lodge under the amendment moved into 7 new territories, and established 7 more Grand Lodges by 1872.²⁹ Mr. Belcher is right on this point, that Gleaves was a major “player”; the foresight to amass a movement to amend the Constitution to profit him while he sat as National Grand Master-evil genius; there is much that can be found concerning Gleaves and his irregular and sometimes illegal practices. Mr. Belcher then cites this curious fact:

“…the majority of the subordinates of the Grand Lodge of Ohio were not from the state of Ohio”

And then goes on to cite the resolution from the 1865 amendment on page 12 of the publication to imply that Ohio would be harmed by the amendment. Yet, he gives no definitive connection or point of how this amendment applied to the Grand Lodge of Ohio. The Grand Lodge of Ohio lost (but replaced) 3 Lodges to the constitution of the Eureka Grand Lodge of Louisiana in 1863, and two more lodges in Missouri in, when they were chartered as a Grand Lodge by the National Grand Lodge (under the NGM, R. H. GLEAVES) in 1866.³⁰

                               There was NO MOVE to countermove, Ohio wasn’t hurt or helped by the amendment-it was the National Grand Lodge and Richard Howell Gleaves that profited off of the amendment. It wasn’t until THREE YEARS LATER that Ohio withdrew from the National Compact, IF we were to accept Mr. Chairman’s theory, he would have to explain why Ohio waited 3 whole years to withdraw from the National Compact, AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF 1865; Ohio withdrew from the Compact in 1868.

And lastly, he states:

“The Grand Lodge of Ohio can be considered the predecessor of the STATES RIGHTS MOVEMENT amongst African American Freemasonry.”³¹

The problem with this statement is that he gives a definition of the National Grand Lodge perspective for States Rights:

“Grand Lodges constituted and erected by warrant from the MW National Grand Lodge that DECLARED INDEPENDENCE or WITHDREW FROM THE NATIONAL GRAND LODGE”³²

If we apply this definition to historical accounts, we would find that New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland were “STATES RIGHTS” 17 years before the Grand Lodge of Ohio thought about withdrawing from the Compact. We can also look at those Grand Lodges styled, “the Eastern Alliance”, who called themselves, STATES RIGHT”. But, this is an example of the ill-prepared and half-composed research, saturated in bias that we find published in the name of the National Grand Lodge/PHO. Assertions such as:

“The DEFINITIVE ACTION came close to TWENTY YEARS LATER when the Honorable (?) Captain William D. Matthews…issued orders for all subordinate Grand Lodges TO RETURN THEIR ALLEGIANCE [to the ] National Grand Lodge. Those that chose not to RETURN would be EXPELLED by the National Grand Lodge…”³³

YOU CANNOT EXPEL GRAND LODGES WHO HAVE ALREADY LEFT.  Mr. Belcher asserts that the “DEFINITIVE action of the National Grand Lodge came when W.D. Matthews “expelled” the Independent Grand Lodge that were already operating as Independents for at least 20 years. Makes as about as much sense as firing an employee today when they quit 20 years ago!

                                 I fault this article published in the Compact organ for not utilizing ALL of the resources available, namely the Proceedings of the very Jurisdiction that you have featured the article on; and for making thinly veiled accusations without thoroughly studying all of the available information. We cannot continue to allow prejudices and indoctrinations to be passed off as viable and accurate accounts of historical events and their outcomes. It is our duty as writers, historians, and researchers to weigh, objectively, all of the facts and render conclusions unclouded by agendas and misguided zeal.

Endnotes:

1.       Proceedings of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons located at Boston, In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1847, Committee Report, pgs. 12-13

2.       The Compact: Official Publication of The National Grand Lodge Historical & Research Society, Vol. 1, Issue No. 2, Winter/Spring 2011 Edition. “The Ohio Players: The Role of One State in the Shaping of African American Freemasonry” By Christopher Belcher, NGLHRS, pg. 7

3.       Ibid.

4.       3^rd Triennial Session Proceedings of the MWNG Lodge, July 7^th to 21^st, 1856 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Afternoon Session Saturday July 12^th, 3 o’ clock, National Grand Lodge Officer roster for the ensuing 3 years.

5.       Ibid. Reports of State Grand Lodges under the Jurisdiction of the Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Ancient York Masons of the United States of America.

6.       1861 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio. [I actually went through the financial sections and accounted for the finances coming in and going out, and found the Grand Lodge of Ohio struggling financially]

7.       Ibid. pg. 8, Report from Committee on Accounts

8.       Ibid. pg. 16 Afternoon Session, Monday June 24^th, 1861 Report Committee on Accounts

9.       Ibid.

10.    1862 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, Morning Session, Wednesday June 25^th, pg. 26, Report of the Grand Secretary

11.    The Compact: Official Publication of The National Grand Lodge Historical & Research Society, Vol. 1, Issue No. 2, Winter/Spring 2011 Edition. “The Ohio Players: The Role of One State in the Shaping of African American Freemasonry” By Christopher Belcher, NGLHRS, pg. 7

12.    6^th Triennial Session Proceedings of the MWNG Lodge, October 16^th-27^th, 1865 at Baltimore, MD, Afternoon Session, Friday Oct. 20^th 3 O’ clock.

13.    1861 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, pg. 18 Report of the Committee on Return of Lodges.

14.    1862 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, ppg. 37-47, Annual Return of Lodges listing.

15.    1863 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, pgg. 39-51, Annual Return of Lodges listing.

16.    1864 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, pgg. 29-40, Annual Return of Lodges listing.

17.    1865 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, pgg. 32-48, Annual Return of Lodges listing.

18.    Photo is a snapshot of the Correspondence taken from the 1863 proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted A.Y. Masons of the State of Ohio, 13^th Annual Communication, held at St. Louis, MO, June 17^th.

19.    1865 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, pg. 8 Report of the Grand Secretary.

20.    The National Grand Lodge and Prince Hall Freemasonry: The Untold Truth, Alton G. Roundtree, Appendix 1, pg 391, published 2010 KLR Publishing LLC.

21.    Article IX of the 1856 Constitution of the National Grand Lodge of the United States of America:
“The Revenue of the of the M. W. N. Grand Lodge shall be derived from the following sources:

1^st.  For every warrant or charter for a M. W. Grand Lodge for a State, $50.

2^nd. For each member in standing, under the M. W. State Grand Lodge, 6^1/4cents.

22.    1863 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, Grand Master’s Annual Address pg. 27

23.    1864 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, Morning Session, Monday, June 20^th, Committee Report on Admissions, pg. 9

24.    1865 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, pg. 6-7

25.    1866 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient York Masons for the State of Ohio, pg. 21-22, Morning Session, Thursday June 21^st, under the heading of Visitation of Lodges not Recognizing the N. G. Lodge, Bro. E. R. Williams Reporting.

26.    Ibid., pg. 22

27.    The Compact: Official Publication of The National Grand Lodge Historical & Research Society, Vol. 1, Issue No. 2, Winter/Spring 2011 Edition. “The Ohio Players: The Role of One State in the Shaping of African American Freemasonry” By Christopher Belcher, NGLHRS, pg. 7

28.    1868 Proceedings of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of the Free and Accepted Masons for the State of Ohio, September 21^st, 1868, held at Lebanon, Oh, pp. 7-9

29.    The Compact: Official Publication of The National Grand Lodge Historical & Research Society, Vol. 1, Issue No. 2, Winter/Spring 2011 Edition. “The Ohio Players: The Role of One State in the Shaping of African American Freemasonry” By Christopher Belcher, NGLHRS, pg. 7

30.    The National Grand Lodge and Prince Hall Freemasonry: The Untold Truth, Alton G. Roundtree, Appendix 1reflects the Growth of the NGL and the Independent by year, pg 391-393, published 2010 KLR Publishing LLC.

31.    History of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Missouri, http://glmopha.org/missouri-masons

32.    The Compact: Official Publication of The National Grand Lodge Historical & Research Society, Vol. 1, Issue No. 2, Winter/Spring 2011 Edition. “The Ohio Players: The Role of One State in the Shaping of African American Freemasonry” By Christopher Belcher, NGLHRS, pg. 12

33.    Ibid., pg. 12 End Notes.

34.    Ibid. pg. 12