Masons Building America
The Masonic Contribution to the Creation
of a New Nation
Esther de Haan
Faculty of Humanities
University of Amsterdam
10075216
Esther.deHaan@student.uva.nl
Dr. E.F. van de Bilt
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 1
Eighteenth-Century America ... 10
Freemasonry ... 15
Freemasonry in America ... 22
The Masonic Contribution ... 30
George Washington... 44
Conclusion ... 53
Bibliography ... 56
Primary Sources ... 56
1
Introduction
“Success has many fathers, while failure remains an orphan…” It seems that the more important an event or the greater its historic meaning, the more people claim to making a contribution to this event, or at least try to have historians credit them or their ancestors for their supposed contributions.
The founding of the United States of America is definitely one of those events with significant historical meaning. The process of separation from the British Empire by the thirteen American colonies in the eighteenth century has had consequences that are still relevant today. The world would have been a very different place had there been no United States. Just consider the enormous impact the US has had since its founding on many different areas in life, such as politics, economics, finance, science, social, cultural, architectural, literary, and sports. Growing from a group of relatively uninteresting colonies miles away from Europe, then the cultural and scientific center of the world, to the greatest power on earth in just two centuries; who would not wish for their ancestors to be a part of that?
This has been cause for many different studies into the contributions of people, groups, or parties to the process that led to the independence of the American colonies and the eventual founding of the United States. Freemasonry is one such group. Freemasonry has been attributed different roles depending on whether the masons were discussed by supporters who praise freemasonry’s significant and positive contribution or by opponents who often use conspiracy theories to describe freemasonry’s dubious role in history. Who is right? What role, if any, did freemasonry truly have in this process? In what ways could this supposed contribution be measured? These questions have led to the question at the heart of this study: to what extent did freemasonry contribute to the process that led to the independence and founding of the United States of America?
There are three elements to this question, namely the process that led to the independence of the American colonies and the founding of a new nation, freemasonry’s supposedly distinctive role in and contribution to this process, and making this contribution visible and measurable. The first element starts in the beginning of the eighteenth century at the east coast of North-America where British colonies were surrounded by French and Spanish colonies. Every one of these colonies was conquered, developed, cultivated,
2 controlled, and, if necessary, defended by their respective European mother countries. The often strained relationships between these European mother countries had direct repercussions on life in their respective colonies. The British areas on the east coast consisted of twelve and later thirteen colonies or provinces. Every one of them fell under the authority of the British King and Parliament. Laws were made in London and were executed by the British Governor of each colony. These laws were enforced by the British military. Colonial government was supported by local representation of the colonists. However, these colonists were not represented in the British Parliament. Where did this system go wrong?
To put it very generally, the core of the problem could be found in a disturbed relationship between the “ruler”, in this case the British King and the British Parliament, and the “people”, in this case the colonists in the British colonies in America. History has shown that this relationship is often the cause of problems. It is a fragile entity and its preservation requires full attention. A ruler cannot go too far in the use of his power, since he does not “have” power; he was “given” his power by the people. Historically the “people” often consisted of the highest layers of the nobility right below the royal family. They are the ones who appoint, support, or tolerate the ruler. Once crucial elements of the relationship between “ruler” and “people” are compromised, the wolf is out, and it is the people who can limit or take away the ruler’s power. Some of these crucial elements that can break down this relationship are the right of succession; the distribution of power, freedom, rights, and duties; the right to declare war and to taxation; the administration of justice; the establishment of territories and the acquisition of property.
There have been several important moments in European history when a ruler was accused of abusing his power. To name a few: in 1215 the English King John Lackland was forced to sign the Magna Carta, a manifest on freedom and the administration of justice. King John was forced to do this by English barons who accused John of abusing his power.1 In 1312 the Charter of Kortenberg and in 1356 the Joyous Entry were signed. Both documents recorded the liberties of cities and principalities.2 In 1477 the States General of the Netherlands was willing to accept and financially support Mary of Burgundy as sovereign on
1
Dan Jones, “Magna Carta and Kingship,” British Library, accessed August 11, 2015, http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-and-kingship.
2
“Over Ons: Charter van Kortenberg,” Oude Abdij Kortenberg, last modified March 9, 2015, accessed August 11, 2015, http://www.oudeabdijkortenberg.be/nl/Over%20ons/charter.htm; “Blijde Inkomst, een
Middeleeuwse Grondwet,” Ons Verleden Hedentendage, last modified January 3, 2011, accessed August 11, 2015, https://onsverleden.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/blijde-inkomst-een-middeleeuwse-grondwet/.
3 the condition that she signed the Great Privilege. This contained the wishes and complaints made by the States with regard to the central government by the Burgundy officials.3 In 1566 approximately two hundred Dutch nobles drafted a petition in which they denounced the Inquisition and threatened rebellion if the persecution did not end. This petition was presented to the Governess Margaret of Parma; however, it remained without any practical results, for now.4 In 1579 the tract Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos written by the French Huguenots was published. This book deals with the defense of freedom against tyrants and is an important step in the way subjects like sovereignty of the people, civil disobedience, and rebellion were thought of.5 The States General of the Netherlands accused in the Act of Abjuration of 1581 the sovereign Phillip II of Spain of violating the liberties and rights of the people and declared that he would be deposed. The Act of Abjuration was the official declaration of independence of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands.6 In 1689, after the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights was signed by the then English King and former Dutch Stadtholder Willem III. This secured and confirmed the rights and liberties of the people and the Parliament.7
A pattern seems to be recurring in all of these examples—of which there are many more than are described here. Every example deals with complaints made by the “people”, consisting of the nobility or the bourgeoisie, concerning the misconduct, arbitrariness, and abuse of power by the “ruler”. After the ruler rejects these complaints, the people look for a more solid foundation for their complaints and offer suggestions to improve on the situation. More often than not, the position of the ruler is not called into question at this point. With the next rejection or with signs of a lack of understanding or unwillingness to change on the part of the ruler the limits of the people’s patience are reached. The people then invoke their right to take away the ruler’s power. This leads to rebellion and resistance with results that are often unpredictable. With a history like this, you would think that the
3 “Het Groot Privilege,” Canon van Limburg, accessed August 11, 2015,
http://www.canonvanlimburg.nl/index.php?chapter=17&page_id=38.
4
P.A.M. Geurts, “De Nederlandse Opstand in de Pamfletten, 1566-1584,” DBNL.org, last modified 2008, accessed August 11, 2015, http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/geur004nede01_01/.
5
Gordon Wright, “France: Political Ideology,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, last modified 2015, accessed August 11, 2015, http://www.britannica.com/place/France/Political-ideology#ref464967.
6 “Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, 1581 July 26,” American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond,
last modified 2012, accessed August 11, 2015, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/before-1600/plakkaat-van-verlatinghe-1581-july-26.php.
7 “Bill of Rights,” British Library, accessed August 11, 2015,
4 rulers in the eighteenth century, in this case the British King and Parliament, would be properly informed about the potential danger of a grumbling populace to the balance of power between mother country and colonies for example.
Just remember that these times—as ever—were remarkable times. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries marked a time of radical change in many areas of life. In this period that would later be called the Enlightenment revolutionary new ideas were developed about how society could be arranged differently from before. To illustrate this: Edward Coke (1552-1634) was England’s Lord Chief Justice between 1606 and 1616, and drafted the “Petition of Right” in 1628. This document, together with the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1689, is nowadays considered to be the foundation upon which the English constitution was built. The “Petition of Right” records the liberties of the individual that the king cannot infringe upon in any way. Coke declared the king to be subject to the law and designed laws that created independence for the judicial and executive branches of government.8 Coke’s writings would later have a great influence upon the Founding Fathers in creating the US Constitution, so much so that the image of Coke is depicted in bas-relief in the bronze doors of the Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C.9 John Locke (1632-1704) viewed society as an alliance between free people. They had signed a “social contract” with each other which was aimed at freedom and equality; the government was obliged to respect and protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of the people.10 Montesquieu (1689-1755) was a great supporter of the separation of the powers of government to improve the people’s liberty and counteract tyranny. He argued that in order to do this the judicial, legislative, and executive powers should be placed in different and separate branches of government. Abuse of power by one or more of the branches would then be avoided through the system of checks and balances, where each branch keeps a close eye on the other branches.11
Next to these developments, the important triad of “God-Ruler-People” was called into question and many philosophers and writers gave their own view on this. Big steps were made in the intellectual and scientific arenas as well. Spinoza, Bacon and Hobbes were
8
Gareth H. Jones, “Sir Edward Coke,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, last modified 2015, accessed August 11, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Coke.
9
“The Bronze Doors,” Supreme Court, last modified August 2, 2015, accessed August 11, 2015,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf.
10 John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Thomas Hollis (London: A. Miller et al., 1764), 150. 11
5 responsible for creating concepts such as deism, humanism, rationalism, and empiricism that are still relevant today. In short, things were brewing and changing in Europe. It is remarkable to see how far and fast these new ideas spread throughout the world in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This means that these ideas were known, studied, and discussed not just in Europe, but also in the British overseas colonies in America.
The second element to my research question, modern freemasonry, fits in perfectly with these developments and changes of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. “Civilized mankind” was searching for new knowledge and insights during this time, insights that they wanted to share and discuss with others in a confidential atmosphere, without running the risk of punishment from either church or government. The masonic lodge turned out to be the perfect platform for this. As a society closed to outsiders and only opened for those initiated into its secrets, the lodge offered the privacy and familiarity which made it possible for men of all classes and different religious backgrounds to safely congregate. Members could practice themselves in and gain experience with the principles of democracy through the lodge’s internal egalitarian organization. The lodge’s aim for personal growth and development stimulated the discussion of new knowledge and insights aimed at building a better society and world. Its emphasis on improving the welfare of others created a place where brotherhood and solidarity with each other were aspired. Its rituals and symbolism created an appealing mystical atmosphere, with bonds to a deeper past and a Higher Power. The freedom to believe, think, and say whatever you want in a confidential atmosphere, all classified as improving yourself and your society, made freemasonry a great platform for the ideas of that time: freedom, equality, and brotherhood. The masonic body of thought and methods of working were a perfect match for what these seventeenth- and eighteenth-century men were looking for. No wonder that so many men from the higher classes of society were convinced by this ideology and method of working to join freemasonry and become freemasons themselves.12 Looking back you could almost say that everyone who mattered in those days was a freemason!
The third element of my research question is making the contribution of freemasonry visible and measurable. There are many, often fantastic, views on freemasonry and its methods. In order to steer clear of any kind of romantic views of freemasonry it is necessary
12 Douglas Knoop and G.P. Jones, A Short History of Freemasonry to 1730 (Manchester: Manchester University
6 to define “contribution” as clearly and as specifically as possible. To contribute can be “to help make something happen,” or “to give money, help, ideas etc. to something that a lot of other people are also involved in,” or “to act as a factor,” or “to be an important factor in.”13 There are several specific aspects to these definitions of “to contribute”: you actively and purposefully promote something; contributions are not made selflessly; you influence something in a positive way; your contribution helps create something; you try to change someone or something or the natural course of things. Contributions come in many different shapes and sizes: a contribution can be both material and immaterial. Material as in demonstrably or concretely supporting, facilitating, or taking a part in something, e.g. by offering people, time, money, infrastructure or organization in order to help. This is the quantitative approach to the concept of contribution, which is clearly visible and measurable. The immaterial version of a contribution refers to the influence you have had on that which you have contributed to. You have made sure that your contribution clearly conveys your ideology, values, and principles. This approach is qualitative and thus more vague. The measurability of this approach is complex and really depends on the sources that are used. Nonetheless, in answering the research question this approach to the concept of contribution is relevant as well. Therefore both a quantitative and qualitative approach will be used to answer my research question.
In order to answer my research question I will first give a short overview of the important events of the eighteenth century that led to the American Revolution, to the colonies’ independence and the eventual founding of the United States of America. I will then give a history of freemasonry and an overview of how it got to the US and freemasonry’s role in eighteenth-century American society. After this I will explain the characteristics of freemasonry and if, and how, freemasonry contributed anything to the process that led to the founding of the US. I will use George Washington as a way to combine all three elements of my research question: he was involved in the process that led to the independence of America and the founding of the US as a military man and a statesman, he was a freemason, and through him I can make the masonic contribution visible by using sources such as Washington’s Masonic Correspondence which was collected by Julius F. Sachse, a book that contains all of Washington’s correspondence with fellow
13 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5th ed., s.v. “contribute;” The Free Dictionary, s.v.
7 freemasons, lodges and Grand Lodges. I will also use The Writings of George Washington by Jared Sparks, a book containing different kinds of writings of Washington’s hand that I use to show the connections between masons. Other sources that I use are Marquis de Lafayette’s Memoirs and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis and Common Sense. These sources are also used to show the connections between masons and, more importantly, to illustrate the philosophical relevance of freemasonry. This relevance is also illustrated by the use of texts by John Locke, Rousseau and the Baron de Montesquieu, all important men in the Enlightenment and all freemasons.
Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 and Gordon S. Wood’s Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 both discuss freemasonry and its role in American society as well. However, due to the timeframe he discusses, Howe has a quite negative and conspiratorial view on freemasonry. Part of the reason for this has to do with the timeframe Howe studies as during the nineteenth century some important events happened that changed the general view on freemasonry. It also has to do with the Anti-Masonic Party, which was created in New York in 1828 and was the “first third party in American history.”14 Howe describes the Morgan-affair of 1826 which was one of such events that changed the view on freemasonry and led to a strong anti-masonic sentiment in the country and the Anti-Masonic Party. Morgan had been trying to publish “the secret rituals of Freemasonry,” a task he could never complete because he and his printer were sent to jail before Morgan could finish the manuscript, and only the rituals of the first three degrees were ever published.15 Morgan was released on bail, but put into the custody of a group of strangers “who forced him into a waiting carriage. ‘Murder! Murder!’ he cried out. The renegade former Mason was never again seen alive.”16 According to Howe, masons consequently created an elaborate cover-up. He writes that
although his wife and dentist identified a partly decomposed body, three inquests did not make an official finding. Juries were packed with Masonic brothers; accused conspirators fled before testifying. Eventually the sheriff of Niagara County served thirty months for his central role in the kidnapping conspiracy, but otherwise prosecutors had little to show after twenty trials. Enough came to light, however, that the public felt outrage and the Masonic
14
Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 268.
15 Howe, What God Hath Wrought, 267. 16
8 Order (whose leaders never denounced the crimes committed against Morgan
or dissociated the order from the perpetrators) was badly discredited.17
Howe talks about freemasonry consisting of the “republican elite” and promoting “the values of the Enlightenment and new standards of politeness,” however he claims that the Morgan-affair shows that “Masonic commitments of secrecy and mutual assistance led to disastrous consequences.” These events led to the formation of the Anti-Masonic Party, which would last about ten years before the anti-masonic sentiment had waned so much they had no backing left and they died out. Their actions have had major consequences, consequences that last to this day, since there is still a strong suspicion towards freemasonry and freemasons and conspiracy theories still run wild. Even though the Morgan-affair did take place and masons could have been involved, Howe makes a false assumption that many others have made as well and has led to a lot of the suspicion and conspiracy theories. He puts the responsibility for the masons’ actions with freemasonry and the “Masonic Order,” which he says had to denounce the actions of the men involved. However, as I will explain, freemasonry does not have a central authority dictating what masons are to do in any event that might occur, so the responsibility for their actions is always with the individuals. Because of all this “bad publicity” it is often forgotten nowadays that the great Enlightenment thinkers were often freemasons.
In his Empire of Liberty, Wood is more positive about freemasonry. He acknowledges freemasonry contributed to the American Revolution and was a “club” that was accessible to all layers of society, instead of the elite that Howe refers to. However, Wood looks at freemasonry as a “surrogate religion for enlightened men suspicious of traditional Christianity.”18 He writes “it offered ritual, mystery, and communality without the enthusiasm and sectarian bigotry of organized religion” and it was a place where masons “could ‘all meet amicably, and converse sociably together.’ … Masonry had always sought unity and harmony in a society increasingly diverse and fragmented.”19 Even though this is true and more positive than Howe’s conspiratorial view on freemasonry, Wood still downplays freemasonry’s significant role in American history and society. As I will explain, freemasons were a special breed of men, who often ended up having a great influence on
17
Ibid.
18
Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 51.
19
9 history. They contributed most philosophers and scientists to the Enlightenment and the ideas and discoveries that were made by these Enlightenment thinkers; they contributed a network consisting of lodges that facilitated events such as the American and French Revolution; they contributed a way of easy communication that broke through the social classes and military ranks. All of which made freemasonry unique and different from other clubs of the eighteenth century.
10
Eighteenth-Century America
It was not one event that triggered the American Revolution and created the environment that was ready for the Declaration of Independence and the formation of the United States of America. Even before the eighteenth century started the citizens in the American colonies were restricted in their actions by acts such as the Navigation Act which stipulated that all goods, imported and exported, had to go through ports in Great Britain on British ships before going to their actual destination. The Wool Act of 1699 restricted wool production in Ireland and banned the export of wool from the American colonies, again limiting the colonies’ economies and making them more dependent on the mother country. At the same time American soldiers were forced to fight in British wars with the Spanish, French, Dutch or Native Americans. In 1732 the thirteenth state was founded: Georgia, named after the then King George II. The Molasses Act of 1733 implemented heavy duties on rum, sugar and molasses imported from non-British islands in the Caribbean to protect the British planters against French and Dutch competition.1 The Iron Act of 1750 limited “the growth of the American iron industry to protect the English iron industry.”2 A year later, in 1751, the Currency Act banned the issuing of paper money by New England colonies. When the British and French both became interested in the Ohio Valley, and the French and Indian War started, Americans were fighting alongside the British, although the British were better paid and had better equipment.3 In 1756 the war spilled over to Europe when Great Britain declared war on France starting off the Seven Years War. In 1759 the British defeated the French in the Fall of Quebec, thereby gaining control of Canada. Britain then declared war on Spain as well in 1762. The wars ended in 1763 with the Treaty of Paris, although the “Ottawa Native Americans under Chief Pontiac began all-out warfare against the British west of Niagara.”4 This conflict was solved with the Proclamation of 1763 which prohibited “any British settlement west of the Appalachians” and required “those already settled in those regions to return east”.5 The Sugar Act and Currency Act of 1764 again limited the colonies’ economies by increasing duties on imported sugar, textiles, coffee, wines, and indigo, while
1
Quintard Taylor, Jr., “United States History: Timeline, 1700-1800”, University of Washington, accessed August 11, 2015, http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_history/1700_1800_timeline.htm.
2
Taylor, “United States History: Timeline, 1700-1800.”
3
Ron Chernow, Washington: A Life (New York: Penguin Books, 2011).
4 Taylor, “United States History: Timeline, 1700-1800.” 5
11 doubling duties on foreign goods reshipped from Britain to the colonies and forbidding the import of foreign rum or French wines, all part of the Sugar Act, and prohibiting the colonists from using any legal tender paper money, which was the Currency Act. As if this did not make life hard enough on the colonists, in March of 1765 the Stamp Act and Quartering Act were implemented. The Stamp act did not just create more taxes that needed to be paid, it was the first direct tax on the colonies; instead of requiring the colonists to pay taxes to their American legislature, the money went straight to the King, essentially bleeding out the colonies. The Quartering Act forced colonists to house and feed British troops.6 All of this together led to unrest and discontent with the King and his policies regarding the colonies. So, in May 1765 Patrick Henry presented Seven Virginia Resolutions to the House of Burgesses of Virginia saying that only the Virginia Assembly could legally tax Virginians. By July the Sons of Liberty were founded in Boston, Massachusetts, a group of self-made merchants who “while they enjoyed no standing among the colony’s wealthy elite and carried little weight in municipal affairs, they enjoyed a broad following among the city’s craftsmen, laborers, and sailors.”7 In October the Stamp Act Congress took place where representatives of nine colonies came together to create a petition to repeal the Stamp Act saying that only colonies could tax colonists and, going even further, demanding a place in the British Parliament especially if the Stamp Act and similar laws were to remain in place, which is where the phrase “No Taxation without Representation” comes from.8 All the protests were finally heard in 1766 when the Stamp Act was repealed, or so the colonists thought, because the same day the Declaratory Act was implemented stating that the British government had “total power to implement any laws concerning the American colonies in all cases whatsoever.”9 In December the New York legislature was suspended after repeatedly voting against complying with the Quartering Act. The situation in the colonies became even tenser with the Townshend Revenue Acts of 1767, which meant more taxes on paper, tea, glass, lead, paints, and a colonial board of customs commissioners. This led to a boycott of British luxury goods in Boston which spread to New York in August 1768 and to New Jersey, Rhode Island, and North Carolina in 1769. Tension increased and
6
Ibid.
7
Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012), 183.
8 Foner, Give Me Liberty, 182. 9
12 Boston once again became the focal point of conflict. Royal troops had been
stationed in the city in 1768 after rioting that followed the British seizure of the ship Liberty for violating trade regulations… The soldiers, who competed for jobs on Boston’s waterfront with the city’s laborers, became more and more unpopular. On March 5, 1770, a fight between a snowball-throwing crowd of Bostonians and British troops escalated into an armed confrontation that left five Bostonians dead.10
Although the commanding officer and eight soldiers were put on trial for manslaughter, only two of them were convicted, thanks to the defense of John Adams “who viewed lower-class crowd actions as a dangerous method of opposing British policies.”11 However, Paul Revere, “a member of the Boston Sons of Liberty and a silversmith and engraver, helped to stir up indignation against the British army by producing a widely circulated (and quite inaccurate) print of the Boston Massacre depicting a line of British soldiers firing into an unarmed crowd.”12 The Townshend Revenue Acts were repealed soon thereafter, eliminating all duties on imports to the colonies except on tea, and it led to the Quartering Act not being renewed in April 1770. This did not cool things down, though, and in 1772 colonists from Providence, Rhode Island attacked and burned a British customs schooner run ashore there. A year later, in 1773, Virginia, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and South Carolina each appointed committees of commerce to communicate with other colonies regarding common complaints against the British. On May 10, 1773 the Tea Act was implemented which gave the British East India Company a tea monopoly by allowing it to sell directly to colonial agents, cutting out middlemen and underselling Americans. This led to the Boston Tea Party:
The tax on tea was not new. But many colonists insisted that to pay it on this large new body of imports would acknowledge Britain’s right to tax the colonies. As tea shipments arrived, resistance developed in the major ports. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded three ships at anchor in Boston Harbor and threw more than 300 chests of tea into the water… The loss to the East India Company was around ₤10,000 (the equivalent of more than $4 million today).13
10 Foner, 186-7. 11 Ibid., 187. 12 Ibid., 187-8. 13 Ibid., 189.
13 The British reacted by creating the Coercive Acts, or Intolerable Acts to the Americans, along with a new version of the Quartering Act in 1774. In the same year the First Continental Congress took place where representatives from all states, except Georgia, created the Declaration and Resolves in opposition to the Coercive Acts. Also, the Continental Association was adopted “which called for an almost complete halt to trade with Great Britain and the West Indies… The Association also encouraged domestic manufacturing and denounced ‘every species of extravagance and dissipation.’ Congress authorized local Committees of Safety to oversee its mandates and to take action against ‘enemies of American liberty,’ including businessmen who tried to profit from the sudden scarcity of goods.”14
Things were rapidly escalating now. By February 9, 1775 Massachusetts was in a “state of rebellion” according to the British Parliament, and by March 30 the New England Restraining Act was adopted by the British which limited New England trade to Great Britain or the British West Indies in reaction to the increasing boycotts of British goods.15 Even before the Second Continental Congress could convene in May 1775, war had broken out between British soldiers and armed citizens of Massachusetts when the British had marched from Boston to Concord on April 19 to seize arms being stockpiled there and militiamen took up arms to try to resist the British. This resulted in several deaths and “the shot heard ‘round the world”, effectively starting the American Revolution.16
On January 5, 1776 the first American state constitution was adopted in New Hampshire.17 A few days later, on January 9, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was published, a book attacking the King and his policies toward the Americans. France and Spain joined the Americans in their fight against the British. On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the American states. On September 11 a peace conference was held which failed because the British Commander-in-Chief William Howe wanted the Declaration of Independence revoked.18 On December 11 Washington’s troops prevented an American defeat by staging a stealthy, nighttime crossing of the Delaware River while the British were distracted in their camp. Thomas Paine traveled with Washington’s troops at this time while
14
Ibid., 190.
15 Quintard Taylor, Jr., “United States History: Timeline, War of Independence,” University of Washington,
accessed August 11, 2015, http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_history/am_rev_timeline.htm.
16
Foner, 192.
17 Taylor, “United States History: Timeline, War of Independence”. 18
14 writing American Crisis, a text used later by Washington to motivate his troops. After a visit to Paris by Benjamin Franklin in 1777, France recognized American independence from the British.19 Not long after this, on November 15, 1777, the Articles of Confederation were adopted by the American states as a way to ensure safe interstate trade and communication. American independence was officially recognized by the French in 1778 with the Treaty of Amity and Commerce and the Treaty of Alliance signed by the Americans and French in Paris.20 By 1780 the French, Spanish, and Dutch were fighting alongside the Americans against the British “in the Mediterranean, Africa, India, the West Indies, and on the high seas.”21 In March 1778 a peace commission was rejected by the Americans as the British offered to accept all their claims and demands except that of independence. The fighting finally ended after a truce was called following the defeat of the British at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. The Dutch were the first to recognize the United States of America on April 19, 1782, as a result of negotiations conducted in the Netherlands by John Adams. On February 4, 1783 Britain officially declared an end to the hostilities in America. On September 3 the Treaty of Paris was signed by the British and the Americans, which was ratified on January 14, 1784, ending the American Revolution.22
As a result of the failure of the Articles of Confederation the Constitutional Convention of 1787-1789 was created. By 1788 the new Constitution of the United States of America was ratified and went into effect the next year. George Washington, first President of the United States of America, was sworn in on April 30, 1789. By September 29 the US Army was created consisting of one thousand professional soldiers. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791. By 1800 the capitol of the USA was moved from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. creating a neutral place for all state representatives to meet.23 A new nation was born.
19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.
15
Freemasonry
In order to properly discuss freemasonry’s role in the founding years of the United States, it is necessary to know what made, and makes, freemasonry so different from other “clubs”, and why it attracted so many important historical figures. To do so, first I will discuss the origins of freemasonry, and therefore masonry, and then I will discuss the role it played in English and, more importantly, American society.
Masonry has been around for as long as humankind has known how to carve stone and build with it. Freemasonry developed from this craft over the centuries, borrowing rituals, symbols, and other aspects from masonry and its traditions. Freemasonry is mostly based on English and Scottish masonic traditions, traditions which can be traced back to at least the fourteenth century.1 At this time most crafts were organized in town craft guilds which had multiple functions; controlling the “training for a trade … and entry to it, the organisation and conditions of work, and wages” and providing “social welfare” when members were unable to perform their trade, “providing for the decent burial of members, and giving support to their widows and orphans”.2 Since most crafts were stationary, meaning the craftsmen were able to remain in one town or city for their entire working life because their trade was needed for a community to function, they could be organized locally in these town craft guilds, training and working in the same town with the same colleagues for the duration of their working life.
Masonry was different from these other crafts. Masons were only needed to build or repair stone buildings, ranging from cathedrals and castles that could take decades to build to houses or repairs that took mere weeks or months. This meant that after such a job was done and there was no more work for these masons they traveled to the next building site which could be miles away. Masons led a nomadic life because of this, which made town-based guilds obsolete because if there were no building sites there were no masons. However, masons needed a way to organize themselves and to separate the frauds from the real masons. Their solution was the lodge. Although they started as a simple shed or hut where tools could be stored and stones could be carved without interference from the
1
Frederick M. Hunter, Regius Manuscript: The Earliest Masonic Document (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 1995).
2
16 weather, eventually lodges came to have a very central role in both masonry and freemasonry.3 According to Knoop and Jones, the historians who put together one of the best histories of freemasonry, “the earliest mention of a lodge … occurs in a record of Vale Royal Abbey belonging to 1278; but there can be no doubt that lodges existed much earlier, for without them it is difficult to see how a church, abbey, or castle of any size and pretension to ornament could have been erected”.4 These lodges were important to the building process because they were the place from which the master mason organized the whole building process and directed everyone on the building site. Each building site had one master mason; he was the architect, the supervisor, sometimes even the contractor. Next to the master mason there were fellow crafts and apprentices. The fellow crafts were the highest level of mason; they were fully trained masons. The master on a building site was also a fellow craft, with the exception that he was in charge of the site and building process hence the title of master. The apprentices were still under supervision of fellow crafts and were still learning the ropes, they were not allowed to work unsupervised unless under very special circumstances.
Since the working day was very long in the Middle Ages masons often had to eat their meals away from home, which could be done at the lodge. The lodge also became something like a “barrack accommodation”, a place were “masons could be found eating and resting, … and even sleeping there when they were not local men with homes they could return to each night”.5 Even the masons associated with a lodge were sometimes called the lodge. The lodges were also used as the place to hold meetings and rituals. These meetings could be about the building process or about a mason’s grievances with another mason or they were held to amend or create new rules or charters for the lodge and the building site. The wages and hours of working were set in the lodge. The rituals held in the lodges were used to relate the history of masonry and the masonic search for the “lost knowledge” that is part of that history. Those rituals were part of raising an apprentice to fellow craft for example.
The search for the “lost knowledge” was a very important part of masonic history or myth. Even in the oldest surviving manuscripts, the Regius MS and Cooke MS, the “points
3
Stevenson, The Origins of Freemasonry, 15.
4 Knoop, A Short History, 12. 5
17 and articles”, the rules the masons had to abide by, were preceded by a history of masonry. The Regius MS and Cooke MS contain similar yet slightly different histories and the manuscripts that were written after them mostly used the Cooke MS history, which contained parts of the Regius MS history which Knoop and Jones called the “Old Short History” combined with what they called the “New Long History”.6 All of these manuscripts were written with these various versions of a history of masonry and the reasons for the relevance of the “guild” of masonry because of a writ sent by King Richard II in 1388. This writ ordered the guilds to
report on the circumstances of the foundation of their fraternities, presumably to discover if they were recent or not. They were to supply information concerning the gilds’ oaths, meetings, feasts and practices of all kinds. Their privileges, ordinances and customs were to be described. This would provide information as to the nature of the gild, perhaps to enable the government to assess whether it constituted a threat to law and order. All the gilds’ lands and property, whether held in mortmain or not, and all their other possessions were to be listed and their annual value assessed and stated. Persons who held gild property or real estate were to be identified in order to help the authorities to estimate whether a significant financial return would result from the dissolution. In a general catch-all provision, all other matters concerning each gild were to be revealed. All of these questions were to be answered fully. The failure of any gild to comply with these instructions would lead to the withdrawal of any charters and letters patent and the sequestration of all its property.7
This writ was sent because King Richard II and the Parliament were suspicious of the power, riches and influence of the guilds in local government. Although masonry did not have the traditional guild, they too were forced to account for their existence and did this with manuscripts such as the Regius MS and Cooke MS. According to masonic lore the history of the craft started with Lamech and his children. Lamech was a direct descendant of Adam, the first man on earth. Lamech had three sons and a daughter who all discovered different “sciences”; the first son Jabal discovered geometry and masonry, the second son Jubal or Tubal discovered music and song, the third son Tubal Cain discovered metallurgy, and the daughter Naamah discovered weaving. Since they somehow knew of God’s future
6
Knoop, 30.
7 David J.F. Crouch, Piety, Fraternity and Power: Religious Gilds in Late Medieval Yorkshire, 1389-1547
18 vengeance for sin which would be executed either by fire or water the siblings decided to inscribe their collective knowledge on two stone pillars, one made of marble which could not burn and one made of “lacerus” which could not sink. Noah’s Flood came and all knowledge was destroyed with the sinful people. However, two men recovered the pillars: Pythagoras the clerk and Hermes the philosopher. They spread their new-found knowledge of geometry and taught it to Ham, one of Noah’s sons. He in turn taught it to his son Nimrod, who wanted to build the Tower of Babylon so he taught the science of geometry to at least 40,000 masons. His cousin Ashur needed masons to build a city, so Nimrod sent 3,000 masons to Ashur with a charge, the first charge ever made according to this legend, a charge which said that
When ye come to that lord look that ye be true to him like ye would be to me, and truly do your labour and craft, and take reasonable your meed therefore as ye may deserve, and also that ye love together as ye were brethren, and hold together truly; and he that hath most cunning teach it to his fellow; and look ye govern you against your lord and among yourselves, that I may have worship and thanks for my sending, and teaching, you the craft.8
This charge is the basis of most other articles and points in the several manuscripts, such as the Regius MS and Cooke MS and is part of the “Old Charges”, which are still considered to be an important part of the constitutions of freemasonry.
Abraham then learned about the science of geometry and he brought it to Egypt when he left Canaan because of the massive famine there. He taught it to his pupil Euclid who would be the first to call this science “geometry”. He called it geometry because when the Egyptians were suffering from the Nile’s floods he helped them by showing them how to build walls and ditches to redirect the water and he divided the now dry and fertile earth into sections which could be used by farmers to produce many different goods. Geometry means “earth measuring” according to the Cooke MS, and dividing the earth into different sections is done by measuring the earth, hence geometry. This newly added fertile land caused one problem: there was a huge increase in population which made it very difficult to earn a livelihood. To help the lords of the country Euclid offered to teach their noble sons the science of geometry so that they could earn a living without having to work the land. He had one condition: these young men had to be sworn to obey the regulations that would be
8
19 laid down by Euclid, thereby creating the first version of the “Book of Charges”, the articles and points referred to earlier. Masonry, the practical version of geometry, was also taught to the “children of Israel” who were enslaved by the Egyptians.9 They took this knowledge and Euclid’s charges with them to the Promised Land when Moses freed them and once there they lived by Euclid’s charges. King David used the knowledge of masonry to start building a temple which would later be finished by King Solomon, hence its name: Solomon’s Temple. This science of masonry was taught to the 80,000 masons working on the Temple; they helped it spread to France where King Carolus Secundus, also known as Charles the Second, reigned, who was a mason before being elected king. Masonry and its charges were then brought to England when St. Adhabelle converted St. Alban, an admirer of masonry and its charges, to Christianity. The English lords had a similar problem as the Egyptians: they had too many children which meant that their estates were not large enough to live off after dividing them between the children after the lords would die. They hired several “wise masters of the worthy science of geometry”, one of which was also called Euclid, who did the same thing as the previous Euclid: teaching the sons of nobility the science of geometry and masonry so that they could provide for an honest living.10 This is how years later the youngest son of King Athelstan was a master of the science of geometry with such a great interest in masonry that he joined their counsels and eventually became a mason himself. Athelstan created the points and articles mentioned in both Regius MS and Cooke MS, basing them on the charges that were handed down from St. Alban and before.
Although this history shows the “lineage” of masonry and geometry, masons were still convinced that with Noah’s Flood a lot of valuable knowledge was lost for mankind. However, they also believed that since mankind once possessed this “lost knowledge” it could be “reinvented” or maybe even found somewhere. This meant that next to the practical and social purposes of the lodge mentioned earlier, the lodge also had a more “scientific” function, although this scientific approach was often mixed with “magic” such as druidic rituals.
By the late sixteenth century, operative lodges and the make-up of their members were changing. During the Renaissance a renewed curiosity for the seven liberal arts arose, one of which was geometry, the art that is the basis of all masonry. Combined with an
9 Cooke MS, lines 539-40. 10
20 upcoming and wealthy lower gentry and upper-middle class more and more members of these classes became interested in the building process, and the separate occupation of architect was created. These men had not been apprenticed to be raised to fellow-craft after learning all the different aspects and rules and regulations that came with becoming a fully trained mason. Instead, they bought their seat in the lodge and the knowledge that came with it. In this way the lodges were assured of a filled treasury, which meant that they could keep fulfilling their social duties and could keep taking care of their members. However, it also meant that lodges were becoming less operative and more speculative when they took in their “free and accepted masons”. Out of these changes in the make-up of a lodge freemasonry would grow and eventually outgrow operative masonry. While the act of building was lost in the transition to freemasonry, the system for recognition and the organization of the network were retained.
That a guild held high a partly mythical history was not uniquely masonic: the fact that it is so elaborate and worked out in detail is unique.11 This is another of the reasons non-craftsmen became interested in the goings-on in a masonic lodge meeting. Not only were they interested in the building process and geometry, but also the more mystical side of operative masonry. When, during the Age of Enlightenment, the speculative masonry outgrew its forebear the masonic lore remained part of its rituals and symbolism, creating an extraordinary mix of the rational Enlightenment way of thinking combined with mysticism and lore.
In 1717 four speculative lodges decided to unite and create a central authority which was “due, not to the decline, but to the growth in the number of lodges and to the consequent recognition of the increased need of central authority and control. Without this, an expansion in accepted masonry would be apt to bring about confusion, if not chaos, in place of the system which it professed to support and uphold.”12 This central authority would become the Grand Lodge of England and its objects were “‘to cement under a Grand Master as the center of Union and Harmony,’ … ‘to revive … the Quarterly Communication of the Officers of Lodges,’ … and to hold the Annual Assembly and Feast, at which the Grand Master was to be chosen.”13 In other words, “the first object was to establish a centre round
11
Steven C. Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social
Order, 1730-1840 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 13.
12 Knoop, 87-8. 13
21 which the movement could turn. The third object was to have an annual dinner, in connection with which there was to be a meeting to install a Grand Master… The second object … was to arrange for quarterly meeting of the Masters and Wardens of the lodges” which would make up the Grand Lodge.14 Another reason for the creation of the Grand Lodge was to create the Constitutions, the masonic book of rules and regulations a mason and a lodge has to adhere to: “it is not improbable that the drawing up of articles to regulate accepted masonry was one of the objects which at least some of the founders of the Grand Lodge had had in mind from the outset.”15 The Grand Lodge also created a “General Charity” which was meant to take care of masons and their families, adding to the local lodges’ charities meant for this goal, and every mason was required to pay a specified sum of money to this charity so that every mason who fell on hard times could depend on it.16 After the creation of the Grand Lodge, its officers, the Constitutions and the General Charity, the Grand Lodge began to decide whether lodges, and the masons belonging to them, were “regular” or “non-regular”. The difference between the two is very simple; either a lodge sticks to the rules and regulations of the Grand Lodge of England, which makes them “regular”, or they do not, which makes them “non-regular”. The Grand Lodge of England has so much authority that the other Grand Lodges created after them have to be recognized by them as well or else their members are not allowed to visit the “regular” lodges. After the creation of the Grand Lodge of England, and the respective Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland after that, freemasonry spread very quickly across the globe. The first lodge in France dated from 1725, although all the records from before 1773 are lost; by 1734 the first official lodge was founded in the Netherlands in The Hague, and even though the Grand Orient of the Netherlands was founded in 1756, by 1757 it had already recognized lodges in Curacao.17 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 89. 16 Ibid. 17
Robert Freke Gould, The History of Freemasonry: Its Antiquities, Symbols, Constitutions, Customs, Etc.
Embracing an Investigation of the Records of the Organisations of the Fraternity in England, Scotland, Ireland, British Colonies, France, Germany, and the United States (London: The Caxton Publishing Company, 1887), 136;
22
Freemasonry in America
It is hard to say how and when freemasonry spread to the American colonies. As early as 1634 Lord Alexander, Viscount of Canada, and his brother Anthony, Master of Works to the King, became members of a lodge in Edinburgh. In 1658 Dutch Jews brought the three degrees of masonry to New Port, Rhode Island. In 1704 Jonathan Belcher, future governor of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey, was initiated in England and upon his return to America probably brought “some slight acquaintance with its principles” with him.18 In 1715 John Moore, King’s Collector at the port of Philadelphia wrote a letter alluding to a few evenings spent in festivity with his masonic brethren. However, it was in 1720 that the first lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England was duly warranted, located in Boston.19 This lodge died out quickly thereafter. For American freemasonry the year 1730 is usually taken as the start of its official and registered existence. This is the time the first Provincial Grand Lodge was set up under the Grand Lodge of England with Daniel Coxe as its Provincial Grand Master.20 This was situated in Philadelphia. By 1738 registered lodges had sprung up in Philadelphia, Savannah, Boston, New York, Charleston, and Cape Fear, North Carolina.21
The 1740s and 50s were quiet when it came to masonic activity in the colonies. Although there were Provincial Grand Lodges in most major cities, they hardly ever created new lodges. Only Boston and New York really used their powers and they created no more than three or four new lodges during this time.22 Partly this had to do with the kind of men that were initiated in the lodges. They were mostly part of the highest classes of colonial society: men who had the time and money to be a part of a club such as this. It was perfectly normal, even required, to be a part of clubs. At the time freemasonry started to gain some ground in the colonies, other clubs such as the Brooms or the Junto club were also founded.23 The same men who were initiated into freemasonry were often also initiated in several other clubs, and all of these clubs were used to feast and do business.
18
Gould, The History of Freemasonry, 424.
19 Ibid. 20
Ibid., 425.
21
Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood, 47.
22 Ibid. 23
23 It is interesting to see that although the masons were mostly aristocrats of some kind there was also a high number of “ordinary” military men who were initiated as freemason, with all kinds of ranks and with all kinds of backgrounds. This could be related to one way Jessica Harland-Jacobs describes the spread of freemasonry through the British Empire in her article “Hands across the Sea”, namely through so-called “traveling warrants”, which were given to regiments traveling across the British Empire to enable them to hold lodge meetings regardless of their location. These meetings were often attended by locals who, after the regiment moved on, would often petition one of the British Grand Lodges for a permanent warrant to create their own local lodge.24 This connection between the military and freemasonry became very important during the American Revolution, when the organization of the lodges facilitated the military organization. This relationship was largely due to one very important shift within freemasonry that occurred during the 1750s, namely the creation of the first Ancient lodge in America in 1757. This internal break had first happened in England to accommodate the lesser merchants and the Irish, but soon spread to the colonies. The founders of the first Ancient lodge in America were “drawing upon English example” by calling it “‘Ancient’ to distinguish it from previous lodges that, Ancient brothers claimed, had profaned the fraternity’s sacred traditions. By the title and their labeling the older group as ‘Moderns,’ the new Masons laid claim to priority and precedence despite their later organization.”25 Their name also had significance when it came to the Ancients’ customs and rituals. They aimed to go back to the roots of freemasonry as they saw it and included not just the “province’s most prominent men in society that proclaimed their gentility, cultivation, and high social standing” as the Moderns did, but also “included many who lacked political power and social distinction,” such as artisans, sea captains, and lesser merchants.26 Next to that the Ancients were more focused on improving society through improving oneself instead of the Moderns’ focus on self-indulgence and networking. This new recipe of the Ancients would prove to be “more popular and adaptable,” especially seeing how most Modern lodges and Grand Lodges would be gone by the end of the eighteenth century.27 As Stephen Bullock writes in Revolutionary Brotherhood:
24 Jessica Harland-Jacobs, “‘Hands across the Sea’: The Masonic Network, British Imperialism, and the North
Atlantic World,” Geographical Review 89, no. 2 (Apr. 1999): 241.
25
Bullock, 85.
26 Ibid. 27
24 By opening Masonry to social groups outside the elites of the principal
seaports and by preserving the Modern identification of the fraternity with genteel cosmopolitan culture, the Ancient Masons created an organization of extraordinary appeal… The groups that embraced Ancient Masonry most strongly, furthermore, were the chief beneficiaries of Revolutionary changes. Urban artisans took on new political meaning during the Revolutionary crisis, demanding and gaining representation on the committees that wrested power from the British governments. Similarly, elites outside the capitols also sought and received increased political power… Ancient lodges offered a way to assert a new importance—and a concrete example of Revolutionary equality and participation.28
These two groups, urban artisans and rural elites, were a big part of the social make-up of the Ancient lodges, next to the military.
Since they attracted so many military men, from regular soldiers to the Commander-in-Chief, and the field lodges created a safe and equal place to discuss issues, this offered the members of these lodges a unique way to directly discuss problems or complaints with the several layers of the army all represented. The lodge also “insured secrecy in the plans of campaign and fidelity in their execution. Councils of war it is said, were frequently held in the lodge room where their deliberations were under the double seal of Masonry and patriotism.”29 That the lodge is a good platform for discussion of strategy can be seen in the case of St. Andrew’s Lodge, which was founded in 1756 in Boston and received its recognition from the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1760, which meant that “it began its career independent of English influence and just in time to share in the opening scenes of the war for independence.”30 Some of its first members were Joseph Warren, Paul Revere, John Hancock, James Otis, “and many others who are now recognized as the leading characters of that eventful epoch.”31 Some of the “offshoots” of St. Andrew’s Lodge were the Sons of Liberty and the “‘North End Caucus’ to which was committed the execution of some of the most daring plans of the patriots.”32 One of the most famous of the “daring plans” is the
28
Ibid., 86.
29 Charles S. Lobingier, “Freemasons in the American Revolution,” in Of George Washington: A Collection of
Masonic Papers, ed. Michael R. Poll (New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2009), 63.
30
Lobingier, “Freemasons in the American Revolution,” 60.
31 Ibid. 32
25 Boston Tea Party referenced to in the previous chapter. What was not described there is that
It was on the evening of the 16th of December, 1773, when a party of Masons, mostly members of St. Andrew’s Lodge in Boston, assembled for the purpose of protesting against the iniquitous tax on tea. Samuel Adams is said to have been a member of that party. Gen. Warren, the first prominent martyr to the cause of American Independence and once Grand Master of Massachusetts, was a member of that party. Paul Revere, celebrated for his ride before the battle of Lexington, at that time Junior Warden of the Lodge and afterwards Grand Master, was a leading spirit among the resolute Masons who emptied the tea into Boston harbor.33
The meeting place of the minds behind the Boston Tea Party was the Green Dragon Tavern “which was owned and occupied by St. Andrew’s Lodge, and the members of this Lodge were the leaders in the former.”34 Even though there is no definite proof to say that the Boston Tea Party was a masonic endeavor, it is interesting that “the records of the lodge disclose that on the evening after the tea-laden ships arrived in Boston Harbor there was an adjournment on account of small attendance and the secretary adds the significant note that ‘consignees of tea took the brethren’s time.’ The minutes of December 16, 1773, the date of the tea party, show that the lodge was again adjourned until the next evening.”35 It is also interesting to see that “by 1772, twelve members of the North End Caucus were members of St. Andrew’s Lodge.”36 They included; Paul Revere, Thomas Chase, Adam Colson, William Hoskins, John Lowell, John Merritt, Edward Proctor, Asa Stoddard, Eben and John Symmes, Thomas Urann, and Dr. Joseph Warren.37 The minutes of the North End Caucus show that in order to “oppose the vending of any Tea, sent by the East-India Company to any part of the continent” they set up several committees to execute their plans.38 Examples of these committees are “a committee chosen to correspond with any committee chosen in any part
33
Frank E. Notes, “The Masonic Compeers of Washington,” in Of George Washington: A Collection of Masonic
Papers, ed. Michael R. Poll (New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2009), 49-50.
34 Lobingier, “Freemasons in the American Revolution,”60. 35
Ibid., 60-1.
36
Jayne E. Triber, A True Republican: The Life of Paul Revere (Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998), 31.
37
Ezra Palmer et al., The Lodge of St. Andrew and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts Centennial Memorial (Boston: n.p., 1870).
38 Abel Bowen, The Boston News-Letter, and City Record. From July 1826 to January 1827, ed. Jerome Van
26 of the town,” consisting of “Paul Revere, Abiel Ruddock and John Lowell, the Committee.”39 “At a meeting of the Caucus held at the Green Dragon” on November 2nd 1773 the Caucus chose a committee “to wait upon the committee of correspondence of this town, and desire their attendance here,” and a committee “to wait on John Hancock, Esq. and desire him to meet with us.”40 In the same meeting they also chose a committee “to draw a resolution to be read to the Tea consignees to-morrow, 12 o’clock, noon, at Liberty Tree: and that Drs. Church, Young and Warren, be a committee for that purpose, and make a report as soon as may be.”41 This report read:
that Tho. & Elish Hutchinson, R. Clark & Sons, and Benj. Faneuil Hall, by neglecting to give satisfaction as their fellow citizens justly expected from them in this hour, relative to their acceptance of an office destructive to this community, have intolerably insulted this body, and in case they do not forthwith appear, and satisfy their reasonable expectation, this body will look upon themselves warranted to esteem them enemies to their country; and on their first appearance will not fail to make them feel the weight of their just resentment.42
Thomas and Elisha Hutchinson were the Governor’s sons, Richard Clark & Sons and Benjamin Faneuil Hall were tea consignees; the agents who received and sold the tea. In the events leading up to the Boston Tea Party the North End Caucus felt they had given the consignees ample opportunity to send the tea back to Great Britain, since they were “determined that the Tea shipped or to be shipped by the East-India Company shall not be landed” in any of the American colonies.43 This is why they felt “intolerably insulted” by the consignees. The Governor and his family were personally involved in the tea business and had been stocking up on tea in order to take advantage of the market after the ban on importation of British goods had been lifted, positioning them against the North End Caucus in the debate over the ships full of tea. On November 3rd, a month before the day of the Boston Tea Party, the Caucus held another meeting to prepare for a public gathering beneath the Liberty Tree by creating a committee to “get a flag for Liberty Tree” and a committee “for posting up [the]
39 Bowen, The Boston News-Letter, 242. 40 Ibid., 242-3. 41 Ibid., 243. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.
27 notification.”44 In all of these committees there was at least one of the men named before as also being a member of the St. Andrew’s Lodge: Revere, Warren, Boit, Proctor, and Urann were all involved in these events. A guard was formed to keep the tea from leaving the ship and entering the colonies. This guard mostly consisted of North End Caucus members, among which were Warren and Revere again. At the day of the Boston Tea Party, not only were most members of St. Andrew’s Lodge absent from their lodge meeting, they were present at the North End Caucus meeting downstairs in the Green Dragon Tavern where they sang the “Rallying song of the Tea Party at the Green Dragon.”45
Rally, Mohawks—bring out your axes!
And tell King George we’ll pay no taxes on his foreign tea! His threats are vain—and vain to think
To force out girls and wives to drink His vile Bohea! Then rally boys, and hasten on
To meet our Chiefs at the Green Dragon. Our Warren’s there, and bold Revere,
With hands to do and words to cheer for Liberty and Laws! Our country’s “Braves” and firm defenders
Shall ne’er be left by true North-Enders, fighting Freedom’s cause! Then rally boys and hasten on
To meet our Chiefs at the Green Dragon.46
Even though Warren was probably not present at Griffin’s Wharf where the Tea Party took place, this does show that there were masons involved in the Boston Tea Party; masons who were facilitated by the organization and secretive nature of the lodge to plan important events in the American Revolution such as the Boston Tea Party.
To return to the military, according to Charles Lobingier in his essay “Freemasons in the American Revolution” the
most important service, after the Revolution was fairly launched, was rendered by the lodges formed in the Continental Army. There were ten of these, they were scattered among the camps from Massachusetts to North Carolina, and their growth was fostered and encouraged by the Commander-in-Chief. Washington himself attended their communications frequently—
44 Ibid. 45
Triber, A True Republican, 95.
46
Edward M. Gair, “The Boston Tea Party and Freemasonry.” Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. Last modified July 15, 2010. Accessed September 23, 2015.
