Strawman houses

Building Houses with Straw: Response to a Historical Position presented by John Hairston By Christopher Belcher, NGLHRS

Best Selling Masonic Author, Alton Roundtree, in response to a social media post by John Hairston about whether or not the National Grand Lodge was in existence since 1847 stated the following : “Good opinion, thought, or perspective. Sounds good, but where are the sources and documentation that shows that this is more than a perspective?

The Prince Hall Conference of Grand Masters would not agree with the statement that the National Grand Lodge is BOGUS. The National Grand Lodge of 2015 is the same NGL as that of 1847. The NGL has had continuous operation and never had fewer than 13 state Grand Lodges [since1865]. The National Grand Lodge has always (from its inception) operated under a Constitution. Like any Grand Lodge, the Constitution defines the authority of the Grand Lodge and the relationship of subordinate organizations. The sentiments at the formation of the NGL clearly state the establishment of a National Grand Lodge and that the state Grand Lodges is not sovereign. The sentiments also show that the National Grand Lodge was operating under a Constitution from the inception of the organization in 1847. The National Grand Lodge was operating under Ahiman Rezon, pending development of a constitution. (The Freemason’s Library and General Ahiman Rezon; containing a delineation of the true principles of Freemasonry, etc.; by Samuel Cole. Baltimore, 1817. 8vo, 332 + 92 pages. There was a second edition in 1826.)”

What Compact Agreement? The NGL does not operate under a “Compact Agreement.” The NGL Constitution states the relationship between the NGL and the state Grand Lodges. Grand Lodges under the NGL fully understand that they are subordinate and their position is stated in the NGL Constitution. State Grand Lodges under the NGL has no power beyond what is stated in the NGL Constitution that they helped write, update, and approve at a Triennial Session.”

This response promoted a tirade where John Hairston pontificated to present what he assumes to be the “true” history where he, an unpublished researcher attacked Alton Roundtree. The blog can be viewed at the following link: http://quillandsword357.blogspot.com/ . John Hairston disagrees with Alton Roundtree and the following looks at his retrofitted strawman arguments to build a house thinner than cards. This article will look at his assertions and once again prove that the National Grand Lodge has been in continued existence since 1847.

Building a Straw House Upon a Court Case Thirty Years Later? “ The current Prince Hall Origin group is the REORGANIZATION and ASSUMPTION of the name of the National Grand Lodge in 1889.” – John Hairston John Hairston’s source: Common Pleas Court of Franklin County (Ohio) dated July 19, 1921 Hairston brings attention to the following quote from those court proceedings in which he cites “Upon the question as to whether or not in the year 1877 or 1878 the National Grand Lodge CEASED TO EXIST or ADJOURNED SINE DIE, there is a divergence in the evidence. However this may be, IT CLEARLY

APPEARS FROM THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE that there was a HIATUS OF ELEVEN OR TWELVE YEARS IN THE OPERATION AND FUNCTIONING OF SAID NATIONAL GRAND LODGE” Hairston clearly disregarded that the judge clearly states that there was a “divergence” in the evidence.

Divergence is defined as differences, varying or contrastive. The judge did make his interpretation and concluded that the NGL was on “hiatus”. Court Judges constantly make interpretation based upon evidence presented but omitted evidence will never factor because it is not part of the presentments. This divergence appeared in a court before the case entered by John Hairston. An appeal of the case between The MW United Grand Lodge of Maryland (now styled MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Maryland) versus William F. Green, Grand Master of the MW Grand Lodge of Maryland F&AAYM and others. In this case the judge hearing the evidence presented ruled in favor of the National Grand Lodge subordinate. What is of interest to this case is William H. Grimshaw testified in the case. Also of interest is a GLARING contradiction in which the appellate Judge noted. The following is quoted as such: “He [Grimshaw] further testified that the National Compact, ‘as it is called’, existed from 1848 until 1874, and he read from his book the following resolution: ‘At a meeting of the national Grand Lodges held in Wilmington, Delaware, in the year 1877, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: Resolved, that each state is its sovereign head and that each delegate be directed to report to his state Grand Lodge the action taken by this body. And be it further resolved, that the national or Compact Grand Lodge is, and the same is hereby declared to be, an irregular and unheard of body in Masonry, and it is hereby declared forever void’ Immediately below that in the record is the following: ‘In this connection the defendants offered in evidence a pamphlet written by Dr. H. M. Butler, another state rights Mason, wherein he states that the convention of the national Grand Lodge was held in 1878, and the resolution adopted was as follows: Resolved that the national Grand Lodge do wind up its affairs and adjourn sine die.’

There does not seem to be any explanation as to why the two authors gave different dates for the meeting, and different resolutions as passed at it. It is not only denied by the appellees that the national Grand Lodge was wound up and adjourned sine die, but they offered evidence to show that regular 1 meetings were held as late as 1918.”

It could be concluded in the context of the Appellant Judge’s report that because two authors, both of which were for the plaintiffs, could not escape that they published dates different from each other and the National Grand Lodge presented contradictory testimony to the allegation of it shutting down and testified (under oath) that the National Grand Lodge continued, the courts ruled in favor of the National Grand Lodge by denying the state rights Grand Lodge’s appeal. Again this was a year before the Ohio case as presented by Hairston. It is clear evidence that the courts can interpret evidence and come to different conclusions. John Hairston built his straw house based upon this case to say that, according to a Judge’s decision some forty three years after the fact, the National Grand Lodge was closed for nine years.

Contradictory Evidence to Hairston’s Theory One would have to wonder why the Grand Lodge of Ohio (now MWPHGL of Ohio), did not consult their own proceedings before testifying under oath in court. Ohio would not, in court, enter evidence that would lose them the case, but John Hairston, as a so-called researcher has no excuse. The Grand Lodge of Ohio’s (now MWPHGL of Ohio) own proceedings provide evidence of the National Grand Lodge being in continued existence.

“DELAWARE- This Grand Lodge (Independent) has failed, for some years to print her proceedings, therefore we are unable to say very much of or for her. Our verteran Bro. Grand Secretary, E. H. Anderson, is still at his post, and has given us what information we have. He informs us that the Grand Lodge is pursuing the even tenor of her way; that by act of Legislature the Grand Lodge has been incorporated; that they are at peace with the Philistines[The nationals]. We would think, that it would be a worthy object for the Masons of Delaware, to labor for a union in their own state, as very nearly all the states have united. We opine for the present that no worthier an object presents itself for the action of our Brethren in this State. Soon we shall begin to tell the Compact Grand Lodges by small numbers: to the best of our knowledge, Penn, Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware and Tennessee, with a few isolated Lodges in other jurisdictions, are about the sum total of the strength of the Compact Grand Lodges and Lodges. If Delaware will but go to work and unify the Masons of her own state, there will be one more hiding place less for the national Grand Lodge. We hope the Grand Lodge of Delaware will buckle on her armour, and go forth to do hostile battle for the freedom of Colored Masons, as of old. First by keeping herself before the Masonic world in her true light, and then by waging war against the National Compact, until every 2 Mason within her borders, shall have been brought to light, in the right.”

The above quote clearly shows that when the National Grand Lodge, as John Hairston puts it, was on “hiatus” the Grand Lodge of Ohio clearly reported that it was in operation with subordinate Lodges as well as Grand Lodges. To add insult to Hairston’s injury, not only did Ohio mention the National Grand Lodge was in operation in 1880, but the Grand Lodge of Missouri (now MWHGL of Missouri) mentioned the National Grand Lodge meeting in 1880.

Missouri said: “The eleventh triennial session of the Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge was convened in the city of 3 Wilmington, Delaware, on Wednesday, May 12, 1880.”

The National Grand Lodge Triennial Session of 1880, in addition to it being evident by the Proceedings of two Grand Lodges that were National Grand Lodge “enemies”, was mentioned in the “Early Evening” newspaper of Wilmington Delaware.

MASONIC NEWS PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE M W N G L OF U S OF NORTH AMERICA OF A. A. Y. M., HELD AT WILMINGTON, TH TH DEL. MAY 17 AND 18 [1880] A correspondent furnishes the following account: The Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge of the United States of North America has been holding their sessions in our city for several days, and they report that very important business is being transacted. Representatives of State Grand Lodges from Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Delaware and others participated. They paraded our streets yesterday in large numbers, accompanied by two bands. They are a fine looking and intelligent class of men.

The procession was quite imposing. On of the main features being an open carriage couriering M. W. National Grand Master, Dr. Geo. W. Levere, of Tennessee, and Samuel Van Brakle, the oldest colored mason in America being 85 years of age; he was initiated in 1818, consequently has been a mason 62 years. Seated in the carriage with them was Capt. Wm. D. Matthews, Grand Master for Kansas, and

George W. Daniels, Past Grand Master of Tennessee. The procession, after marching through the principal streets, repaired to Institute Hall where about six hundred persons were gathered. Addresses wee delivered by Most Worshipful National Grand Master Dr. George W. Levere, of Tennessee, Captain Wm. D. Matthews Grand Master of Kansas, and Lewis Jones Grand Master of Delaware. After the addresses they repaired to the National Hall, Ninth and Walnut Streets.

REPORT From the Grand East of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted York Masons in and for the State of Kansas, to the Grand East of the Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Ancient York Masons of the United States of North America: We send these presents greetings: Peace, Prosperity and fraternal Feelings be multiplied among you, etc.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON MASONIC ORIGIN, HISTORY, LAW AND JURIS PRUDENCE. Appointed by the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge for the State of Kansas, at the Grand Annual Communication, held at Leavenworth City, on the 6 day of October, A. L. 5870 A. D. 1870, for the purpose of drawing up a memorial to be presented to the Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge of North th America, in the Triennial Session to be held at Wilmington, Delaware, on the 12 day of May, A. L. 5880, A. D. 1880.

To the Most Worshipful Grand Master, Grand Wardens, Grand Officers and Worshipful Members of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge in and or the State of Kansas: We, your Committee appointed on Masonic Origin, History, Law and Jurisprudence, for the purpose of presenting a memorial to the Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge of the United States of North America – [two words unreadable] what we, the members of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge, consider to be indispensable to the credibility, prosperity and advancement among us, as Masons of Color of the Royal Craft in this country, beg leave to submit the following report; First – We, your committee, have had under consideration, and carefully examined the same, all, or nearly all, of the most important Masonic law books which have been and are now used among the Craft in this and other countries. But, for want of time and space, it is needless to name them all; therefore your committee only deem it necessary to call the attention of this Grand Body to a few of the most important Masonic authorities in reference to this most important matter, namely: Masonic Registry of the World, Chase’s Digest of Masonic Law, Freemasons’ Monitor, Mackey’s Jurisprudence, Preston’s Illustration of Freemasonry, General Ahiman Rezon, Sickles and Morris which all the above named Masonic authorities, we your committee, and in the works composed, written and published by our white brethren of the Craft, and they have spared neither time nor pains to carefully legislate. Making rituals and Masonic laws for the labiality, elevation and advancement of Freemasonry among themselves, while, at the same time, there seem to be nothing, or nearly nothing said or done by them in reference to the recognition, elevation and the advancement of Freemasonry among us as Masons of color in the United States. Indeed it is a matter of fact, without capability of contradiction, most peculiar is it upon the part of some of our white brethren of the Craft, especially those in this country, how they carefully ignore the legal and Masonic rights of the colored Masons in this country, when they are by common origin yoke fellows. Your committee, therefore find it difficult to conceive by what Masonic rule, boundary or authority of right have our white brethren asked since the Revolutionary War that should justify them as Masons in making laws and regulations to establish their legal Masonic status and elevate themselves in the mysteries of Ancient Craft Masonry, and at the same do all that they within their power to throw if possible a dark cloud over the legal status of colored masons in this country, whose common origin when rightly understood, is not unlike their own – the whites. Your committee, in consideration of the above facts and it would be a very hard task to prove the true origin and legal status of Freemasonry among us, as masons of color in this

country, if we should adopt as a rule, the Masonic laws and doctrines as published and practiced by our th white brethren in this country since the 8 day of March, 1717.

Therefore, your committee are compelled to look to some other legal source to rebut these false pretensions which have been set up against us on account of prejudice of color, to prevent our advancement and rights as true disciples of Ancient Craft Masonry, and we your committee, are pleased to inform you that have been very careful in checking national Masonic books, the National Masonic Register 4 of Free Masonry owned by our G. Lodge.”

The above quotes, in direct contradiction to what John Hairston presented in his most recent Blog Post, should offer a direct challenge for him to explain. It should also promote him to explain why his un-subdued passions inspired him to challenge the work of esteemed researchers and authors like Brother Alton Roundtree.

Un-subdued Passions, Flawed Logic and Jurisprudence John Hairston went to great lengths to highlight the Proceedings of the 1882 Convention of the Mergers of Bodies in Tennessee to add more straw to his house. He made a point to say that National Grand Master George Washington Levere was an expelled Mason. He also went to great lengths to show that George Washington Levere abandoned his post. There is no documentation in the literature that suggests that the NGL suspended NGM Levere. Hairston tried to lean on the jurisprudence of the National Grand Lodge Constitution of 1874 in which he quoted: “General Regulations, Article I and II: Article 1: Every officer and member of the N. G. Lodge MUST BE A MEMBER of a SUBORDINATE LODGE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION of THE N.G. LODGE. Article II: NO BROTHER, resident in the vicinity of a Lodge, and who is not a member of some Lodge, shall be permitted to visit the N. G. Lodge except by special invitation.”

This logic is part of yet another straw man argument. To lose a Grand Master (if the NGL ever did) is covered in probably every Grand Lodge in the known world. Hairston in his passion simply made an omission in the NGL Constitution or he simply chose to mislead his readers and fans. He conveniently chose to leave out Article XIV “Of Succession” which clearly should let readers know whether the National Grand Master completes his term, or not, the National Grand Lodge does not cease to exist. The Article is quoted as such: Article XIV OF SUCCESSIONS In all cases of the absence of any officer in the M. W. N. Grand Lodge, the officer next in rank shall succeed his superior, unless, through courtesy, said officer should decline in favor of a Past superior officer present. And, in case of the absence of all the officers from any legal meeting, the members 5 present, according to seniority and ability, shall fill the several offices.

Revisiting The Old Strawman Argument John Hairston still stands firm to his argument that the 1878 Delaware Convention was a National Grand Lodge Session and that the 1878 Convention the power to shutdown the National Grand Lodge. Again if John Hairston would simply consult his own “PHA” Proceedings, he would draw different conclusions.

1877 – The Independent Grand Lodge of Kentucky (now MWPHGL of KY) correctly stated that a convention that included independent Grand Lodges could not shutdown the National Grand Lodge.

It is the opinion of this Grand Lodge that the N.G. L. can only be abolished by a convention of the grand lodges which formed her, and those since, and adhering to her authority; as it is not customary for an institution of such universality and magnitude to make provisions for its own dissolution, but rather for its 6 perpetuation.

J. C. Corbin, one of the staunchest opponents of the National Grand Lodge said the following: “Some Masonic writers hold that the Wilmington Convention served the purpose of this declaration. We dissent, holding that it was not in the power of that convention to dissolve the National Grand Lodge, 7 although such might have been contemplated by that august body.

Maybe Hairston will revisit his position and “honestly” write with a sense of integrity. Time will indeed tell.

The National Grand Lodge, The mid-1880s and The Georgia Boys In conversation with Alton Roundtree, he said the following regarding John Hairston’s most recent Blog post: “He is operating with limited resources.” I must say that I disagree with Brother Roundtree on this assessment. If Hairston was committed to the Facts regarding the National Grand Lodge and its continued existence, he would have plenty resources. However because he is committed and vested in his position, he chooses to ignore facts in plain view that contradicts. His position of the supposed “hiatus” of the National Grand Lodge in the 1880s would have been killed if he would have simply consulted his Georgia Boys.

Introducing the Georgia Boys The Georgia Boys are John Hairston’s biggest Cheerleaders and like him are pseudo-researchers as well and part of the research community who stand lock step with Hairston’s ridiculous historical theories. The Georgia Boys consist of the Grand Historian of the MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Georgia, his trusted assistant and an overzealous Past Grand Historian who confessed to littering car windshields with “Get Healed” flyers outside of a PHO Grand Lodge building. This group of angered dysfunctional researchers, are more concerned with name calling, slander and other Masonic mis-conduct than they are about putting in quality Masonic research. The reason the Georgia Boys are important in this piece is because they must have withheld important information from Hairston. It is important to note that the 1883 Triennial Session of the National Grand Lodge was documented by the Independent Grand Lodge of Connecticut (now MWPHGL of 8 Connecticut). It may be asked, “What does Connecticut have to do with the Georgia Boys?”. The Georgia Boys should have, as good Masons, whispered wise counsel to John Hairston before writing his Roundtree attack blog. If they would have, John Hairston would have received a very healthy education. The following was written to the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Georgia (the GL which the Georgia Boys claim) in 1885 and serves as even further proof the National Grand Lodge was alive and functioning.

HARTFORD, CONN., September 3, 1885 Brother W. E. Terry: Dear Sir and Brother.–Some time ago your Grand Lodge exchanged representatives, our Grand Master supposing at the time that he was in communication with the Sovereign Grand Lodge of Georgia. But since that time he has been informed different, having received a letter from the Grand Lodge of the State. And not wishing to recognize the National Compact he has requested me to ask for the return of the commission to the representative in the State of Georgia for the State of Connecticut, as I return to you for him the commission of Brother Rose as your representative near the Grand East of Connecticut. Trusting that before a great while there will be only one Grand Lodge in your State so that we can work in harmony and peace.

Yours fraternally, W. H. MITCHELL 9 Chairman Committee Foreign Correspondence

So you have Connecticut, as mentioned in the above quote, withdrawing recognition of the Grand Lodge of Georgia for suspected them being a member of the National Compact. Why would a Grand Lodge suspect Georgia to be a member of a National Grand lodge that was not active? To go even further into the Proceedings of the Georgia Boys, one of the National Grand Lodge’s staunchest opponents was corresponding as to the existence of the National Grand Lodge.

PINE BLUFF, ARK., April 15, 1885.

W. E. Terry: Dear Sir and Bro.:–Your favor of 7 th is at hand and contents noted, also proceedings of 1884, for which please accept thanks. I will refer the communication at once to our Grand Master, and in due time notify you of his action. I may, however, state at once that I have once before made an attempt to learn whether or not your G. L. Admits that it is a subordinate of he “N. G. Lodge,” usually styled the “National Compact.” or if it asserts its sovereignty. Please inform me upon this point, as it has an important bearing in the matter of exchanging representatives. I mention this as a matter of official duty, as I sincerely hope that there may arise no obstacle to prevent the most friendly relations between our respective Grand Bodies.

Yours fraternally, J. C. Corbin 10 Grand Secretary The Georgia Boys could have easily provided this information to John Hairston but either forgot it existed or chose to hide it. As a matter of fact, this author provided these proceedings to the current Grand Historian of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge when he was a mere novice at Masonic research. Again there was surely plenty of activity in correspondence of a body that was on “hiatus”. With friends like the Georgia Boys, who needs enemies?

Who Agrees With John Hairston John Hairston, known as the social media king of the straw man argument has resorted to taking the straw to build a house of irresponsible Masonic pseudo research to project a LIE that the National Grand Lodge shut down. It should be duly noted that many PUBLISHED and esteemed researchers disagree with him.

Published Authors and Researchers That Claim the National Grand Lodge Never Shut Down Alton Roundtree, “Out of the Shadows” 2007 and “The National Grand Lodge & Prince Hall Freemasonry: The Untold Truth” Joseph Walkes @ Prince Hall Conference of Grand Masters 2001 Winston-Salem, NC, whom at one point shared John Hairston’s position, corrected himself (as good researchers do) stating the following: By 1877 we were under the impression that the National Grand Lodge had died, as all of the bodies which was a part of the Compact had left it. However the 1877 and 1878 proceedings of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ohio prove without a shadow of a doubt that the National Grand Lodge was not dissolved in 1877 but was alive and active. After its triennial session of the National Grand Lodge in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 16 to 18 May 1877, it addressed a letter to all of the African-American Grand Lodges both states that was under the National and those called "State Rights" or independent Grand Lodge, now called Prince Hall Grand Lodges, inviting them all to send delegates to a National Convention to be held in Wilmington, Delaware, in May 1878 for the purpose of discussing and if possible settling the difference between the National and the so called "States Right" factions. A copy of this letter appears in the 1877 Proceedings of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ohio. Ohio sent delegates to this convention in Wilmington.

Two newspapers printed accounts of both the 1877 and 1880 sessions (this was the Pittsburgh Commercial 11 Gazette, 18 May 1877 and Every Evening, Wilmington, Delaware, 13 May 1880.)

Ed Cussick, “ The National Grand Lodge” by Matthew Brock 1980 Henry Wilson Coil & John M. Sherman “A Documentary Account of Prince Hall and Other Black Fraternal Orders” 1982 Friendly Advice Conclusion This work, in the hopes of the author, will provide a cautionary tale to those who engage in Prince Hall Masonic Research to hopefully improve their writing and presentation to hopefully provide a new generation of scholarly work that will inspire more to participate in research. The case study is a presentation made by one John Hairston, a Masonic Blogger, whom, in rhetorical laced blog posts, categorizes himself as a "researcher". This blogger, in his massive posts, clearly exposes his lack of a clear and coherent research presentation. I will offer a bit of advice in closure. Again passion is great in inspiring what we all as researchers should be doing but when it is not governed by the compass, it is the tool for vices. I would hope this paper will be the inspiration for improvement.

Please stray from writing in the first person It is alleged that John Hairston is a reverend or minister of a Church Congregation. As with all good "preachers" in any good sermon, they tend to concentrate the focus to their flock, because the only focus is their "believing". In good research papers, the use of the words such as "I believe" and other first person writing is a toxic "no-no" outside of conclusions in research presentations. Using these first person arguments makes one seem "preachy" and gives an appearance of presentation to a specific as opposed to a universal audience.

An Acknowledgement of Credit but with Strong Criticism John Hairston truly deserves credit for being confident enough to write on the topics of Prince Hall Masonic History. This should be commended because it is truly lacking in Prince Hall Freemasonry. In fact, many of those who have been appointed Grand Lodge Historians do not attempt to write at all. This author, whom is a Georgia Historian, has produced more scholarly writings than the Grand Historian of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Georgia, his assistant and the most recent Past Grand Lodge Historian. The essential question however with regards to John Hairston is the audience. John's research writings has been exclusive to blogging and social media. In his most recent blog, he appeared to attack best selling Masonic Author Alton Roundtree and his most recent book, "The National Grand Lodge and Prince Hall Freemasonry: The Untold Truth". In his latest blog, in his very schizophrenic style, he attempted to review Bro. Roundtree's book, losing focus(as usual) from the the main topic of what was to be debated. This is very annoying and difficult to read. It makes a simple response turn into babble. As a PHA Freemason, John Hairston, has access to many Mainstream Research Societies and Lodges that more than welcome scholarly research writings. To this date, he has contributed nothing to these organization's publications. As a matter of fact, none of his writings have made any issues of The Phylaxis Magazine, which is the official research organization of his affiliation. He vehemently criticized Alton Roundtree's work, but has not written a review of his book. The Phylaxis Magazine, which is, like other research group's presentations are starved for articles and writings, could use John Hairston's contributions. He however chooses to continue to be a preacher to his own choir of failed PHA "appointed" Grand Historians to rally the base to make them feel a bit more important.

References:

1

The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted of Maryland v. Wm. F. Green, Grand Master of the Free and Accepted th York Masons, et al, Court of Appeals of Maryland, Decided June 17 1920 2

Proceedings Grand Lodge of Ohio, 1880, Circlevile, OH, pp. 66-67 Proceedings Grand Lodge of Missouri, 1880, p. 34 4 “Every Evening News”, Wilmington, Delaware, May 1880 5 National Grand Lodge Constitution, 1874 6 Proceedings of the Independent Grand Lodge of Kentucky 1877 7 Proceedings Grand Lodge of Arkansas, 1886, p. 76 8 Proceedings Grand Lodge of Connecticut, 1884 9 Proceedings Grand Lodge of Georgia, 1885, p. 21 10 Ibid, pp. 19-20 11 Walkes, J. Speech to the Prince Hall Conferece of Grand Masters, 2001 3