the masonic contribution to the creation of a new nation
TRANSCRIPT
Masons Building America The Masonic Contribution to the Creation
of a New Nation
Esther de Haan
Faculty of Humanities
University of Amsterdam
10075216
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
Secondary Sources ................................................................................................................ 58
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,
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/takingliberties/staritems/510billofrights.html.
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
Charles Louis de Secondat, The Complete Works of M. De Montesquieu (London: T. Evans, 1777).
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 Press, 1940).
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. “contribute,” accessed August 11, 2015, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contribute.
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
Ibid.
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
Wood, Empire of Liberty, 51.
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 Ibid.
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 Taylor, “United States History: Timeline, 1700-1800.”
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
Ibid.
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 David Stevenson, The Origins of Freemasonry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 13.
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 Stevenson, 15.
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
(Woodbridge, UK: York University Press, 2000), 16.
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 Cooke MS, lines 390-406.
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 Cooke MS, lines 655-7.
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
Ibid., 88.
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; 203; 364.
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
Ibid., 70.
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
Ibid.
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
Ibid.
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 Crowninshield Smith (Boston: Abel Bowen, 1826), 242.
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. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/boston_tea_party.html.
28
now as a visitor, meeting soldier brethren on the level and now as Master sitting in the Oriental chair and bringing a candidate to Masonic light… Lodge meetings were sometimes held in officers’ tents and sometimes … in a permanent building specially erected for that purpose. And so active were these military Masons that a movement was started and several conventions held at Morristown with a view of establishing an American General Grand Lodge and making Washington Grand Master of the United States.47
Washington never accepted the offer of taking this post. As I said before, these military
lodges “promoted fellowship and solidarity in the ranks and sympathy between officers and
men;” in an army where “the humblest private might sit in lodge on a level with the
Commander-in-Chief” there was a “spirit of self-sacrifice, mutual helpfulness and devotion …
which no hireling soldiery could have,” and this made that since “the distinctions or rank
were lost in the ties of brotherhood, even the sufferings of that terrible winter at Valley
Forge might be made endurable.”48
Freemasonry was also part of the reason that France ended up supporting the
Americans. Benjamin Franklin was able to get access to King Louis XVI through the “‘Lodge of
the Nine Muses,’ which he often attended.”49 It was why masons on both sides took care of
the prisoners of war who turned out to be masons as well. British masons made sure that
captured American masons were treated well and vice versa, as can be seen when the British
buried the Baron de Kalb with masonic rites “and military honors.”50 The Americans helped
the British as well, as can be seen in the case of Lodge Unity in 1779. This was a military
lodge and part of the “17th foot of the British army.”51 While the regiment was away fighting
the Lodge’s constitution and jewels were lost to the Americans, but they were “returned to
it by Col. Parsons of the American Union Lodge,” in other words an American mason. He
included a letter that illustrates the relationship between masons very well:
Brethren: when the ambition of monarchs or jarring interest of contending States, call forth their subjects to war, as Masons we are disarmed of that resentment which stimulates to undistinguished desolation; and however our political sentiments may impel us in the public dispute, we are still brethren, and (our professional duty apart) ought to promote the happiness and
47
Lobingier, “Freemasonry in the American Revolution,” 62-3. 48
Ibid., 63. 49
Ibid., 68. 50
Ibid., 65. 51
Ibid., 66.
29
advance the weal of each other. Accept therefore, at the hands of a Brother, the Constitution of the Lodge Unity, no. 18, to be held in the 17th British Regiment, which your late misfortunes have put in my power to restore to you.52
In other words; no matter what sides they are on or what they believe, masons always treat
one another with respect. A very important aspect of freemasonry is that freemasons look
for the bonds between people and try to remove the things that divide them.
52
Samuel H. Parsons, “Letter to Lodge Unity,” (1779), quoted in Christopher Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013), 86.
30
The Masonic Contribution
Although it is clear now that there was masonic activity in the American colonies during the
eighteenth century, the question as to what extent freemasonry contributed anything to the
major events surrounding the American Revolution and the US Constitution for example still
stands.
Simple statistics show that about one third of the men who signed the Constitution
were freemasons.1 Out of 74 generals in the Continental Army between 1775 and 1783 33
men were freemasons.2 In the sixth volume of one of the first scholarly histories of
freemasonry, Robert Freke Gould’s 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, Gould gives some statistics on how many lodges were recognized in the US
between 1734 and 1789. There were a total of 91 lodges that were recognized by either the
Grand Lodge of England, Scotland, Ireland, France, or Kilwinning, the oldest Scottish lodge
which had the right to recognize lodges as well.3 Since these lodges are and were very
secretive of their members and how many members they had, it is impossible to accurately
say how many masons there were during the American Revolution. However, Steven C.
Bullock refers to one average lodge in Boston, St. Andrew’s, as having an average of 120
members between 1752 and 1775.4 Taking that as the average number of members for all
American lodges, you end up with an average of 10,920 freemasons between 1734 and
1789, when the lodges were founded that Gould writes about. Since the population of the
US between 1776 and 1789 was between 2.5 million and 3,804,342 people, an average of
around 3.1 million, this means that about 0.35 percent of the total population, which
includes women and children, was freemason during the American Revolution.5 Bullock is
able to give the occupations of the freemasons divided in five groups of merchant,
professional, artisan, retailer, and seagoing in the lodge in Boston mentioned before. The
1 Paul M. Bessel, “Freemasons among the US Founding Fathers,” Bessel.org, accessed August 11, 2015,
http://www.bessel.org/foundmas.htm. 2 Bessel, “Freemasons among the US Founding Fathers.”
3 Gould, 448-55.
4 Bullock, 93.
5 J.N. Kish, “U.S. Population 1776 to Present,” Google Fusion Tables, last modified August 4, 2010, accessed
August 11, 2015, https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=225439#rows:id=1.
31
merchant, artisan, and seagoing groups rank highest with 26.7 percent, 28.3 percent, and
36.7 percent respectively, while the professional and retailer groups are rare amongst these
masons with 4.2 percent and 3.3 percent respectively.6 Bullock also gives the statistics for
three other lodges and although the professional group has a higher percentage in the other
lodges the rest of the groups are similarly spread to the percentages of St. Andrew’s Lodge in
Boston. This is interesting because it shows that there is no one occupation that is more
important to American freemasonry and the occupations are rather spread out over the
middle classes of society.
However, one thing jumps out in the statistics: in all of the major events, such as the
American Revolution and the signing of the US Constitution, a significant number of the men
involved were freemasons.7 This has to do with the kind of people freemasonry attracts:
they are critical of their surroundings, free thinkers, are curious about scientific
development, and interested in improving society and humanity. This goes for most
Enlightenment thinkers, but what is special about the freemasonry is that it has the added
quality of an enormous and well-oiled network across the globe, or a “vast chain extending
round the whole globe”, even in the eighteenth century.8 This chain or web was created
“first and foremost [by] Masonic lodges in regiments of the British Army [which] took the
brotherhood to all parts of the empire”.9 This was done by “traveling warrants” which were
developed by the Grand Lodge of Ireland. These traveling warrants
accompanied their peripatetic regiments and gave them the authority to hold lodge meetings anywhere in the world. Up to this point lodges throughout the British Isles had been identified with a particular locality—a town or even a specific tavern… Military lodges did more than give Freemasonry a fleeting presence in the empire’s colonies; they were also responsible for the permanent establishment of the brotherhood in many colonies. Often when a regiment left an area civilians who had been affiliated with its lodge would petition a British grand lodge for a warrant to constitute a new lodge.10
This is a likely way freemasonry was brought to the American colonies. Another way was
through colonists
6 Bullock, 94.
7 Bessel.
8 Harland-Jacobs, “Hands across the Sea,” 239.
9 Ibid., 241.
10 Ibid., 241-2.
32
who had been exposed to Freemasonry by regimental lodges or who sought to transplant an institution that had been a part of their lives in the British Isles took it upon themselves to establish officially sanctioned lodges in their new homes. The most direct way to secure the authority to form a new lodge was to petition to one of the British grand lodges, explain the circumstances in the colony, and respectfully request a warrant. In most cases the grand lodge did not hesitate to send the warrant for a new lodge to be established under its jurisdiction.11
The third way was through Provincial Grand Masters, who “served as the grand lodge’s
representative in a locality, much as a colonial governor represented the Crown abroad, and
he had the power to constitute new lodges in his jurisdiction”.12 These Provincial Grand
Masters were appointed by the British Grand Lodges in the colonies “wherever a strong
Masonic presence had emerged or wherever they anticipated that Freemasonry would find
fertile ground”.13 The first Provincial Grand Master in the American colonies was Daniel
Coxe, although he was replaced by Henry Price who became Provincial Grand Master of
“New England and dominions and territories thereunto belonging.”14
This network or chain was a consequence of the way freemasonry was organized. As
was explained before, freemasons came together in lodges. This was done regularly, usually
once a month. During these meetings the masons discussed a myriad of subjects; from
philosophical problems to their daily lives to the goings-on in their lodge. They held elections
in these lodges to elect their officers, which included the Worshipful Master, who was the
president of the lodge, the Senior and Junior Wardens, who are the second and third in
command and may open and close the lodge in case the Worshipful Master is unable to
attend, the Treasurer, who keeps track of the money, and the Secretary, who, among other
things, keeps the records, communicates with other lodges, and takes the minutes of the
meetings.15 As a freemason you were usually connected to a local lodge; however, when a
freemason traveled to a different place he could visit the lodge there to attend their
meeting. This was called visitation. As long as you could prove you were a mason, you were
welcome anywhere, even if you did not know anyone from that lodge. This proof came in
11
Ibid., 242. 12
Ibid., 243. 13
Ibid., 242. 14
Bullock, 47. 15
Christopher Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013), 96-101.
33
the form of signs, words, and the certificate a mason receives when he is accepted. If you
could prove you were a legitimate mason you could not just visit other lodges, but you could
also depend upon those lodges if anything should happen to you. As Jessica Harland-Jacobs
puts it: “Brethren in good standing could call on the Masonic network wherever they
happened to be… Membership in the brotherhood gave men ‘a claim on the help and
sympathy of Freemasons in all parts of the world. In lodges, … we have a right not only to a
friendly greeting, but to a brotherly welcome and such assistance as our circumstances
require and justify’.”16 She goes on to explain how “the Masonic network functioned to fulfill
the emotional, spiritual, intellectual, social, and material needs of members. The
brotherhood took care of a member’s emotional well-being by comforting men who found
themselves in totally unfamiliar surroundings”, by the similar rituals and organization of all
lodges for example.17 The spiritual needs were fulfilled by offering an “ecumenical religious
experience” since freemasonry encouraged the bringing together of men of various
religions.18 The intellectual needs were satisfied by giving a mason “the opportunity to sate
his curiosity and hone his intellect” through exposing “brethren—many of whom had only
the rudiments of an education—to ancient languages, texts, and mysteries. The lodge
provided the setting for the exploration of the obscure and for the teaching of lessons
through allegory and symbolism.”19 However, freemasonry’s “success was most likely
ensured by its attention to their social needs. The Masonic lodge provided its members with
a convivial atmosphere, a place where men could relax, establish friendships, and share food
and drink.”20 A mason was obliged to help his fellow-mason in need, as described in the
Constitutions from 1723:
If you discover him to be a true and genuine Brother, you are to respect him accordingly; and if he is in want, you must relieve him if you can, or else direct him how he may be reliev’d: You must employ him some Days, or else recommend him to be employ’d. But you are not charged to do beyond your Ability, only to prefer a poor Brother, that is a good Man and true, before any other poor People in the same Circumstances. FINALLY, All these CHARGES you are to observe, and also those that shall be communicated to you in another way; cultivating BROTHERLY-LOVE, … avoiding all Wrangling and Quarreling, all
16
Harland-Jacobs, 244. 17
Ibid. 18
Ibid., 245. 19
Ibid. 20
Ibid.
34
Slander and Backbiting, nor permitting others to slander any honest Brother, but defending his Character, and doing him all good Offices, as far as is consistent with your Honour and Safety, and no farther.21
This is how freemasonry fulfilled a mason’s material needs: through social security. All of this
together, the tending to all these needs for every mason, no matter where they were or
what their background was, created a kind of organization that facilitated travel and created
the network that opened doors to strangers that would otherwise have been kept closed. An
example of this is the way Gilbert du Motier de Lafayette, otherwise known as the Marquis
de Lafayette, or simply Lafayette, received the news about the American Revolution and
how he ended up becoming one of George Washington’s closest friends.
Born September 6, 1757 Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de Lafayette,
or in short Marquis de Lafayette was only nineteen years of age when he traveled to the
American colonies to volunteer in their army to fight against the British in the American
Revolution. He was an orphan, having lost his father at the age of two and both his mother
and his grandfather in the same year at the age of twelve, leaving no blood relatives.
Lafayette received most of his early education in Auvergne where he was born. In 1770, the
same year of his mother’s and grandfather’s passing, Lafayette was sent to the Collège du
Plessis in Paris to continue his education, where, in keeps with family tradition, he was
trained to become a military officer. At the age of thirteen he was commissioned the rank of
sous-lieutenant with the Black Musketeers, the royal cavalry or dragoons, which was mostly
a ceremonial title, as he still needed to finish his studies. He married Marie Adrienne
Françoise de Noailles, daughter of family friend the Duc d’Ayen at the age of sixteen.
Lafayette moved to Versailles to live with his new wife at his father-in-law’s house and he
continued his military education at the riding school in Versailles and at the Académie de
Versailles. He also received the rank of lieutenant in the Noailles Dragoons where he met
Charles-François de Broglie, Marquis de Ruffec, during a training camp in Metz. At the age of
eighteen Lafayette
received his captaincy and rank in the Noailles Dragoons, and returned to Paris to his wife… A few days later, Lafayette, Noailles, and Ségur joined a Masonic lodge in Paris… Lafayette embraced his new fraternity with all his
21
A.G.H. Bachrach and G.M. van Veen, De Oude Plichten: The Old Charges (Winterswijk: Maçonnieke Stichting Ritus en Tempelbouw, 1987), 26-28.
35
heart. The orphaned country boy with no brothers had found an entire brotherhood—each a brother to him and he a brother to each. De Broglie invited Lafayette and other Freemasons to dine with the Duke of Gloucester, the younger brother of English king George III. An outspoken foe of his brother’s policies in the American colonies, Gloucester fired Lafayette’s chivalric—and, now, Masonic—imagination with descriptions of Americans as “a people fighting for liberty.” 22
Lafayette immediately planned to go to the American colonies and invited his friends the
Viscount de Noailles and the Count Ségur to join him on this grand adventure. Since they
depended upon their families’ money they had to ask permission to go, which they were not
granted. This left Lafayette on his own, since he had sole control over his family’s funds. He
asked de Broglie for advice and help, but de Broglie felt the idea was too dangerous and
wanted to discourage Lafayette from going. When Lafayette did not listen, de Broglie told
him: “I have seen your uncle die in the wars of Italy, I witnessed your father’s death at the
battle of Minden, and I will not be accessory to the ruin of the only remaining branch of the
family.”23 Finding that he could not stop Lafayette from going, de Broglie told him to go to
the Baron De Kalb, a fellow freemason, “who he knew was seeking an opportunity to go to
America, and whose experience and counsels might be valuable.”24 It was the Baron De Kalb
who directed Lafayette to Silas Deane, another freemason who was an American diplomat
sent to France to lobby for French aid to the American Revolution. Deane had already
“dispatched privately to America some old arms, which were of little use, and some young
officers, who did but little good”, as by this time “hundreds of officers lined up each day to
volunteer in the American Revolution and avenge the French army’s humiliation by the
British in the Seven Years’ War, a dozen years earlier.”25 However, when the British found
out about the French aiding the Americans in their fight, they threatened with a war against
the French, which the “bankrupt French economy could not afford.”26 So “when the English
ambassador spoke to our court, it denied having sent any cargoes, ordered those that were
22
Harlow Giles Unger, Lafayette (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002), 15. 23
Jared Sparks, The Writings of George Washington; Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the Original Manuscripts, with a Life of the Author, Notes, and Illustrations (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1847), 446. 24
Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, 446. 25
Unger, Lafayette, 15. 26
Ibid., 17.
36
preparing to be discharged, and dismissed from our ports all American privateers.”27
Lafayette was sent to London in the hopes that he would be convinced of the cause of the
British. Even though he met King George III and was shown the full might of the British
Empire, Lafayette could not be discouraged from going through with his plans. After
receiving a letter from Lafayette in which he explained he still wanted to help the Americans,
Lafayette’s own father-in-law, the Duc d’Ayen, even asked King Louis XVI to issue a decree
that forbade French officers to serve in the American army, specifically naming Lafayette.
This decree was issued and it ordered all French officers who arrived in the American
colonies, “notably monsieur le marquis de la Fayette, to leave immediately and return to
France.”28 All of this made it more difficult for Lafayette to go to America, but with the help
of Deane and Benjamin Franklin, he was able to secretly purchase a ship to sail to the
American colonies. He had to leave from Bordeaux, since he could not risk for his plans to be
uncovered before he left. Lafayette set sail to America in April of 1777 and seven weeks
later, “after having encountered … various perils and chances, he arrived at Georgetown, in
Carolina.”29 He traveled to Philadelphia to offer his services to the American army. The
Americans had been overwhelmed by French officers, sent by Deane, who had no
experience and did not speak any English. Lafayette describes them in his Memoirs:
the Americans were displeased with the pretensions, and disgusted with the conduct, of many Frenchmen; the imprudent selections they had in some cases made, the extreme boldness of some foreign adventurers, the jealousy of the army, and strong national prejudices, all contributed to confound disinterested zeal with private ambition, and talents with quackery. Supported by the promises which had been given by Mr. Deane, a numerous band of foreigners besieged the congress; their chief was a clever but very imprudent man, and although a good officer, his excessive vanity amounted almost to madness… Every day such crowds arrived, that the congress had finally adopted the plan of not listening to any stranger.30
This led to Congress’ refusal to accept Lafayette’s help, but through his masonic connections
Lafayette was able to send a note to Congress which read: “After the sacrifices I have made, I
27
Gilbert du Motier de Lafayette, Memoirs : Correspondence and Manuscripts of General Lafayette (New York: Craighead and Allen, 1837), 7. 28
Henri Doniol, Histoire de la Participation de la France à l’Établissement des États-Unis d’Amérique (Paris : Imprimerie Nationale, 1886), 395. 29
Lafayette, Memoirs, 14. 30
Ibid., 16-7.
37
have the right to exact two favours: one is, to serve at my own expense,—the other is, to
serve at first as volunteer.”31 Congress gave him the rank of Major-General, which was the
highest rank in the American army, except for the Commander-in-Chief, but no men under
his command, not until he had proven himself. Lafayette met George Washington shortly
thereafter, at a dinner with several other members of Congress. Although he did not think
much of Lafayette at first, after hearing Lafayette was a mason, Washington immediately
accepted that Lafayette must be a serious young man who really wanted to help them.
Washington invited Lafayette to stay at his quarters, which Lafayette did until he “was
appointed to the command of a division.”32 Washington already called Lafayette “my dear
Marquis,” while referring to himself as “your affectionate friend and servant,” after knowing
Lafayette for barely a year.33 All of Lafayette’s endeavors were facilitated by the masonic
“chain extending round the whole globe”, just like freemasonry had done for many others.
Next to having a great network that all masons could depend upon, freemasonry also
held up several ideals that turned out to be the cornerstones upon which the United States
were built. This mental legacy was best portrayed by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and The
American Crisis and by the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which
was largely drafted by Lafayette with the help of Thomas Jefferson. This document, together
with the US Constitution, the US Declaration of Independence, and the US Bill of Rights, was
used as a basis for the human rights list of the United Nations, and it was and still is part of
the French Constitution ever since 1789, through all the different types of government
France has had since the French Revolution. Lafayette and Jefferson took their ideas from
Enlightenment thinking and the American Revolution. They used the idea of the “separation
of powers” and “checks and balances” from Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, the “natural law”
and “natural rights” from John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government and Thomas Hobbes’s
Leviathan, the ideas of “individualism”, the “general will”, and the “social contract” from
Rousseau, and they used the Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by George Mason in
1776, which was based on the English Bill of Rights from 1689, and Jefferson’s own drafts of
the American Declaration of Independence to create the Declaration of the Rights of Man
31
Ibid., 17. 32
Ibid., 74. 33
Worthington Chauncey Ford, The Writings of George Washington (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890), 7: 14.
38
and the Citizen.34 It contains seventeen articles, or rights, and a preamble which introduces
the articles and describes the rights that are set out in the Declaration as “the natural,
unalienable and sacred rights of man” and “simple and incontestable principles”.35 The rights
described in the Declaration are not just based on principles that are part of the
Enlightenment, but those principles are masonic too. Article two of the Declaration
mentions the “natural and imprescriptible rights of Man” which are “Liberty, Property,
Safety and Resistance to Oppression”, all both Enlightenment and masonic “rights” which
can be traced back to Locke’s “life, health, liberty, or possessions” which are at the core of
everyone’s rights and duties to one another.36
As a product of the Enlightenment and with so many influential Enlightenment
philosophers who were also masons, there is a significant overlap between masonic and
Enlightenment principles. Out of the philosophers mentioned before Montesquieu,
Rousseau, and Locke were all freemasons. Most members of the Royal Society of London
were freemasons, as were its founders. So it is hard to tell where the Enlightenment stops
and freemasonry begins. This also goes for men such as Thomas Paine, who may or may not
have been a mason, but who had close contact with many masons. Paine was the son of a
stay-maker in Thetford, England. He had been forced to leave school early to learn his
father’s trade, although he never became a stay-maker himself. Instead, after trying several
other occupations, Paine met Benjamin Franklin, a freemason, in London in 1774 and ended
up in the American colonies where he would become one of the most influential writers of
the American Revolution by publishing pamphlets such as The American Crisis and Common
Sense. The American Crisis actually consists of several separately published political
pamphlets called “The Crisis” numbers I through XIII, with the fourteenth called “A
Supernumerary Crisis”, and several others without a number. Several of the “Crisis”
pamphlets were addressed to a specific person or group of people, such as the British
General Howe, the “Inhabitants of America”, and the “People of England”. Especially the
34
Charles Louis de Secondat, The Complete Works of M. De Montesquieu (London: T. Evans, 1777); John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, ed. Thomas Hollis (London: A. Miller et al., 1764); Thomas Hobbes, Hobbes’s Leviathan Reprinted from the Edition of 1651 with an Essay by the Late W.G. Pogson Smith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909); Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, trans. G.D.H. Cole (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1923). 35
Gilbert du Motier de Lafayette, “Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 26 August 1789,” Conseil Constitutionel, last modified 2002, accessed August 11, 2015, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/english/constitution/declaration-of-human-and-civic-rights-of-26-august-1789.105305.html. 36
Locke, 98.
39
“Crisis No. I” had an important role, as it contains one of the most famous sentences from
The American Crisis, namely: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier
and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he
that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell is not
easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the
more glorious the triumph.”37 Paine had volunteered as an aide-de-camp to General
Nathanael Greene during Washington’s retreat across New Jersey and the Delaware in 1776,
during which time he had reported on what he had seen.38 After returning to Philadelphia
Paine started writing “Crisis No. I” which was published on December 19, 1776 and which,
thanks to the everyday language and the fiery style of writing used throughout The American
Crisis, had a great influence on the soldiers’ morale before the Battle of Trenton of
December 26, 1776.39 The opening sentence of “Crisis No. I”, “these are the times that try
men’s souls,” was even used as the “watchword of the movement on Trenton.”40 “The Crisis
No. XIII”, the last numbered “Crisis” which was published April 19, 1783, starts with the
sentence “‘the times that tried men’s souls,’ are over—and the greatest and completest
revolution the world ever knew gloriously and happily accomplished,” thereby marking the
end of the American Revolution and bringing together all the pamphlets.41 All of the “Crisis”
pamphlets were published anonymously and were signed with the pseudonym “Common
Sense.” Paine’s most famous pamphlet is called Common Sense as well. Common Sense was
published right at the start of the American Revolution, on January 10, 1776, and in this text,
Paine combines, among others, Locke’s thoughts on natural law with Montesquieu’s
theories on liberty to create a strong argument for independence from Britain. Paine argues
against the monarchy, specifically the element of hereditary succession, by arguing that
monarchical government has sinful origins and it takes away the natural equality of mankind,
it is “a degradation and lessening of ourselves,” and hereditary succession is even worse, it is
“an insult and imposition on posterity.”42 Paine claims that
37
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, ed. Moncure Daniel Conway (Teddington, UK: The Echo Library, 2006), 7. 38
Jett Conner, “The American Crisis before Crossing the Delaware?” Journal of the American Revolution, last modified February 25, 2015, accessed August 11, 2015, http://allthingsliberty.com/2015/02/american-crisis-before-crossing-the-delaware/. 39
Conner, “The American Crisis before Crossing the Delaware?” 40
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, 7; Moncure Daniel Conway, preface to The American Crisis, by Thomas Paine (Teddington, UK: The Echo Library, 2006), 6. 41
Paine, The American Crisis, 141. 42
Thomas Paine, Common Sense (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), 14.
40
for all men being originally equals, no one by birth, could have a right to set up his own family, in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion.43
Paine argues for independence from Britain by saying that Great Britain did not protect the
colonies from “our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her account,” and that
the colonies will always be dragged into British wars they had nothing to do with.44 Also,
Britain is not America’s mother country, because if it would be, “then the more shame upon
her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their
families.” Instead “Europe, and not England is the parent country of America:” most
colonists had even fled from England to America which “hath been the asylum for the
persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty.”45 Paine even gives an alternative form of
government that can be used when the colonies become independent. Each colony would
be divided into several districts which would send “a proper number of delegates to
congress,” which would meet annually and elect a president each time they meet.46 This
president would be chosen among the delegates from the colony that was selected by
lottery. A selected colony would be removed from the lottery until every colony had been
selected at which point it starts all over again. A three-fifths majority would be needed to
pass a law or elect a president. He proposes a “Continental Conference” to be held by “some
intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that is, between the congress
and the people.”47 This conference would consist of twenty-six members of congress, so two
members from each colony, together with five “representatives of the people at large, to be
chosen in the capital city or town of each province,” so seven representatives for each
colony.48 Together these representatives would create a “Continental Charter, or Charter of
the United Colonies,” which would be a sort of Magna Carta and would secure “freedom and
43
Paine, Common Sense, 14-5. 44
Ibid., 23. 45
Ibid., 24. 46
Ibid., 37-8. 47
Ibid., 38. 48
Ibid.
41
property to all men, and … the free exercise of religion,” and it would lay the foundations for
the new government.49
As was said before, both Lafayette’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen and Paine’s The American Crisis and Common Sense contain examples of masonic
ideals. However, what are these ideals? According to the Dutch Grand Master Willem S.
Meijer the main goals of freemasonry are to become a better person, through personal
awareness, growth, and realization which leads to self-knowledge, a feeling for proportion
and moderation, a brotherly point of view, tolerance, and an appreciation of personal
responsibility, all of which leads to another goal: to building a better world through active,
individual participation in society, all in the interest of your fellow man.50 All masons, diverse
as they are, share a similar ideological orientation: they are “religious” in the broad sense
that they have an understanding of the connection between them and a greater entity, and
a connection between them and their fellow man. At the same time masons are not
dogmatic in their spiritual views: they appreciate others and their convictions, they hold the
same amount of respect for their own convictions as for those of another, and they try to
find a better and clearer understanding of things, even when this will never be full.51 All
masons also share a similar view on society, with the utmost respect for the differences
between those views: they are supporters of individual liberties and human rights, they
appreciate the equality of mankind, regardless of their background, character, or
convictions, they look for the bonds between people and try to remove the things that
divides them, they support others in every possible way, and they strive for a society that
functions like a brotherhood.52 All of this together forms the main ideology that freemasonry
has supported ever since their founding. George Washington refers to masonic ideals in his
letters to other masons and lodges throughout the country, which will be illustrated in the
next chapter.
At the same time freemasonry was a “school of government” as Margaret C. Jacob
puts it.53 Especially the lodges were important, as they “brought onto the Continent
distinctly British forms of governance: constitutions, voting by individual, and sometimes by
49
Ibid., 39. 50
Willem S. Meijer, “Grootoosten 2014: Spiegel en Beeld,” Vrijmetselarij 69, no. 7 (July 2014): 8. 51
Meijer, “Grootoosten 2014,” 8. 52
Ibid. 53
Margaret C. Jacob, The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts and Fictions (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 47.
42
secret ballot, majority rule, elected officers, ‘taxes’ in the form of dues, public oratory, even
courts for settling personal disputes.”54 All of these elements are part of a democracy,
making lodges the practical example of democracy. They were secular, and as “early modern
nations” were being built, this led to “thinking about nations and systems of government,”
not just by philosophers and theorists such as Locke, Montesquieu and Hobbes, but also
“among lesser mortals, state officials themselves, merchants, lawyers, teachers, and the
ever-present aristocracy. Among the earliest freemasons in both Britain and France we
find—not surprisingly—state officials and military officers.”55 This makes it even less
surprising to find so many great names of the Enlightenment among the members of
masonic lodges, as “the earliest English and Scottish freemasons about whom anything
concrete is known—Elias Ashmole, Sir Robert Moray, Robert Clayton, Sir Christopher Wren—
were men of letters or science, army officers, politicians, and architects—all with a stake in
state formation, all in some sense its beneficiaries.”56 However, as Jacob points out,
freemasonry’s use of these democratic principles in the organization of their lodges and
Grand Lodges “could also foster independence and self-reliance among the beneficiaries, …
they could set men to thinking about their capabilities,” even though freemasonry “could
imitate governance quite effectively, on the whole encouraging loyalty to the central
authority.”57
The mental legacy that is exemplified in Lafayette’s Declaration, Jacob’s “school of
government,” and Paine’s two books, is all part of the immaterial version of a contribution
referred to in the introduction, which was about conveying the ideology, values, and
principles through a contribution. The material contribution of freemasonry consisted of the
types of men and the organization described before, but also of tangible things such as the
texts that resulted from the masonic ideology and values such as the Declaration of
Independence and the US Constitution. The cornerstone ceremonies of the US Capitol
Building and the District of Columbia were both masonic rituals and were led by freemasons.
The Bible that was used by George Washington in his inauguration as President of the United
States, and also by several later presidents, was the Lodge Bible of St. John’s Lodge No. 1 in
54
Jacob, The Origins of Freemasonry, 48. 55
Ibid., 49. 56
Ibid., 50. 57
Ibid., 52.
43
New York City.58 The masonic processions and parades that took place in cities such as
Boston, Philadelphia and New York were often described in minute detail in the newspapers
of those cities and regions. In these articles all participants were named, the reasons for the
procession were described, and all the uniforms and regalia used were described, showing
that freemasonry was an accepted part of society.59 The last example of the material
contribution is the position in society the freemasons held. More often than not, masons
held high and important positions, such as Peyton Randolph who was the last Provincial
Grand Master of Virginia and the first president of the Continental Congress of 1774.60 His
nephew, Edmund Randolph was the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge in Virginia, Governor
of Virginia and a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.61 James Jackson was the
Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Georgia and “its first elected Governor.”62 Richard
Caswell was the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and also its Governor,
as was William R. Davie a couple of years later.63 John Sullivan was Governor of New
Hampshire and also the Grand Master of its Grand Lodge, and there are many more
examples that could be given.64
58
Carl Claudy, “Facts About George Washington, Master Mason,” in Of George Washington: A Collection of Masonic Papers, ed. Michael R. Poll (New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2009), 3. 59
Claudy, “Facts about George Washington, Master Mason,” 8. 60
Notes, “The Masonic Compeers of Washington,” 48. 61
Ibid. 62
Ibid. 63
Ibid., 49. 64
Ibid.
44
George Washington
As the first President of the United States of America, Commander-in-Chief of the first
Continental Army which ended up winning the American Revolution, and as life-long mason,
George Washington is the embodiment of all the elements discussed in the previous
chapters. I will show this by first giving a summary of Washington’s life and career, then of
Washington as mason and then of Washington as a man.
Born on February 22, 1732, Gregorian calendar, on his father’s Pope’s Creek Estate in
Virginia George Washington was the first-born of Augustine Washington and his second wife
Mary Ball Washington.1 He had two older half-brothers, Lawrence and Augustine Jr., or
Austin, and a half-sister, Jane, from an earlier marriage of Augustine Washington, although
he hardly ever saw his brothers because they mostly resided in England to receive their
education. George was supposed to follow in their footsteps and receive his education and
preparations for a life as a gentleman in England as well. However, on April 12, 1743 disaster
struck: Augustine Washington died at age 49, leaving behind a widow with a young family.
Lawrence and Austin had already returned to Virginia after completing their education and
where now in sole control of their new estates, Mount Vernon and Pope’s Creek
respectively, and eleven year old George was now in charge of Ferry Farm, the farm he lived
with his mother and younger siblings. George would receive most of his education from his
mother, who was a hard-working and stern woman with very little patience for any kind of
disobedience and frivolities, qualities that George inherited from her. It would be only six
more years before George landed a job as official Surveyor of Culpeper County, Virginia. This
meant that he would be away from home most of the time mapping the county while being
completely dependent on himself. Meanwhile his mother would run Ferry Farm, although
she had full control over the farm when he was back as well.2
His eldest brother Lawrence was George’s main role-model. Lawrence had been the
Adjutant General with the rank of Major in the Virginia Militia since 1743, after taking part in
several missions to Jamaica, Cuba and Panama between 1739 and 1742. He survived all the
diseases wreaking havoc on the ships only to contract tuberculosis around 1750.3 In 1751
1 Chernow, Washington, 6.
2 Ibid., 8-14.
3 Ibid., 9.
45
George accompanied his brother to Barbados hoping that the climate would improve
Lawrence’s health. George contracted smallpox on the trip, leaving him with a slightly
scarred face and immunity to the disease. This trip did not help Lawrence, however, and in
1752 Lawrence Washington died of tuberculosis at Mount Vernon. This meant that George
inherited the Mount Vernon estate, if Lawrence’s widow and daughter died without an heir.4
The now vacant post of Adjutant General that Lawrence had held was divided over four
districts, and in February 1753 George was appointed District Adjutant with the rank of
Major in the Virginia Militia by Governor Dinwiddie.5 Not too long after his new appointment
as District Adjutant, George carried the British ultimatum for the conflict on the Ohio Valley
to the French. This ultimatum led to several scuffles and a year later, in 1754 on May 28, the
Seven Years’ War started in the colonies with the battle of Jumonville Glen, which too
involved Washington.6 He was captured by the French in June and held prisoner during the
attack of Fort Necessity. Upon losing the fort he was released again. A few months later, in
1755, Washington was at British general Edward Braddock’s side as Senior American aide
during the Braddock expedition meant to expel the French from the Ohio Valley. After
encountering devastating losses on the British and American side, Washington helped
reorganize their panicked troops to create an organized retreat. As reward for his insights
and help during this expedition, even though it failed, Washington was appointed Colonel of
the Virginia Regiment and Commander-in-Chief of all forces now raised in His Majesty’s
Colony. The Virginia Regiment was the first full-time American military unit in the colonies
made of a thousand American soldiers and meant to defend Virginia’s frontier.7 With his
Virginia Regiment Washington took part in the Forbes expedition of 1758 to capture the
French Fort Duquesne in the Ohio Valley, although this failed after a friendly fire accident
where the British mistook the Americans for the French and vice versa. In the same year he
was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and in December 1758 Washington retired
from the Virginia Regiment. This meant a break in his military career.
On January 6, 1759 Washington married wealthy widow and mother of two Martha
Dandridge Custis. They moved to Mount Vernon and through the marriage Washington
gained 18,000 acres of land. It was not long before Washington was in debt due to the luxury
4 Ibid., 24-6.
5 Ibid., 27.
6 Taylor, “United States History: Timeline, 1700-1800.”
7 Chernow, 63.
46
lifestyle he adopted in Mount Vernon. Most American aristocrats or gentlemen sought to
equate themselves to their British counterparts through the copying of the British
aristocratic lifestyle of wealth and abundance by importing expensive luxury goods. These
American upper classes often could not afford this lavish lifestyle which meant that they
created enormous amounts of debt to keep up appearances.8 It was no different for
Washington. However, during the 1760s he began pulling himself out of debt by diversifying
his crops and paying closer attention to his financial affairs and the farm. This also meant
that in 1766 he switched from tobacco to wheat as his main crop, with wheat creating a
more stable income and being less evasive to the land as opposed to tobacco.9 Washington
also became more politically active. In May 1769 he presented the Virginia Assembly with
what would become the Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions; legislation to ban the
importation of goods from Great Britain in order to oppose the 1765 Stamp Act.10 In 1773
Washington was finally able to pay off all his English debts due to the inheritance he
received after the death of his stepdaughter Patsy Custis who died after an epileptic attack.
In 1774 Washington helped write the Fairfax Resolves in response to the Coercive or
Intolerable Acts of 1773. Although these resolves were not the only ones written in response
to the Intolerable Acts, they were very detailed and influential. In the Fairfax Resolves the
signees called for a Continental Congress, the first of which actually took place in 1774.11 In
August 1774, Washington took part in the first Virginia Convention where he was elected
one of the seven Virginian delegates to the First Continental Congress, which was meant to
coordinate resistance to the Intolerable Acts. On April 19, 1775 an unordered “shot heard
around the world” started the American Revolution.12 Washington was again elected a
delegate to the Second Continental Congress, where he was appointed General and
Commander-in-Chief of the newly created Continental Army. From 1775 to 1777 and again
in 1781 Washington led his men against the main British forces.13
October 19, 1781 the British surrendered at Yorktown, which meant the end of major
fighting in continental North America. It would take another two years, however, for the
British to officially recognize American independence with the Treaty of Paris of September
8 Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 118.
9 Chernow, 109.
10 Taylor, “United States History: Timeline, 1700-1800.”
11 Chernow, 167-8.
12 Foner, 192.
13 Taylor, “United States History: Timeline, War of Independence.”
47
3, 1783 and January 14, 1784 would finally be the official end of the American Revolution
when the Treaty of Paris was ratified.14 Meanwhile, on May 2, 1783 Washington submitted
his Sentiments on a Peace Establishment to a congressional committee led by Alexander
Hamilton to create a peacetime army. The proposal was defeated. Washington gave an
eloquent farewell address to his soldiers on the disbanding of the Continental Army on
November 2, 1783. On November 25 Washington took possession of New York Town on
Manhattan Island after the British evacuated. He bade farewell to his officers on December
4, and by December 23 Washington resigned his commission of Commander-in-Chief.15 His
second proposal on a peacetime army was defeated in 1784. He attended the Constitutional
Convention of 1787-1789 and on May 25, 1787 he was unanimously elected president of the
Convention. After the new Constitution of the United States of America was ratified,
Washington was elected to be the first President of the United States of America, again
unanimously, and on April 30, 1789 he took the oath of office at the Federal Hall in New York
City. Washington would be re-elected as US President in 1792.16 On September 18, 1793 he
presided over the Cornerstone Ceremony for the US Capitol building in Washington, D.C. as
acting Grand Master “pro tem”.17 This was a masonic ceremony. On December 14, 1799
George Washington died at the age of 67 in his bed at Mount Vernon. He was buried at
Mount Vernon with masonic rites as well as those of the church.18
These masonic rites were very important to Washington. As I said before, he had
been a mason for most of his adult life. On November 4, 1752, at the age of twenty, George
Washington was initiated as Entered Apprentice at Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4 in
Fredericksburg, Virginia. He was passed as Fellow Craft at the same lodge on March 3, 1753
and on August 4 he was raised to Master Mason, again at the Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4. He
would remain a member of this lodge for the rest of his life.19 He was also made an honorary
member of the Alexandria Lodge in Alexandria, Virginia on June 24, 1784. This lodge was
closest to Mount Vernon and it was the lodge responsible for laying the first cornerstone of
14
Ibid. 15
Chernow, 449-55. 16
Taylor, “United States History: Timeline, 1700-1800.” 17
Claudy, 4. 18
Ibid. 19
Ibid., 1.
48
the District of Columbia, by invitation of then President Washington on April 15, 1791.20
Since freemasonry is such a closed and secretive brotherhood, written sources from the
eighteenth century are hard to find, and those sources that can be found are often very
concise in order to prevent exposure and betrayal of their secrets. Next to this freemasons
have never made very detailed and precise records, especially in their early years. Add to
this the fact that those records that they made were often lost over time. In short, reliable
masonic sources from the eighteenth century are rare. This also goes for masonic sources
about Washington. Most sources about Washington are part of the correspondence
between him and lodges throughout the country. As I said before, freemasonry and being a
freemason was very important to Washington. This can be seen in his loyalty to his lodge:
Washington was initiated, passed, and raised at the same lodge and stayed a member there
until his death, which was almost fifty years later. Several visits to other lodges have been
recorded. This shows that he was a reasonably active mason throughout his life, even
though he led a very busy life with a career that meant he was out on the road most of the
time. At the same time Washington did not strive for any masonic “career” as he denied the
opportunity to become General Grand Master of the United States several times and only
became Grand Master for one day at the cornerstone ceremony of the US Capitol Building in
Washington D.C.21 Officially Washington also accepted the title of Charter Worshipful Master
of the Alexandria Lodge when this lodge received its warrant from the newly created Grand
Lodge of Virginia in 1788, but this was nothing more than a ceremonial title on the warrant
and Washington never actually acted as Worshipful Master in any lodge.22
Several of the masonic elements or ideals that were the most important in
Washington’s view were referred to in his correspondence with masons and masonic lodges
throughout the US. In a letter to King David’s Lodge in New Port, Rhode Island written on
August 22, 1790, Washington writes about the “principles, on which the Masonic Fraternity
is founded” which he writes “must be promotive of private virtue and public prosperity.”23
Freemasonry is “an association, whose principles lead to purity of morals, and are beneficial
of action,” according to a letter from Washington to the Grand Lodge of South Carolina from
20
Charles H. Callahan, “Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. 22,” in Of George Washington: A Collection of Masonic Papers, ed. Michael R. Poll (New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2009), 91. 21
Claudy, 2-4. 22
Ibid., 1. 23
Julius F. Sachse, Washington’s Masonic Correspondence as Found among the Washington Papers in the Library of Congress (Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1915), 42-3.
49
May 1791.24 According to a letter to St. John’s Lodge in Newbern, North Carolina,
freemasonry is also “a fraternity whose association is founded in justice and benevolence.”25
Also, in a letter to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts from December 1792, Washington
writes that:
To enlarge the sphere of social happiness is worthy the benevolent design of a masonic institution; and it is most fervently to be wished, that the conduct of every member of the fraternity, as well as those publications that discover the principles which actuate them; may tend to convince mankind that the grand object of Masonry is to promote the happiness of the human race.26
The letters that Washington receives from his fellow masons also contain some references
to their values and ideals. In the letter from King David’s Lodge in New Port, Rhode Island,
preceding Washington’s response in 1790, the brethren of the lodge write that they “exult in
the thought that as Masonry has always been patronised by the wise, the good, and the
great, so that it stood and will ever stand, as its fixtures are on the immutable pillars of faith,
hope, and charity.”27 Other qualities that are referred to in the letters Washington receives
are the “wisdom, strength, and beauty” which support “the pillars of the free republic,”
otherwise known as “the Temple of Liberty in the west” which was erected “on the broad
basis of equal rights,” which all refers to the US.28
In some instances these letters refer to Washington’s character, as in a letter from
the Grand Lodge of Georgia, from May 1791: “Whilst your exalted character claims the
respect and deference of all men, they form the benevolence of masonic principles approach
you with the familiar declaration of fraternal affection.”29 This also shows that even though
Washington may have been special as a man, he was still equal to all his masonic brothers,
just as they were equal to him. Almost all of the letters masons and lodges wrote to
Washington praise him and his character, as a man and as a mason. However, what made
Washington so special? There are many legends surrounding his character, the most famous
of which is probably the cherry tree legend which says that he could not lie. Mark Twain
24
Sachse, Washington’s Masonic Correspondence, 60. 25
Ibid., 49. 26
Ibid., 85. 27
Ibid., 38. 28
Ibid., 58; 96. 29
Ibid., 65-6.
50
made a comment about this legend, claiming “superiority for he declared ‘I can lie, but I
won’t,’ and that attitude is far more characteristic of the real Washington.”30 In his essay
“The Greatness of George Washington” Charles S. Lobingier gives a description of what
made Washington special or different from his contemporaries. He asks if Washington really
was such a great military genius: the answer is not really. Lobingier writes that “the stage
was too small, the numbers engaged too few, and the opportunities for grand strategy too
limited, for the American Revolution to have produced a world military genius. Had
Washington’s fame rested on that alone it could hardly have survived the Napoleonic era.”31
However, as Colonel Samuel Bullard, a contemporary, pointed out in 1790 Washington was
able to win this Revolution even though
at first he only headed a body of men entirely unacquainted with military discipline or operations, somewhat ungovernable in temper, and who at best could only be styled and alert and good militia, acting under very short enlistments, unclothed and at all times very ill supplied with ammunition and artillery; and that with such an army he withstood the ravages and progress of near 40,000 veteran troops plentifully provided with every necessary article, commanded by the bravest officers in Europe, supported by a very powerful navy, which effectually prevented all movements by water.32
At the same time, Washington leaned heavily on others for the successes in the Revolution,
others such as Nathanael Greene. If he was not the military genius he is often made out to
be, then maybe he was a great statesman? Again, Lobingier argues that this was not really
true. He writes: “Washington unquestionably did much to cement that union of the
American colonies which his foresight showed him was the great need of his day. But the
instrument which perfected that union was, both in conception and adoption, so largely the
work of [Alexander] Hamilton that his face has eclipsed all others as the commanding genius
of that mighty achievement.”33 Again, Washington depended on others for insights that he
did not have, even though Washington ended up being credited with these insights. You
might say that Washington had a good eye for the talents of others and how to make use of
30
Charles S. Lobingier, “The Greatness of George Washington,” in Of George Washington: A Collection of Masonic Papers, ed. Michael R. Poll (New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2009), 22. 31
Lobingier, “The Greatness of George Washington,” 20. 32
Samuel Bullard, “Washington in His Own Time,” in Of George Washington: A Collection of Masonic Papers, ed. Michael R. Poll (New Orleans: Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2009), 85-6. 33
Lobingier, “The Greatness of George Washington,” 20-1.
51
these talents most effectively. Then maybe Washington was more intelligent than others?
Lobingier once again does not agree when he writes that “as to the intellectual attainments
of Washington … they were less than those of some of his contemporaries. George
Washington never strove to be learned or brilliant and he would have been the first to
disclaim such traits.”34 Then what was it that made Washington the legendary man who
stood out among his contemporaries? According to Lobingier “the more we study him the
clearer it becomes that the qualities which distinguished him and brought immortal fame
were moral rather than intellectual,” it was his “moral superiority” that made him special.35
Washington was able to control his emotions very well and to keep a calm outward
appearance. He had a “fiery temper” that he was able to keep in check most of his life, even
though there are some instances where he lost it.36 Lobingier writes: “no, our first President
was neither faultless nor free from temptation and it was precisely as he overcame the
latter, and thus avoided dangers which might have wrecked a noble career, that his
greatness developed.”37 It was through years of self-mastery that Washington was able to
gain other virtues; he was disciplined, courageous, and firm. An example is the way he dealt
with the Jay treaty with Great Britain which he signed in 1794, and which created a lot of
opposition to his actions.
The fierce opposition to the Jay treaty did not result in changing his attitude. He maintained it courageously and firmly even to the extent of refusing the request of the lower House of Congress for the correspondence and other papers relating to the treaty. In the end the House, by a majority of three, sustained him, the treaty went into effect and time has vindicated his position.38
Unlike other important characters in history, Lobingier argues, Washington had no interest
in “self-seeking.” 39 “Had he consulted his personal interests he would hardly have espoused
the Revolution at all. He was a well to do country gentleman, of aristocratic birth, with
thousands of broad acres in Virginia and twenty thousand more along the Ohio. His natural
sympathies were thus clearly with the existing order,” this shows that Washington was
34
Ibid., 21. 35
Ibid. 36
Ibid., 22-3. 37
Ibid., 22. 38
Ibid., 25. 39
Ibid., 26.
52
devoted to principle: “through years of reflection the conviction had been forced upon him
that a colonial regime as then administered was inimical to the progress and welfare of his
country… With his colleagues he tried other means of securing a change and accepted the
gage of battle only as a dernier resort.”40 The post of Commander-in-Chief had to be “forced
upon him” and “in accepting it he set a new standard of public duty” by not accepting any
salary for this post, only money to cover his necessary expenses, and even going so far as “to
have drawn on his own purse to meet the needs of the army and even to have mortgaged
his property for that purpose” when the public funds were scarce.41 He was the guiding light
as he was “the man first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”42
Washington was also “a total stranger to religious prejudices,” and “candor, sincerity,
affability, and simplicity, seem to be striking features of his character.”43
Washington’s characteristics and ideas about freemasonry fit with the ideals of the
fraternity. He had no qualms with other religions, was more interested in creating a good
foundation for the future than in his own personal interests, supported others in need, he
knew his personal flaws and tried to better them, was not afraid to take a stand, yet willing
to listen to others’ points of view, and he was not afraid to depend on others’ talents and
knowledge if he was lacking in those areas. He believed in “justice and benevolence”,
“private virtue and public posterity”, and the promotion of “happiness of the human race”.44
All of these qualities and ideals are befitting to a mason.
40
Ibid., 26-7. 41
Ibid., 27. 42
Ibid., 19. 43
Bullard, “Washington in His Own Time,” 86-7. 44
Sachse, 49; 42-3; 85.
53
Conclusion
Given all of the information offered in the previous chapters, there are three conclusions
that can be made when considering the question of to what extent did freemasonry
contribute to the process that led to the independence and founding of the United States of
America. It is clear now that freemasonry contributed to this process. This happened first
and foremost through the masonic ideology and values, the men, and the organization. The
masonic ideology and values—brotherhood, equality, liberty, building towards a better self
and society—were all useful foundations upon which the American Revolution, the
independence of the colonies, and later the founding of the United States could be built.
They were useful tools in the rebellion against oppression and inequality, and were
attractive to masonic as well as non-masonic revolutionaries. Also, as freemasons are
independent men, free-thinkers, critical of their surroundings, and not afraid to take a stand,
they are often amongst the first to cry out against any form of injustice, as happened in the
American colonies. The organization or network that is part of freemasonry and that connect
all masons around the world facilitated the struggles against the British by offering a
platform, the local lodges, where strategies could be planned and also a way for quick
communication.
However, if this is the case, then why did the revolt, declaration of independence,
and creation of a new nation work in the United States, but fail in other countries such as
France and the Netherlands? This question can be answered by looking at the precedents
that Washington set and the decisions he made when he became president. As was said
before, he set a “new standard for public duty” by refusing payment for his work as
Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, but also by refusing to become King of
America, by refusing hereditary succession, by stepping down and his wish to return to
society as a regular citizen, by demanding respect for the office of president instead of
respect for himself, by sticking to his sense of morality, and by refusing to become a despot.
Next to that, the US really was a new nation with a clean start: where France and the
Netherlands had a long history of monarchs and an ancient nobility that had had a strong
influence in their respective societies, the US had been ruled by a monarch from far away, so
they had never really had a United States Government and could create one from scratch
54
while taking all the failings of other forms of government in consideration. As Margaret
Thatcher put it in her speech at the Hoover Institution Lunch in 1991:
Americans and Europeans alike sometimes forget how unique is the United States of America. No other nation has been created so swiftly and successfully. No other nation has been built upon an idea—the idea of liberty. No other nation has so successfully combined people of different races and nations within a single culture. Both the founding fathers of the United States and successive waves of immigrants to your country were determined to create a new identity. Whether in flight from persecution or poverty, the huddled masses have, with few exceptions, welcomed American values, the American way of life and American opportunities. And America herself has bound them to her with powerful bonds of patriotism and pride. The European nations are not and can never be like this. They are the product of history and not of philosophy. You can construct a nation on an idea; but you cannot reconstruct a nation on the basis of one.1
The second conclusion is that it were the freemasons, not the freemasonry that was
involved in the American Revolution and the creation of the US. This means that there is no
central authority of any kind that decides what freemasons should do and think and what
side they should choose in a conflict such as the American Revolution. It is up to the
freemason to make up his mind about the issues he comes across; however, he can use the
things he has learned from being a mason in making his decisions. Freemasonry focusses on
the inner self, on building character, and on the relationship between one man and another,
and between man and the universe or the Great Architect. It does not focus on conspiracies,
coups d’état, or power politics. When freemasons are involved in a revolution such as this,
they are involved as an individual, of their own accord, acting on their own values and
principles. However, due to the developments in eighteenth-century America, you were
forced to make choices; it was impossible to stay on the sidelines. So it is not strange that in
times of trouble you would look for support with men you can really trust and confide in.
The third and final conclusion follows from this. It is nigh impossible to tell where the
Enlightenment stops and freemasonry begins: more often than not the people that are
considered great Enlightenment theorists or scientists turn out to be freemasons, and the
Enlightenment and freemasonry share most of their ideals and values. However, the
1 Margaret Thatcher, “Speech at the Hoover Institution Lunch” (speech, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution,
and Peace, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1991).
55
masonic lodge could be considered a catalyst that speeded up and reinforced the processes
that led to the great theories and inventions of the Enlightenment; it was an ideal platform
to discuss new ideas due to its closed and confidential character. So, in a way, there would
have been no Enlightenment without freemasonry.
There are many examples that can be named throughout history where freemasons
had a great influence on the course of history, however there are none that can be found
where these changes were controlled by freemasonry. In the end, freemasons had a huge
hand in the building of a new nation, facilitated not orchestrated by freemasonry as an
organization.
56
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Bachrach, A.G.H., and G.M. van Veen. De Oude Plichten: The Old Charges. Winterswijk:
Maçonnieke Stichting Ritus en Tempelbouw, 1987.
Bowen, Abel. The Boston News-Letter, and City Record. From July 1826 to January 1827.
Edited by Jerome Van Crowninshield Smith. Boston: Abel Bowen, 1826.
Doniol, Henri. Histoire de la Participation de la France à l’Établissement des États-Unis
d’Amérique. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1886.
Ford, Worthington Chauncey. The Writings of George Washington. New York: G.P. Putnam’s
Sons, 1890.
Hobbes, Thomas. Hobbes’s Leviathan Reprinted from the Edition of 1651 with an Essay by
the Late W.G. Pogson Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909.
Hunter, Frederick M. Regius Manuscript: The Earliest Masonic Document. Whitefish, MT:
Kessinger Publishing, 1995.
de Lafayette, Gilbert du Motier. “Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 26 August 1789.”
Conseil Constitutionel. Last modified 2002. Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-
constitutionnel/english/constitution/declaration-of-human-and-civic-rights-of-26-
august-1789.105305.html.
—. Memoirs: Correspondence and Manuscripts of General Lafayette. New York: Craighead
and Allen, 1837.
Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government. Edited by Thomas Hollis. London: A. Miller et al.,
1764.
57
Lodge of St. Andrew. The Lodge of Saint Andrew, and the Massachusetts Grand Lodge:
Conditi et Ducati, Anno Lucis 5756-5769. Boston: Printed by the Vote of the Lodge of
St. Andrew, 1870.
Paine, Thomas. The American Crisis. Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway. Teddington, UK: The
Echo Library, 2006.
—. Common Sense. New York: Prometheus Books, 1995.
Palmer, Ezra et al. The Lodge of St. Andrew and the Massachusetts Grand Lodge Centennial
Memorial. Boston: n.p., 1870.
Parsons, Samuel H. “Letter to Lodge Unity.” 1779. Quoted in Christopher Hodapp.
Freemasons for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.
Poll, Michael R., ed. Of George Washington: A Collection of Masonic Papers. New Orleans:
Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2009.
Bullard, Samuel. “Washington in His Own Time.” In Poll, 85-88.
Callahan, Charles H. “Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. 22.” In Poll, 89-97.
Claudy, Carl. “Facts About George Washington, Master Mason.” In Poll, 1-14.
Lobingier, Charles S. “Freemasons in the American Revolution.” In Poll, 59-72.
—.“The Greatness of George Washington.” In Poll, 15-28.
Notes, Frank E. “The Masonic Compeers of Washington.” In Poll, 47-54.
Prichard, Samuel. Masonry Dissected: Being a Universal and Genuine Description of All Its
Branches from the Original to this Present Time. London: J. Wilford, 1730.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract and Discourses by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Translated by G.D.H. Cole. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1923.
58
Sachse, Julius F. Washington’s Masonic Correspondence as Found among the Washington
Papers in the Library of Congress. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company,
1915.
de Secondat, Charles Louis. The Complete Works of M. De Montesquieu. Vol. 1. London: T.
Evans, 1777.
Sparks, Jared. The Writings of George Washington; Being His Correspondence, Addresses,
Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the
Original Manuscripts, with a Life of the Author, Notes, and Illustrations. New York:
Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1847.
Thatcher, Margaret. “Speech at the Hoover Institution Lunch.” Speech at the Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1991.
Secondary Sources
Bessel, Paul M. “Freemasons among the US Founding Fathers.” Bessel.org. Accessed
September 23, 2015. http://www.bessel.org/foundmas.htm.
“Bill of Rights.” British Library. Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/takingliberties/staritems/510billofrights.html.
“Blijde Inkomst, een Middeleeuwse Grondwet.” Ons Verleden Hedentendage. Last modified
January 3, 2011. Accessed September 23, 2015.
https://onsverleden.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/blijde-inkomst-een-middeleeuwse-
grondwet/.
“The Bronze Doors.” Supreme Court. Last modified August 2, 2015. Accessed September 23,
2015. http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf.
59
Bullock, Steven C. Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the
American Social Order, 1730-1840. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press,
1996.
Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. New York: Penguin Books, 2011.
Conner, Jett. “The American Crisis before Crossing the Delaware?” Journal of the American
Revolution. Last modified February 25, 2015. Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://allthingsliberty.com/2015/02/american-crisis-before-crossing-the-delaware/.
Conway, Moncure Daniel. Preface to The American Crisis, by Thomas Paine. Teddington, UK:
The Echo Library, 2006.
Crouch, David J.F. Piety, Fraternity and Power: Religious Gilds in Late Medieval Yorkshire,
1389-1547. Woodbridge, UK: York Medieval Press, 2000.
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
2012.
Gair, Edward M. “The Boston Tea Party and Freemasonry.” Grand Lodge of British Columbia
and Yukon. Last modified July 15, 2010. Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/boston_tea_party.html.
Geurts, P.A.M. “De Nederlandse Opstand in de Pamfletten, 1566-1584.” DBNL.org. Last
modified 2008. Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/geur004nede01_01/.
Gould, Robert Freke. 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.
60
Hanou, André. De Loge Concordia Vincit Animos te Amsterdam: Namenlijsten (1755-ca
1825). Zoeterwoude: Astraea, 2011.
Harland-Jacobs, Jessica. “‘Hands across the Sea’: The Masonic Network, British Imperialism,
and the North-Atlantic World.” Geographical Review 89, no. 2 (Apr. 1999): 237-53.
“Het Groot Privilege.” Canon van Limburg. Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://www.canonvanlimburg.nl/index.php?chapter=17&page_id=38.
Hodapp, Christopher. Freemasons for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.
Howe, Daniel Walker. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Irving, Washington. George Washington: A Biography. Edited by Charles Neider. New York:
Da Capo Press, 1994.
Jacob, Margaret C. The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts & Fictions. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2007.
Jones, Dan. “Magna Carta and Kingship.” British Library. Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-and-kingship.
Jones, Gareth H. “Sir Edward Coke.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last modified 2015. Accessed
September 23, 2015. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Coke.
Kish, J.N. “U.S. Population 1776 to Present.” Google Fusion Tables. Last modified August 4,
2010. Accessed September 23, 2015.
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=225439#rows:id=1.
Knoop, Douglas, and G.P. Jones. A Short History of Freemasonry to 1730. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1940.
61
Meijer, Willem S. “Grootoosten 2014: Spiegel en Beeld.” Vrijmetselarij 69, no. 7 (July 2014):
6-9.
Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005.
“Over Ons: Charter van Kortenberg.” Oude Abdij Kortenberg. Last modified March 9, 2015.
Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://www.oudeabdijkortenberg.be/nl/Over%20ons/charter.htm.
“Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, 1581 July 26.” American History: From Revolution to
Reconstruction and Beyond. Last modified 2012. Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/before-1600/plakkaat-van-verlatinghe-1581-
july-26.php.
Stevenson, David. The Origins of Freemasonry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
Taylor, Quintard, Jr. “United States History: Timeline, 1700-1800.” University of Washington.
Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_history/1700_1800_timeline.htm.
—. “United States History: Timeline, War of Independence.” University of Washington.
Accessed September 23, 2015.
http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_history/am_rev_timeline.htm.
Triber, Jayne E. A True Republican: The Life of Paul Revere. Boston: University of
Massachusetts Press, 1998.
Unger, Harlow Giles. Lafayette. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
62
Wood, Gordon S. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009.
—. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.
Wright, Gordon. “France: Political Ideology.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last modified 2015.
Accessed September 23, 2015. http://www.britannica.com/place/France/Political-
ideology#ref464967.