Masonic Government Applied to Society-at-Large

Think about that title for a moment. What if society-at-large had to live under a Masonic government? Yes; general society is probably too big, too chaotic, and just plain not ready for such a thing - but we can muse on the subject for entertainment and discussion purposes.

Though each Grand Jurisdiction has it own Code and/or Constitution, there are some common strands that can be found in each Grand Lodge and Lodge. Most Masons are already at least partially schooled in the executive powers and roles of Grand Masters and Lodge Masters, the legislative powers and roles of the Grand Lodges and members of each Lodge, and the judicial powers of all of the aforementioned. The dry subject of those powers and roles will not be presented here. Rather, let us concentrate on what happens after a resolution has been passed and becomes Masonic law or an approved decision. It is at that point in the process where we can see a huge difference in how Masonic government works when compared to the governments of society-at-large.

To see this difference, let us use a town in the United States as the sample civil government in the following scenario. Please bear in mind that towns have differing styles of government - such as mayor-council, council-mayor, administrator-council, etc - so this scenario may not fit all towns. In our scenario, the voters have just approved a referendum that calls for a new town park to be constructed. The council and mayor are now obligated to make this happen and they do so by first raising the millage rate on property taxes. After all, it costs money to build a park. They then put the town’s public works department on to the task of building the park. A few town employees, with their earth movers, toil away until the park is built and all of the town’s citizens are now able to enjoy the lovely new recreational site – even though only some of the citizen’s (property owners) paid for it and only a few of the citizen’s (public works employees) built it. In fact, when we look back at how people voted in the referendum, we find that the public works employees all voted against it (their work schedule was already overloaded) and many of the property owners did the same (they are tired of paying higher and higher taxes). Most of the citizens that voted for the new park had to neither pay for it nor actually build it.

Let us now turn to the town’s local Masonic Lodge to see how it handles a similar scenario. The Lodge members have just voted to remodel the Lodge’s dining hall. The floor needs new tiling, new paint is needed, and the curtains are in need of replacement. The project is going to cost a bit of money, so the Lodge also votes to raise the dues (taxes) for the upcoming year. The Master of the Lodge then appoints a work committee, made up of the very members that voted to remodel the hall. The committee toils away with paintbrushes and tile glue until a beautiful dining hall is ready to be used by all of the Lodge members. In this scenario, all of the members pay for the project and the very folks that wanted the remodeled hall actually do the work to make it a reality.

Those two scenarios clearly bring to light the vast difference between civil government and Masonic government. The first scenario shows that groups of people can direct other folks to spend money and exert effort, even though they have to do neither while still enjoying the fruits of someone else’s sacrifice. The Masonic scenario shows how, if the group wants something done, all must sacrifice to make it a reality.

If society-at-large had to live under the rules and regulations of Masonic government, it is probably a sure bet that fewer parks would be constructed.

Laying of a Cornerstone

Yesterday, 13 September 2008, I had the pleasure of traveling to a Cornerstone Laying and Lodge Dedication ceremony at a new Lodge hall located outside of my district. I am almost ashamed to say that it is the first I have been able to attend during my ten years as a Freemason.

My traveling partner, my Lodge’s Senior Warden, and I were both immensely impressed with the ceremonies, which were conducted in fine style by our Grand Master and the Grand Lodge officers. The famed, one hundred and seventy-three year old Lafayette Trowel was used in the Cornerstone Laying.

The event was well attended – so much so that my Senior Warden and I ended up eating outside of the Lodge hall for want of a place to sit in the dining room. I didn’t complain, however, since the chance to gather with so many Masons and to participate in the Grand procession was well worth the inconvenience of squatting on my haunches as I ate a fine meal prepared by our immediate Past Grand Master. It is not everyday that you find a Grand Master serving as the cook!

If you have never witnessed a Cornerstone Laying or a Lodge Dedication, I highly recommend that you look for the time to attend one. I should not have waited so long to see one for myself.

Firing of Guns

In the course of other research, I came across some interesting tidbits of information from the past that I’d like to share. The following newspaper accounts illustrate the enormous respect that Freemasonry apparently enjoyed during the 1700s.

The South Carolina Gazette reports on 28 December 1738:

Yesterday being the Festival of St. John the Evangelist, the day was ushered in with the firing of guns at sunrise from several ships in the harbor with all their colors flying. At 9 o’clock all the members of Solomon’s Lodge, belonging to the Ancient and Honorable Order of Free and Accepted Masons, met at the house of the Honorable James Crokatt, Esq., Master of the said Lodge, and at 10, proceeded from thence, properly clothed with the Ensigns of their Order, and Music before them, to the house of the Provincial Grand Master, James Graeme, Esq., where a Grand Lodge was held…

The Gazette further reports on that same date:

After an elegant dinner, all the brethren were invited by Capt. Thomas White on board the Hope; there several loyal healths were drank, and at their coming on board and return on shore, they were saluted by the discharge of 39 guns, being the same number observed in each of the different salutes of this day, so that in all there were about 250 guns fired. The evening was concluded with a ball and entertainment for the ladies, and the whole was performed with much grandeur and decorum.

The 1 January 1741 edition of the Gazette published the following – almost word for word as the December 1738 account:

Saturday last [27th of December, 1740] being the festival of St. John the Evangelist, the day was ushered in with firing of guns at sunrise, from several ships in the harbor, with all their colors flying.

After an elegant dinner, all the brethren being invited, went on board the Lydia, Capt. Allen, and from thence on board the John and William, Capt. Fishbourne, where several loyal healths drank under the discharge of a great many guns. The above ships were on this occasion, decked out with a great many colors, and illuminated at night with a great number of lights, regularly disposed on the yards, both of which made a very grand and agreeable appearance.

From the 2nd of January 1742 edition, the Gazette reports the following pertaining to events on 27 December 1741:

Great numbers of guns were discharged from the ships in the harbor during the procession and afterwards; and the whole was conducted with the greatest order and decency, the night concluding with the illumination of the vessels of the brethren in the harbor, and a ball to the ladies.

The above excerpts from the South Carolina Gazette pertain to events in Charleston, South Carolina. There are further reports, however, of similar Masonic events and firing of guns in Beaufort and Port Royal, South Carolina. I will not bore the reader with all of these newspaper accounts as the mirror what I have already provided.

Many of the newspaper accounts speak of grand processions - in full Masonic regalia, balls, banquets, and church services. It must have truly been an exciting time to be a Freemason in the South Carolina colony.

Loss of Masonic History

Historians and amateur researchers are often challenged when confronted by gaps in the historical record. This is not unique to Freemasonic history, but the Fraternity seems to have more than its fair share of missing information. Of course, most know that the very old history of Freemasonry – that which is older than 300 or 400 years – has many holes in it. The more recent historical record, however, is also plagued with lost pieces of important information.

This can often be attributed to the secret nature of Freemasonry. Much was not put to paper and, even when written down, there are usually not multiple copies of what was written. This makes Masonic history very susceptible to the ravages of nature and man.

My Lodge is a good example of this. I began to research the history of my Lodge many months ago and am still involved in that process. The first place I went was to the old minute books. My Lodge was chartered in 1869, but the first entry in the minutes was dated 9 May 1878. That first entry explains that there had been a fire. Minutes, charter, and even the seal had been destroyed. There is now a gap of almost eighteen years in my Lodge’s history that will very likely never be recovered.

Grand Lodges have also suffered through such disasters. During the Fire of 1838 that burned approximately a third of the city of Charleston, South Carolina, the brand new Grand Lodge Hall was destroyed, along with most of its records and furniture – as well as those of many of the subordinate Lodges in that city. Only one chest, containing the jewels and collars of the Grand Lodges officers and a small portion of the Grand Lodge’s furniture, was saved when a Brother pulled it from the flames. In this calamity, a full one hundred and two years of Grand Lodge written history were destroyed.

Thankfully, in current times, technology enables us to take measures to secure historical documents. The written word can be digitalized, copies can be made easily, and electronic data can be backed up. All members of the Fraternity, especially those Secretaries and Grand Secretaries that are tasked as the “Keepers of the Books” should be actively engaged in measures designed to preserve the history of Freemasonry for those future Masons who are yet to be born.

Examining the Political Mackey

Albert Gallatin Mackey, M.D., (22 March 1807 - 20 June 1881) is probably one of the most, if not the most, referenced and quoted Masonic author and historian. Like so many others, I often turn to him when doing my own research - especially since he is one of the best sources for information on the early history of my own Grand Jurisdiction. There is very little easily available information, however, about Albert G. Mackey’s personal life. What was he like beyond his Freemasonic pursuits?

Personally, I have always thought it strange that Mackey was never elected as the Grand Master of his Grand Jurisdiction in South Carolina. He served as its Grand Lecturer for many years and as its Grand Secretary for twenty-three years (1843 – 1866). He was Past Master of the oldest Lodge in South Carolina, Solomon’s Lodge No. 1, and was a most prolific Masonic writer – his works being read throughout the world. He also served as the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Ancient and Accepted Rite for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States. It would seem that he was the perfect candidate for election to the position of Grand Master. Why didn’t that happen? Did he decline such a position because he did not desire such responsibility? Maybe there is another reason – a political reason.

We know that Mackey left his native South Carolina in 1870 and moved to Washington, DC. This move followed his defeat in a run for a U.S. Senate seat in 1868. This may be the first clue that something was amiss, from the perspective of a majority of his fellow South Carolinians, when it came to Dr. Mackey’s political leanings. Why would a native South Carolinian want to move to the seat of government of an occupying nation, which is how most South Carolinians viewed the United States in those early years following the defeat of the Confederate States of America - during the so-called “Reconstruction?”

Mackey was a Unionist. He was opposed to the secession of his home state from the Union and he actively participated in the Reconstruction efforts of the North following the end of the War Between the States. He was even appointed as Collector of the Port of Charleston, SC, by the President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, following the end of the War. This undoubtedly did not sit well with the majority of his fellow South Carolinians.

Did Mackey’s Unionist position influence the fact that he never became a Grand Master? We may never know for certain, but it does give us something to think about.

Chief Joseph Brant

By accident, I came across an interesting article by the title of "Chief Joseph Brant: Mohawk, Loyalist, and Freemason," by George L. Marshall, Jr. I invite your attention to this informative piece that tells the story of a complicated Freemason who lived from 1742 until 1807 and who was heavily involved in the British efforts to stop the American Revolution.

The Secrets of a Prepared Brother

The Ahiman Rezon, or Book of Constitutions, has been used in various forms as the book of Masonic law and as a monitorial text by Masonic Grand Jurisdictions for at least two centuries. Though many Grand Jurisdictions have ceased to use Ahiman Rezon as the title for their constitutions and codes of law, some jurisdictions – such as those in Pennsylvania and South Carolina – have retained those two mysterious words. The debate concerning the origin and true meaning of the words, “Ahiman Rezon,” has carried on for years without a concrete resolution. Possibilities include: "to help a brother", "will of selected brethren", "The secrets of prepared brethren", "Royal Builders" and "Brother Secretary".

The following, from Daniel Sickles’ The General Ahiman Rezon and Freemason’s Guide (New York: Masonic Publishing and Manufacturing Co. 1889, pp. 5-6), is offered for the reader’s further investigation into the meaning of those two words - Ahiman Rezon. [Note: M.W. Brother Rockwell was Grand Master of Masons in Georgia from 1857 until 1862.]

AHIMAN REZON.
SIGNIFICATION OF THE TERM.
BY WILLIAM S. ROCKWELL,

GRAND MASTER OF GEORGIA.

THESE two words have acquired a wide Masonic celebrity. They constituted the title of the Book of Constitutions, used by the division of Freemasons, which separated from the Grand Lodge of England in 1736, and have since become the usual designation of such works in this country. DERMOTT, in 1772, styled his book the TRUE Ahiman Rezon, and he claimed for his portion of the Order the practice of Ancient Masonry. The inference is obvious that there was a spurious work under this title then extant. An inquiry into their meaning is, therefore, not irrelevant.

I have met with no exposition of the signification of this phrase, except in the edition first published in South Carolina by Dr. DALCHO, in 1807, and reprinted, with additions, in 1822; and afterward re-arranged and edited by Dr. MACKEY in 1852; and, also, in the "Lexicon of Freemasonry," by the last-mentioned distinguished author.

The following is Dr. DALCHO'S definition in the edition of 1822: "The Book of Constitutions is usually denominated AHIMAN REZON. The literal translation of ahiman is a prepared brother, from manah, to prepare; and that of rezon, secret. So that Ahiman Rezon literally means the secrets of a prepared brother. It is likewise supposed to be a corruption of achi man ratzon, the thoughts or opinions of a true and faithful brother."

There are several difficulties which seem to render this definition inadmissible. The derivations do not appear to be in accordance with the structure of the Hebrew language (if the words be Hebrew); and the phrase, with this view of its derivation, has no grammatical construction. The Hebrews were accustomed to a species of inversion, which in our language has no parallel: for example, the great work of Jehovah would be in Hebrew ‏מעשה יהוי הנדוֹל‎, literally, work of Jehovah the great. Now, if the phrase under consideration was intended to import "the secrets of a prepared brother," the construction would have been, according to the example just quoted, ahi rezon man. But there are further objections to this rendering of the phrase into English. True, ‏מנה‎ MNE, to divide, to number, in its piel form, signifies to appoint, to constitute, and, in that sense, to prepare; yet, in accordance with the genius of the Hebrew tongue, it undergoes a change in its vocalization. Its stem-letter is doubled, and the vowel sound softened; it is pronounced minnah, and its derivative should be ahiminnah. In Chaldee, ‏רז‎ RZ signifies a secret, and might be imported into the Hebrew, but its plural is razin; besides, it is something of a misnomer to call a published book "Secrets of a prepared brother."

The last suggestion of Dr. DALCHO would seem more plausible, if it were not open to the same grammatical objection. MAN can not signify true or faithful, unless derived from ‏אמן‎ AMN, and then the compound word would be achiamon; and if the ‏א‎ A of AMN suffered elision, it would indicate a different radical, and if no elision took place, the two letters ‏י‎ I and ‏א‎ A would not coalesce, but the ‏י‎ I resumes its consonant sound as in ‏בנימין‎ BNIMIN (which we sound Benjamin), the vocalization would then be Abhjamon.

Dr. MACKEY thus renders it:—"This title is derived from three Hebrew words—ahim, brothers; manah, to select or appoint; and ratzon, the will or law—and it, consequently, signifies "the law of appointed or selected brothers."

It is true, that this definition more nearly accords with what the book contains, than that proposed by DALCHO; yet, there would seem to be no less formidable objections to this view of its signification. The verb ‏מנה‎ MNE, above referred to by DALCHO, in Kal, (i.e., its active form) means to appoint, but its radical meaning is to number; it was one of the prophetic words written by the spectral hand on the wall of Belshazzar's banqueting-room. It is itself a derivative, and will not rid us of the final ‏ה‎ E, and if it be any part of the root of the word, we must read ahimanah. It is just to
notice, that the radical of this verb, signifying something divided ‏מן‎ MN, from the obsolete root ‏מנן‎ MNN, when in composition, conveys the idea of a law, rule or precept, in conformity with which something is done; as, for example, ‏מפי יהוה‎ MPhI IHOH by command of JEHOVAH (II. Chron. xxxvi. 12), but then the grammatical construction would require some other signification of rezon, and it should be construed as an adjective, in conformity with the example above quoted, and it might read ahi, being the genitive singular (‏אהי‎ AHI,) the "Supreme Law of a Brother."