Talk:History of Masonic Grand Lodges in North America

Article already created and deleted

Hi Zef... before you get too wrapped in creating this article, I think you should know that a similar article was already created and deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England. Blueboar 17:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England was nothing more then a directory of links to the Grand Lodge external websites with no refrenced material. The list that I am comprising will have the established historical dates and the current physical location of set Grand Lodge which has been refrenced from the Grand Lodges historical pages on their websites. I am trying to show how Freemasonry began in England in 1717 and how it migrated from this one central location out. Zef 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea... some explanitory text would be needed to explain this concept (otherwise it does look like nothing more than a list of links to GL websites, which would be deleted quickly). I would also suggest that you put the list in Chronological order by date of founding instead of listing by country, as that would show the growth and expansion better.

And you will have to make a discision on scope ... is it your intention to limit this to "mainstream" GLs? (I notice you have not added any Prince Hall GLs)... and what about other masonic "traditons"? (I see an IP added GOdF and a few others... I removed the "United Grand Lodge of America" as that is completely bogus... not recognized by anyone except themselves, and I suspect it is a con artist's creation to "sell" degrees ... I left the others until I know what your criteria is). What about co-ed and women's groups? Blueboar 19:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem being that if it's entirely referenced from primary sources, it becomes a conglomeration of indiscriminate information, and all you're really doing is adding a list of links, but using them as references, both of which are prohibited by WP guidelines. Moreover, the problem of inclusion really needs to be addressed, or we run into an NPOV issue. Just as a heads-up, these types of problems were exactly what led to the AfD on the other article; this list can never be complete, and can never be policed properly. MSJapan 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is save-able if we follow up on the idea of it being a list that focuses on when various GLs and GOs were founded... A chronological list has more merrit than a purely "by region" one. I would also add a column for the "sponsoring" body (GL California being sponsored by GL New York which in turn was a blend of Modern and Ancient Provincial GLs etc.... <just making that up for discussions sake... we would have to find sources on all of this, but I am willing to bet there is info on this somewhere... Bessel?... it is the kind of thing Masonic historians love to trace.>) That might add some degree of limitation as to scope, since "self created" could be eliminated (or at least noted). Blueboar 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have started to compile by region because it is easier to orginize at first. Once the list is complete, then it will be a simple matter of reshuffling them around and putting them in order by date. Zef 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. So what about scope? Blueboar 13:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I give up. Put it up for speedy delete please. Zef 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite willing to give it up... I still think a chrono list of UGLE and decendants would be both interesting and useful. (perhaps with a move/rename to List of Masonic Grand Lodges decended from the Grand Lodge of England?)... but if you are not going to edit... and with your permission (as the creator)... I will attempt a restructuring. Blueboar 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all yours. If I run across some info that will help, I will add it. Zef 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Got a problem....

I looked at the supposed refs, and they're nothing but the links to the GL websites, much of which don't have half the info claimed. To put this into any sort of context, this article is going to need to turn into a history article, and will no longer be a list. I would honestly strip out a lot of this stuff, and do a "Freemasonry in the Colonies" article to start, and tie it in to History of Freemasonry later. Freemasonry during the Civil War would be a good article in and of itself, too. However, my point is that a list by itself is pointless, and this article is quickly turning into something else. MSJapan 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well... I did want to slightly de-listify it (which is why I added the little paragraphs for each section). The focus (as I envision it) is to have a chronological listing of when each Grand Lodge (in amity with UGLE) was founded. The links do show establishment dates... most have a "History of the Grand Lodge" page that discuss when the GL was founded, or at least show the GL seal with the date of founding on it. Not nescessarily the best source... but it is a source (and once I can get to the Livingston Library, I can probably find better ones).

I am more than willing to change the "section intro" wording ... my point was simply to lay out as briefly as possible what distinguished each grouping. Blueboar

Oh... a question on Grand Lodge of Mass... that was one where the web site did not talk about founding date, so I am glad you added it. I see you list it as 1730-something (Price's Warrent)... was that a "Provincial Grand Lodge" or an independant "Grand Lodge" in its own right? (I assume it should actually be a "Provincial", but want to make sure.) What I am getting at is, when did the entity known as the "Grand Lodge of Massachusets" (as opposed to say "The Provincial Grand Lodge of Mass." or an entity with some other title) come into existance? Also, was the Price GL under the Ancients of the Moderns? And was there a rival PGL for the other body? (Blueboar 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I need to dig for specifics, but the short version is that Henry Price was given a warrant to start a Provincial GL, and there was also a Scottish GL in the colony as well. As nobody seems to go into it (I found another book with the PA claim in it, which is wrong), I'll need to look in my histories and get back to you. MSJapan 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, some have tried to say that because 1733 under Price was a PGL, it doesn't count as the foundation date because it wasn't an indepenendent GL ... however, UGLE therefore should be listed as having an origin of 1813, as PGLE and the Antients ceased to exist at the Union. Otheriwse, 1733 is the date of the founding of the antecedent of the current GLMA.--Vidkun 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to show is the developement and spread of Freemasonry .... from PGLE (and AGLE) ... through the various overlapping regional PGLs ... to independant State (and national) GLs... and the subsequent spread of GLs westward. I do understand that the Price PGL is considered the founding antecedent of GLMA, and a note is made to that effect in the heading for the Price PGL. Do you know when MA started to actually be called (Provincial) Grand Lodge of "Massechusets"? I don't know if MA is like NY in combining Ancients and Moderns after independance (NY's charter decends from the Ancients, but our first GM was a Modern)... if you have info on other PGLs in MA please add it. Blueboar 01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

GLMass.

I have devided the GL of Massachusets entry into two parts, based on what I read on that GL's artcicle. Unfortunately, the link to the history page at the GLMA website has been redirected, so I can not check things there. Let me know if there are objections or if I have something wrong. Blueboar 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Try archive.org for the original page.--Vidkun 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The G.L. of Massachusetts "claims" the founding date of 1733, but everyone pretty much agrees that their claim to this date is specious. The date of 1733 was not the date of the formation of a grand lodge, but was the date of the deputation (by the Grand Master of the Moderns' Grand Lodge at London) which appointed Henry Price of Massachusetts the "Provincial Grand Master" of New England, thereby creating (in a way) the Provincial Grand Lodge of New England (not of Massachusetts, by the way). The Grand Master of the Moderns' Grand Lodge at London then went on to appoint several successors to Price: Robert Tomlinson in 1736, Thomas Oxnard in 1743, Jeremy Gridley in 1755, and John Rowe in 1768. Since all five of these were appointed by the Moderns' Grand Master at London, and since their appointments or deputations named each of them as a "Provincial Grand Master," no one can seriously claim that this was an independent and sovereign "Grand Lodge."

With the American War of Independence, this Provincial Grand Lodge, under John Rowe, did not meet from 1775 to 1787 at which time Rowe died. Although it held a meeting that year, after Rowe's death, it did not elect, or contemplate the election of a replacement for Rowe, indicating that it still considered itself a Provincial Grand Lodge. I don't know how many times this Moderns' Provincial Grand Lodge met over the next three years, but it is recorded that it met in 1790 without a Provincial Grand Master and still did not elect a replacement for Rowe. I assume it was still waiting for the Grand Master at London to appoint his successor.

Meanwhile, in 1757, the Grand Lodge of Scotland had also appointed Col. John Young Provincial Grand Master for North America. Then, in 1769, Joseph Warren was appointed by the G.M. of Scotland as the "Grand Master of Masons in Boston, New England, and within one-hundred miles of the same." This appointment was undoubtedly as a "Provincial Grand Master" as he was later, in 1773, appointed Grand Master of Masons for the Continent of America. Again, that appointment was made by the Grand Master Mason of Scotland. Two years later, Warren was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Twenty-one months later, his Provincial Grand Lodge (Scotland) met and elected Joseph Webb Grand Master, a significantly overt act of independence. Thus was born the "Massachusetts Grand Lodge." However, it voted to dissolve itself in March 1792, thereby ceasing to exist.

On 5 March 1792, the older Moderns Provincial Grand Lodge finally elected a successor to John Rowe who had died five years before. At that meeting, by electing John Cutler Grand Master, it exercised, for the first time, independent and sovereign power, thereby becoming "The Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

The founding date of the G.L. of Massachusetts cannot be any date prior to 5 March 1792. PGNormand 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the GLoMA claims 1733 (on their website and seal etc.) .... so to be neutral in the matter (ie following WP:NPOV) what we have to do is make note of the fact that they date themselves from the formation of the Provincial Grand Lodge, without passing judgement on the claim. Blueboar 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, UGLE. GLoS, and other "older" GLs accept the date. Again, this is not a clearinghouse for scholarly ideas, but rather accepted information. "Wrong" or not (because it's all really semantics, like "PA being the oldest Masonry in the US" despite not having an established GL at the time, or that Washington was raised in a clandestine Lodge), nothing is going to change the situation now. WP has very clear guidelines on usage of theories. MSJapan 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

but everyone pretty much agrees that their claim to this date is specious Cite please? I assume it was still waiting for the Grand Master at London to appoint his successor Sounds like OR to me. no one can seriously claim that this was an independent and sovereign "Grand Lodge." Sure they can, as those American GM's were allowed to issue new warrants and charters without further permission from GLE.--Vidkun 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

De-indenting here, as I would like to point a few interesting items: First, we cannot look at titles from antiquity in the same way as we do now. Provincial Grand Lodges operated much differently in the 1700's and 1800's than they do now. Today, a PGL or District Grand Lodge, under a GL, cannot issue warrants for a new Lodge. That is something only a GM can do. When the "Provincial Grand Lodge of New England and Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging" was created, the powers were given to GM Price to create new Lodges and make Masons. That PGL did not need to go to GLE for further permission to issue warrants and charters. Similarly, we cannot view regularity of origin the same way now, as was done in the early 1800's when any number of appendant/concordant bodies were formed out of whole cloth, and then dictated to others and GL's what would be considered regular among "haute grade" Masonry. I would, therefore, caution against saying that MA was not independent. Similarly, the founding date of UGLE is 1813, not 1717.--Vidkun 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Giving up on this article

I am giving up on this article. I simply can not find sources for some Grand Lodges, and thus the article will never be complete. Given that fact, I think my idea of demonstrating the growth and "liniage" of UGLE derived Freemasonry through a list is a non-starter. Better to simply discribe the process in the History of Freemasonry article. Shall we nominate it for AfD? Blueboar 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold that thought until we get to the root of the issue. MSJapan 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem... holding. Blueboar 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The best source for this information is Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia. He is a completely unbiased and critical historian. A much better source than relying on G.L. webpages which can't be trusted.PGNormand 23:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Coil's is useless and can't be trusted either. Pick up either edition of Coil's and look up Louisiana. Scroll down and you will see that "Albert Pike Lodge of Perfection" was created in June of 1813 in New Orleans. I tell you what, those New Orleans Scottish Rite Masons really knew some stuff. In 1813 Albert Pike was a 4 year old boy in Massachusetts and those guys knew that he would one day play an important role in the SC SJUSA! So, do you really want to claim Coil's as infallible? --Vidkun 17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GOdF

I added the GOdF article not so much because I was just trying to be a pain, but because I wanted to make sure that the authors had thought through the process. Looking at the talk page now, I realise you have.

I'm also unsure I added the GOdF in the right section, with the "time immemorial" Grand Lodges, since the lodges that founded it were established between 1726 and 1730; I'm not clear enough on how/whether those lodges were chartered. I'm going to try to track that down now.

I believe an article like this could indeed be useful if it can be (relatively) comprehensive, and if it covers the more interesting cases as well, such as the Prince Hall lodges, Co-Freemasonry, etc, with notes if necessary to indicate there is controversy over their status. I always prefer to give the reader more information and let them make up their own minds than give them less and make up their minds for them. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mackey tells us that these French lodges had the GLE as their Mother Grand Lodge: http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_history_volume_5.htm . But that means that this doesn't fit very well into any of the existing sections of this article. I don't know where to put it. And yes, I understand the point of view that this is because it's not a valid Grand Lodge, but the fact remains that they consider it to be so... Arrgh. My point is not as sharp as I would have liked, but there is still a point. I'm going to move it to the bottom of the article until I figure this out. Fuzzypeg☻ 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg, if you read the intro this article is desinged to trace the growth and developement of UGLE derived Freemasonry from the British Isles into North America (essentially Canada and the US). GOdF does not fit into this - not because it is "not a valid Grand Lodge", but because it is part of a different chain of derivation. That said, Fuzzypeg's comment does highlight why we need to rename this article... perhaps "List of Grand Lodges claiming direct descent from England" or something.Blueboar 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So the Grand Lodge of Ireland and the Grand Lodge of Scotland are derived from the UGLE? I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but my knowledge of the history of these groups is pretty vague. However the article itself seemingly implies that these are not in its scope... Fuzzypeg☻ 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that they are considered to have arisen independently, but I could be mistaken. Sounds like a question for someone more well-versed in Masonry in the UK. MSJapan 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, and I would have to look at Henderson's to check it out, those GL's formed in ways similar to Premier GL: Lodge meeting from time immemorial, joined together in convention to form their GL. Ask ALR, however, as he seems to be our resident Scottish GL expert. I know that Mother Kilwinning predates any extant Lodge, and predated the GL in Scotland, and stayed independent for some time AFTER the formation of GLS.--Vidkun 12:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK... I may have expressed myself badly. After all, if you want to get technical, None of the colonial provincial grand lodges (and thus none of the US grand lodges) derive from UGLE because UGLE did not exist until 1813... What I meant to say is that this article is essentially focused on the lineage of US and Canadian GLs. The four "British" GLs (Moderns, Ancients, Ireland and Scotland) are the roots of Masonry in the US and Canada. So they are included while GOdF isn't. Does that make the intent clearer? Blueboar 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It does make it clearer, but it shows why the current title of the article won't work, and why, again, it is unlikely that we will ever have consensus on how this sort of an article should be formed. One thought - as a portion of the history of freemasonry page, and, maybe, eventually, a split from it, showing the descent of various GL's. Obviously, because we have the greatest amount of info about the UGLE related/recognized/descended GL's, that would be the START of the article, BUT not the end. I think what we have here is a good start, but also eventually include GLdF, GOdF, and the various others in the "Continental" Tradition. When I get some time (not any time soon with the start of the semester and the return of my students, I'll find Henderson's World Guide, get his list (he goes geographically) and we can start with his information/format. He also lists, for those GL's that were recognized by UGLE at the time of the printing (1985, I think), the descent of those GL's.--Vidkun 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You will note that I did suggest the title should be changed... :>)

In any case, your ideas would certainly advance this article beyond the scope I envisioned... but since I have essentially given up on this list, I can't really object to someone else taking it over, and trying to do something with a different scope. Good luck. Blueboar 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vidkun, Blueboar, would you be interested in keeping the article here, but broadening its scope as Vidkun and I suggested? It seems like a valuable article, and I can see why it was created; I'm not convinced a section in the Freemasonry article would do it justice. Of course it can always be merged into Freemasonry later should we change our minds. What you have here is really useful information for Masonic research; I just think it would be even more useful if it mentioned some of the more controversial Grand Lodges. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but, as always, we need to be aware that there will be those who will come and point out the pov issues of the name of the article, or will try to kill it as a list of lists. I wish I could help improve it right now, but to put it in words Fuzzy will understand (and I'm sure Americans can puzzle out) I'm about to go on holiday (building a megalithic circle) prior to teaching during the first term at University. Damned freshmen.--Vidkun 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Scotland question

The following item: Provincial Grand Lodge for North America (Scotland) - Est. 1757 - By warrant issued to Colonel John Young. has a reference to Coil's article about Massachusetts. Is this PGL the Scottish PGL in MA? I ask, because I thought Warren was the first GM of that GL.--Vidkun 22:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this article was going to include some of the more controversial lodges?

That was my suggestion in discussion above, and it met with (some) agreement and no disagreement. I believe this article would be more informative if it listed some of the major lodges that are controversial, some of which have been around for quite a long time and have a large membership, as well as very interesting histories. They feature in the Masonic encyclopedias, so why not here too?

And of course we should make it very clear when we are discussing non-UGLE-recognized lodges.

The article is currently only devoted to UGLE-recognized lodges, according to the lead paragraph. I'm considering making a start by changing that... Fuzzypeg☻ 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've discovered the general list of masonic Grand Lodges, which presumably is intended to serve the purpose I suggest above. This list is fine then, although its title is still perhaps misleading... Fuzzypeg☻ 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

West Virginia was missing

For some reason the currently controversial Grand Lodge of West Virginia did not appear in the list. I have added it with no comment. Johnday (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts

Why is the MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of MA disincluded from this list? They still possess their charter (the actual piece of paper) from the English Grand Lodge, which no other Grand Lodge in the USA has. They are currently recognized by the UGLE, so why are they not included? --Moly 17:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple reason... no one has gotten around to including Prince Hall lodges yet. The list is still is a work in progress. Feel free to work on it.

I think it would probably be best to start a new section, with a brief text explanation of the background of Prince Hall Masonry (the formation of Africa Lodge etc.)... then list the various PH Grand Lodges in order of creation... I would also suggest noting when each was recognized by its "mainstream" counterpart.

However, as we get into listing PH, we need to figure out what to do about the fact that Prince Hall Masonry is somewhat fragmented... its history is full of schisms and "self-creations". It is fairly easy to trace a direct "chain of creation" in "mainstream" Anglo/US/Canadian Freemasonry, from its English roots to the modern GLs. This is harder to do with parts of Prince Hall. We need to think about how or whether to list those PH grand lodges that broke the direct chain from Africa Lodge (ie that broke the "chain" within a purely Prince Hall context). Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Even harder to deal with will be the PHO GL's. Most mainstream Masons aren't aware that at one point (in the 1800's), all the Prince Hall Grand Lodges got together and attempted to form a National Grand Lodge, also known as National Compact. For a time, they all functioned under this National Compact, but it splintered - mostly, the state GL's went back to being independent and sovereign, and some groups remained with the National Compact, and chartered further Lodges - who, due to a valid lineage from a group that was, at one time, considered valid by a majority of the PH GL's that joined it, may be in all ways as regular as Prince Hall Affiliation (PHA) GL's are. What a hornets' nest THAT will be when it is opened up!--Vidkun (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

I would like to propose that this article be renamed to: History of Masonic Grand Lodges in North America, as that is what the focus has shifted to. Comments? Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objections... Renamed. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania (1731)

I have removed a recent addition in the "Time immemorial" section referring to a Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania (founded 1731)... What is being referred to in the source is the Coxe Provincial Grand Lodge, which was already on the list. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Masonic Grand Lodges in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231224201/http://www.irish-freemasons.org/ to http://www.irish-freemasons.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)