My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Secession

Bill Plunkett

Registered User
Would it be a Masonic Offense to support the Texas Independence movement- or secession?

Let's not get into a discussion of the sanity of it, just would it be an offense. After all, our most famous Mason whose image is in all Texas Lodges, fought a war because he wanted to secede from Britain.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
In LA the EA candidate is assured the obligation "...will not...interfere with any religious or political sentiments you may entertain..."
 

Bro. Allen

Registered User
Would it be a Masonic Offense to support the Texas Independence movement- or secession?

I don't think it would be an offense if said support was for secession by legal means. If said support was for armed revolution, or violent overthrow, I would call that a Masonic Offense.
 

David N.

Premium Member
English-derived Masonry is very strongly in favor of obedience to government. Indeed the 1717 Grand Lodge was specifically formed to establish a form of Masonry loyal to the Hanoverian king then ruling Britain.

At the time Scottish Masonry was reasonably regarded as politically unreliable as it tended to favor the Stuart line.

As for the Texas right to withdraw from its agreement to join the union, that must be a question of law in the first instance, and of military capacity to enforce that right in the second.

That's true, but the early Grand Lodge also included a passage that stated, while a Brother should be discouraged from rebellion, he could not be expelled if that was his only crime. They had witnessed many civil wars and rebellions in Europe by that time. They didn't want the Fraternity as an institution to be involved, but had sympathy for those living under bad rulers.
My current code and constitution says almost exactly the same thing, but adds that the Brother loses his Lodge privileges until he reforms. I am in a different Grand Jurisdiction, however.
As for Texas seceding, that personally seems like something that is not going to happen.
 

David N.

Premium Member
Just as a followup, I think it was a wise move on the part of England. To be sure, they closely, closely allied themselves with the ruling monarchy.
Mainly to assuage public fears that they were plotting in private, and also to give them an air of respectability.
But to me it also solves the "if we're supposed to follow the law, what about the Revolutionary Freemasons?" debate.
Freemasons didn't rebel against the crown, a lot of people did, some of whom were also Freemasons.
I think they would have acted much the same way if they weren't Freemasons. But early Freemasons were aware that sometimes government is bad, and a man shouldn't necessarily be expelled for realizing that.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I don't think having a political opinion is a Masonic offense. I think discussing it in lodge would be seen as such by most of the membership.

Our prohibition against discussing "partisan politics" might theoretically not be broken if a brother were to discuss the issue in terms of principles. But good luck with arguing that once it comes to trial.

A discussion of the history of such a movement could probably be pulled off as a Masonic education presentation if you stressed those brothers who were involved in the Texas Revolution against Mexico and then a few decades later those who were involved in the Civil War. Moving that to the modern era would be problematic.

The charges do tell us to cheerfully conform to the just laws of our country so you'd need to argue against the justice. I don't see any way to manage that topic without becoming partisan.

Being a member of some completely separate organization on the topic would not be in and of itself a Masonic offense as far as I can tell as long as you avoid discussions of it at lodge.
 

Canadian Paul

Registered User
A point I think is often forgotten when talking about Freemasonry at the time of your War for Independence is that there were many Brethren living in what is now the U.S. who remained loyal to the Crown. You tend to call them 'Tories'. As a Canadian whose ancestors were living in a part of British North America that remained loyal at that time, I prefer to call them 'Loyalists'.

At every Installation in a Scottish Lodge the incoming Master is required to give his assent to 14 Charges which are read out to him. The third is "You promise not to be concerned in plots or conspiracies against the Government, but to submit patiently to the decisions of the Supreme Legislature." Something similiar is read and assented to in Lodges under the GL of NL. Is anything similar done at Installations in the US?
 

Canadian Paul

Registered User
Since posting the above, I have given the question of whether it would be 'masonic' to support 'secession' more thought. We have faced exactly that situation (and still face it) in Canada with the on going attempt of many in the province of Quebec to have that province 'separate' (the term we use, rather than 'secede') from Canada. There are Separatist Members of Parliament' there have been governments in Quebec formed by Separatist majorities in their Provincial legislature, and there have been two referendums in Quebec on Separation, one in 1980, and another in 1995 which was narrowly defeated 50.6% NO to 49.4% YES. There is now an Act of Parliament (usually referred to as the 'Clarity Act") which sets out in some detail under what circumstances a referendum favourable to separation would be accepted.

I would propose, therefore, that a Freemason in Quebec who works towards Separation is doing nothing unmasonic as long as he obeys the law. However, seeing that in the US you fought a civil war over whether or not a state could legally secede, and the result of that conflict was that it couldn't, your federal government would now consider someone working for secession in Texas to be breaking the law. One could therefore argue that they would then be acting unmasonicly.

I would note that I find it ironic that, although prior to 1776 inhabitants of what later became part of the US considered themselves British and the British government legitimate, they nevertheless thought it legal to secede and form a new federation. Later, however, when some of the participants in that original secession wanted to secede from that federation, it was considered by most illegal.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
Textbook%20pages%20complete.png
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
At every Installation in a Scottish Lodge the incoming Master is required to give his assent to 14 Charges which are read out to him. The third is "You promise not to be concerned in plots or conspiracies against the Government, but to submit patiently to the decisions of the Supreme Legislature." Something similiar is read and assented to in Lodges under the GL of NL. Is anything similar done at Installations in the US?

I have been installed in two jurisdictions and that wording is used in both. More restrictions are placed on the WM than on other members. Elsewhere the word "just" is included but not for the WM.
 

David N.

Premium Member
I don't think having a political opinion is a Masonic offense. I think discussing it in lodge would be seen as such by most of the membership.

Our prohibition against discussing "partisan politics" might theoretically not be broken if a brother were to discuss the issue in terms of principles. But good luck with arguing that once it comes to trial.

A discussion of the history of such a movement could probably be pulled off as a Masonic education presentation if you stressed those brothers who were involved in the Texas Revolution against Mexico and then a few decades later those who were involved in the Civil War. Moving that to the modern era would be problematic.

The charges do tell us to cheerfully conform to the just laws of our country so you'd need to argue against the justice. I don't see any way to manage that topic without becoming partisan.

Being a member of some completely separate organization on the topic would not be in and of itself a Masonic offense as far as I can tell as long as you avoid discussions of it at lodge.


I think you hit the nail on the head, in that the main issue is not discussing it in Lodge. Take the American Revolution for example. There were Masons fighting for the Crown, and Masons rebelling. When the dust settled, no one was expelled due to the side they were on, because the Fraternity has no interest nor business in picking the "right" side. But there is no place for such talk within a Lodge. I can honestly say that I have Brothers I truly love, that hold political views completely opposite of mine. Lodge is where we can put all of that aside.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I can honestly say that I have Brothers I truly love, that hold political views completely opposite of mine. Lodge is where we can put all of that aside.

And religion as well.

In theory we can speak of the divine on matters of principle and how our actions take our views into account.

In theory we can speak of our society on matters of organization and how our actions take our views into account.

But how to manage that without getting sectarian or partisan? The problem is not ourselves getting sectarian or partisan but others getting sectarian or partisan in reaction to our statements. No wonder our ban on discussion of sectarian or partisan issues is interpreted so widely.
 

Canadian Paul

Registered User
Most Brethren here would not be familiar with the following. It is, of course, only the opinion of the 3 Grand lodges involved but has relevance to this topic and may be of interest.

At every Installation in a Scottish lodge "The Aims and Relationships of the Craft' MUST be read out. It is a document agreed to in 1938 by the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland. Each of these Grand Lodges individually approved a version identical in wording except for the name of that Grand Lodge being inserted in the appropriate places. Among its 11 Articles they list the various basic principles, most familiar to all US and Canadian Freemasons, that any masonic body wishing recognition must meet. Among these, in Article 7, it says essentially that, to be recognised by these Grand lodges as 'regular', a Grand Lodge as a Grand Lodge must 'stand aloof' from taking any kind of political stand. Presumably this would also apply to any of its constituent lodges.

Article 5 is even more precise, and I will quote it verbatim. "Everyone who enters Freemasonry is, at the outset, strictly forbidden to countenance any act which may have a tendency to subvert the peace and good order of society, he must pay due obedience to the law of any State in which he resides or which may afford him protection, and he must never be remiss in the allegiance due to the Sovereign of his native land."

(Here 'State', of course, refers to a country and not a U.S, state such as Texas.)

This prohibition applies only to members of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, of course, but it does contradict the opinion stated above in the publication by Bro. Mackey.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
a Grand Lodge as a Grand Lodge must 'stand aloof' from taking any kind of political stand.

I certainly agree that Grand Lodges and constituent lodges are forbidden from taking any kind of political stand, however that prohibition does not extend to individual Freemasons.

Article 5 is even more precise, and I will quote it verbatim. "Everyone who enters Freemasonry is, at the outset, strictly forbidden to countenance any act which may have a tendency to subvert the peace and good order of society, he must pay due obedience to the law of any State in which he resides or which may afford him protection, and he must never be remiss in the allegiance due to the Sovereign of his native land."

Article 6 of the document states:

While English Freemasonry thus inculcates in each of its members the duties of loyalty and citizenship, it reserves to the individual the right to hold his own opinion with regard to public affairs. But neither in any Lodge, nor at any time in his capacity as a Freemason, is he permitted to discuss or to advance his views on theological or political questions.

Of course the prohibition against discussion of theological or political questions in Lodge is the always to be observed.

Of course the United States does not have a Sovereign, but I have always sworn allegiance to the United States. I joined the U S Navy when I was 17 and took an oath at that time, however I have not and will not swear allegiance to any individual be they a Sovereign, Monarch, or whatever name they may call themselves.

I will always follow my conscience above all else and if necessary resist a tyrannical and/or immoral government. I do not believe that Freemasonry teaches that Freemasons as individuals are obligated to support governments such as Nazi Germany and in fact believe that we are taught to fight against the types of injustices perpetrated by it and other such governments.

Now to bring the discussion back to the original post:

Would it be a Masonic Offense to support the Texas Independence movement- or secession?

Let's not get into a discussion of the sanity of it, just would it be an offense.

I read the question as just asking if someone holds an opinion favoring the movement (without debating the merit), would it be a masonic offense. In my opinion it most certainly would not, even in terms of "The Aims and Relationships of the Craft'. Of course I am not an expert on Masonic Law and Jurisprudence, but Mackey was and he certainly says it would not.

Not trying to drag him into a discussion he does not wish to participate in, but I would like to hear Brother Glen Cook's opinion on the matter as he probably is the most qualified member of the forum to speak to the issue.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Would it be a Masonic Offense to support the Texas Independence movement- or secession?
Nope, but that would not prevent members in power from bringing him up on charges if they believed doing so would position them favorably in the eyes of the craft and society.
 

Pscyclepath

Premium Member
There's some good discussion on secession, and how our ancient brethren dealt with it in 1860/1861, in the opening section of Allen Roberts' "House Undivided." Essentially the individual state jurisdictions decided loyalty lay with the individual state governments in that case.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
... however I have not and will not swear allegiance to any individual be they a Sovereign, Monarch, or whatever name they may call themselves.

I was rereading this thread and this particular statement jumped out at me. I'm married, so I did swear allegiance to an individual. I am divorced so it's clear that even with individuals it does not work out. I'm remarried and this time there isn't any risk that it will end. Chose carefully enough and it works, even for people like me who had to learn how to chose foolishly first to learn how to chose carefully later.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
I have been married to the same woman for 41 years and consider my marriage vows to be a sacred solemn promise, pledge, and personal commitment to her, although she is worthy of being treated like a Queen she is a devout christian, believes in the biblical roles of husband and wife and would never expect me to treat her as my leader. I would not consider the word allegiance to apply to marriage vows based on the typical definition of the word. If you want to think of it as applicable to your marriage vows that is certainly your prerogative, but, it is clear that my comment was made in the context of a Mason being required to “pay due obedience to the law of any State in which he resides or which may afford him protection, and he must never be remiss in the allegiance due to the Sovereign of his native land."

allegiance
support for a leader, country, group, or belief
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/allegiance

vow
to make a firm promise or decision to do something
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/vow
 
Top