Freemasonry is a post-collegiate mostly-all male fraternity dedicated to the social development of the member to form a broader sense of the self and their community.
From the last installment, the point I wanted to build on was the item covered by Br. Dafoe’s article in the Masonic Journal and the missing membership. To touch on briefly what his article said, the most significant loss measured was in NPD’s and SNPD’s which made up the lion share of members who join our ranks, and then for a variety of reasons stop attending or paying dues. That in these numbers could be found the reason for the decline.
But, there are certain problems with that measure. When a member joins the organization the process can take several months, but when a member leaves, there is really very little process or paperwork, and consequently, no way to quantify why the member is leaving. This is different from returning an item or requesting a refund from a store where there is a short form or question involved to explain “why” the item is being brought back. In Masonry, that’s not the case, as there is no exit interview, no closure, to find the point of dissatisfaction. Rather it is a phantom hole, members who were there and now who are not.
So, because of that vacuum, there is no way of knowing what happened. Does the new member come in, stay a while, and then lose interest? Do they make the decision to drop out because of other membership obligations (church, work, bowling leagues, etc), or is that there was a lack of an affinity with Masonry itself? Did they just not find it relevant? Once they’ve left, do they pursue other interest groups (civic, spiritual, or academic)? What they do after Masonry is beyond the scope of our ability to know. All we can quantify it as is that they are no longer on the roles. Is it a society issue where there is a lack of resonance with the society, or is it sociological issue in that the ideas from the non masonic society is shaping their perception of what Masonry is supposed to be doing?
So this leads me to another question, are there other avenues to do what the lodge offers without having to meet to pay bills, or plan events? Is the competition today different than what it was before (say 50-100 years ago)?
In the next post, let’s look at some of the competition. What do you do when you’re not doing Masonry?
Not so much the physical age in years, but the age of its being. What I mean by that is the age of a Masonic existence in light of the age in which we live in today. The reason this seemed relevant to me was that as we examine the landscape of society, with its myriad of organization (both non profit and philanthropic) it seems that the age of the local community champion lodge has passed. I’ll admit that this is a generalization, that “what is in one place is not in all places” but in those areas that are diverse and developed, it would seem that the effectualness of the lodge, as it is presently configured, pales in comparison to the broader reach of the community in general. So the question that arises in my mind is if the drop in membership is something more than merely a drop of knowledge in the fraternity?
Stephen Dafoe, in an article written for the Journal of the Masonic Society (issue 2 autumn 2008) indicated that the problem was not a matter of poor showing, that many men were coming to the doors of the lodges, but that the problem was retention. Of those that did come, that the attrition rate was significant of those who returned, that the drop in membership was higher in Non Paid Dues and Suspensions for Not Paying Dues than in the completion of the degrees region wide. The study was on a very narrow slice of North American Masonry, but I think you can extrapolate the data to suggest a wider, more endemic issue, that once new members come, only a very small portion return year after year.
In the past, I’ve talked about the various reasons that some attribute to this: the lack of openness, the disparity in age, the degree of interest of those already in attendance, or the degree of which the aspirant to the west gate is prepared or ready to be made a mason, that those who petition are not of the right caliber or quality for the degrees and naturally leave of their doing.
But as much as those have been the problems, my question turned back to society in general: has something changed in the modern society that has shaped the aspirants’ idea (or perception) of what the Masonic lodge “should be”, and when they get there. Is it not what they expected? If the latter then it is a good lesson on expectations that seldom are they met, but underneath the surface of that expectation, is there something missing that society is pre-engineering into their consciousness that they are just not seeing when they enter into our chambers?
I plan to explore these ideas in upcoming posts to see if we can break down some of the ideas and formulate some new ideas to bring to the public forum. But before we can do that, I’m curious to know what you think. Is the drop of membership representative of something more? Is there a societal or sociological change in modern day that is different than it was 6o years ago?
This article comes from RWB Dean Behrens, Senior Grand Warden for the Grand Lodge of South Dakota. The article originally appeared in the Grand Lodge of South Dakota’s publication The Masonic Messenger. You can visit the Grand Lodge’s website here.
What will be your legacy?
Is it too soon, or too late, for any one of us to ask ourselves that question? Just what is a legacy anyway?
I found this definition of legacy online at www.thefreedictionary.com . Something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past. That seems fairly straight forward. The something in this definition could be anything. I like to think that it can definitely apply to your Masonic legacy.
When you became a Mason your Masonic predecessors left a Masonic legacy for you. It included the building you were raised in, perhaps some money in the treasury, a set of principles, beliefs, values, some rules and a bunch of other stuff that only you know about. The intangible parts of this legacy are unique to each new Mason. That is because Masonry will mean something different to each individual Mason. Some have said that this is the only true secret about Masonry. Your Masonry is your secret.
The physical assets you leave as part of your legacy are, of course, important for those Masons you will leave behind. These can ensure that your Brothers will have the ability to meet comfortably and continue to promote Masonry in your community so that they and their community can be the better because of Masonry and its principles. So keep those in mind.
The intangible are perhaps even more important. My experience is that the most valuable person in an organization is the one that is hardly missed when he/she is away for a period of time. They have organized things so well, trained other so well and set such an example that everything works smoothly even when they are not there. Those that do the opposite generally create chaos when they are gone even for a very short time. They have created job security and proved to others how great and invaluable they are to the organization, or so they often think. Be mindful that it can be amazing what can be done if no one cares who gets the credit.
Please keep your legacy in mind in everything you do as a Mason. Not for you, but for those you will leave behind, both in Masonry and in your community.
Symbolic or “Speculative Masonry” began to gradually develop during the XVI and XVII in Europe, particularly – though not exclusively – in the kingdoms of England and Scotland.
As the official history relates, on June 24, 1717, four Londonese Lodges gathered to celebrate the Summer Solstice, and to “constitute” the First Grand Speculative Lodge (“Grand Lodge of London”); But, not without the most indignant protest of The Grand Lodge of Operative Masons, which, denounced the “Speculative One” of being Illegitimate and Apocryphal, for many of its subordinate lodges and very leaders (including Anderson himself) had never been affiliated with the Craft – let alone initiated – as “Accepted Masons”.
From that moment on, however, the Grand Lodge of London became the creating source of numerous lodges around the world, which, in turn, were progressively creating their own national bodies (Grand Lodges or Grand orients in every country), all inter-linked by bonds of Solidarity and Mutual Recognition.
In September 1721 (four years later), as a result of the heterogeneity provoked by great errors that existed in all the copies of the Ancient Constitutions, and, at the same time, due to the expansion of Speculative Masonry to Europe and America, the assembly of The Grand Lodge of London charged Pastor James Anderson, chaplain of a subordinate Lodge, with “ordering the old constitutions with a new and better method”. Anderson finalized the assignment in three months and presented his finalized work at the festivity of Winter Solstice of that same year – being thereupon revised by a commission integrated by fourteen erudite masons, shorthly thereafter approved by the same group on March 25, 1722, and subsequently published by William Hunter the following year. In the third article of these “new constitutions”, there is a concrete clause prohibiting women to join the Order. In that sense, Anderson is very clear in stating such prohibition; But, he is rather indifferent in stating the motivations that drove him to such a pronouncement.
2. Emergence in Continental Europe:
Simultaneously, Speculative Masonry started gaining terrain in Continental Europe, mainly in France. In addition to the Irish Lodges that were constituted in Saint Germain in 1690, Free-Masonry attained much strength at the beginning of 1720, under the leadership of the Duke of Wharton, and, posteriorly, under that of Sir John MacLean. The first “londonese styled” election, of which there is historical constancy, was that of Charles Radcliffe, Count of Dervenwater, in 1736, as “Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Most Illustrious Society of Franc-Masons in the Kingdom of France”. The Duke of Anton was the first French Grand Master of the Order in 1738. Later came the Grand Mastership of Louis de Borbon, Count of Claremont and Abbot of Saint Germain from 1743 to 1771, whom at one point was even called “Grand Master of All Regular Masonic Lodges in the Kingdom of France”.
The first french translation of the “Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of London”, better known historically as: “Anderson’s Constitutions”, was made by the Marquis de la Tierce in 1742, twenty years after its first publication in London. In his translation he mentions:
“The famous festivities of Ceres in Eleusis, of Isis in Egypt, of Minerva in Athens, of Urania in Phoenicia, and of Diana in Sitia, had much in common with ours. The celebration of these mysteries contained clear vestiges of the ancient religion of Noah and other patriarchs; they concluded their ceremonies with a feast and libations during which, at the beginning, no one knew of excesses or intemperances, until later when the pagans fell into them gradually. The source of these infamies, was the admission of people from one gender and the other at the nocturnal assemblies of the institution. It was to prevent these abuses that women were excluded from the Order”.
This, could be interpreted as either a tacit or veiled admission that indeed women were admitted to work in Lodge in the past; as a rather poor and quasi-baseless argument to discriminate against women; or, as a political pretext – as the very de la Tierce points out – to keep Queen Elizabeth from joining the Order and using it to her benefit, as she so did with other guilds.
It is possible that due to this draconian transition between the established observance of the real constitution of the Grand Lodge of London and the reissuing of its new general norms (“Anderson’s Constitutions”) which lasted approximately six years, the lodges under its jurisdiction worked without rituals and unifying norms during the first half of the XVIII century, and this was, of course, reflected in the first Speculative or Symbolic Masonic Lodges of Continental Europe, many of which, due to their involuntary or voluntary disavow of Anderson’s Constitutions, welcomed the initiation of women.
3. Pseudo-Initiatic Androgynous Societies of Masonic Appearance:
In the Pre-Revolutionary French Society, there were many organizations created by the growing Bourgeoisie that participated in the process of creating the “Civil Court” which came to gradually substitute the “Imperial Court”; these organizations were circles, clubs, cafes, academies, literary societies, scientific societies, spiritualist societies, alchemical societies, chambers, halls of lecture and singing, etc. The vast majority of these societies were not only bi-gender, but, were also sponsored by women of great economical, social and political power – mainly the “philosophical halls”, a world of initiates that was dominated by the “Court of Seals” of the Duchess of Maine (1676 – 1753), Director ad vitam of the “Order of the Bee”; the hall of the Marquee of Lambert (1647 – 1733); the “Bureau of the Spirit” of Claudine Guerin de Tencin (1681 – 1749); the hall of the Marquee of Deffand (1697 – 1780); the “Kingdom” of Maria Teresa Geoffrin (1699 – 1777) and the “Philosophical Hall” of Julia de Lespinasse (1732 – 1776).
The pseudo-initiatic societies denominated as: “Androgynous” or “Hermaphrodite” that appeared along the XVIII century, have their origins in like organizations created at the end of Louis XIV’s rule, and other social entities of more profane roots where the openness of membership to both genders was not only normal, but, encouraged. These organizations can be divided in two groups:
Secret Societies which were gallant, licentious, fun-seeking and recreational, platonic and charitable.
“Orders” that parodied Free-Masonry and sought to become their competitors and/or substitutes – something that they did so well, that between 1730 and 1740 public powers/officials mistook them for actual Masonic Lodges in a number of occasions. Among these “Orders” were: the “Con-Fraternity of Figs” in Vienna, the “Order of Liberty“, “Order of Felicity“, and “Order of Anthropocentrism” in France. The “Order of Felicity” proliferated and got to be sponsored by high personages of French politics, economics and society at large. On the other hand, the “Order of Anthropocentrism” took its name from maritime language, a fact, which, in the eyes of the profane world, got them often misidentified with Masonic Lodges of naval origin – aside from having passwords and methods of recognition which made reference to bodily parts of men and women, and, that, as such, had erotic, sexual and licentious connotations.
The “Order of Knights and Nymphs of the Rose” was also famous; its membership was mainly constituted of aristocrats and well known free-masons, such as: the Duke of Chartres (then future Duke of Orleans) who was also Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France.
The “Order of Knights and Ladies of Perseverance” equally pseudo-initiatic, but, less “loud”, was created by notable figures such as: the daughter of Stanislav II, Augustus Poniatowski, Last King of Poland, Elizabeth Lubomirska and her daughters, the Countesses Rzewuska and Potocka, all members of the Masonic Lodge of Adoption “Catherine the Northern Star” which was conjoined with its male counterpart of the same name, constituted under the auspices of the Grand Orient of France, and propelled by Ignatius Potocki. Other notables who held membership in this Lodge of Adoption were the Duke of Chartress, the Count of Artois (future Charles X), the Prince of Ligne, Charles Joseph, future Marshall of Russia, the Austrian Duke of Lauzum. Knight Hospitallier of the Order, and a number of prestigious intellectuals.
During the kingdoms of Louis XV and Louis XVI appeared other pseudo-initiatic organizations of Masonic appearance, such as: the “Order of Medusa“, the “Extirpators of Palisades“, the “Knights of the Dove“, the “Order of the Green Apple“, etc.
Since 1730, aside from these more or less “light societies”, in all of Europe we are able to find fraternities (bi-gender or not) which, amused themselves parodying Masonic secrets and rituals out of mere jealousy, contempt, rivalry and/or imbecile humor.
The Order of Mopses (or Order of the Pug) is perhaps the most famous of the aforementioned organizations which used to mocker Free-Masonry. It was born in Strasburg in 1738, after the official prohibition of Masonry emitted by the Empress Mary Therese, as a consequence of the Papal Bull “In Eminenti”. It was presided by Wilhelmina, sister of Frederick II, King of Prussia. With the exception of the Grand Mistress Ad Vitam, all the Sisters may occupy all the “stations”. In every Lodge, every position or office has two titleholders, a man and a woman. Every six months the presidency of the Lodge is alternated between a Man and a Woman, and their ceremony of Initiation is carried out in accordance with the Inductee’s gender, be it by male or female officers.
It was within that context, in 1736, that Andre Michelle, Knight of Ramsay pronounced his over-misogynous speech before the General Assembly of Masonic Lodges in Paris, and which he later repeated in 1737. His public address had the eventually-failed objective of causing Free-Masonry to be under the control of the Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church, in order to counterattack the incredulity and socio-political discredit in which the Craft had fallen, due to the turmoil and disorder provoked in considerable measure by these Pseudo-Initiatic Institutions of Masonic Resemblance and, of course, by the misconduct of actual Free-Masons.
All this agitation caused a great deal of tension between the Puritan and Orthodox Masonic Jurisdictions of England and their French counterparts. From then on, the English Free-Masons demonstrated an unbelievable efficiency in generating tidal-waves of anti-feminine literature aimed at justifying the non-admittance of women in Lodge. They had three basic arguments which had been tangibly proven in France, at the hands of the previously referenced “Mixed Pseudo-Initiatic Orders”. Such arguments were: the congenital Feminine Indiscretion which made the respect to Masonic secrecy Impossible; the disorders, conflicts and eventual loss of harmony that could be provoked by the “Beautiful Gender” in a Masculine Lodge; and the risks of being accused of Immorality, Lasciviousness and Libertinism by civil and ecclesiastical authorities.
From that moment forward, one of the most colossal anti-feminist campaigns was launched in all of Europe. These campaigns were clearly manifested in Literature, Music, Theater, and, of course, the Media… What’s new?!
In reaction to this, in 1774 the Grand Orient of France legitimized the Lodges of Adoption (Bi-Gender and Feminine Masonic Lodges). Pierre Louis Gouillard Aine, Parliament’s Attorney, Dean of the Faculty of Law in Paris, Royal Auditor, Officer of the Grand Orient of France and Venerable Master of Sophia Lodge prepared a document containing numerous points in defense of Female Free-Masons. Some of those remarks and arguments were:
“The association of both genders is founded upon Natural Law and one cannot separate from this Principle without rebelling against the tenets of this Immutable Law”;
” What a most satisfying spectacle to see a Lodge formed by Brothers and Sisters animated by the desire of practicing the fundamental virtues of our Institution”;
“Which Philosopher – even the most austere – can refuse the pleasure of contemplating in the same place the two most perfect artworks that were ever sculpted by the hand of Nature?!”
Then, he gives historical proof that indeed Women are capable of safe-keeping the most delicate secrets:
“… when being admitted in many of the Mysteries of Antiquity, like those of the Druids, to whom they were Deservers of all Confidence and Respect, even more so than that which they professed toward men, by having been assigned to the office and dignity of Prophetesses and Sages that were considered the elite of the nation …”
He continues on advocating for the innocence of Sisters in Lodge:
“Some of our Brothers, oblivious to the principles of Art and under false pretenses of creating a Lodge of Adoption, have gathered incorrigible females with whom to abandon themselves in orgies and the most uncontrollable excesses of libertinism; But, precisely because we have had the disgrace of nourishing in our bosom those unworthy monsters that I call “men” (for I wish not to call them Masons), these spurious brothers, abusing a title of which they are totally unworthy of, have succumbed to the most execrable superfluities; Can we actually think that the solution is to throw women out of our Temples?, No! Undoubtedly what must be done is to take measures against the perpetrators of these transgressions”.
He then suggested a number of regulative measures to stop the abuses in the Lodges of Adoption – such as the following two:
“To summon, by consent of the majority of the Brethren, to participation in all meetings and special gatherings, which will be indistinctively presided by either the Venerable Master, or one of the Wardens of the Adopting Lodge”;
“Scrupulous Examination of the conduct and state of all female candidates”.
And with this final comment, our French Brethren voted in favor of admitting women into our Order:
“… profiting from lessons of Wisdom that shall be vividly engraved in the hearts of men, when imparted by an amiable mouth which by the sweetness of its accents, shall make the austerity of precepts disappear, and will force us to think of ourselves and to practice virtue …”
From this very moment, many masculine lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of France began to auspice Lodges of Adoption, and, at the same time, to enrich the arguments in defense of Free-Co-Masons (Women Free-Masons), thus creating the Perfect Unification of Human Energies and Labors toiling for the material, moral, spiritual and intellectual progress of Humanity.
All these events gave full or partial pretext or foundation to the “surfacing” or “devising” of an Anglo-Saxon System of Masonry which calls itself “REGULAR” and refuses to “recognize” others, and a “LIBERAL” F-R-E-E-MASONRY, integrated by all those other Sovereign Grand Bodies and Jurisdictions that are “Irregular” in the eyes of our English Styled/Controlled Masonry — An absolute contraposition which seems irremediable still in our days.
Reprinted by permission of Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr.
While listening to an alarming expose on the declining of membership of “Regular” American Masonry and its apparent inexorable demise, I could not help to wonder if that which has been prohibited, the admission of Women into our Order, is not precisely what and whom we need to insure our survival, and, most importantly, to genuinely live up to our Sacred Principle of Equality. As I gathered my thoughts later on that night, I began to gradually immerse myself in my humble essential library, and proceeded to read, compile, and eventually mold my sentiments and commentaries on paper. The following essay is the result of various sleepless nights that began that same evening.
INTRODUCTION
The eagerness to know the Self and his/her Objective and Predominant Surrounding, in order to achieve Self-Transcendence, is one of the peculiar characteristics of human feeling, thinking and acting.
The perennial problems that Humanity has endeavored to resolve since its very origins, are all alike in their roots, though their solutions have been adapted to “the spirit of times”, that is to say, to the appropriate conditions of a particular civilization in a determined time and place.
Since immemorial times, there have existed ritualistic practices exclusively for men, for women, and/or for both.
Nowadays, it has become frequent to observe the rediscovery or resurfacing of Ancient Schools of Thought and Initiatic Organizations engaged in new ways of understanding and implementing (esoterically and exoterically) the Traditional Science. Among these organizations and schools, Organized Free-Masonry distinguishes itself as the most important of all Initiatic Institutions in Western Europe, America and parts of Asia and Africa.
All these aspects – without prejudice to others that are also worthy of consideration – should be kept into account when asking ourselves and others the questions: “What is Masonry?”, and, “What is Mixed Masonry or Co masonry?”.
As we now begin to reflect, with the purpose of building for ourselves and others the most objective possible vision of what Free-Masonry is in general, and Mixed Free-Masonry or Co masonry in particular, we must try to answer, with the utmost honesty, the following three questions:
Have there existed initiatic organizations of mixed and feminine orientation in ancient times, and, if so, did they actively participate in the Art of Architecture?
Has there existed a Mixed and/or a Feminine Speculative Masonry, at least since its alleged “official birth” in 1717, and, if so, how has it evolved?
Is it possible, at this point in time, to conceive a Free-Masonry integrated by Lodges of Women, of Men, or, of Mixed Gender among which there can exist a broad respect to their particular preferences of initiatic realization, while, at the same time, having full conscience that they ALL are part of an unique and indivisible entity known as: Universal Free-Masonry?
ANTECEDENTS
A Curious Mythology:
Ever since humans left behind their nomadic conditions and became sedentary, they started to manifest their attitude toward advancement and their aptitude for construction. In fact, Construction is one of the most evident characteristic signs of Civilization in all epochs and cultures; However, with respect to determining its objective origins, History is irremediably mixed with Myth, arriving sometimes to some unsuspected extremes.
Charles Bernardin (1860-1939), notable Masonic Historian and member of the Supreme Council of the Grand Orient of France, was able to compile and prove the existence of 206 authors who contended and presented 39 divergent opinions on the origin of Masonry. Amongst these opinions, the most admiration-worthy are the following:
At the very beginning of “his constitutions”, Anderson himself asserts that the first Mason was Adam, and that the Great Architect of the Universe inscribed in his heart the Liberal Sciences, and, before all, Geometry, fundament of Masonry and Architecture, which, he later taught to his descendants.
Fifteen of the thirty nine Masonic Historians elaborated on the existence of a Lodge at the East of Paradise. Some contend that at the sixth day of the Creation, the issue of women in Lodge was addressed and approved at the Celestial Grand Lodge. Others state that the First Mason was indeed Adam, and from that standpoint Jean Marie Ragon de Bettignies (1781-1866) concluded: “… If our father Adam labored in Lodge, he could not have done it with anyone else, but, with his woman …”.
Elian Brault stated, rather persuasively: “… Given that the Serpent of Genesis approached Eve first, to have her taste the fruit of The Tree of Life, Science and Death, it was Eve evidently the First Initiated, whom, in turn, initiated Adam …”
For his own part, Marc Bedarride sustains that the Patriarch Jabel, son of Lamech, was the first who conceived the felicitous idea of accepting a woman in Lodge. He chose as Grand Mistress his sister Noema, daughter of Lamech and Sella, and sister of Tubalcain. Since the age of seventeen, Noema demonstrated having the most outstanding qualities, by being honest, civilized, gracious, affable, amiable, kind and beautiful. Jabel surrounded himself with other illustrious sisters to help him with his labors – having had their first Lodge meeting at a plain field surrounded by twelve palms, and under a pure and serene sky where Peace, Concord and Harmony reigned.
OPERATIVE ERA
When some poorly informed people – Masons and Non-Masons – blindedly reject the possibility of a Woman being eligible and/or worthy of Masonic Initiation, whether it be in a Feminine Lodge or a Mixed-one, one cannot help to “sketch” a light smile; for it is clear, even by the accounts and terms of Profane History, that women, in their individual capacities or through their membership in diverse guilds of spinners, weaveresses, carvers, upholsterers, sculptresses, etc. have taken active participation in the Divine Art of Architecture.
Some evidential facts that support the above statement are the following:
The Carpenters Guild of Norwich, a guild that dates from 1375, and to which the Masons of York belonged, recollect that: “Every year, the Saturday following the Ascension, the Brothers and Sisters get together in a determined place to recite their prayers in honor of the Holy Trinity, in favor of the Holy Church, for Peace and Union of the country, and for the repose of the souls of all defunct, not only Fore-Brothers and Fore-Sisters, but, all friends and Christians… If a member of our Guild dies, his/her Brothers and Sisters should pray for him/her and celebrate a mass for the peaceful state of his/her soul”…
In the archives of York Lodge Number 236, which belonged to the Ancient Grand Lodge of England, in the Orient of York whose origin is immemorial, there is a Manuscript dated in 1693 and transcribed on a lightly mutilated parchment, by which we find that, during the reception of a neophyte in the 17th century: “One of the Elders picks-up the Book, and He or She who is to be made a Mason places his/her hand on the Book, and then the instructions are given”.
Another fact comes to contradict the exaggerated misogyny of a vast number of Masons, Grand Jurisdictions and Concordant Bodies: There is a great feminine name, among those “admirable cathedral builders”, that of Sabine de Pierrefonds, daughter of Herve de Pierrefonds, better known by the Germanic name of Erwin Von Steinbach. Sabine participated in the construction of the cathedral of Strasburg, and also sculpted some of the most prominent statues of Notre Dame in Paris. Evidently, however, the construction of these cathedrals, which, usually took up to a couple of centuries to be built, required more than one Master of the Work, and it is highly probable that Sabine de Pierrefonds was not the only woman who toiled in these labors.
On another hand, among those possible feminine receptions of “Accepted Masons”, like those narrated by ancient medieval “Duties” and “Charges”, we can include those of the Masters’ wives, since these “Bylaws” make an invariable reference to them both:
“Thou shall not reveal the secrets or projects of thy Master or thy Mistress…”
(Ancient Constitutions of Franc-Masons, taken from a manuscript written 500 years ago by J. Roberts, Warwick-Lane, 1722, Apprentices’ Bylaws, 1,4,5,7)
The publication of this manuscript was prior to that of “Anderson’s Constitutions”, and it has been found to be more trust-worthy, in light of its antiquity and uniqueness – since in 1724 (seven years after the creation of the alleged “First Grand Lodge”) Anderson simply made a synthesis of various documents, some of which were even second hand; whereas in the case of our aforementioned manuscript, we are in the presence of an unique and complete document. And with respect to the evoked “Mistress”, we can all admit that Sabine de Pierrefonds, artist and sculptress, had to, at the same time, form/train Apprentices and Companions (Fellow crafts). Later on, in due time, the benefits of this Feminine Initiation into “Accepted Free-Masonry” were extended to a female monarch: Queen Anne Stewart, Daughter of James II, who ruled between 1702 and 1714.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the last five years researching both Masonry and the American Civil War, as well as the intersection of those two subjects, and that is why my blog posts have been less frequent of late. Currently, I am in the middle of the final edit for my book on that subject which will be published in early 2010 by the University of Alabama Press and it’s time-consuming work. I had been thinking about Civil War Masonry since I was raised, but it wasn’t until I began looking for Civil War ancestors here at home that the work really started to take shape. In fact, it was over dinner one night some years back that my wife shared an interesting tidbit that got the whole thing rolling. Her great great grandfather, she announced, died in 1863 in “Chimichanga, Georgia,” which made me pause with my fork in mid-air.
“Chickamauga?”
“That could have been it,” she said blandly, eating her peas.
My wife has no interest what-so-ever in history, but historically minded folks will recognize the homophone as a reference to the Battle of Chickamauga that occurred in north Georgia on September 19-20, 1863. To suggest to a Civil War geek like me, that someone died within 20 miles of that place in 1863 is the same as saying – yeah, my grandfather worked in a schoolbook warehouse in Dallas in 1963. So I told her that there were a lot of people who died in Chickamauga, Georgia in 1863 and most of them died from lead poisoning.
I hurriedly finished my peas, and got out the family papers. Sure enough, we found the reference to Chickamauga, and that led to a record’s request to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and some correspondence with the Indiana Historical Society, among others. I think my frau would have been content to just let her great great grandfather rest in peace with his burrito, but by that point I was committed.
Men and women seem to go about genealogy differently. From what I can tell there are two main areas of interest for chick-genealogy. The first going something like this; “What diseases did my grandmothers die of and do I carry the gene for female baldness?” Every genealogy I’ve ever looked at that was compiled by a female described the diseases, maladies, and medical complaints of the ancestor more thoroughly than a coroner’s report. And hers was no exception; that thing was filled with more tumors, lesions, goiters and leprosy than a field dressing station along the Burma Railway in 1942– it’s enough to make you retch.The only thing missing was a tissue sample.
The other interest females invariably have is kind of a scrapbook thingy where they can read old newspaper clippings about what kind of dress the bride wore and paste it all pretty-like in a photo album. So when you’re poring over these things, you’ll come across pressed flowers and scraps of material and old social notices from the Mudburgh, Iowa News Advertiser about the soiree over at Lorraine Hudson née Klingenhoffer’s where the band played until the wee hours of the morning.
This is, of course, vastly different from what guys are interested in – namely, “Did my great-grandfather save the Union by shooting Braxton Bragg in the left nut?” And of course that inquiry carries with it some risk, because although you are unlikely to discover that your Grandfather was awarded three Medals of Honor (you’d already know that), you could find some cool stuff like maybe he was in Pickett’s Charge or something, but you might also just find the eerie line in the official record “Shot for Cowardice” written by some clerk in a spidery hand at regimental headquarters, or “Stole a pig: deserted.”
Probably the best possible outcome is to find out that he was wounded in battle somewhere – accidental shootings don’t count and just leave the impression that the whole family is a collection of idiots. Killed in action is morbidly acceptable, because at least that means he was in the thick of things and aiming at Braxton Bragg’s family jewels, before a crafty sharpshooter cut short the life of a hero. If they survived the war and didn’t come away with a cool eye patch or a wooden leg or something, it’s still OK, but it’s better if they wrote a lot of letters and described desperate bayonet fights among the harried rear guard, or catching a spy or something. Outlawry is acceptable too, but only during wartime and only against the enemy.
You can also check and see if they were Masons. The Grand Lodges maintain detailed records of membership, and they are always a great place to start. You’ll need their full name and the approximate year of birth to determine when they would have been eligible to join. Back then, barring something odd, a man had to be twenty-one to be initiated. Dates of death are also very useful and many families noted those down, so even if you don’t know where the grave-site is, you can often determine the year, if not the exact date of death.
Obituaries, which often survive among the scraps of material and pressed flowers are a big help in this, and also in determining Masonic affiliation because they will generally note if Masonic funeral rites were performed. The better ones will list the lodge name and number. Even if you confirm your ancestor’s Masonic pedigree, you might not find a lot from Grand Lodge unless the Mason was active in lodge. But in genealogy, something is always better than nothing.
If this spurs you on to finding the paladin, or the pig-stealing deserter, in your own family, a few things might help.
For starters, I’d look for letters or death certificates that place them in a particular location on a concrete date. If you can determine that the guy was in, for example, Georgia in 1863 and if he was military age, you’ve got a damn good chance of having either a potential Hero of the Union (or Confederacy, as they case may be) or the bane of swineherds everywhere. Birth and death records are hard to find if the family copies are lost, but they are the baseline – if you find them, you have your ancestor right where you want him — pinned down to time and place and then you can expand your search to government, Masonic and church records. When you finally nail down that the guy was a soldier, NARA will search their enormous collection and find the enlistment records for you for free. You’ll even get a physical description, wooden leg and all.
Author’s Note: Now for a real True Story of True Masonry. I first penned the following article in November 2003. It is an interesting historical account of how Freemasonry impacts the development of the United States.
Introduction
No institution contains more valuable undeveloped history than Masonry. – Nathaniel P. Langford (1867)
As we all know, law enforcement personnel are easily distinguished by certain symbols, such as a badge, a helmet, a uniform, or a shoulder-patch. Different jurisdictions, different symbols. But the shoulder-patch worn by the State Highway Patrol of Montana is an interesting design bearing one of the most intriguing insignia found in the law enforcement world: “3-7-77”, a simple set of numbers which many people, including the Montana troopers themselves, have trouble explaining. In its simplest terms, it refers to how “Law and Order” was introduced to Montana and represents the basis for the founding of the state.
For years, historians have been at a loss as to the exact meaning of the mysterious “3-7-77.” Theories abound to try and rationalize this cryptic numbering convention; everything from the dimensions of a grave (3 feet wide, 7 feet deep, and 77 inches in length), to a countdown to warn an outlaw or undesirable to get out of town (3 hours, 7 minutes, and 77 seconds) or face the consequences of vigilante justice. These theories are logically flawed and, as such, lack conviction. The only thing historians and scholars can agree upon is that it stood for a vigilante movement in the 1860’s which cleaned up Montana and made it safe from thieves, armed robbers, claim-jumpers, and cutthroats. Bottom-line, the numbers “3-7-77” struck fear into the hearts of the outlaws of the day and, as such, must have been developed by a force to be reckoned with….Freemasons.
Nathaniel P. Langford
Nathaniel P. Langford
1862 represented a chaotic year for the United States. The young country was at war with itself over ideology. After just one year of conflict, both the Union and the Confederacy started to realize their differences weren’t going to be settled any time soon. The outlook for prosperity was bleak. People in both the North and the South were beginning to experience economic hardships. Those not interested in the righteousness of either side of the conflict wanted a way out. The western frontier held potential for those not afraid to embark into the unknown. Gold and silver had been discovered in the Northwest, making the temptation to move west irresistible to many people, including Nathaniel Pitt Langford of Minnesota.
In the summer of 1862, Langford, was one of dozens of men who signed on to an expedition, led by Capt. James L. Fisk, to cross the northern plains by wagon train and head into Western Montana to seek their fortunes and create a new life for themselves. At this time, Langford was 30. He was a tall man and had a beard to offset his slowly receding hairline, but more importantly he had a steely gaze that could penetrate your soul if you got on his bad side. Born in 1832 in Westmoreland, New York, Langford was raised and educated in New York state. In 1854, at age 22, he started his migration west by first stopping in Minnesota where he became a merchant and was raised a Master Mason under the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, an event which proved to be a key development in his character often overlooked by historians. He was proud of his Masonic heritage and was proficient in his degree work. Little has been recorded of his personal life, other than he was strong willed and spoke with conviction.
Like many others, Langford moved west to seek his fortune but he also suffered from wanderlust; the American frontier fascinated him and he found the temptation to explore it irresistible. Now, at age 30, he felt compelled to do something with his life and the Fisk Expedition represented the opportunity he had been waiting for.
Montana
The name “Montana” is Spanish meaning “mountainous.” Those visiting the state are struck by the beauty of the Rocky Mountains that follow the continental divide in the western part of the state. However, there are also vast plains in the state. Other than the plentiful mineral resources in the western part of the state there was little else in Montana of the 1860’s but buffalo and Indians, lots of Indians. Montana was an excellent refuge from the white man’s advancement to the west. Consequently, Montana became the home of many tribes including the Blackfeet & Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Flathead, Salish, Pend d’Oreille, Assiniboine and Sioux. The plains provided the perfect hunting grounds for bison representing the food, clothing and materials to sustain the tribes.
Bros. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (St. Louis Lodge No. 111, MO) brought the first group of white explorers across Montana in 1805 and 1806 as part of their expedition to the northwest. They were closely followed by fur trappers and traders. Aside from this, Montana remained the domain of the Indian…until gold was discovered.
Well before Montana was recognized as a territory of the United States, gold was found in southwestern Montana in the early 1860’s. With this news, prospectors hurried to the area and makeshift villages began to pop-up. Since there was not yet a territorial government formed, law was governed by mining camps who would hire private sheriffs to administer justice, usually with mixed results.
The Fisk Expedition
Langford and the Fisk Expedition found its way through the plains of Montana with little incident. It had been a long and hard trip, but they were now approaching the end of their journey. Shortly before they reached the mountains, the expedition split into different directions with Langford’s group heading towards the southwest.
The group of about a dozen men stopped along a river bank one day at noon to take refreshment and were about to resume their journey when three or four horsemen appeared, coming out of the mountains, dressed from head-to-toe as mountain men. As such, the Fisk group eyed them suspiciously and checked their weapons in case of trouble, particularly Langford who was attending to his horse towards the back of the group. Fortunately, the riders presented no threat as all but one rode past the group without stopping to talk. The one lone rider stopped and dismounted to talk to the men at the front of the group who were yoking the oxen. Langford was out of earshot as to what was being said but the conversation was brief and the rider mounted his horse again. As he was about to leave, he turned and asked,
“Whose train is this?”
“Nobody’s; we own the wagons among ourselves.”
“Where are you from?”
“From Minnesota.”
“How many men were there in your train?”
“About one hundred and thirty.”
“Was there a man named H.A. Biff in your train””
“No, sir! No such man.”
“Did you ever hear of such a man?”
“I never did,” replied one.
“I know of no one of that name,” said another.(1)
This dialog, of course, caught the attention of Langford. Before the rider could leave, Langford approached him on horseback and offered him the token and word of a Master Mason. The two shook hands fervently for both had found a Brother they could talk to and trust. The two rode the rest of the day together describing their backgrounds and talking about Bannack, the small mining town where Langford was heading. Langford found the man to be a warm and intelligent brother Mason and enjoyed his company immensely. Likewise, Langford was the first Mason the rider had met in Montana and they talked as long-lost friends for hours, much to the bewilderment of the others.
After the two had established a warm rapport and described their Masonic upbringing, the rider began to give Langford a picture of the lay of the land. He warned Langford how the area was growing due to the gold rush, and how some miners who struck gold had a tendency to disappear or were found dead. There was little, if any, law enforcement or government in the area. Consequently, he advised Langford to keep a low profile and watch his back.
The two eventually parted on the square with the rider heading off to rejoin his comrades. Langford took heed of his Brother’s advice.
First Meeting
As the Fisk group continued their trek, Langford marveled at the power of Freemasonry and dwelled on his chance meeting with his fraternal Brother. Summer had given way to Autumn and Langford knew their trip to Bannack was coming to an end. The group camped on the Mullan road near the summit of the Rockies. It was a picturesque spot where the mountains surrounded them and was lit at night by the moon and a curtain of stars. The glory and grandeur of the Rockies stirred Langford’s soul and he wanted to celebrate their arrival. Knowing there were two other Masons in his party, he recruited Bro. George Charlton and Bro. George Gere, who, like Langford, were all members of Minnesota Lodges and the trio ascended the summit for the purpose of opening an informal Lodge of Master Masons as generations of Masons have done before them, complete with Bible, square and compass. Being more proficient in Masonic custom than his Brothers, Langford acted as Worshipful Master. Inspired by the moment, the Masonic words and ritual came back to Langford with fluidity and precision. All agreed it was a beautiful degree and confirmed their faith in their Masonic heritage. None realized the significance of this “epochal” event as Langford would call it, representing the very first Lodge of Master Masons ever held in Montana and ultimately foretold the events to shape the territory. The date: Monday, September 23rd, 1862.
These three Brothers, by their actions, became the “3” in “3-7-77”.
Mural from inside the Grand Lodge of Montana’s Library & Museum, Helena
Bannack
Bannack was located on the southeastern edge of the newly created Idaho Territory (the southwest corner of modern Montana). The name “Bannack” was derived from the local Bannack Indians and the town was situated next to the Grasshopper Creek, a tributary of the Beaver Head. Grasshopper Creek was ultimately the source of the gold and the reason for people migrating to the area. Although the river had already been named by Lewis & Clark, local miners promptly renamed it “Grasshopper” due to the inordinate amount of insects that would swarm around as you walked about the area. Gold had been discovered in the Grasshopper on July 28th, 1862 and by the end of the year, hundreds of people had gravitated to the area, with a thousand by the end of 1863.
In 1862 Bannack was a typical American frontier boom-town. Buildings sprouted up seemingly over night, some were nothing more than simple cabins or shacks. Although tents were commonly used by the miners at first, wooden structures were needed to withstand the harsh Montana winters. Consequently, several establishments sprung up quickly, including hotels, stables, a barber, even a bakery; and more than one saloon. Other structures would soon follow based on private donations, including a church, a jail, a school, and eventually a Masonic Lodge.
When people heard about the gold in Bannack, they swarmed to the area to seek their fortune. Most came to mine for gold, others came to create the infrastructure needed to support the miners, e.g., hardware, hotels, saloons, food, etc., but other lawless characters inevitably appeared on the scene to rob and steal from the work of others. Most of the residents were law-abiding citizens, others were outlaws looking for quick money, parasites sucking the decency out of society.
Although one would be captivated by the beauty of the area and unbridled freedom of Montana, you were always reminded that Bannack was an outpost in the “Wild West.” In the early days, fights and duels would erupt at a moments notice, primarily due to liquor, gambling, a word spoken out of turn, or to simply prove manhood. Wrote Bro. Thomas J. Dimsdale, a writer who documented the era, “such men find themselves removed from the restraints of civilized society.” This was a very masculine dominated society and the absence of female companionship only contributed to problems. To make matters worse, there was nothing to do during the brutal Montana winters except drink; consequently, many fell victim to “cabin fever.”
Bannack was isolated from any true territorial jurisdiction, without any form of government. But man is a social animal requiring structure in the form of agreed upon rules, regulations and laws. Without them, chaos quickly follows, which Bannack fell victim to, and became a convenient target for outlaws who organized into gangs of roving desperados.
The citizenship of Bannack eventually took steps to bring a rudimentary form of law and order to the town. It was common in the old west for mining camps to elect their own sheriffs to settle disputes and try to keep a general sense of order. Bannack followed suit. Such sheriffs had a free hand to keep the peace, regardless of their methods. Suffice it to say, the tactics of the sheriffs would be unthinkable by today’s standards. Again, this was the “Wild West.”
Such was the environment Langford and his party rode into in the Fall of 1862. Bannack was far from the civilization known to Langford in New York or even Minnesota. Such an environment would test any Freemason who believed in justice, religion, and brotherhood – as it did with Langford, who would stand out as a pillar of Bannack society based on his strong moral convictions.
Whether you were a miner or not, everyone at least dabbled in the search for gold, including Langford. But Langford was more of a businessman by nature and quickly recognized Bannack was rapidly expanding with plenty of miners looking to spend their gold dust. Consequently, he headed up a small partnership to build a sawmill outside of Bannack in a place called Godfrey’s Canyon.
Langford restricted his close confidants to those he could trust, especially Brother Masons. Among his friends was Bro. William H. Bell who was a Mason from St. Louis. In November 1862, Bell fell victim to mountain fever and, as his dying wish, requested Langford give him a Masonic funeral. When Bell passed, his body was taken to the cabin of Bro. C.J. Miller and Langford spread the word from mouth to ear for all Masons in the area to assemble at Miller’s cabin for the funeral. He did not anticipate the response his call would result in, nor the chain of events that would ensue.
Word of the Masonic funeral was carefully passed from one Brother to another around Bannack. As the sun set on November 12th, the Masons began to assemble at Miller’s cabin, some came alone, others in groups, but they kept coming. Langford had expected perhaps a handful of Masons to heed his call. Instead, dozens appeared to pay their Masonic respects to their fallen Brother. So many Masons appeared that they moved the funeral to a larger cabin nearby. Langford conducted the services personally and 76 Brothers deposited the evergreen in Bell’s grave.
These 76 Brothers, along with the deceased Bell, became the 77 in 3-7-77.
The Masons were pleasantly surprised by their numbers. Prior to the funeral, it had not occurred to anyone that the fraternity was so well represented in the area. Consequently, they began to hold lodge meetings in the security of the mountains, away from prying eyes and easy to tyle. These meetings became important to the Masons, not only to reaffirm their Masonic obligations but to establish the support network they needed to survive in dangerous times.
Seven
The “7” in “3-7-77” is the keystone of our algorithm and represents the culmination of our story. Although, it is the main component that lead to law and order in Montana, it would be for naught without the first two variables in place.
As the Masons held Lodge in the mountains, a new force arrived in the Spring of 1863, Henry Plummer a New Englander who had come to town via California. In Plummer’s youth, he was sickly and, based on his doctor’s advice, left New England as a young man and traveled west to San Francisco where he tried his hand at odd jobs. Eventually he moved to Nevada City where he became a successful baker. Politics intriqued him and he was elected Marshall of Nevada City where he learned to be tough in order to survive as a lawman.
Plummer’s record as a lawman was tarnished in 1857 when he gunned down John Vedder. Although Plummer claimed self-defense, the jury believed he may have been romantically linked to Vedder’s estranged wife, Lucy. Consequently, he was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to ten years in San Quentin. While in prison, Plummer’s health again deteriorated; so much so, that on the recommendation of prison doctors, he was granted a pardon from the governor after serving only six months in prison. He returned to Nevada City to recuperate and work with his partner in his bakery. Eventually, he took up mining but was unsuccessful with the several claims he tried.
Henry Plummer
No longer a lawman, Plummer felt free to live a wild lifestyle which would include liquor, women, and fighting. He was drawn into a drunken confrontation and shot a man named William Riley dead. Not wishing to take his chances with the local legal system again, Plummer left California in October 1861, before Riley’s inquest. By fleeing the state before the inquiry, Plummer had become a fugitive from justice.
Plummer crossed over the California state line into Nevada but his name was known in these parts and, fearing arrest, he kept moving northward away from Nevada and California to Washington state. Learning of the gold strike in 1862 and seeking anonymity in the wilderness, Plummer headed to Montana where he could start anew and arrived in Bannack in the Spring of 1863.
Bannack at this time was still growing and lawless. The first flashpoint in its development towards law and order came when Charlie Reeves, and his accomplices Moore and Mitchell stirred up trouble by attacking a nearby Indian camp and, in the process, killed and wounded white men, as well as many Indians. The local citizenship was aghast by this and called for justice. In March of 1863, the mining districts became part of the newly formed Idaho Territory, but it took time for the word to reach Bannack. Feeling isolated but compelled to do something about the murders, the citizens of Bannack ordered a trial, the first of its kind in a miner’s camp. In the past, miner camp trials were used to settle disputes over mining claims, not for murder cases. As such, Langford got involved and insisted on a trial by jury, not by the miners in mass as was the usual custom. Consequently, a judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, and sheriff were appointed to hear the case with Langford sitting on the jury. The trial of Reeves, Moore and Mitchell was well attended by the miners and although the organizers had good intentions, it was far from perfect in terms of jurisprudence.
There was no doubt about the guilt of the accused, only their motivation. Unmoved by their arguments, Langford alone insisted on the death penalty while the rest of the jury wanted to seize their property and banish them from the area. After much deliberation, Langford settled for the seizure and banishment.
The acting sheriff felt uncomfortable in the role and quietly abdicated his position shortly thereafter. This left the door open for Henry Plummer who, with his New England charm, was elected sheriff of the mining district in May of 1863. Plummer was only 27 years old at the time. He was a handsome man of medium build, with a long mustache, customary for the time. He could change his disposition at a moment’s notice, going from polite and engaging one minute, to crude and insensitive the next. Plummer was intelligent and his advice was often sought on a variety of matters, including mining. His disarming charisma could sway people and helped to break up fights and settle disputes. However, the educated citizens of Bannack saw through his charm and treated him suspiciously, as was the case with Langford who felt Plummer’s New England charm beguiled a darker side to his character.
Plummer courted and eventually wed Electa Bryan in June of 1863. However, the marriage was brief, lasting just three months before she left him for her native Iowa under mysterious circumstances. The trouble between Plummer and his wife seemed to be caused by his frequent absence from home; he was either at his office, on patrol in the district, or, unknown to Electa, at the Rattlesnake Ranch, headquarters for the outlaws.
Plummer wouldn’t allow anyone to challenge his authority and made it a point to reaffirm to everyone he met that he alone represented “Law and Order” in the area. His reputation as sheriff quickly grew; so much so, that he was nominated a Deputy U.S. Marshall for the Idaho Territory. But his nomination was blocked by Langford who, by this time, was President of the Union League and saw through Plummer’s charm. This incensed Plummer who tried to sway Langford to endorse him, to no avail. Consequently, Langford became Plummer’s sworn enemy.
Plummer had heard of the Masonic meetings in the mountains and, thinking it would be a shrewd political move, tried to join them only to be rebuffed by the fraternity who refused to let him in. This concerned Plummer greatly. He knew there were many Masons in the area and was concerned about the goings-on in their secret meetings, consequently, he sent spies to check on the Masons, only to be turned away by Tylers who safeguarded the meeting.
Despite the presence of a seemingly strong sheriff with his hand-picked deputies, crime did not abate, in fact, it proliferated. Robberies increased, as did disappearances and killings. Admittedly, Bannack was growing at an alarming rate. But if Plummer was half the sheriff he claimed to be, the town should not have been experiencing the problems it was. Further, it had not gone unnoticed that Plummer was absent from town whenever a robbery occurred. This was too remarkable a coincidence to be overlooked.
The Vigilantes
The second flashpoint came in the Fall of 1863 when two stagecoach robberies took place between Virginia City and Bannack, along with the killing of Nick Tiebolt who was robbed of two mules and murdered. Although the outlaws covered their faces, those riding on the stage suspected George Ives, a known local ruffian, as the person leading the raid.
The brutality of the crimes infuriated the citizenship, particularly the Masons who discussed the problem at length in their meetings. The Brethren did not trust Plummer and his deputies, nor did they have faith in the jurisprudence of the newly formed territory.
Suspecting Ives’ involvement with the stage coach robbery, a group of Virginia City citizens (Bannack’s neighbors) seized Ives and brought him to trial. Ives’ trial can be described as “clumsy” at best. Nonetheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged.
Subsequent to the trial, a core group of citizens, all Masons, met in secret. Impatient for justice and incensed by recent events, they decided to take law into their hands and formed a vigilante committee. Recognizing the need for organizing a tightly bound group, seven members swore allegiance to bring law and order to the area. On December 22, 1863 a vigilante oath was administered by Wilber Sanders, nephew of the new Chief Justice of the territory, Sidney Edgerton, both Masons from Ohio. It was these seven Brothers, by their actions, that became the “7” in “3-7-77”.
They formalized the oath in writing the next day:
“We the undersigned uniting ourselves in a party for the purposes of arresting thieves and murderers and recover stolen property do pledge ourselves on our sacred honor each to all others and solemnly swear that we will reveal no secrets, violate no laws of right and never desert each other or our standard of justice and seal them 23 of December 1863.”
Vigilantes were not uncommon in the wild west, particularly in the wilderness and loosely governed territories. But this Montana group developed an oath and a set of obligations based on honor, secrecy and righteousness; characteristics of Freemasonry.
The ranks of the vigilantes swelled immediately with Langford and many other Masons joining the group, as well as other non-Masons concerned with law and order. Merchants, miners, and professional men alike joined the committee, but membership in the vigilantes was a well guarded secret since they probably feared reprisals from the outlaws.
Naming Names
On the gallows, George Ives’ last words were that it was his confederate, Alex Carter, and not himself, who had actually committed the murder of Nick Tiebolt. With this information, the newly formed Vigilante Committee sprung into action and went in search of Carter. Warned the committee was looking for him, Carter made his escape. Instead, the committee found Red Yeager, an accomplice of Carter’s, and took him prisoner. Under questioning, Yeager revealed the names of the outlaw gang and the roles they served. Shockingly, he named Sheriff Plummer as Chief of the Gang, along with his deputies as accomplices. This made sense to the vigilantes, as all the pieces of the puzzle began to fall into place.
On January 10th, a group of 50-75 vigilantes from Bannack split into three squads and picked up Plummer and his two deputies, Ned Ray and Buck Stinson. Plummer had heard of how Ives’ was arrested and executed and was probably not surprised to see the arresting squad on his doorstep. He didn’t resist arrest, thinking he could talk his way out of the situation. He was wrong. The deputies were also easily apprehended and all three were hung on the Bannack gallows.
Following the hangings, the vigilantes in both Bannack and Virginia City wasted little time hunting down the remaining members of the outlaw gang, including Alex Carter who had escaped earlier. By the end of February 1864, Plummer’s gang had been eliminated and peace was restored to the area. The vigilante activities eventually subsided after this but was not totally abandoned until a few years later when the citizenship was convinced of the effectiveness of the legal system.
Historians question whether Plummer was, in fact, the leader of the outlaws and perhaps was innocent. The fact remains, with Plummer and the rest out of the way, law and order prevailed and Montana flourished.
EPILOGUE
The Bannack Gallows where Plummer and his deputies were hung; remarkably, they were ordered constructed by Plummer himself. Photo courtesy of the Bannack State Park.
It is not known who specifically invented the expression “3-7-77”, but it became the calling card of the vigilantes. In fact, the mysterious numbers actually did not appear until the 1870’s as the vigilantes were disbanding. It would be found carved in trees and brandished around towns as an intriguing warning to outlaws not to disrupt the peace and harmony of Montana. For if they did, the warning implied the vigilantes would not hesitate to reassemble and take justice into their hands again.
Vigilantism in today’s society is unimaginable. But given the climate of the times, e.g., alone in the wilderness with the “civilized” country at war with itself, it is understandable how the turn of events came about. Were the vigilantes wrong for taking the law into their own hands? Perhaps. But we, as members of the 21st century, are not fit to judge. Bottom-line, we must look at the end result: the robberies and killings stopped and law and order came to Montana.
There have been numerous books and articles written on the Vigilantes of Montana. Over the years, historians sifted through newspaper clippings of the time and available court and territorial records. We must remember American journalism, particularly in the west, had a flare for the dramatic at the expense of actual facts. Further, governmental records in a frontier town were practically non-existent. Regardless of how historians today protest Plummer’s innocence, they had no way of knowing in any precise detail of the events that occurred. More importantly, they didn’t have any knowledge of the customs and character of the Masonic Fraternity. In this author’s opinion, most of the historians simply “missed it.”
Langford
Nathaniel Langford spent a total of forteen years in Montana. In 1870, he led an expedition to explore the upper Yellowstone and became the first superintendent of Yellowstone National Park. In his later years, he authored four books on both the formation of Montana and his explorations of Yellowstone, all of which are still available for sale from on-line book stores. He died in 1911 at the age of 79.
A lifelong Mason, Langford was very active in the Fraternity for many years. In 1867, he was appointed Grand Historian and, at the Grand Lodge of Montana’s Third Annual Communications in Virginia City, he delivered an eloquent description of the accounts mentioned herein. His oratory, which was re-discovered not long ago, is available on-line at the Grand Lodge of Montana web site; click HERE.
Montana
The Lodge as it stands today in Bannack State Park. Photo courtesy of W:.Bro.F. Lee Graves, PM.
With law and order restored in Bannack, Montana become a U.S. territory in 1864 with Bro. Sidney Edgerton, Langford’s friend and confidant, becoming the first territorial governor. Remarkably, Bannack had grown to a respectable size and, as such, became the capital of the new territory. But the gold-rush inevitably subsided and the populace moved on. By the time Montana became the 41st state in 1889, the capital was moved to Helena.
By 1938, Bannack was deserted and declared a ghost-town. Today, it is a state park where 60 buildings remain as a mute reminder of what was at one time the “Toughest Town in the West.” Amongst the buildings, stands a small two story dwelling bearing the square and compass. The Masons built the building in 1874 with the bottom story donated as the town’s school and the upstairs used as the Masonic Lodge.
Bannack Historical Lodge 3-7-77 A.F.& A.M.
Bannack Masons obtained the Lodge’s original dispensation on April 27, 1863 from the Grand Lodge of Nebraska. But as the Grand Lodge of Montana was formed in 1864, the Brethren reapplied in 1871 and became Bannack Lodge No. 16 A.F.& A.M. As the population moved away, the Lodge was forced to consolidate with Dillon Lodge in 1921.
Inside Bannack Lodge today. Photo courtesy of M:.W:.Bro.David L. Prewett, PGM.
The Lodge in Bannack remained dormant for many years until 2000 when the Grand Lodge of Montana rechartered it as a historical lodge. Today, any Master Mason in good standing and belonging to a Lodge recognized by the Grand Lodge of Montana can apply for a Life Membership in Bannack Lodge. For a petition, click HERE.
The monies derived from membership in Bannack Lodge are used to maintain this historical structure. To date, the monies have been used to shore up the building without disturbing the past. So much so, that a Lodge of Master Masons is now held once a year to honor and remember the Brothers who helped tame a territory and forge a state.
The author wishes to express a personal note of gratitude to W:.Bro.F. Lee Graves, PM, Past Grand Historian of the Grand Lodge of Montana, now residing in Stuart, Florida, for his assistance in editing this article.
Also, thanks go out to R:.W:.J. Paul Stellrecht, PDDGM/21, for his review and advice regarding this article.
by W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS timb001@phmainstreet.com Palm Harbor, Florida, USA “A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry”
NOTE: The opinions expressed in this essay are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any Grand Masonic jurisdiction or any other Masonic related body. As with all of my Masonic articles herein, please feel free to reuse them in Masonic publications or re-post them on Masonic web sites (except Florida). When doing so, please add the following:
Article reprinted with permission of the author and FreemasonInformation.com
Please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.
Lineage in 6 minutes. Its not so much a deep discovery, but there are enough familliar names in here to be followed and tracked down to get a good perspective of the Hermetic philosophy.
April 19th is Patriots Day in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. It marks the day of the first Battle of the American Revolution on April 19, 1775 , the Battle of Lexington & Concord – “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” & “The Shot Heard Round The World.”
About 70, maybe 80, Patriots stood on the Lexington Green on the morning of April19, 1775 and faced the British. Approximately 26 of them were Masons and there wasn’t even a Masonic Lodge in Lexington at that time.
Remember, my Brethren, of the sacrifices Masons made for the freedoms we all enjoy today. Remember that Freemasonry always stands for liberty, democracy and the worth and rights of the individual. Pay homage to the those Freemasons that came before us and played a significant role in the greatest experiment the world had ever seen. Remember the roots of American Masonry.
Note: Stephen Dafoe is a contributor to this site, but this review was conducted independently. In fact, the author of this review has no personal relationship with Bro. Dafoe. Therefore, this critique is that of an unbiased reader.
Stephen Dafoe has two recent releases on the Knights Templar: Nobly Born and The Compasses and the Cross. The former was released in 2007, the latter in 2008. Nobly Born is a book which gives an unromantic account of the medieval order of the Knights Templar. It is a book based strictly on documented historical evidence and serves to debunk many of the myths surrounding that order.
The author of this review admittedly has very little prior knowledge of the Knights Templar, beyond the documentaries shown about the order on the History Channel which appear to encourage the viewer to create suspicions about the secret nature of the Templars. Therefore, it was great to discover that Nobly Born is written in a way so that the Templar novice can truly grasp the history of the order. The book gives an excellent brief history of the crusades and explains the society in which the Templars existed. Perhaps the most impressive part of this book is the look into the lives of the Templars, which was more monastic that chivalric. Many common myths which have surfaced concerning the Templars are specifically rebutted with historical evidence. If you currently believe that the Templars discovered some great treasure beneath King Solomon’s Temple and escaped with the goods to Scotland or the New World, this book is a panacea for your ailment.
The Compasses and the Cross by Stephen Dafoe
The Compasses and the Cross gives a detailed history of the modern day fraternal order of the Knights Templar. This book discusses many of the works of invented history which have misled many Masons to believe that the modern day organization somehow is the descendant of the Templars of old. However, like in Nobly Born, Dafoe refutes these claims with historical evidence. A large amount of the book is a summary of the information found in Nobly Bor
n. It serves as a great refresher on medieval Templar history, but if you read the books back to back (like the author of this review) it can seem repetitive. Nevertheless, this account of Templar history is absolutely necessary for the reader who is unfamiliar with the order’s story. The Compasses and the Cross also gives a detailed account of the reception of new Knights in the medieval order to show the separation of modern day ceremonies from the rituals of the original Templars. The best quality of The Compasses and the Cross is that it devotes a chapter to the fraternity of the Knights Templar in Britain, the United States, and Canada. This focus on the fraternity’s history in each of these countries shows how each locale developed its particular flavor.
My only complaint with these two works is their format. The books are large (10×8 in) which makes them inconvenient for packing them in a bag to read on the airplane or a park bench while on break. However, these books are illustrated histories and the photos and art work provided in them are needed. The illustrations play an important part in visualizing the regalia and equipment of both the medieval and modern day Templars and the books without them would doubtlessly be less informative. The size of the books is the unfortunate form of their function.
I highly recommend both of these works to any Mason who is interested in the Templars of old and their connection with Freemasonry or the modern day Templars and the history of that fraternal organization. They will provide the reader with an excellent education on both subjects. You can find ways to purchase these books on Stephen Dafoe’s website.
