A Masonic Incident

[boozie]

I found this story while browsing and thought some others might enjoy it.


" The Civil War in Song and Story" Collected and Arranged by Frank Moore
New York, 1882: PETER FENELON COLLIER, PUBLISHER
page 299.


A Masonic Incident - "The day after the battle of Antietam, the Fifth New Hampshire formed the picket line along the edge of the cornfield where Richardson's division fought. The reserve was in one edge of the corn, and the pickets about middle way of the field concealed in the corn, as the sharpshooters of the enemy fired on all who undertook to walk around on the battle-field at that locality. Early in the morning one of the wounded rebels, who lay just outside the pickets, called one of the New Hampshire men, and handed him a little slip of paper, on which he had, evidently with great difficulty succeeded in making some mystic signs in a circle with a bit of stick wet in blood. The soldier was begged to give it to some Freemason as soon as possible, and he took it to Colonel E.E. Cross, of his regiment. The Colonel was a Master Mason, but could not read the mystic token, it belonging to a higher degree. He therefore sent for Captain J.B. Perry, of the Fifth, who was a member of the thirty-second degree of Freemasonry, and showed him the letter. Captain Perry at once said there was a brother Mason in great peril, and must be rescued. Colonel Cross instantly sent for several brother Masons in the regiment, told the story, and in a few moments four "brothers of the mystic tie" were crawling stealthily through the corn to find the brother in distress. He was found, placed on a blanket, and at great risk drawn out of range of rebel rifles, and then carried to the Fifth New Hampshire hospital. He proved to be First Lieutenant Edon of the Alabama volunteers, badly wounded in the thigh and brest. A few hours and he would have perished. Lieutenant Edon informed his brothren of another wounded Mason, who, when brought out, proved to be a Lieutenant Colonel of a Georgia regiment. These two wounded rebel officers received the same attention as the wounded officers of the Fifth, and a warm friendship was established between men who a few hours before were in mortal combat. This is one of the thousand instances in which the Masonic bond has proved a blessing to mankind."


S.R.B. Waveland Lodge #300

[jfeagin]

Thanks for posting that. One of the nicer monuments (at least to me) at Gettysburg, is the "Friend to Friend" monument which memorializes the fraternal bonds that transcended the war in many instances.

Found this link with many stories about Freemasons during the war on the net.

http://jason.burkins.net/civil.html

John Feagin
Good Samaritan Lodge #336
Gettysburg, PA

[mtvernon]

Maybe I'm wrong, but this would seem to support the long-held sentiment that Freemasons will regard membership in that organization, and the duties owed to other members, as superceding the duties one owes one's country, and that this example serves as proof positive. Could that actually be said to be true, generally speaking? It's kind of a scary proposition, really. I wonder if other Federal troops suffered as a result of this perilous rescue operation afforded to a man who, at that particular time, was an enemy of the state.

Respectfully,

[Rob]

Lost during the Great Crash of '06:

"Charles A. Near, of whom we have already written, was a soldier in the Civil War. He enlisted from Canastota in Company G, One Hundred and Fifty-seventh New York Volunteer Infantry, going into the service a private, and returning at the close of the war with the rank of Captain. At Honey Hill he was wounded by a ball that ploughed its way across his temple. It was a close call for his life; but he had the wound dressed, and immediately returned to the field. He was recklessly brave, as was evinced on the Gettysburg battlefield, when his Captain, Harrison Frank, was shot down. Although the Confederates were right upon him, he stayed by his Captain until he breathed his last. He was captured by the enemy, and all his valuables taken from him. When they tried to take a Masonic ring from his finger which Captain Frank had given him, he told them they would get it when he was dead, and not before; and some of them, recognizing the Masonic emblem, let him go."

http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ny/madison/bios/1894/near-eli.txt

[coastaltrash]

Mr. Marti,

"Colonel Cross instantly sent for several brother Masons in the regiment, told the story, and in a few moments four "brothers of the mystic tie" were crawling stealthily through the corn to find the brother in distress. He was found, placed on a blanket, and at great risk drawn out of range of rebel rifles, and then carried to the Fifth New Hampshire hospital"

It appears that the only ones risking anything were fellow Brothers. I for one would do the same for mine and they for me (at least I hope). Personally speaking, I wouldn't put anyone else at risk that is not a Brother, because simply it's not your obligation, it's mine/ours.

Patrick Landrum
Orange Grove Lodge #635

[Dale Beasley]

Maybe I'm wrong, but this would seem to support the long-held sentiment that Freemasons will regard membership in that organization, and the duties owed to other members, as superceding the duties one owes one's country, and that this example serves as proof positive. Could that actually be said to be true, generally speaking? It's kind of a scary proposition, really. I wonder if other Federal troops suffered as a result of this perilous rescue operation afforded to a man who, at that particular time, was an enemy of the state.

Respectfully,

If you are wondering if you are wrong, then you really don't understand your question.../G\

[BrianHicks]

Maybe I'm wrong, but this would seem to support the long-held sentiment that Freemasons will regard membership in that organization, and the duties owed to other members, as superceding the duties one owes one's country, and that this example serves as proof positive. Could that actually be said to be true, generally speaking? It's kind of a scary proposition, really. I wonder if other Federal troops suffered as a result of this perilous rescue operation afforded to a man who, at that particular time, was an enemy of the state.

Respectfully,

Rendering medical aid to a wounded enemy is not a traitorous act. As a matter of fact, the Military is required to provide the same quality of medical care to our foes, as we do our comrades. This is not only morally correct, it is actually written in modern regulations.

There are numerous examples of Masons coming to the aid of fellow Masons during armed conflicts. I have several referances which provide examples going back as far as the French and Indain War although through to WWII.

The duties owed to fellow Masons does not supercede the obligations one owes to their Govt. and Civil authorities. This fact is clearly written in all of the By-Laws of every Grand Lodge that I am familiar with.

[PvtSchultz]

"Originally Posted by mtvernon
Maybe I'm wrong, but this would seem to support the long-held sentiment that Freemasons will regard membership in that organization, and the duties owed to other members, as superceding the duties one owes one's country, and that this example serves as proof positive. Could that actually be said to be true, generally speaking? It's kind of a scary proposition, really. I wonder if other Federal troops suffered as a result of this perilous rescue operation afforded to a man who, at that particular time, was an enemy of the state"

We are taught as Masons that we have an obligation to God, our country AND to our fellow man. The fact that Freemasonry can transcend the battle lines during war I think speaks favorable for the fraternity and so I respectively disagree with the gentleman's opinion.

Brother Hicks, there are written records (debates) of the Grand Lodges at the time we are speaking of discussing our duties as Masons, specifically one's duty to country. I have a copy of one from one of the southern Grand Lodges at home that I will post later to illustrate the agonizing decisions our Civil War fraternal brothers had to deal with.

Rich Schultz,
Past Master of Clifton Lodge #203 (NJ)

[btwils]

Well said Brother Hicks.
Brian Wilson / Killen lodge 788

[Beaner]

I agree whole heartedly. There are some great Masons in our history. Gen Hancock, Gen Armistad, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Gerald Ford to name a few
God, Country, and fellow Brothers,
Dave Prince
Walled Lake Lodge #529

[mtvernon]

It appears that the only ones risking anything were fellow Brothers. I for one would do the same for mine and they for me (at least I hope). Personally speaking, I wouldn't put anyone else at risk that is not a Brother, because simply it's not your obligation, it's mine/ours.

Mr. Landrum,

If I understand you correctly, your reply confirms my suspicion that the ties to Masonry do supercede the duties to one's country. My long-held assumption has been that one's obligation to one's country is a greater obligation (especially for a soldier in a time of war) than to a fraternal society. Perhaps I misunderstand you?

Respectfully,

[mtvernon]

If you are wondering if you are wrong, then you really don't understand your question.../G\

Perhaps you can enlighten me, and I can then ask the proper question.

Respectfully,

[Dale Beasley]

Perhaps you can enlighten me, and I can then ask the proper question.

Respectfully,

I am unable to enlighten you. You must do that on your own. Giving medical aid to an enemy soldier is not an act of treason, otherwise I would have been up for charges in Iraq. Brother Hicks explained it well enough, please refer to his post. Good luck in your search for knowledge.

[mtvernon]

Rendering medical aid to a wounded enemy is not a traitorous act. As a matter of fact, the Military is required to provide the same quality of medical care to our foes, as we do our comrades. This is not only morally correct, it is actually written in modern regulations...[T]he duties owed to fellow Masons does not supersede the obligations one owes to their Govt. and Civil authorities. This fact is clearly written in all of the By-Laws of every Grand Lodge that I am familiar with.

Mr. Hicks, et al.,

I seem to have raised some hackles on this subject, and I want to apologize for my clumsiness if I offended anyone. Not being a Mason I am not well-versed in it's practices, but I was merely looking at this historical incident and trying to come to an understanding of what duty means to those who are Masons.

Again, with all due respect, and acknowledging the demand to care for the enemy wounded, this act still seems to have gone far above the call of duty to the level of heroism simply due to the fact that the wounded enemy was a fellow Mason. Now, maybe all is well and good. That's fine. But did those four Masons from the Federal side go to the same lengths to rescue and care for all the wounded enemies? It doesn't say in the text but I would assume the answer is no. So it would seem that membership in this particular organization places a proportionally higher importance on the lives of fellow members and really transcends the mere duty to care for enemy wounded.

Is this correct? It would seem so from the responses I've seen so far. Was this rescue operation right or wrong? Yes or no, but determining that was not my goal; I primarily was interested in identifying the hierarchy of loyalty owed by a member of the Masons. I am not trying to call anyone a traitor, necessarily. But if my suspicion is correct then I find it disconcerting.

If you'll allow a hypothetical example, maybe it will illustrate my discomfort. Please, do not take this the wrong way - it is fictional and I'm not trying to paint anyone with a treasonous brush. But let's say an Iraqi insurgent who happens to be a Mason (I know, I know, but go with it) is wounded and communicates to US forces in a similar way as in our example. Do four US soldiers, Masons themselves, crawl through enemy fire to rescue this man? And if they do, are their fellow troops congratulatory? Or do they look at them and wonder why they risked their lives for an enemy who had intended to kill them? I know there are problems with my example but still the crux of it remains: where does duty reign supreme in these men?

Again, I know some people reading this will be upset, and I want to reiterate that causing discomfort is not my goal. I don't think flippant remarks advance the discussion and I'm hoping that those who do wish to comment adhere to the norms of debate and remember that we are discussing an issue, not a person. As such, attacks on a person are not only destructive to discourse, but show a lack of maturity and openness on part of the person who makes such remarks. I now realize this is a sensitive topic, and I wish to remain sensitive to those who disagree, but I do think it's a topic worthy of discussion.

Respectfully,

[Kiev Thomason]

I agree whole heartedly. There are some great Masons in our history. Gen Hancock, Gen Armistad, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Gerald Ford to name a few
God, Country, and fellow Brothers,
Dave Prince
Walled Lake Lodge #529

Yeah...None of us will jump ship anytime soon.We all have duties and so did they.The Brotherhood is bigger than any one man we are taught that from the start.Good threads!

[Dale Beasley]

The obligation is as real now as it was then. Let me explain... Several months ago I was working in the Emergency Room at Port Gibson. In the middle of the night a man came into the Emergency Room asking directions. I noticed the Masonic belt buckle he was wearing. I told him I was a Brother Mason. He told me where he was going and he asked me if 22 dollars was enough for gas to get there. I told him it was not. I took my break and took him to an all night gas station and filled his truck up. I hope this may explain that it is all about obligation. This was a Brother in distress.

[boozie]

Joe, I don't think you have offended anyone or made anyone uncomfortable. Actually some of the questions you have are some of the same questions I used to have in the past.

No one forced these men to go after their Confederate "brothers", they simply knew it was their obligation/duty to a brother in distress, it worked that way for both sides. Your current quest may lead you to the answers that you seek in the future.

S.R.B. Waveland Lodge #300

[Hank Trent]

Something I've been curious about... if triage was necessary, was a Mason obligated to try to divert resources to other Masons first, regardless? For example, in the traditional Victorian "women and children first" kind of a situation, would a Mason be obligated to try to get another male Mason on the lifeboat before a non-Masonic-connected woman or child, if he signals for help? Or to swim out and assist a strong male Mason before helping a weaker non-Masonic-connected woman or child? I'm speaking of a volunteer rescuer like a fellow passenger, not a captain or someone following official orders.

No, I'm not on any kind of a quest, before any goes there, nor am I planning to portray a Mason. I've just been curious how Masons dealt with the conflict between their obligations to help other male members, and the Victorian-era pressure for men to help women before helping other men.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Beaner]

It is our obiligation to help a brother in need. It is also our obiligation to help anyone in need that asks. The Masons are to help all to improve the fellowship of mankind. Many of us raise money to provide for those in need weather they are Masons or not. I think the best way for you to have your question answered:) would be for you to attend one of your local lodge's meetings. I'm sure anyone of the brothers would happy to answer your questions. The big secret of Freemasonary : is there are no secrets. If you can't locate a local lodge I'm sure one of the freemasons in this thread will be more than happy to locate one for you.

Dave Prince
walled Lake lodge #529

[mtvernon]

The obligation is as real now as it was then. Let me explain... Several months ago I was working in the Emergency Room at Port Gibson. In the middle of the night a man came into the Emergency Room asking directions. I noticed the Masonic belt buckle he was wearing. I told him I was a Brother Mason. He told me where he was going and he asked me if 22 dollars was enough for gas to get there. I told him it was not. I took my break and took him to an all night gas station and filled his truck up. I hope this may explain that it is all about obligation. This was a Brother in distress.

That was a great thing to do for anyone, by anyone, and this world is indeed a better place because of people like yourself and acts like the one you described. You deserve applause.

Nonetheless, the question at hand was whether or not that bond of Brotherhood is binding when the Brother in question is your country's enemy. Still, a great story.

Respectfully,

[mtvernon]

It is our obiligation to help a brother in need. It is also our obiligation to help anyone in need that asks. The Masons are to help all to improve the fellowship of mankind. Many of us raise money to provide for those in need weather they are Masons or not. I think the best way for you to have your question answered:) would be for you to attend one of your local lodge's meetings. I'm sure anyone of the brothers would happy to answer your questions. The big secret of Freemasonary : is there are no secrets. If you can't locate a local lodge I'm sure one of the freemasons in this thread will be more than happy to locate one for you.

Dave Prince
walled Lake lodge #529

Thank you Mr. Prince (and Mr. Busenbark),

I appreciate your measured and informative remarks. I think Mr. Trent has come closer still to the heart of the matter, and I'm interested in your response to his post.

As for attending meetings, I'm afraid my membership in another organization precludes my attending. However I have seen first hand that Masons, etc., do many philanthropic things and to the extent that human suffering is diminished they indeed deserve applause. I think also that as men, we naturally desire kinship and brotherhood and to belong to something bigger than ourselves, so there as well these virtues are great and to be encouraged.

I feel like this was a good thread and I would like to hear more on the matter.

Respectfully,

[BrianHicks]

No... a Mason would not, and is no way obligated, to detract from another persons relief, in order to care for a Brother Mason. In fact... if it came down to a Mason, and a non-Mason... each needing a essential item for their welfare, and you could only provide for one of the two, then the non-Mason should be the one given that item.

Why? Simple.... self denial, sacrifice and the relief of others. The Mason in need of that item should, upon learning that a Non-Mason required the same item, refuse the item in order to see that another was cared for before himself. All of our obligations are very, very deeply rooted in Judea-Christina practices. To take relief, which would deny another that same relief, is contrary to what Masons believe in.

Why does a Mason help another Mason? For the same reason a Marine helps another Marine, or a Police or Fireman helps another of their brothers in their service. (If you can't grasp this concept, then it is unfortunate that you have never been enriched by belonging to such an organization or group.)

And it is for this reason, that Mason's (even on opposing sides in a conflict) have extended the hand of Relief and Charity.

Now.... would a Mason set aside his obligations or Duties to his Country, simply because his opponents were also Freemasons?

Let's recall the Alamo! General Antonio López de Santa Anna was a Mason. So where Davy Crockett, Colonel Travis and Jim Bowie. Did the fraternal ties dissuade Santa Anna from issuing his ultimatum of no Mercy? No... it did not. He did not allow his duties to his country to be superseded by his Masonic obligations (much to the dismay I'm sure... of those Brothers defending the Alamo)

[Beaner]

Brother Hicks,

Well said.

Dave Prince
Walled lake #529

[coastaltrash]

Mr. Landrum,

If I understand you correctly, your reply confirms my suspicion that the ties to Masonry do supercede the duties to one's country. My long-held assumption has been that one's obligation to one's country is a greater obligation (especially for a soldier in a time of war) than to a fraternal society. Perhaps I misunderstand you?

Respectfully,


Nope, you could not have been more incorrect in your guess as to what I said. All of the others are giving better advice and answers than I possibly could. But if you are so interested in Masons in the CW, I would say pick up a copy of A House Undivided and enjoy.

[Dale Beasley]

Nonetheless, the question at hand was whether or not that bond of Brotherhood is binding when the Brother in question is your country's enemy. Still, a great story.

Respectfully,

I think Brother Hicks has answered this question. I may not understand....but there is a difference between, Treason and Brotherhood. Maybe this would answer your question. In your first post, the story line went..."coming to the aid of a Brother in distress", "not coming to the aid in the act of treason."

Brother Landrum, I can not remember the "exacts", maybe you can, I know your father Brother Mr. Landrum would know the full story of the St Francisville "The Day the War was Civil"

[Hank Trent]

Thanks to everyone for the explanations. That makes sense.

I think the best way for you to have your question answered:) would be for you to attend one of your local lodge's meetings. I'm sure anyone of the brothers would happy to answer your questions.

Not really interested in the modern organization's practices, and I doubt that members of a local lodge could provide any more mid-19th-century-focussed information than the posters of the AC forum. That's meant to be a compliment on the research here, not a put-down on the local lodge.

The big secret of Freemasonary : is there are no secrets.

It's my understanding that that's been a recent shift in focus, and that in the 19th century, the secrecy was considered more of a good thing, and there was more paranoia (justifiably so). Or would that slogan, or its equivalent, be part of a Mason's interaction with a non-Mason in the 1860s?

I'm trying to figure out what a typical non-Mason's interactions and opinions would be like, concerning the local Masons in a typical 19th century community. The period Masonic donation table at Shaker Village Pleasant Hill showed I need to have that knowledge ready. Would a non-Mason even know who was a Mason among casual acquaintances, or would only Masons tend to know who the other Masons were? Were non-Masons used to seeing the local Masons gathered in their aprons in public, for example, such as posing for an outdoor picture?

I too think this is an interesting thread, and I hope that folks will realize anything I've asked or said is based on an interest in 1860s Masonry only, as it applies to living history situations, and not meant to be a reflection on the members or the organization today.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[BrianHicks]

Thanks to everyone for the explanations. That makes sense.

......

Would a non-Mason even know who was a Mason among casual acquaintances, or would only Masons tend to know who the other Masons were? Were non-Masons used to seeing the local Masons gathered in their aprons in public, for example, such as posing for an outdoor picture?

.......

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank,

In the mid 1800's Masons were active, in an overt fashion, in many communities. For example: the Masonic ceremony of laying the Cornerstone for Civic buildings were rather common.

Having tables at county fairs, such as we had at Shaker Village was not uncommon.

Knowing who is a Member of the Fraternity, has never been a secret, nor has the knowledge of who belonged to a local lodge, ever been thought of as something that had to be kept out of public knowledge. After all..... There are examples in mid 19th century papers where the local lodge advertised when their meetings were scheduled, and the location of lodge buildings have never been hidden... All it would take to see who was a mason, is for a person to simply watch who entered the building at the proscribed time.

Today, Lodges have the Meeting Times stenciled, or posted on the doors of their Lodge for all to read.

Worth considering... Masonry has enjoyed freedom in free countries, but Mussalini, Hitler, Stalin.... all suppressed Freemasonry.

[PvtSchultz]

" Would a non-Mason even know who was a Mason among casual acquaintances, or would only Masons tend to know who the other Masons were? Were non-Masons used to seeing the local Masons gathered in their aprons in public, for example, such as posing for an outdoor picture?"

Mr Trent, Freemasons then and now tend to be quiet about who and what they are. Simply put, we are taught to do certain things (charity etc) because this is what we SHOULD do period and that we should not do these things for public recognition.

Having said that, Freemasons were also secretive about who they were much like others were at that time. We must remember that Freemasonry was not the only fraternity out there and most of these other groups had a secretive component to them. During the 19th century, in my hunble opinion, Freemasons most definately did not advertise who and what they were. Yes there were lodges and yes people knew about the lodge and the people who belonged to the group but they were simply not as open about it as we are now. Now it is my understanding that Masons wore fraternal rings, they had pocket watches with Masonic symbols on it, carried the bible they took their Masonic obligations on and in some cases even had tattoos showing the square and compasses.

How public were this items in their day to day activity is uncertain. We can surmise and venture an educated guess but unless we have documentation, we will never know for sure. A Freemason would be known by some to be a member of a fraternity, he may even be known to be an officer but he probably did not walk around shouting it from the roof tops. Freemasons did and still do have public ceremonies such as would be seen at funerals, public parades and the laying of a corner stone for new buildings.

In my studies of American history, I have come across numerous accounts of Freemasons both before, during and after the war. As I write this, I am looking at my copies of Shelby Foote's "Civil War." Several times he talks about Freemasons gathering for a public function such as a picnic or how they provided aid to Masons and non-Masons alike (specifically widows and orphans).

As said before, giving aid to a fellow mason is no different than a police officer (like myself) giving aid to a fellow law enforcement officer. Would I help another officer over a private citizen in distress? Given the choic between helping a cop and a private citizen in distress I would help the cop first because that is what I should do and it would be expected by the Officer in need.

To understand Freemasonry during the American Civil War and the conduct of its members during that war would require more time than I fear this thread will allow. The article I attached via link may be of some interest and shed some light on the perplexities of the situation faced by ALL Freemasons. It will also show how my 1860'2 Southern Breeathren defined "country."

The link I have listed below will take you to an article prepared by a committee for the Grand Lodge of Virginia; "Free Masonry and the War. Report of the Committee Under the Resolutions of 1862,Grand Lodge of Virginia in Reference to Our Relations as Masonic Bodies and as Masons, in the North and South, Growing out of the Manner in Which
the Present War Has Been Prosecuted. Adopted by the Grand Lodge of Virginia, December 12, 1864, and ordered to be published. JOHN DOVE, Grand Secretary"

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/masonry/masonry.html

[Bushrod Carter]

Great thread!

Mr. Marti, please read Brian Hicks posts carefully. He has answered your question more than once.

If you think Masonic acts of charity and relief are treasonous – contemporary or historical – then I suggest you make a long weekend of research on the subject. I think you will find that Masons have acted in this manner during every military campaign from the founding of this country to the present. During all that time I do not know of a single incident of a Mason being charged with treason for his actions.

Don’t you think that charges would have been filed at least once during the past 230+ years if it had been the case?

Also, I feel the only one “unnerved” in this conversation is the questioner. Everyone here has attempted to answer your question as best they can. Time and a poor typing ability restrict me attempting to delve further into this topic. However, if you are still interested in discussing this topic further, I’d be happy to share a shade tree with you at a future event and discuss it at length.

Patrick Craddock
Hiram #7
Franklin, Tennessee

[BrianHicks]

For those whom have not yet seen it, this link is to a previous discussion on Freemasonry, which took place here on these same forums:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=717

[boozie]

While not advertising, many lodges would make public resolutions to those brothers, killed or dying in the service, that belonged to their local lodge. Many times these resolutions would be sent to a local newspaper. I have an example of one, for Captain Absalom Kirkpatrick, of the 40th Indiana Reg't.

Montgomery County, Indiana
"The Crawfordsville Journal"
Thursday, July 28, 1864

RESOLUTIONS - At a meeting of the members of Pleasant Hill Lodge, No. 63, held at the Lodge room on Friday evening. July 15th, 1864, the following Preamble and Resolutions were adopted:

WHEREAS, Our beloved brother, Capt. Absalom Kirkpatrick, fell on the 27th of June, lost in the advance on Kenesaw Mountain, while gallantly leading his company to the charge;

and,

WHEREAS, The virtues of our deceased brother, as a man and as a Mason, demand a tribute to his memory; therefore, be it.

RESOLVED, That while we mourn our sad affliction and bereavement, in the death of this brother, we desire to bow to the will of Him whom we as Masons and creatures, are bound to revere and honor, for "He ever doeth all things well."

RESOLVED, That in all his relations of life, in his social and Masonic intercourse, our deceased brother was a man of integrity and exalted virtue, a cheerful companion and friend, and therefore, in him was a model worthy of the imitation of all true Masons.

RESOLVED, That in his death, this Lodge has lost a faithful member, the country a gallant soldier, the wife an affectionate husband, and the father a dutiful son.

RESOLVED, That we deeply sympathize with the family of the deceased, and tender our heartfelt grief in their afflictions.

RESOLVED, That the Lodge be draped in mourning, and the members wear the usual regalia for thirty days.

RESOLVED, That these resolutions be recorded in the minutes of this Lodge, and copies be forwarded to the wife, and father of the deceased.

RESOLVED, That the above resolutions be presented to the "Crawfordsville Journal" and the "Crawfordsville Review" for publication.

[Justin Runyon]

Hank et al.,

I think you would get a great deal of good out of picking up a copy of:

Bullock, Steven C. Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730-1840. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Though it stops just short of our period, it is an in depth study of the foundations of American Freemasonry. There are a lot of books on Freemasonry out there and, sadly, most are not that impressive. Bullocks book on the other hand is a consummate work of history.

By the time of our Civil War, I would make the case that most American Freemasons are far more open about their membership than you might expect. The wealth of lodge ceremonies, announcements, photographs of brothers in regalia, &c. &c. seem to attest to that. Now it is certainly true that the fraternity went nearly completely underground in the 1830's in the wake of the Morgan Affair and the advent of the Anti-Masonic political party, but by the 1860's Masonry had already began the resurgence that would lead us to the hay day of fraternalism in the US during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

JER
Riley Lodge #390

[mtvernon]

Also, I feel the only one “unnerved” in this conversation is the questioner. Everyone here has attempted to answer your question as best they can. Time and a poor typing ability restrict me attempting to delve further into this topic. However, if you are still interested in discussing this topic further, I’d be happy to share a shade tree with you at a future event and discuss it at length.

Patrick Craddock
Hiram #7
Franklin, Tennessee

Please Mr. Craddock, no shade tree is necessary. Thank you to Mr. Hicks who is one of the only people on this thread to keep emotion from his responses. I can see this is a touchy subject so in light of that and of Mr. Hick's excellent explanation (which did answer my question, incidentally) I will withdraw from the conversation.

Respectfully,

[Dale Beasley]

Mr Marti,

Please don't turn down the "shade tree invitation" knowledge and free-thinking are some of the keys. When I was your age, I questioned my father and my uncles who are all Masons. But as I got older, I realzed just how special the Brotherhood is, for now I am the fifth generation in my family to wear the lambskin. No one in this thread ever attacked you, and you are right to question what you don't understand. The door to the lodge is open to all who believe in God and are in good-standing, so the shade tree offer was to help you to understand, nothing more. The subject is not so in light, but the search of light. ^ _I /G\


Thank-you for this thread, becasue what came from this, is what comes from the Lodge and that is a good-thing.

"ON TO VICKSBURG"

[PvtSchultz]

J.C.

No one was trying to attack you per se. I think the problem, at least how I perceive it, was the phrasing of your question. It appeared that you were trying to make the situation of a Mason crawling out into the field to help another Mason (who just happens to belong to the opposing army) as either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Trying to boil something like that down as a "black or white" scenerio makes answering your question all the more difficult.

For those of us who are Masons, trying to respond to your question was more than simply saying yes or no, we needed to explain more than this thread would allow. There are many lessons taught to us through our ritual. These lessons have many layers and if followed by a Mason will help us be better men. Looking from the outside in, as you are, it must seem strange, but I assure you that helping another human being is part of our duty as men on this earth. My friend, giving aid and comfort to the wounded was not just a Masonic "thing," many a soldier on both sides risked his life to crawl out and help those who were wounded. For example the "Angel of Marye's Heights" during the battle of Fredericksburg. He was not a Mason yet he went out to help his fellow man. In combat, a man is your enemy while the fighting rages but only in so much as it is a struggle to survive. Once it is over that wounded person is a human being just like you.

To simplify the example that you posted at the start of your thread would require us to label each and every soldier who gave aid, gave comfort and comingled with a soldier of the opposing force as a traitor. That would mean each and every soldier during WWI who celebrated Christmas in No Mans Land would be a traitor. It would mean each and every person, soldier or not who aided a wounded soldier or "enemy of the state" a traitor. Imagine history if that were the case, all those people who gave aid to the Jews during WWII in Germany or occupied areas would be a traitor to their country if that country were allied with Germany,. I hope you can see the point I am making. I am in no way trying to knock you for your response or opinion.

The example you gave I think illustrates the human side of combat, not some treasonous deed.

Humbly Yours,
Rich Schultz, PM
Clifton Lodge #203.

[Bushrod Carter]

Now it is certainly true that the fraternity went nearly completely underground in the 1830's in the wake of the Morgan Affair and the advent of the Anti-Masonic political party, but by the 1860's Masonry had already began the resurgence that would lead us to the hay day of fraternalism in the US during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

JER
Riley Lodge #390

Well put Justin.

When we ask a question about (whatever subject) during the 19th century it is often meant – or we typically tend to focus on – the 1850s and 1860s. Looking at Freemasonry during the whole of the 19th century you will see that from 1790 to 1828 Masonry was very open, recognized and accepted as a component in the development of our national identity (see Mark A. Tabbert; American Freemasons: Three centuries of Building Communities. New York University Press, 2005). From the late 1820s to mid 1850s Masonry suffered in the wake of the Morgan incident. However, from the decade before the Civil War, Masonry once again became more public and began to flourish. After the Civil War the phenomenal explosion of social societies (more than 235 fraternal orders were founded between 1865 and 1900) – fueled in part by the desire to continue the shared comradery of military service – led to a very public, though completely different, view of Masonry than had been during the first quarter of the 19th century.

Patrick Craddock
Hiram #7
Franklin, Tennessee

[teufelhund]

I found this story while browsing and thought some others might enjoy it.


" The Civil War in Song and Story" Collected and Arranged by Frank Moore
New York, 1882: PETER FENELON COLLIER, PUBLISHER
page 299.


A Masonic Incident - "The day after the battle of Antietam, the Fifth New Hampshire formed the picket line along the edge of the cornfield where Richardson's division fought. The reserve was in one edge of the corn, and the pickets about middle way of the field concealed in the corn, as the sharpshooters of the enemy fired on all who undertook to walk around on the battle-field at that locality. Early in the morning one of the wounded rebels, who lay just outside the pickets, called one of the New Hampshire men, and handed him a little slip of paper, on which he had, evidently with great difficulty succeeded in making some mystic signs in a circle with a bit of stick wet in blood. The soldier was begged to give it to some Freemason as soon as possible, and he took it to Colonel E.E. Cross, of his regiment. The Colonel was a Master Mason, but could not read the mystic token, it belonging to a higher degree. He therefore sent for Captain J.B. Perry, of the Fifth, who was a member of the thirty-second degree of Freemasonry, and showed him the letter. Captain Perry at once said there was a brother Mason in great peril, and must be rescued. Colonel Cross instantly sent for several brother Masons in the regiment, told the story, and in a few moments four "brothers of the mystic tie" were crawling stealthily through the corn to find the brother in distress. He was found, placed on a blanket, and at great risk drawn out of range of rebel rifles, and then carried to the Fifth New Hampshire hospital. He proved to be First Lieutenant Edon of the Alabama volunteers, badly wounded in the thigh and brest. A few hours and he would have perished. Lieutenant Edon informed his brothren of another wounded Mason, who, when brought out, proved to be a Lieutenant Colonel of a Georgia regiment. These two wounded rebel officers received the same attention as the wounded officers of the Fifth, and a warm friendship was established between men who a few hours before were in mortal combat. This is one of the thousand instances in which the Masonic bond has proved a blessing to mankind."


S.R.B. Waveland Lodge #300

Gentlemen,
I believe the answer to the question for me lays in the original stories. In the story that originated this thread, the two wounded "Rebs" that were rescued in the story were Masons. What was the fate of the other wounded troops in the field? There is no mention of their rescue. Not trying to stir the puddin', but actions speak louder than words.

Marc Shaffer

[coastaltrash]

Mr. Shaffer,
It doesn't make sense to you, and can easily be confused because the subject at hand was probably recorded for a Lodge by a Mason and deals directly with the Obligations for several of the degrees. An educated answer is always better than to assume anything.

[teufelhund]

Mr. Shaffer,
It doesn't make sense to you, and can easily be confused because the subject at hand was probably recorded for a Lodge by a Mason and deals directly with the Obligations for several of the degrees. An educated answer is always better than to assume anything.

Mr Landrum,
As stated in my post, I'm not trying to stir the puddin', but I don't appreciate the implication that I am or what I posted is "Uneducated" because I disagree about the intent of the Masonic Brotherhood . The story is not cited from any Masonic record. I can see where this will lead, so I too will bite my tounge and remove myself from the conversation.
Regards,
Marc Shaffer, one of the easily confused...

[boozie]

I know for some people on the outside looking in, it seem's a selfish act. Yes, they were enemies, but when they found out a "brother" was in distress, they wanted to go to his aid, it became personal to them. As a professional fire fighter, I also have "brothers" all over the United States that are willing to lay their lifes down for anyone, when we meet we refer to each other as "brother." The same holds true for a Mason, we are all "brothers", one big family, we share a common bond.

When a fire fighter's life is in danger, other fire fighters want to drop everythig they are doing, in order to try and bring the fire fighter in trouble to saftey. As a Mason, I have the same thought's about another brother Mason, not only to bring them to saftey, but also to provide whatever I can to them if one is in need of anything. As many people would do for a sibling in danger, maybe that's a better way to understand it.

As far as the story I posted at the start of this thread, how many were wounded on the field at Sharpsburg? There is no way to bring everyone off of the field to saftey. The war had been going on long enough, that the sight of killed and wounded was not that shocking to many. When they found they had a brother wounded, and in need of help, it then became personal for them. As stated before, many, on both sides Mason or not risked everything to bring aid and comfort to the wounded. The Fifth had men in their field hospital, i'm sure some of the 'gallant four' had enough grief and worries for their "brothers in arms" before the rescue mission was undertaken.

S.R.B. Waveland Lodge #300

[BrianHicks]

Mr. Schaffer,

Allow me to quote from one of my previous posts here:



Why does a Mason help another Mason? For the same reason a Marine helps another Marine, or a Police or Fireman helps another of their brothers in their service. (If you can't grasp this concept, then it is unfortunate that you have never been enriched by belonging to such an organization or group.)

And it is for this reason, that Mason's (even on opposing sides in a conflict) have extended the hand of Relief and Charity.



It's that simple. It is for the care and concern of a Fraternal Brother.

See Mr. Busenbark's post above.

As to the fate of the other wounded on the field, and why didn't these same men venture out to save them? Probably for the same reason they didn't venture out until they knew that a Brother was in need whom had directly asked for assistance from his Brothers. And had the rescuers not received the request for help from their Brother, they would have left him in the field with all of the others. Again... it returns to the simple answer of... a Brother coming to the aid of stricken Brother.

For those of us in the fraternity, it is a great comfort to know that no matter where we travel in the world (with very few exceptions), like belonging to a Travelers Aid Society, there will likely be Masonic Brothers whom are always willing to extend a hand, or offer advice, or act as a tour guide, etc. For example... I was made a Mason in Saudi Arabia, and when I moved to Budapest, Hungary, on my first day in the city, a stranger introduced himself to me. He was carrying a watch fob with a Masonic emblem on it, and he told me that my Brothers in Saudi had contacted his Lodge in Budapest, and asked whether or not a Brother could make himself known to me, and help make my transition to the new culture easier. This is the kind of acts that transcend international boundaries, language barriers, and even at times, warring factions and opposing forces on the battle field.

[toptimlrd]

OK, I am not a mason, but I think I might be able to cut through some of the confusion. Masons call each other "brother" as does many other organizations and religions, but the Masons seem to actually believe in it.

Now put yourself at that battle, you and a few of your family are fighting for the Federal army when all of a sudden another soldier hads you something (it can be anything) that you immediately recognize as belonging to your biological brother who joined the other side. Would you and your family make every attempt to save your brother by birth and take what others outside of your family would consider unnescessary risk to save one enemy soldier while others in similar dire straights are left on the field? This is what the Masons feel towards other members of the lodge.

Before we get too far down the road of secrets, I think its important to understand that many fraternal organizations (masons, fraternities, etc) utilize "secrets" to help identify true members from posers. Even the Boy Scouts have special handshakes and oaths to help identify each other when not in uniform and there are even more "secret" symbols and ceremonies in the Scout Honor Sciety called the Order of the Arrow that only a brother or arrowman is allowed to know. for thought

[PvtSchultz]

Gentlemen,
With all due respect to all view points, I took the original post as asking if by giving aid to a wounded soldier from an opposing army was treason or not. Despite my efforts to point out that this type of behavior was not limited to Freemasons caring for one another it seems that we have gotten stuck on that issue. The bottom line, the way I see it, there were many cases, at various times and during various wars where a soldier from one side came to the aid of a soldier from the other side. For the conflict in question there were many such cases.

We cannot simply say that these Masons comitted treason. If we were to say that then let us include the Confederate soldier at Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg and how about all those soldiers during WWI who came out of there trenches to celebrate Christmas with the enemy. By their very act are they not guilty of treason? I should think not. I think what they are guilty of is being human!

While the question posed used an event that involved Freemasons, this type of incident is not limited to those who hold membership within that fraternity. Perhaps the question should have been, "does the act of a soldier crawling out unto the battlefield to give aid to a wounded enemy constitute treason?"

[BrianHicks]

Mr. Schultz,

Allow me to quote form one of my previous posts here, as it should answer your specific question "does the act of a soldier crawling out unto the battlefield to give aid to a wounded enemy constitute treason?":

Rendering medical aid to a wounded enemy is not a traitorous act. As a matter of fact, the Military is required to provide the same quality of medical care to our foes, as we do our comrades. This is not only morally correct, it is actually written in modern regulations.

[BrianHicks]

Concerning whether or not the actions of the Federal Soldiers, in leaving their lines, and proceeding forward in a manner which exposed them to enemy fire, in order to render aid to an enemy combatant.

Do these actions qualify as treasonous?

I say no. Could their actions subject them to other charges? Potentially... yes.

Dereliction of their duties, in that they departed the established forward positions, and exposed themselves to potential harm. If the enemy had taken advantage of their actions, and exploited any abandoned positions, then perhaps they could have been charged with abandoning their positions in the face of the enemy... a Capitol offense!?!?

But why not treason?

Let's take a detailed look at what constitutes Treason.

Treason

Taken from the Encyclopedia of American History

Traditionally, treason was betrayal of the state, which, in most countries meant the monarch. A person who commits treason is a traitor. However, the framers of the U.S. Constitution chose to adopt a restricted definition of treason, making it the only term defined in the body of the Constitution. James Wilson was the principal author of the provision:

Art. III Sec. 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Their reason for defining treason was the common English practice of charging political opponents with a capital offense, often on weak evidence, under the doctrine of "constructive treason." A classic case was the trial of Algernon Sidney, beheaded in 1683 for plotting against the king. The case against him was based largely on passages from his treatise, Discourses Concerning Government, which was not even published until after his death, in 1698. The term treason was familiar in the common law before it was used in the Statute of 25 Edward III (1350), from which the Constitution derives its language concerning the levying of war and adhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort. However, the Constitution's treason clause contains no provision analogous to that by which the Statute of Edward III penalized the compassing (intending) of the king's death, since in a republic there is no monarch and the people are sovereign. Charges of treason for compassing the king's death had been the main instrument used in England for the most drastic, "lawful" suppression of political opposition or the expression of ideas or beliefs distasteful to those in power.

The Statute of 7 William III (1694) introduced the requirement of two witnesses to the same or different overt acts of the same treason or misprision (concealment) of treason, made several exceptions to what could be considered treason, and protected the right of the accused to have copies of the indictment and proceedings against him, to have counsel, and to compel witnesses—privileges not previously enjoyed by those accused of common law crimes. This statute served as a model for colonial treason statutes.

The first major cases under the U.S. Constitution arose from an 1807 conspiracy led by Aaron Burr, who had served as vice president under Thomas Jefferson in 1801–1805. The conspirators planned to seize parts of Mexico or the newly acquired Louisiana Territory. Burr and two confederates, Bollman and Swartwout, were charged with treason.

Chief Justice John Marshall opened the door for making actions other than treason a crime in EX PARTE BOLLMAN when he held that the clause does not prevent Congress from specifying other crimes of a subversive nature and prescribing punishment, so long as Congress is not merely attempting to evade the restrictions of the treason clause. But he also stated, "However flagitious [villainous] may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that…it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war." On the basis of these considerations and because no part of the crime charged had been committed in the District of Columbia, the Court held that Bollman and Swartwout could not be tried in the District and ordered their discharge. Marshall continued by saying, "the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases."

Burr was acquitted 1 September 1807, after an opinion rendered by Chief Justice Marshall in U.S. v. Burr that further defined the requirements for proving treason. The Court held that Burr, who had not been present at the assemblage of men on Blennerhassett Island, could be convicted of advising or procuring a levying of war only upon the testimony of two witnesses to his having procured the assemblage, but the operation was covert and such testimony was unobtainable. Marshall's opinion made it extremely difficult to convict someone of levying war against the United States unless the person participated in actual hostilities.

The Burr and Bollman cases prompted the introduction in 1808 of a Senate bill to further define the crime of treason. The debate on that bill, which was rejected, provides insight into the original understanding of the treason clause: its purpose was to guarantee nonviolent political controversy against suppression under the charge of treason or any other criminal charge based on its supposed subversive character, and there was no constitutional authority to evade the restriction by creating new crimes under other names.

Before 1947, most cases that were successfully prosecuted were not federal trials but rather state trials for treason, notably the trials of Thomas Wilson Dorr (1844) and John Brown (1859) on charges of levying war against the states of Rhode Island and Virginia, respectively.

After the Civil War, some wanted to try Southern secessionists for treason, and former the Confederate president Jefferson Davis was charged with treason in U.S. v. Jefferson Davis. The constitutional requirement in Art. III Sec. 2 Cl. 3 that an offender be tried in the state and district where the offense was committed would have meant trying Davis in Virginia, where a conviction was unlikely, so the case was dismissed. Although the United States government regarded the activities of the Confederate States as a levying of war, the president's Amnesty Proclamation of 25 December 1868 pardoned all those who had participated on the Southern side.

Since the Bollman case, the few treason cases that have reached the Supreme Court have been outgrowths of World War II and charged adherence to enemies of the United States and the giving of aid and comfort. In the first of these, Cramer v. United States, the issue was whether the "overt act" had to be "openly manifest treason" or whether it was enough, when supported by the proper evidence, that it showed the required treasonable intention. The Court in a five to four opinion by Justice Jackson took the former view, holding that "the two witness principle" barred "imputation of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness," even though the single witness in question was the accused himself. "Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."

The Supreme Court first sustained a conviction of treason in 1947 in Haupt v. United States. Here it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason (defendant's harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile and in obtaining employment in a defense plant) were all acts that a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

In Kawakita v. United States, the petitioner was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States, went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented from returning to this country by the outbreak of war. During World War II he reached his majority in Japan, changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States, served as a civilian employee of a private corporation producing war materials for Japan, and brutally abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work there. After Japan's surrender, he registered as an American citizen, swore that he was an American citizen and had not done various acts amounting to expatriation, and returned to this country on an American passport. The question whether, on this record, Kawakita had intended to renounce American citizenship was peculiarly one for the jury, said the Court in sustaining conviction, and the jury's verdict that he had not so intended was based on sufficient evidence. An American citizen, it continued, owes allegiance to the United States wherever he may reside, and dual nationality does not alter the situation. This case is notable for extending U.S. criminal jurisdiction to the actions of U.S. civilian citizens abroad, which would have originally been considered unconstitutional.

World War II was followed by the Cold War, which resulted in political prosecutions of several persons for treason and other charges on dubious evidence. The trials of the Axis broadcasters—Douglas Chandler, Robert H. Best, Mildred Gellars as "Axis Sally," Iva Ikuko Toguri d'Aquino as "Tokyo Rose" (later pardoned by President Ford when it was revealed she had been a double agent for the allies)—and the indictment and mental commitment of Ezra Pound, muddied the jurisprudence of the treason clause. Their actions provided no significant aid or comfort to an enemy and were not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. In United States v. Rosenberg, the Court held that in a prosecution under the ESPIONAGE ACT for giving aid to a country (not an enemy), an offense distinct from treason, neither the two-witness rule nor the requirement as to the overt act was applicable. However, no constitutional authority for the Espionage Act itself was proven.

Bibliography

Chapin, Bradley. The American Law of Treason: Revolutionary and Early National Origins. Seattle: University of Washing ton Press, 1964.

Elliot, Jonathan. Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Philadelphia, 1836, p. 469 (James Wilson).

Hurst, James Willard. The Law of Treason in the United States: Collected Essays. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing, 1971.

Kutler, Stanley I. The American Inquisition: Justice and Injustice in the Cold War. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982.

Treason Trials

Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. (8 U.S.) 75 (1807).

United States v. Burr, 4 Cr. (8 U.S.) 469 (1807).

Annals of Congress, Tenth Congress, First Session, Senate, Debate on Treason and Other Crimes, 1808.

Wharton's State Trials of the United States (Philadelphia, 1849), and Lawson's American State Trials (17 volumes, St. Louis, 1914–1926), trials of Thomas Wilson Dorr (1844) and of John Brown (1859).

Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945).

Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947).

Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F.2d 583 (2d. Cir.), cert den., 344 U.S. 889 (1952).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

From a Legal Encyclopedia:

Treason

The betrayal of one's own coun- try by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Article III, Section 3, of the federal Constitution sets forth the definition of treason in the United States. Any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage in 1951 for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.

Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an overt act of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.

Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. Aliens who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.

Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter.

The English common law required defendants to forfeit all of their property, real and personal, upon conviction for treason. In some cases, the British Crown confiscated the property of immediate family members as well. The common law also precluded convicted traitors from bequeathing their property through a will. Relatives were presumed to be tainted by the blood of the traitor and were not permitted to inherit from him. Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlaws such "corruption of the blood" and limits the penalty of forfeiture to "the life of the person attainted." Under this provision relatives cannot be made to forfeit their property or inheritance for crimes committed by traitorous family members.

The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327-1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the common law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

See: Schenck v. United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So..... could those soldiers who went forth to help to help a wounded Confederate be charged with Treason?

[cwdoc45]

At the Battle of Perryville this last October 2006, my chief hospital steward of the First Federal Division was given the grand sign for masonic distress by a masonic rebel reenactor on the battle field. The reb had seen the masonic pin on my steward's sack coat. My steward escorted the rebel masonic brother to the EMT's for assistance as he indicated he was having a medical problem. Who says that masonry is not alive on the (reenacting) battlefields today!

cwdoc 45
Dr. Trevor Steinbach - Past Worshipful Master
Armistead-Bingham Lodge 1862 of CW Reenactors
Chartered under the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin

[Dale Beasley]

I finally had time to find it...

http://stfrancisville.blogspot.com/2006/04/day-war-stopped-in-st-francisville-la.html

Wartime Gazette
During The War Between The States

June 12, 1863 Siege of Port Hudson - Extra Edition
Page 1


The Day the War Stopped

Schedule Of Events For Weekend of June 16-18, 2006



Table of Contents
Top Story 1
Letters from the Past 2
Photos 3
The Bonnie Blue Flag 4
Re-Enactment Info 5
Cast of Players 6


Up the steep hill they trudged, sweating in the sticky June heat, staggering under the weight of the coffin, the white flag of truce flying before them in the hot summer sun. The guns of their federal gunboat, the USS Albatross, anchored in the Mississippi off Bayou Sara, fell silent behind them as the ship's surgeon and two officers struggled toward St. Francisville atop the hill.
The procession was not an impressive one, certainly not an unusual event in the midst of a bloody war, and it would no doubt have escaped all notice but for one fact... this was the day the war stopped, if only for a few mournful moments.
It was June 12, 1863, and the Siege of Port Hudson was pitting

30,000 Union Troops


under Union Commander Banks, fighting over the all-important control of traffic on the Mississippi River.
Port Hudson and Vicksburg were the only rebel strongholds left along the Mississippi, and if the Union forces could wrest from them control of the river traffic, they could cut off supplies from the west and completely surround the Confederacy.
Admiral David Farragur had attempted to destroy Confederate cannons atop the bluffs from the river, but of his seven ships, four were turned back, and one was completely destroyed, and his flagship and the USS Albatross passed upriver safely, leaving ground troops to fight it out for nearly another month.

Lt. Commander
John E. Hart,


the federal commander of the Albatross, had just the week before posted a touching letter to his wife, left behind with their young son Elliott in Schenectady, New York. Praising his little boat for getting through the fearsome firing from the batteries atop the bluffs at Port Hudson, Commander Hart promises after the war to take his wife on a trip down the river to see the famous battlefields. As he writes he can hear the cannons booming to the

John R. Rarick, P.M. as" W.W.Leake, S.W."




south, but his attentions are on more immediate matters... how many blackberries his crew have had to eat lately, and how when a "jolly good cow" is spotted he sends a sailor ashore with a pail, chuckling how some rebel farm folk will be surprised when "old Brindle comes home at night and ain't got no milk for them"... how hot it is, and how long since he has seen ice, and how he would love a glass of cool claret and water.
Even in the middle of war, there are mundane little touches of life scattered through the letter from Hart to his beloved wife... the mockingbirds singing around the boat, the little puppy he'd put ashore at Plaquemine to be raise, the shipboard litter of kittens. After perilously running through the Grand Gulf batteries on the river to the north, Hart writes that the Admiral signaled,
"How many wounded?"


And he answered none. And just then Kitty, ship's mouser, produced kittens which Hart insisted become part of the official report.... important to note the wartime births as well as the all too-often deaths.
A valiant naval officer who's skill and bravery were renown, Commander Hart would have even more lasting impact through his death, which occurred as the Albatross lay at anchor near Bayou Sara, having shelled both that low-lying port settlement and the city of St. Francisville atop the bluffs. Masonic and Naval records list Hart as having "suicided," died by his own hand "in a fit of delirium". Perhaps he suffered from dementia induced by yellow fever, for a mere four days earlier he had certainly exhibited no depression or despair in his letter home. At any rate, Hart most certainly died.


Hart was a Mason , and aboard his ship were other officers also
"Members of the Craft"


desirous of burying their commander ashore rather than consigning the remains to the river waters. A boat was sent from Albatross under flag of truce to ascertain if there were any Masons in the town of St. Francisville. Now it just so happened that the two White brothers living near the river were masons, and they informed the little delegation that there was indeed a Masonic Lodge in the town, in fact one of the oldest in the state, Feliciana Lodge No. 31 F and AM. It's Grand Masters was absent, serving in the Confederate Army and it's Senior Warden, W.W Leake was likewise engaged. But according to Masonic correspondence, "Brother Leake's headquarters were in the saddle". He was reported to be in the vicinity, and was soon found and persuaded to honor the request. As a soldier, Leake reportedly said, he considered it his duty to permit burial of the armed forces of any government, even one presently at war with his own, and as a Mason, he knew it to be his duty to accord Masonic burial to the remains of a brother Mason without taking into account the nature of their relations in the outer world.
The surgeon and officers of the USS Albatross, struggling up from the river with Hart's body, were met by W.W. Leake, the White brothers, and a few other members of the Masonic lodge. In the procession was also a squad of Marines at trail arms. They were met at Grace Episcopal Church by the Reverend Mr. Lewis, rector, and with full Episcopal and Masonic services, Commander John E. Hart was laid to rest in the Masonic burial lot in Grace's peaceful cemetery, respect being paid by

Union & Confederate Soldiers alike.


And soon after the war resumed. Lee's northern invasion turned back at Gettysburg July 3, Vicksburg falling July 4, and Port Hudson finally surrendering July 9, all in one catastrophic week.
But for one brief touching moment, the war had stopped in St. Francisville, and Masonic Brotherhood overcame War.

(This is a reprint of an article written by Anne Butler for the St. Franscisville Democrat on June 25, 1998)


(excerpts from the Hart Letters are the copyrighted ownership of William C. Davis, and reprinted with his permission)


© Copyright 2001-02. All information contained within this web site is copyrighted and owned by the respectively listed writers.
For re-print rights, Contact Web Master. Web Site designed by Bro. Keith A. Duncan.

[Dale Beasley]

Here is the other site for the event.

http://www.daythewarstopped.com/

[Jed Millet]

"And it is for this reason, that Mason's (even on opposing sides in a conflict) have extended the hand of Relief and Charity."

"It's that simple. It is for the care and concern of a Fraternal Brother."

Well said Brother Hicks. That sums it up in my book.

Jim "Jed" Dilts
Sts. John Lodge #144
A.F. & A.M.
Eureka, VA