The question is neither simple nor merely political. Masonic charges and constitutions long instructed a Mason to be “a peaceable subject to the civil powers,” “not to be concerned in plots or conspiracies against government,” and “not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion.” Yet many of the leading figures of the American Revolution—including George Washington and several signers of the Declaration of Independence—were themselves Freemasons. To Loyalist Masons of the eighteenth century, the Revolution could appear a direct violation of Masonic duty; to Patriot Masons, resistance to tyranny could be understood as fidelity to justice, liberty, and conscience.
This essay intentionally places those competing principles into direct conflict. It does not seek to condemn nor vindicate the men of 1776, but rather to examine the enduring tension between obedience and liberty, order and justice, law and moral conscience. Through the imagined defense of George Washington before a Masonic tribunal, the reader is invited to consider not only how Freemasons of the era may have understood their obligations, but also whether the moral duties of a Mason are owed solely to established authority, or to higher principles believed to stand above it.
The Stage
In the autumn of 1784, the rebellion of the American colonies had long since collapsed beneath the restored authority of the Crown. General George Washington, having surrendered what remained of the Continental Army after the disastrous winter at Morristown and the subsequent fall of Philadelphia, had withdrawn from public life beneath a cloud of ruin and suspicion. Yet the judgment now before him was not that of Parliament, nor of any royal court, but of his brethren. Convened under dispensation in New York City, a Lodge composed largely of Loyalist Masons assembled to hear charges of unmasonic conduct preferred against Brother Washington, formerly Master of Alexandria Lodge. The accusations rested upon the ancient duties of the Craft itself: that a Mason is “a peaceable subject to the civil powers,” that he is “not to be concerned in plots or conspiracies against government,” and that he is “not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion.” Having heard the testimony and arguments of the prosecution, the Worshipful Master at length granted the accused brother leave to deliver his final summation before the Lodge retired for deliberation.
Brother Washington's Defense
“Worshipful Master, Wardens, and Brethren:
In rising to address this Lodge upon a matter involving not only my own character, but the principles by which I have endeavored to govern my conduct through life, I confess sensations more difficult to subdue than any which attended me amidst the tumults of war. Before the world, a man may defend his actions by appeals to necessity, to fortune, or to the uncertain judgments of posterity. But before brethren, seated beneath the solemn obligations of our ancient institution, no subterfuge can avail, nor would I insult this honorable body by attempting any.
I shall not deny that I took up arms against the authority of the Crown. The fact is known to all mankind. I shall not deny that, in consequence of that unhappy contest, blood was shed, homes desolated, and the peace of society violently interrupted. These truths are written already in tears and graves, and no argument of mine can erase them.
The question before this Lodge, however, is of another and more solemn nature. It is whether, by those acts, I violated the duties of a Mason.
Brethren, I have listened with the attention due both to the wisdom of this Lodge and to the gravity of the charges preferred against me. I have heard recited those ancient admonitions which instruct a Mason to be a peaceable subject, obedient to the civil powers, and not concerned in conspiracies against lawful government. I acknowledge those principles. I have ever acknowledged them. Order is the safeguard of society; obedience to just authority is among the first duties of civilized man; and he who lightly excites rebellion for purposes of ambition or private gain deserves equally the condemnation of the state and the reproach of Masonry.
Had the contest in which I engaged arisen from personal resentment, from restless ambition, or from a desire to overturn government itself, I should stand before you not only without excuse, but without hope of deserving your charity.
Yet I ask this Lodge to consider whether submission is, under all circumstances, the highest duty of a Mason. We are taught within these walls that justice is the cement and support of civil society. We are instructed to walk uprightly before God and man. We are admonished to act not merely with obedience, but with virtue. If government itself departs from the great ends for which government is instituted; if the rights secured by long inheritance and constitutional compact are systematically violated; if petitions are answered only with punishments, and remonstrances only with force; then the unhappy subject is compelled to inquire whether passive submission remains a virtue, or whether it becomes participation in injustice itself.
I do not pretend, brethren, that such questions admit of easy resolution. Wise and good men have differed upon them in every age. Many worthy brethren, whose integrity I neither question nor diminish, remained faithful to the Crown and believed resistance unlawful. I honor the sincerity with which they acted, though they cannot approve the course which I pursued.
But I must answer according to the dictates of my own conscience, before which every man must finally stand alone.
I believed the liberties of these colonies to be invaded contrary to the constitutional rights of Englishmen. I believed that repeated injuries, endured with patience and answered with humble petitions, had left no reasonable expectation of redress. I believed that the object sought was not anarchy, nor the destruction of law, but the preservation of those principles of lawful liberty without which government itself degenerates into mere power.
If these judgments were erroneous, then I have erred honestly and without selfish intent. If they were criminal, then my crime proceeded not from disloyalty to justice, but from too fervent a conviction of its necessity.
Brethren, Masonry has survived kingdoms, factions, and revolutions because it was never intended to be the servant of temporary powers alone. It binds men together not merely in obedience, but in the pursuit of virtue, truth, and moral improvement. The square teaches rectitude; the compasses teach restraint; but the Great Light itself instructs us that there exists a law above all human institutions, to which rulers and subjects alike are accountable.
I ask no indulgence for failure. Providence has rendered its verdict upon our undertaking. The cause for which I contended lies defeated, and I stand before you stripped alike of command, of influence, and perhaps soon of reputation itself. But I cannot confess that I acted from motives unworthy of a Mason; nor can I declare that resistance to what one sincerely believes destructive of liberty and justice must forever constitute rebellion in the moral sense.
Should this Lodge determine that my conduct has violated the obligations of our fraternity, I shall submit to its judgment with the same composure with which I have endeavored to meet the other reverses allotted me by Divine Providence. But before you retire to deliberate, I entreat you to consider well the precedent now to be established: whether the duty of a Mason consists solely in submission to existing authority, whatever its character may become, or whether there yet remains within our institution some sacred regard for conscience, justice, and the natural rights of mankind.
Upon that question, brethren, not my fate alone, but the moral meaning of our ancient Craft, may well depend.”
