FREEMASONRY’S CONTRIBUTION TO SOUTH AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE - A FACTUAL APROACH
Leon Zeldis
Preamble
For a very long time, the study of the possible influence of masons and Freemasonry on the independence struggles of South America in the early decades of the 19th century, was characterized by a romantic approach. For various reasons, some of which we shall examine in the course of this paper, both masonic and non-masonic historians coincided in attributing a large, even decisive role to revolutionary masonic lodges, while practically all prominent figures in the independence wars of South America have been described as masons in the history books.
My interest in this subject was freshly awakened as the result of a traumatic event, which led me to examine once again, from a new perspective, the existing information and documents relating to this subject, arriving now to conclusions which are at variance with the generally accepted opinion.
Was Rabin a mason?
On 4 November 1995, the prime minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, was murdered in Tel Aviv, shot by an assassin. The crime provoked a strong emotional reaction in all circles of Israeli society, and a universal expression of repudiation and revulsion at the crime, together with a general feeling of pain and grief shared by the entire people of Israel, which became united in the presence of a tragedy which transcended any ideological or political consideration. Hundreds of condolence notices were published in all newspapers, signed by institutions, associations and private individuals.
Israeli masonry also made public its outrage and grief. A message of condolences signed by Grand Master Ephraim Fuchs, in representation of Israeli Freemasonry in general, was published in Hebrew and English newspapers. Perhaps giving expression to the fraternal sentiments of the country’s entire population, which felt as a great bereaved family, the insertion authorized by the Grand Master referred to “brother” Yitzhak Rabin. Someone - it has been impossible to determine who - “improved” the text by adding the word “mason” after brother.
It should be pointed out that for many years rumours circulated in Israeli masonic circles, concerning the possible masonic affiliation of Yitzhak Rabin. According to one story, he had been initiated in 1968 in Israel, shortly before assuming his duties as Israel’s ambassador in Washington. Another story held that the initiation had taken place in the United States, while serving there as ambassador.
Having read the newspaper notice mentioned above, Brother Werner Ansorge, Grand Representative of the United Grand Lodges of Germany near the Grand Lodge of Israel, hastened to communicate to the German masonic authorities that the deceased Prime Minister had been a mason. On the basis of his message, Grand Master Rainer Schicke issued instructions to all lodges in Germany to conduct memorial ceremonies for the late Brother Rabin, Nobel Peace Prize, etc. The January-February 1996 issue of Humanitהt, Germany’s official masonic publication, carried Rabin’s portrait on the cover, against a background of the grand seal of the Grand Lodge of the State of Israel, with the title: Bruder Rabin (Brother Rabin). An article by Brother Ansorge, on page 5 of the same publication, was entitled Shalom, friend and brother. Other Grand Lodges as well carried the same information on their official publications.
Finally, the well-known American masonic journal Philalethes, in its issue of February 1996, published an obituary article by Brother Ron Berger of Jerusalem, referring to “Brother Yitzhak Rabin” and presenting the rumoured story of his initiation in Israel as an established fact (according to Berger, Rabin had been made a “Mason at sight” by the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Israel, but his evidence was solely hearsay).
So much for the development of the story. Let us now examine the factual basis for these statements and publications. A careful search of the archives of the Grand Lodge of Israel carried out by its Grand Secretary Brother Israel Doni failed to turn up any trace of an initiation ceremony held for Mr. Rabin. Furthermore, there is no memory, and no record, of his ever having visited an Israeli lodge, and he had no epistolary contact with Grand Lodge in all the years after he returned from the United States.
Moreover, Brother Doni requested from the Grand Secretaries of the Grand Lodges of Washington (DC), New York and California, to make a search in their records. Again, there was no trace of Mr. Rabin having ever been admitted to the Order, or ever having been present as a visitor in a lodge.
An important point that must be kept in mind is that, for Mr. Rabin’s initiation to have had practical effects in the United States (namely, to enable him to visit local lodges or Grand Lodges) he would have had to receive all three degrees “at sight”, since US lodges conduct their meetings in the third degree only. Such possibility is highly implausible (it has never been done in Israel, either “at sight” or conducting consecutive ceremonies the same day), as would be the idea of delivering to the newly initiated-passed-raised brother a Master Mason’s diploma without stating the name of the lodge in which he had been raised.
The conclusion is that, unless and until documentary proof turns up in the future, we must assume that Yitzhak Rabin was not initiated, and that the rumours about his masonic character were perhaps based on a project that did not materialize. More important still, even if we were to accept as an hypothesis that Mr. Rabin became a Mason in a secret and private ceremony, of which no written record remains, this initiation had no practical results whatsoever, since Mr. Rabin did not maintain any later contact with Freemasonry.
The case of Yitzhak Rabin’s presumed masonic membership was for this writer a revelation. Let us consider for a moment what future researchers and historians of Freemasonry will make of the documentary evidence, some decades from now, when all those who had been active masons at the time will no longer be available to give testimony.
Basing themselves on documentary proof, the obituary notices published by the Grand Lodge of Israel, the circular letter sent to all German lodges, the various publications that appeared afterwards in Germany and in other countries, and Ron Berger’s article, future historians will arrive at the irrefutable conclusion that Yitzhak Rabin was indeed a mason and then, armed with this intelligence, they will elaborate doctoral dissertations on the beneficial influence that Freemasonry had on Rabin’s thinking and policies.
The accepted view
Let us now return to our theme, that is, the role played by Freemasonry in the independence of South America. First of all, let us review the prevailing opinions among historians who have dealt with this subject.
According to the accepted view, Francisco Miranda has the honour of having initiated an entire generation of Latin-American liberators in his London lodge, known as the Gran Reuniףn Americana (Grand American Union) or the Sociedad de Caballeros Racionales (Society of Rational Gentlemen). Latin-American patriots coming from Chile, Argentine, Venezuela (then part of the area known as Gran Colombia) and other Spanish colonial regions propagated masonic ideals in their countries, creating subsidiary lodges known as Logias Lautarinas or Lautaro lodges, first in Cádiz (Spain), then in Buenos Aires, Mendoza, Santiago and other places. These lodges, the accepted opinion goes, played a crucial role in the liberation struggles of South America, usually acting behind the scenes and pulling the strings of the leaders of the emancipation struggle. The conclusion drawn tacitly, when not explicitly stated, is that the independence of the South-American nations was to a large extent the result of Freemasonry’s intervention.
This, in brief, is the theory that appears in the general histories of Chile, Argentine and other countries, and this theory has been warmly accepted by the great majority of historians, both masons and non-masons, in these countries.
Other opinions
There are, however, other opinions, and particularly in recent years differing points of view have been presented, both by general historians and by masonic researchers.
Perhaps the best known exponent of this new approach was the late Brother Frederick W. Seal-Coon, Past Master of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076. In two articles published in the Transactions of the lodge, published in the years 1978 and 1982 [1] , Seal-Coon systematically takes apart the generally-accepted view and shows that it is fundamentally based on unconfirmed verbal declarations, sometimes made many years after the events, repeated, quoted and “embellished” in the course of time, until they become axiomatic truths that nobody dares to question. In this paper, I shall be making extensive use of Bro. Seal-Coon’s research and in fact it would not have been written at all were it not for his pioneering effort.
We must necessarily approach the subject beginning with the figure of Miranda, since the masonic activities of the leaders of the independence wars of South America, particularly Bolivar, O’Higgins and San Martin, were intimately linked with him.
Was Miranda a mason?
Let me begin by stressing that Miranda’s devotion to the cause of South American independence and his contribution to that end are not in question. We are only interested in determining his masonic status.
Francisco de Miranda’s life is amply documented. He was born on 24 April 1749 and died in a Cadiz prison on 14 July 1816. He arrived in Europe for the first time on 1 March 1771, traveled around Spain, then enlisted in a royal regiment (Princess) in December of 1772. Between 1780 and 1782 he was in North America and took part in the War of Independence of the American colonies. He then stayed another two years traveling extensively in the newly-created United States. In 1785 he arrived for the first time in London, from where he embarked on a long journey through Europe, beginning with the Netherlands, then Prussia - where he met king Frederick II shortly before his death. He also met again the Marquis de Lafayette, whom he had previously known in the United States. According to Miranda’s own words (recorded in his diary), he strongly disliked the French aristocrat. He continued his journey through Saxony, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Russia - where he was received by Gregory Potemkin, the favourite of Empress Catherine II. On 25 February 1787 Miranda is presented at court in Kiev, and the empress takes an immediate liking to the dashing South-American. After Miranda reveals to her his revolutionary plans, Catherine promises him to be the first to support the independence of the Spanish colonies in America. From Kiev, Miranda follows to Moscow and Saint Petersburg, where he remained three months, again meeting the empress. In October of 1787 Miranda is in Stockholm, where he is received by King Gustavus III. He continues to Copenhagen, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Zurich and other Swiss cities, then to Marseilles, Paris, and finally, in June of 1789, back to London, where he rents a flat on Jermyn street.
Miranda’ curiosity was insatiable. He kept a detailed diary recording his movements, visits to different places, description of buildings, the people he met, even quoting some of his conversations. He goes into minute details, like the prices of many things, the names of some of the specimens in the collections of plants, insects or minerals shown to him. He does not forget to record the names of the artists in the frequent concerts he attends during his journey and adds his own critical comments. All this should be kept in mind when we examine Miranda’s very few references to Masonry in his diary.
Miranda did not remain in London for long. On 19 March 1792 he traveled to Paris, where he was at first well received by the Girondists, who offered him a military command. This stage of his military career, however, was very short. In June of the next year he was living peacefully in a Paris suburb when Robespierre took power and placed him under surveillance. The next month he was arrested, and his prison lasted until January of 1795. After several adventures, Miranda escaped in disguise, returning to London in January 1798.
In London, Miranda presented himself before Prime Minister William Pitt, whom he had already met before, declaring that he represented a group of delegates from Nueva Granada (Colombia), Venezuela, Mexico, Peru, La Plata (Argentine and Uruguay) and Chile,[2] in order to secure British support for the organization of a liberating expedition to South America, where a constitutional monarchy on the British model would be set up. Miranda was also received by the American ambassador, but could get no commitment from either one.
Miranda’s economic situation deteriorated, and he was forced to tutor some private students in order to cover his expenses. One of these students was a young Chilean, with very little money, but of notable intelligence and resolution. He was then using his mother’s maiden name and was known as Bernardo Riquelme, but later on he reverted to his father’s name and history knows him as Bernardo O’Higgins.
Returning to Miranda, a frustrated negotiation with Napoleon - who was then First Consul - concluded with his arrest as a presumptive spy, and his expulsion from France. He returned to London on 21 April 1801. Finally, after several more years of entreaties, negotiations, promises and unfulfilled expectations, Miranda departed for the United States on 2 September 1805. From New York he went on to Philadelphia and Washington, where he was received by President Jefferson and Secretary of State Madison,[3] who warned him that as long as Spain and the United States were at peace, any action against Spain initiated from American soil would be repressed by force.
Despite everything, Miranda persisted in his efforts and eventually gathered around him a group of followers ready to fight, making a landing in Venezuela which resulted in a complete military rout. In November 1807 Miranda departed from the West Indies returning to London. Again, he presented his projects to Lord Castlereagh[4], but in that same year Napoleon invaded Spain, whose government appealed for British help against their common enemy. The forces being readied to invade Venezuela were instead diverted to Spain, and Miranda’s hopes were again shattered.
After this, Miranda lived peacefully in London. In 1802 he had entered into a romantic relationship with an English lady, Sara Andrew, and in 1803 they purchased a house at number 28 Grafton Street (at present, No. 58, Grafton Way), where Miranda lived for four years, until his final departure in 1810. Since 1808, he had published a newspaper in London, El Colombiano, and through the years his home served as a meeting point for all the Latin-American patriots who visited the British capital.
In 1810, invited by Simon Bolivar, Miranda returned to Venezuela, arriving at the port of La Guaira on 11 December of that year. The Venezuelan revolution, however, was incomplete and under attack. The royalist faction was gaining ground. An earthquake complicated matters even more. We do not need to go into the details, but in 1812 took place what is known as the surrender of San Mateo, for which Miranda was blamed and accused of treason to the republic.
On 30 July Miranda arrived at La Guaira to embark on the British naval vessel Sapphire, which would take him home to England. However, he made the mistake of spending the night ashore. Some Venezuelan patriots, believing him to be a traitor, seized him and delivered him to the Spanish commander Monteverde. Miranda was sent in June 1813 to La Habana, and from there to Cadiz, in Spain, where he remained imprisoned until his death, three years later.
Miranda’s masonic credentials
Let us now examine the masonic credentials of Miranda. In all his voluminous writings, covering many volumes, there is almost no mention of Freemasonry. Here is what can be found in his travel diaries: in October 1787, after visiting in Stockholm an orphan’s school, a jail, the port and a prison, he visited in Stockholm a masonic building (probably a masonic hall, but Miranda uses only the word house [5] ). Miranda writes, and I must quote a bit before and after the masonic mention to get a proper perspective of the relative importance accorded to it by Miranda: ‘...- to the cursed prison of Rostruc Kiellieren, where there are two cursed cells, and there are still chained prisoners, and there were 7 prisoners...about whom it is not known if they were still criminals, and there are examples that afterwards they were found innocent - to the house of the Frank-masons, very good room, which the frank-masons here have bought for 5,000 Rix, whose society today reaches 72. Mr. Kaaz lives there - I ate at the home of Mr. B. Anker where the company and the food were superb and then went to the Governor’s house, 1/4 mile from here called Lagaardsoen (for the name of the island on which it is built) ...etc.’.
The next month, on 27 November in the morning, he visited the Franc-masons hall in Cristiania (today Oslo) in the company of Mme. Hall. Again, let me quote the passage: ‘...at 10 we went in [Mme Hall’s] carriage to see the Frac[sic]-masons hall. Mr. J.P. Holberman, owner of the house, came to show us that room with great courtesy...this room is simple, of good proportions and in very good taste, its architect Mr. Carlberg who has seen the best of Italy, England, etc. the lighting is only on the cornice and some chandeliers which must produce a very good effect. - from here we went to the house of Mr. Norn, Director of the Customs, who is an educated man, about 72 years old, and through whose hands pass over 50,000 sterling pounds a year, according to what he told me that is the product of the annual customs - he served us chocolate, sweets, ratafia [cherry liquor] and all the luxury of the Indies...’.
The third mention is dated not long after, on the eve of his departure. Miranda, accompanied by Mr. Hall, attends a benefit concert at the Franc-masons’s hall. Again, to make matters perfectly clear, I prefer quoting Miranda’s words verbatim: “I then went to Mme. Hall’s house, with whose husband I attended a benefit concert at the Franc-mason’s hall...there was a large audience, a good violin and a pleasant voice, so we spent an agreeable time, although there was no place to sit because of the numerous crowd. - Afterwards at the house of Mme. Hall, where Baron Alstromer and Col. Sparre came, with whom we dined together...’.
The fourth and final appearance of Freemasonry in Miranda’s diaries comes on his way back, while in present-day Belgium. After an unpleasant visit to a banker who refuses to give him money based on a letter of introduction, he goes to visit a tapestry factory (carefully reporting the prices!), he then gives a detailed description of the carriage factory of Mr. Jean Simons fis [sic], and then he writes: ‘ - from here we went to the Concert Hall, a beautiful room, decorated with taste, and we also saw the Masons Hall which is adjacent, also very pretty’.
That is all. From the context of these visits to masonic halls, it is obvious he did not attribute to them any special importance. There is no spark of recognition, no remark such as ‘a beautifully carved chair in the East’, which would demonstrate he knew something about the lodge. He makes no attempt to meet the local masons (nor taking part in any masonic meeting). Although not definite proof, these four passages in Miranda’s memories constitute a strong indication that he was not a mason, at least at that time.
The theories about Miranda’s initiation are many. Some maintain that he was initiated in Gibraltar in 1775-1776. At the time, there was in fact an English lodge founded about 1726 - Saint John of Jerusalem No. 51, and another founded in 1767 - Saint John No. 148. However, the little documentation surviving from those lodges, which have both disappeared, does not mention Miranda’s name. Furthermore, as we have just seen, we have near proof that in 1787-1788 he still was not a mason. To sum up, and quoting Seal-Coon’s words, ‘All in all, whilst it is not an impossibility that Miranda was made a mason in Gibraltar at the time, there is no extant evidence thereof, and in view of the brevity of his stay and of the fact that he was a foreigner serving in a foreign army it would seem extremely unlikely.’ [6]
While it’s an established fact that Miranda was often in the company of known masons, such as Washington, Lafayette, Franklin, and others, from whom he may have received a great deal of information about Freemasonry and its organization, we have no proof whatsoever that he was ever initiated in a masonic lodge, and although Miranda lived for long periods of time in London, adding up to some 13 years [7] , no mention of his name has been found in the records of the United Grand Lodge of England, not even as a visitor.
Furthermore, in all of his voluminous correspondence and diaries, Miranda himself never claims to be a mason, nor having ever been initiated.
Another masonic author, Christian Charlet, in a paper full of admiration for the figure of the great Venezuelan, is forced to admit that ‘where and when was he initiated, is ignored to this day’. [8]
To sum up, while it is impossible to say with certainty whether Francisco Miranda was a mason or not, we have strong indications that the second alternative is much more plausible.
The Gran Reunion Americana
According to the accepted views, the tool created by Miranda to enlist followers and push forward his revolutionary plans was the pseudo-masonic organization known as Gran Reunion Americana, Gran Logia Regional Americana, Gran Oriente de Londres, and other similar names.
The enthusiastic imagination of some masonic authors attribute to this association a masonic character that most probably never existed. Let us see, as a single example to avoid redundancy, what Fernando Pinto Lagarrigue writes: ‘The Gran Reunion Americana started, since its installation as a lodge dependent from the Grand Lodge of England, (my italics, l.z.) planning the independence of the Spanish colonies’. [9]
Although the Gran Reunion Americana may have existed in London (we are not certain even of that) and may have assumed the name of a lodge, it does not appear in the registers of either of the two Grand Lodges existing in England at the time (not a single one, as Pinto Lagarrigue apparently believes).
Let us remember, also, that we are talking about the end of the 18th and beginnings of the 19th centuries, when the organization of Grand Lodges and their dependent lodges was already clearly established and codified, particularly in England, where the remaining “irregular” lodges had practically disappeared by the end of the 18th century.
Pinto Lagarrigue continues: ‘One of the first decisions of the Gran Reunion Americana was to create agencies, which were called “Lautaro Lodges”, a name apparently inspired by O’Higgins...’ (my italics, l.z.).
We can observe here the typical confusion of terms, indiscriminate use of the word “lodge” and an “explanation” gratuitously imagined by the masonic author who, unencumbered by any documentary evidence, decides that the use of the name Lautaro must have been suggested by Bernardo O’Higgins, since he came from Chile. [10]
The Lautaro lodges
It is only in Santiago, Chile, after the arrival of San Martםn and O’Higgins at the head of the Army of the Andes (which crossed the mountains at the head of an army in order to fight for Chile’s independence), and after the victory at Chacabuco against the Spanish forces, that for the first time we find the name Lautaro in connection with a lodge. According to Fernando Pinto Lagarrigue [11], it was founded on 13 March 1817 and it met at Santo Domingo street in Santiago.
It is true that many historians, including Pinto Lagarrigue himself, have claimed that before that time Lautaro lodges had been created in Buenos Aires, Mendoza and other places, but the analysis made by Bro. Seal-Coon, based to a large extent on the work of Dr. Alcibiades Lappas [12] and Dr. Enrique de Gandia [13] is conclusive: the other “lodges” mentioned were based on the model of the Caballeros Racionales, but did not carry the designation of Lautaro. As other authors have already pointed out, it would have been highly implausible to give the name of a Chilean indian chieftain to an Argentinean lodge, but this is absolutely believable in the case of a Chilean association formed in Santiago to fight for the independence of Chile.
As further related by Fernando Pinto Lagarrigue,[14] the renowned Chilean historian Benjamin Vicuña Mackenna (not a mason), while in exile in Lima befriended Demetrio O’Higgins Puga, the son of Bernardo O’Higgins, who granted him access to his father’s personal papers. Among these documents Vicuña Mackenna found an autographic copy of the constitution of the Lautaro Lodges, ‘emanating from the Gran Reunion Americana’, and which he reproduced in his book El Ostracismo del General O’Higgins, published by the El Mercurio press of Valparaiso in 1860.
Pinto Lagarrigue transcribes this “constitution” [15] and we shall now quote some of its clauses and look at them from a masonic point of view, in order to see if we can reach a conclusion about the masonic character of the Lautaro Lodges.
I shall not translate the full text, which is not necessary for our purpose, but I shall rather pick some of the more relevant clauses.
Let us, first of all, examine the Preamble, which is simply an impassioned condemnation of the Spanish colonial regime, and a lamentation about the deplorable conditions of the American colonies. It concludes by declaring that now, finally, the opportune time has come when the Spanish government has been dissolved, its king imprisoned, and so the yoke can be thrown away. The new association will be composed of American gentlemen distinguished by their liberal ideas, who will methodically work towards the independence of America. Please note, not a word about the GAOTU, the ancient obligations, in fact, not a word that can be regarded as having masonic significance.
We shall now consider briefly some of the 23 articles comprising this “constitution” - apart from 5 penal clauses, which I shall describe later.
Article 1 : The headquarters [16] lodge will be composed of thirteen gentlemen, apart from the president, vice-president, two secretaries, one for North America and the other for South America, an orator and a master of ceremonies.
Article 2 : This number may not be increased, but if one of the brethren goes out of the province, [his place] may be filled if circumstances so require.
Note the inconsistency in the use of the name brother, which appears in the second article but not in the first. The triple lodge leadership (WM, SW, JW) which is an essential part of the lodge structure, intimately linked with its symbols, is missing. Instead, we have two secretaries assigned on a geographical basis, obviously to handle overseas communications. The limit placed on the number of brethren is also surprising and more appropriate to the cell of an underground organization than to a masonic body.
Article 3 determines that the president will hold office in perpetuity, while the others officers will serve one year. Article 4 indicates that the president and other members of the lodge will be addressed ‘simply as brothers, except in those cases when the presence of others, public usage and decorum, demand the corresponding treatment.’
Article 7 is of the greatest importance for our study. I shall translate it in full:
Article 7 : Whenever a brother is appointed by the government as first or second in command of an army or governor of a province, he will be empowered to create a subsidiary association depending from the headquarters, whose numbers may not exceed five individuals, and conducting proper correspondence, by means of established signs to communicate all the news and important maters that take place.
Of course, for a masonic lodge to meet regularly you need at least seven officers. Having only five members in the group makes this impossible and demonstrates ipso facto that the association had no masonic character. Note also that the text deliberately avoids using the word lodge in this case, speaking only of a ‘subsidiary association’ (‘sociedad subalterna’ in the Spanish original), although elsewhere the word lodge is freely used.
A corollary of the above is that all the ‘brethren’ who were admitted to the subsidiary branches of the Gran Reunion Americana - by whatever name they may have been known at the time - were not initiated as we understand the term, and evidently could not advance to “higher degrees”.
Article 21, discussing the matter of a complaint against a brother who has disclosed the existence of the Lodge by word or sign, establishes that ‘the Lodge will appoint a committee composed of six individuals, etc.’. The use of the word ‘individuals’ is surprising - not brothers or members. This also happens in article 7: ‘five individuals’.
Let us now turn to the penal clauses, which are five. The second sets down that ‘any brother who reveals the secret of the existence of the Lodge, whether by word or by signs, will be punishable by death, by the means that may be found more convenient.’ Obviously, no such penalty, real or symbolic, has ever been invoked in a masonic lodge for revealing its existence.
But, beyond all these particulars, what is troubling to a mason is the coercive spirit that permeates the entire document. Imperative expressions abound: ‘...will not be allowed to deliberate on anything of great importance without consulting the opinion of the Lodge...’, ‘no employment of importance will be given within the capital or outside...’, ‘every brother must support even at the risk of death the decisions of the Lodge’, ‘All the brethren are obliged to inform the Lodge...’, etc. All this is in open contradiction with the masonic principles of tolerance, freedom, equity and justice.
Finally, let as turn our attention to the oath that the members of the association had to pronounce, as included by Bartolome Mitre in his Historia de San Martin y de la Emancipacion Sudamericana, and reproduced by Pinto Lagarrigue [17].
‘I shall never recognize as the legitimate government of my fatherland any except that elected by the free and spontaneous will of the people; and the republican system [of government] being the most suitable to govern the Americas, I shall encourage, by all the means that I have available, the people to choose it.’
This forceful statement, unobjectionable to our ears, sounds however slightly extemporaneous for the times. We know very well, in fact, that among the leaders of the independence movement in the various regions of Spanish America there were not a few who supported some sort of constitutional monarchy.
How can we reconcile the above declaration of principles, for example, with San Martin’s negotiations tending to set up a monarchy in Peru, going so far as to propose that a descendant of the Incas should assume the crown? [18]
Taking into consideration all these factors, the only conclusion we can draw is that the secret organization known as Caballeros Racionales and its offshoot the Lautaro lodge had no masonic character, apart from the use (or misuse) of some masonic titles. The most that we can accept of the basis of the facts known to us at present is that some of its members had been initiated in masonic lodges, and that they used some of the organization and terminology of Freemasonry, leading many historians to error throughout the years. The organization’s constitution and oath are clearly appropriate to a secret political association organized in small cells (up to five members each), and not to masonic lodges, despite what some authors may claim to the contrary. [19]
The masonic affiliation of Bolivar
Before turning to the doubtful cases, let me state again that we know of many individual independence fighters who were masons. We shall restrict ourselves to one case, examining the masonic membership of Simon Bolivar, known as “the Liberator”, without question the greatest military and political figure active in South American independence. [20]
The Supreme Council of the 33° (Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite) of Venezuela has in its archives three documents, whose authenticity has been verified by expert paleographers, one of which are the minutes of passing to the FC degree of Simon Bolivar in the Mother Lodge of Saint Alexander of Scotland, in Paris, on the eleventh day of the 11th month of the masonic year 5805, which corresponds to 11 January 1806. This demonstrates that Bolivar had been initiated before that date, probably in the same lodge (and not in a Cadiz lodge in 1803, as claimed by some authors). In another document, a list of lodge members covering the masonic years 5804 and 5805 (which stretch from March 1804 until February 1806) Simon Bolivar appears as a Master Mason.
Much later, on 21 April 1824, Bolivar was one of 84 masons who were awarded the 33° degree in the AASR by Joseph Cernau, then Sovereign Grand Commander of a Supreme Council based in New York. We have no proof that Bolivar solicited such honor, nor even that he in fact received it. In any event, Bolivar’s masonic credentials are unquestionable. However, and this is a point often forgotten when discussing such matters, it appears that Freemasonry played no role in his writings and activities. There is no evidence, for example, that he ever became affiliated to one of the thirty lodges then existing in Venezuela, Gran Colombia (including Panama), and Ecuador. To give just two instances, Protectora de las Virtudes Lodge No. 1, was founded in Barcelona, Venezuela, on 1st July 1810 by Diego Bautista Valero, and Orden y Libertad Lodge No. 2, was founded in Lima, Peru, by general Antonio Valero. Both lodges exist to this day, but neither pretends that the Liberator had ever been one of its members. [21]
Finally, after uncovering a plot against his person (in which, by the way, the role of Freemasonry is questionable), on 8 November 1828 Bolivar outlawed all secret societies, including Freemasonry. It falls beyond our scope to examine the reasons Bolivar had to take this step. What is significant is that he took it. Not every day you find a mason closing down an institution with whose ideals he presumably was in full agreement.
The masonic affiliation of San Martin
Let us now turn to another key figure in the independence struggle, Jose de San Martin.
The Argentinean historian Alcibiades Lappas claims that San Martin was initiated in Integridad No. 7 Lodge in Cadiz, whose Worshipful Master was general Francisco Maria Solano, Marquis of Socorro. Americo Carnicelli, on the other hand, gives the name of the lodge as Legalidad, without adducing any evidence.
Unfortunately, we have no proof of the existence of such lodge, under either name. What does appear to be certain is that San Martin entered Lodge No. 3 of the Caballeros Racionales, when this was established in Cadiz. [22] It is also confirmed that he established branches of this association in several places, and finally he was the instigator of the creation of the Lautaro Lodge in Santiago which, as we have seen, was the Chilean branch of the Caballeros Racionales and not a masonic lodge.
More significant, perhaps, is the statement made by San Martin himself, in a letter sent to general Castilla in the year 1848, after living long years in exile (and only two years before his death), as quoted by Francisco A. Encina in his History of Chile: ‘In a meeting of Americans in Cadiz, learning of the first movements that had occurred in Caracas, Buenos Aires, etc., we resolved to return each to his own country of birth, in order to offer our services in the struggle which we estimated would have to take place.’[23] Note that San Martin has not a word to say about lodge or Freemasonry. This he writes when he was living peacefully in a land where Freemasonry operated openly and without impediment. He would have risked nothing in recognizing his masonic affiliation, or the masonic character of the association he had helped to found, if such had existed.
There is yet another historical fact often brought up as a proof of San Martin’s masonry.
The masonic medal of the La Parfaite Amitie lodge
In his work San Martin, la Logia Lautaro y la Francmasoneria [24], Fabian Onsari brings up the medal struck by La Parfaite Amitie lodge of Brussels to honor San Martin (photographs of the obverse and reverse of the medal are reproduced in a plate facing page 65) [25], taking this medal as irrefutable proof of San Martin’s masonic quality. Onsari quotes a letter from Bro. W.E. Carpens, Lieutenant Sovereign Grand Commander of Belgium, who wrote to him ‘the lodge would not have ordered this medal to be struck with the portrait of general San Martin if he had not been an active member of this lodge.’ [26]
Alcibiades Lappas claims that ‘in the list of the month of December 1824, he [San Martםn] appears in the lodge La Parfaite Amitie’. [27] However, he offers no sources for this statement and all my efforts to discover independent corroboration have been fruitless.
In the first place, it is surprising that the only title given San Martin is that of General, both on the obverse and reverse of the medal. We might have expected something like Fr\ (Bro.), since all the rest of the text studiously follows all masonic conventions. The abbreviations are represented with three dots \, the word “lodge” is symbolized by a rectangle, the masonic year is used instead of the Gregorian, and yet San Martin is shown in full military dress complete with a decoration, but without any masonic symbol whatsoever.
There is a different believable explanation for the medal. We know that at the time it was struck, the Belgian movement for independence (separation from the Netherlands) was gaining momentum. We also know that many of the leaders involved were masons. Alcibiades Lappas mentions the names of Charles Rogier, Joseph Lebeau, Felix de Merode and 28 other names, which I shall not copy here because they are not relevant to our study. [28] Further, we know that the Belgian patriots did not have among them a military leader with the experience to organize their armed forces. They offered this command to San Martin, who refused with well-chosen words: ‘when I retired from the American struggle, I swore not to unsheathe my sword except if needed for the freedom of my fatherland’. [29] Not wishing to get involved in the coming revolution, San Martin moved to France, where he spent his last years.
It is not far-fetched to assume that the Belgian masons, anxious to gain for their cause the cooperation of San Martin, struck this medal to win his favor. The absence of any masonic reference concerning San Martin, either in the text or iconographic, can be explained in one of two ways: perhaps the Belgian masons were not sure of San Martin’s masonic credentials, or perhaps he himself requested that no masonic attribution be made to him.
If, as it appears probable, San Martin was in fact “initiated” only in the Sociedad de Caballeros Racionales, and not in a masonic lodge, his undeniable intellectual honesty would have prevented him from claiming a distinction to which he was not entitled. Of course, all this is speculation.
Upon his death, San Martin papers were supposed to go to his friend Guido (a mason) but it is not clear if the latter did in fact receive them. The Chilean historian Vicuña Mackenna relates that he approached repeatedly San Martin’s son-in-law, Mariano Balcarce, requesting information about San Martםn masonic affiliation, but Balcarce finally answered that ‘faithfully following the ideas of my venerated father-in-law, who during his lifetime did not want to discuss his links with Freemasonry and other secret societies [my italics, l.z.], I consider that I must abstain from making use of the documents I have on this matter.’ [30] Lappas takes this to mean that Balcarce had documents linking San Martin with Freemasonry, but it is clear that Balcarce - and presumably San Martin - made a distinction between Freemasonry and ‘other secret societies’ which could refer to the Caballeros Racionales, Lautaro lodge, etc. In other words, San Martin’s connections may well have been not with Freemasonry, but with these ‘other secret societies’.
The masonic affiliation of Bernardo O’Higgins
When coming to the question of whether Bernardo O’Higgins was ever initiated in a masonic lodge or not, there is a significant fact that should be kept in mind. That is, that through the entire period of the Patria Vieja (1810-1814), until the retreat of the Chilean patriots across the Andes mountains to Mendoza, there is no mention whatsoever of any masonic or even pseudo-masonic organization operating in Chile, either created by O’Higgins or by anybody else. That is to say, only upon the arrival of San Martin, at the head of the liberation army (Army of Los Andes), accompanied by Argentinean officers who had joined the “lodge” in Buenos Aires, could the Chilean branch be organized.
Another highly suggestive fact in this connection is the attitude of Joel Poinsett towards O’Higgins and Josי Miguel Carrera.
The Poinsett mission
In 1811, during the government of Jose Miguel Carrera, a North-American ‘General commercial agent’ arrived in Chile, Joel Robert Poinsett, who was in fact a confidential envoy of the United States government. Poinsett was an active mason, friend of President Monroe, himself also a mason. [31]
In Chile, Poinsett became a close friend of Jose Miguel Carrera, and collaborated in the writing of the Constitution of 1812, which gained him ‘the hatred of Chilean aristocracy... and turned against him the church and the people’, as expressed by Mario Barros [32] in his Diplomatic History of Chile.
Poinsett returned to his country in 1814, was elected to Congress (1821-25) and later served as the first ambassador of the United States in Mexico (1825-29). He was later Minister of War under president Martin Van Buren and was one of the promoters of the independence of Texas. It should be remembered that he also played an important role in masonic activities in Mexico at the time.
In the United States, Poinsett is better remembered as the man who introduced into his country the red flower that has become one of the most popular symbols of Christmas, the Poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima). [33]
It is significant that while in Chile, Poinsett would become a close friend of Carrera and not of O’Higgins (the two were most of the time rivals). As we know from his own diary, Jose Miguel Carrera had been affiliated at Saint John Lodge No. 1 in Washington DC on 25 February 1816. [34] In fact. I found the minutes of the lodge for that ceremony in the Library of the Grand Lodge of New York, from which it is proven that he was initiated, passed and raised in consecutive ceremonies on that same night. This also proves that he was not a Mason before that date, but that he knew about the Fraternity (probably from Poinsett). Although we have no information on Carrera’s Masonic activities after returning to South America, his masonic credentials are beyond question.
The “initiation” of O’Higgins
Jaime Eyzaguirre claims that O’Higgins was initiated in the Lautaro Lodge of Buenos Aires in 1815, by his friends from Cadiz, the canon Juan Pablo Fretes and his nephew colonel Juan Florencio Terrada. [35] However, there is no documentary proof about this. Seal-Coon mentions that O’Higgins could also have been initiated in the Lautaro lodge of Mendoza, in 1816, but again, we have no proof. All these are simply suppositions. Furthermore, and this is very important, even if he was ‘initiated’ in a branch of the Caballeros Racionales, this was not - as we have already shown - a masonic lodge, so even in that eventuality he would still not be a mason.
A last particular that may throw some light on our discussion is the letter quoted by the historian Francisco A. Encina, sent by O’Higgins to San Martin and dated 9 October 1832, when both former comrades-at-arms ‘were eating the bread of the exiled’, as Encina writes. O’Higgins addresses San Martin with great warmth, calling him ‘Liberator of my country, and my great friend to the grave.’ [36]
Is it credible that in such circumstances, when the two old leaders shared the bitter fate of exile, O’Higgins would address such a personal letter to his old comrade without calling him ‘brother’ if that had been the case?
The reasons for the myth
As we have seen so far, while some of the leaders of the armed struggle against the Spanish rule in South America were masons, they acted as individuals, and not within a masonic structure. If we have raised a question concerning the masonic affiliation of others, such as Miranda, O’Higgins and San Martin, this does not in any way diminish the validity and bravery of their emancipating struggle, which resulted in the independence of over a dozen sovereign nations.
A legitimate question is, how is it possible that erroneous views have been created and maintained stubbornly by generations of historians, on matters so close to the heart of any South-American?
I can only advance a theory, certainly not original, which simply put is that people who ardently want to find something to support their opinions on a subject where documents are sometimes lacking or are subject to different interpretations, usually do find what they are looking for.
In our specific case, there has been a curious conjunction of ‘interests’. On the one hand, some historians, mostly masonic, are interested in underlining the role played by Freemasonry and masons in the crucial period of independence of their respective countries. It is pleasant to claim so many important historical figures as our brethren, it helps the image of our Order and strengthens the admiration and loyalty of newly-initiated members in particular. As we have seen, there can be no doubt that some of the leaders involved were masons, and the masonic writers who adopt this position defend it passionately, precluding to a large extent further discussion of the subject.
On the other hand, and this may be something of a paradox, the historians whose weltanschauung is non-masonic or even anti-masonic (and there is a wide spectrum of expressions on this side, from the snide remark to the open and brutal attack), are also interested in stressing the role of Freemasonry and of masonic lodges in the independence struggle, because in that way they can excuse, as it were, the failures of the Spanish royalist government, and the fanatical support it received from the high hierarchy of the Catholic church. It is easier to blame a ‘conspiracy’, the ‘dark forces operating within the lodges’ and all the rest.
The fact that some masons acted at complete variance with recognized masonic principles does not seem to disturb either party described in the previous two paragraphs. Let us take Bolivar’s decree banning all masonic lodges and activity, as part of his struggle against local political enemies. Let us remember also the fratricidal fights that erupted quite often between the ‘Liberators’ themselves, such as the struggle between O’Higgins and the Carrera brothers. I could go on giving examples, but these should suffice.
The myth, I have stated, was created and maintained by the desire of historians, both masonic and non-masonic, to highlight the role played by Freemasonry, and to this end the fiction that the Caballeros Racionales, or the Lautaro Lodges, were masonic in character, has been kept alive, though many historians, to their credit, recognize in some part or other of their work that this was not so, or has not been proven.
The masonic authors who defend the ‘masonic role’ are in the majority, so I will be excused from listing them. Most of their works appear in the notes at the end of this paper, or are included in Seal-Coon’s bibliography.
As for the non-masonic historians, supporting the ‘masonic conspiracy’ theory, I shall give just one example, the excellent biography of Bernardo O’Higgins, written by the Chilean Jaime Eyzaguirre, who received for it in 1946 the first prize in the National O’Higgins Competition, called by the Government of Chile. The work is very well written, easy to read, and at the same time is based on a copious bibliography. This work is highly recommended for all those interested in the history of Chile. [37]
And yet, reading it through masonic eyes, we find some shocking expressions. Eyzaguirre attributes to the Lautaro Lodge a sinister and domineering influence over O’Higgins, accusing it also of following a pro-Argentinean policy (this, in Chilean eyes, is a grave accusation indeed).
Let me quote some sentences to justify my judgment:
‘No matter how many precautions were taken, the people’s instinct then began to perceive a hidden and mysterious power acting behind its back, which in assemblies that imagination pictured as shadowy made decisions about the person and property of the citizens.’ (p. 170)
‘Day by day the aristocracy was feeling its subjugation to a military caste ruled by a sinister organism.’ (ibid.)
‘O’Higgins is in favor of delegating power on Colonel Luis de la Cruz, but the brethren of the lodge, inclined to favor Argentinean influence, want it given to Colonel Hilarion de la Quintana, a relative of San Martjn’. (p. 173)
‘The lodge wants everything for Quintana and, as a submissive brother, O’Higgins must blindly obey this opinion.’ (ibid.)
‘O’Higgins has departed with the war minister, Jose Ignacio Zenteno, trusted by the lodge and, above all, San Martin’. (ibid.)
‘Willingly or unwillingly, this person [Manuel Rodriguez] who disturbed the plans of the lodge, had to be taken out of Chile’. (p.178)
‘In the meantime, somebody was moving resolutely in order to achieve by sinister means what he could not by the clear ways of justice.... Monteagudo... ruminated in the shadows another elimination, and friends of the lodge assisted him to consummate his plan.’ (p. 206)
‘Again the Lautaro lodge’s tentacles appeared in action and O’Higgins, as the pusillanimous instrument of their obscure designs.’ (p. 212)
‘Miguel Zañartu...on 23 July 1829 participated [to O’Higgins] that the masons of Buenos Aires had thrown their support behind the leader Jose Miguel Carrera, because they wanted to avenge the death of his brother Luis, who was of the brotherhood. And he added to be very careful about these ramifications. “You know how widespread is Freemasonry in the army”.’ (p. 272)
However, a few pages further down, Jaime Eyzaguirre indulges in a bit of outright fiction, imagining the thoughts of Jose Miguel Carrera: ‘O’Higgins, always O’Higgins... He’s the man without a will that bends to the appetites of San Martin and the Lodge and submits abjectly to Argentinean hegemony.’ (p.278).
In all these passages, and others, the Lautaro lodge is portrayed with sinister characteristics, operating in the shadows, and O’Higgins is characterized as ‘submissive’ or ‘pusillanimous’ towards the lodge which, of course, is categorically proclaimed as masonic. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this image of Bernardo O’Higgins with the sturdy and resolute character shown by him throughout his life. His personality was forged in his youth by economic penury and the imperative need to overcome the handicap of being the illegitimate son of a Spanish Viceroy who wanted to have to do as little as possible with him. His feelings of injured pride for his birth and his lack of opportunity as a ‘criollo’ (native) under the Spanish colonial regime served to strengthen his natural ability and character. His bravery in the field of battle, his refusal to surrender, to give up even under the most trying circumstances, and his resiliency to recover after defeat are amply documented. Categorizing O’Higgins as submissive or pusillanimous is nothing less than grotesque.
The cases of the Carrera brothers and of Manuel Rodriguez are too well known to go over them again. Let me give just one example of his unbending nature when he felt his honor was in question. Mrs. Manuela Warnes, the wife of a colonel in the Chilean army (Joaquin Prieto) had been insulted by a priest who attempted to expel her from the cathedral because in his opinion her dress was immodest. In the course of an angry meeting with the priest, Jose Alejo de Eyzaguirre (from a well-known family of Santiago’s high society), O’Higgins felt his authority was put into question. He had the priest arrested and later exiled to Argentine. All the pleas of both aristocracy and church were fruitless. ‘The supreme ruler [O’Higgins] remained inflexible and despite the priest’s failing health and an epidemic that at the time raged in the city of Mendoza, he forced him to cross the mountains.’ [38]
And concerning the personal care invested by O’Higgins in each of his acts, I shall mention the proclamation dated 2 February 1818, issued in Talca. O’Higgins was at the time absent from Santiago, and entrusted the minister Zañartu with the task of writing the document. The draft was sent to him several times for corrections, and the final document called for the release of Chile from all allegiance to the Spanish crown, ‘or any other power’, added O’Higgins in his own hand. Is this the way a man dominated by a secret cabal would act?
A much more rational and credible explanation for the relations between O’Higgins and the Lautaro lodge is that O’Higgins consented to carry out Lodge decisions only when these coincided with his own wishes.
An illuminating occurrence in this connection is the reaction of O’Higgins when Pueyrredon, Director [president] of the Buenos Aires government, suggests to him granting a pension to Jose Miguel Carrera, who had arrived at the Argentinean capital with several ships loaded with weapons and munitions, anxious to set out on an expedition to reconquer Chile. Pueyrredon forced Carrera to hand over his ships and weapons, after promising that he would negotiate with the Chilean government a pension for himself and his two brothers. O’Higgins answered with the following words: ‘Chile’s honor rather demands their [the Carrera brothers] punishment, and not granting them benefits of which they are unworthy.’
There can be no doubt that from his point of view, the indignation of O’Higgins was fully justified by the constant plots and revolts planned and initiated by the Carrera brothers. On the other hand, such attitude would be inexplicable if O’Higgins had been truly dominated by the Lautaro lodge, since we know that the Buenos Aires lodge supported Carrera.
To conclude this section, in O’Higgins’ actions we cannot see the hidden and sinister hand of the Lautaro Lodge, but rather the expression of a consensus in which the voice of O’Higgins was decisive.
The first masonic lodge in Chile: La Filantropia Chilena
On 15 March 1827 - only four years after the abdication of O’Higgins, The first documented masonic lodge known to us appears in Chile: the Filantropia Chilena lodge. Its founder and first Worshipful Master was admiral Manuel Blanco Encalada, born in Argentine to an Argentinean father and a Chilean mother, and holder at the time of the 18th degree in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
In 1825, while Blanco Encalada commanded the Chilean fleet that blockaded the Peruvian port of Callao, he worked in close coordination with the Venezuelan general Antonio Valero, fighting with Bolivar’s troops on the ground side of the blockade. We know that Valero was a 33° mason.
It is very probable, states Edmundo Perez Sanchez in an article discussing the origins of Freemasonry in Chile [39], that from this meeting of Blanco and Valero was born the initiative to create the Filantropia Chilena lodge, and that is why in its foundation minutes (a document currently owned by the Grand Lodge of Chile) brother Encalada declares that when the Regeneracion Rose Croix Chapter of Lima conferred upon him the 18° degree, it entrusted him with establishing lodges and masonic temples in the territory of the Republic of Chile. Further down in the same document, the lodge is put under the jurisdiction of the Gran Oriente N. Colombiano.
Among the members of the Filantropia Chilena lodge were some of the most relevant figures in the first decades of Chile’s independent life, such as Manuel Jose Gandarillas, Minister of Foreign Relations in 1826 [40], Manuel Rengifo, who was later Minister of Finances at the time of Portales, introducing fiscal order instead of the existing chaos; Tomas Ovejero and Victorino Garrido, both intimate collaborators of minister Portales. Though Portales himself was not a mason, he was well informed of the prohibition about political and religious debates within the lodge. In a letter to his friend Garfias, Portales complains that ‘masonic lodges are being organized in Santiago and Valparaiso... with the purpose of using them for political and electoral business... deviating from their institute [i.e. their principles].’ [41]
Brother Blanco Encalada, the first Master of the lodge, was head of state ad-interim of Chile in 1826, after the resignation of general Freire, and he was the first to use the title President of Chile.
Filantropia Chilena disappeared without leaving heirs. There are vague rumours concerning other lodges that may have operated in secret in the years that followed, but in all probability they were rather secret political clubs, perhaps using masonic terminology, on the lines of the Lautaro lodge and the Caballeros Racionales.
The Grand Lodge of Chile
After two decades had elapsed, in 1850, a French-speaking lodge was founded in Valparaiso, L’Etoile du Pacifique, and three years later (in 1853), the Spanish-speaking Union Fraternal lodge was established in the same city, both under charter from the Grand Orient of France. Thus begins the ‘modern’ or historically documented era of Chilean Freemasonry. A few years later, in 1862, the disarray then prevailing in French Freemasonry acted as a catalyst in the creation of the Grand Lodge of Chile, also based in Valparaiso, which had far more international connections that the capital Santiago.
Returning to the myth
Paradoxically, then the interests of masonic and non-masonic authors have coincided in trying to exaggerate and enlarge the role played by Freemasonry in the independence of Chile and other South-American countries. Wishful thinking replaced the critical apparatus of the historian, and the indiscriminate use of the word ‘lodge’, without distinguishing between masonic and non-masonic organizations, has compounded the confusion.
The documentary evidence as well, has been often of a sort that raises serious doubts about its validity. Seal-Coon offers as a possible reason for the existing confusion between Lautaro lodges, Caballeros Racionales and masonic lodges, the fact that the Argentinean historian Bartolome Mitre, one of the earlier historians who attempted to study this subject, obtained some of his information from general Jose Matias Zapiola when the latter was a nonagenarian who tried to recall events that occurred seventy years earlier relying only on his memory. [42]
Spanish historians, some of whom are inclined to discover the hidden hand of Freemasonry in any place where Spanish interests have been affected (it is1 not superfluous to bring up here the obsessive preoccupation of the dictator Francisco Franco with the so-called ‘Jewish-masonic-communist collusion’) enthusiastically embraced the theory that the Lautaro lodges (which, for them, were regular masonic lodges in all respects) were the root and soul of the Latin-American independence movements.
This simplistic view ignores, of course, the other factors operating at the time, such as the growing antagonism between ‘criollos’ and ‘peninsulares’, the weakness of the Spanish crown at the time, the profound influence of the ideas of philosophers such as Rousseau, Saint-Simon, Locke and Hume and the example of the North-American colonies who gained their independence from England.
The true role of Freemasonry
Did Freemasonry then play no role in the independence of Latin-America? The answer depends, to a large extent, on what we mean by independence. If we refer only to the military actions that led to the final defeat of royalist Spanish armies and their expulsion from the American continent, we must admit that the direct influence of Freemasonry was minimal. This does not mean, of course, that we should adopt a radical skepticism on this subject. There is a well-documented participation of individual masons in the independence struggles of all American regions, north, center and south. For some of them, their masonic background and experience was a determining factor in their libertarian efforts. For others, masonic membership was only a minor component of their personal history and view of the world. Since we cannot enter into the hearts of men, we have no way of evaluating the true importance that ‘being a mason’ held for men such as Bolivar.
Complete independence is a long and complicated process, involving many aspects that may take many decades to come to fruition. In this sense, the contribution of masons towards expanding and completing the independence process of which political independence is but the first stage cannot be overstated.
Each of the young nations would follow a different path. I shall restrict myself to the case of Chile, with which I am most familiar. In Chile, freemasons - belonging to recognizable masonic lodges - would play a leading role throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in the fight for equality, personal freedoms (starting with religious freedom), public education, public health, and al the other principles that constitute the foundations of today’s democratic and egalitarian society. Similar roles were played by masons in Argentine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, and other countries.
Notes
[1] ‘Simon Bolivar, freemason’, AQC Vol. 90 for 1977 (pub. 1978), pp. 231-248 and ‘Spanish-iAmerican Revolutionary Masonry’, AQC, Vol. 94 for 1981 (pub. 1982), pp. 83-106, quoted hereinafter as Seal-Coon (1978) and (1982), respectively.
See also Bro. E.E. Stolper’s comments (‘More light on Simon Bolivar, freemason’) , AQC, Vol. 92 for 1979, pub. 1980, p.202.
[2] This is the so-called Paris Convention of 22 December 1797, whose authenticity has been questioned.
[3] Both of whom, incidentally, were long proclaimed to be Masons, although no proof could be presented. Current opinion is that neither was ever initiated. In Madison’s case, the “proof” advanced was that after his death three lodges held memorial services in his honour (Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia, New York 1961, p. 403).
[4] Robert Stewart, Marquis of Londonderry and Viscount Castlereagh, Foreign Secretary of Great Britain between 1812 and 1822. During the 1807-1809 period was War Secretary in Pitt’s government.
[5] It is not an orphanage supported by the Freemasons, as claimed by many authors who did not consult the original. The orphanage (supported by a certain Mr. Bernard Anker) is mentioned on top of the same page, and was visited before the jail, the port with its prisons and the masonic hall.
[6] Seal-Coon, (1982), p. 89.
[7] Seal-Coon, (1982), p. 91.
[8] Op. cit.
[9] La Masoneria - su Influencia en Chile, Santiago, 1965, p.46.
[10] Lautaro was an indian chieftain who fought against the conquest of Chile by the Spaniards.
[11] Op. cit. , p. 74.
[12] La Masoneria Argentina a Traves de sus Hombres, Buenos Aires, 1966.
[13] La Politica Secreta de la Gran Logia de Londres, Buenos Aires, 1976.i
[14] Op. cit. p. 61 et seq.
[15] Op. cit. pp. 62-66. It was also reproduced by Jaime Eyzaguirre in his biography of O’Higgins (see note 17), and by the historian Francisco Antonio Encina in Vol. VII of his monumental ‘General History of Chile’.
[16] The original Spanish - Logia Matriz - could also be translated as Mother Lodge.
[17] op. cit. p. 47.
[18] See Jaime Eyzaguirre, O’Higgins, Zig-Zag, Santiago de Chile, 1982, pp. 305-311.
[19] Enrique de Gandia, for example, in La Independencia de America y las sociedades secretas, Santa Fe, 1994, returns time and again - like a mantra - to his claim that the Caballeros Racionales were masonic lodges. All his arguments, however, are based on his wishes rather than on the facts.
[20] Seal-Coon, (1978), p. 233.
[21] Seal-Coon, (1978), p. 238.
[22] Seal-Coon, (1982), p. 99.
[23] Francisco A. Encina, Op. cit., p. 604.
[24] Buenos Aires, 1964 (published by the Supreme Council 33rd Degree and the Grand Lodge of Argentine).
[25] It has been reproduced in many other works as well, including the face and back cover of San Martin y su ideario liberal, by Alcibiades Lappas, Buenos Aires, 1982.
[26] Fabian Onsari, San Martin, la logia Lautaro y la Francmasoneria, Buenos Aires, 1964, p. 171.
[27] Alcibiades Lappas, San Martin y su ideario liberal, Buenos Aires, 1982, p. 55.
[28] The entire list appears in Alcibiades Lappas, Op. cit., pp. 56-57.
[29] Alcibiades Lappas, ibidem, p. 57.
[30] Quoted by Alcibiades Lappas, ibidem, p. 60.
[31] Initiated on 9.11.1775 in Williamsburg N°6 Lodge of Virginia, Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia, Macoy Publishing, New York, 1961, p. 403.
[32] Mario Barros, Historia Diplomatica de Chile 1541-1938, Barcelona, 1970, p. 42.
[33] “On the Cover”, The Philalethes, Vol. XLII No. 6, p. 2
[34] Fernando Pinto Lagarrigue, Op. cit., p. 69.
[35] Op. cit. p. 148.
[36] Op. cit. p. 641.
[37] Jaime Eyzaguirre, O’Higgins, Zig-Zag, Santiago de Chile, 1982. The first edition is dated 1946.
[38] Jaime Eyzaguirre, op. cit. p. 297
[39] ‘Consideraciones sobre el Origen de la Francmasoneria en Chile', Revista Masonica de Chile, 3-4, May-June 1989, pp.2 et seq.
[40] Mario Barros, Op. cit., pp. 88 y 779.
[41] Edmundo Perez Sanchez, Op. cit., p. 6.
[42] Op. cit. (1982), p. 93.