#henry dearborn

[yr-obedt-cicero]

Do you think Hamilton had a crush on John André?

Honestly, not really. If anything I think Hamilton just idolized him.

Hamilton wrote of Andre saying;

“In one of the visits I made to him (and I saw him several times during his confinement) he begged me to be the bearer of a request to the General for permission, to send an open letter to Sir Henry Clinton. “I foresee my fate (said he) and though I pretend not to play the hero, or to be indifferent about life; yet I am reconciled to whatever may happen, conscious that misfortune, not guilt, has brought it upon me. There is only one thing that disturbs my tranquillity—Sir Henry Clinton has been too good to me; he has been lavish of his kindness. I am bound to him by too many obligations and love him too well to bear the thought, that he should reproach himself, or that others should reproach him, on the supposition of my having conceived myself obliged by his instructions to run the risk I did. I would not for the world leave a sting in his mind, that should embitter his future days.” He could scarce finish the sentence, bursting into tears, in spite of his efforts to suppress them; and with difficulty collected himself enough afterwards to add, “I wish to be permitted to assure him, I did not act under this impression, but submitted to a necessity imposed upon me as contrary to my own inclination as to his orders.” His request was readily complied with, and he wrote the letter annexed, and with which I dare say, you will ⟨be as⟩ much pleased as I am both for the dic⟨tion⟩ and sentiment.”

“There was something singularly interesting in the character and fortunes of André. To an excellent understanding well improved by education and travel, he united a peculiar elegance of mind and manners, and the advantage of a pleasing person. ’Tis said he possessed a pretty taste for the fine arts, and had himself attained some proficiency in poe⟨try,⟩ music and painting. His knowlege appeared without ostentation, and embellished by a diffidence, that rarely accompanies so many talents and accomplishments, which left you to suppose more than appeared. His sentiments were elevated and inspired esteem. they had a softness that conciliated affection. His elocution was handsome; his address easy, polite and insinuating. By his merit he had acquired the unlimited confidence of his general and was making a rapid progress in military rank and reputation. [...] I speak not of André’s conduct in this affair as a Philosophe, but as a man of the world. The authorised maxims and practices of war are the satire of human nature. They countenance almost every species of seduction as well as violence; and the General that can make most traitors in the army of his adversary is frequently most applauded. On this scale we acquit André, while we could not but condemn him, if we were to examine his conduct by the sober rules of philosophy and moral rectitude. It is however a blemish in his fame, that he once intended to prostitute a flag; about this a man of nice honor ought to have had a scruple, but the temptation was great; let his misfortunes cast a veil11 over his error.”

(source — Alexander Hamilton to John Laurens, [October 11, 1780])

Hamilton agreed that Andre's wish to be shot instead of hung was proper and feasible, yet Washington was unmoved. Andre had been apprehended in civilian dress and would be hung as a spy. Hamilton clearly admired Andre a lot with such flowery language, but I wouldn't say his views on Andre were anything unique. Or continuous for that matter, as Andre isn't really brought back up again in Hamilton's writing. In fact, Andre was always quite renowned for his charming conduct and good looks. And the standpoint on his execution was more of a moral one than anything.

And Hamilton wasn't the only one to say Andre did not deserve to be hung, Henry Dearborn wrote in his journal about how sympathetic Andre's conditions were.

And even Benjamin Tallmadge wrote gushingly about Andre;

“I will, however, remark, that for the few days of intimate intercourse I had with him, which was from the time of his being brought back to our head-quarters to the day of his execution, I became so deeply attached to Major Andre, that I can remember no instance where my affections were so fully absorbed in any man. When I saw him swinging under the gibbet, it seemed for a time as if I could not support it. All the spectators seemed to be overwhelmed by the affecting spectacle, and many were suffused in tears. There did not appear to be one hardened or indifferent spectator in all the multitude.”

(source — Memoir Of Colonel Benjamin Tallmadge)

[send-up-my-heart-to-you]

found this gem in my photos i made it nearly a year ago lol

and yes ik its a joke abt a love triangle but i also showed friends and relatives ssssshshhhhhhhhh

[megaul]

henry ford museum appreciation post

[rodwhite]

My brief tour of American excess

I always wanted to go to Michigan. Now I have. And now I only have North Dakota left  before I can brag about visiting all 50 states! When I travel outside the U.S., I am often delighted to wander into a place I did not know existed. Once there, I am often even more delighted to experience something that gives me deeper insight into the culture I’m visiting and the character of its people.  I…

[coloradomartini]

Discovering Dearborn, Michigan: Ford's Legacy Unveiled

Dearborn Michigan Part 1: Dearborn, Michigan is home to Ford Motor Company's world headquarters, as well as the fantastic Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village Historical Park. Our recent trip to Dearborn revealed the significant impact of Henry Ford..

Dearborn Michigan Part 1: Dearborn, Michigan is home to Ford Motor Company’s world headquarters, as well as the fantastic Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village Historical Park. Our recent trip to Dearborn revealed the significant impact of Henry Ford and his company on the city. We will share the sights and sounds that Henry Ford and his family left behind in Dearborn by visiting the…

[thehenryfordmi]

The Henry Ford

The Henry Ford is a museum complex in Dearborn, Michigan whose collection is dedicated to documenting the history of American life & ideas.

Address: 20900 Oakwood Blvd, Dearborn, MI 48124, USA Phone: 313-982-6001 Website: https://www.thehenryford.org/

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Maya Yang at The Guardian:

Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian American congresswoman, has accused a political cartoonist of racism after he depicted her next to a pager exploding days after such devices blew up across Lebanon in what the Arab country has said was an attack by Israel. A statement from the Democratic US House representative also expressed concern that the cartoon by Henry Payne would “incite more hate and violence against Arab and Muslim communities”. “And it makes everyone less safe,” Tlaib said of the cartoon – published by the Republican-friendly National Review – which also showed her thinking how “odd” it was for the nearby pager to explode. Pagers had been a preferred method of Hezbollah members in conflict with Israel, before such devices exploded across Lebanon recently. “It’s disgraceful that the media continues to normalize this racism against our communities,” she said.

The congresswoman’s statement about the publication of the cartoon “Tlaib Pager Hamas” came after many users on the social media platform X had condemned it as anti-Arab as well as Islamophobic. Among them was the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, Abdullah Hammoud, who wrote on X: “Absolutely disgusting. Anti-Arab bigotry & Islamophobia have become normalized in our media.” The mayor added: “At what point will people call this out?” Other users condemned Payne’s cartoon directly on his own X profile. One wrote: “You should be ashamed,” and another user said: “What the fuck does she have to do with the war crimes of Israel terrorizing the [Lebanese] people? It’s because she’s Arab you thought it was okay to draw this shit?”

Payne is a political cartoonist for the Detroit News, one of two major daily newspapers in the city, which is Tlaib’s hometown. The Guardian sent him a request for comment on Friday. The slew of pager and walkie-talkie explosions to which the cartoon alludes have killed dozens of people while wounding thousands more, including children. The Lebanese government and Hezbollah have blamed Israel for the attacks. Israel has stopped short of claiming responsibility for the deadly attacks. However, in their wake, its defense minister complimented the Mossad – the Israeli intelligence agency – for its “great achievements”.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) fearlessly calls out Detroit News cartoonist Henry Payne’s racist and Islamophobic cartoon depicting her with an exploding pager.

[garadinervi]

Lillian F. Schwartz, with Kenneth C. Knowlton, Enigma Tests, (screen print), 1970 [Lillian F. Schwartz & Laurens R. Schwartz Collection, Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn, MI. © Lillian F. Schwartz, Kenneth C. Knowlton]

[whencyclopedia]

Battle of Queenston Heights

The Battle of Queenston Heights (13 October 1812) was a major battle in the War of 1812. A US army, under General Stephen Van Rensselaer, crossed the Niagara River in an attempted invasion of Canada but was repulsed by a British, Canadian, and Mohawk force. The British victory came at the cost of General Isaac Brock, killed in the fighting.

Death of General Brock at Queenston Heights

John David Kelly (Public Domain)

Background: Fall of Detroit

In late June 1812, shortly after the United States had issued its declaration of war against the United Kingdom, the US began preparing for an invasion of British-controlled Canada. Ostensibly, the purpose of the invasion was to deprive Britain of a staging ground from where they could launch their own attack into US territory. But many of the 'War Hawks' – as the prowar faction in Congress was called – envisaged a more permanent outcome, believing that the invasion would result in Canada finally joining the Union. The annexation of Canada would greatly increase the United States' dominion over North America and would, in the words of one war-hungry congressman, "drive the British from our continent" (Berton, 98).

The invasion was to be four-pronged. Brigadier General William Hull, sitting with his 2,500-man army at Fort Detroit, would lead the first thrust, crossing over the Detroit River into Upper Canada (modern-day Southern Ontario). He would be followed by Major General Stephen Van Rensselaer, who would cross the Niagara River to capture Queenston, and by Major General Henry Dearborn, who would sail up Lake Champlain to capture Montreal, while a fourth US army crossed the St. Lawrence River to wreak havoc in Ontario. Most Americans believed it would be an easy campaign, that the Canadians, oppressed by the tyranny of British rule, would welcome their southern brethren with open arms. As former President Thomas Jefferson predicted, the invasion was expected to be nothing more than "a mere matter of marching" (Wood, 677).

But of course, it would not be so easy. General Hull began his invasion on 12 July, crossing over the Detroit River and establishing a base of operations at the small town of Sandwich, where he issued a proclamation calling on all Canadians to either join him or remain neutral. But Hull soon lost his nerve; deathly afraid of Native Americans, he was disturbed by reports of more Indigenous nations joining the British side and, moreover, feared that the arrival of enemy reinforcements could cut him off from US territory. On 8 August, after nearly a month of dithering on Canadian soil, he retreated to Detroit, where he was soon besieged by an Anglo-Indian force under Major General Isaac Brock and the great Shawnee chieftain Tecumseh. Brock and Tecumseh utilized psychological warfare to convince Hull that their army was larger than it really was, leading the American general to surrender both his army and Detroit without a fight on 16 August. The Siege of Detroit not only thwarted the first part of the US invasion but also left the British in control of the entire Michigan Territory.

Hull was widely castigated for his defeat – indeed, he would later be court-martialed and sentenced to death, before the sentence was commuted to dismissal from the army. But he had at least set foot on Canadian territory, which was more than can be said about his counterparts. General Van Rensselaer had tried, but he did not have the necessary supplies or reinforcements to mount a successful crossing; what militia forces he did have refused to cross the Niagara, arguing that they were merely a defensive force and were not obliged to fight outside the United States. General Dearborn, likewise, was stuck at Albany, New York, unable to fill the enlistment quotas needed for an attack. "We have as yet a shadow of a regular force," his second-in-command would write, "inferior, even in numbers, to half of what the enemy already has in the field" (Taylor, 182). Dearborn was therefore relieved when, on 9 August, a British major arrived at his camp to offer an armistice. Dearborn readily accepted before passing along news of the armistice to President James Madison for his approval and instructing Van Rensselaer, his subordinate, to do nothing that might provoke the British. The invasion had, therefore, completely failed, leaving the US in a worse position as the armistice settled over the Niagara frontier.

Continue reading...

[the-bi-library]

HAPPY BI VISIBILITY MONTH!!! 🩷💜💙

I wish all bi folks a very pleasant bi month!

Here are bi books of September!

Books listed:

💕 This Spells Disaster by Tori Anne Martin 💕 In the Ring by Sierra Isley 💕 Those Pink Mountain Nights by Jen Ferguson 💕 The Darkest Stars (The Broken Stars #2) by Kristy Gardner 💕Daughter of Winter and Twilight (Queen of Coin and Whispers #2) by Helen Corcoran 💕 Time to Shine by Rachel Reid 💕 Herc by Phoenicia Rogerson 💕 Fly with Me by Andie Burke 💕 Everyone's Thinking It by Aleema Omotoni 💕 A Crown So Cursed (Nightmare-Verse, #3) by L.L. McKinney 💕 This Dark Descent (This Dark Descent, #1) by Kalyn Josephson 💕 Providence Girls by Morgan Dante 💕 Wolf, Willow, Witch (The Gideon Testaments #2) by Freydís Moon 💕 What Stalks Among Us by Sarah Hollowell 💕 Thank You for Sharing by Rachel Runya Katz 💕 Cities of Women by Kathleen B. Jones 💕You, Again by Kate Goldbeck 💕 Double Exposure: A F/NBi Enemies to Lovers Romantic Suspense by Rien Gray 💕 The Fractured Dark (The Devoured Worlds, #2) by Megan E. O'Keefe 💕 Cover Story by Valerie Gomez 💕 The Spirit Bares Its Teeth by Andrew Joseph White 💕 The Death I Gave Him by Em X. Liu 💕 Better Left Unsaid by Tufayel Ahmed 💕 Dearborn by Ghassan Zeineddine 💕 A Green Equinox by Elizabeth Mavor 💕 Salt Kiss (Lyonesse, #1) by Sierra Simone 💕 The Amazing Alpha Tau Boyfriend Project (Alpha Tau, #1) by Lisa Henry

Make sure to check the TWs for all books if necessary 💕

Here is the goodreads list of these books

[still-searching-for-something]

"The Jew in Germany is regarded as only a guest of the people--he has offended by trying to turn himself into the host."

The quote is a line from Henry Ford's The International Jew, published in 1920. I ask you, is the line so different from the claim that 'Zionists' and the 'Zionist' lobby wield disproportionate power over US foreign policy?

"The Zionist in America is regarded only as a voter, same as anyone else--he has offended by trying to silence the others."

Is it a coincidence that centuries old claims about Jews controlling the world bear a striking similarity to the claim that Zionists control the media? Or the claim that there's an international Jewish Zionist conspiracy to silence the celebrities who speak out against their machinations? Is claim that Israelis steal Palestinian organs so distinct from the claim that Jews siphon the blood of Christian children?

If I made a new Tumblr account, titled it 'Death-to-Zios' and just straight up copied and pasted actual articles from the Dearborn Independent, the International Jew, and Der Sturmer without revealing their source, and just replacing 'Jew' with Zionist, how many reblogs do you think it would get? 10K? 20K? 40K? How much pushback do you think the self-proclaimed 'antifascists' on Tumblr would give to actual fascist propaganda? How far could I take it before the goyische leftists were uncomfortable with my words--would they ever be?

Let's go back to that Henry Ford quote. Right after that, he continues:

"What will happen in Germany is not now known, but the Germans will doubtless prove themselves equal to the situation by devising methods of control at once unobjectionable and effective."

Again, this was in 1920. What happened a scant 21 years later? Do you think wide-reaching dehumanization of a people for two millennia doesn't have consequences? Do you think there might be a reason Jews are feeling edgy and alienated from society right now? Do you think we are making things up?

You are the ones who cry that Never Again means Never Again--do you really believe that? Do you really believe you would stand up against the Holocaust if you had been alive then--that you won't be on the side perpetrating it?

Because we Jews are not so sure.

[retropopcult]

On May 8, 1928, Henry Ford visited Brooklyn and arranged to take a Brooklyn City Railroad Company horsecar back to Dearborn, Michigan for display in his American Village Museum. The horse-drawn car, built in 1875, was operated on the line between Hunters Point, Long Island City and Erie Basin in South Brooklyn. Today, the streetcar can be seen on view at the The Henry Ford Museum’s “Driving America” exhibit.

[kaitcreates]

The Shadohunter Chronicles Character Showdown

First Round, Second Round, Third Round, Fourth Round, Fifth Round, Semi-Finals, Finals

Rosemary Herondale vs Arthur Blackthorn, (Feb 23)

Celine Montclaire vs Diego Rocio-Rosales, (Feb 24)

Maureen Brown vs Anna Lightwood, (Feb 25)

Christopher Lightwood vs Ragnor Fell, (Feb 26)

Julian Blackthorn vs Livvy Blackthorn, (Feb 27)

Bridget Daly vs Jon Cartwright, (Feb 28)

Nate Grey vs Sona Carstairs, (Feb 29)

Gabriel Lightwood vs Madeleine Bellefleur, (Mar 1)

Paige Ashdown vs Rupert Blackthorn, (Mar 2)

Valentine Morgenstern vs Kraig, (Mar 3)

Andrew Blackthorn vs Irene, (Mar 4)

Axel Mortmain vs Thais Pedroso, (Mar 5)

Kit Herondale vs Ke Yi Tian, (Mar 6)

The Dark Sisters vs Filomina di Angelo, (Mar 7)

Lucie Herondale vs Simon Lovelace-Lewis, (Mar 8)

Shiyun Jung vs Cameron Ashdown, (Mar 9)

Elias Carstairs vs Tavvy Blackthorn, (Mar 10)

Luke Greymark vs Will Herondale, (Mar 11)

Ash Morgenstern vs Matthew Fairchild, (Mar 12)

Sophie Collins vs Jaime Rocio-Rosales, (Mar 13)

Catarina Loss vs Tessa Grey, (Mar 14)

Jessamine Lovelace vs Woolsey Scott, (Mar 15)

Diana Wrayburn vs Magnus Lightwood-Bane, (Mar 16)

James Herondale vs Jesse Blackthorn, (Mar 17)

Sebastian Morgesnstern vs Ty Blackthorn, (Mar 18)

Julie Beavul vs Tatiana Lightwood, (Mar 19)

Meliorn vs Helen Blackthorn, (Mar 20)

Alexander Lightwood vs Arawn, (Mar 21)

Jace Lightwood-Herondale vs Michael Wayland, (Mar 22)

Raphael Santiago vs Kieran Kingson, (Mar 23)

Marisol Garza vs Hypatia Vex, (Mar 24)

Dru Blackthorn vs Ari Bridgstock, (Mar 25)

Eugenia Lightwood vs Bat Velasquez, (Mar 26)

Eliza Rosewain vs Rafael Lightwood-Bane, (Mar 27)

Anush Joshi vs Seelie Queen, (Mar 28)

Church vs Cecily Herondale, (Mar 29)

Annabel Blackthorn vs Robert Lightwood, (Mar 30)

Beatriz Mendoza vs Malcolm Fade, (Mar 31)

Jocelyn Fairchild vs Max Lightwood-Bane, (Apr 1)

Imogen Whitlaw vs Jem Carstairs, (Apr 2)

Mother Hawthorn vs Chairman Meow, (Apr 3)

Manuel Casales-Villalobos vs Barbra Lightwood, (Apr 4)

Cordelia Carstairs vs Benedict Lightwood, (Apr 5)

Divya Joshi vs Lily Chen, (Apr 6)

Patrick Penhallow vs Alastair Carstairs, (Apr 7)

Isabelle Lightwood vs Mark Blackthorn, (Apr 8)

Amatis Greymark vs George Lovelace, (Apr 9)

Maryse Lightwood vs Elliott, (Apr 10)

Alexei de Quincey vs Elyas the Demon, (Apr 11)

Hodge Starkweather vs Henry Branwell, (Apr 12)

Camille Belcourt vs Auraline, (Apr 13)

Aline Penhallow vs Roland Loss, (Apr 14)

Johny Rook vs Stephen Herondale, (Apr 15)

Rayan Maduabuchi vs Alec Lightwood-Bane, (Apr 16)

Esme Hardcastle vs Jordan Kyle, (Apr 17)

Grace Blackthorn vs Evelyn Highsmith, (Apr 18)

Jia Penhallow vs Charles Fairchild, (Apr 19)

Horace Dearborn vs Max Lightwood, (Apr 20)

Emma Carstairs vs Mina Carstairs, (Apr 21)

Charlotte Fairchild vs Aloysius Starkweather, (Apr 22)

Janus Herondale vs Zachary Carstairs, (Apr 23)

Gwyn ap Nudd vs Clary Fairchild, (Apr 24)

Maia Roberts vs Gideon Lightwood, (Apr 25)

Thomas Lightwood vs Cristina Mendoza-Rosales, (Apr 26)

[megaul]

greenfield village appreciation post

[teameagleworks]

Invasive plants are terrible, but these are probably the least offensive ones I know of.

This is the Siberian Squill, which was introduced to my area by the Ford family. The story I've always heard is that Clara (wife of Henry Ford) loved blue/purple flowers, and these were planted in their gardens. They are a very early bloomer. We are in zone 6 for gardening, Metro Detroit, and they typically bloom in early April. Clara got her pretty flowers, and life goes on....

Except they absolutely took over. The entire Ford estate grounds, surrounding woods, and even countless yards in Dearborn and Detroit are full of these things. For a few weeks in April every year, the land is a fairy carpet. The good news is they bloom and die back relatively quickly, so they don't outcompete most of the spring ephemera. The naturalists in the area that I have spoken to say they don't bother with removal because they die back so quickly, but they do say it's the one flower we can pick.

I think the most interesting characteristic is the blue pollen! These flowers are my sign that spring is on the way. We usually get at least one more snow on them, but warmer days are ahead!

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?

No, of course not. Yet according to “anarcho”-capitalism, it is. This can be seen from the ideas of Gustave de Molinari.

Hart is on firmer ground when he argues that the 19th century French economist Gustave de Molinari is the true founder of “anarcho”-capitalism. With Molinari, he argues, “the two different currents of anarchist thought converged: he combined the political anarchism of Burke and Godwin with the nascent economic anarchism of Adam Smith and Say to create a new forms of anarchism” that has been called “anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism.” [Op. Cit., p. 269] Of course, Godwin (like other anarchists) did not limit his anarchism purely to “political” issues and so he discussed “economic anarchism” as well in his critique of private property (as Proudhon also did). As such, to artificially split anarchism into political and economic spheres is both historically and logically flawed. While some dictionaries limit “anarchism” to opposition to the state, anarchists did and do not.

The key problem for Hart is that Molinari refused to call himself an anarchist. He did not even oppose government, as Hart himself notes Molinari proposed a system of insurance companies to provide defence of property and “called these insurance companies ‘governments’ even though they did not have a monopoly within a given geographical area.” As Hart notes, Molinari was the sole defender of such free-market justice at the time in France. [David M. Hart, “Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part II”, pp. 399–434, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. V, no. 4, p. 415 and p. 411] Molinari was clear that he wanted “a regime of free government,” counterpoising “monopolist or communist governments” to “free governments.” This would lead to “freedom of government” rather than its abolition (i.e., not freedom from government). For Molinari the future would not bring “the suppression of the state which is the dream of the anarchists … It will bring the diffusion of the state within society. That is … ‘a free state in a free society.’” [quoted by Hart, Op. Cit., p. 429, p. 411 and p. 422] As such, Molinari can hardly be considered an anarchist, even if “anarchist” is limited to purely being against government.

Moreover, in another sense Molinari was in favour of the state. As we discuss in section F.6, these companies would have a monopoly within a given geographical area — they have to in order to enforce the property owner’s power over those who use, but do not own, the property in question. The key contradiction can be seen in Molinari’s advocating of company towns, privately owned communities (his term was a “proprietary company”). Instead of taxes, people would pay rent and the “administration of the community would be either left in the hands of the company itself or handled special organisations set up for this purpose.” Within such a regime “those with the most property had proportionally the greater say in matters which affected the community.” If the poor objected then they could simply leave. [Op. Cit., pp. 421–2 and p. 422]

Given this, the idea that Molinari was an anarchist in any form can be dismissed. His system was based on privatising government, not abolishing it (as he himself admitted). This would be different from the current system, of course, as landlords and capitalists would be hiring police directly to enforce their decisions rather than relying on a state which they control indirectly. This system would not be anarchist as can be seen from American history. There capitalists and landlords created their own private police forces and armies, which regularly attacked and murdered union organisers and strikers. As an example, there is Henry Ford’s Service Department (private police force):

“In 1932 a hunger march of the unemployed was planned to march up to the gates of the Ford plant at Dearborn… The machine guns of the Dearborn police and the Ford Motor Company’s Service Department killed [four] and wounded over a score of others… Ford was fundamentally and entirely opposed to trade unions. The idea of working men questioning his prerogatives as an owner was outrageous … [T]he River Rouge plant… was dominated by the autocratic regime of Bennett’s service men. Bennett .. organise[d] and train[ed] the three and a half thousand private policemen employed by Ford. His task was to maintain discipline amongst the work force, protect Ford’s property [and power], and prevent unionisation… Frank Murphy, the mayor of Detroit, claimed that ‘Henry Ford employs some of the worst gangsters in our city.’ The claim was well based. Ford’s Service Department policed the gates of his plants, infiltrated emergent groups of union activists, posed as workers to spy on men on the line… Under this tyranny the Ford worker had no security, no rights. So much so that any information about the state of things within the plant could only be freely obtained from ex-Ford workers.” [Huw Beynon, Working for Ford, pp. 29–30]

The private police attacked women workers handing out pro-union leaflets and gave them “a severe beating.” At Kansas and Dallas “similar beatings were handed out to the union men.” This use of private police to control the work force was not unique. General Motors “spent one million dollars on espionage, employing fourteen detective agencies and two hundred spies at one time [between 1933 and 1936]. The Pinkerton Detective Agency found anti-unionism its most lucrative activity.” [Op. Cit., p. 34 and p. 32] We must also note that the Pinkerton’s had been selling their private police services for decades before the 1930s. For over 60 years the Pinkerton Detective Agency had “specialised in providing spies, agent provocateurs, and private armed forces for employers combating labour organisations.” By 1892 it “had provided its services for management in seventy major labour disputes, and its 2,000 active agents and 30,000 reserves totalled more than the standing army of the nation.” [Jeremy Brecher, Strike!, p. 55] With this force available, little wonder unions found it so hard to survive in the USA.

Only an “anarcho”-capitalist would deny that this is a private government, employing private police to enforce private power. Given that unions could be considered as “defence” agencies for workers, this suggests a picture of how “anarcho”-capitalism may work in practice radically different from than that produced by its advocates. The reason is simple, it does not ignore inequality and subjects property to an anarchist analysis. Little wonder, then, that Proudhon stressed that it “becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism.” Anarchism, in other words, would see ”[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished” and so “the economic organisation [would] replac[e] the governmental and military system.” [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 227 and p. 281] Clearly, the idea that Proudhon shared the same political goal as Molinari is a joke. He would have dismissed such a system as little more than an updated form of feudalism in which the property owner is sovereign and the workers subjects (also see section B.4).

Unsurprisingly, Molinari (unlike the individualist anarchists) attacked the jury system, arguing that its obliged people to “perform the duties of judges. This is pure communism.” People would “judge according to the colour of their opinions, than according to justice.” [quoted by Hart, Op. Cit., p. 409] As the jury system used amateurs (i.e. ordinary people) rather than full-time professionals it could not be relied upon to defend the power and property rights of the rich. As we noted in section F.6.1, Rothbard criticised the individualist anarchists for supporting juries for essentially the same reasons.

But, as is clear from Hart’s account, Molinari had little concern that working class people should have a say in their own lives beyond consuming goods and picking bosses. His perspective can be seen from his lament that in those “colonies where slavery has been abolished without the compulsory labour being replaced with an equivalent quantity of free [sic!] labour [i.e., wage labour], there has occurred the opposite of what happens everyday before our eyes. Simple workers have been seen to exploit in their turn the industrial entrepreneurs, demanding from them wages which bear absolutely no relation to the legitimate share in the product which they ought to receive. The planters were unable to obtain for their sugar a sufficient price to cover the increase in wages, and were obliged to furnish the extra amount, at first out of their profits, and then out of their very capital. A considerable number of planters have been ruined as a result … It is doubtless better that these accumulations of capital should be destroyed than that generations of men should perish [Marx: ‘how generous of M. Molinari’] but would it not be better if both survived?” [quoted by Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, p. 937f]

So workers exploiting capital is the “opposite of what happens everyday before our eyes”? In other words, it is normal that entrepreneurs “exploit” workers under capitalism? Similarly, what is a “legitimate share” which workers “ought to receive”? Surely that is determined by the eternal laws of supply and demand and not what the capitalists (or Molinari) thinks is right? And those poor former slave drivers, they really do deserve our sympathy. What horrors they face from the impositions subjected upon them by their ex-chattels — they had to reduce their profits! How dare their ex-slaves refuse to obey them in return for what their ex-owners think was their “legitimate share in the produce”! How “simple” these workers were, not understanding the sacrifices their former masters suffer nor appreciating how much more difficult it is for their ex-masters to create “the product” without the whip and the branding iron to aid them! As Marx so rightly comments: “And what, if you please, is this ‘legitimate share’, which, according to [Molinari’s] own admission, the capitalist in Europe daily neglects to pay? Over yonder, in the colonies, where the workers are so ‘simple’ as to ‘exploit’ the capitalist, M. Molinari feels a powerful itch to use police methods to set on the right road that law of supply and demand which works automatically everywhere else.” [Op. Cit., p. 937f]

An added difficulty in arguing that Molinari was an anarchist is that he was a contemporary of Proudhon, the first self-declared anarchist, and lived in a country with a vigorous anarchist movement. Surely if he was really an anarchist, he would have proclaimed his kinship with Proudhon and joined in the wider movement. He did not, as Hart notes as regards Proudhon:

“their differences in economic theory were considerable, and it is probably for this reason that Molinari refused to call himself an anarchist in spite of their many similarities in political theory. Molinari refused to accept the socialist economic ideas of Proudhon .. . in Molinari’s mind, the term ‘anarchist’ was intimately linked with socialist and statist economic views.” [Op. Cit., p. 415]

Yet Proudhon’s economic views, like Godwin’s, flowed from his anarchist analysis and principles. They cannot be arbitrarily separated as Hart suggests. So while arguing that “Molinari was just as much an anarchist as Proudhon,” Hart forgets the key issue. Proudhon was aware that private property ensured that the proletarian did not exercise “self-government” during working hours, i.e. that he was ruled by another. As for Hart claiming that Proudhon had “statist economic views” it simply shows how far an “anarcho”-capitalist perspective is from genuine anarchism. Proudhon’s economic analysis, his critique of private property and capitalism, flowed from his anarchism and was an integral aspect of it.

By restricting anarchism purely to opposition to the state, Hart is impoverishing anarchist theory and denying its history. Given that anarchism was born from a critique of private property as well as government, this shows the false nature of Hart’s claim that “Molinari was the first to develop a theory of free-market, proprietary anarchism that extended the laws of the market and a rigorous defence of property to its logical extreme.” [Op. Cit., p. 415 and p. 416] Hart shows how far from anarchism Molinari was as Proudhon had turned his anarchist analysis to property, showing that “defence of property” lead to the oppression of the many by the few in social relationships identical to those which mark the state. Moreover, Proudhon, argued the state would always be required to defend such social relations. Privatising it would hardly be a step forward.

Unsurprisingly, Proudhon dismissed the idea that the laissez faire capitalists shared his goals. “The school of Say,” Proudhon argued, was “the chief focus of counter-revolution next to the Jesuits” and “has for ten years past seemed to exist only to protect and applaud the execrable work of the monopolists of money and necessities, deepening more and more the obscurity of a science [economics] naturally difficult and full of complications” (much the same can be said of “anarcho”-capitalists, incidentally). For Proudhon, “the disciples of Malthus and of Say, who oppose with all their might any intervention of the State in matters commercial or industrial, do not fail to avail themselves of this seemingly liberal attitude, and to show themselves more revolutionary than the Revolution. More than one honest searcher has been deceived thereby.” However, this apparent “anti-statist” attitude of supporters of capitalism is false as pure free market capitalism cannot solve the social question, which arises because of capitalism itself. As such, it was impossible to abolish the state under capitalism. Thus “this inaction of Power in economic matters was the foundation of government. What need should we have of a political organisation, if Power once permitted us to enjoy economic order?” Instead of capitalism, Proudhon advocated the “constitution of Value,” the “organisation of credit,” the elimination of interest, the “establishment of workingmen’s associations” and “the use of a just price.” [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 225, p. 226 and p. 233]

Clearly, then, the claims that Molinari was an anarchist fail as he, unlike his followers, was aware of what anarchism actually stood for. Hart, in his own way, acknowledges this:

“In spite of his protestations to the contrary, Molinari should be considered an anarchist thinker. His attack on the state’s monopoly of defence must surely warrant the description of anarchism. His reluctance to accept this label stemmed from the fact that the socialists had used it first to describe a form of non-statist society which Molinari definitely opposed. Like many original thinkers, Molinari had to use the concepts developed by others to describe his theories. In his case, he had come to the same political conclusions as the communist anarchists although he had been working within the liberal tradition, and it is therefore not surprising that the terms used by the two schools were not compatible. It would not be until the latter half of the twentieth century that radical, free-trade liberals would use the word ‘anarchist’ to describe their beliefs.” [Op. Cit., p. 416]

It should be noted that Proudhon was not a communist-anarchist, but the point remains (as an aside, Rothbard also showed his grasp of anarchism by asserting that “the demented Bakunin” was a “leading anarcho-communist,” who “emphasised [the lumpenproletariat] in the 1840s.” [The Logic of Action II, p. 388 and p. 381] Which would have been impressive as not only did Bakunin become an anarchist in the 1860s, anarcho-communism, as anyone with even a basic knowledge of anarchist history knows, developed after his death nor did Bakunin emphasise the lumpenproletariat as the agent of social change, Rothbardian and Marxian inventions not withstanding). The aims of anarchism were recognised by Molinari as being inconsistent with his ideology. Consequently, he (rightly) refused the label. If only his self-proclaimed followers in the “latter half of the twentieth century” did the same then anarchists would not have to bother with them!

It does seem ironic that the founder of “anarcho”-capitalism should have come to the same conclusion as modern day anarchists on the subject of whether his ideas are a form of anarchism or not!