American History

German Americans and World War I

<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="Fears" american="" americans="" and="" border="0" german="" i="" in="" many="" of="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfKExOyvc-Tnwa1YIodoz9xAVnOUjnxRVSFiIJ9b7sny4BwyAkFCmwySGP-rQqklp2NhSnR2LiJ2Y5OkeGN1yrvxcyRrd_cw88bf5JQur0ywqjIjAZs5MMC4cpKTH8PysMwttW0F8gYGU/s1600/german-american.jpg" states="" subversion="" surfaced="" the="" times="" title="German" twent="" united="" war="" world="" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">German Americans and World War I</td></tr> </tbody></table> Fears of German American subversion surfaced many times in the United States in the twentieth century. The publication of the <a href=" " target="_blank">Zimmerman telegram</a> and the <a href=" " target="_blank">sinking of Lusitania</a>, two still controversial events that contributed to the United States entering World War I, were not the only causes for U.S. alarm in the face of growing German aggression. Beginning well before the nation’s entry into the war and lasting beyond the war’s end, many Americans shared a conspiracy-minded fear of espionage and sabotage by what Henry Landau once called “the Enemy Within,” a contingent of German Americans suspected of being more loyal to the Fatherland than to their new homeland. Posters and pamphlets produced by the Committee on Public Information during the years of U.S. involvement in World War I depict German military aggression as an external threat, geographically distant but never completely removed from the North American continent. <table align="center" border="0"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1501117890/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=232e218a6c3eeb579dbb9ff38722f138" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1501117890&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="Fears" american="" americans="" and="" border="0" german="" height="1" i="" in="" many="" of="" src="https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1501117890" states="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" subversion="" surfaced="" the="" times="" twent="" united="" war="" width="1" world="" /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416576118/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=276981190500865bc5da0f95cc4f9427" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1416576118&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="Fears" american="" americans="" and="" border="0" german="" height="1" i="" in="" many="" of="" src="https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1416576118" states="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" subversion="" surfaced="" the="" times="" twent="" united="" war="" width="1" world="" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> In one such poster the German soldier is a brutal giant holding a rifle and bayonet and stomping around a war-torn Europe; Europe and the rampaging Hun are separated from the Statue of Liberty, and the nation it represents, by only a thin strip of water. A second poster presents the U.S. infantry marching off to join the battle as the modern equivalent to medieval knights riding off to fight in a holy war against the infidel. World War I was thus regularly presented in the United States as a necessary and just war against an external threat. However, there was also an emerging sense of a threat from within, a fear of espionage and sabotage that grew out of the large number of unassimilated, politically organized German Americans living in the United States in the early decades of the twentieth century. Many of these German Americans continued to use their native tongue in daily life and to define themselves and their communities against mainstream U.S. culture. German American Culture In the nineteenth century, a pluralistic Germanlanguage culture had existed in the United States; as late as 1910, an estimated 9 million people in the United States still spoke German as their native tongue. They formed the broad basis for readership of a large variety of German-language newspapers and publications and supplied membership for German-language clubs and parishes as well as the National German-American Alliance (1901–1918), an organization that actively opposed U.S. entry into World War I. These many speakers of German were also the force behind attempts at offering German as a language of instruction, or at least as a foreign language elective, in public schools. Although by 1910 the German language was already being displaced by English among the younger generation, World War I drew a sharp cutoff line for German language instruction in the entire country. In 1919, German language instruction was forbidden in several states, including Indiana and Nebraska. In Nebraska v. Meyer, the Supreme Court decision in 1923, this ban was overturned. The action of the first half of Willa Cather’s Pulitzer Prize–winning novel of 1922, One of Ours, is set near the city of Frankfort, Nebraska, and dramatizes the new distrust toward German Americans growing out of the tensions that peaked with the nation’s entry into war. In book three of Cather’s novel, a charge of disloyalty is brought against two established German immigrant farmers. The evidence presented by the neighbors against the two men is “confused and almost humorous,” yet the judge decides the case against them and assigns a fine. In later sections of the novel, Cather continues to show her sympathy for German Americans in her depiction of two older women persecuted by their more thoroughly assimilated neighbors. Suspected Acts of Sabotage Even before the United States officially entered the war, there were suspicious fires and explosions at a number of U.S. plants and supply terminals. In January 1915, then again in November of the same year, fire consumed the Roebling plant in Trenton, New Jersey, where armaments and antisubmarine netting for the Allied powers were manufactured. A set of explosions, likewise attributed by many to German saboteurs, occurred in early January 1917 in munitions plants in Kingsland, New Jersey. The most spectacular of such explosions was the “Black Tom” incident of 30 July 1916. More than 2 million pounds of munitions stored on Black Tom Island in New York Harbor exploded; the explosion and the resulting fire caused enormous damage and killed three men and a child. These munitions were awaiting shipment to the Allies for use against Germany. The incident has thus been viewed by many as an act of sabotage by German agents. With Congress’s declaration of war against Germany on 6 April 1917 came stringent controls to prevent further acts of sabotage. These included the issuing of two “Alien Enemy Presidential Proclamations” and the establishing of internment camps for people of German birth residing in the United States who had not completed the naturalization process. Suspicions of an imperial German conspiracy have largely faded from public consciousness along with the more general cultural memory of World War I, but related conspiracy theories—particularly those involving the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram—are still in circulation. The Black Tom explosion is perhaps the exception, as it has been the subject of several recent, highly speculative studies and has gained new relevance with the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, which sent the United States scrambling anew to uncover networks of saboteurs and those who fund them. Within two weeks of the World Trade Center’s destruction, a guest columnist at ABQjournal reminded his readers that <a href=" " target="_blank">September 11</a> may not have been the first time the city was bombed by agents of a foreign power: “N.Y. Was Attacked by Terrorists in 1916.”

German Americans and World War I

German Americans and World War I Fears of German American subversion surfaced many times in the United States in the twentieth century. ...

Citizen Edmond Charles Genet

<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="was" ambassador="" border="0" charles="" citizen="" edmond="" french="" genet="" in="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ62QrZt4lWPAIMYgfqN3je0gXa92B2lNaF0OEr6S5IVC929d7W9z4ngVD4HY95WErxBAaY_XUrkFY0_KJvWZZfPDrJcA1ikueqTYZokWqnW8LRdVCvWDXKi8B4-4WHIwV5f0OKP8kmWk/s1600/Citizen-Genet.jpg" states="" the="" title="Citizen" to="" united="" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Citizen Edmond Charles Genet</td></tr> </tbody></table> Edmond Charles Genet (known as “Citizen Genet”) was French ambassador to the United States in the 1790s, and was accused of engaging in clandestine schemes detrimental to American interests. He was born in Versailles in 1763, the son of a royal bureaucrat. While he was still an adolescent, his intelligence and family connections secured him a clerkship in the foreign affairs ministry. In 1787, he was appointed secretary of the Russian embassy in St. Petersburg, but Genet’s zealous support of the French Revolution led <a href=" " target="_blank">Catherine the Great</a> to order his removal in 1792. Back home in France, Genet was hailed by the ruling Girondin faction as a satria of the republic and welcomed into the highest circles of government. His newfound fame led to his appointment as minister to the United States, charged with the important task of improving the relations between the two countries that had deteriorated since the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">American Revolution</a>. <table align="center" border="0"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1163151394/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1163151394&linkCode=as2&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=KGJEOR2L4P4HT7SQ"><img border="0" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1163151394&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="was" ambassador="" border="0" charles="" citizen="" edmond="" french="" genet="" height="1" in="" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1163151394" states="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" the="" to="" united="" width="1" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385535597/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0385535597&linkCode=as2&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=TBG7IBPGX2J2RG6X"><img border="0" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0385535597&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="was" ambassador="" border="0" charles="" citizen="" edmond="" french="" genet="" height="1" in="" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0385535597" states="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" the="" to="" united="" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> When Genet departed for the United States in early 1793, he was only thirty years old, an impulsive, rash young man whose native talents were never honed by hard work. This was unfortunate, for the difficulty of his assignment was enough to tax even the most artful diplomat. First, Genet was to negotiate with a generally pro-British Washington administration a new treaty granting more commercial favors to France. Second, he was to ask Americans to support attacks upon Spanish and English possessions in North America, schemes that would very likely involve the young nation in international hostilities. And last, Genet, in effect, had to convince the Americans to pay for his mission and its intrigues, for the French government had not appropriated any funds for the purpose; rather, they hoped that the money would come from an advance payment of the $5.6 million debt the United States owed France. In April 1793, Genet arrived in Charleston where he was given a hero’s welcome by a host of state dignitaries. Wanting to see the country, Genet embarked for Philadelphia by land and, after a monthlong, triumphant journey north, arrived in the nation’s capital and was honored, in his own words, with “perpetual fêtes.” The popular adulation, combined with initial amicable meetings with federal officials, apparently led Genet to believe that the success of his mission was assured. He was, of course, wrong. While Genet was on his way to Philadelphia, the Washington administration had issued the Proclamation of Neutrality, forbidding “all acts and proceedings whatsoever” that would involve Americans in the European conflict. Undaunted and apparently oblivious to the niceties of international protocol, Genet set in motion a chain of events that would shortly force the Washington administration to demand his recall. First, without the approval or, indeed, the knowledge of the U.S. government, Genet issued letters of marque for privateers—manned primarily by U.S. crews—to prey on British shipping. The prizes, when brought back to U.S. ports, were to be condemned and sold in courts set up by local French consuls. Immediately, the Washington administration protested that licensing the seizure of foreign ships was a violation of U.S. neutrality and the sale of prizes on U.S. soil was a violation of U.S. sovereignty. To no avail, Genet argued that France asked no more than what it granted the infant U.S. during the American Revolution and that his actions were fully justified by the 1778 Franco-American treaty. A second and potentially more volatile category of Genet’s schemes was his vision of “liberating” Louisiana, Florida, and Canada from their Spanish and English masters. While in South Carolina, Genet delegated the scheme to seize Spanish Florida to the French consul in Charleston, Michel Ange Mangourit, who assembled 300 men under the command of a Revolutionary War veteran, Elijah Clarke. Out west, as the French were well aware, the settlers were furious with the national government due to their inability to secure the navigation of the Spanish-controlled Mississippi River or protect the citizens from Indian attacks. Having been instructed to take advantage of this situation and foment an attack upon New Orleans, Genet was elated when, upon arriving in Philadelphia, a letter awaited him from the Revolutionary War satria George Rogers Clark. Clark, now a deeply embittered and indebted alcoholic living in Louisville, Kentucky, offered to raise a 1,500-man army to march on New Orleans. Genet promptly sent French botanist André Michaux, armed with a letter of recommendation from Thomas Jefferson, to begin talks with the Kentuckians. Both expeditions, however, were dismal failures, primarily due to the inability of Genet to secure funding and the Washington administration’s determined opposition to his plans. The lack of money was due to the Washington administration’s refusal to advance payment on the $5.6 million debt. Upon receiving the news in mid-June, Genet, left without any means of financing his ambitious intrigues and rightly fearing the imminent collapse of his entire mission, attacked the administration in a number of impolitic letters. Underestimating the power of the executive branch and overestimating the force of public opinion, Genet believed he could appeal to the American people over Washington’s head. The effort backfired, however; the American public was dismayed as word leaked of his discourtesies toward the Washington administration. In August, <a href=" " target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson</a> wrote to the American minister in Paris, formally requesting Genet’s recall. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation cooled the ardor of Governor William Moultrie, who immediately forbade any further recruitment for an attack on Florida. Shortly after, before Elijah Clarke and his men could seriously complicate U.S. relations with Spain, they were ordered to disband. In Kentucky, George Rogers Clark’s previous boast that 1,500 men would flock to his banner proved to be exaggerated. No more than a few dozen volunteers ever appeared, nor did the money promised him by the French. Any remaining enthusiasm for attacking New Orleans dissipated when several high officials, including Jefferson and the governor of the Northwest Territories, Arthur St. Clair, made it abundantly clear that anyone who supported an attack upon Spanish territory would be subject to prosecution. Back in France, meanwhile, the newly ascendant Jacobins denounced Genet as an enemy of the republic. Concerned about continuing the supply of U.S. foodstuffs, the French government quickly granted America’s request for a recall, and Genet’s replacement, Jean Fauchet, revoked all commissions issued by Genet and canceled the expeditions against Spanish territories. Faced with the very real possibility of execution should he return to France, Genet chose to remain in the United States. In 1794 he married the daughter of New York Governor George Clinton. After spending eight years on a farm in Long Island, Edmond and Cornelia Genet moved to an estate outside Albany, where they raised six children. Genet spent the rest of his days as a landed gentleman, tinkering with inventions and only occasionally involving himself in politics. He died on Bastille Day, 1834.

Citizen Edmond Charles Genet

Citizen Edmond Charles Genet Edmond Charles Genet (known as “Citizen Genet”) was French ambassador to the United States in the 1790s, a...

Fugitive Slave Act

<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img a="" act="" alt="as" an="" att="" border="0" by="" clay="" compromise="" fugitive="" henry="" in="" kentucky="" larger="" of="" orchestrated="" part="" senator="" slave="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAQb5AG3CRM0WG-kE8vQITH_qnn1VYLDbR-oHtjPCfNn3-h1MGX6TbfCBTXmJOlOFkWXkoDsX23scPTPCfW5nrI5BtKIMSgEIzpJbc-JjJNddJDj66iK7vc-N42ic2n1b9Gjt4vO7y338/s1600/Fugitive-Act.jpg" title="Fugitive" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fugitive Slave Act</td></tr> </tbody></table> The Fugitive Slave Act was enacted in 1850 as a part of a larger compromise orchestrated by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky in an attempt to patch the growing rift between the North and South over the expansion of slavery into the Western territories. The law, which was basically a revision of the 1793 Fugitive Slave Law, was seen as a federal conspiracy by both northerners and southerners and made the prospect of liberty for blacks, north and south, slave and free, seem even further out of reach. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 was passed in a similar climate of sectional differences following the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">American Revolution (1775 - 1783)</a> and the emergence of the United States as a nation. In 1793, slavery had been abolished or was being abolished in eight of the northern states while it remained legal in seven southern states. <table align="center" border="0"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1535370874/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=b11f46a098c1034a6637ba6ea02bfacd" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1535370874&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img a="" act="" alt="as" an="" att="" border="0" by="" clay="" compromise="" fugitive="" height="1" henry="" in="" kentucky="" larger="" of="" orchestrated="" part="" senator="" slave="" src="https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1535370874" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1446032000/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=0581e4441a71657809520ba6fe9be460" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1446032000&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img a="" act="" alt="as" an="" att="" border="0" by="" clay="" compromise="" fugitive="" height="1" henry="" in="" kentucky="" larger="" of="" orchestrated="" part="" senator="" slave="" src="https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1446032000" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> The United States Congress passed the law in 1793 in order to allow slave catchers to return fugitive slaves in the free states back to their owners in the South. The law merely required oral testimony by the slave catcher that the person he had found was indeed a slave. The person thus captured had no guarantee to the right of trial and any person found guilty of harboring the accused fugitive would have to pay a fine of $500. The law limited the rights of blacks in the North whether a fugitive or born free, because it made it possible for slave catchers to abduct any black person from the North and simply claim that he or she was a runaway slave. Even if an abducted black could prove that he or she had been born free or had been set free, their limited rights to a trial meant that such evidence may not be permitted in court. Recognizing the disparity between the constitutional rights given to U.S. citizens and the restrictions placed on blacks in the North due to the 1793 laws, many northerners fought to pass state laws that would provide its black citizens with some effective means of getting around the federal law. Between the passage of the first Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 and the second of 1850, several northern states enacted a series of personal liberty laws that would allow captured blacks accused of being fugitives the right to trial by jury and would require written documentation of their ownership to be presented by their captors. Many such laws also provided for the prosecution of kidnappers who abducted free blacks in the North and forbade the use of state facilities in assisting with such endeavors. Such concessions given to blacks in the North angered southern slave owners, who claimed that the northern states were conspiring against them and denying them of their property and prompted the South to clamor for more rigorous federal enforcement of the 1793 law. The quest for an end to sectional disagreements in both the Whig and Democratic Parties culminated in Clay’s Compromise of 1850. This compromise consisted of five separate bills: <ol> <li>The admission of California as a free state.</li> <li>Moving the Texas border east, out of New Mexico territory.</li> <li>The organization of the Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah territories with a provision that popular sovereignty would decide if they would later be admitted as slave or free states.</li> <li>The Fugitive Slave Act.</li> <li>The abolition of the slave trade in Washington, D.C.</li> </ol> As the biggest concession to slave owners in the South, the new Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 succeeded in rolling back some of the rights attained by blacks in the North by overriding the laws of individual states in mandating the return of runaway slaves. Clay’s bill for the Fugitive Slave Act was divided into four sections. The first allowed the claimant (either the owner or the slave catcher) to take the accused fugitive to any court, commissioner, clerk, marshal, postmaster, or customs official to stake his claim within the state where the alleged fugitive was apprehended. All of the officials of the first section, with the exception of the federal marshal, were granted the authority by the second section to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The third section doubled the fine set down in 1793 from $500 to $1,000 to anyone found guilty of harboring the accused fugitive or to any federal marshal who failed to enforce the law. The last section of the bill gave federal marshals the right to act in place of the owner or the owner’s agent in capturing suspected fugitives. Once the bill was passed into law, the act further mandated that commissioners presiding over the cases of accused fugitive slaves would receive a $5 paperwork fee if the accused was set free and a $10 fee if the accused was found guilty and returned to slavery. Political opponents of the law in the North argued that the difference in the amount paid to the commissioner based on the ruling would entice officials to find in favor of the slave catcher in order to earn more money in such cases. Southerners, on the other hand, argued that the law did not do enough to ensure that their property was being returned and further argued that northerners were conspiring against them by not attempting to enforce the law. Sectional rivalries between northern and southern whites continued as usual, while blacks in both the North and the South found their prospects for freedom in the United States severely limited. Though it is unclear whether or not the law actually stopped slaves from attempting to escape to freedom, it is clear that those blacks who had already found their freedom in the North had reason to fear the new law. Within the first year and a half of the law’s enactment, only five out of eighty-nine accused fugitives were set free. Many northern blacks, fearing seizure, fled further north to Canada. Between the time the bill was passed into law in late September of 1850 and the end of the year, an estimated 3,000 blacks had fled to <a href=" " target="_blank">Canada</a>. Questions of who the law actually benefited and who it conspired against became irrelevant with the eruption of the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">American Civil War (1861 - 1865)</a> and the subsequent enactment of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

Fugitive Slave Act

Fugitive Slave Act The Fugitive Slave Act was enacted in 1850 as a part of a larger compromise orchestrated by Senator Henry Clay of Ke...

Freemen

Based upon the ideas of past radicals, like the Posse Comitatus and Christian Identity movements, the Freemen movement of Montana coalesced around a basic conspiracy-minded distrust of the government, the corporate banking industry, and the meaning of citizenship. Jordan, Montana, rests on the western Great Plains far from urban intellectual centers, but the thoughts of that community’s Freemen stood close to the hearts of many Americans. By the mid-1990s, the ideology of the Freemen reflected powerful fears prevalent in U.S. thought. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Ralph Clark family felt the sting of bankers’ investments and the government’s policies. Caught between rising interest rates and falling property values, the Clarks sought shelter from government foreclosure on their home, which had been mortgaged to finance a land purchase. The seed of discontent planted by the local Posse Comitatus bore fruit as local farmers, like Clark, banded together to “study” their common concerns. The government, they thought, was in cahoots with Jewish bankers and meant to destroy the United States, beginning with bankrupting the farmers and ranchers. In February 1994, the Freemen took action, flooding the area’s county courthouses with documents asserting personal sovereignty and charging elected officials with failing to carry out their duties. When the office holders failed to respond, the Freemen held a “common law” court, found them guilty, and filed liens on their property for as much as $1 million. In March, the county attorney issued arrest warrants against the Freemen for impersonating public servants and charged some with criminal syndicalism. After issuing the order, Nickolas Murnion, the county attorney, said that one of the Freemen approached him, saying that they were going to leave him swinging from a bridge. The Freemen’s plans, however, encompassed more than intimidation of local, state, and federal employees. LeRoy Schweitzer provided the financial instrument for the group’s initial exploits. Embittered by run-ins with the <a href=" " target="_blank">Internal Revenue Service</a> (IRS), Schweitzer came upon a solution for revealing the government and banking fraud. By using a line of “credit” from the liens filed against local and national officials, the Freemen could supposedly access money without interference from financial institutions. By utilizing this system, the Freemen believed they could prove the falsehood of the banking system while paying off their debts. In Montana, the Freemen exercised their own law and order to score a series of successes. Schweitzer’s credit scheme converted liens into “LeRoy checks.” Several businesses, state agencies, and even the IRS accepted the payments. The Freemen have maintained that they paid off their debts fairly. Schweitzer believed it was “honorable to repay a debt in double, which he did for himself and anyone else who needed relief.” Of course if the state or federal agency sent the Freemen a return check for the overpaid amount, they kept it as their own money. The Freemen eventually issued 3,432 checks totaling $15.5 billion. With this evidence, the Freemen thought it was possible to expose the government and return the nation to a sound financial basis. Mobilized by an influx of cash, the Freemen purchased a variety of devices to send and receive information. Schweitzer filled his home with the latest computers, modems, laser printers, and facsimile machines that allowed the group to tap into international sources. The men also attempted to purchase materials for armed confrontation, such as radio equipment, rifles, and high-power ammunition. In June 1995, four Freemen instructors held three-day training sessions for $300 per pupil. Schweitzer offered to waive the $300 fee for the attendees, largely out-of-state Patriot organizations, if they would pledge their manpower, skills, and armaments to help found their own sovereign territory. The FBI informer within the cabin witnessed LeRoy Schweitzer’s presentation on economics, which captured the attention of the students during the threeday seminar. This hands-on instruction included how to file liens against private individuals or government officials and how to write “LeRoy” checks. The presentation also included segments on forming independent republics with small armies of approximately 200 men. In September 1995, the Freemen leaders moved their home base from a cabin outside Roundup, Montana, to a new location, dubbed Justus Township, outside of Jordan, Montana, on the Ralph Clark ranch. For almost seven months, the FBI watched, waited, and collected more evidence on the Freemen as hundreds of people entered the compound to hear their message. In the end, a standoff resulted from the local community’s unwillingness to put up with the Freemen. In early March 1996, the Freemen issued a statement that they would arrest and punish all trespassers, including ranchers who leased land from the state of Montana. The threatened ranchers, tired of the FBI’s “Weaver Fever” inactivity—a reference to the agency’s hesitation after the botched Ruby Ridge assault—approached Sheriff Charles Phipps about forming a legal posse to protect local citizens and arrest the Freemen. On 25 March 1996 the community’s resolve forced the FBI to move quickly and arrest Schweitzer and another leader, Dan Petersen. Although the standoff continued eighty-one days after the arrest of key leaders, the Freemen movement had died from a lack of support in the eastern Montana communities. Support from fellow militia groups fell short of expectations as only ten Patriots mustered for a rally in nearby Lewistown. The FBI’s evidence eventually helped convict fifteen Freemen and convinced six to plead guilty. At the turn of the twenty-first century, the goals of the Freemen nevertheless still resonated in rural America, echoing concerns about getting back to the faith of Christianity, limiting the role of government, and revising the financial system of the United States. The nonviolent negotiations carried out by law enforcement in 1996 contrasted with the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents earlier in the decade and forced organizations like the Freemen to rethink their methods of battling cultural, political, and economic decline.

Freemen

Based upon the ideas of past radicals, like the Posse Comitatus and Christian Identity movements, the Freemen movement of Montana coalesced ...

Freemasonry

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img a="" aims="" alt="reaching" america="" and="" border="0" freemasonry="" have="" in="" influence="" of="" part="" played="" some="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1lyF2MSXxsyFxPtoe2JO8JY23uZzYC4NHbwffehRLtif5J66Sq-SELlL7SaJDEOb6vXbDwGFOwUF8T-UviGxAt63fVgXX8unCN9cl68_q_53Wf7dWVmRM90u61g2f_L-zS5BpbcVdIe8/s1600/Freemasonry.gif" subversive="" title="Freemasonry" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Freemasonry</td></tr> </tbody></table> Claims about the Freemasons’ far-reaching influence and subversive aims have played a part in some of America’s most enduring conspiracy theories. The Order of Free and Accepted Masons, an all-male fraternal organization, has had chapters on the North American continent since the 1730s, and has featured prominently in U.S. conspiracy thinking since the late eighteenth century. Conspiracy theory about the Freemasons points to the semisecretive nature of the organization and the acknowledged political involvement of many of its members to support the allegation that the Freemasons are an extremely powerful and wealthy cabal of antireligious subversives who have infiltrated business and government structures worldwide. Historical Origins The history of Freemasonry can be difficult to trace, in part because many of the sources available are markedly biased. Masonic historians claim that only Freemasons, who have been initiated into the secrets of the order, can accurately write its history and charge that non-Masonic scholars are frequently swayed by anti-Masonic sentiment. Conversely, those who center conspiracy theories on Masonry argue that Freemasons have participated in massive cover-ups of their own activities, which make the task of the “truth-seeking” historian arduous, if not perilous. <table align="center" border="0"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1614270929/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1614270929&linkCode=as2&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=MEIZIQUXWRKQPWC4"><img border="0" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1614270929&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img a="" aims="" alt="reaching" america="" and="" border="0" freemasonry="" have="" height="1" in="" influence="" of="" part="" played="" some="" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1614270929" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" subversive="" width="1" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500513023/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0500513023&linkCode=as2&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=O5BOWDUTK54R7XIW"><img border="0" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0500513023&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img a="" aims="" alt="reaching" america="" and="" border="0" freemasonry="" have="" height="1" in="" influence="" of="" part="" played="" some="" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0500513023" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" subversive="" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> Both Masonic historians and many anti-Masonic conspiracy theorists assert that the roots of the order date back to antiquity, though most third-party historians dispute this claim. The craftsmen’s guild on which the present-day fraternal society was based can, indeed, be traced back to the medieval era. Some of the fraternal society’s characteristic features, such as its ritual initiation and secret signs of membership, can also be accounted for by the nature of masonry as a profession; members sought to protect their status by developing elaborate forms and rituals to ascertain eligibility and proclaim membership, and since masons tended to be itinerant laborers, they created signs, such as the muchtouted “secret handshake,” in order to assure recognition of guild membership. The mythology embraced by Masonic tradition, however, reaches back more than 5,000 years to encompass the architect of Solomon’s Temple, Hiram, who is said to have been murdered because he would not reveal the secrets of Masonry. Some historians also link the Freemasons to the Knights Templar, a crusading monastic order outlawed by the papacy in the fourteenth century. While pro-Masonic historians tend to elaborate a long history of anti-Masonic persecution, conspiracy thinkers see in the same narrative a history of secret conspiratorial plots that occasionally come to light, but that have never been fully exposed or interrupted. <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img a="" aims="" alt="reaching" america="" and="" border="0" freemasonry="" have="" in="" influence="" of="" part="" played="" some="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5VH5Z8dh1Rj8diqVw6oeXQvuQoavbWSZ0mga5-H7yu1925rHb38-0-D3i-PM7aV9h7UVa5EAsB-edCrmteS0HYNbRn9G_9LLF0calxz0NAlQJNNLu3iNGpvCHrqtv5SI2DQGMydzdJeg/s1600/Freemasonry-step.jpg" subversive="" title="Freemasonry" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Freemasonry step</td></tr> </tbody></table> Notwithstanding these rival accounts of Freemasonry’s past, most historians outside the debate understand the fraternal order of Freemasons to have emerged in Britain in the early eighteenth century. These historians distinguish “nonoperative” or “speculative” Freemasonry as a fraternal order whose function is primarily social, from the much older craftsmen’s guild that served professional functions and which they term “operative” Masonry. “Nonoperative” Masons were attracted to the guild by its combination of rationalist/scientific inquiry and deep respect for tradition and fellowship. Eventually, as the guild system died out and as “speculative” membership grew, the organization came under the leadership of the nonoperatives and was transformed into the modern order. Membership of the Freemasons grew rapidly in the eighteenth century; the organization spread across Europe and into the North American colonies, with the first American lodges forming soon after 1730. Conspiratorial Accusations in the Eighteenth Century The first century of Freemasonry saw explosive growth in the popularity of the order on both the European and North American continents, fueled by widespread interest in the Enlightenment ideas upon which the order based its central tenets and, especially on the American continent, by the perceived social advantages of membership. As membership grew, so did public suspicion of the order. As early as the 1720s, charges of immorality and lewdness were levied against the Freemasons. Since the proceedings of Masonic gatherings were secret, nonmembers could not find out what the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">organization</a> actually did during their meetings and dinners. Critics claimed that Masons habitually overindulged in alcohol, and many also insisted that the all-male meetings were little more than mass orgies, at which sodomy and ritual flagellation were practiced. These complaints did not, in themselves, amount to charges of conspiracy, although later conspiracy theories adapted and reiterated them. The earliest articulation of Freemasonry as a conspiracy came from the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed that the order intended to undermine the Church and its teachings. The Church’s organized opposition to Freemasonry began in 1738, in the form of a papal bull issued by Clement XII, which condemned Freemasonry and excommunicated all Masons. Numerous other bulls issued in the following decades denounced the secretive practices of the order and declared it an enemy of Christianity. Masonic chapters were also intermittently accused of political conspiracy in Europe. During the 1730s and 1740s, Masonic meetings were interrupted and even banned, and members of lodges were interrogated by police in Holland, France, and elsewhere, as state forces came to suspect the organization of subversive political aims and antiroyalist beliefs. The Enlightenment ideals of religious pluralism and individual liberty embraced by the organization increased church and state suspicion of Freemasonry in the eighteenth century; it was argued that the conspiratorial actions of the group were simply the logical extension of its radical philosophies. Conspiracy thinking about Freemasonry on the American continent drew upon all of these charges, though early American Freemasons tended to be the target of mockery more than of sustained investigation. In the first half of the eighteenth century, American Masonic lodges, generally less concerned with Enlightenment thought than many European lodges, functioned primarily as social clubs. Following the pattern set by British lodges, they often rejected membership applications from individuals who did not make an “independent” living, excluding a sizeable portion of the colonial middle classes. After 1750, many of those rejected began to set up their own Masonic lodges, known as “Ancient” Freemasons. Members of these lodges were strongly inclined to the colonial cause, while members of the older lodges (dubbed “Moderns” by the “Ancients”) often tended to loyalism, though neither group took an official stance. Nevertheless, the Masonic affiliation of many key players during the American Revolution led the order to identify itself, in the post-Revolutionary period, with the core values of the new Republic. At the 1793 dedication of the U.S. Capitol, for instance, President George Washington wore Masonic garb and performed a modified Masonic ritual during the ceremony, assisted by other Masonic brethren; a silver plate laid over the cornerstone located the dedication in the 13th year of American independence and the 5,793rd year of Masonic history. Conspiracy thinkers also point to the incorporation of Masonic symbolism in the design of the Great Seal of the United States as proof that Freemasonic influence on government was pervasive in this period; however, Freemasons deny that the all-seeing eye atop the pyramid is a specifically Masonic symbol, although it resembles some design elements used by Masons. Even as the public profile of U.S. Freemasonry improved in the 1790s, the first major wave of conspiracy thinking about Masonry was cresting in Europe. John Robison’s exposé, Proofs of a Conspiracy against All Religions and Governments of Europe, published in 1798, laid the blame for the French Revolution on the Freemasons, who, he claimed, had been thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted by a supposedly atheistic secret society known as the <a href=" " target="_blank">Illuminati</a>, which was founded by Adam Weishaupt, a Jesuit priest, in 1776. Weishaupt became a Freemason in 1777 and believed that Freemasonry could help him to spread Illuminati beliefs, which were based on Enlightenment thought. Those who raised the alarm over the Illuminati charged that the extent to which they had infiltrated and transformed Masonry was unknown. Robison’s work raised an alarm in the United States. Congregationalist minister and Federalist supporter <a href=" " target="_blank">Jedidiah Morse</a> was among those who publicly denounced the conspiracy, which he represented as a grave threat to the young republic. Others, such as Timothy Dwight, president of Yale University, joined in the growing alarm. Morse insisted he did not mean to condemn all Freemasons; rather, he insisted, it was only “Illuminized Masonry” that he meant to warn against. Morse, a Federalist, claimed that the conspirators planned to make inroads onto the American continent through the Jeffersonian party. Other Federalists took up the charges, and even Masonic brother George Washington admitted to concern over the dangerous presence of “Illuminized Masonry” in the United States. Anti-Federalists denied links to secret societies and responded with conspiracy charges of their own, such as Abraham Bishop, who, in Proofs of a Conspiracy against Christianity, and the Government of the United States (1802), charged Robison with royalist sympathies and accused his supporters of seeking to undermine U.S. democracy. “Illuminized” Masonry remains a central theme in present-day conspiracy theory about the Freemasons, but the Federalist-era controversy did not tarnish the image of Freemasonry among most members of the post-Revolutionary middle and elite classes. On the contrary, the upper levels of U.S. society, and those who aspired to join them, were increasingly drawn to Freemasonry. The strong identification of the order with key American values enhanced Freemasonry’s popularity in the post-Revolutionary United States; even more importantly, the order served increasingly useful networking functions in a nation that was actively rebuilding its own political and social infrastructure. Masonic membership was associated with status and power; accordingly, those seeking status and power also sought to become Masons. Anti-Masonic Movement The identification of the Masonic order with the nation’s most powerful and influential citizens drew increasing suspicion in the first part of the nineteenth century, culminating in the first national anti-Masonic movement in the late 1820s and early 1830s. In contrast to the alarm raised in the wake of Robison’s book, which, for the most part, confined itself to members of the clergy and government officials, the anti-Masonic movement of this period was a genuinely populist movement. The movement was touched off by the abduction and suspected murder of William Morgan, who was in the process of publishing an exposé of Freemasonry, in 1826. When his abductors received light sentences, many charged that a cover-up was in process. The reformist movement that developed in the wake of the Morgan affair claimed that Freemasons were anti-Christian and antidemocratic, that they deliberately sought power and conspired to elevate the social position of Masons, and that, if unchecked, their growth would have disastrous consequences for the young nation. They supported this claim by pointing out that secret societies were on the rise; for instance, a Massachusetts congregationalist, the Reverend Peter Sanborn, argued in 1829 that a secret alliance existed between Freemasons and Phi Beta Kappa. Noting that up to a third of college-educated men were yearly inducted into the secret honor society, Sanborn argued that a subversive plot supported by educated youth and well-placed older Masons would destroy the nation. In response, in 1831 Phi Beta Kappa abandoned its secret practices. The anti-Masonic movement also argued that Freemasonry undermined marriage by forcing husbands to keep secrets from wives, who were not allowed to take part in Masonic proceedings. Women, alienated by the all-male order, joined the anti-Masonic movement in significant numbers. Suspicion of Masonic practices led to the formation of an Anti-Masonic Party, the first major independent U.S. third party, in 1827. The party held its first national convention in 1830 and in 1832 ran a candidate for president against the Masonic incumbent, <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Andrew Jackson</a>. After 1833, the party withdrew as an active force in national politics, focusing on state and local-level campaigns. The movement continued to decline in the late 1830s and the party had disbanded by 1843. During the years of the anti-Masonic campaign and its aftermath, national membership in the Freemasons declined significantly, and the period saw the formation of a number of rival fraternal organizations such as the Odd Fellows. However, by the 1850s, Masonic membership was again on the rise. During this decade and especially after the Civil War, the Freemasons reformed their reputation and regained much of their former prestige. Changes in the organization’s self-presentation implicitly addressed some of the charges of conspiracy thinkers; the new Masonry professed Christianity, refuting claims that they sought to undermine organized religion, and countered claims of self-interest and greed by actively promoting charity. Masons also responded to the long-standing objections to the all-male nature of the society by forming a female order, the Order of the Eastern Star, in 1869. In 1867, the National Christian Association revived conspiracy charges against the Masons; their campaign led to the presidential candidacy of General John Wolcott Phelps on an anti-Masonic platform in 1880. Phelps performed very poorly in the polls, receiving only a few hundred votes. After this campaign, anti-Masonic groups avoided electoral politics. Conspiracy charges against the Freemasons, however, continue until the present day. Conspiracy theory about the Freemasons generally does not directly engage the legacy of the Prince Hall Freemasons, an African American Masonic organization founded in Boston in 1775. The African American lodge received its charter from the British Grand Lodge during the American Revolution; after the Revolution, other U.S. lodges refused to recognize the group, ostensibly on the grounds that it was not “regular” because it had been chartered by a foreign power. Racist and segregationist sentiment among many members of the Freemasons, particularly in southern lodges, prevented their recognition of the Prince Hall order; this nonrecognition lasted in many cases until the 1990s. Prince Hall Masonry is rarely charged with the kind of far-reaching influence and subversive aims of Freemasonry in general; many conspiracy theories do not even mention its existence. The Present Christian conspiracy theorists in particular continue to contend that the group’s agenda is both antiChristian and antidemocratic. Late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century conspiracy theorists see Freemasons as the key to the New World Order conspiracy. Others allege that the group is satanic, that it worships a goat-headed Luciferian god known as Baphomet, and that it is actively involved in plots to cover up UFO discoveries. Freemasonry has been tapped as part of the conspiracy to <a href=" " target="_blank">assassinate John F. Kennedy</a>, and also plays a key role in conspiracy thinking about the <a href=" " target="_blank">Oklahoma City bombing</a> and, more recently, the bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon on <a href=" " target="_blank">September 11</a>. In addition to forming the center of many conspiracy theories, Freemasonry, as one of the oldest U.S. conspiracy theories, also acts as an index of thinking about conspiracy. Anti-Masonic sentiment in general and the anti-Masonic political movement in particular have been cited by mid-twentiethcentury political theorists as a key example of the “paranoid style” in U.S. politics. These scholars argue that such large-scale suspicion of the Freemasons, a harmless fraternal organization, reflected U.S. xenophobia and anxiety. More recently, some populist historians of the period have suggested that, in fact, many Masons did possess a great deal of influence and often used it nepotistically, if not conspiratorially. Since the post-Revolutionary periode saw a concentration of power and wealth among the U.S. upper classes, they observe, antebellum anxiety about Masonry reflected not paranoid suspicion but a well-founded and legitimate concern over the unequal <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">distribution</a> of wealth and power in the republic.

Freemasonry

Freemasonry Claims about the Freemasons’ far-reaching influence and subversive aims have played a part in some of America’s most endurin...

Vince Foster

Vince Foster

Vince Foster In total, there have been three law enforcement investigations and two U.S. congressional inquiries into the 1993 death of ...

Henry Ford

<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="industrialist" border="0" century="" early="" ford="" henry="" of="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPjGhcrFb7r3leEwpyC7HlS1YFAix59tIMdSotFRtI0kygEDU97VfoTKyYVH7lT8ZBIhjYjxvf2xavtjvymSaKNqNTObOm1HP7iHNX3lQTousNl02aFwi2GyDrey_-tvSgeFAnYdR8bnE/s1600/Henry-ford.jpg" the="" title="Henry" twentieth="" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Henry Ford</td></tr> </tbody></table> In addition to being the foremost U.S. industrialist of the early twentieth century, Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor company, was also one of America’s more vocal antisemitic conspiracy theorists. During the years following <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">World War I</a>, when he was no doubt one of the most powerful and influential men in the world, Ford oversaw the publication of numerous antisemitic articles in the widely read journal that was seen as the public forum for his personal philosophy, the Dearborn Independent. The 91 articles total 992 pages in the collected edition Ford published beginning in 1920, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. With titles such as “How the Jews in the U.S. Conceal Their Strength” and “The Scope of Jewish Dictatorship in the U.S.,” the articles claim Jewish involvement in every aspect of U.S. life, from banking to baseball. The standard attacks on <a href=" " target="_blank">Hollywood</a> and Wall Street as centers of Jewish power are included, but less obvious targets come under scrutiny as well, and it seems difficult to understand how jazz, for instance, was interpreted as a tool of the Jewish conspiracy (“Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music”). <table align="center" border="0"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1451645589/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1451645589&linkCode=as2&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=SX4QZTYRUEAGQ3CU"><img border="0" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1451645589&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="industrialist" border="0" century="" early="" ford="" height="1" henry="" of="" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1451645589" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" the="" twentieth="" width="1" /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553394185/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=c898df6a3216f4a852de601c4599073a" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0553394185&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="industrialist" border="0" century="" early="" ford="" height="1" henry="" of="" src="https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=0553394185" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" the="" twentieth="" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> The International Jew also introduced Americans to Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and in many editions of that infamous antisemitic forgery, Henry Ford’s own approving comments occupy a central place in the preface. Norman Cohn, perhaps the leading foremost expert on Protocols argues that “all in all The International Jew probably did more than any other work to make the Protocols world-famous” (159). Between the Dearborn Independent’s circulation of around 500,000 and The International Jew’smassive print runs, Ford’s views had a great impact on the United States of the 1920s. In a society that had been disrupted by World War I and was beginning to be split by labor movements, Ford’s claims that the war had been fought on orders from Jewish bankers and that unions were merely a “front” for the Jewish conspiracy had significant political implications. Ford, ever the populist, could never believe that the true working man believed in the unions and opposed certain aspects of Ford’s industrial ideology, so he was sure that “working men are the tools of some manipulator who seeks his own ends through them”. That is, the force of the Jewish conspiracy, this time in the guise of Bolshevism, lay behind the various movements toward unionization and labor reform. Faced with what he saw as an intensification of Jewish subterfuge, Ford increased his opposition to supposed conspiracy. He began forcing all of his car dealers to distribute the Dearborn Independent (although some quit their relations with Ford over the issue). Then, in an attempt to dig up hard evidence of the international Jewish cabal, Ford employed an army of private detectives whom he ordered to investigate prominent Jews. The detectives even investigated non-Jews whose beliefs lay to the left of Ford’s rightist populism (including three presidents— Hoover, Taft, and Wilson), suspecting them of being nothing more than Jewish fronts. These tactics did not meet with universal approval, to say the least, but since Ford and his followers saw the press as yet another front for the Jewish cabal, the more the mainstream press ridiculed Ford’s ideas, the more evidence Ford saw of conspiracy. Meanwhile, Ford’s ideas were finding a receptive audience overseas. Translated as The Eternal Jew, the Dearborn Independent articles took Germany by storm. Ford’s biography became an instant bestseller, and Nazis questioned at Nuremberg were later to emphasize Ford’s influence on their own developing antisemitism. Hitler had a life-sized picture of Ford next to his desk, and would refer to the U.S. automobile magnate as his “inspiration.” Ford is the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf, and some argue that Hitler went so far as to paraphrase many passages from the Dearborn Independent in his work. Many suggest that Ford may even have directly funded Hitler, as Hitler himself is said to have said this in private (though he denied it publicly). Some also charge that Ford financed the publication and distribution of The International Jew in Europe. Whether these charges are true or not, many consider Hitler’s “intellectual” indebtedness to Ford proof enough of Ford’s indirect implication in the Nazi conspiracy to carry out the “final solution.” Ford was later to apologize publicly for the articles published in the Dearborn Independent and The International Jew in a retraction published in every major U.S. newspaper. While Ford claimed to have no knowledge of what the Dearborn Independent contained, most saw through this statement. New York papers doubted his professions of innocence, and Hitler’s circle was convinced that the retraction had been written under duress, with Ford finally submitting to the power of the international Jews. Even after Ford’s retraction there seemed to be indirect evidence that he was covertly propagating the idea of the international Jewish conspiracy. Union leaders made formal complaints that foremen at Ford’s plants were distributing antisemitic propaganda to workers, attempting to cut down union membership by linking it to the Jewish-Communist plot. There were strong suspicions that certain high-ranking employees of Ford’s European divisions were Nazis. Then, on Ford’s birthday in July 1933, Hitler sent his best wishes along with “The Grand Cross of the German Eagle”; this highest of honors had been bestowed on only four other men, one of whom was Benito Mussolini. In spite of public pressure to refuse the honor, Ford accepted. Ultimately, Ford opposed Hitler and Mussolini during the war, but even in this selesai turn there was an element of his old conspiracy theory, for Ford came to believe that even Hitler and Mussolini were mere puppets whose strings were pulled by a secret, insidious force.

Henry Ford

Henry Ford In addition to being the foremost U.S. industrialist of the early twentieth century, Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor c...