Most Significant Groups in US History

[Tiffany B.]

becky--
first of all, slavery didn't cause the south to secede, because if it had the south would have left decades before the Civil War. It was the people's views on slavery that caused the dispute between the northern and southern states. The actual slaves did not force the south to leave the union, their disagreement did. And also the fact that Lincoln was elected president (after the south threatened to secede if he was actually elected) also contributed to the south leaving the union. Slavery was not responsible for "destroying" the country that it helped build. By the way, your group wouldn't be important without my group, because the abolitionists popularity was based on the existence of slavery in America.

[Alex G.]

Well I guess I owe a few informational posts, so away we go:

Throughout history, athletes have been looked upon as a vanity, a way of forgetting life's little problems. If you go back far enough, one can observe that in Ancient Rome, athletes brought the rich and the poor together at the coliseum. The poor, who lived at or near the poverty level would go to see the gladiators compete, sitting way up high above, while their superiors sat well down below. However, the fact that these poor, unfortuante people could find joy while watching these men compete really says something. They were able to put life's problems in their "back pockets" for a while and simply concentrate on the entertainment.

With this in mind, it may even be argued that in fact, these athletes kept the poor going, allowed them their sanity. The same argument can be made today. In a time where when you get up in the morning to when you fall asleep at night all you hear about is war and terrorism, it is quite amazing that people can come home and put their worries to rest for a while, and watch the game. The fact that people all around the world can unite to watch the world cup is stupendous.

That brings us to The United States. One may ask, how is it possible that a group such as athletes can possibly compete with a group that has altered our everyday life. How can a group of entertainers, who merely compete in what in reality is well, not the real world be compared to a group such as the scientists, or the military. Well, this is an excellent question. The answer is, athletes bring poeple together. Athletes give people a reason to be unified. During the olympics, people from all walks of life: democrats and republicans, Blacks and Whites, the rich and the poor, join together to root as one. I don't know how many other groups can unify so many people as one.

[samr]

cwilliam24477 said:

Ok-informational post #2: Environmentalists dictate the economy.

Currently, American manufacturing is hitting huge lows, because of its inability to keep up with global environmental standards. American cars (the most prominent example) can no longer be sold in Japan, Korea, and Germany (not to mention many others countries) because they do not meet the "clean emissions" standards of these nations. Ford and GM have watched sales drop precipitously as the global market closes. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge the importance of environmentalists and so, refuse to correct their designs. As American manufacturing loses its international market, it loses its ability to export and generate revenue through trade. The national debt will soar higher.

Furthermore, the American economy is almost entirely dependent on oil. Environmental groups have been warning of the effects of such a dependence, but the average consumer has not heeded the message. Already, our need for oil has involved us in two official wars (the Persian Gulf Wars). As oil supplies are depleted, the demand will only grow higher (should we refuse to switch to alternative fuels), plunging this nations into more frequent, more expensive wars. Foreign policy would become a quagmire.

I disagree. In this you talked about foreign environmental restrictions, not American ones. Also, could you mention some of the environmental groups that warned Americans of oil dependence?

[Tiffany B.]

Danny T --

i agree with you that baby boomers are a significant group in history because they still have an effect on current events. For example, a couple of days ago on the news, the anchor mentioned that Barack Obama was directing his campaign to appeal to the baby boomers for the chance of winning the '08 elections.

[williama]

To Jake V

I disagree, American scientists could have put a close to WWII, but by the U.S. showing its hand of cards (Atomic Bombs), the cold war had resulted out of it. And you know that the Cold War caused mass paranoia and hysteria across the U.S., and furthermore the conspiracy theory of Kennedy's assassination, due to his ineffciciency in handling the Bay of Pigs invasion, and led to the public mistrust of the U.S. government that continues on to this day

[thad]

samr said:

thad said:

@sam-

Are miners still prominent in today's world economy? They were pretty important in their time, but do they still even mine stuff in America? I thought most of the mining industry was outsourced to other nations, but could you correct me if I'm wrong?

Miners are still extremely prominent today. They still mine everything that they mined back in the 1800's, and we still have lots of resources left. As for outsourcing, why would we do that? We have all of the materials we need right here, so we use our own miners to get it cheaper. If we outsourced, that would mean we have to buy the resources from other countries. Instead, we could mine our own resources AND sell them to make money.

Okay, cool. Thanks for answering my question.

[Jake V]

tiff5439 said:

becky--
The actual slaves did not force the south to leave the union, their disagreement did.

Yeah, but without the slaves, there wouldn;t have been a disagreement at all, so secession is still a valid argument for the importance of slaves.

[Michel'le F.]

tiff5439 said:

becky--
first of all, slavery didn't cause the south to secede, because if it had the south would have left decades before the Civil War. It was the people's views on slavery that caused the dispute between the northern and southern states. The actual slaves did not force the south to leave the union, their disagreement did. And also the fact that Lincoln was elected president (after the south threatened to secede if he was actually elected) also contributed to the south leaving the union. Slavery was not responsible for "destroying" the country that it helped build. By the way, your group wouldn't be important without my group, because the abolitionists popularity was based on the existence of slavery in America.

I AGREEEEEEEEEEE. Not to pounce on you Becky but the civil war proves how significant slaves were to this country. Whether you agreed with slavery or not, the WHOLE country was torn, split in two, divided. It hadn't been like that since before the Declaration of Independence. Maybe the country was torn over the issue of slavery, but that does not make slaves any less of a contribution to this country. They were the foundation, hands down.

[Jake V]

williama said:

To Jake V

I disagree, American scientists could have put a close to WWII, but by the U.S. showing its hand of cards (Atomic Bombs), the cold war had resulted out of it. And you know that the Cold War caused mass paranoia and hysteria across the U.S., and furthermore the conspiracy theory of Kennedy's assassination, due to his ineffciciency in handling the Bay of Pigs invasion, and led to the public mistrust of the U.S. government that continues on to this day

Dude, your arguing FOR me there. You assert that the Cold War resulted from the Bomb, and while the Cold war and the mass hysteria it caused were bad things, they were very important things, so i win.

[Alex G.]

cwilliam24477 said:

Ok-informational post #2: Environmentalists dictate the economy.

Furthermore, the American economy is almost entirely dependent on oil. Environmental groups have been warning of the effects of such a dependence, but the average consumer has not heeded the message. Already, our need for oil has involved us in two official wars (the Persian Gulf Wars). As oil supplies are depleted, the demand will only grow higher (should we refuse to switch to alternative fuels), plunging this nations into more frequent, more expensive wars. Foreign policy would become a quagmire.

Caitlin-
I think that this particular quote contradicts your whole idea that environmentalists in fact dictate the economy. If this statement was in fact true, then we would all be driving hydrogen fuel cell cars. If the environmentalists did in fact dictate the economy, then the general consumer would have long ago heeded the message.

In addition, if the ever-depleted oil supply does in fact plunge our country in to more expensive wars, then in fact it means that the environmentalists do not control the economy even more. If the environmentalist groups truly had their way, it can be argued that we would not need oil to the same extent, thus allowing us to in fact distance ourselves from the possibility of future so-called "oil wars".

I hope I'm not missing your point.

[samr]

jvogt said:

williama said:

To Jake V

I disagree, American scientists could have put a close to WWII, but by the U.S. showing its hand of cards (Atomic Bombs), the cold war had resulted out of it. And you know that the Cold War caused mass paranoia and hysteria across the U.S., and furthermore the conspiracy theory of Kennedy's assassination, due to his ineffciciency in handling the Bay of Pigs invasion, and led to the public mistrust of the U.S. government that continues on to this day

Dude, your arguing FOR me there. You assert that the Cold War resulted from the Bomb, and while the Cold war and the mass hysteria it caused were bad things, they were very important things, so i win.

He does have a very good point

[Ayesha M.]

tiff5439 said:

ayeesha ... are there any prominent jingoists?

i am sory i dont understand your question

[sophieq1]

My final info post for why vice presidents are the most influential group in US history. I have said that vice presidents have provided stability. I believe that stability is very important, but for those that aren't convinved, the stability has helped keep America a democratic country. America's democratic government is perhaps its most defining feature, and therefore, the group that helps maintain it is the most influential group in US history. There have been 8 vice presidents that have become president via the president's death. (4 assassinations, 4 natural deaths.) Democracy is not an easy government to maintain, for is it not much easier to simply let one person make all the decisions without having to worry about it? This happened in Rome with its experiment of democracy. Vice presidents step in for the presidents deaths. Without them, the people might have thrown their support to one person or group (perhaps the military) upon a president's death, and the next thing you know, America's experiment of democracy is also a failure.




Alex S. - I would disagree with your arguement that all Vice Presidents provide stability. Vice Presidents have been seen to be dead end positions politically. For example, President Roosevelt was shoved into the Vice Presidency by the political Boss Thomas Platt because he wanted Roosevelt to not succed. He placed him there because he knew that there was no where to go from that position and that his ideas would be overlooked and that he would have no power as a Vice President. Now obviously, Roosevelt did go on to do great things but that was within his Presidency not his Vice President term.
As for when and if the president dies leaving the Vice President to become their successor can not always be stable either. Many Vice Presidents, although may seem to support their President have different points of view of how the office should be run. Some VP's arent even in the same party! A fantastic example of this was when Harrison died and Tyler became his Whig successor. Everyone thought Tyler supported Whig ways when in fact he despised them. When he vetoed the national bank, almost all his cabinet resigned on him. Tyler became a man without a party yet he was our President. This kind of rapid change in policy and inconsistancy is the opposite of stability. Additionally, his lack of support from his own cabient is rather troubling.

[Jordan K.]

williama said:

To Jake V

I disagree, American scientists could have put a close to WWII, but by the U.S. showing its hand of cards (Atomic Bombs), the cold war had resulted out of it. And you know that the Cold War caused mass paranoia and hysteria across the U.S., and furthermore the conspiracy theory of Kennedy's assassination, due to his ineffciciency in handling the Bay of Pigs invasion, and led to the public mistrust of the U.S. government that continues on to this day

Will-
I don't think the Cold War is really comparable to WW2. WW2 resulted in the death of over 3% of the entire world's population, and sure, the Cold War caused a massive arms buildup, but neither side ever launched an atomic bomb. Both the US and the Soviet Union knew that doing so would result in the complete destruction of the Earth. Perhaps the utter fear of this on both sides prevented the next great war from starting between the United States and the Soviet Union.

[Jake V]

samr said:

He does have a very good point

Damn right i do.

[dylanj]

alex g-
i agree that in the 20th and 21st century athletics has doen an amazing job of unting the country. but what about in early Ameirca? do u have any specific examples of significant athletes in the 1700's or 1800's?

[Jordan K.]

Jake-
Can you give me any examples of scientists that influenced the early colonial periods of America?

[YmaniB*]

So...Ive been searching and searching throguh all 36 PAGES!! and for some reason I cant seem to find a question..so here is my last POST about the revivalists...PLEASE just ask 5 questions..

ANYWAYZ..
The Burned Over District- an area where religious conversion due to the leadership of Charles G Finney passed from one place to another as if it was a disease.
Cane Ridge, Kentucky-Largest Revival of the time. Over 10,000 people attended. This was a revival Western style
Western Revivalism-Very rowdy, and loud. Emotional and uplifting, this bought the "way" of praise to a whole new point

[Michel'le F.]

tolstoi,

quaker politicians after revolution:

Isaac Ambrose Barber (1852-1909) — Republican. President of Farmers and Mechanics National Bank of Easton; member of Maryland state house of delegates, 1896; U.S. Representative from Maryland 1st District, 1897-99; Maryland Republican state chair, 1900-04.


Edward Bates (1793-1869) — Republican. Delegate to Missouri state constitutional convention from St. Louis County, 1820; Missouri state attorney general, 1820-21; member of Missouri state house of representatives, 1822, 1834; U.S. Representative from Missouri at-large, 1827-29; member of Missouri state senate, 1830; state court judge in Missouri, 1853-56; candidate for Republican nomination for President, 1860; U.S. Attorney General, 1861-64.

John Beard (1795-1874) — Member of Indiana state house of representatives, 1827-31; member of Indiana state senate, 1831-41, 1846-49; delegate to Republican National Convention from Indiana, 1860.

John Chew Thomas (1764-1836) — Member of Maryland state house of delegates, 1796-97; U.S. Representative from Maryland 2nd District, 1799-1801.

THERES ACTUALLY LIKE A MILLION QUAKER POLITICIANS AND I REALLY DONT KNOW WHY I WAS ABOUT TO LIST ALL OF THEM BUT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED..........politicalgraveyard.com/group/quaker.html

[Ayesha M.]

melissaf said:

makdoom said:

Jingoists are the most significant group in United States history because if they were not around, the United States would not be a world power today. Jingoists, which were a group that came around the 1890's and wanted the United States to make the world recongnize it's power with military force. They were the group that advocated the country to get involved into war at the end of the 19th centry. They pushed for the war on Spain to free Cuba, and get involved with the Philippines and Puerto Rico. We only started doing things on a world scale bases due to their efforts of pushing U.S. out of an isolationist state.

Jingoists, Jingoists, Jingoists.... AHHH such a fun word! Except I know absolutely nothing about them. Did the Jingoists create any important organizations and what kind of people were involved in this group?

haha... of course i would get the fun word, yay! and i have already posted alot about them. they aren't exactly one of those groups that gather together and have meetings, and are very official and stuff, but just a bunch of people with similar ideas that were most likely adapted from Mahan's book. if you read previous posts, you will know of some promenent member of the group, like teddy roosevelt.