Most Significant Groups in US History

[thad]

williama said:

Nullifiers are an important group in American History, because they were believers in states rights; rights and freedoms, outside the influence of a central government, and countless times referenced in the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1798, and these documents voiced the two political figure’s disgust of the Alien and Sedition Acts, with more of an emphasis on the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act instilled into place the punishment of activity involving the writing and publication of any “false, scandalous and malicious writing" centering around the president, or Congress, where punishments would be as strict and heavy as two years in prison. This Act was seen as unconstitutional by Jefferson, and Madison, as well as present- day historians. The fifth admendment of the US Constituion gurantees US citizens due process, and due process was denied by the federal government in this situation. The government under Andrew Jackson’s adminstration denied basic right of liberty; liberty classified under the first admendment as freedom of press in the Bill of Rights. Mind you, this unconstituional measure formalized by the federal government was put into use before the introduction of judicial review in 1803. So, it was upon the Nullifiers themselves to comment on the government’s unchecked power, resembling that of Great Britain under the monarchial reign of King George III. Nullifiers, representing their state governments opposed to follow unconstituional law administered by the federal government, seeing these laws as void. Simply, Nullifiers chose to stand up for the principles that the United States union was binded by, when the government had proved to tyrannical and monarichial, so Nullifiers deserve the honor of being named the most important group in American History. These early nullifiers, like Jefferson and Madison of Virginia and Kentucky chose to defend and fight for the U.S. ideals, when fellow states like, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire were outraged by the resolutions and when Alexander Hamilton in response had raised an army of 50,000, ready to plunge into Virginia. Thomas Jefferson was notable the writer of the Declaration of Independence and a devout nullifier, and he knew how the US government should be run, with application of basic rights for US citizens and states rights, and he supported the nullifier cause, because the presence of nullification was the only foreseeable way for such basic rights and government principles to carry on in the future of an ideal US.

@will Appouh-
You often mention that the nullifiers like Jefferson and Madison "chose to defend and fight for the U.S. ideals" and but you fail to mention how, save for the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Were any other tactics in addition to legislature created to combat Alexander Hamilton's policy and his 50k troops?

[williama]

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.


To Jordan K

Yes, but Jordan the Cold War caused other countries to take up nuclear arms and mobilize, and form alliances such as NATO and Warsaw Pact, a situation which dangerously mirrors the powder keg of WWI, and seriously put the exiostence of the world at risk.

[mishab]

sweet lou asked, "Mishab of the Indians are the best Americans and all the good stuff then why were they so easyly kicked off their land, why weren't they able to construct large citys and a "modern" country"

I said they were the best because they helped the colonists survive by showing them how to plant crops, traded with them, as well as introducing them to the land. The settlers were brutal people and exploited and enslaved them so how could they fight back if the settlers had superior weapons? And they were happy with their way of life and didn't want large cities and a "modern" country.

[Gabe S.]

matth said:

Gabe, you say that modernists generally showed some contempt for religion in America due to the movement's strong belief in science and reason. Why then, do you think, that in such a nation where the overwhelming majority of inhabitants are religious, that the modernist movement was able to flourish for so long?

I would have to respond by saying that it appears that religion, although present throughout most of America, has and still is being reduced in its stronghold over the American population. There is a clear trend showing the lessening of religiosity among Americans is due to a huge rise in agnosticism and atheism, which is mainly due to increasingly important scientific discoveries that are based on a much more logical foundation than religion is founded. There is no doubt that religion is still present and can muster up support when it needs to. For example, the debate over the right to an abortion and gay marriage are both recent topics that have re-energized the religious sector of the US, but for the most part, scientific theories, like the Big Bang, are steering the majority of Americans from swearing by the bible only to swearing by the Bible with a twist of new and improved, scientifically-reasoned, logic.

Even in schools, the story of creation has been remolded since the Scopes trial, and now is solely rooted and taught with respect to scientific reason, not religious doctrine. This idea was even challenged not too long ago by a school board in Pennsylvania. They were trying to get the a new biblical version of the story of creation called "Intelligent Design" instituted in their schools and placed on the same pedestal as sciences theory of evolution and the Big Bang. However, there was much outrage in the rest of the US for such a ridiculous attempt and the courts struck down the proposed plan.

So I think it is fair to say that Religion is not gone, but it is slowly losing its dominance over the opinions of Americans.

[YmaniB*]

agold21 said:

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.

If you know any specifics..who were some of the major athletes in Rome? it was pretty interesting to me so I was wondering..THANX

[Tiffany B.]

sophie q. in response to your question:

overall, slaves all over the country were horribly mistreated since they were first forced on the large slave-ships with the worst living conditions which they had to endure on the long journey to America. The slaves that survived were then put up for auction, bought, and then put to work on various plantations all over the country. Although there were many nice masters, a majority of slaveholding whites brutally mistreated their slaves. These slaves were whipped on a daily basis, separated from their families, chained together, worked long hours in the blistering southern sun, etc. i can't make an assumption and say that the north treated the slaves better than the south and vice versa because of the fact that both regions forced them to work against their will, which also counts as mistreatment. And no i don't believe it changed over time, however if there was a change it was for the worst. after the slaves were emancipated, many plantation owners in the south refused to let their slaves free, and still forced them to work.

[samr]

Third info post.
This is in addition to my second post (how the Gold rush was important). The expansion of the western frontier was brought about by miners, as previously mentioned. Everyone agrees that railroads are important, but don't forget that the railroads were developed because they needed a link to the west to get to the miners and the towns created for them. They also needed to get stuff back and get it shipped to market out east as well. What I am saying is that miners were influential in that they brought about railroads. Take a look at the follwing quote, and look at the dates. This is the same time period as the California Gold Rush. "Strengthened by other proposals such as those of Hartwell Carver in 1849 and of Edwin F. Johnson in 1853, such leading statesmen as John C. Calhoun, Stephen A. Douglas, and Jefferson Davis declared their support for linking the country by rails." Apparently these politicians believed that they needed a link out west. There was nothing out there but gold mining at that time.

[Beth M.]

manigirl18 said:

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

Ymani-
How have the revivalists affected other parts of US history? What exactly makes them more significant than the other groups?

[sophieq1]

Rina C.
-Robber Barons can also be considered political entreprenuers because they basically bagered politicians and Congress to grant them laws and money to make many things such as railroads. Railroad workers would be given work by these people after they had gotten the money. They were the organizers and the people that ran the railroad workers and the economy related to their business. They are the modern day corrupted businessmen that were given land and money and forced railroad workers to build in whatever way shape or form they desired to make them more money.

[williama]

to Thad

Another tactic is that the resolutions were used as political documents by Democratic Republican Party in the 1800 elections to get Jeffersonian supporters behind him and make drastic anti-fedralist changes when he becomes president.

[mishab]

Grace Fox asked: have Native Americans been continually influential throughout history, and therefore deserve to be most significant? If not, then why is their short time of prevalence worthy to be deemed most significant?

"American Indians have participated with distinction in United States military actions for more than 200 years. Their courage, determination, and fighting spirit were recognized by American military leaders as early as the 18th century. "

I think they [Indians] can be made of excellent use, as scouts and light troops. --Gen. George Washington, 1778

Many tribes were involved in the War of 1812 as well as the Civil War. "Scouting" the enemey was one of the noticable and great skills of the Native American soldiers. "In 1866, the U.S. Army established its Indian Scouts to exploit this aptitude. The Scouts were active in the American West in the late 1800s and early 1900s, accompanying Gen. John J. Pershing's expedition to Mexico in pursuit of Pancho Villa in 1916." Additionaly, over 12,000 Indians served in WWI. So the Indians were significant through out history.
(www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-1.htm - 16k)

[YmaniB*]

imyourbestbeth said:

gracef said:

Temperance Societies have always been a large influence throughout history. Organizations such as the Anti-Saloon League, The Lincoln-Lee Legion, and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) not only promoted moderation, and eventually prohibition of alcohol, but also turned their attention to other moral issues such as gambling, recreational drugs and tobacco, labor, prostitution, public health, sanitation, and internal peace. Women such as Mary Hunt, Carrie Nation, Neal S. Dow, and Lucy Webb Hayes were temperance’s strongest promoters, deriving strongly from their stance against domestic violence, which was strongly tied to alcoholism. When the 18th Amendment was ratified and prohibition was put into effect things really did start to change. People started going back to work and being productive, men stopped beating their wives, and crime decreased. However, while petty crime decreased, prohibition fueled the emergence of organized crime and increased smuggling. Thus, the Mob, under Al “Scarface” Capone, was born. Temperance societies are the most significant group in American history because they taught us to take good things in moderation, and abstain from all things harmful. Their influences have reached all levels of society, from the most humble homes to Congress, and have brought about one of the most feared and influential institutions itself: the Mob.

Hey Grace,
Im just wondering what makes the Temperance society good if it bought out the mob? Prohibition was the real start of smuggling, and that is still a major issue today? Smuggling=Bad..so what is the good?
THANX

[Jake V]

INFO POST 3: scientists
Luigi Galvani discovered that muscles and nerves produce electricity. Alessandro Volta developed the first electric battery. Micheal Faraday made vital advances in the study of elctromagnetism, a field discovered by Andre-Marie Ampere.
Why do I bring up two Italians, an Englishman and a Frenchman in a debate about Us history? Because these four people would have accomplished nothing if it weren't for...
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
We all know that B-Frank did everythng ever, and one of those many accomplishments was his tremendous impact in the study of electricity. He was the first to theorize the concept of positive and negative electrical charge, and his often-exaggerated kite experiment collected charges from clouds, indicating that lightning was electrical. His findings on the nature of electricity were very influential on some of the world's leading physicists, including the four notable scientists I mentioned above. The work of those and other European scientists had a much more direct and tangible effect on the world then Franklin's did, but it was his influence that made their research possible. The modern study of electricity was all started by Franklin's fundamental findings, without which we could never have harnessed the power of electricity to the enormous extent that we have. We power our lightbulbs, our computers, our televisions, our telephones, our entertainment media, many of our musical instruments, and in a possible future, our autmobiles, with electricity. When an area experiences a long blackout, the world stops turning. Businesses close, communications are lost, people panic. We're dependednt on an energy source that we can only use because of good ol' Benjamin Franklin, American scientist.

[YmaniB*]

makdoom said:

melissaf said:

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.

IMPortant Jingoist names???

[Jake V]

jordankesner said:

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

As you asked that question i was composing my third info post, which concerns Benjamin Franklin.

[Ayesha M.]

mishab said:

for ayesha, how exactly did the Jingoists advocate for wars?

when McKinley did not want to go to war he was pressured by the jingoists that surrounded him, as in the congress, and of course many of the citizens when the USS Main got blown up, jingoists really had something to wave infront of the president to go to war. their efforts obviously worked, and the US quickly got involved in a war.

[gabriellew]

Poor whites were definitely the most important group in U.S history! Poor whites were almost immediately faced with hardships when arriving to America from foreign countries as indentured servants. These indentured servants signed a contract with plantation owners to work for seven years without pay in exchange for land or clothing and food after they finished their term. These poor indentured servants were slaves, they had no rights. Their masters could work them as hard as the wanted and could also deny them food. Indentured servants were responsible for doing all the very hard and dangerous labor. Unfortunately many indentured servants didn’t live long enough to enjoy their freedom. This is true because the slave masters didn’t want to risk killing a black slave due to the fact that he had to pay for the slaves. Since indentured servants were only hired for seven years they weren’t a top priority. Poor whites and poor blacks were basically in the same situation after the Civil War. Both groups of people tended to be sharecroppers and tenant farmers. At this time poor whites and poor blacks had no opportunity of receiving an education or obtaining a substantial amount of wealth. Although poor whites and poor blacks upheld the same position in society, poor whites constantly reminded poor blacks that they were still superior to them due to their skin color.

[Ayesha M.]

manigirl18 said:

makdoom said:

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.

IMPortant Jingoist names???

read posts

[thad]

samr said:

Third info post.
This is in addition to my second post (how the Gold rush was important). The expansion of the western frontier was brought about by miners, as previously mentioned. Everyone agrees that railroads are important, but don't forget that the railroads were developed because they needed a link to the west to get to the miners and the towns created for them. They also needed to get stuff back and get it shipped to market out east as well. What I am saying is that miners were influential in that they brought about railroads. Take a look at the follwing quote, and look at the dates. This is the same time period as the California Gold Rush. "Strengthened by other proposals such as those of Hartwell Carver in 1849 and of Edwin F. Johnson in 1853, such leading statesmen as John C. Calhoun, Stephen A. Douglas, and Jefferson Davis declared their support for linking the country by rails." Apparently these politicians believed that they needed a link out west. There was nothing out there but gold mining at that time.

Nothing out there but gold mining? I disagree! What about the mountain men, think of the mountain men! They were out west trapping beaver to supply the massive demands for fur at the time. While gold mining was (partially) what spawned the railroads, don't forget that there are other (non-mined) resources out west as well.

[sophieq1]

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.





Hey guys, I'm going to have to agree with Alex. Caitlin, you say that environmentalist dictate our economy but how can this be true if like Alex said American's aren't driving hydrogen fuel cell cars. Obviously, these cars aren't perfected yet and they do cost a pretty penny. However, if this was what was what the environmentalists wanted and what they wanted is what dictates the economy then how is it that these cars aren't perfected. If it was the environmentalists that everyone listened to then the government would have made more advances to make a more environment friendly nation, like some of the other nations you, yourself mentioned above. I would also have to say, to strengthen what Alex said before, that if the environmentalists were in fact dictating then how are we still so wasteful? If these environmentalists were actually dictating our world, we wouldn't be threatened with global warming.