Most Significant Groups in US History

[Laura D]

^Alex G- good point on Moore and Sinclair

^ same

Info #1
Political Machines have been around for almost 200 years... and have invaded many aspects of the country's history. I'll start at the beginning... The first poiltical machine in the US was Tammany Hall, in NYC, which Aaron Burr created so as to push Jefferson through the "E of 00". Tammany hall stayed in place for 160 years before it was abolished. Both Jefferson and Kennedy can decisively point to a machine to which they owe their election. Jefferson of course owes it to Burr (who later tried to steal the presidency we all know). John F Kennedy owes his election to the Cook County Democratic Organization in Illinois. Hamilton fought against Tammany Hall, and that is another reason Burr, the founder shot him. Samuel Tilden, another "President", spent his lifetime fighting against Tammany Hall, only to have Rutherford Hayes take it away with the help of Tammany. Some of people on the congressional committee had special ties to "Credit Mobilier", Jay Gould, and thus Tammany Hall also...
-from this we can infer political machines shot Hamilton, made Jefferson President, got Kennedy elected (and therefore assasinated), and prematurely ended Reconstruction...

so long for now

[evanj]

2nd info post- The Framers of the Constitution didn't just create the way our government was run. They created a model that would continue to be adopted by the rest of the world. Democracy was an enormous risk, and these people were swimming in uncharted waters when they hatched the idea to have a government with no monarch or hugely powerful executive figure. Instead, they left most of the decisionmaking up to the people, which could was unheard of at that time. Also, since this group was basically left with a resource-rich country totally under their will, they made an ethically sound decision and didn't want to control the country and make America work for them. They wanted to work for America.

[evanj]

"When has protesting resulted in anything positive in American history? When I think of protests I think of the national government shutting them down by extreme force. Protesting is over rated and usually results in no positive change regardless of what the protesters may feel."
Coby, i disagree strongly with that point. The right to protest is an enormous part of why democracy is so successful, and i actually think protesting in this country has been exceptionally useful, even going all the way back to bacon's rebellion. Besides the obvious, obvious example of civil rights protests in the middle of the 20th century, today we even see examples of successful protesting, with environmental organizations, political drives, and others making huge splashes and huge differences in this country.

[evanj]

Ksteck-
besides the obvious importance of these unions in the early 1900's, can you cite some important union work done in the last 50 years so i can get an idea of their present importance?

[evanj]

yeah buddy im a little confused about that last bit, i don't necessarily think of america as an inventing powerhouse in the past 15 years. give me some examples or stats?

[evanj]

"These are just some of the important influential members of the Freemason party, there are far too many to be placed in this post. Seriously, the sheer number of members and longevity of the Freemasons make them the most important and influential group in American history. Without them we are not the same people and America is not the same country."
Sorry if you explained this earlier, but it seems strange that you justify your group's importance by merely saying all the people in it. As a unit, what did the free masons actually DO? i just don't agree that a group can be that significant if lots of famous people happened to belong to it. They need to have done something together. again, if you've already explained it, disregard all that other stuff besides the original question.

[evanj]

robinson- i said a lot of stuff earlier in an answer to a question that i was going to use in an info post...are you going to fine me if i use some of that stuff again

[Kathryn S]

Info Post #2
Info #2:
Here are some of the most visible groups:

-(Noble and Holy Order) Knights of Labor.
-Founded in 1869. Their most acknowleged founder is Uriah Stevens (he was an activist for the labor reform cause who believed in the inclusion and equality of all workers. Knights of Labor was originally a secret society. Members included a diverse group of all working people (‘cept some, like doctors and lawyers). Stevens promoted this group’s message of all workers joining together as a unit. Later, Terence Powderly, another leader and a worker himself who championed the labor standards cause, became the head of the Knights of Labor in 1881. The union’s adopted motto was “an injury to one is the concern of all.” First organization to est. the tradition of Labor Day.

-American Federation of Labor. Organized at end of the 1800’s by Samuel Gompers. Formed from a different group called the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States of America and Canada. AFL advocated for only groups of skilled laborers, not all workers. The AFL had tremendous success in their strong organization and proudly supported the most members of any other union in America. They were very dedicated and active in their reforms and eventually influenced Congress to pay more attention to their cause. The ratification of the Clayton Act, the creation of the U.S Department of Labor, and other programs recognized the reform efforts of the AFL on a national scale.

-In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World, known as the Wobblies, formed. Under direction of “Big Bull” Haywood. The Wobblies believed in the individual worker and the separation of different classes and did not discriminate among members. The new approach to an all encompassing membership was indeed extremely progressive for the time. Only in rare occasions had there ever been complete acceptance of all races and genders as there was in the IWW. The beliefs of the Wobblies were opinionated and generally socialist. Their absolute views gave them a belligerent persona. Similar to the Knights of Labor, their motto is, “an injury to one was an injury to all.”

[beckyg]

Ryn, do you think that overall labor unions have been successful in exrcising their rights to obtain fair working conditions? what evidence do you have to support your opinion on this?

[thad]

@all: criteria for my out paper

The number one most important thing seems to be the groups' overall impact on today's world. There were many groups like the mountain men and the Shakers that seemed to have a limited impact in their own time, and even less of an impact in the present day. Can they actually be all that significant when no one remembers them or knows what they stood for a hundred years in the future?

Prominent members of well-known groups should also be impemented as a criteria for success. They should stand as a figurehead for the entire group and almost be a household name to see how the affect of the group has permiated society.

On the same level of prominent members would go something like key events that almost everyone's heard of in America, like Pearl Harbor for instance.

Incorporated into the out paper would be the significance of the group in their own time. Although not as significant as their current influence, it is definitely important as all the events of the past affect the future in some way.

I will run most of the groups through this criteria and try to narrow it down to ten or so, as of now. It is entirely possible that additional factors will be added on later if I find the necessity to do so.

[Helen C.]

daredevildodd said:

While it is true that the U S provided money, materials, etc. to make the bomb, we did not supply the scientists. I see how the bomb technolongy affected our history, in the cold war, arms race- as you mention. The EUROPEAN scientists created the bomb.... so I think the whole atomic-bomb-american-scientist-point is moot.

I'm going to have to disagree here-- we were the ones who recruited the scientists to create the bombs. If we hadn't, the scientists would still be well-known, but they would have nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Since we associated them with it, the credit (or blame) for their work goes to us.

[Alex S.]

To Caitlin W.

I agree that had their initially been strong vice presidents that had been very active, their role would be very different today. However, this is not the case. Vice presidents tend to be very weak until the day the president kicks the bucket and they get to replace the president. As as you say yourself, the vice presidents do not do anything in the vice presidency. This is exactly what I have said to make the point that the vice presidents provide stability. Yes, they all have different views, but because the vice presidents have no power save for replacing a dead president, it doesn’t matter. It does not matter what views or stands a vice president has when they’re just replacing a president. Therefore, what the vice president does as a vice president is almost meaningless, and I could care less about it and its impact on their influence.

[Alex S.]

To sophieq1

I have been saying all along that vice presidents have no power as vice presidents. Read my earlier info posts and you will see for yourself. However, that does not mean that they do not provide stability. In fact, it is because of their weakness that they provide stability. If the office was stronger, then vice presidents would have multiple, multiple tasks. Apart from deciding a split vote, which is almost insignificant in the big picture of things, vice presidents have only 1 goal, to replace the president. Therefore, whether or not thye have different views or policies doesn’t matter. If they can replace the president, regardless of whether or not they are a good president or have very different views or not, then they have succeeded in their purpose. What you say about instability occurring with Tyler is not true. Yes, he went against his party. But, tell me, is not maintaining any government at all after a president’s death stability in itself? Even if the government’s political parties are changed, there is at least still a democratic government due to the vice presidents.

[Helen C.]

Alex S.-
Don't you think that today, with the increase in media coverage, the vice president has a lot of power over the way the administration appears publicly? Cheney in particular often acts as a spokesman for his administration, so it seems as if the vice presidency is much more influential than it once was.

[Tiffany B.]

TIFF'S SUMMATION POST:

well first off, a majority of you have done a good job of saying your groups contributions to history, and explaining a myriad of reasons why your group should be considered as THE MOST significant. However, i can only pick ten groups.

I have not decided which groups to choose, after all there are 80 of us, and about a million posts. So therefore, over the course of the next three days i will be reviewing each and every post so i can see which groups were actually the most significant.

In my out paper, I will address the various reasons why I chose those specific groups. I will also address the influence they had on the country, their impact on history, and their significance over time.

However, like Robinson said today, every historian defines "significant" differently; so this is what I'm looking for in narrowing down the most important groups:

-why these groups were created
-important people and their contributions to the group
-the impact that they had on the country; socially, economically, and politically
-whether or not the country would have gotten along without them
-whether or not they were involved in some of the key moments in history (not really important for my paper, but i will make note of it)
-the type of impact they had on the country (positive or negative)
-how long they lasted as a group (for example, a couple of the political parties broke apart after losing several elections..)
-and whether or not they still have an impact/influence today

So to narrow down all 80 groups to 10, i'm going to see which 10 groups fit my criteria. (Before, I start writing my out paper, I will post the groups that i chose.)

[Margaret B.]

saxysam35 said:

Margaret-
Perhaps this will be the subject of your third information post but, i read once that the mormons attempted to secede from the union and create a theocracy. Can you clarify this for me? And if this is true, were they sympathetic to the confederacy during the civil war for wanting to leave the union?

Sam-

I've never heard that before, but after looking into I think I understand where that opinion came from.
After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., there was what is commonly referred to at the Succession Crisis. Hyrum Smith, Smith's brother, was supposed to succeed Smith but he died moments before his brother in the crisis at Carthage, Illinois. Smith had never named another successor, though many of his closest aides claimed that he had mentioned to them their important role in the movement and the necessity of them helping him when he might not be able to lead. Unfortunately, Smith seems to have heavily relied on at least five or six of these associates, and it was hard for the Mormons to choose just one, which was why the whole Brigham Young/Sydney Rigdon/lots of different types of Mormonism thing happened. Anyway, most of the Mormons decided to move westward with Young. However, the lands they planned to move into had not yet become states. So I guess they did leave the country, in a sense.

But that's not even the interesting part. You know how before the Midwest was states, it was territories? Well the Utah territory was actually the result of a petition the Mormons sent to Congress in 1847. They had settled the Salt Lake Valley and wanted to enter the Union as the state Deseret, with Salt Lake City as the capital. In fact, they went so far as to draft a state constitution in 1849, and they ran their proposed government as if it had been accepted. When the Utah Territory was created by the United States government, Young was the first governor, and the legislature adopted all the laws of the proposed Deseret State.

Unfortunately, prejudice of the Mormons is as evident here as it is today. (More info on that in my next and final info post) Our government waited another 46 years to make Utah a state because of wariness of Mormonism.

Sam, I realize this doesn't really answer your question but I hope it clarifies the issue. Try and keep in mind that people didn't like the Mormons, and they were literally fleeing their fellow Americans when they moved west. I suppose that could be misconstrued as leaving the Union.

[Michel'le F.]

Summary Post

After reading like 2,000 posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that the most significant groups in history were those who contributions affect the way in which we live today. If a group’s contributions were miraculously deleted from history, and our lives did not change, then I am sure that they are not one of the ten most significant groups in history. There are many ways to go about this, which its why its so fun, but for my out paper I’m going to ask the following questions of each group to determine who’s hot and who’s not:

1) Does the group have more than one significant contribution?
2) Do the groups contributions affect the way in which we live today?
3) Would history be totally altered without the contributions of this group? (meaning that our lives could be the same, but a significant chunk of events would just be gone.)
4) Does the group have any prominent members?
5) Did the group’s contributions affect more than one aspect of history? (economy, education, social views, politics, etc.)
6) Does the group still exist today?

With that being said, I think that you all did a great job arguing for your groups. This was really fun. Just in case you missed anything about the QUAKERS:

The Quakers are by far the most significant group in history, for their contributions are not a result of one single achievement. Since George Fox brought Quakerism to the colonies in 1656, the Quakers have proved to be the driving force in establishing America as a free nation. A people far ahead of their time, the Quaker Society was built on beliefs of freedom, equality, responsibility, and education for all. This nation has long spoke of equality for man, but conveniently excluded females and blacks. The Quakers always had strong beliefs that everyone should be equal and their significance comes from the fact that they were able to spread these beliefs and change the social structure of America for all time!

[Helen C.]

Some Influential Movements in American Art:
(kind of long because everything has to be explained in context)
The Hudson River School: This 1850s group of artists was at first influenced by Thomas Cole, an emigrant from England, whose landscape paintings helped to cement the growing attitude of appreciation of wild native scenery (at least in theory). After his death, they adopted a naturalistic style that reinforced the appeal of post-Civil War escapes to tourist resorts, beginning a proud American tradition of escaping the stresses of modern life on vacations. This new style was due to the influence of Asher Durand, who was part of a movement that emphasized in their paintings the light and air surrounding the subject. (Asher Durand's influence also includes the Durand-Hedden House here in Maplewood.)

Art Nouveau: This movement flourished from the 1880s to the early 20th century. Although it began in Europe, it was also present in the United States. It supported nature as the primary influence for a generation of artists who were seeking to establish a new way of painting, at the same time that the rest of the US was seeking to expand westward with the new railroad system. The glorification of nature as development began to destroy vast new areas of land echoed the idea of the "Noble Savage," although this time it started considerably earlier in the destruction of the obstacle to progress. Art Nouveau was influenced by the English Arts and Crafts movement, in which there was an element of social awareness that emphasized craftsmanship and "art for art's sake," in a reaction to the increasingly widespread practice of mass production. The ideas of Art Nouveau were later revived in the 1960s by another generation looking to cast off the traditions of the past.

American Impressionism: After the Civil War, Northerners who had made their fortunes selling military supplies began to travel abroad. There, they were exposed to European styles of art and thinking. Among these styles was French Impressionism, which was introduced in 1874. At first, most of the Americans who saw the new way of painting were disdainful, with the exception of Mary Cassatt and John Singer Sargent, both of whom were inspired by the depiction of everyday life through the use of quick brushwork and natural light. In the 1880s, Impressionism gained favor among American painters as it became more established. In 1886, William Merritt Chase painted a series of images of New York's new parks, and became the first major American painter to create Impressionistic works in the United States. By the 1890s, Impressionism was taught as an accepted discipline in the new art schools which resulted from the new atmosphere of professionalism. It was the result of long periods spent abroad by American painters, and it integrated foreign ideas into a new style, which documented the United States' change from an agrarian society to one that was industrialized and city-based. Most American Impressionists depicted the tranquil artists' colonies to which they escaped rather than the increasingly turbulent cities where they lived. City-dwellers were impressed by their work, and those who could afford it took vacations as often as they could, while those who could not afford it dreamed of moving out west to establish a more peaceful, independent life.

Abstract Expressionism: In the 1940s, a group of artists known as the New York School began to search for a new, distinctive way of expressing their ideas. They introduced the radical new concept of spontaneous creation, which was supposed to better reflect the individual self, and through that, to tap into a "universal inner source." Their careers had often been made possible by the Works Progress Administration, which funded their activities when they were unemployed. As a result, they sought to create works that had social meaning, but were free of overt politicism. They were also strongly influenced by the European Modernist movement, which was showcased in the Museum of Modern Art, and the Surrealist movement, which sought to express fears about man's dark side as a consequence of the war. During and after World War II, European artists became more well-known in the US, and their ideas were adopted and integrated into American artistic customs. In particular, Jung's idea of the "collective unconscious" influenced their methods of creation and their goal to access the universal inner source. The work of the Abstract Expressionists drew the world's attention to New York after the war, and the art world in particular shifted in focus from Paris to New York.

Pictorialism: This movement of photography was transformed into Modernism by Alfred Stieglitz, who emphasized the depiction of real life in an artful way, rather than posed photographs. Stieglitz began to split from the pictorialist movement in 1917, when the horrors of the first World War were affecting the way Americans looked at life. Modernism assisted that change, and during the Great Depression, it was the modernist style of photography that highlighted the plight of the desperately poor. Its depiction of the change that could be captured in a single frame of the fast-paced modern lifestyle changed what photographs were used for, leading to modern day amateur photography, in which subjects are shown in more natural poses.

[Laura D]

hcrow said:

daredevildodd said:

While it is true that the U S provided money, materials, etc. to make the bomb, we did not supply the scientists. I see how the bomb technolongy affected our history, in the cold war, arms race- as you mention. The EUROPEAN scientists created the bomb.... so I think the whole atomic-bomb-american-scientist-point is moot.

I'm going to have to disagree here-- we were the ones who recruited the scientists to create the bombs. If we hadn't, the scientists would still be well-known, but they would have nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Since we associated them with it, the credit (or blame) for their work goes to us.

Sure it was made here... But the scientists who recruited for other scientists, were Leo Slizard (astro-hungarian) and Einstein (German) only came here becuase they were Jewish and escaping the Nazis. The reason why most of them came here- was because the Nazis enacted a law that prevented all *shifty* people form working in academia. In fact it was one of the first laws they enacted.
No. Oppenheimer was the only "real" american at the head of the "Project"

The atomic bomb was, imo, an (ex) astro-hungarian/german/british bomb built in the united states.

[Laura D]

mbrier said:

saxysam35 said:

Margaret-
Perhaps this will be the subject of your third information post but, i read once that the mormons attempted to secede from the union and create a theocracy. Can you clarify this for me? And if this is true, were they sympathetic to the confederacy during the civil war for wanting to leave the union?

Sam-

I've never heard that before, but after looking into I think I understand where that opinion came from.
After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., there was what is commonly referred to at the Succession Crisis. Hyrum Smith, Smith's brother, was supposed to succeed Smith but he died moments before his brother in the crisis at Carthage, Illinois. Smith had never named another successor, though many of his closest aides claimed that he had mentioned to them their important role in the movement and the necessity of them helping him when he might not be able to lead. Unfortunately, Smith seems to have heavily relied on at least five or six of these associates, and it was hard for the Mormons to choose just one, which was why the whole Brigham Young/Sydney Rigdon/lots of different types of Mormonism thing happened. Anyway, most of the Mormons decided to move westward with Young. However, the lands they planned to move into had not yet become states. So I guess they did leave the country, in a sense.

But that's not even the interesting part. You know how before the Midwest was states, it was territories? Well the Utah territory was actually the result of a petition the Mormons sent to Congress in 1847. They had settled the Salt Lake Valley and wanted to enter the Union as the state Deseret, with Salt Lake City as the capital. In fact, they went so far as to draft a state constitution in 1849, and they ran their proposed government as if it had been accepted. When the Utah Territory was created by the United States government, Young was the first governor, and the legislature adopted all the laws of the proposed Deseret State.

Unfortunately, prejudice of the Mormons is as evident here as it is today. (More info on that in my next and final info post) Our government waited another 46 years to make Utah a state because of wariness of Mormonism.

Sam, I realize this doesn't really answer your question but I hope it clarifies the issue. Try and keep in mind that people didn't like the Mormons, and they were literally fleeing their fellow Americans when they moved west. I suppose that could be misconstrued as leaving the Union.

Actually they did...

They had their "own separate government" and everything. Habeas Corpus was actually somewhat legel for them... He did petion congress a lot to become their own country...

Another interesting fact- Joseph smith had his own army, I think (I may be wrong), that was at the time twice the size of the US army. He was also good friends with Martin Van Buren

hope that helps:)
My what you learn by reading big books about Joseph Smith's life....