Most influential person in American History

Eli Whitney


Pioneer of Modern Manufacturing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The inventor of the COTTON GIN and a pioneer in the use of mass production methods, Eli Whitney was born in Westboro, Mass., on Dec. 8, 1765, and died on Jan. 8, 1825. He graduated from Yale College in 1792 and by April 1793 had designed and constructed a machine called a cotton gin that quickly and easily separated cottonseed from the short-staple cotton fiber. Whitney's cotton gin was capable of maintaining a daily output of 23 kg (50 lb) of cleaned cotton, and its effect was far-reaching, making southern cotton a profitable crop for the first time. Whitney, however, failed to profit from his invention. Numerous imitations appeared, and his 1794 patent was not validated until 1807.

Though perhaps best known for his invention of the cotton gin, Eli Whitney's greatest innovation pioneered the era of mass production and modern manufacturing methods. In 1798, the federal government--fearing war with France--awarded Eli Whitney a contract of $134,000 to produce and deliver 10,000 muskets. With this contract, Whitney refined and successfully applied his revolutionary, "Uniformity System" of manufacturing interchangeable components. Faced with skepticism and delays in implementing his new production method, Whitney convinced President John Adams of the great significance of his innovative approach by demonstrating that randomly selected parts could be fitted together into a complete, working musket lock. Though it took ten years to deliver the last of the muskets, the federal government's investment and support enabled Whitney to prove the feasibility of his system and establish it as the leading source of the modern assembly line. He demonstrated that machine tools--manned by workers who did not need the highly specialized skills of gunsmiths--could produce standardized parts to exact specifications, and that any part could be used as a component of any musket. The firearms factory he built in New Haven, Conn., was thus one of the first to use MASS PRODUCTION methods.

Bibliography:
Green, Constance McLaughlin, Eli Whitney and the Birth of American Technology (1956)
Mirsky, Jeanette, and Nevins, Allan, The World of Eli Whitney (1952; repr. 1962)
Olmsted, Denison, Memoir of Eli Whitney, Esq. (1846; repr. 1972).
Grolier's New Multimedia Encyclopedia, (1992)

Lindbergh Does It! To Paris in 33 1/2 Hours; Flies 1,000 Miles Through Snow and Sleet; Cheering French Carry Him Off Field— New York Times, May 21, 1927


Early in the morning on May 20, 1927 Charles A. Lindbergh took off in The Spirit of St. Louis from Roosevelt Field near New York City. Flying northeast along the coast, he was sighted later in the day flying over Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. From St. Johns, Newfoundland, he headed out over the Atlantic, using only a magnetic compass, his airspeed indicator, and luck to navigate toward Ireland. The flight had captured the imagination of the American public like few events in history. Citizens waited nervously by their radios, listening for news of the flight. When Lindbergh was seen crossing the Irish coast, the world cheered and eagerly anticipated his arrival in Paris. A frenzied crowd of more than 100,000 people gathered at Le Bourget Field to greet him. When he landed, less than 34 hours after his departure from New York, Lindbergh became the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean.

Rosa Parks
The Woman Who Changed
a Nation

By Kira Albin, interview conducted in 1996
Photos courtesy of Monica Morgan Photography and ZondervanPublishingHouse

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man forty years ago on December 1, 1955, she was tired and weary from a long day of work.
At least that's how the event has been retold countless times and recorded in our history books. But, there's a misconception here that does not do justice to the woman whose act of courage began turning the wheels of the civil rights movement on that fateful day.
Rosa Parks was physically tired, but no more than you or I after a long day's work. In fact, under other circumstances, she would have probably given up her seat willingly to a child or elderly person. But this time Parks was tired of the treatment she and other African Americans received every day of their lives, what with the racism, segregation, and Jim Crow laws of the time.
"Our mistreatment was just not right, and I was tired of it," writes Parks in her recent book, Quiet Strength, (ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1994). "I kept thinking about my mother and my grandparents, and how strong they were. I knew there was a possibility of being mistreated, but an opportunity was being given to me to do what I had asked of others."
The rest of Parks' story is American history...her arrest and trial, a 381-day Montgomery bus boycott, and, finally, the Supreme Court's ruling in November 1956 that segregation on transportation is unconstitutional.
But Parks' personal history has been lost in the retelling. Prior to her arrest, Mrs. Parks had a firm and quiet strength to change things that were unjust. She served as secretary of the NAACP and later Adviser to the NAACP Youth Council, and tried to register to vote on several occasions when it was still nearly impossible to do so. She had run-ins with bus drivers and was evicted from buses. Parks recalls the humiliation: "I didn't want to pay my fare and then go around the back door, because many times, even if you did that, you might not get on the bus at all. They'd probably shut the door, drive off, and leave you standing there."
Forty years later, despite some tremendous gains, Parks feels, "we still have a long way to go in improving the race relations in this country."
Rosa Parks-who celebrates her 83rd birthday this month-spends most of her year in Detroit but winters in Los Angeles. Her day is filled with reading mail,-"from students, politicians, and just regular people"-preparing meals, going to church, and visiting people in hospitals. She is still active in fighting racial injustices, now standing up for what she believes in and sharing her message with others. She and other members of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development have a special program called Pathways to Freedom, for young people age 11-18. Children in the program travel across the country tracing the Underground Railroad, visiting the scenes of critical events in the civil rights movement and learning aspects of America's history.
Says Elaine Steele, Parks' close friend and cofounder of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development, "Mrs. Parks is a role model that these students look up to, and they feel very honored and privileged to be in her company. And she's very gracious to accompany the students to these activities."
February, Black History Month, seemed a relevant time to evaluate youth and their sense of history. But Parks thinks bigger and broader. "We don't have enough young people who are concerned and who are exposed to the civil rights movement, and I would like to see more exposure and get their interest," she says, pausing to reflect, "but I think it should just be history, period, and not thinking in terms of only Black History Month."
Parks is quiet, soft-spoken, and diplomatic. But she is firm in her belief that enough people will have the courage and dedication to make this country better than it is. "And this young man that's taking over the NAACP, Kweisi Mfume, I admire him a great deal," she adds. About Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Black Muslims, she says, "Well, I don't know him personally, but I think it was great that he spearheaded the million man march."
Parks has met many renowned leaders and has traveled throughout the world receiving honors and awards for her efforts toward racial harmony. She is appreciative and honored by them but exhibits little emotion over whom she has met or what she has done. Her response to being called "the Mother of the Civil Rights Movement" is modest. "If people think of me in that way, I just accept the honor and appreciate it," she says. In Quiet Strength, however, Parks is careful to explain that she did not change things alone. "Four decades later I am still uncomfortable with the credit given to me for starting the bus boycott. I would like [people] to know I was not the only person involved. I was just one of many who fought for freedom."
In August 1994, Parks was attacked in her home by a young man who wanted money from her. Of the event, she writes, "I pray for this young man and the conditions in our country that have made him this way. Despite the violence and crime in our society, we should not let fear overwhelm us. We must remain strong."
Parks' belief in God and her religious convictions are at the core of everything she does. It is the overriding theme in her book and the message she hopes to impart: "I'd like for [readers] to know that I had a very spiritual background and that I believe in church and my faith and that has helped to give me the strength and courage to live as I did."

Jane Addams (1860-1935)

This social reformer devoted her life to helping the urban poor. In 1889, she founded the Hull House in a Chicago slum, with programs such as day care and adult education. One of the first settlement houses in America, Hull House inspired many others across the nation. Although she was widely criticized for her opposition to World War I, Addams later became one of the most admired activists of the time, winning the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1931.

Harriet Tubman's Life in Slavery


Harriet Ross was born into slavery in 1819 or 1820, in Dorchester County, Maryland. Given the names of her two parents, both held in slavery, she was of purely African ancestry. She was raised under harsh conditions, and subjected to whippings even as a small child. At the age of 12 she was seriously injured by a blow to the head, inflicted by a white overseer for refusing to assist in tying up a man who had attempted escape.

At the age of 25, she married John Tubman, a free African American. Five years later, fearing she would be sold South, she made her escape.

Her Escape to Freedom in Canada
Tubman was given a piece of paper by a white neighbor with two names, and told how to find the first house on her path to freedom. At the first house she was put into a wagon, covered with a sack, and driven to her next destination. Following the route to Pennsylvania, she initially settled in Philadelphia, where she met William Still, the Philadelphia Stationmaster on the Underground Railroad. With the assistance of Still, and other members of the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Society, she learned about the workings of the UGRR.

In 1851 she began relocating members of her family to St. Catharines, (Ontario) Canada West. North Street in St. Catharines remained her base of operations until 1857. While there she worked at various activities to save to finance her activities as a Conductor on the UGRR, and attended the Salem Chapel BME Church on Geneva Street.

Her Role in the Underground Railroad
After freeing herself from slavery, Harriet Tubman returned to Maryland to rescue other members of her family. In all she is believed to have conducted approximately 300 persons to freedom in the North. The tales of her exploits reveal her highly spiritual nature, as well as a grim determination to protect her charges and those who aided them. She always expressed confidence that God would aid her efforts, and threatened to shoot any of her charges who thought to turn back.

When William Still published The Underground Railroad in 1871, he included a description of Harriet Tubman and her work. The section of Still's book captioned below begins with a letter from Thomas Garret, the Stationmaster of Wilmington, Delaware. Wilmington and Philadelphia were on the major route followed by Tubman, and by hundreds of others who escaped from slavery in Maryland. For this reason, Still was in a position to speak from his own firsthand knowledge of Tubman's work:

WILMINGTON, 12 mo. 29th, 1854

Esteemed Friend, J. Miller McKim: - We made arrangements last night, and sent away Harriet Tubman, with six men and one woman to Allen Agnew's, to be forwarded across the country to the city. Harriet, and one of the men had worn the shoes off their feet, and I gave them two dollars to help fit them out, and directed a carriage to be hired at my expense, to take them out, but do not yet know the expense....

THOMAS GARRET

Harriet Tubman had been their "Moses," but not in the sense that Andrew Johnson was the "Moses of the colored people." She had faithfully gone down into Egypt, and had delivered these six bondmen by her own heroism. Harriet was a woman of no pretensions, indeed, a more ordinary specimen of humanity could hardly be found among the most unfortunate-looking farm hands of the South. Yet, in point of courage, shrewdness and disinterested exertions to rescue her fellow-men, by making personal visits to Maryland among the slaves, she was without her equal.

Her success was wonderful. Time and again she made successful visits to Maryland on the Underground Rail Road, and would be absent for weeks at a time, running daily risks while making preparations for herself and her passengers. Great fears were entertained for her safety, but she seemed wholly devoid of personal fear. The idea of being captured by slave-hunters or slave-holders, seemed never to enter her mind. She was apparently proof against all adversaries. While she thus maintained utter personal indifference, she was much more watchful with regard to those she was piloting. Half of her time, she had the appearance of one asleep, and would actually sit down by the road-side and go fast asleep* when on her errands of mercy through the South, yet, she would not suffer one of her party to whimper once, about "giving out and going back," however wearied they might be by the hard travel day and night. She had a very short and pointed rule or law of her own, which implied death to any who talked of giving out and going back. Thus, in an emergency she would give all to understand that "times were very critical and therefore no foolishness would be indulged in on the road." That several who were rather weak-kneed and faint-hearted were greatly invigorated by Harriet's blunt and positive manner and threat of extreme measures, there could be no doubt.

After having once enlisted, "They had to go through ordie." Of course Harriet was supreme, and her followers generally had full faith in her, and would back up any word she might utter. So when she said to them that "a live runaway could do great harm by going back, but that a dead one could tell no secrets," she was sure to have obedience. Therefore, none had to die as traitors on the "middle passage." It is obvious enough, however, that her success in going into Maryland as she did, was attributable to her adventurous spirit and utter disregard of consequences. Her like it is probable was never known before or since.

On the road between Syracuse and Rochester, would be found a number of sympathetic Quakers and other abolitionists settled at Auburn. Here also was the home of US Senator and former New York State Governor William H. Seward. Sometime in the mid-1850s, Tubman met Seward and his wife Frances. Mrs. Seward provided a home for Tubman's favorite niece, Margaret, after Tubman helped her to escape from Maryland. In 1857, the Sewards provided a home for Tubman, to which she relocated her parents from St. Catharines. This home was later sold to her for a small sum, and became her base of operations when she was not on the road aiding fugitives from slavery, and speaking in support of the cause.

Tubman was closely associated with Abolitionist John Brown, and was well acquainted with the other Upstate abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, Jermain Loguen, and Gerrit Smith.She worked closely with Brown, and reportedly missed the raid on Harper's Ferry only because of illness.

After the outbreak of the Civil War, Tubman served as a soldier, spy, and a nurse, for a time serving at Fortress Monroe, where Jefferson Davis would later be imprisoned. While guiding a group of black soldiers in South Carolina, she met Nelson Davis, who was ten years her junior. Denied payment for her wartime service, Tubman was forced, after a bruising fight, to ride in a baggage car on her return to Auburn.

* note: Harriet Tubman reportedly suffered narcolepsy as a result of the head injury she sustained as a child.

Her Life In Auburn, NewYork
After the close of the Civil War, Harriet Tubman returned to Auburn, NY. There she married Nelson Davis, and lived in a home they built on South Street, near the original house. This house still stands on the property, and serves as a home for the Resident Manager of the Harriet Tubman Home.

Only twelve miles from Seneca Falls, Tubman helped Auburn to remain a center of activity in support of women's rights. With her home literally down the road, Tubman remained in contact with her friends, William and Frances Seward. In 1908, she built the wooden structure that served as her home for the aged and indigent. Here she worked, and herself was cared for in the period before her death in 1913.

After her death, Harriet Tubman was buried in Fort Hill Cemetery in Auburn [grave], with military honors. She has since received man honors, including the naming of the Liberty Ship Harriet Tubman, christened in 1944[photo] by Eleanor Roosevelt. On June 14, 1914 a large bronze plaque was placed at the Cayuga County Courthouse, and a civic holiday declared in her honor. Freedom Park, a tribute to the memory of Harriet Tubman, opened in the summer of 1994 at 17 North Street in Auburn. In 1995, Harriet Tubman was honored by the federal government with a commemorative postage stamp bearing her name and likeness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Setanta: I'm sorry to hear of Madison's weaknesses as well as more of Jefferson's, about which you are apparently an endless resource, but today I would like you to answer the question asked here and promote some individual rather than to denigrate the ones that others have offered.

So, who is your choice for most influential?

Joe

As with Jefferson, it is as much the perception of an individual as what the individual has actually achieved that makes up the sum of the person's influence. Plus, there is no 100% perfect candidate when you go looking for skeletons. That is why I am sticking with Jefferson.

Ditto. Besides, it is easy to write anyone off with a list of what he did wrong. You can also come up with the list of what he did right - neither of the two are any final proof of person's valor or evilness. As for Madison, he surely was a grand thinker and leader, but you can come up with equally long list of srewups as for Jefferson. I remain unconvinced and stick by Jefferson.

My aunt Natalie is the most important and influential person in American history to me. Took me off my mothers hands when she got to lazy to raise me.

This after her brother left me in a gas station on my fourth birthday.

Stop to think about it, as far as I'm concerned this makes her the most important and influential person in World History to me.

I'm not beatin' the dead Jefferson horse anymore, and have acknowledged that my opinion is not consonant with popular opinion . . .

Joe Nation, i've already mentioned George Washington, and i started a thread on exactly this subject not more than a month or two after this site opened. In that thread, i went on at tedious length about choosing ol' George.

And, in both this thread and that, i've noted that i'm tempted to list Margaret Sanger, but that we are still too close to her lifetime to assess her real value to humanity. My guess is, that as time passes, and population pressures grow, she'll look more and more foresighted, and therefore, a better candidate in this little biographical foot race . . . .

Madison's greatest weakness seems to have been the ease with which others could convince him, and to me this implies a certain degree of a lack of confidence in his own views. Spin doctors would describe him as a "consensus builder," but at the constitutional convention, and later with Jefferson, first as his Secretary of State, and then, as heritor of his political legacy when occupying the White House on his own account, Madison showed a tendancy to let others sway him to their point of view. Particularly in the convention, in which the exchanges of opinion on those crucial topics could get quite heated. Madison would often vociferously defend a position, which he would later abandon with seeming ease when it looked like getting a compromise, or negating an objection. Perhaps, the claptrap of spin doctors notwithstanding, Madison does deserve to be described as a consensus builder--he was certainly saturated with this characteristic of the successful politician. As a military officer, he never rose to great heights, but showed a moderate ability in leadership, and a casual disregard of danger. The latter may have been a product of being very small of stature--a need to prove himself. Also, he was a political theorist, but weak on the pragmatic considerations of governance, which may also explain his willingness to trun 180 degrees in order to compromise at the convention. That he was willing to accept and to continue Jefferson's ruinous military policies seems to me to show that he was unable to reconcile theory with practice--i can't think he would have accepted the notion of relying on militia to defend the country, otherwise, since he saw battle first hand in the Revolution, and ought to have seen the consistent difference in performance between the militia and volunteers. This suggests to me that although he had practical experience, he was willing to accept a theory of policy without reviewing it against experience. I don't think he would belong on such a short list as this, but i think that by and large, he did more good than harm, and is not well-enough remember for the contributions he did make to the Revolution and the nation.

One another note, this discussion has lead me into a train of speculation on the entirety of the motives of John Marshall in his decision in Marbury vs. Madison. Marshall was appointed Chief Justice on January 21, 1801 (actually appointed earlier, sworn in on that date), two months before Jefferson's inauguration (which took place in March at that time),and this was the first major opinion he wrote (he eventually wrote on the order of 500 opinions). The case against the government, in the person of James Madison, the Secretary of State, involved an executive appointment. Marshall found for the plaintiff, in that only the Senate can consent to an appointment, and that therefore the Secretary of State cannot void an appointment (what Marbury claimed Madison had done) any more than he can make one. What more significant was, however, was his rationale in referring the the "advise and consent" clause under the enumeration of the powers of the Senate. He wrote that a people would not have written a constitution as the aboriginal law of their nation, unless they intended it to be the supreme law (my wording, not his), and that therefore, whenever a conflict with constitutional obligation or right occurred, the constitution takes precedence. He was an Adams appointee, and had been Secretary of State. So this discussion has set me to wonder if part of Marshall's motivation may not have been to attempt to preserve the constitutional form of government from either legislative or executive encroachment, knowing as he must have done, of Jefferson's opposition to the constitution, and the form of government which obtained when Jefferson was inaugurated. This may be taken to mean that Marshall was acting in a partisan manner, and it may mean that he sincerely felt the need to protect the supremecy of the constitution. It may also mean that i have too much time on my hands at the weekend.

George Washington has had nary a word written about him except with honor and high regard. I think I'd have to vote for him, though I am fond of Teddy Roosevelt both as a person and as a visionary whose ideas may have saved American wilderness for future generations.

George Washington was a great man and proved himself to be a forthright leader but how does that make him the most influential person in American history? What effects of George Washington's life do you see in the way America progressed till today? I'm not saying he wasn't a wonderful person and worthy of our admiration, but most influential?

That's what this question is asking : whose life's efforts are still radiating an effect on us today?

I'm still with Eli Whitney. His inventions made the Civil War an inevitability with the Industrial North the equally inevitable winner and Whitney's innovations still echo throughout American industry today. He was the seed from which our nation's economic base grew.

Oh and yeah. Tomas Jefferson, my man who bought the Louisiana Purchase, started the two party system and apparently was among the first to practice what today is a high American art : plagiarism. :wink:
We are not talking greatness or goodness or heavens consistency here, we are talking about influence. The Louisiana Purchase enabled the greatest flow of free movement of people that had ever been seen on the planet. That's influence. The opening of the continent, the expansion of the Union.

George Washington started the fire, Jefferson brought the fuel that Whitney turned into an inferno of production. (oo, what I said.)

Have a great weekend

Joe

O.K., Joe, but i would object first that there's nothing great about the two party system, and second i would point out that Jefferson did not found a political party as we would define it--no matter what the Democrats now claim. Andrew Jackson created the modern Democratic Party, complete with an administrative hieracrchy at the national level and within each state (beginning in Tennessee, where he first practiced party organization, and perfected the management system he created). It was his oject to "get" John Quincy Adams, and take control of the national government. He built upon the populism which Jefferson had exploited, and hence, the claim by the Democrats that their party was founded by Jefferson. In fact, Jefferson was not necessarily a friend to the conception of democracy based upon universal sufferage. He was also an intelligent man, so he took advantage of his popularity with the "common man," but he made no move to organize what was then still called a faction. His party was actually known as the Republican party. Jackson rallied the disaffected to him, those of the "Old Republicans" who had felt that Jefferson's successors, Madison and Monroe, had abandoned "the common man." This was in the era when the peripatetic, somewhat shiftless David Crockett was elected to Congress, and floridly written stories of frontiersman were popular--something "Davey" Crockett, as a natural born political campaigner, a great stump orator, and an absolute failure as a working politician, took immediate advantage of. The Federalists, never an organized party in any sense we would recognize, had lost to Jefferson, and simply withered away. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe held the White House for 24 years, and in 1824, there was only one political party left--the Republicans. John Quincy Adams, who had been Monroe's Secretary of State, ran against Andrew Jackson, William Crawford and Henry Clay. The outcome gave no candidate a majority, and the election was thrown into the House. Clay threw his support behind Adams, and he was elected, despite Jackon's greater popularity and plurality in the previous popular vote.

As might be imagined, Andrew Jackson was no friend of the electoral college, and when, in 1828, his party organization, and his great popular appeal, landed him in Washington, he proposed the abolition of the electoral college. Adams tried again to organize a Presidental bid, and there was a significant minority still adhering to the blend of Federalism and Jeffersonian Republicanism which defined that wing of the Old Republicans to make it plausible, but it was not to be. These men continued to call themselves the "Republicans," and although i don't know to whom the credit goes, someone was wise enough to name Jackson's party, the Democrats. Eventually, Old Republicans from the Adams wing (but young men who were not of the earlier generation which participated in the death of the Republican Party) of the party met at Ripon, Wisconsin, and the formation of the Ripon Society, combined with new blood and an organizing spirit, eventually formed the Republican Party which we know today.

Jackson's first Vice President, John C. Calhoun, had handled nearly all of the appointments in the cabinet and in high Federal Office, largely because he already commanded great loyalty in the Congress, and espcially in the Senate. No Jackson "Democrat" had yet been elected to the Senate, and his majority in the House were mostly freshmen, or those in their second term, and they controlled no committees, lacking seniority. But Jackson leaning on Calhoun was a mistake--Calhoun had his own agenda, and was an active aspirant to the White House himself. His appointments proved to be men who did not necessarily share policy views with Jackson, and many did not support him politically, preferring to support Calhoun in any party caucus--including the upcoming choice of a Presidental candidate. Martin Van Buren, "Old Knickerbocker," had brought Jackson significant support from the North, and was a true party man, and completely loyal. Jackson described him as: "a true man with no guile." Van Buren and another cabinet member then hatched a scheme, and turned in their resignations on what was on the surface attributed to "patriotic motives," leading the rest of the cabinet to offer their resignations. Jackson was now free to appoint a cabinet to his liking. With a few Jackson senators who had come in in the 1830 election, and Old Republicans of the Adams wing, who feared Calhoun more than Jackson, he got most of what he wanted. In 1832, Van Buren became his Vice Presidential candidate, and, in 1836, succeeded him. Jefferson's destruction of the Bank of the United States had lead to the successful moved by the Federalists among the Old Republicans to found the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson accused the Bank of being nothing more than a well-organized slush fund for his opposition in the Adams wing. This was a not entirely unjust accusation. Jackson destroyed this Bank, unwittingly contributing to the crash of 1837, which would hit his successor, Van Buren, very hard. Jackson had been reasonalby alarmed by the wild market in land speculation which had exploded when the territories of Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana were added to the already vast and largely unfilled territory of the Old Northwest Ordinance states: Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. David Crockett was of the casual type of land speculator: he would stake a claim, clear the land, put in a crop, get bored, go on a long hunting expedition--sometimes lasting for months, and killing far more animals than he could butcher for meat, and more skins than he could have carried, it was one of those guy things--and then sell his claim, moving on to the next parcel to claim and clear. James Bowie was of another type; he got into land speculation after a short bout of slave smuggling with Jean and Pierre LaFitte, then, because he spoke Spanish (very well) and wrote it, although not very well, he took to forging land grant documents alleged to have been prepared for Galvez, the Spanish governor of Louisiana before Napoleon stole it and sold it to Jefferson. This included phoney claims he laid in Louisiana and Arkansas. Banks would issue notes of credit for their customers whom they were capitalizing in their land development schemes, who would use these bills to purchase land from the likes of Crockett and Bowie. These bills circulated as currency, and this was known as the "Specie Circular Bubble." The bills were promises to pay in specie (i.e., gold or silver) the value of the note, and were commonly called "circulars," because, of course, they circulated. Banks had no qualms about issuing far more paper than their reserves of specie could cover, and states did not regulate them. Jackson decided to put an end to this, and he "burst" the Specie Circular bubbble, using the strength of his well-organized party to pass state banking regulation legislation, and pushing through Federal legislation to prohibit the circulation of the bills the banks had issued--land would now have to purchased with hard cash, specie, or notes isssued by the United States. This was a wise move, and one which would benefit the country enormously for a century--but it's short-term consequences were enormous for the economy in Jackson's day. He retired to his estate, The Hermitage, and for his successor, Van Buren, in the white house, the effect of both the death of the Second Bank of the United States, coupled with the bust in the ridiculously inflated land market which resulted from the end of specie circulars combined to throw the country into a severe recession, precisely like the effect of the bust from overinflated tech stocks has done recently.

Some of the old Federalists and members of the Adams wing, looking for a political home, formed the Whigs. The new, young adherents to the Adams wing who would copy and even improve upon Jackson's party organization, and eventually found the Ripon Society, did not arise until the mid-1850's. In the interim, an anti-immigrant movement arose, drawing support form the less well-educated members of the Whigs and the Adams wing, as well as of urban Democrats who feared for their jobs, and formed a party in the early 1850's, and were know as the know-nothings (because it was said that when questioned about their political affiliations, they would reply 'I know nothing.")--but their popularity was parochial, and they could not organize a national party.

When the crisis of the Civil War loomed, the Ripon Society had already built itself into a true national party, welcoming in the last of the Adams wing, still a large and considerable block with influence in the mid-Atlantic and New England. The Whigs, never a healthy party, continued to siphon off some of their support, but took more out of the Democrats, whose popularism was thought to have gone too far by some members who were in the mercantile and speculation (read investment capitalization) communities. So, in 1860, Lincoln faced three opponents, as Adams had in 1824. The former Vice President, John C. Breckenridge, formed a slave owners wing of the Democrats, and split the party's vote fatally, costing Douglas an otherwise certain election. Douglas had been obliged to acknowledge his support for abolition in the famous bebates between him and Lincoln when he defeated the later in a Senate bid. With the Democrats split, Lincoln became yet another minority president, although the support of the Democrats was wide-spread enough that the split in the vote gave Lincoln the election in the electoral college, without the necessity of a vote in the House.

And that, my friend Joe, is the origin of the two-party system. The Democrats were too widely-based and well-organized to die from the loss of many, many elections consecutively, and the Whigs too weak to survive their loss. And down the generations since, the two behemoths, Republicans and Democrats, have grown too large, too wealthy and too powerful for a successful third party challenge.

Were i to choose a President for nomination of whatever prize this thread offers to the winner, other than Washington, it would be Jackson. In one year of his administration (i'd have to go dig up a reference, i'm too lazy, so this is believe it or not), he made more in Federal revenue than the government spent, so he divided the surplus equally, and returned it to the several states. He gets my vote for that one alone.

I chose Washington for reasons i've explained at length elsewhere, and his contribution outweighs that of any other President, in my opinion, because of what i consider the entirely supportable contention that without him, our nation would not exist.

Very nicely written A+ . I think all you need is a good editor, Setanta, and you can start knocking out histories as fast as Stephen Ambrose. (who also needed a good editor)
You're right about the two party system as well. Someday we should discuss the shifts in philosophy both parties have traversed over the years. I've talked to people who were shocked to find that the Democrats (or part of them) were once the pro-slavery party and that the Republicans, who sat on their hands throughout the civil rights struggle, were the party of Lincoln.

I love the current crack about being a member of Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, it shows the frustration many Americans feel about being pigeonholed into two boxes. I have Catholic friends who hate the Republican attitude towards just about everything except abortion, but being real good one-issue voters they pull the GOP lever. They feel they have no other choice. Then there is the electoral college, I can't say more.

Got to go. Making shortcake that we will probably end up eating on the porch while watching the rainclouds.

Peace
J

I suspect everyone has a friend with that same attitude. I know I have several.

All I can do is to remind them that they are in effect aligning themselves with forces inimical to so many Christian values -- it makes no sense to support them based just on this one issue.

It seldom works -- and the Republicans and conservatives of the country are made artificially stronger because of that -- but that is the way a democracy works.

I can only hope those people fleshing out the ranks of the conservatives just on that one issue eventually come to their senses.

Jackson's actions toward the Indians adds to his influential stature. Few presidents rival his rooting out of the American natives.

Yeah, Jackson wouldn't be first in a poll done in Tahlequah, Oklahoma.

:wink:

I had thought about that after i'd written the above -- although, it was his successor, Martin Van Buren, who holds the dubious distinction of having broken more treaties than any other American President. If that is used as a disqualifier, i'd have to go with Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., because every American President, including Washington, up to and including McKinley, has presided over an administration during which there was warfare with the Indians.

Man imagine if you're greeted at the pearly gates not by St. Peter but by Chief Eagle who Flies With Angels.

It'll be hard to find a white man in heaven. :wink:

Well, if we're talking about who influenced AMERICA, the answer might be different from someone who was the most influential AMERICAN. You see, it is my prominent belief that perhaps it wasn't any of the presidents who were the most influential (George Washington was only a military general who reluctantly became a nation's first president until political pressure, anyway).

As an avid student of flight and aviation, the answer that immediately comes to my mind is Orville or Wilbur Wright. The Wright Brothers were indeed the most influential Americans because of the awesome power of the airplane that they unleashed. However, they did not influence America. They influenced the WORLD. The airplane has proved itself useful in just about any category: transportation of humans, mail, packages, and also finds military and scientific use. Airplanes have shaped history.

Thanks to Orville and Wilbur. That would be my answer.