why did Freemasons become the most successful 19th century secret/fraternal society?

[code_grey]

my understanding is that there were lots of copycats back then created by people who wanted to be the chief exalted something or other big local boss themselves. So why didn't any of the competitors manage to do a good job capitalizing on anti-Masonic sentiment, suspicions of anti-Christian doctrine and similar in order to successfully expand the "new and improved, non-offensive Mason substitute"? "Say no to Masons, join the quasi-Masons" and so forth. What was it about the real Masons that allowed them to stay and grow while their competition now shows up mostly on Wikipedia?

[Todderbob]

I'd like to point out, that as a secret society, the Mason's actually aren't that successful.

I'd wager that there are probably more secret societies out there, many of them more successful on the secretive front.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

What was it about the real Masons that allowed them to stay and grow while their competition now shows up mostly on Wikipedia?I don't know if the Elks are the "competition" you're referring to, but with close to 1,000,000 members in 2,000 lodges in the U.S., they're hardly "mostly on Wikipedia."

[Pleonast]

Without much knowledge of fraternal orders, I would guess that the Masons had the first-mover advantage. If the point of joining such an order was to hobnob with other people of influence, the order that had the most people in high places would have a clear advantage. If the Masons were first, simply by being first, they'd have more important people. From then on, it's a matter of inertia. If you want to join an order to be an insider, or just to feel like you're an insider, you join the society that has the most insiders.

[Mops]

Haven't the Freemasons also been most successful in having conspiracy-theorist opponents doing their advertising for them?

[code_grey]

Haven't the Freemasons also been most successful in having conspiracy-theorist opponents doing their advertising for them?

I don't think there was constant anti-Masonic agitation in the late 19th century, at least not on the level that can be achieved today with the Internet and folks like Jack Chick. On the other hand, such a campaign could conceivably be launched by an organization that stood to benefit, like Elks or Knight of Columbus or by whatever other competing group.

[ZipperJJ]

I don't know if the Elks are the "competition" you're referring to, but with close to 1,000,000 members in 2,000 lodges in the U.S., they're hardly "mostly on Wikipedia."

Hmm, I don't think the OP was referring to all other fraternities, just secret ones. You can't really go anywhere in America without noticing all of the Elks, Moose, Eagles and KOCs - hardly organizations one would refer to as "mostly on Wikipedia."

[Tom Tildrum]

I don't think the Masons' existence is supposed to be secret, just some of their rituals. And their specific membership, I suppose.

[bonzer]

So why didn't any of the competitors manage to do a good job capitalizing on anti-Masonic sentiment, suspicions of anti-Christian doctrine and similar in order to successfully expand the "new and improved, non-offensive Mason substitute"? "Say no to Masons, join the quasi-Masons" and so forth.

If someone was anti-Masonic, what on earth would be the temptation for them to join some Masonic-lite version? That seems the least promising recruiting pool for such an organisation.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

why did Freemasons become the most successful 19th century secret/fraternal society? It was the will of Mighty Cthulhu!

[yabob]

If someone was anti-Masonic, what on earth would be the temptation for them to join some Masonic-lite version? That seems the least promising recruiting pool for such an organisation.
They might not be against the general idea of a fraternal order, just against some aspect of Freemasonry. Or were forbidden to join it. The Catholic Church started the Knights of Columbus because they also didn't allow their members to join the Freemasons.

[AskNott]

The appeal of the Masons, that is, the part other fraternal orgs offered, is not the secrecy. It is friendship, or "brotherhood." Once you've joined, you can walk into any, say, Wombats lodge anywhere, and the guys there will treat you like a friend. The Masons teach a new member about being good and smart, in case he wasn't when he joined. The other lodges probably do the same. Something your brother would do for you, right? Not my brother, but maybe yours.;)

You can walk into any bar in the world, and they'll sell you a beer, but they might not pretend to like you. If you're an Eagle or a Wombat, though, the bartender at the lodge is your brother, even three states from your hometown.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Hmm, I don't think the OP was referring to all other fraternities, just secret ones.Are the Freemasons really any more secret than the others?

Once you've joined, you can walk into any, say, Wombats lodge anywhere, and the guys there will treat you like a friend.What can I say? Wombats are your brothers. We are your friends. We also eat your fenceposts.

[DrDeth]

Note that in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century- almost every man belonged to some Fraternal Org. It was a very important thing back then. There were dozens of them, and most barely hang on today.

[Tom Tildrum]

Fraternal organizations also served as mutual life and disability insurance companies at one time. You paid your dues, and the society took care of your family if you were injured or you died.

[samclem]

Note that in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century- almost every man belonged to some Fraternal Org. It was a very important thing back then. There were dozens of them, and most barely hang on today.

I'd love to see some statistics that "almost every man belonged to some Fraternal Org." in the late 19th Century-early 20th Century. I know that fraternal societies were out in full force--the sheer numbers of them are amazing. But, did the average man belong to one?

[DrDeth]

I'd love to see some statistics that "almost every man belonged to some Fraternal Org." in the late 19th Century-early 20th Century. I know that fraternal societies were out in full force--the sheer numbers of them are amazing. But, did the average man belong to one?

Well, if you look up the history of E Clampus vitus, they were the Frat Org for those who could not belong to any others. So, there was a Frat Org for anyone and everyone. I don't know how many of the "average man" did belong, but it seemed fairly important to belong to some org.

[Didactylos]

Can american dopers clue me in on this:
Why is there both an Elks lodge and a Moose lodge?
Two orders named after two names for the same animal.
Is one of them a split off branch of the other?

[yabob]

Can american dopers clue me in on this:
Why is there both an Elks lodge and a Moose lodge?
Two orders named after two names for the same animal.
Is one of them a split off branch of the other?
You're being Euro-centric. In North America, "elk" doesn't mean Alces alces, the animal we call a "moose". To us, "elk" means Cervus elaphus, or less confusingly, the wapiti. The European variety of THAT animal is called the "red deer".

[Freddy the Pig]

my understanding is that there were lots of copycats back then created by people who wanted to be the chief exalted something or other big local boss themselves. So why didn't any of the competitors manage to do a good job capitalizing on anti-Masonic sentiment, suspicions of anti-Christian doctrine and similar in order to successfully expand the "new and improved, non-offensive Mason substitute"?Broad-based anti-Mason sentiment emerged for about a decade after the Morgan murder scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morgan_(anti-Mason)) in 1826, which shocked much of the country and briefly spawned a regional political party. It didn't redound to the benefit of other fraternal organizations, however; rather, fraternal organizations in general went into decline in this era, and political parties and churches seemed to absorb much of the communitarian impulse.

Fraternal organizations revived after the Civil War. They seem to prosper after mass-participation wars (Revolutionary, Civil, and the two World Wars), as men recreate the wartime camaraderie they experienced early in life.

By that time, the Morgan scandal had been forgotten, but some people did object to Masonry for religious reasons. And competitors did emerge--the Knights of Columbus, the Knights of Pythias, the Elks, the Grange, and the clubby Grand Army of the Republic for veterans. The Masons didn't go away, and almost certainly grew in numbers, but they lost "market share". I would argue that the competitor fraternals did in fact promote themselves as "new and improved non-offensive Mason substitutes".

What was it about the real Masons that allowed them to stay and grow while their competition now shows up mostly on Wikipedia?As noted this part of your question is based on an unsubtantiated premise, and so cannot be answered.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Can american dopers clue me in on this:
Why is there both an Elks lodge and a Moose lodge?
Two orders named after two names for the same animal.
Is one of them a split off branch of the other?As yabob said, they're two very different critters over here. Elk roam in herds, mostly in higher altitudes. There are tens of thousands of them in this area (Montana, near Yellowstone Park). Moose are bigger, and generally either solitary or in small family groups.

Here are pictures of male moose (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_03/mooseDM2003_468x440.jpg) and elk (http://www.smouse.force9.co.uk/fa_elk.jpg).

[gaffa]

All the social service organizations are on life support, and the good works they have chosen to perform is suffering. The high-achievers who were the life blood of these groups are now expected to work so much overtime they don't have the time to devote to the Shriners, Elks, Rotary and others. Read Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone (http://books.simonandschuster.com/Bowling-Alone/Robert-D-Putnam/9780743203043).