Abraham Lincoln or Charles Darwin: who impacted the world more?

[Sampiro]

Hopefully just a friendly debate rather than a major slugfest.

February 12 is the 200th birthday of Lincoln and of Darwin. Which one do you believe impacted the world we live in today the most?

Lincoln was of course limited to America- never traveled beyond its borders- but then America became the most powerful nation in the world due to the unity and change and militarization that Lincoln brought about. Had another man been president they may have let the south go- at least eventually- if the south had ever seceded to begin with- and while slavery may or may not have been on its way out (personally I think it would have lasted for a very long time without the war because there's no way you can convince tens of thousands of slaveowners to part with property that valuable peacefully) it most certainly wouldn't have ended in 1865 without Lincoln. Then there's the "United States are/United States is" case change that's often referenced due to the war.

Darwin on the other hand led to the Holocaust. (Okay, only Ben Stein claims that, so I'll strike it.)

Darwin on the other hand led to a near worldwide revolution in science and sociology. Social Darwinism, which he of course not only did not champiton but completely disavowed, led to much of the abuses of late 19th century capitalism, while the acceptance among intellectuals and scientists of evolution led much to the church v. science rifts of the modern world that we are still fighting.

Neither of these men introduced anything particularly new (the North-South/abolition/pro slavery factions had been agitating on an escalating scale of irreconcilability and violence for decades by the time of Lincoln's election and something or someone was bound to bring it to arms sooner or later, while evolutionary theory in simpler forms had been around since at least ancient Greece and would probably have had its codifier in the late 19th century without Darwin). However, both profoundly changed the world. So in your opinion, suppose scenarios in which Lincoln lived until 1865 but Darwin died in childhood, and one in which Darwin lived to old age as he did in life but Lincoln died in childhood: which would have made more difference in the world of 2009?

[Vox Imperatoris]

Somebody else would have come up with a theory of natural selection. No one else would have been a politician and war leader with the particular characteristics of Lincoln. Lincoln, hands down.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[smiling bandit]

Somebody else would have come up with a theory of natural selection. No one else would have been a politician and war leader with the particular characteristics of Lincoln. Lincoln, hands down.

Somebody else did. In fact, Darwin might never have published except that another fellow was about to do it with the exact same theory.\

(Darwin then acted like a jerk and rushed to publish and cut the other guy out, which was definitely rude. Many other academics would jointly-publish under such circumstances. But Darwin being a dick is not the topic. Sorry!)

[begbert2]

I'm not sure the fact that "somebody else would have" is relevent - the one that did the act deserves credit for it nonetheless.

[bonzer]

Darwin then acted like a jerk and rushed to publish and cut the other guy out, which was definitely rude. Many other academics would jointly-publish under such circumstances. But Darwin being a dick is not the topic. Sorry!

For the record, that wasn't his reaction at all. On receiving Wallace's paper from the other side of the world he was devastated that someone else had had the same idea, but his anguished instinct was to do as requested and forward it for publication, thereby letting Wallace take all the credit. It's Lyell and Hooker who propose reading some of Darwin's previously privately circulated writings to the Linnean Society alongside Wallace's paper and push Darwin into agreeing to that. Effectively jointly publishing, so they both got credit.
It's an arrangement that Wallace, when he eventually found out that that's what had happened, never took offence at.

For that matter, Wallace explicitly knew that Darwin was in the late stages of writing a big book on how species come about. That's why he chose Darwin as the most suitable person to send the paper to. What he didn't know was what Darwin's book was going to propose.

[spike404]

"..Then there's the "United States are/United States is" case change that's often referenced due to the war...."

Wow! I have often used this point when discussing the Constitution, etc..... Most folks look at me quizzicly. I am glad there are other folks who recognize this very important point.

[DrCube]

Lincoln is my favorite president, I really respect him; he made the tough decisions that kept our infant country whole and managed to abolish slavery as well.

But Darwin was a genius who monumentally changed the world. It's still too early to accurately judge the depth of Darwin's impact. At minimum the man is the Isaac Newton of biology. Or the Einstein even. I'm out of my element here, so I'll let others attempt to describe the achievements of Charles Darwin in more detail.

But I wonder: Are all the science folks going to vote for Darwin, and all the political/history types will go with Honest Abe? I'm sure it's just me, but I can't see putting any politician (even Lincoln) above even your average scientific genius, let alone someone of Darwin's magnitude.

[Vox Imperatoris]

I'm not sure the fact that "somebody else would have" is relevent - the one that did the act deserves credit for it nonetheless.

Not really. If the other guy had published his paper instead of Darwin, even if it came later or in incomplete form, there would have been minimal difference between that scenario and the one that actually happened. If the Democrats had won the 1860 election, however, or if a different Republican had been commander-in-chief, there's no telling how things would have turned out. I've got nothing against scientists, but I think that the individual person who comes up with the theories is simply less important than the individual who wields political or military power at a given time, if only because personal flaws and virtues have a much greater influence on the latter than on the former. As long as Darwin published his theory, it didn't really matter what kind of man he was.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

ETA: And when mistakes are made in science, they can be revised later at any time; however, you can't fight the Civil War twice.

[lissener]

I'm not sure the fact that "somebody else would have" is relevent - the one that did the act deserves credit for it nonetheless.

OK? There have been few ideas that have changed the world more than Darwinism. I don't think it's even close.

[GIGObuster]

Not really. If the other guy had published his paper instead of Darwin, even if it came later or in incomplete form, there would have been minimal difference between that scenario and the one that actually happened. If the Democrats had won the 1860 election, however, or if a different Republican had been commander-in-chief, there's no telling how things would have turned out. I've got nothing against scientists, but I think that the individual person who comes up with the theories is simply less important than the individual who wields political or military power at a given time, if only because personal flaws and virtues have a much greater influence on the latter than on the former. As long as Darwin published his theory, it didn't really matter what kind of man he was.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

ETA: And when mistakes are made in science, they can be revised later at any time; however, you can't fight the Civil War twice.

I disagree, and it is not only because I take into account what the Northern Irish science historian James Burke said:

Today the people who make things change, the people who have that knowledge, are the scientists and the technologists who are the true driving forces of humanity.

And before you say: “what about the Beethoven's and Michelangelo's?*”... let me suggest something which you may disagree violently: that at best, the products of human emotions: art, literature, politics ... are interpretations of the world that tell you more of the person telling us than about the world he is talking about.

[Those are] Second hand views of the world that are made third hand by your interpretation of them.
- James Burke on The Day The Universe Changed.


I see this also as an issue of perspective, Lincoln may be the choice in the USA, but the question concerns the world.

As even modern medicine is relying in the theory of evolution to fight disease, my choice goes to Darwin.






* and Lincolns.

[Elendil's Heir]

Lincoln. The 16th President ensured that the world understood that popular democracy is not a fluke, that constitutional government cannot be brought down by an armed and aggrieved regional minority, and that the U.S. would remain united and later play a decisive role in two world wars.

I take nothing away from Darwin's accomplishments, but Lincoln had a far greater impact.

[The Second Stone]

I'm going to go with Darwin because he advanced the study of biology and changed nearly everything we do everyday in some small or large way. Lincoln's effectiveness was largely limited to the US.

As for Wallace, he had the same insight that Darwin did and was going to publish (and in fact had written the crucial sentences more elegantly), however Darwin had the same insight and all of the research to back it up to the point that an unbiased observer could not deny they theory. Wallace didn't have all that evidence. Darwin shared credit with Wallace and Wallace was satisfied with that. However Wallace eventually recanted, making me wonder if he even understood what he had stumbled upon.

I think others would have hit upon these ideas soon, but Darwin and Wallace did in about 1859, maybe decades before others. Certainly Mendel's work on genetics would have helped others see the light. Incidentally, Mendel's work is just as important as Darwin's.

[Stranger On A Train]

In two hundred years, Darwin will still be remembered as the founder of evolutionary biology. (And note that his work in this regard was not the publication of a single book or paper, but literally decades of research in his post-Beagle life which added monumental support for his theories.) Lest we relegate natural selection to a bin marked "Interesting For Academic Interest Only," I'll point out that evolutionary theory and practical applications arising therefrom underpin much of modern medicine, and will be even more significant as biotechnology grows. Lincoln will just be one of a string of historical figures who made significant but incremental contributions to political history; one might equally point to Oliver Cromwell or Charlemagne (or Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan) as being equally significant in overall historical impact.

And, for the record, while Lincoln may have acted to keep the Union together, it was Wilson who (attempted to) impose a pan-nationalist governing counsel upon the world, and Franklin Roosevelt who involved is in world affairs to an inextricable degree and placed us in direct opposition to Soviet (and later Chinese) Communism as a replacement for the then-faltering British Empire. Heck, it was Teddy who gave the United States sufficient naval projection to allow us to be a major player in world affairs at all. Not to marginalize Lincoln, but it is arguable that he is far from the most important presidential figure except in terms of the American Civil War itself.

As for overall influence of 19th century and later figures on the overall progress of humanity, I'm going to point to James Clerk Maxwell, the father of electrodynamic theory and thus all modern technology, as the single most influential figure.

Stranger

[Aquila Be]

Lincoln. The 16th President ensured that the world understood that popular democracy is not a fluke, that constitutional government cannot be brought down by an armed and aggrieved regional minority, and that the U.S. would remain united and later play a decisive role in two world wars.

I take nothing away from Darwin's accomplishments, but Lincoln had a far greater impact.

That's a very provincial point of view and appears to accept a priori that those who wrote the American constitution somehow managed to devise a near perfect form of government. Such a claim is perfect nonsense and ignores the fact that Lincoln, at a cost of 600,000 lives, transformed the system from a federal form of government to a de facto unitary system.

Advances in almost any field of science, not only those introduced by evolutionary theory, have had much more tangible impact on our lives than politicians whose main contribution to human progress has, on balance, been more negative than positive.

[Half Man Half Wit]

I'm going with Darwin, too -- nothing to detract from Lincoln's accomplishments, but Darwin's idea of natural selection is just so fundamental to modern thinking and science that it's easily overlooked and taken for granted. Plus, he wanted to abolish slavery (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16503-hatred-of-slavery-drove-darwin-to-emancipate-all-life.html), too. ;)

[Odesio]

I'm going to go with Darwin on this. Darwin's influence was not only felt in scientific circles but also social and political circles throughout the world. Darwin's influence on the eugenics movement starting in the latter half of the 19th century was felt in the United States, Canada, and in many European countries. (Darwin didn't support this so far as I know.) Others have already covered the importance of Darwin's work in medicine and modern biology.

What did Lincoln do that had a profound influence on world events? Nothing really. That doesn't take away from what he accomplished (for good or ill).


Odesio

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

Not to put the man down, but Lincoln mainly influenced the US while Darwin influenced thinking in the enitre world. To put it in context, I think that children in many countries don't get thought about Lincoln in history classes, while natural selection will be on most curricula (ironically, except in parts of the US I gather). Given that the OP asks who impacted the world...i would say Darwin.

[Švejk]

Darwin. Lincoln online affected the US; Darwin's effect is worldwide, and I think that the reasoning that someone else might have come up with it is as specious as the reasoning that there might have been another Lincoln.

[Fake Tales of San Francisco]

The key word in the OP is 'world'.

I think Lincoln possibly impacted America more than Darwin did, but Darwin certainly impacted the world the most. For reasons already pretty much already stated.

Arguments that suggest others would have down what Darwin did, could easily be applied to Lincoln, if he had not been born and someone equally or more great took his place then we would be talking about them instead (it can work both ways). Luck (or chance rather) has a lot to do with being great. The most horrible human alive can be thought of as a saviour for being in the right place at the right time (not referring to the two mentioned in the OP of course).

[Mr. Moto]

Frankly, I don't think there is much comparison to be made. Both men were hugely consequential, and that ought to be enough.

The people who state that Lincoln's influence was chiefly American are wrong, though - his writings and admiration for his actions crop up in interesting places around the world. Quotes from Lincoln were seen in the Tiananmen Square protests, Lincoln was admired by German socialists and was even congratulated in his reelection in a letter from Karl Marx, and he was extensively quoted in India in speeches by Nehru, who even owned a bronze cast of Lincoln's right hand.

[Sampiro]

Lincoln. The 16th President ensured that the world understood that popular democracy is not a fluke, that constitutional government cannot be brought down by an armed and aggrieved regional minority, and that the U.S. would remain united and later play a decisive role in two world wars.


I agree with this, though I wonder how he would have spoken had a 38 year old Congressman said of his policy “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.”

[Driver8]

I'm not sure the fact that "somebody else would have" is relevent - the one that did the act deserves credit for it nonetheless.But the question asked was not "who deserves more credit", it was "who impacted the world more". I think in that case the question of alternative people is very relevent, as history may have looked very similar even if the person did not exist. This should in no way be considered a disparagement of their achievements.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nothing against Lincoln (he gets my vote for greatest President in US history), but on a worldwide level, I think it's Darwin, hands down. He fundamentally changed how human beings look at themselves and their relationship to the universe.

[Captain Amazing]

Not to put the man down, but Lincoln mainly influenced the US while Darwin influenced thinking in the enitre world.

Maybe, but look at the impact America has had on the world. Had America broken up in the 1860s, look at the way the world would have changed.

[smiling bandit]

The OP specified the men, not their ideas or actions. Darwin was dispensible to science, and the theory would have emerged just the same.

Lincoln was a rare case of exactly the right man with the right background at the right time and place, able to balance several hostile "friendly" factions, while motivating the great mass of people and fighting a brutal civil war - the first modern war in history - while being undercut by his supposed allies at every turn, and having some of the worst generals in history taking turns wrecking his armies.

Darwin did one impressive thing: he came up with a new idea, and it was good. Lincoln did damn near every impressive thing a man can do.

[John Mace]

Darwin, no question. Discounting him because of Wallace, and not discounting Lincoln for the same reason isn't much of an argument. There are always other leaders lurking in the background. Lincoln was one of a string of presidents. He made plenty of mistakes along with all he accomplished. But Darwin changed the entire world.

Maybe it would be better to compare the impact of the actions on these two men, and not focus on the men themselves. I can't see how Darwin wouldn't win easily.

[Stranger On A Train]

Lincoln was a rare case of exactly the right man with the right background at the right time and place, able to balance several hostile "friendly" factions, while motivating the great mass of people and fighting a brutal civil war - the first modern war in history - while being undercut by his supposed allies at every turn, and having some of the worst generals in history taking turns wrecking his armies.

Darwin did one impressive thing: he came up with a new idea, and it was good. Lincoln did damn near every impressive thing a man can do.Both of these claims are facile to the point of blind falsity. I'm not sure how the American Civil War can be considered "the first modern war in history," other than being the first use of rapid fire machine guns (Gardner and Gatling crank guns) instead of grapeshot for mass anti-personnel weapons, and this doesn't compare in usage and effectiveness to the Maxim in Afghanistan and Africa. The effects of the French Revolution and subsequent warfare, and the Great Game in Central Asia are better candidates for models of war in terms of strategy, military doctrine, and the focus on modern logistics and support versus straight confrontation, although WWI really qualifies as being the first true modern war.

Darwin hardly did "one impressive thing,"; rather, he spent decades of his life after his now-famous voyage on the Beagle (in which he was the captain's companion, not the vessel's titled biologist) studying various species in extensive detail and with a scientific rigour then rarely matched in such efforts. Most famous was his work with barnacles, which led him to develop specific theories of sexual selection and the role of variation of phenotypes in species transformation. He performed and published on a massive body of work in support of his theory (unlike Wallace, who did little after the joint publication and eventually turned his back on evolutionary theory entirely). To say that Darwin did only one thing is a claim in ignorance of the foundations of development of modern evolutionary biology. Read David Quammen's The Reluctant Mr. Darwin (http://www.amazon.com/Reluctant-Mr-Darwin-Evolution-Discoveries/dp/0393059812) for a brief but detailed summary of Charles Darwin's efforts toward and conflicts with evolutionary theory.

Stranger

[The Flying Dutchman]

If Darwin was never alive, I can't come up with a scenario that would change the present condition of the human race one iota. The knowledge of our prehistory has no bearing on our cultures ,or our technological achievements including applied science.

Lincoln however secured the union of the United States and given the subsequent power of that union and its influence on the world thereafter, I would have to go with him as the greater impact on the world.

[Odesio]

Both of these claims are facile to the point of blind falsity. I'm not sure how the American Civil War can be considered "the first modern war in history," other than being the first use of rapid fire machine guns (Gardner and Gatling crank guns) instead of grapeshot for mass anti-personnel weapons, and this doesn't compare in usage and effectiveness to the Maxim in Afghanistan and Africa.


It was the first war in which common rank and file troops were given rifles, iron clad ships were put into use, the railroad radically altered the logistics of warfare, trench warfare reared its ugly head, it was the first widely photographed war, it was possible for the general to communicate with his superiors in Washington thanks to telegraphs, and there are many other reasons.



Odesio

[begbert2]

But the question asked was not "who deserves more credit", it was "who impacted the world more". I think in that case the question of alternative people is very relevent, as history may have looked very similar even if the person did not exist. This should in no way be considered a disparagement of their achievements.Unless you have a crystal ball allowing you to view alternate futures, the argument that "no other human being could do what Lincoln did, but had Darwin never been born things would have turned out exactly the same way" is ridiculous. You literally cannot make this argument without special pleading, pleading that Lincoln was unique and unreplaceable (to the degree that no other president could have won the war :rolleyes: ) while simultaneously pleading that Darwin's evidence and arguments were utterly irrelevent to the success and acceptance of evolutionary biology.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

If Darwin was never alive, I can't come up with a scenario that would change the present condition of the human race one iota. The knowledge of our prehistory has no bearing on our cultures ,or our technological achievements including applied science.

Lincoln however secured the union of the United States and given the subsequent power of that union and its influence on the world thereafter, I would have to go with him as the greater impact on the world.

The theory of evolution has no bearing on applied science? How is it possible to be so ignorant?

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

It was the first war in which common rank and file troops were given rifles, iron clad ships were put into use, the railroad radically altered the logistics of warfare, trench warfare reared its ugly head, it was the first widely photographed war, it was possible for the general to communicate with his superiors in Washington thanks to telegraphs, and there are many other reasons.



Odesio

On the other hand, it lacked modern armour, air power, combined forces attacks, and a host of other elements of modern warfare.

[smiling bandit]

Both of these claims are facile to the point of blind falsity. I'm not sure how the American Civil War can be considered "the first modern war in history," other than being the first use of rapid fire machine guns (Gardner and Gatling crank guns) instead of grapeshot for mass anti-personnel weapons, and this doesn't compare in usage and effectiveness to the Maxim in Afghanistan and Africa. The effects of the French Revolution and subsequent warfare, and the Great Game in Central Asia are better candidates for models of war in terms of strategy, military doctrine, and the focus on modern logistics and support versus straight confrontation, although WWI really qualifies as being the first true modern war.

No, it does not.

The Civil War saw the introduction of iron-clads and iron-hulled ships, the widespread use of rifles, the development of a true tactical infantry skillset (of which our modern soldiers use a vastly more refined version), truely vast armies, primitive automatic weapons, the use of telegraph to control strategic and tactical elements, and railroads used to move troops and supplies.

You are correct in saying that later wars were more refined. That is irrelevant. Every element used in every war since stems directly from uses in the Civil War. Even air power had some genesis in the Civil War's use of balloons for scouting.

[shallora]

Lincoln. Hands down.

As for Darwin, there were others on his tail (no pun intended) who were likely to publish their own version of Origin of Species regarding Natural Selection. Darwin beat them to the printing press, but not by much. Someone else shortly after would have filled Darwin's paws.

Now take Lincoln. No other man in that position at the time would have likely done the things he did in the way he did to save the Union. Fault him what you will for his motives, but reframing the breakout of the Confederacy andthe subsequent Civil War into a referendum on slavery itself was pure genius. This kept the French and Spanish (and probably even the English) from giving help to the Confederate States.

It was an era when many nations were just coming to terms with thier own historical contributions to the slave trade. Behind closed doors Great Britain, as an example, always turned a blind eye to Confederate Slavery because in return they got all the sweet rewards from the South of tobacco, sugar, and cotton. "We don't have slaves," England could say officially. But, unofficially, they were addicted to the products from the South. And thus England wanted to help the South. The North? Feh. England was up to its eyeballs in factories and universities already. What did the North hold for England that England didn't already have? It was the South that gave England goods it couldn't get as cheaply anywhere else and in such great supply.

Enter Lincoln. "Emancipation Proclimation!" Lincoln says. Pure genius. Now Great Britain and other countries are forced to take a position on the Civil War and which side to support. Officially support the Confederacy, and now you taking the side of the "Pro Slavery" states (as Lincoln has now cast it). Unacceptable. So, you either don't take any side at all or you support the North (the "good" guys, because this is now about Freeing the Slaves, remember?).

Lincoln orchestrated this re-casting of the Civil War with such deft and political skill that I find it hard to believe that the Union would have survived without him.

Without the Union, the United States -- or what was left of it -- would have been a weaker country with fewer natural resources. The Manifest Destiny would have likely died, too. In any case when WWI and then WWII broke out decades later, the United States would not have been in the position to first help stop the Keiser, and later Hitler. Could you imagine who would have stopped Hitler had a strong America not? Can't think of anyone.

No Lincoln, no union :: No union, no strong USA :: No strong USA, than all of Europe would be speaking German today. And that's just for starters.

Who impacted the world more?
Darwin: The first guy to publish an idea others were about to, anyway.
Lincoln: The right man at the right place at the right time to save the strength of the USA, and in turn maybe the world.

No question. It's Lincoln.

[Odesio]

On the other hand, it lacked modern armour, air power, combined forces attacks, and a host of other elements of modern warfare.

We're talking history here not science so there's really no objective definition of modern. Which is what makes these kinds of discussions all sorts of fun.

Odesio

[The Flying Dutchman]

The theory of evolution has no bearing on applied science? How is it possible to be so ignorant?

Perhaps you could suggest an application of the theory of evolution that solved a practical problem.

[shallora]

Perhaps you could suggest an application of the theory of evolution that solved a practical problem.

I'll take that question.

Here's one, for starters, from Wiki:
A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[203] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology.

As evolution can produce highly optimized processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science. Here, simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life started with the work of Nils Aall Barricelli in the 1960s, and was extended by Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection.[204] Artificial evolution became a widely recognized optimization method as a result of the work of Ingo Rechenberg in the 1960s and early 1970s, who used evolution strategies to solve complex engineering problems.[205] Genetic algorithms in particular became popular through the writing of John Holland.[206] As academic interest grew, dramatic increases in the power of computers allowed practical applications, including the automatic evolution of computer programs.[207] Evolutionary algorithms are now used to solve multi-dimensional problems more efficiently than software produced by human designers, and also to optimize the design of systems.[208]
There's more where that came from.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I'll take that question.

Here's one, for starters, from Wiki:
[I]A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.
As stated, The theory of evolution did not initiate artificial or rather intentional selection.

Perhaps, and I can't rule it out, but a random spontaneous selection program involving perfecting iterations of favourable results in a sea of discarded garbage outcomes based on indirect or environmental stimuli might well have Darwin's theory as a model. Whether such a program would be critical to a technological advance is questionable.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Lincoln. Hands down.

As for Darwin, there were others on his tail (no pun intended) who were likely to publish their own version of Origin of Species regarding Natural Selection. Darwin beat them to the printing press, but not by much. Someone else shortly after would have filled Darwin's paws.

Now take Lincoln. No other man in that position at the time would have likely done the things he did in the way he did to save the Union. Fault him what you will for his motives, but reframing the breakout of the Confederacy andthe subsequent Civil War into a referendum on slavery itself was pure genius. This kept the French and Spanish (and probably even the English) from giving help to the Confederate States.


As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, Darwin's contribution wasn't a single book. It was a lifetime of work pushing the evolutionary agenda. Whilst others may have had a hint of the truth regarding evolution, they didn't have the extensive, persuasive evidence that Darwin had, drawn from years of work in the field. To state outright that anybody else who came up with the idea of Natural Selection would have done the same, whereas nobody else could have filled Lincoln's shoes, is ridiculous.

Besides, the question isn't "which man could have been replaced more easily", rather, "which man was the more influential". Darwinism is the central concept in biology, it's impossible to make sense of anything in biology without looking at it through the evolutionary lens. Lincoln's legacy is tied to the fate of the United States.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

As stated, The theory of evolution did not initiate artificial or rather intentional selection.

Perhaps, and I can't rule it out, but a random spontaneous selection program involving perfecting iterations of favourable results in a sea of discarded garbage outcomes based on indirect or environmental stimuli might well have Darwin's theory as a model. Whether such a program would be critical to a technological advance is questionable.

How about the concept of evolutionary molecular clocks in DNA testing, phylogenetic analyses of bacteria and viruses such as bird flu to stop the spread of diseases, and directed evolution to enhance vaccine efficacy? Of course, I'm a computer scientist, not a biologist, so perhaps I could point out genetic algorithms and other evolutionary forms of computing?

As noted, evolution is the central concept in biology. You don't get much more influential than creating an idea that is fundamental to shaping one of the basic sciences. There really is no competition between Darwin and Lincoln.

[Petrobey Mavromihalis]

Of course Darwin wins this (admittedly odd) competition.

This idea that scientific discovery is arbitrary, and that anyone could have done it is nonsense. Scientific progress has never been an ever upward path. Theories can be ignored for hundreds of years, others can be forgotten for similar periods. You absolutely cannot say that without Darwin we would, now, have a similar understanding of our place in the world.

Ideas will always win over actions. This is like comparing Pericles (a hugely important leader) to Plato.

[Fake Tales of San Francisco]

I'm still not sure why because Darwin was in the right place at the right time (and went and studied the right things) that he is disqualified. Whilst Lincoln being in the right place and the right time (and doing the right things) qualifies him.

[wsbenge]

Theoretical biology doesn't impact the world much at all.

Lincoln, like Kennedy, was assassinated, and that tends to make greater than life figures out of American Presidents. If Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, I think he would have put pressure to the carpet baggers, to alleviate some of the bad feelings.

Lincoln didn't do all that much for civil rights, but he was a rarity. He was a president with common sense. President doesn't run the country. Congress does.

[smiling bandit]

Lincoln didn't do all that much for civil rights, but he was a rarity. He was a president with common sense. President doesn't run the country. Congress does.

He did do a lot, but he recognized it was a battle of time and not something to rush. The Radical Republican block was trying to push things through much too fast, but Lincoln was able to hold them back enough that they didn't freak out the rest of the country. People were coming to a new appreciation of Americans descended from black slaves. Lincoln encouraged it, but only in subtle ways, like relaxing old restrictions on blacks in the capital. I believe Lincoln was the first President to receive a black man while in office; it was Frederick Douglas. Likewise, in a very cunning move, he made Salmon Chase the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This mollified the powerful politician after his failed Presidential bid and put a Radical Republican watchdog into the best place he could be.

Lincoln was in the thick of a lot of things. I don't doubt that he could have, had he surrendered everything to it, pushed black equality farther along. However, it would have neccessitated comprimises in other areas which were likely to be much worse on the balance. Had he lived he would undoubtedly have been able to better manage the Republican coalition and helped calm the South. Though he was in some respects hated there, the people also pretty well respected him; he'd just kicked their butts.

[The Flying Dutchman]

The question asks who had more impact on the world.

Lincoln, kept the United States together at great cost to deliver the world a superpower That has influenced the very lives of every man woman and child on the planet. Instead of the ideologies of Russia, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan dominating the world, we have what we have the political landscape today including all the technological advances generated by the powerful economy of the US.

Not to take anything away from Darwin, but explain to me how different our lives would be without Darwin.

The last 150 years are but a moment in the history of man, and if the question is asked again in a 1000 years it may well be that Lincoln's contribution will become irrelevant. Darwin's contribution will stand as long as we have a civilization on the planet.

[Odesio]

Actually the question was who impacted the world more. I'm still doing to have to go with Darwin on this one. He's the one figure that seems to make fundamentalist want to shit a brick, or at least they look and sound like they want to shit a brick, but Darwin's magical theory of natural selection is somehow causing bowel obstructions. In sharp contrast, thinking about Lincoln causes no such bowel obstructions.


Odesio

[The Flying Dutchman]

Actually the question was who impacted the world more. I'm still doing to have to go with Darwin on this one. He's the one figure that seems to make fundamentalist want to shit a brick, or at least they look and sound like they want to shit a brick, but Darwin's magical theory of natural selection is somehow causing bowel obstructions. In sharp contrast, thinking about Lincoln causes no such bowel obstructions.


Odesio

It is who impacted the world more, not the bible belt of the US.

[chappachula]

Lincoln kept the United States together at great cost to deliver the world a superpower .

not to hijack the thread too much, but can we play a little 'alternative history' to try to judge Lincoln's greatness?

Suppose he had never even fought the civil war. Let the South secede, and then forget about it.
The South would have become an unimportant country along the southern border, like Mexico.
The rest of America still succeed; it would never suffer huge costs (human and financial) of the civil war,and go on as a unified culture, to develop the west, build a strong industrial base, a strong army. Later, Thomas Edison would still provide electric power and Bill Gates would create Microsoft. Lincoln was a great president. But America could still have become a great nation and a superpowerwithout him --it would just be made of 38 states instead of 50.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Not to take anything away from Darwin, but explain to me how different our lives would be without Darwin.


I already partly explained that in my last post, which you seemed to have missed. Are you going to retract your ignorant claim that the theory of evolution has no practical application, now?

[The Flying Dutchman]

I already partly explained that in my last post, which you seemed to have missed. Are you going to retract your ignorant claim that the theory of evolution has no practical application, now?

Why don't you go fuck with yourself.

[tomndebb]

Why don't you go fuck with yourself.Because he would then be carrying out a suggestion that was issued in violation of the rules of this Forum.

This is a Warning to refrain from this activity in the future.

= = =

That said, Cap'n Ridley & Co., your post was unnecessarily provocative and you would do well to show a bit more circumspection in your posts in this Forum.


[ /Moderating ]

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Well, then I apologize.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Because he would then be carrying out a suggestion that was issued in violation of the rules of this Forum.

This is a Warning to refrain from this activity in the future.

= = =

That said, Cap'n Ridley & Co., your post was unnecessarily provocative and you would do well to show a bit more circumspection in your posts in this Forum.


[ /Moderating ]

I'm sorry and thankyou. I'll have to figure out another way to get your attention next time.

[BlinkingDuck]

Unless you have a crystal ball allowing you to view alternate futures, the argument that "no other human being could do what Lincoln did, but had Darwin never been born things would have turned out exactly the same way" is ridiculous. You literally cannot make this argument without special pleading, pleading that Lincoln was unique and unreplaceable (to the degree that no other president could have won the war :rolleyes: ) while simultaneously pleading that Darwin's evidence and arguments were utterly irrelevent to the success and acceptance of evolutionary biology.

I love science and want to go with Darwin...

...but everything I've read on the Civil War makes me so impressed with Lincoln.

I actually DO think no other president could have won the war (by keeping the U.S. intact).

They are both impressive but, to answer the OP, Lincoln had the most influence.

[Duke]

I'm not the biggest fan of short OPs, but this question calls for it.

In honor of Lincoln's and Darwin's joint 200th birthday: which of the two had the greater impact on world history to the present?

[Daddypants]

I would say Darwin. Most, if not all, of Lincoln's impact was on the US.

[Simplicio]

Evolution would've been conceived by someone at more or less the same time even without Darwin (and indeed it was). Granted Wallace might have not been as comfortable as Darwin in linking evolution to the descent of humans, but presumably others would've been, and history would've progressed more or less the same.

Would the US have won, or even fought the Civil War without Lincoln. Probably impossible to know, but I'd say its at least conceivable things would've shaken out differently, so I'd say Lincoln pretty clearly had more of an effect on history then Darwin.

[Marley23]

Merged second thread into this one.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Evolution would've been conceived by someone at more or less the same time even without Darwin (and indeed it was). Granted Wallace might have not been as comfortable as Darwin in linking evolution to the descent of humans, but presumably others would've been, and history would've progressed more or less the same.


But the fact that somebody other than Darwin may have invented the concept of natural is irrelevant to the question "who was more influential between Lincoln and Darwin"! We aren't discussing who was the most irreplaceable, rather the most influential.

Darwin was the originator of the theory, he spent a lifetime collecting irrefutable evidence for his theory, and finally published a book that caused a controversy on the subject after having his hand forced by the Wallace letter.

[BlinkingDuck]

But the fact that somebody other than Darwin may have invented the concept of natural is irrelevant to the question "who was more influential between Lincoln and Darwin"! We aren't discussing who was the most irreplaceable, rather the most influential.

Darwin was the originator of the theory, he spent a lifetime collecting irrefutable evidence for his theory, and finally published a book that caused a controversy on the subject after having his hand forced by the Wallace letter.

Ahhh...I was looking at it as if they never existed, how much would the world be different rather than the way you stated above.

[Locrian]

Lincoln is my favorite president, I really respect him; he made the tough decisions that kept our infant country whole and managed to abolish slavery as well.

But Darwin was a genius who monumentally changed the world. It's still too early to accurately judge the depth of Darwin's impact. At minimum the man is the Isaac Newton of biology. Or the Einstein even. I'm out of my element here, so I'll let others attempt to describe the achievements of Charles Darwin in more detail.

But I wonder: Are all the science folks going to vote for Darwin, and all the political/history types will go with Honest Abe? I'm sure it's just me, but I can't see putting any politician (even Lincoln) above even your average scientific genius, let alone someone of Darwin's magnitude.

Absolutely agree. Both men are insurmountable in respect to their achievements.
CD is more relevant in more aspects.

[cmosdes]

In my opinion science is predestined. Assuming evolution is true, it would have been discovered and eventually accepted as such. Today, 150 years after the fact, I don't think scientific understanding would be much different had it been Wallace instead of Darwin. Evolutions time had come. 100 years ago the world may have been very different had it been Wallace instead of Darwin, but as time goes on the impact of which one it was lessens.

All I need to do is look at how GHWB and GWB handled the gulf situation to know how vastly different the world looks when you change the guy in charge. And they had a pretty similar supporting cast.

In time, the difference between Lincoln and someone else will be less and less. But at least for now I have to give the nod to Lincoln.

[Kalhoun]

Somebody else did. In fact, Darwin might never have published except that another fellow was about to do it with the exact same theory.\

(Darwin then acted like a jerk and rushed to publish and cut the other guy out, which was definitely rude. Many other academics would jointly-publish under such circumstances. But Darwin being a dick is not the topic. Sorry!)

I thought they published together.

[horsetech]

Why does evolution matter in everyday life? It matters inasmuch as science, and therefore medicine, matter.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973

Quoted for truth, as the theory of evolution (a theory in the same way as the theory of gravitation) underlies modern biological science, upon which medical research relies, and our understanding of the natural world. To cite a popular example, understanding evolution by natural selection allows us to understand and therefore combat bacterial resistance to antibiotics (and resistance to antiparasitics and antivirals).

As an example, rifampin is a powerful antibiotic that works well against diseases such as TB. However, given alone, resistance rapidly evolves and rifampin becomes useless. When given in combination with other drugs, resistance to either drug is much less likely than if you gave them one at a time.

To go in another direction, evolutionary theory combined with molecular techniques allows us to construct phylogenies and analyze similarities and differences between species. We can use model organisms to study everything from the basic cellular machinery to effects of drugs to spread of disease because we understand on at least a basic level that bacteria, flatworms, flies, and mice all share properties with humans, and so discoveries in "lower" organisms can be used to benefit humankind. How confident could we be of neuroscience studies if we did not know, for example, that mice and humans share a recent enough ancestor that we share most of the same neurotransmitters and receptors in our brains? What about discoveries about the cell cycle, a topic crucial to the understanding of cancer, which have been made in yeast?

I am babbling a little here and probably not stating my case very well, but I truly believe what Dobzhansky said. Everything in biological science comes back in some way to the theory of evolution by natural selection. It provides a unifying thread that allows us to understand what we see and make predictions based on this understanding.

To get back to the OP, as you might have guessed, I'm going to go with Darwin.

[bonzer]

For that matter, Wallace explicitly knew that Darwin was in the late stages of writing a big book on how species come about. That's why he chose Darwin as the most suitable person to send the paper to. What he didn't know was what Darwin's book was going to propose.

This is entirely tangential to the thread, but specifically relates to both the above and the anniversary.
When I wrote the comment above I had in mind Darwin's letter of 1/5/1857 to Wallace, which mentions that he is preparing his book on speciation for publication. Discovered today that this very letter is currently on public display in the little temporary Darwin exhibition in the lobby of the British Library. If you are in the vicinity, the exhibition is worth checking out.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

There's also another way in which Darwin was influential. He was part of the instigation of the revolution that took science from being a hobby, of pastors and rich men, into a profession.

The idea of being a "professional scientist" to the Victorians was slightly scandalous---it wasn't something that well-bred men did. Yet, a new generation of young men was appearing who wished to turn science into a profession, in its own right.

The Huxley-Wilberforce debate was part of this. It really wasn't a debate over science and religion: Wilberforce himself was a noted scientist, despite being Bishop of Oxford, and many of the objections brought up in the debate were purely scientific (nobody could yet pinpoint a means by which traits were passed from one generation to the other, until genetics was developed, for instance). In particular, here's a snippet from Wilberforce's own review of On the Origin of the Species:


Our readers will not have failed to notice that we have objected to the views with which we are dealing solely on scientific grounds. We have done so from our fixed conviction that it is thus that the truth or falsehood of such arguments should be tried. We have no sympathy with those who object to any facts or alleged facts in nature, or to any inference logically deduced from them, because they believe them to contradict what it appears to them is taught by Revelation. We think that all such objections savour of a timidity which is really inconsistent with a firm and well-intrusted faith.


The legend of the debate states that Wilberforce was crushed by the evolutionists. Yet this wasn't the case, and both sides could probably have called the debate a draw. Rather, the evolutionists took the chance to score a propaganda coup, and portray Wilberforce as a buffoon, in the hopes of carving out a niche in Victorian society for themselves, as professionals. What could be better than demonstrating that the very latest thinking on the natural world was now too complex for a noted hobbyist to grasp?

(I've mentioned this book before, but Fabulous Science (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fabulous-Science-Fiction-Scientific-Discovery/dp/0192804049) has a lot more on this, and describes the struggle to make science into a respectable profession. It's a great read, if you're into science, and a bit contrary.)

[Deeg]

If one has the belief that Lincoln possibly saved democracy--"that government : of the people, by the people, for the people, [did] not perish from the earth"--then Lincoln had a greater impact than Darwin by far. It is not an unreasonable belief but it is highly speculative.

If one's influence is measured in the number of biographies then Abe wins by that scale, too. I've read that Lincoln has been written about more than any human after Jesus.

[amanset]

If one has the belief that Lincoln possibly saved democracy--"that government : of the people, by the people, for the people, [did] not perish from the earth"--then Lincoln had a greater impact than Darwin by far. It is not an unreasonable belief but it is highly speculative.


Doesn't that imply that democracy had to have been by then a purely American concept?

[MrDibble]

If one has the belief that Lincoln possibly saved democracy--

--one would be mistaken.

Darwin wins this, hands down. The only reason to say different is misguided patriotism.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

What's the argument that Lincoln saved democracy? How is that even justified?

[Deeg]

Doesn't that imply that democracy had to have been by then a purely American concept?
No, any more than evolution was purely a Darwin concept.
What's the argument that Lincoln saved democracy? How is that even justified?
In 1860 the US was still the only democratic nation in that all politicians in Federal officer were elected in some form by citizens. Britain was moving in that direction and it's probable that her path would have remained unchanged regardless of Lincoln's action. However, if the South had won it's independence then it's possible democratic movements in other countries would have slowed or reversed. The US Federal experiment might have died as more states broke away, Balkanizing what had been a (mostly) peaceful democratic government.

British subjects were aware of this (I believe Burns discusses this in his documentary.) Lincoln certainly believed this and expressed it in his Gettysburg Address: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

[amanset]

No, any more than evolution was purely a Darwin concept.


Then how did Lincoln save it seeing as though in large parts of the world it wasn't in danger? In fact many countries had slowly moved to democracy from more oppressive regimes without any help from Lincoln at all, starting from before Lincoln was even born.

Frankly the idea that Lincoln in some way saved the concept of democracy is preposterous and patently indefensible.

[amanset]

However, if the South had won it's independence then it's possible democratic movements in other countries would have slowed or reversed.

There's a mighty big jump from that vague and debatable if ... possible to the idea that Lincoln in some way saved democracy.

As someone else said, purely misguided patriotism. I also wouldn't put too much into that Gettysburg Address quote. Lincoln's job was to make such things sound more important than they were so as to spur people on.

[tagos]

Darwin dealt God a mortal wound by blowing giant holes in the Bible and it makes little or no difference to the rest of the world who won your civil war.

I echo the previous sentiments that only a USA-centric board could even consider this a question for debate.

Darwin. Clearly.

[MrDibble]

However, if the South had won it's independence then it's possible democratic movements in other countries would have slowed or reversed. The US Federal experiment might have died as more states broke away, Balkanizing what had been a (mostly) peaceful democratic government.

How is that a blow for democracy, since the new Southern Confederacy was also a democracy, closely modeled on the old one? Balkanisation may be a blow for peace, but surely it's only a blow for democracy if it replaces the old order with non-democratic states?

No, I guess not - democracy is kind of dependent on peaceful transitions of power. But on the third hand, the strong state's rights tradition in the US made this sort of conflict inherent, I guess. Aaah, I dunno...

[tagos]

No, any more than evolution was purely a Darwin concept.

However, if the South had won it's independence then it's possible democratic movements in other countries would have slowed or reversed. The US Federal experiment might have died as more states broke away, Balkanizing what had been a (mostly) peaceful democratic government.

[/i]"

The line of US Govts that descended from Lincoln spent the next 130+ years stamping out or otherwise undermining democratic movements wherever they raised their ugly little heads whilst installing or propping up monstrous dictators. So no.

[Martini Enfield]

It was the first war in which common rank and file troops were given rifles...

No, it wasn't. The Crimean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War) (1853-1856) was. You also had the Maori Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori_Wars) around the same time, and the Indian Mutiny (1857); which was, in fact, partly sparked by the issue of the Enfield Pattern 1853 Rifled Musket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1853_Enfield) and some brouhaha about the lubrication of the cartridge used with the rifle.

In short the British had been involved in three major conflicts which involved the general issue of a rifle (the Enfield rifled musket) before the US Civil War.

Darwin dealt God a mortal wound by blowing giant holes in the Bible and it makes little or no difference to the rest of the world who won your civil war.

I echo the previous sentiments that only a USA-centric board could even consider this a question for debate.

Darwin. Clearly.

I agree completely; Lincoln's influence does not spread far outside the US (and he's best remembered for Freeing The Slaves, overlooking the fact that slavery had been outlawed in the British Empire in 1834 and the North had been Abolitionist for some time as well). The South wasn't going to win the Civil War in any scenario except a Harry Turtledove novel, and even if they had they'd be so heavily in debt to the British that they'd have to end slavery anyway unless they wanted to become Confederate British North America.

Darwin, on the other hand, completely changed the way we look at ourselves, our world, our Faith, and our relationship between those factors. It's no contest and it's such a foregone conclusion, IMHO, I'd be very surprised if William Hill would even be prepared to offer odds on it.

[Deeg]

I'll roll my thoughts into one response...
How is that a blow for democracy, since the new Southern Confederacy was also a democracy, closely modeled on the old one? Balkanisation may be a blow for peace, but surely it's only a blow for democracy if it replaces the old order with non-democratic states?
By 1860 there were still only two major, modern, experiments in democratic government--the US and French Revolutions--and at least one minor attempt in Haiti. Other than the US the other attempts had failed, the French one gruesomely so. When Lincoln took the public oath the only surviving democracy was teetering on the brink of failure. If a democratic nation was allowed to break apart over differences then it might not ever succeed--not long after the Confederates declared their independence South Carolina was threatening to secede again.

What happens then? Does New England, which had threatened to secede 50 years earlier, make good on that promise? Do the states fall apart, create armies, and re-ignite interstate skirmishes? Does the American experiment fail? With nothing but failed democracies, does Europe create the French Third Republic?

Today we take for granted that democratic governance is the natural culmination of an enlightened society. Without Lincoln it might be otherwise.

[amanset]

Still a lot of mighty big mights kicking around and ignoring of the slow move towards democracy that Europe had been doing for centuries. As an example, arguably England's first elected Parliament was in 1264. About half a mile from where I grew up is a place called "Parliament Piece" that, legend has it, was one of the sites used by Henry III's Parliament in 1266.

That was the birth of democracy in England and from that point onwards there was a slow move to where we are today and you'll probably find that the same thing happened in a lot of other European countries. You make it sound as if democracy happened overnight in the late seventeenth century and was hanging on for dear life. That's quite simply not in the slightest bit true and seeing as it is the crux of your argument then frankly your argument falls apart.

[tagos]

I'll roll my thoughts into one response...

By 1860 there were still only two major, modern, experiments in democratic government

Wrong. What was Britain? With or without the 'example' of the USA other liberal democracies would have continued building towards universal suffrage.

Even if we shade over the fact that in large parts of the USA blacks were effectively disenfranchised until late in the 20th century many countries achieved universal suffrage before the USA including the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Australia etc etc.

Lincoln may have been an important figure for the USA but no matter how you parse history and ignore inconvenient facts (such as the monumentally anti-democratic foreign policies of US govts) he is simply unimportant beyond your borders.

Certainly compared to Darwin, or indeed many, many other people.

[Deeg]

Still a lot of mighty big mights kicking around and ignoring of the slow move towards democracy that Europe had been doing for centuries.
Absolutely; I said from the beginning that much of Lincoln's influence is speculation. I'll point out, however, that science was also making a slow move towards evolution and that it likely would have been delayed by 10-20 years at most if Darwin had never lived.
Wrong. What was Britain? With or without the 'example' of the USA other liberal democracies would have continued building towards universal suffrage.
I disagree to a point. After Waterloo Britain helped reinstated the Bourbons, a monarchy. The second attempt at French republican government ended with Napoleon III. By 1860 Britain still had a powerful monarch. Germany was beginning to unify under the Kaiser. There weren't many liberal victories in Europe at the time. Is it complete accident, then, that the first, long-lasting, European republic began just five years after Lincoln showed that democracy could--and would--endure?

I agree that eventually democracy would have triumphed without Lincoln, but then so would evolution triumph without Darwin.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

In what respect did Britain still have a powerful monarch in 1860 that prevented the government from being described as a democracy? Wasn't Britain's status as a democracy cemented by the Reform acts of the 1830's?

[foolsguinea]

Darwin, because Lincoln was a purely US figure, & it was others who actually abolished legal slavery in the US anyway.

No, Lincoln, because Darwin, in a biographical sense, was not that important to the advance of biology.

Huh. They're both overrated.

[davekhps]

This is a tough one, for a variety of reasons.

Darwin obviously impacted the world more than Lincoln. Duh.

But Darwin did so because he was the first to get to an idea that was inevitable, i.e. the scientific discovery of evolution. He wasn't the only one to get there, he got there first, and he got there well.

Had Darwin never been born, someone else discovers evolution, because ANYBODY could have discovered evolution.

That said, evolution as an idea is so consequential, so radical, that it changed the course of human history. Without evolution, God doesn't take the hit. No hit to God, and Christianity does not decline in the West, nor does Nazism or Communism rise in the East. For no Darwin = no Social Darwinism, after all (i.e., the corruption of science to justify racist/utopian fantasies).

Darwin came along at the right time/wrong time for all of this-- throw in Nietzsche and Marx, and you've got the 20th Century (all its conflicts, and many of its successes) largely explained right there.

That said. . .

No Lincoln means the Civil War probably results in the breakup of the U.S. Maybe not, but given his genius, let's assume that happens as the counterfactual.

What does the world look like today with the United States? What does the world look like today with representative democracy?

The U.S. dies in the 1860s, the idea of representative democracy almost certainly dies. Maybe it would have survived in Britan for a while longer, but would *Britain* have survived? Not only do you have the Prussian/Imperial Germany counterexample for other nations to emulate, but once communism and ultimately fascism shows up on the scene, what is there to resist it? Not just talking about the fact of the U.S. power to resist/help others resist those tyrannies, but without Lincoln, the *idea* of America no longer exists. The "example to the world" is gone for good.

And who wins then? The nations that took what Darwin wrote, and corrupted it to their evil ends, for the extermination and subjugation of races and classes they determined were scientifically inferior.

So, perhaps we should look at it this way-- without Darwin, evolution is still discovered. Without Lincoln, however, Darwin's discovery is used to permanently darken the world, with nothing to stand in its way.

I know that it's popular in many circles to trash America, put the old lady in a smaller place, etc., but for all the flaws and faults and mistakes and misdeeds, a 21st century world without America-- without the *idea* of America-- is IMHO a far more horrifying scenario to contemplate than a world that hasn't gotten around to discovering the origin of species.

So, my answer? I'm damn glad that we had both brilliant men.

[Martini Enfield]

Having thought about it, I have to say that I think Kate Sheppard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Sheppard) had a bigger impact than Lincoln- after all, it's not really a "Democracy" unless women get to vote as well; they do make up 50% of the population, after all.

New Zealand at the time was still a fairly rural place; the outcome of the US Civil War was completely irrelevant to them. So what if half of what had been the US wanted to keep negroes for farm-work? It really didn't matter to your average New Zealand farmer or trader whether they won or lost their quaint little war. But it did matter that their wife or daughter or ladyfriends in New Zealand had a say in how the country was run, and that's a more important democratic milestone than the outcome of the US and the CSA going toe to toe over who was going to harvest cotton.

By granting Suffrage to women in 1893, New Zealand became the first civilised country to give women the vote and sent a loud message to the rest of the planet: Women have as much right as men to be involved in the running of their country, and (by extension) women are equal to men and should be treated as such.

It is because of women like Kate Sheppard and Emmeline Pankhurst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_Pankhurst) that women have the vote in civilised parts of the world, and that, IMHO, outweighs anything Lincoln did.

[Deeg]

In what respect did Britain still have a powerful monarch in 1860 that prevented the government from being described as a democracy? Wasn't Britain's status as a democracy cemented by the Reform acts of the 1830's?
I have a shallow understanding of 19th Century politics compared to American history but my understanding is that the reforms of the 1830's did little to lessen the power of the monarchy. What's more is that an argument can be made that the reform act of 1867 was more important.

But what happens if the US Confederacy wins its independence? After the failure of the French Revolution support for democratic reforms in Britain retreated. What influence would the apparent failure of the American experiment have on other movements?

[freep5637]

could someone elaborate on the united states of america is / are thing? i looked it up on google and couldn't find anything. i assume it has to do with the way america is referenced... and that saying 'are' vs. 'is' gave america more of a type of humanistic identity and more of a sense of unity, kind of making it more personal than 'is' which would make it more of an entity. am i close?

[Deeg]

Yes, you're close. The first time I heard it referenced was in an interview with Shelby Foote in Ken Burns' documentary The Civil War. Foote states that before the ACW the states were viewed as more independent; people would use "the United States are..." in conversation. After the ACW the states became less independent and people started saying "the United States is...". He was illustrating the mindset change of Americans.

[Captain Amazing]

New Zealand at the time was still a fairly rural place; the outcome of the US Civil War was completely irrelevant to them. So what if half of what had been the US wanted to keep negroes for farm-work? It really didn't matter to your average New Zealand farmer or trader whether they won or lost their quaint little war.

Sure, but if the Civil war happens differently, what happens to New Zealand in World War 2? For that matter, does World War 2 happen? It's quite possible that it was the fresh influx of US troops in 1918 France that tipped the balance, and so without US involvement, who's to say how the war would have ended?

For that matter, oil exploration was just taking off in the 1860s, with the first big commercial oil strike taking place in Titusburg, Pennsylvania in 1859. Pennsylvania stays in the US no matter how the Civil War resolves itself, but the next big strike after that was the Spindletop, Texas strike in 1901, and then the Southern California oil boom of the 1920s. Texas was a Confederate state, and California, while a Union state, had Confederate sympathies. So, with successful secession, how does the oil industry develop differently? Does it develop at all? And what effect does that have on world history?

Lincoln is important, because without him, the US as we know it doesn't survive and develop. And that's important, not just because of abstract concepts like whether or not democracy can survive, but also because the US has had a major impact on world history over the past 150 years, for both good and bad.

[Bites When Provoked]

Not to put the man down, but Lincoln mainly influenced the US while Darwin influenced thinking in the enitre world. <snipped by BWP> Given that the OP asks who impacted the world...i would say Darwin.Exactly. If the thread were 'Who impacted the US more' it might be a serious challenge. As it stands, it's not even close.

[Martini Enfield]

Sure, but if the Civil war happens differently, what happens to New Zealand in World War 2? For that matter, does World War 2 happen? It's quite possible that it was the fresh influx of US troops in 1918 France that tipped the balance, and so without US involvement, who's to say how the war would have ended?

I think we're extrapolating a bit here. At the time, the US winning the Civil War really wasn't really that important to anyone outside the US. Women getting the vote was Noticed all over the civilised world and was most definitely a Big Deal.

[Bites When Provoked]

Sure, but if the Civil war happens differently, what happens to New Zealand in World War 2? For that matter, does World War 2 happen? It's quite possible that it was the fresh influx of US troops in 1918 France that tipped the balance, and so without US involvement, who's to say how the war would have ended?You're not really playing that card seriously, I hope? :dubious:

[Deeg]

One problem with the comparison is that we're trying to judge whether what Darwin accomplished is more far-reaching than what Lincoln prevented.

[Vox Imperatoris]

You're not really playing that card seriously, I hope? :dubious:

Are you disputing that America played a large role in tipping the balance of WWI toward the Entente? :confused: In any case, even if they did still win, it might not have been on such crushing terms, so WWII still might not have happened.

And women's rights has nothing to do with the question of Darwin or Lincoln.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Martini Enfield]

And women's rights has nothing to do with the question of Darwin or Lincoln.


No, but it does highlight the staggering Americo-centricity of the OP and a disturbing number of people on the boards.

[Bites When Provoked]

Are you disputing that America played a large role in tipping the balance of WWI toward the Entente? :confused:It's got nothing to do with this thread - or, for that matter, my response to the quote.

I'm questioning whether Captain Amazing seriously expects us to believe that Abraham Lincoln, a man who'd died in the century prior to WW2, can really be considered to have had any input whatsoever into the outcome of that war. The very idea is ridiculous.

Heck, I could suggest that maybe if Lincoln had lost, America might have joined earlier than they did, thus removing the need to 'tip the balance'. Perhaps in that case, the war could have been over before it really began, as the Hitler regime was crushed beneath the early and efficient coordinated attacks of all the allies.

Seriously, you just can't play the Nazi card in a discussion about Darwin vs Lincoln without coming off as a complete berk.

[Vox Imperatoris]

I'm questioning whether Captain Amazing seriously expects us to believe that Abraham Lincoln, a man who'd died in the century prior to WW2, can really be considered to have had any input whatsoever into the outcome of that war. The very idea is ridiculous.

But he's right; the whole point of talking about Lincoln being important is that we're going with the counterfactual that if he hadn't been President, America would have split into two different countries. This would have radically changed history, including WWI and II. It's not ridiculous to say that a war would have turned out differently if one of its most important participants had been split in half and likely torn by conflict with itself for a century.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

I have a shallow understanding of 19th Century politics compared to American history but my understanding is that the reforms of the 1830's did little to lessen the power of the monarchy. What's more is that an argument can be made that the reform act of 1867 was more important.


Yes, the 1867 reforms were also important, and vastly increased the franchise. But, it's my understanding that by the 1830's, the role of parliament in British governance was supreme. (Although I'm not a historian, and I'll defer to anybody who is an expert on the issue.)


But what happens if the US Confederacy wins its independence? After the failure of the French Revolution support for democratic reforms in Britain retreated. What influence would the apparent failure of the American experiment have on other movements?

I think it would have had a minor impact. The march toward democracy came from internal factors within the UK (for example, a burgeoning middle class wanting the vote).

Similarly, I've seen it repeated here many times that the American revolution was instrumental in causing the French revolution. I think that's a bit of a stretch: France was a tinderbox waiting to go off, and it was only a matter of time, what with France's merchant classes bringing reports back of the prosperity of other European cities, among other reasons, until France exploded.

[tagos]

I have a shallow understanding of 19th Century politics compared to American history but my understanding is that the reforms of the 1830's did little to lessen the power of the monarchy. What's more is that an argument can be made that the reform act of 1867 was more important.

But what happens if the US Confederacy wins its independence? After the failure of the French Revolution support for democratic reforms in Britain retreated. What influence would the apparent failure of the American experiment have on other movements?

You're just making stuff up now and pointedly ignoring the enormous anti-democratic stance of US foreign policy and the fact that countries all over the world achieved universal suffrage before the USA.

To believe that 'democracy' was saved by Lincoln is just sheer and blindly uninformed patriotism.

The USA arguably (much more arguably than your bizarre attempt to rewrite British history on the basis of self-admitted ignorance) did not achieve full democracy until the 1960's due to the effective disenfranchisement of blacks in large parts of the country. So Lincoln did not even succeed in 'saving' democracy in the USA.

[Bites When Provoked]

But he's right; the whole point of talking about Lincoln being important is that we're going with the counterfactual that if he hadn't been President, America would have split into two different countries. This would have radically changed history, including WWI and II. It's not ridiculous to say that a war would have turned out differently if one of its most important participants had been split in half and likely torn by conflict with itself for a century.Actually, it's completely ridiculous. We can play the 'what if?' game all night, and it's still going to be ridiculous. What if both halves had decided to shame the other by fighting earlier, and/or tried to outdo each other by sending more men and weaponry?

You can't predict the outcome of something as complex as a world war by saying, "Oh, it all comes down to some president from the previous century. Forget the rest of the world; it's all about Lincoln. Oh, and by the way, did we mention we saved your asses?"

There's a reason Martini Enfield mentioned "...the staggering Americo-centricity of the OP and a disturbing number of people on the boards". If you really don't see a problem with attributing the outcome of an entire world war to a dead president, then maybe you should reconsider your world outlook just a little.

[Deeg]

You're just making stuff up now and pointedly ignoring the enormous anti-democratic stance of US foreign policy and the fact that countries all over the world achieved universal suffrage before the USA.
If you think I'm making stuff up then you don't have a firm grasp of history.

To believe that 'democracy' was saved by Lincoln is just sheer and blindly uninformed patriotism.
Or perhaps you are just unwilling to concede that the U.S. has had an enormous impact on democracy since 1776. Blind, uniformed, patriotism can swing both ways.

The USA arguably (much more arguably than your bizarre attempt to rewrite British history on the basis of self-admitted ignorance) did not achieve full democracy until the 1960's due to the effective disenfranchisement of blacks in large parts of the country. So Lincoln did not even succeed in 'saving' democracy in the USA.
I agree that the US had universal suffrage after many Western nations. However, for ~100 years (until the French Second Republic) it was the only major nation to have a stable government where all the leaders (excepting a few senators) were democratically elected. In 1860 the Crown was still the single most influential mover in British government (although it was far from omnipotent.)

[Bites When Provoked]

Or perhaps you are just unwilling to concede that the U.S. has had an enormous impact on democracy since 1776. Blind, uniformed, patriotism can swing both ways.It's only patriotism if the poster is saying that THEIR country is responsible for all things great and wonderful. Pointing out that other countries have a good track record on democracy is a different thing entirely.

[Martini Enfield]

Actually, it's completely ridiculous. We can play the 'what if?' game all night, and it's still going to be ridiculous. What if both halves had decided to shame the other by fighting earlier, and/or tried to outdo each other by sending more men and weaponry?

Exactly. And what if Churchill had been killed at Omdurman or shot whilst trying to escape from Pretoria during the Boer War? That would have completely buggerised the course of two World Wars but no-one claims Churchill Saved Democracy.
If Hitler had been killed in World War I, or if Tsar Nicholas II had implemented some more reforms and not gotten involved in World War I in the first place, then history as we know it would be vastly different too.

And none of these changes have anything to do with Lincoln, the outcome of the US Civil War, or the US at all.

You can't predict the outcome of something as complex as a world war by saying, "Oh, it all comes down to some president from the previous century. Forget the rest of the world; it's all about Lincoln. Oh, and by the way, did we mention we saved your asses?"

Precisely what I was going to say, but with fewer expletives. :)

[Bites When Provoked]

I thought I was very restrained, actually. ;)

[Deeg]

That would have completely buggerised the course of two World Wars but no-one claims Churchill Saved Democracy.
One could argue that Churchill potentially saved Western Europe from Communism or Facism.

[Martini Enfield]

One could argue that Churchill potentially saved Western Europe from Communism or Facism.

That's very true, but I was referring to Democracy in its entirety, as a concept; the way certain posters in this thread had been saying Lincoln Saved Democracy.

It's not a stretch to argue that Churchill saved Western Europe from Fascism/Communism; it is a stretch to argue that Lincoln won World War II just by virtue of having been President during the US Civil War 80 years previously.

[tagos]

If you think I'm making stuff up then you don't have a firm grasp of history.


Or perhaps you are just unwilling to concede that the U.S. has had an enormous impact on democracy since 1776. Blind, uniformed, patriotism can swing both ways.


I agree that the US had universal suffrage after many Western nations. However, for ~100 years (until the French Second Republic) it was the only major nation to have a stable government where all the leaders (excepting a few senators) were democratically elected. In 1860 the Crown was still the single most influential mover in British government (although it was far from omnipotent.)

You admit your ignorance of history and show it by your belief that the monarch was the most powerful political force in the 19th century. That is simply not true. and had not been true since we started cutting off heads and certainly was not in any way arguable after the 1832 Reform Act.

The 1867 Reform Act enfranchised all male householders. It wasn't until the 15th Amendment in 1870 that the USA had the equivalent but as we know that did not get implemented until the 1960's for blacks and only 1824 when (apart from 6 states) the property qualification was abolished for white males.

This is the era of Gladstone and Disraeli. The former she despised but was stuck with him as Prime Minister despite her anti-democratic sensibilities.

Britain was a constitutional monarchy (with the famous 'Unwritten' constitution) and so her power was very limited and the power of the monarchy in even that of influence (which was all she had) waning away. Try rereading your Bagehot.

Then address the issue of the much more significant political power of the Robber Barons in 19th century US politics.

The right of the monarch was threefold:

The right to advise
the right to be consulted
the right to warn

The monarchy was the 'Dignified' part of the Constitution (by which he meant symbolic) and the Government is the Efficient part.

Parliament has been sovereign in the UK since the 17th century, having the right to depose monarchs.


The development of democracy is a process and one as has been pointed out to you, driven by wider social forces. In the case of England this ran from the ending of the divine right of kings via the Magna Carta to the assertion of the primacy of Parliament at the edge of an axe blade in the Revolution to the rise of the educated and wealthy middle classes that supplanted the old aristocracy with the Industrial Revolution.

As European history, specifically the history of the old empires show, these forces were irresistible. To claim that Lincoln was in any way important is simply absurd.

The Great Man theory of history died out long before he did by the way.

In the UK's case democracy was a process that went farther and faster than the US, who due to lagging in universal suffrage and effective disenfranchisement of the descendants of slaves was not a full democracy until the 1960's. Having a bunch of old white guys elected by another bunch of white guys does not a democracy or a democratic process make.

And you still have not addressed the issue of anti-democratic US foreign policy, which weighs heavily in the negative side. You have also demonstrated no specific instance where the USA crucially supported the development of more advanced democracies such as the UK, Canada and New Zealand.

Yet there are many, many examples of the USA intervening to depose or otherwise thwart democratic change.

Victoria was the last gasp of monarchical influence on politics but she failed in her main desire - which was to use british foreign policy to preserve the old monarchies (her relatives in effect). She could not prevent Palmerston from pursuing policies that weakened them and although she used her influence to get him sacked as foreign minister in 1851 he overthrew the government 6 weeks later and was PM in 1855, against her wishes.

So not even a monarchy as long serving and charismatic as the Victoria/Albert combo could trump Parliament - Gladstone and Palmerston. Her power was solely one of 'influence'. The current Queen has exactly the same power and influence.

You simply do not know what you are talking about or have the understanding to make sense of random facts you're plucking from Google.

The USA has NOT had an enormous (positive) impact on democracy since Lincoln.

Look - you are either here to fight ignorance or learn. I suggest you learn rather than fighting a corner that by your own admission you know nothing about with assertion that Queen Victoria was more important than Parliament.


All you offer, against the weight of UK constitutional history and scholarship, is well frankly - nothing.

[Captain Amazing]

There's a reason Martini Enfield mentioned "...the staggering Americo-centricity of the OP and a disturbing number of people on the boards". If you really don't see a problem with attributing the outcome of an entire world war to a dead president, then maybe you should reconsider your world outlook just a little.

I'm being Americo-centric because America is a pretty important country, and 20th century history would have been fundamentally different if America weren't around in a way it would have not been fundamentally different if, say, Bhutan weren't around.

[Bites When Provoked]

I'm being Americo-centric because America is a pretty important country, and 20th century history would have been fundamentally different if America weren't around in a way it would have not been fundamentally different if, say, Bhutan weren't around.Technically correct and yet, so very, very not relevant to this discussion.

Perhaps you could start your own thread (suggested working title: USA Pwnz0rz Teh Entire World And Ur Country Suxx0rz And By The Way We Saved Ur Ass3s) to explain your point of view in more depth.

[Deeg]

You admit your ignorance of history and show it by your belief that the monarch was the most powerful political force in the 19th century. That is simply not true. and had not been true since we started cutting off heads and certainly was not in any way arguable after the 1832 Reform Act.

The 1867 Reform Act enfranchised all male householders. It wasn't until the 15th Amendment in 1870 that the USA had the equivalent but as we know that did not get implemented until the 1960's for blacks and only 1824 when (apart from 6 states) the property qualification was abolished for white males.

...
You're just re-iterating facts that I've responded to. Yes, the UK had universal suffrage before the US (which itself had influence on America's universal suffrage movement). However, it wasn't until the 20th century that all (practical) political power was vested in democratically elected officials.

You keep trying to make this a nationalistic dick-waving debate. To argue that European democracy wasn't influenced by the American government is as ludicrous as saying that the American founders weren't influenced by European thinkers and political movements; e.g. the US Constitution absolutely does not happen without the Magna Carta. The failure of the French Revolution had a real, negative impact on other democratic movements, including Britain. There can be little doubt that the failure of American democracy would have had some influence on Britain. How much (or how little) is open to speculation.

[Captain Amazing]

Technically correct and yet, so very, very not relevant to this discussion.

Perhaps you could start your own thread (suggested working title: USA Pwnz0rz Teh Entire World And Ur Country Suxx0rz And By The Way We Saved Ur Ass3s) to explain your point of view in more depth.


Well, first of all, if you think my argument can be summed up as "USA Pwnz0rz Teh Entire World And Ur Country Suxx0rz And By The Way We Saved Ur Ass3s" then I'm probably not doing a good job expressing my point of view. I'm certainly not making any argument for American moral superiority or denegrating any other country, and I'm not even arguing that the loss of the civil war would have meant the end of democratic government in the world, as some people in this thread have tried to argue. Obviously, as other people in the thread have pointed out, that's incorrect. Britain was, as was pointed out, a constitutional monarchy, as were many of the states of the German confederation, for instance. Switzerland was a republic. At any rate, the revolutions of 1848 cemented political liberalism as a popular movement in Europe, and the loss of the Civil War by the US wouldn't have changed that.

My argument can be summed up simply:

1. A strong and unified United States has, since 1860, had a large influence on world affairs and the world would be very different today if the United States didn't exist.
2. Without Abraham Lincoln existing and taking the actions he did, a strong and unified United States would have ceased to exist.

Therefore

3. Lincoln impacted the world a great deal.

If you disagree with either of my propositions or my conclusion, let me know, and we can talk about it. But it seems to me that you're attributing to me a jingoistic argument that I'm not attempting to express.

[Martini Enfield]

If you disagree with either of my propositions or my conclusion, let me know, and we can talk about it. But it seems to me that you're attributing to me a jingoistic argument that I'm not attempting to express.

With respect, I think you are making a Jingoistic argument, and Bites' summation of that is pretty accurate.

No-one is disputing that Lincoln is an important figure in US History. It's the reaching to say that Lincoln Saved Democracy and Lincoln Won Both World Wars that is being disputed here, and the assertation is being made that the OP is un-necessarily US-centric, as there were other contemporary(ish) people to Darwin who had a greater impact on the world (both at the time and today) than Lincoln, without resorting to "What-If?" scenarios that involve Time Lincoln giving Freeing The Slaves, giving Kaiser Bill a wedgie, and then kicking Hitler's ass.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

However, it wasn't until the 20th century that all (practical) political power was vested in democratically elected officials.


You keep saying this, but can you provide an example? Bagehot, writing in the mid-1800's, points out that the House of Lords and the Monarch is in all practical senses subservient to the (democratically elected) House of Commons (he claims that one of the main functions of the HoL's is to provide a "reservoir" of ministers for forming Cabinets). In what way was he wrong? What practical power wasn't in the hands of the HoC? Perhaps you're alluding to the Parliament Act?


How much (or how little) is open to speculation.


Again, hardly any impact, just as the failure of the French Revolution only set back the democratic cause in the UK by a few decades. The drive for British democracy came from internal social forces within the UK, started long before the American Revolution, and would have continued long after the failure of any American experiment.

[Captain Amazing]

No-one is disputing that Lincoln is an important figure in US History. It's the reaching to say that Lincoln Saved Democracy and Lincoln Won Both World Wars that is being disputed here, and the assertation is being made that the OP is un-necessarily US-centric, as there were other contemporary(ish) people to Darwin who had a greater impact on the world (both at the time and today) than Lincoln, without resorting to "What-If?" scenarios that involve Time Lincoln giving Freeing The Slaves, giving Kaiser Bill a wedgie, and then kicking Hitler's ass.

That isn't what I'm arguing, though. I'm specifically saying that Lincoln didn't Save Democracy or win both World Wars, and I'm certainly not arguing that Lincoln was the person who had the greatest impact on the world, just that Lincoln had a greater impact on the world than Darwin. (I could make the argument, if you'd like, that Lord Palmerson also had a greater impact than Darwin)

My argument is laid out in my previous post, and I'd be interested to know which parts you disagree with.

[Bites When Provoked]

That isn't what I'm arguing, though. I'm specifically saying that Lincoln didn't Save Democracy or win both World Wars, and I'm certainly not arguing that Lincoln was the person who had the greatest impact on the world, just that Lincoln had a greater impact on the world than Darwin. (I could make the argument, if you'd like, that Lord Palmerson also had a greater impact than Darwin)

My argument is laid out in my previous post, and I'd be interested to know which parts you disagree with.For what it's worth, I'm now of the belief that what you're intending to say and how I'm interpreting it are not necessarily the same. Unfortunately, I don't think we can resolve the problem, as we appear to be having two completely separate debates here.

Martini Enfield and I are taking the approach that the impacts should be reasonably provable and unambiguous, and (if I'm right) you're taking the approach that the outcomes of a person's life go beyond the obvious and can impact on a number of intangible and fluid ways upon the future. This is also a valid point of view, but if we're arguing philosophy vs historical fact it will be impossible for us to reach common ground - and I feel that neither side is willing to switch perspectives.

I suspect it'd be a fairly lively and entertaining discussion if it were happening over coffee, but it's not going to work in a text environment as we'll all end up feeling we're banging our heads against a wall. I'm happy to just move on from here and accept that there's no resolving this one - no harm, no foul, no hard feelings. Okay with you? :)

[Captain Amazing]

Martini Enfield and I are taking the approach that the impacts should be reasonably provable and unambiguous, and (if I'm right) you're taking the approach that the outcomes of a person's life go beyond the obvious and can impact on a number of intangible and fluid ways upon the future.

I suppose. I'm taking the approach that Lincoln's presidency was vital to the survival of the US, and had Lincoln not done the things he did, the US would have stopped existing (which, I realize is debatable). So Lincoln's impact has to take that into account.

The methodology I'm using to measure their impact is "How would the world today be different if neither Darwin or Lincoln had been born.", and using that, I think that if Darwin hadn't been born, things wouldn't be very different, because Wallace would have come up with virtually the same theory at about the same time. If Lincoln hadn't been born, the US would have stopped existing, and that would have changed the world a great deal.

But, I'm willing to agree to disagree and just move on.

[amanset]

If Lincoln hadn't been born, the US would have stopped existing, and that would have changed the world a great deal.

Debatable.

No-one could have, to use an Americanism, stepped up to the plate and done what he did?

There's no way that the absence of Lincoln in the political world could have allowed someone else to fill those shoes?

It seems to me that the exact same arguments you used regarding Darwin could be used for Lincoln. Maybe this is absolute heresy to the ears of an American, but I in no way believe Lincoln was a unique individual that achieved things that no-one else could.

[Deeg]

You keep saying this, but can you provide an example?
As late as 1909 the House of Lords (which was still hereditary at the time) had enough political power to veto a budget put forth by the House of Commons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Budget) They were eventually defeated but they weren't toothless.

[amanset]

As late as 1909 the House of Lords (which was still hereditary at the time) had enough political power to veto a budget put forth by the House of Commons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Budget) They were eventually defeated but they weren't toothless.

That's pretty much how Government works in the UK. The Lords knew that if they used the power they had then constitutional changes would be made to remove that power. Case in point, your example. They used the power they had and two years later there was the Parliament Act of 1911 that stopped the Lords having a veto on anything.

To illustrate how the Lords really never went for this sort of thing as they knew these changes would happen, the article you linked to includes this:

The House of Lords vetoed the new budget—the first time since the 17th century that it had challenged the House of Commons' power of the purse

[Martini Enfield]

As late as 1909 the House of Lords (which was still hereditary at the time) had enough political power to veto a budget put forth by the House of Commons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Budget) They were eventually defeated but they weren't toothless.

And in 1975 the Governor-General of Australia sacked the Prime Minister because he was pissing him off. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)*

I don't think anyone makes the claim that Australia isn't a Democracy based on the fact that the Queen's Representative can fire the Prime Minister under some circumstances, though.

I'd argue the same thing applies to the 1909 People's Budget. King Edward VII himself did not step in and say "This Legislation offends my Royal Sensibilities. Nobble it." The House of Lords decided to do it on their own, largely (as I understand it) because of the new tax liabilities (that would affect the Landed Gentry, which included the House of Lords and other Peers of the Realm and Titled Persons significantly) contained in the Budget.

The House of Lords is (at least in its present form) basically an Upper House; just made up of Peers (and most Peerages aren't hereditary anymore, AIUI). I really don't see any difference between the situation you outline in the 1909 People's Budget and any other instance of an Upper House vetoing important legislation from the Lower House. Based on that theory, all bicameral legsislatures are, by their very nature, undemocratic. And I don't think anyone is going to try and argue that in the modern world.

*It's a LOT more complicated than that, of course, but that's what it pretty much boils down to.

[amanset]

Wouldn't this all be very similar to the concept of the electoral college? In theory the electoral college doesn't have to vote for who the people vote for, but they know if they decided not to then all hell would break loose. In the same way the Queen has, in theory, power but she knows if she tried to execute it then she'd never get away with it and could possibly end up seeing the monarchy abolished.

[Deeg]

Based on that theory, all bicameral legsislatures are, by their very nature, undemocratic.
A bicameral legislature is not democratic if one of the houses has no elected members.

[Martini Enfield]

A bicameral legislature is not democratic if one of the houses has no elected members.

Only if the unelected House has any actual power; which- as it has been well established- the House of Lords does not. Even in your earlier example the Legislation was still passed, despite their attempts to the contrary.

[Deeg]

They ended up losing because there was a small concession and they ended up voting for the act, not because they were pushed out of the way.