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

[Deeg]

@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.

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.

@tagos

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 thinkKate 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 that women have the vote in civilised parts of the world, and that, IMHO, outweighs anything Lincoln did.

[Deeg]

@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?

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]

@Martini_Enfield

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]

@footballisplayedwithyourfeet

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]

@Captain_Amazing

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]

@Captain_Amazing

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]

@Bites_When_Provoked

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? 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]

@Vox_Imperatoris

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]

@Vox_Imperatoris

Are you disputing that America played a large role in tipping the balance of WWI toward the Entente?

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]

@Bites_When_Provoked

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]

@Deeg

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]

@Deeg

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]

@Vox_Imperatoris

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.