Darwin or Lincoln?

[Lumine]

Lincoln is only relevant for the US, Darwin was important for the whole World.

[Lumine]

Lincoln is only relevant for the US, Darwin was important for the whole World.

?!  Only for the US? 

Lincoln preserved the union.  If the Lincoln hadn't the balls to suspend some liberties, exercise a little tyranny in the name of preservation of the constitution, if the GOP had lost its will to fight after the first couple of humiliating defeats of the Army of the Potomac, if the people hadn't such an shrewd president, the United States of America would have disintegrated.  The precedent would have been set.  Any state could at any moment decide it no longer wanted any part of the congress.  The North American continent would have reverted to being an imperial European playground, with the attendant petty skirmishes and major wars.  And who would have helped the UK and the French defeat the Germans and Austrians in the Great War?  And even if the French and English had defeated the Germans, the humiliation to the German people at Versailles would have been even greater without Wilson, and fascism would have spread with even more intensity.  And who, then, would have helped the Russians and English defeat the Nazis?  And who would have helped the Chinese keep the Great Empire of the Rising Sun at bay?  And what about the Cold War?  Wait, what Cold War?  Without a stable counterbalance to the spread of Communism--that is, without a stable and powerful United States--there would have been no Cold War.  Right now, there would probably be two great Superpowers:  one very Red and very Russian, and one very Black and very German.  Both authoritarian and expansionist, and both, probably, with an incredible arsenal of weapons.  Hey, look on the bright side:  at least no one would be worrying about the likes of Al Qaeda.

Only relevant to the US?!  Indeed.

Get smart, man.  Lincoln has had a far, far greater impact than that hack Charles Darwin whole stole Malthus' ideas about natural selection and took credit for them.  With or without Darwin, your liberties would still be secure.  Without Lincoln, you'd be dodging German and Russian nukes. 

Even without Lincoln the GOP still had Seward, who could have won the Civil War for the Union just as Lincoln did. Now, let's suppose that we have a CSA and the USA, reunification is still possible, and so is intervention in World War I (a war that the Entente could still win without the USA). I usually look at changes in history in a long term view and I get carried on with details, but in this case the butterfly effect would make history a lot different, right?

Well, perhaps Darwin took some views from other authors, but it's hard to think of scientists who get their inspiration out of nowhere. I take him as a symbol of science vs religion, a man who helped convince most of his colleagues of a very important theory.

Also, while the idea of a militaristic German Empire and a Communist Russia as the major world powers is not all that nice, it's impossible to argue that the USA is a benevolent super power that doesn't have an incredible arsenal of weapons (or the Cuban Missle Crisis does not count?) and that never played the game of imperialism (Cuba, Philippines, Panama).

[Lumine]

let's suppose that we have a CSA and the USA

why would anyone sane every make such a supposition?  The only thing holding the CSA together was a common hatred of the GOP.  Confederacies never last:  CSA, Confederacy of the Rhine, the Articles of Confederation, etc.  These are all just stop-gap, loose confederations with little or no real authority.  The only thing holding the USA together is the fact that if you try to leave, Lincoln will come down with his army and kick your ass.

I'm not saying that the legislature of South Carolina did anything illegal when it decided to divorce itself from the United States.  (In before anyone starts that argument.  It's beyond the scope of this thread.)  But I am saying that illegal or not, Lincoln wouldn't stand for it.  You cannot make the wholly unsupportable that there would be a CSA and USA long after the 1860s had not Lincoln challenged the rebels.  There is no evidence that either would still exist, but plenty of evidence not only that neither would exist had not the Republicans squelched the rebellion, admittedly with some unconstitutional remedies, but also that the so-called New World would have reverted to being a playground for European monarchies experimenting with colonialism.

Beyond that, I'll stipulate that the whole Communist/Nazi bipolar world bit was a foray into speculative alternative history.  Still, the fact remains that we don't have that particular bipolar combination as a result of a strong, stable USA willing to take both of them on.

Curious, the "bastion of freedom and democracy" exists only because a President forced his country to obey a federal government. Now, I think that Lincoln did what he had to do, and that he had to prevent his country from tearing itself apart, but I have to point the irony we have here.

Besides, the New World didn't have a choice. It was the USA controlling your government or the European Powers, and I don't think that by that point in history said powers would have messed America the way they messed Africa. The economical elite here had actual powers and influence, and we have the example of the Second Mexican Empire to support this.

And my final argument: The USA won Two World Wars and the Cold War alone? I don't think so. The Entente won WWI almost by itself (despite how hard and terrible it was), and the UK and a stronger France in WWII could have also stopped Germany without having to ask the USA and the USSR for help.

[Lumine]

nononononono.


Do not accuse me of that "bastion of freedom and democracy" garbage.

Don't go Link on me.  I cannot have a discussion with you if you falsely accuse me of saying things I did not say in this thread or, as far as I can recall, in any other.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to be sarcastic (and it looks like I failed miserably).