Mason,

Not just the slave trade, but slavery was banned in:

Haiti (Saint Domingue at the time) 1793
France and all possessions 1794
Haiti (upon independence) 1804
New Spain (Mexico, Central America, most of what is now the continental US) 1813
Peru 1821 (not all immediately though)
(These earliest bans all had some backsliding - except the latter one in Haiti)
Chile 1823
Uruguay 1830
Bolivia 1831
Danish West Indies 1848
New Grenada 1851
Ecuador 1851
Argentina 1853
Venezuela 1854


You were right about the US being before Brazil though.

The abolition of slavery in the US could have been pretty influential in the West if the abolitionists in 1789 had had their way in the US Constitution, but as it was The French Revolution, The Haitian Revolution, and The Spanish Revolutions (in the new world) had a LOT LOT LOT more to do with abolishing slavery in The New World than the US Civil War.

Churchill, almost at the dismay of his own war cabinet, absolutely refused to consider to make peace with Germany, which was the Nazi plan after the invasion of Great Britain was cancelled. That kept the fight going long enough for the USA to get into the war.
Yes, Dunkirk was some rungood against the odds, but after that it was keep calm and carry on. Plus he gave the iron curtain speech after the war, predicting the cold war, and was almost always contrary to what other politicians in the UK were saying and doing throughout his career. Sure, eventually we would win without needing generals like Ike, Patton, Bradley, Monty, and the rest. But, no Churchill and no modern free Europe. It would be like an alternate universe episode of science fiction.


Also, how can we debate Civil War generals, when the war was caused by Lincoln’s election, and eventually won with complete surrender because Lincoln insisted, and then the very same Lincoln welcomed back the entire Confederacy with open arms and generosity. Surely Lincoln is the most influential human re: the US Civil War. Almost any other President and the war either would not happen at all, or would end in compromise, or the Confederacy would have been treated like a conquered nation instead of legal US states that had temporarily been unlawful.

Einstein
Jesus
Darwin
Buddha
Churchill
George Washington
Muhammad
Julius Caesar
Alexander

No Khan?

Hi robert_utk:

I don't think this is accurate. Germany decided not to invade Britain after their air war against Britain had essentially failed. The refusal of Churchill not to make peace with Germany was before the air war against the British homeland had started.

I see this type of statement a lot. But after Dunkirk, there was no guarantee the USA would eventually enter the war. Yes, it's true that the United States was helping Britain more and more, but didn't it take an attack by Japan and then a declaration of war by Germany (against the US) to get things really moving.

I agree with this. By the way, the PBS show Nova recently did a show on Dunkirk. I highly recommend it and this can be seen on their Internet site. One of the things I learned was that the Germans had developed an underwater mine that worked on magnetism which they thought would stop the big British ships from rescuing soldiers from Dunkirk. But the British figured out a way to beat it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/militar...e-dunkirk.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/militar...et-weapon.html

I agree that Lincoln's election led to the war.

While Lincoln wanted a complete surrender the war was won, in my opinion, because a totally unknown General Grant showed up.

This was certainly Lincoln's plan. But it didn't happen. In reality there were two Civil Wars. The second one is known today as reconstruction and it was won by the South.

Unfortunately, the South was treated like a conquered nation. Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, lost control of the government, the radical Republicans took over, and it went downhill from there.

While not the subject of this thread, one of the things that happened in the retelling of the Civil War is that Grant, instead of being portrayed as a great general who saved the Union and ended slavery, began to be portrayed as "Grant the Butcher" because of the high casualty rates. Thus his greatness is often overlooked.

By the way, in 1878 and 1888 Grant went on a tour of the world. One of the leaders he met was Otto von Bismark. From Wikipedia:

The two discussed military matters and in particular, the final stages of the Civil War, with Grant stressing that the Union Army fought to preserve the U.S. nation.[52] Bismarck complimented him for having saved the Union, where Grant replied, "not only save the Union, but destroy slavery"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...ysses_S._Grant

Best wishes,
Mason

I forgot about the Khan of Khans. He should be on the list.

Some good points Mason.

Certainly without Grant, Lincoln would have either lost the election in 1864 or been forced to compromise on the issue of slavery. I agree Grant has not received his fair credit for being essential to the outcome if the war that allowed a United States to exist in the way it is today.

I never thought of Reconstruction as a sort of unofficial round two of the Civil War. Interesting.

With regard to the US entering WWII, my opinion is that it was not guaranteed but very likely. With regard to Japan, we would have eventually forced a confrontation probably from the Philippines, since we really did block their plans for expansion. With regard to Europe, I just cant imagine an outcome where we sit back and wait for Russia to be out of the war, Germany and Italy to seize the oil in the middle east, fortify a conquered Europe, and then we try to take it all back. Churchill would have screamed that Americans are cowards and would have been right!

I'm open to the idea that Genghis Khan get's on the list of the top 10 most influential humans... But at the moment, I disagree.

Can someone spell out the case?


In the approximate time period:

Is Genghis Khan more influential then William the Conqueror?

Is Genghis Khan more influential then Richard Lionhart?

Is Genghis Khan more influential then Henry II or King John? In the 1000-1300 time period, I think King John is the most influential. Perhaps King John and Henry II both deserve credit here? It seems to me that HenryII's establishment of the concept of "common" law was important.

If you are saying that Genghis Khan is less influential than several Kings of England, that seems to be quite a narrow view of world history. Entire ethic groups comprising more people than the British Isles picked up and evacuated the steppes of central Asia and relocated in the near east and eastern Europe, bringing culture as well as disease and warfare. And thats just the people that were fleeing the Mongols.

William the Conquerer seized the throne that he felt was rightfully his, and fortified his holdings with castles. He was Norman and spoke French, hardly a lasting impression on world history. I would say that earlier Rollo moving his clan to Normandy is more important.

Henry II instituted common law, which was great. Basically, when a judge gives a ruling, then the next year the next judge also has to give the same ruling. Certainly logical and good, but not unique in world history.

Yes, I don't dispute this.

I don't agree that conquering by warfare, in and of itself, is so influential for humanity though.

The lasting effects of the Mongol Hordes were what exactly?

I'd say that William is not merely marginally more influential then Genghis. There is lasting effect here. It is William and the House of Plantagenet who created England, which doubtless has had more than its share of influence over humanity.

What is unique is that HenryII and John both gave up some of the power of the monarch. This is influence in 13th century England in a direction that did not occur anywhere else in the world until that time. The Romans consolidated power until they went from Republic to Empire to collapse. The Persians always had a singular God King. The Chinese and Japanese always had singular Emperors, or a group of Kings, until WWII and communism.

Reconstruction is a very interesting period of time and was a disaster for the former members of the slave population. When the Civil War ended, everyone agreed that slavery was over, but no one knew exactly what that meant. If Lincoln would have lived, things would have probably moved along at a slower pace. Instead, the Radical Republicans seized control, passed highly progressive laws that couldn't be enforced, and it led to the era of Jim Crow.

I pretty much agree with this. But the question is how long before the US enters the war, and in the delay, a lot of negative events could have happened.

Best wishes,
Mason

Modern historians have basically debunked the 'Radical Republicans responsible for Jim Crow' view of reconstruction. The reality is that the South actually won the civil war. They mounted what amounted to a full scale insurgency with the goal of preventing blacks from actually attaining freedom. Giving up faster wouldn't have changed their goals or caused them to be any gentler with Jim Crow.

The reason why the South wrote the history of the Civil War with all their lovely 'lost cause' bull**** is because they seriously won the war. The North got to declare victory and go home, but at the end of the day the South got to keep most of their slaves for another hundred years. To this day the South is run with the unstated goal of keeping labor costs low in mind. Racism has been a very useful tool for splitting poor whites and poor blacks in the south since the Civil War. In most of the rest of the country the poor mostly deserve poverty (my conservatism is showing a bit here) but in the South it's a totally different vibe. Labor costs in the South are quite a bit lower on average than they are in the rest of the country and that has tangible impacts on people's lives. It's an artificial state of affairs that will eventually come to an ugly end like all unnatural market situations must.

Keep in mind the tyranny here mentioned is the gall of blacks to want to vote, hold political office and generally participate in civic life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/b...ody-shirt.html

Actually this is a better summation, from that same source

China was fractured and probably would have stayed fractured if not for Kublai Khan. The modern Persian state is pretty much a descendant of a Mongolian khanate that went native. Russia was a client state that quietly unified fiefdoms that eventually became Russia. Mongolian created trade routes that altered global trade for centuries. They also got a lot to do with what became the Ottoman Empire and southern Russia.

Bolded is worth discussing. Recently read a little about Genghis Khan and what the implications of his and his followers empire building. Too detailed to go into but yes, the Mongols changed world history in many profound ways that still reverberate to modern times. Opening and making more trade markets (whether intended or not) was one of many ingredients. In fact, a history of trade would make a very good thread. Making sure to bar any reference to current events (which means Post 1990 for the History Forum). That goes elsewhere.

I can recommend Splendid Exchange by Bernstein (sp?). It tells a very accessible narrative of the history of trade globally although I believe many of the details are challenged by historians and I think it does a poor job of making it clear that trade, for most of the book, is very fragmented with only maybe a trickle of trade crossing continents.

In the intreest of disclosure, my reading list is basically anything on history/economics that the Economist reviews so I strongly suspect my reading list is biased in some way.

I think we need to look at ideas as foundational for changing the world the most. So,

Marx
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Zoroaster
Jesus
Confucious
Adam Smith
Darwin