The Common Genius of Lincoln and Einstein (2014)

http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/the-common-genius-of-lincoln-and-einstein

by dnetesn • 10 years ago

39 20 10 years ago

protomyth• 10 years ago

We were taught a bit of different story on the morality of President Lincoln https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pX6FBSUyQI http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/12/26/sham-tr...

tjic• 10 years ago

I know I'm going to sound like a crank, but I can't get over the fact that Lincoln killed 3% of the population of the United States.

Every other Western country was able to end slavery without an insanely devastating civil war. Only Lincoln had to field armies, burn the homes of non combatants, run prison camps, etc.

I'm glad slavery ended, but Lincoln isn't remotely a genius in my book.

andars4• 10 years ago

I fail to see how blaming the civil war on Lincoln is justified. Please elaborate.

EDIT: The issue of slavery was only the spark. The conflict that escalated into the civil war was multifaceted and at its core reflected two very different views of the American union.

Jtsummers2• 10 years ago

And began before he even entered the office of the President. How can someone be held responsible for events predating their ability to be involved?

nine_k• 10 years ago

Let's notice that the war was as much about preventing the South from secession as it was about slavery.

travmatt3• 10 years ago

The South seceded over slavery - the north waged war to preserve the Union.

SamReidHughes• 10 years ago

The South could have surrendered any time it wanted to.

travmatt3• 10 years ago

Indeed it could, and Sherman famously predicted that the only reason the south continued in its fighting was that it was not properly suffering the consequences of the war they chose to instigate - that if he unleashed the terror of war upon them, he could break their will.

"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."

Mz• 10 years ago

General Lee was a tactical genius. The only advantage the North had was numbers of bodies. The only northern general willing to blithely leverage that fact was Grant. Lincoln kept him in charge even though civilians were haranguing Lincoln to remove him because they were appalled by the high death toll.

Then, when Lee finally surrendered, Grant broke with the long standing human tradition of punishing the loser with war reparations. He had only three conditions of surrender, one of which was that the South would accept help from the North to rebuild.

His merciful position is credited with being the reason the US has only had one civil war. In most countries, the end of one civil war merely sows the bitter seeds for the start of the next.

Grant later became president.

labster2• 10 years ago

The Union had other advantages other than people; namely a vastly superior industrial base and a much stronger navy. They were just as critical as the greater numbers of forces.

But the showing of mercy to the vanquished foe has proven repeatedly to be great public policy, and should be remembered whenever one hears a politician talk about taking the spoils of war.

Amezarak• 10 years ago

Lincoln kept him in charge even though civilians were haranguing Lincoln to remove him because they were appalled by the high death toll.

Most of the complaints started and ended with the Battle of Shiloh.

Grant was, by most accounts, a merely able tactician, but he did see the bigger picture, like Johnston probably did, while Lee did not. If the South had fought a purely defensive war and avoided decisive battles wherever possible, the North would probably have been forced to concede for political reasons. Grant fought so offensively and aggressively because he knew this. Lee really blew it from a strategic perspective, although to be fair, there were political pressures on him.

I'm also inclined to give more credit to Grant's tactical abilities than most, because, well, he did beat Lee on the field pretty handily.

I would also add that Grant felt the terms he offered Lee were what Lincoln would have wanted.

winsome_dove• 10 years ago

Lincoln was a manipulative political genius of the highest order but he was not a highly moral person in any respect.

Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves and even wanted to make slavery "irrevocable" (see Corwin Amendment). After the bombing of Ft. Sumpter he suspended habeas corpus, muzzled the press, and arrested hundreds for discussing secession. He arrested and imprisoned state legislators and even issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the supreme court when he did not do Lincoln's bidding. Luckily the US marshal given the warrant did not serve it.

Lincoln became a tyrant, putting himself above Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Lincoln had severe mental problems. At that time they called it "melancholia". He would likely be unelectable today, although his tyrannical political bent matches that of the current executive (riding roughshod over the Congress and Supreme Court, administrative directives, secret arrests and tribunals, wire-tapping and eavesdropping of all US citizens w/o warrant) almost perfectly.

Suggested readings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

"When In the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams

https://www.amazon.com/When-Course-Human-Events-Secession/dp...

"Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe" by Thomas DiLorenzo

https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Unmasked-Youre-Supposed-Disho...

andars4• 10 years ago

You are right in that Lincoln was no great moral hero. However, your statements are misleading.

Regarding the Corwin Amendment: looking back through the lens of history, this seems like a huge deal. At the time, it didn't really matter. No one thought in 1861 that there was a chance of the federal government abolishing slavery by a constitutional amendment, and many politicians (including Lincoln) did not at that time believe that the federal government had the authority to do so.

Here is what Lincoln had to say about it [1]:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

[1] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley...

Jtsummers2• 10 years ago

Corwin Amendment:

1) Not proposed by Lincoln.

2) An amendment, meaning it didn't even involve him directly (the President doesn't sign or otherwise approve proposed or effected amendments, it's a Federal legislative and State act, not involving the Federal Executive Branch).

3) He, prior to the Civil War, hadn't made movements to eliminate slavery, but rather to prevent its expansion.

4) The amendment and the letters he sent to the state governors were an attempt to keep the nation together, preventing secession or getting states to reverse their decision to secede. Keeping the country together was his priority over slavery, that doesn't seem (to me) to be a controversial position to hold. One immediate problem (states leaving) needed to be addressed before anything with slavery could be resolved.

andars4• 10 years ago

Fun fact regarding (2). Buchanan, being such a great guy, didn't care that his signature was irrelevant and signed it anyway.

travmatt3• 10 years ago

4) preserving the union meant fighting his own party politically just as much as the south. The radical republicans like Thaddeus Stevens were true abolitionists and deeply committed to the equality of all races - he was more than willing to massacre all of the white southerners to achieve this end. These factions had to be tamped down, as well as the traitorous Copperheads.

awclives• 10 years ago

Revealing speech by a young Lincoln:

"Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving free men."

In context: https://jupiter.ai/books/ED2g/?hl=BML

slededit• 10 years ago

He's talking about how ambition can threaten democracy. I think its a bit disingenuous to describe this as something revealing about the man himself. Unless you were saying that emphasizing with this is itself revealing?

The Common Genius of Lincoln and Einstein (2014)

Related Stories