4 ms·
As I said in a sibling comment to this, it's also an incorrect view of history. That said, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment—if the U.S. had not had a
by halostatue 13y ago
As I said in a sibling comment to this, it's also an incorrect view of history.
That said, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment—if the U.S. had not had a revolution and had instead followed a Confederation model (e.g., the formation of Canada in 1867), I'm not sure that there would be a single nation in the land occupied by what is now the U.S., but more likely a few smaller nations. Other things could have also easily prevented the U.S.’s fate as the most powerful nation in the world, as for most of its existence, the U.S. was powerfully isolationist (at least outside of the North American continent) and inward-looking.
- jacques_chester 13y agoAustralia formed out of independent colonies out of simple expediency (eg, unified customs to improve trade). Americans have been a sufficiently practical people that similar considerations would, I think, eventually have brought them together.
- halostatue 13y agoFair enough; I'm looking at it more from the Canadian perspective with Québec thrown into the mix, which hasn't always been an enthusiastic partner with the rest of Canada. If the U.S. hadn't been a single nation, I personally believe that the regional differences between east and west would have resulted in different nations being formed longitudinally split roughly along the Mississippi river in what is now the U.S. and somewhere along that same longitude in Canada.