> This is blatantly false. The 1800 Census has Virginia with a population of 676k persons (~340k free), with Delaware and Rhode Island having only 64k and 69k respectively. Their economies and 'power' (state militias?) were also nowhere near equal.
That's a single order of magnitude from top to bottom.
The smallest states are now the population of VA in 1800, and the largest are now two orders of magnitude larger than that.
> how else do you explain the success and dominance of the US worldwide? It is, without question, the most powerful, wealthy, and successful country to have ever existed in history.
It is:
* Exceptionally large. Russia is twice as large. China, Canada and the US are all approximately the same size. Next is Brazil and Australia, and then there's another factor of 2 drop.
* Exceptionally gifted in natural resources. Between ocean ports and navigable waterways, transportation was easy to exploit. During the agriculture-first age, huge herds of bison roamed free. Oil and gas and coal are available. Most metals and minerals are here. The climatic zones available for year-round habitation are huge, and the deserts are not.
* Exceptionally un-invadable by the powers in the world at its birth. The native Americans were devastated by disease and weapons. Every other human threat needed to lug their troops over an ocean before starting to invade. The War of 1812 was an expensive fizzle for the British.
* Compound effects from the above produced a robust economy.
* Being across an ocean meant that the US could pick and choose when to enter the World Wars. Even after Pearl Harbor, FDR could delay entry until industrial processes were engaged to a wartime footing.
But the American domination really started at the end of WWII, with all the European countries and Russia and China and Japan facing major rebuilding efforts, while the US was largely unaffected.
None of that requires the Constitution to be exactly the way it is. Would it have worked better as a multi-party parliament? I think so. Would it be less effective as a theocratic fascism? I hope we're not about to find out.
That's a single order of magnitude from top to bottom.
The smallest states are now the population of VA in 1800, and the largest are now two orders of magnitude larger than that.
> how else do you explain the success and dominance of the US worldwide? It is, without question, the most powerful, wealthy, and successful country to have ever existed in history.
It is:
* Exceptionally large. Russia is twice as large. China, Canada and the US are all approximately the same size. Next is Brazil and Australia, and then there's another factor of 2 drop.
* Exceptionally gifted in natural resources. Between ocean ports and navigable waterways, transportation was easy to exploit. During the agriculture-first age, huge herds of bison roamed free. Oil and gas and coal are available. Most metals and minerals are here. The climatic zones available for year-round habitation are huge, and the deserts are not.
* Exceptionally un-invadable by the powers in the world at its birth. The native Americans were devastated by disease and weapons. Every other human threat needed to lug their troops over an ocean before starting to invade. The War of 1812 was an expensive fizzle for the British.
* Compound effects from the above produced a robust economy.
* Being across an ocean meant that the US could pick and choose when to enter the World Wars. Even after Pearl Harbor, FDR could delay entry until industrial processes were engaged to a wartime footing.
But the American domination really started at the end of WWII, with all the European countries and Russia and China and Japan facing major rebuilding efforts, while the US was largely unaffected.
None of that requires the Constitution to be exactly the way it is. Would it have worked better as a multi-party parliament? I think so. Would it be less effective as a theocratic fascism? I hope we're not about to find out.