Will the United States Still Exist to See Its 300th Birthday?

[Frodo]

In what is quite possibly the most dangerous moment for our republic as a united entity since the decade preceding the Civil War, the question must be asked. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

Given the timespan, it's nearly impossible to say really.


How many people believed in 1864 that the Austrian Empire would cease to exist by 1918?

How many people believed in 1893 that British India would become independent by 1947?

How many people believed in 1937 that the Soviet Union would cease to exist by 1991?

How many people believed in 1966 that the United Kingdom would not only have joined the European Community, but also would it have left it again by 2020?


Sure, back then there were also people pointing to flaws and problems in the system, to cultural traditions, political trends and public opinions that might prove difficult one day, but whether these flaws would eventually lead to an actual disintegration it's an entirely different question.

[Calthrina950]

Given the timespan, it's nearly impossible to say really.


How many people believed in 1864 that the Austrian Empire would cease to exist by 1918?

How many people believed in 1893 that British India would become independent by 1947?

How many people believed in 1937 that the Soviet Union would cease to exist by 1991?

How many people believed in 1966 that the United Kingdom would not only have joined the European Community, but also would it have left it again by 2020?


Sure, back then there were also people pointing to flaws and problems in the system, to cultural traditions, political trends and public opinions that might prove difficult one day, but whether these flaws would eventually lead to an actual disintegration it's an entirely different question.

This. If the United States has ceased to exist by 2076, I'd imagine that the consequences would be catastrophic, not just for Americans, but for the world at large.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Almost certainly, yeah, but it will be unrecognizable from what it looks like now.

[Velasco]

I tend to think humans will still exist by 2076, but the Earth will be rather unhospitable and societies will face radical changes.  Maybe the pertinent question is whether the USA and other nations or states will survive in their present form.  In all likelihood they won't

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Soviet-US comparisons are bad in the sense that America has much more ethnic unity than the USSR, which was basically an alliance of a dozen different countries.

[Schiff for Senate]

Lean Yes, but it's factually incorrect to say the US became the US on July 4, 1776. Sure, it's poetic/patriotic, but the US really became a nation the day the Constitution was ratified (i.e., the day the 9th state to ratify, NH, ratified, or June 21, 1788).

[The Mikado]

In what is quite possibly the most dangerous moment for our republic as a united entity since the decade preceding the Civil War, the question must be asked. 

A polity named "The United States of America" existing on roughly the same land area? Yes, it will.

Who knows what it'll be like, though. Remember, even getting its regime overthrown and a dictatorship installed it'd still be "The United States of America." I don't see any threat to the polity itself even if its Constitutional regime is imperiled.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

America will become known as Panem of the Hunger Games series by then.

[Dr. MB]

I sure hope not.

[dead0man]

I will celebrate my 103rd birthday in teh US of A.

[GregTheGreat657]

Yes. It will be very different, sure, but it will still be around and prosperous and powerful

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Lean Yes, but it's factually incorrect to say the US became the US on July 4, 1776. Sure, it's poetic/patriotic, but the US really became a nation the day the Constitution was ratified (i.e., the day the 9th state to ratify, NH, ratified, or June 21, 1788).

Did Indiana become a state in 1971, when the most recent major revision of its constitution was ratified?

If you're going to argue the United States was not a "nation" on July 4 2, 1776, 1788 is about the worst date you could latch onto for the alternative "founding" of the country.

[Schiff for Senate]

Lean Yes, but it's factually incorrect to say the US became the US on July 4, 1776. Sure, it's poetic/patriotic, but the US really became a nation the day the Constitution was ratified (i.e., the day the 9th state to ratify, NH, ratified, or June 21, 1788).

Did Indiana become a state in 1971, when the most recent major revision of its constitution was ratified?

If you're going to argue the United States was not a "nation" on July 4 2, 1776, 1788 is about the worst date you could latch onto for the alternative "founding" of the country.

Why so? 1776 was when we simply declared we were independent, even though we had established no functioning government and were still losing the Revolutionary War. 1788 seems much more appropriate, since it was when the Constitution was formally ratified and we officially had a Constitution. I don't see what's so crazy or ludicrous about that.

And I really don't get the IN analogy. IN didn't fight a war for independence - it was admitted to the Union as a state one day in (if memory serves correct) 1816, and that is when it became a state. It had a constitution by that point and was added to the Union in 1816. Period. The US didn't have a consitution of any kind in 1776 unless you actually count the Declaration of Independence, somehow, as a constitution when all it did was lay down why America was leaving Britain and what it hoped to become (without actually establishing any rules whatsoever because, uh, they were still in a war and were poised to lose it at that moment). It would make sense to ask if 1971 is when IN became a state IF I had said America became a country when it added its most recent amendment (1992). Or, you could stop making it about your homestate and try TX - did TX become a state/independent republic/whatever it wants to call itself in 1836 (when it just declared its independence from Mexico) or 1845 (when a. it passed a constitution and b. it joined America). America wasn't America at a point when it was still battling for its independence to begin with and had no established constitution. If that's what your disputing, I don't know what to say, though I don't know what else you could possibly be disputing here.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Lean Yes, but it's factually incorrect to say the US became the US on July 4, 1776. Sure, it's poetic/patriotic, but the US really became a nation the day the Constitution was ratified (i.e., the day the 9th state to ratify, NH, ratified, or June 21, 1788).

Did Indiana become a state in 1971, when the most recent major revision of its constitution was ratified?

If you're going to argue the United States was not a "nation" on July 4 2, 1776, 1788 is about the worst date you could latch onto for the alternative "founding" of the country.

Why so? 1776 was when we simply declared we were independent, even though we had established no functioning government and were still losing the Revolutionary War. 1788 seems much more appropriate, since it was when the Constitution was formally ratified and we officially had a Constitution. I don't see what's so crazy or ludicrous about that.

And I really don't get the IN analogy. IN didn't fight a war for independence - it was admitted to the Union as a state one day in (if memory serves correct) 1816, and that is when it became a state. It had a constitution by that point and was added to the Union in 1816. Period. The US didn't have a consitution of any kind in 1776 unless you actually count the Declaration of Independence, somehow, as a constitution when all it did was lay down why America was leaving Britain and what it hoped to become (without actually establishing any rules whatsoever because, uh, they were still in a war and were poised to lose it at that moment). It would make sense to ask if 1971 is when IN became a state IF I had said America became a country when it added its most recent amendment (1992). Or, you could stop making it about your homestate and try TX - did TX become a state/independent republic/whatever it wants to call itself in 1836 (when it just declared its independence from Mexico) or 1845 (when a. it passed a constitution and b. it joined America). America wasn't America at a point when it was still battling for its independence to begin with and had no established constitution. If that's what your disputing, I don't know what to say, though I don't know what else you could possibly be disputing here.

I simply find your fixation with the 1787 constitution uncompelling. The United States existed as an independent power from 1776 (arguably earlier), and the fact that the current governing document wouldn't exist for another 12 years doesn't really matter. (The U.S. did have a constitution in 1776, albeit an unwritten one, with Congress exercising limited national executive and legislative power by the common agreement of the states; the Articles of Confederation were penned in 1777 and ratified in 1781, so even the claim that the U.S. did not have a written governing document until 1788 is false.) The only alternative argument I would be willing to entertain would be that the U.S. in 1776 was not really a "nation" as historians generally understand that term to mean, i.e. a cohesive political community —but if that is your argument, 1788 doesn't work either. Arguably an American national identity was not firmly in place until after the Civil War; however, American sovereignty was established in 1776 and most people correctly ascertain that this is what is most important.

[Schiff for Senate]

Lean Yes, but it's factually incorrect to say the US became the US on July 4, 1776. Sure, it's poetic/patriotic, but the US really became a nation the day the Constitution was ratified (i.e., the day the 9th state to ratify, NH, ratified, or June 21, 1788).

Did Indiana become a state in 1971, when the most recent major revision of its constitution was ratified?

If you're going to argue the United States was not a "nation" on July 4 2, 1776, 1788 is about the worst date you could latch onto for the alternative "founding" of the country.

Why so? 1776 was when we simply declared we were independent, even though we had established no functioning government and were still losing the Revolutionary War. 1788 seems much more appropriate, since it was when the Constitution was formally ratified and we officially had a Constitution. I don't see what's so crazy or ludicrous about that.

And I really don't get the IN analogy. IN didn't fight a war for independence - it was admitted to the Union as a state one day in (if memory serves correct) 1816, and that is when it became a state. It had a constitution by that point and was added to the Union in 1816. Period. The US didn't have a consitution of any kind in 1776 unless you actually count the Declaration of Independence, somehow, as a constitution when all it did was lay down why America was leaving Britain and what it hoped to become (without actually establishing any rules whatsoever because, uh, they were still in a war and were poised to lose it at that moment). It would make sense to ask if 1971 is when IN became a state IF I had said America became a country when it added its most recent amendment (1992). Or, you could stop making it about your homestate and try TX - did TX become a state/independent republic/whatever it wants to call itself in 1836 (when it just declared its independence from Mexico) or 1845 (when a. it passed a constitution and b. it joined America). America wasn't America at a point when it was still battling for its independence to begin with and had no established constitution. If that's what your disputing, I don't know what to say, though I don't know what else you could possibly be disputing here.

I simply find your fixation with the 1787 constitution uncompelling. The United States existed as an independent power from 1776 (arguably earlier), and the fact that the current governing document wouldn't exist for another 12 years doesn't really matter. (The U.S. did have a constitution in 1776, albeit an unwritten one, with Congress exercising limited national executive and legislative power by the common agreement of the states; the Articles of Confederation were penned in 1777 and ratified in 1781, so even the claim that the U.S. did not have a written governing document until 1788 is false.) The only alternative argument I would be willing to entertain would be that the U.S. in 1776 was not really a "nation" as historians generally understand that term to mean, i.e. a cohesive political community —but if that is your argument, 1788 doesn't work either. Arguably an American national identity was not firmly in place until after the Civil War; however, American sovereignty was established in 1776 and most people correctly ascertain that this is what is most important.

I don't even see where you're going at this point. It's downright false to say the UA was a republic with a constitution, or even sovereign, in 1776 - yes, the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, but in practice the point at which it really did become even independent/sovereign was either 1781, when the war ended, or 1783, when it formally ended and Britain formally relinquished control. Not 1776 as the popular myth suggests, and while I don't expect the average American to know this distinction, I'd expect it from the average poster (and particularly yourself, since you appear to know more regarding American history than even the average forum poster).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Lean Yes, but it's factually incorrect to say the US became the US on July 4, 1776. Sure, it's poetic/patriotic, but the US really became a nation the day the Constitution was ratified (i.e., the day the 9th state to ratify, NH, ratified, or June 21, 1788).

Did Indiana become a state in 1971, when the most recent major revision of its constitution was ratified?

If you're going to argue the United States was not a "nation" on July 4 2, 1776, 1788 is about the worst date you could latch onto for the alternative "founding" of the country.

Why so? 1776 was when we simply declared we were independent, even though we had established no functioning government and were still losing the Revolutionary War. 1788 seems much more appropriate, since it was when the Constitution was formally ratified and we officially had a Constitution. I don't see what's so crazy or ludicrous about that.

And I really don't get the IN analogy. IN didn't fight a war for independence - it was admitted to the Union as a state one day in (if memory serves correct) 1816, and that is when it became a state. It had a constitution by that point and was added to the Union in 1816. Period. The US didn't have a consitution of any kind in 1776 unless you actually count the Declaration of Independence, somehow, as a constitution when all it did was lay down why America was leaving Britain and what it hoped to become (without actually establishing any rules whatsoever because, uh, they were still in a war and were poised to lose it at that moment). It would make sense to ask if 1971 is when IN became a state IF I had said America became a country when it added its most recent amendment (1992). Or, you could stop making it about your homestate and try TX - did TX become a state/independent republic/whatever it wants to call itself in 1836 (when it just declared its independence from Mexico) or 1845 (when a. it passed a constitution and b. it joined America). America wasn't America at a point when it was still battling for its independence to begin with and had no established constitution. If that's what your disputing, I don't know what to say, though I don't know what else you could possibly be disputing here.

I simply find your fixation with the 1787 constitution uncompelling. The United States existed as an independent power from 1776 (arguably earlier), and the fact that the current governing document wouldn't exist for another 12 years doesn't really matter. (The U.S. did have a constitution in 1776, albeit an unwritten one, with Congress exercising limited national executive and legislative power by the common agreement of the states; the Articles of Confederation were penned in 1777 and ratified in 1781, so even the claim that the U.S. did not have a written governing document until 1788 is false.) The only alternative argument I would be willing to entertain would be that the U.S. in 1776 was not really a "nation" as historians generally understand that term to mean, i.e. a cohesive political community —but if that is your argument, 1788 doesn't work either. Arguably an American national identity was not firmly in place until after the Civil War; however, American sovereignty was established in 1776 and most people correctly ascertain that this is what is most important.

I don't even see where you're going at this point. It's downright false to say the UA was a republic with a constitution, or even sovereign, in 1776 - yes, the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, but in practice the point at which it really did become even independent/sovereign was either 1781, when the war ended, or 1783, when it formally ended and Britain formally relinquished control. Not 1776 as the popular myth suggests, and while I don't expect the average American to know this distinction, I'd expect it from the average poster (and particularly yourself, since you appear to know more regarding American history than even the average forum poster).

I do not know why you are being weirdly aggressive in contesting a claim that all historians agree with, i.e. the United States existed as an independent power from 1776. If you feel I am more knowledgable with regard to American history than the "average forum poster," perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not some kind of rube for disputing your very rules lawyery view of what makes a "real" country.

[Schiff for Senate]

Lean Yes, but it's factually incorrect to say the US became the US on July 4, 1776. Sure, it's poetic/patriotic, but the US really became a nation the day the Constitution was ratified (i.e., the day the 9th state to ratify, NH, ratified, or June 21, 1788).

Did Indiana become a state in 1971, when the most recent major revision of its constitution was ratified?

If you're going to argue the United States was not a "nation" on July 4 2, 1776, 1788 is about the worst date you could latch onto for the alternative "founding" of the country.

Why so? 1776 was when we simply declared we were independent, even though we had established no functioning government and were still losing the Revolutionary War. 1788 seems much more appropriate, since it was when the Constitution was formally ratified and we officially had a Constitution. I don't see what's so crazy or ludicrous about that.

And I really don't get the IN analogy. IN didn't fight a war for independence - it was admitted to the Union as a state one day in (if memory serves correct) 1816, and that is when it became a state. It had a constitution by that point and was added to the Union in 1816. Period. The US didn't have a consitution of any kind in 1776 unless you actually count the Declaration of Independence, somehow, as a constitution when all it did was lay down why America was leaving Britain and what it hoped to become (without actually establishing any rules whatsoever because, uh, they were still in a war and were poised to lose it at that moment). It would make sense to ask if 1971 is when IN became a state IF I had said America became a country when it added its most recent amendment (1992). Or, you could stop making it about your homestate and try TX - did TX become a state/independent republic/whatever it wants to call itself in 1836 (when it just declared its independence from Mexico) or 1845 (when a. it passed a constitution and b. it joined America). America wasn't America at a point when it was still battling for its independence to begin with and had no established constitution. If that's what your disputing, I don't know what to say, though I don't know what else you could possibly be disputing here.

I simply find your fixation with the 1787 constitution uncompelling. The United States existed as an independent power from 1776 (arguably earlier), and the fact that the current governing document wouldn't exist for another 12 years doesn't really matter. (The U.S. did have a constitution in 1776, albeit an unwritten one, with Congress exercising limited national executive and legislative power by the common agreement of the states; the Articles of Confederation were penned in 1777 and ratified in 1781, so even the claim that the U.S. did not have a written governing document until 1788 is false.) The only alternative argument I would be willing to entertain would be that the U.S. in 1776 was not really a "nation" as historians generally understand that term to mean, i.e. a cohesive political community —but if that is your argument, 1788 doesn't work either. Arguably an American national identity was not firmly in place until after the Civil War; however, American sovereignty was established in 1776 and most people correctly ascertain that this is what is most important.

I don't even see where you're going at this point. It's downright false to say the UA was a republic with a constitution, or even sovereign, in 1776 - yes, the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, but in practice the point at which it really did become even independent/sovereign was either 1781, when the war ended, or 1783, when it formally ended and Britain formally relinquished control. Not 1776 as the popular myth suggests, and while I don't expect the average American to know this distinction, I'd expect it from the average poster (and particularly yourself, since you appear to know more regarding American history than even the average forum poster).

I do not know why you are being weirdly aggressive in contesting a claim that all historians agree with, i.e. the United States existed as an independent power from 1776. If you feel I am more knowledgable with regard to American history than the "average forum poster," perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not some kind of rube for disputing your very rules lawyery view of what makes a "real" country.

Given the topic of this thread is far removed from exactly which date America became a nation, I think at this juncture we should just agree to disagree, though my parting words are that America might even have in spirit been independent in 1776, but it was not and could not be a functioning government, until it had actually established a constitution/government - 1787.

[RINO Tom]

I sure hope not.

Why?

And yes.

[Dr. MB]

I sure hope not.

Why?

And yes.

Assuming technological capabilities progress as much as they have been, it’s almost inevitably going to lead to insane suppression and surveillance capabilities and the existence of any global superpower with those capabilities in 2076 should be avoided at all costs.

[RINO Tom]

I sure hope not.

Why?

And yes.

Assuming technological capabilities progress as much as they have been, it’s almost inevitably going to lead to insane suppression and surveillance capabilities and the existence of any global superpower with those capabilities in 2076 should be avoided at all costs.

Not sure I see a preferable alternative.  Avoiding this likely just involves a stronger United Nations and Europe having a cultural change that involves the EU countries no longer being content with the United States effectively representing their entire defense budgets and therefore dictating their foreign policies.