How about The Protestant Work Ethic? 
:flees room:
Interesting bias that - having an immegration policy giving preference to short people. So, can we say that the power of America was built on dwarves? Would that then be a case of “giants standing on the shoulders of dwarves” to misquote Newton?
But seriously and back to the OP, I am interested that nobody had mentioned the contributory factor of your Civil War. I read somewhere that by the time that finished a breakneck industrialisation of the country (well the North anyway) had taken place which already put the USA in first place economically in the world. It was just they did not realize their latent power until WW1.
Could having a Civil War just when warfare was becoming industrialised, and requiring the whole (man)power of the country, might have been (economically) a benefit in disguise?
If so I suspect the WW1 and WW2 just pushed that process on.
Good thread this though - some very stimulating views!
Don’t run too fast. If you remove “Protestant” from the phrase, you’ve hit on what I believe is an essential component of nation-building…a motivated and industrious populace. I don’t think that Protestants have an exclusive franchise on the concept, but there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that the work ethic was a huge factor in the move west in the 18th and 19th centuries. What happened to the economy in the Soviet Union further proves my point. If the people don’t care, they will not be productive. No productivity means a dying economy.
At the risk of seeming incredibly un-PC: Think of the guts and willingness to tolerate uncertainty and risk that it would require to come to a country that you
knew virtually nothing about. Think of the willingness to grab the bull by the horns and take initiative to improve one’s lot in life. These are the same traits that are needed to succeed in business. The USA is the end point of a certain selection process that weeds out, or at least keeps out, people without these traits. The early USA was essentially an “entrepreneur drain” on Western and Eastern Europe, China, etc…
I don’t think that’s un-pc at all. For the first couple of centuries all but the native population was selected based on character traits well suited for progress.
What I really wanted to add is somewhat related: I think the rise of the US is largely a result of timing. The nation was (is) young at a time when the world experienced an uprecedented rate of change. Granted, some of this change, like the revival of democracy, was nurtured in-house, but I believe the absence of an old-world paradigm allowed for spectacular innovation and a culture of self-serving adaptation.
Also, this seeming “rise from nowhere” is something that has happened elsewhere… Japan itself went through two phases of industrialization (1870-1940, 1946-today) and enrichment, while China is currently undergoing the process of re-awakening that the West has feared since Napoleon. How the US and Europe respond to the rise of an Asia (and eventually Africa) wanting to flex her global muscles is going to be the story of the 21st century.
What is interesting is that Asia will gain her power by the very means that gave the world to the Europeans: scientific research, technical application, rational methods of organization and distribution, and financial sophistication. Whether Democracy and human rights will be involved in Asia’s growth is another matter - I think we were rather fortunate in that regard, imho.
Here’s a thought: think about how America would’ve been different if we had published the Declaration in 1848 (year of the Communist Manifesto), fought the british for 7 years, and then found our country upon the principles of Marx and Hegel?
A lot of small advantages, compounded over a very long time.
The U.S. has maintained a more dynamic, more competitive, more efficient economy than other countries, mostly through having a more limited government role and giving markets more ability to work.
A difference in 1-2% productivity growth per year, compounded over 100 years, will result in a large gap.
We got lucky to start with. The nation was founded on a big continent full of fertile land, a variety of natural resources, and natives who were unable to resist when we took it.
Second step was being the right distance to the rest of the Western world. Close enough to pick up what we wanted (culture, trade opportunities, immigrants. etc.) but far enough we could ignore what we wanted to (wars, Marxism, smelly cheese, etc.).
Then once we had a good set-up, we held an open house. The people who imigrated to America tended to be the ones with initiative - the ones that were willing to settle for what they had stayed home.
Then the American economy would have collapsed around the time the Nazis were rising to power and we would all be speaking German as a second language.
During the 1840’s Mexico had a decently trained professional army. So I’d say Mexico had a chance to knock the USA out of the running during the Mexican American War. England had a chance to do it during the War of 1812. Had the British won the Battle of New Orleans we might live in a very different country.
Marc