Another great post, Bill. As you've requested, I share all of your posts on social media, and this is what one of my more history-oriented friends commented:
Great article but it seems to suppose instability where I’d say stability is common. San Marino has been the same size since 300ad, the Roman Empire had about 200 years of true stability. I think the borders in North America have been stable for about 100 years now. I think it’s clear that some circumstances demand small, some demand large and as circumstances change so do the states the seek to exist with them. I disagree that people are axiomatically "difficult to please"
I can see where someone - your friend, for instance - could take the other side of this question. But I'd note that I was thinking long term, so that 200 years of Roman stability doesn't disprove the argument. And of course there are exceptions to every generality, so San Marino's experience doesn't disprove it either. I'll be the first to admit that circumstances change, and that there are external as well as internal drivers of changes in the size of states. But those internal drivers are very important, especially in democratic regimes. As for people being hard to please, I think the American experience is a good example. The British empire was too big for the Americans, so they created 13 independent states. These were too small, so they banded into a union. But this was too big for Southerners, who tried to break up the union. Britain is another example. Shunned the Common Market, then joined, then shunned again. And many had second thoughts even before Brexit was accomplished. Having said all this, I hope to hear from your friend in the future. The fun is in the conversation.
Here is my friend's response to your reply (he apologizes in advance of the length):
Volatile and Internal drivers vs stable and external drivers. What makes a country big or small?
To start, thank you for engaging in the discussion. I’ll start by characterizing the positions as best I can. Your summary statement regarding the ideal size of a country was that the citizenry of a small states would prefer the scale and advantage of a large state and those of a large state would prefer the nimble responsiveness of a small one. Generally the size of nations will tend to grow and wane as the citizens of various parts of the nation either conquer, are conquered or rebel.
I would agree that pros and cons of scale can explain why large nations shrink or small nations grow. But that specific disagreements over policy and style of government along with external change in circumstance generate change far more often than the whims of its citizenry.
I’m willing to focus on the American/British experience as good examples of what drives nations to grow or shrink geographically as they both experienced plenty of recent change and are functional democracies whose actions often reflect the will of their people.
American Revolution. The core question here is why did the 13 colonies break from the union. In some ways it was a problem of scale. The American colonies had been settled with a fair amount of independence. The reason they rebelled when they did was largely because the UK was asserting its authority over the self-ruling colonies in the wake of the seven years war and the colonies lacked a say in the governance of the growing empire. However scale does not explain why Canadian or Indian provinces held at the time did not rebel or why the empire grew much larger in later years.
Further, one of the core complaints of the colonies was the the empire was limiting their growth into native lands and so I’d say that the colonial complaint wasn’t so much that they wish they were in a smaller nation but more that they wanted power. Indeed, after achieving independence the same Americans who fought the British set out to expand their nation with ferocious speed.
In your telling of the story this showed the vagaries of American public opinion. They want a smaller country and then they want a big country. But I’d argue that the founding fathers were being consistent. A core reason for the revolution was that if successful Americans could lay claim to as much westward land as they could settle and settle they did! In my version of the story Americans were worried about being relegated to a small corner of the continent and their ruling classes relegated to the sad state of the ruled. They rebelled so they could have a big country of their own.
Again we get to another fork in the historical road. The civil war. In your telling of the history the southern states wanted a small country which would better reflect their needs. I’ll acknowledge that this is true but I believe it misses the broader picture of why they rebelled and how they envisioned their cause. So why 1860? Southerners were just as aggressive in expanding the size of the country and only showed occasional interest in “states rights” for the nations first 60 years. Indeed it was a South Carolinian who put down south carolina’s first attempt at succession. Southern presidents ran the show for nine of the first twelve presidencies. They had outsized influence on national policy and expanded their economic system vastly after independence. However sluggish population growth compared to the north, and the limiting of further land to turn into “slave states” meant that the southern “way of life” had an expiration date within the republic. Northerners weren't interested in ending slavery but didn’t think the practice should be expanded and with the end of the Mexican American war had no reason to help them the south expand its geographical domain. In a parallel to the revolutionary war, the southern aristocracy which led the charge to independence was worried about being a permanent minority in the halls of power and dreamt of a slave empire that stretched across the Caribbean which would create vast wealth and power for itself. Far from worrying about size of the country and the scope of government they were interested in power and embraced a rebellion that promised to expand it for them.
I believe that US history 1865-2020 has shown great consistency. Since the civil war the United States have only incorporated two states outside of its 1860 borders. In terms of population, those two states make up less than 1% of today’s united states. No states have left the union. There are territorial holdings which came and left but they weren’t ever incorporated and I would argue that their inhabitants never wished to be a part of the united states and the continental united states never saw them as part of the nation. There is talk today about the nation splitting because it has grown too large and that perhaps would work better if it were smaller. I’ll believe it when I see it. Though the idea of small vs large may be popular in a philosophical discussion the real question surrounding the geographical borders of a nation is “what would best expand the power of that nation’s ruling class” and I’d argue the answer to that question only changes when the broad circumstances surrounding its economy, demography and political systems change.
On to Britain!
I’ve already written more than I ought to so I’ll attempt to be brief. I was lived in England shortly before brexit. In most areas I lived the english people I spoke to felt that the EU bureaucracy was no longer serving their needs and that they wanted greater control of their affairs to your point. However I’d argue that they weren’t looking for a smaller country. The same UKIP hot heads would shout about the pig headed bureaucrat in brussels and then speak reverently for values of the union with Scotland, the worth of NATO and the need to build relations with commonwealth, break down barriers with the US and support Australia against Chinese encroachments. They usually envisioned the EU as limiting their ability to chart their own path and yearned for the days of empire.
In summary, history is the summation of the decisions of the people who live through it. I’d say people are easy to please. Most people expect to die in the same country that they were born. The past five generations of my family certainly have. Before that, we lived in the same town in England back as far as reliable records go. The borders that make the map may change here and there but the people who make the core nation are extremely stable. They grow and shrink due to vast economic and demographic trends. Even when “revolutionary times” shake nations I’d argue that very little changes in the politics of people’s daily lives. I’d say the actual political systems that governed a town in rural Pennsylvania in 1750 were not very different from 1790. I think durable revolutionary political change is extremely rare. Internal drivers such as the belief that your nation ought to be larger or smaller just aren’t worth dying for and only arise as part of the national dialogue when deeper factors of power and self-interest are at play.
I’d say the historical record shows external drivers are much more significant in terms of the creation of nations. Why is Switzerland so small and France so big? Because the Alps allowed a small confederation of towns to maintain their independence and neutrality and the lack of natural resources have kept nearby empires from sweeping through and destroying them as a people. Was there any debate about how large the country should be? Certainly not. Their circumstances made them small. France has nearly the same geography now as it did in 1766 despite revolutions, world wars, republics, monarchies and dictatorships. There was plenty of opportunity for the French people to decide that they should split into ten Swiss-sized countries. The geographic factors that created its european borders 250 years ago still determine them today. It may have conquered the papal states but it lost them four years later because external factors made the acquisition untenable etc. The ruling class of each nation would always like to expand their power as much as they can. External factors determine whether this expansion is possible and whether it is durable.
I’d say that the teeter-totter of public opinion does exist but rather than large vs small national borders it rules the waves of large vs small foreign policy. In the US, Teddy’s big-stick aggression gave way to anti-war indifference lost out to wilsonian idealism which fell to depression isolationism turned to WWII internationalism discredited by vietnamese humiliation bolstered by gulf war cheap victories collapsed by war-on-terror quagmires. I’d say that based on the pattern the next American intervention will be a success so long as our national debt allows the adventure to continue.
Very interesting and full of fascinating detail - which I couldn't include when waving a broad brush over millennia in 900 words. In real time, people don't say, I want a smaller country or a bigger country. They have particular complaints they think smaller or larger would better address. But functionally, they are saying we've got the wrong size for our present circumstances.
And there are cross-cultural patterns. Most humans lived in somebody's empire in the 19th century; now no one does. Hunter-gatherers never live in large polities; agriculturalists very often do, and industrialists almost always do.
Once again, thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Another great post, Bill. As you've requested, I share all of your posts on social media, and this is what one of my more history-oriented friends commented:
Great article but it seems to suppose instability where I’d say stability is common. San Marino has been the same size since 300ad, the Roman Empire had about 200 years of true stability. I think the borders in North America have been stable for about 100 years now. I think it’s clear that some circumstances demand small, some demand large and as circumstances change so do the states the seek to exist with them. I disagree that people are axiomatically "difficult to please"
I can see where someone - your friend, for instance - could take the other side of this question. But I'd note that I was thinking long term, so that 200 years of Roman stability doesn't disprove the argument. And of course there are exceptions to every generality, so San Marino's experience doesn't disprove it either. I'll be the first to admit that circumstances change, and that there are external as well as internal drivers of changes in the size of states. But those internal drivers are very important, especially in democratic regimes. As for people being hard to please, I think the American experience is a good example. The British empire was too big for the Americans, so they created 13 independent states. These were too small, so they banded into a union. But this was too big for Southerners, who tried to break up the union. Britain is another example. Shunned the Common Market, then joined, then shunned again. And many had second thoughts even before Brexit was accomplished. Having said all this, I hope to hear from your friend in the future. The fun is in the conversation.
Here is my friend's response to your reply (he apologizes in advance of the length):
Volatile and Internal drivers vs stable and external drivers. What makes a country big or small?
To start, thank you for engaging in the discussion. I’ll start by characterizing the positions as best I can. Your summary statement regarding the ideal size of a country was that the citizenry of a small states would prefer the scale and advantage of a large state and those of a large state would prefer the nimble responsiveness of a small one. Generally the size of nations will tend to grow and wane as the citizens of various parts of the nation either conquer, are conquered or rebel.
I would agree that pros and cons of scale can explain why large nations shrink or small nations grow. But that specific disagreements over policy and style of government along with external change in circumstance generate change far more often than the whims of its citizenry.
I’m willing to focus on the American/British experience as good examples of what drives nations to grow or shrink geographically as they both experienced plenty of recent change and are functional democracies whose actions often reflect the will of their people.
American Revolution. The core question here is why did the 13 colonies break from the union. In some ways it was a problem of scale. The American colonies had been settled with a fair amount of independence. The reason they rebelled when they did was largely because the UK was asserting its authority over the self-ruling colonies in the wake of the seven years war and the colonies lacked a say in the governance of the growing empire. However scale does not explain why Canadian or Indian provinces held at the time did not rebel or why the empire grew much larger in later years.
Further, one of the core complaints of the colonies was the the empire was limiting their growth into native lands and so I’d say that the colonial complaint wasn’t so much that they wish they were in a smaller nation but more that they wanted power. Indeed, after achieving independence the same Americans who fought the British set out to expand their nation with ferocious speed.
In your telling of the story this showed the vagaries of American public opinion. They want a smaller country and then they want a big country. But I’d argue that the founding fathers were being consistent. A core reason for the revolution was that if successful Americans could lay claim to as much westward land as they could settle and settle they did! In my version of the story Americans were worried about being relegated to a small corner of the continent and their ruling classes relegated to the sad state of the ruled. They rebelled so they could have a big country of their own.
Again we get to another fork in the historical road. The civil war. In your telling of the history the southern states wanted a small country which would better reflect their needs. I’ll acknowledge that this is true but I believe it misses the broader picture of why they rebelled and how they envisioned their cause. So why 1860? Southerners were just as aggressive in expanding the size of the country and only showed occasional interest in “states rights” for the nations first 60 years. Indeed it was a South Carolinian who put down south carolina’s first attempt at succession. Southern presidents ran the show for nine of the first twelve presidencies. They had outsized influence on national policy and expanded their economic system vastly after independence. However sluggish population growth compared to the north, and the limiting of further land to turn into “slave states” meant that the southern “way of life” had an expiration date within the republic. Northerners weren't interested in ending slavery but didn’t think the practice should be expanded and with the end of the Mexican American war had no reason to help them the south expand its geographical domain. In a parallel to the revolutionary war, the southern aristocracy which led the charge to independence was worried about being a permanent minority in the halls of power and dreamt of a slave empire that stretched across the Caribbean which would create vast wealth and power for itself. Far from worrying about size of the country and the scope of government they were interested in power and embraced a rebellion that promised to expand it for them.
I believe that US history 1865-2020 has shown great consistency. Since the civil war the United States have only incorporated two states outside of its 1860 borders. In terms of population, those two states make up less than 1% of today’s united states. No states have left the union. There are territorial holdings which came and left but they weren’t ever incorporated and I would argue that their inhabitants never wished to be a part of the united states and the continental united states never saw them as part of the nation. There is talk today about the nation splitting because it has grown too large and that perhaps would work better if it were smaller. I’ll believe it when I see it. Though the idea of small vs large may be popular in a philosophical discussion the real question surrounding the geographical borders of a nation is “what would best expand the power of that nation’s ruling class” and I’d argue the answer to that question only changes when the broad circumstances surrounding its economy, demography and political systems change.
On to Britain!
I’ve already written more than I ought to so I’ll attempt to be brief. I was lived in England shortly before brexit. In most areas I lived the english people I spoke to felt that the EU bureaucracy was no longer serving their needs and that they wanted greater control of their affairs to your point. However I’d argue that they weren’t looking for a smaller country. The same UKIP hot heads would shout about the pig headed bureaucrat in brussels and then speak reverently for values of the union with Scotland, the worth of NATO and the need to build relations with commonwealth, break down barriers with the US and support Australia against Chinese encroachments. They usually envisioned the EU as limiting their ability to chart their own path and yearned for the days of empire.
In summary, history is the summation of the decisions of the people who live through it. I’d say people are easy to please. Most people expect to die in the same country that they were born. The past five generations of my family certainly have. Before that, we lived in the same town in England back as far as reliable records go. The borders that make the map may change here and there but the people who make the core nation are extremely stable. They grow and shrink due to vast economic and demographic trends. Even when “revolutionary times” shake nations I’d argue that very little changes in the politics of people’s daily lives. I’d say the actual political systems that governed a town in rural Pennsylvania in 1750 were not very different from 1790. I think durable revolutionary political change is extremely rare. Internal drivers such as the belief that your nation ought to be larger or smaller just aren’t worth dying for and only arise as part of the national dialogue when deeper factors of power and self-interest are at play.
I’d say the historical record shows external drivers are much more significant in terms of the creation of nations. Why is Switzerland so small and France so big? Because the Alps allowed a small confederation of towns to maintain their independence and neutrality and the lack of natural resources have kept nearby empires from sweeping through and destroying them as a people. Was there any debate about how large the country should be? Certainly not. Their circumstances made them small. France has nearly the same geography now as it did in 1766 despite revolutions, world wars, republics, monarchies and dictatorships. There was plenty of opportunity for the French people to decide that they should split into ten Swiss-sized countries. The geographic factors that created its european borders 250 years ago still determine them today. It may have conquered the papal states but it lost them four years later because external factors made the acquisition untenable etc. The ruling class of each nation would always like to expand their power as much as they can. External factors determine whether this expansion is possible and whether it is durable.
I’d say that the teeter-totter of public opinion does exist but rather than large vs small national borders it rules the waves of large vs small foreign policy. In the US, Teddy’s big-stick aggression gave way to anti-war indifference lost out to wilsonian idealism which fell to depression isolationism turned to WWII internationalism discredited by vietnamese humiliation bolstered by gulf war cheap victories collapsed by war-on-terror quagmires. I’d say that based on the pattern the next American intervention will be a success so long as our national debt allows the adventure to continue.
Very interesting and full of fascinating detail - which I couldn't include when waving a broad brush over millennia in 900 words. In real time, people don't say, I want a smaller country or a bigger country. They have particular complaints they think smaller or larger would better address. But functionally, they are saying we've got the wrong size for our present circumstances.
And there are cross-cultural patterns. Most humans lived in somebody's empire in the 19th century; now no one does. Hunter-gatherers never live in large polities; agriculturalists very often do, and industrialists almost always do.
Once again, thanks for contributing to the conversation.