-So I have a BA in History that I received in 2011 from CSUSB and something was brought up in one of my history or economic classes: -A theory stating that one of the major reasons why the USA is not as susceptible as a nation to the whole "empires lasting 250-300 years before crumbling" rule of thumb is because North America was discovered on the east coast (much harsher lands, less fertile soil, etc.) settled and populated; and we then expanded westward (to the much more sustainable lands). It was like a reverse marginal utility returns type of deal. Does anyone out there have any info backing something like this up? I've attempted to find stuff but nothing really too credible.
I'm not to sure about this theory.
The east coast is very fertile and was filled with resources. It could support vast amounts of settlers. And there was many navigable waterways that help foster trade, along with many natural ports
California's settlement was helped greatly by the gold rush. And is agriculture is fueled by modern tech.
Say china discovers the west coast and pushes for settlements. They'd have a hard time finding a natural port. Say they settle in San Fran, yes they'd get some settlements up and a discovery of gold would help that but they'd have to push east into the Sierra Nevada mountains into the massive desert beyond.
Also no great rivers running into the interior, nothing but rock and dirt.
Settlements in Oregon and Washington would fair better but there isn't enough in the west to support a push through the mountains and deserts.
It hit me again like a ton of bricks today randomly because I'm a history teacher and I was doing a lesson on the Ming Dynasty of China and how they had the ship technology to possibly have done ocean exploration and it just rushed back to me because I randomly "free styled" some back and forth with some students and asked them "Imagine if China had discovered and settled North America instead of the Europeans, how would it have turned out?" Then I remembered that day in class and the example of how marginal utility works and the cases where sometimes it's the opposite effect.
I have never heard of this thesis before. From a high level, I don't put a lot of stock in it.
In terms of agriculture, the Eastern seaboard from South Carolina to New York is fully capable of supporting an agricultural growing season. Yes, the west coast has an advantage today because of the demand for year round growing and the development of hydroelectric and irrigation technology.
Also, at a more basic level, our "nation" is only 240 - 260 years old (Starting from First Continental Congress or Albany Congress). And those early years would hardly count as "Empire." Even the broadest definition of "Empire" (Mexican-American War) puts our Empire at 166 years old. So it is unclear that we need a thesis on why our "empire" hasn't fallen, because it is still quite young.
I don't know if there is a "empires lasting 250-300 years" rule.