I don't know, there are counter-arguments to a lot of those points. Even when people within a country have barriers in terms of language, religion, or ethnicity, you can still unite them under the banner of a common nationality.
It very rarely works
Look at Quebec; Canada originated in the union of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Of course there have always been tensions and separatist movements, but at the same time Canada remains one country.
That's because the Canadian government bought Quebec off. And look at the result, Western Canadians are pissed at what they view as Quebec taking all of the money and giving nothing back in return.
Another thing that helped Canada in regards to Quebec separatism is the complete and utter collapse of the Bloc Quebecois. If that party had better leadership like Scotland's Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party, we'd probably see a stronger separatist movement within Quebec.
The United States has historically been a "melting pot" of different cultures and ethnic groups - Europeans, Africans, Hispanics, Asians. Anyone would admit that this has led to huge problems in the past - slavery, segregation, anti-immigrant xenophobia, race riots. But through it all, the country managed to stay united.
That's why ethnic tensions haven't been a problem in the United States. There really is no such thing as ethnic Americans. It's very different as opposed to the Basques and Catalans of Spain, the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey, Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, or even the Quebecois of Canada.
Given these objective situations, I don't see why it's any less realistic to say that one day we might get rid of the border dividing, say, the USA and Canada. The only thing blocking it in people's minds would be stale nationalist ideas, which don't have much to do with the way the world really works in a globalized economy.
The United States and Canada merging is a lot more sensible than other countries. Like the United States, there is no such thing as an ethnic Canadian because Canada is also an immigrant nation. Asides from Quebec, the United States and Canada are very similar culturally, religiously, and linguistically. Plus the economies of Canada and the United States are very tied together.
But try and merge for example, the United States and Mexico.....no ****ing way that would ever happen.
Yes, the Industrial Revolution connected the states and territories, but the ability for that to flourish in this country sprang from one single nation instead of a series of varyingly successful autonomous states. The reason the US was able to emerge as the definitive superpower of the 20th century because it was one single country separated from the infighting we saw in Europe or even the Middle East today. The fact that union remained in tact and did not break off into many states--which would have been inevitable if the Confederacy succeeded in their secession--made the US able to grow and grow its economy and infrastructure in an interconnected way despite regional disparities (the Northeast vs. the Deep South, vs. the "wild" West, etc.)
Also you point out that most Americans called themselves "Americans" first and "Virginians second." This is because of the Civil War. Before the war, people said "The United States are." After the war, it became, "The United States is..." Lincoln squashed that idea of state supremacy. It still exists in small minorities in Texas, Alaska, midwest militias, Waco-styled cults, etc. but it is incredibly small and unrealistic.
The Civil War had nothing to do with that. Asides from ending slavery and stating that the states could not secede, the North was essentially fighting for the status quo.
There was no such thing as state supremacy. The Constitution firmly states that the Federal government is supreme and the Supreme Court repeatedly defended the supremacy of the Federal government all the way back to McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. The South recognized that the Federal government was supreme and that is why the seceded. They feared that the Federal government would use its supremacy to free the slaves (which Lincoln had no intention of) so they decided to break away and form their own nation. Before the Civil War the United States operated on a system of dual sovereignty where the Federal government was supreme and after the Civil War, it was the exact same thing. This concept of dual sovereignty was upheld by the Supreme Court in Collector v. Day in 1871. All the Civil War did in this regard is tell a bunch of angry racists that they were forced to stay with us. Things like that tend to create divisions, not heal them. After the Civil War, people still had the mentality of being Virginians and Ohioans and Georgians and whatnot.
Now if Lincoln were not assassinated, I think you may have had a point. Unlike the Radical Republicans who took control of Reconstruction and treated the South not only like a defeated power, but also a conquered territory, Lincoln had unity and reconciliation first and foremost in his mind. He wanted a speedy restoration of the Union and had no real desire to humiliate the South after the war. Things like that could have gone a long way if Lincoln were not killed.
Simple things like people traveling beyond 25 miles from where they were born, being exposed to goods from all over the country, being able to communicate with people instantly as opposed to waiting for weeks for a letter did far more to erode divisions than the Civil War. And because Lincoln was unfortunately assassinated, innovators like Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, Theodore Judah, and others did far more to erode divisions than Lincoln.
To think that the US is going to collapse because of debt in the next 20 years, as some in this thread do, is ridiculous.
I agree.
