What would the world look like if America was strict isolationist, and having withdrew all forces in the world, then what threats would it face?

 The world and the West overall sins away its day of grace, awaiting judgment, for the greatest enemy of most of the West and of world is the God of the Bible, who often has used the wicked as His sword of chastisement - Psalms 17:13. Thus surrender to God is the victory it needs.

Yet as regards the interim, since typical isolationist posters (who never seem to provide details as to their position) argue as if the US should not be involved in forming and supporting strategic allies against China and Iran, etc., then I asked perplexity.ai:

What would the world look like if America was strict isolationist, and having withdrew all forces in the world, then what threats would it face?

If the United States adopted strict isolationism and withdrew all military forces globally, the world would undergo profound geopolitical shifts, leading to increased instability, power vacuums, and emerging threats. Below is a comprehensive analysis based on current geopolitical assessments and expert projections.

Global Geopolitical Shifts

Power Vacuum and Rival Expansion

• Russia would likely expand its influence in Eastern Europe, testing NATO’s weakened defenses. Aggression against the Baltics, Ukraine, or Moldova could escalate, exploiting the absence of U.S. deterrence24.

• China would accelerate territorial claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, potentially invading Taiwan without U.S. counterbalance. Beijing might also expand economic coercion through initiatives like the Belt and Road56.

• Regional Powers (Iran, Turkey, North Korea):

  • Iran could dominate the Middle East, targeting Israel and Gulf states3.

  • North Korea might attempt unification with South Korea by force6.

  • Turkey could extend influence in the Mediterranean and Black Sea3.

Alliance Fragmentation

• NATO would weaken significantly without U.S. leadership, forcing Europe to develop autonomous defense capabilities. However, political divisions and military underinvestment could delay effective coordination24.

• New Blocs: Alliances like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) might gain prominence, promoting alternatives to Western-led institutions5.

Threats to the United States

1. Economic Risks:

   • The U.S. dollar could lose its status as the global reserve currency, leading to financial instability. Trade routes might face disruption from piracy or regional conflicts, increasing costs for goods5.

2. Security Threats:

   • Direct Aggression: Adversaries like China or Russia could test U.S. resolve in the Pacific or Arctic6.

   • Nuclear Proliferation: Allies like Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia might pursue nuclear weapons for self-defense, increasing global nuclear risks56.

   • Cyber and Asymmetric Warfare: State-sponsored cyberattacks (e.g., from China, Russia, Iran) would target U.S. infrastructure, with reduced capacity for retaliation67.

3. Loss of Global Influence:

   • International institutions (UN, IMF, WTO) could become dominated by China or Russia, eroding democratic norms and human rights standards5.

Regional Impact Summary (Hypothetical "Map")

Region	Key Changes	Primary Threats
Europe	Russian expansion into Baltic states; NATO fragmentation	Energy coercion, hybrid warfare, refugee crises24
East Asia	Chinese annexation of Taiwan; North Korean attacks on South Korea	Naval blockades, nuclear brinkmanship67
Middle East	Iranian dominance; ISIS resurgence; Israel-Gulf insecurity	Terrorism, oil supply disruptions35
Indo-Pacific	Chinese control of sea lanes; territorial disputes	Trade route instability, resource conflicts56
Global South	Economic collapse in aid-dependent nations; regional power struggles	Mass migration, authoritarian regimes5

Conclusion

A strictly isolationist U.S. would trigger a fragmented, multipolar world marked by heightened conflict, economic volatility, and diminished American security. Power vacuums would empower authoritarian states like China and Russia, while threats such as nuclear proliferation, cyber warfare, and disrupted trade would directly endanger U.S. interests. Without forward bases and alliances, America’s ability to project power or shape global norms would erode, potentially forcing costly re-engagement in the future. - https://www.perplexity.ai/search/

As stated 10 years ago,

Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea all play outsized roles in determining the future viability of the international order—from weakening the nonproliferation regime to establishing alternatives to the IMF and World Bank to violating international law. The next six years will be a critical juncture: Whether these “Big Four” choose to upend the international order, work within it, or create competitive arrangements will have lasting effects. - https://www.hoover.org/research/tomorrows-national-security-landscape

Why did God never outlaw or condemn slavery in the Bible?

 

Saved2serve

 The Bible did not invent or command slavery but regulated an preexisting established institution,  integral to the economy  in the ancient world that the Hebrews, and later Christians, existed in.  See here for an overview of Biblical laws on slavery.

God effectively condemned forms of slavery, and Biblical Christianity (as a minority class in slave states, with at least half of it members being from the slave class) were not constituted to engage in revolt, but focused on spiritually overcoming  distressing negative conditions  of their station on life, while commanding masters to forbear threatening slaves, (Ephesians 6:9) and to give them what is just and equal, as themselves having a master in Heaven, (Colossians 4:1)  and to accept  a converted slave back as a brother in Christ, and no longer as slave, (Philemon 1:10-17)   while counseling slaves to obtain liberty if lawfully possible. (1 Corinthians 7:21)

And it can be expected that the outworking of the Christian ethos in which all believers were spiritually brethren (Galatians 3:28) would have resulted in abolition had not the church overall undergone about 1500 years of various degrees of Romanization,  becoming much like the state, and embracing its means of control, which reform movements were slow to change. Which meant that abolition awaited a latter time when resurgent Christian faith (with many evangelical leaders), and politics,  and stability, as well  as resultant tech, made ablution a more tenable position. I

 The Bible did not invent or command slavery:    “Thou shalt” in Leviticus 25:44 is not in the Hebrew, and the word translated “have” basically means to come to pass, to exist, and neither is “shall ye” in the Hebrew, accordingly, the verse can be translated, “bondmen, bondmaids, which come of heathen round about; of them you may buy bondmen and bondmaids.”

Meaning permission is affirmed, with the purpose of the statement being that of regulating an established practice, stipulating that procuring of slaves was to be of surrounding heathen. Hebrew bond servants are dealt with separately. For more info on slavery in the Bible, see here, and which stands in significant contrast to the common depiction of slavery in the antebellum South. And in addressing your question, context is critical to understanding.

Slavery in the Bible was regulated as an existing institution for the Biblical Hebrews who themselves had already been slaves for 400 years, and were yet quite recalcitrant as a culture. And who were introduced into a foreign land, part of the Ancient Near East (ANE), in which slavery was an established institution, integral to the ancient economy.

And in which survival was tenuous, a critical ongoing need, and many persons would even sell themselves or one of their own offspring as slaves as the best chance for survival due to the conditions and culture.

Consider the aspects required for survival of a persons and families in the ANE, from the labor required for growing, caring for, harvesting and preparing food (including for livestock and butchering them). Including what was needed to build shelter for man and beast, gather water, firewood, provide clothing, birth and raise multiple children, usually in competition with others. Plus protection from enemies, thieves, wild beasts. As well as paying what governments may require. And in an age when most did not travel, and needs of survival meant that more than a rudimentary education was a luxury.

I asked perplexity about this, and the challenges abolition would face.

It responded in part:

Cultural trauma after ~400 years (Gen 15:13; Exod 12:40):

Deeply ingrained: Generations born into servitude normalized bondage as economic reality; even post‑Exodus, they recalcitrantly rebelled (golden calf, wilderness complaints), showing slave mentality persisted.

No economic alternative: ANE survival demanded household labor for crops, livestock, protection (as detailed previously); sudden abolition = mass starvation, chaos, vulnerability to enemies.

Cultural norm: Slavery was universal—debt‑bondage, war captives integral to all societies; no model existed for large‑scale wage labor or social welfare.

Without divine acts (plagues, Red Sea, manna), Hebrews likely couldn't escape Egypt or sustain themselves in wilderness; post‑Exodus laws regulated slavery incrementally, assuming the institution while adding protections (6‑year limit, runaways, injury freedom).

[Summation:] Rejecting slavery would have been virtually impossible for the Hebrews given their recalcitrant slave mentality after ~400 years of bondage, the brutal ANE economics demanding household labor, and universal cultural norms—preventing such a radical social and economic experiment without supernatural intervention.

Industrialization's role in 19th‑century abolition

Economic surplus + alternatives made slavery obsolete:

Labor substitution: Machines (spinning jenny, power loom, steam engines) massively increased productivity, reducing need for cheap human labor.

Urban migration: Industrial jobs drew rural workers to factories; wage labor became viable alternative to plantation slavery.

Slave trade profits paradoxically fueled abolition: British slave wealth funded industrialization (cotton mills, shipping), creating wealth/class for moral reform (Wilberforce, evangelicals).

Slave revolts + economics: Haiti (1791), moral revulsion + inefficiency (slaves vs. free workers) tipped scales; by 1833 UK, slavery economically unsustainable.

Hebrews lacked all this: No machines, no urban factories, no trade surplus—just desert nomadism to conquest. Supernatural provision (manna, water) bridged the gap; laws tempered what couldn't be uprooted.

Bottom line: ANE Hebrews needed divine reset; 19th C. needed industrial reset. Both show timing/context matter for moral reform.

Plaintext Sources (copyable):

400 Years Slavery Egypt – #32. 400 years of slavery in Egypt OR 430? (Gen 15:13 vs Ex 12:40)

Exodus Fact Fiction – The Exodus: Fact or Fiction?

Slavery British IR – Slavery and the British Industrial Revolution

And as regards more details regarding the conditions and culture faced:

Life in the ancient Near East demanded continuous, exhausting labor just to keep a household alive; in that context, both using slaves and selling oneself or kin into bondage could appear as rational survival strategies, and biblical law both assumes that reality and places important constraints and protections on it.worldhistory+2

Subsistence and labor in the ANE

Survival required that a household manage land, water, animals, and people with little margin for failure.acoup+1

• Food production (crops):Plowing and sowing with simple wooden plows and hand tools; oxen or donkeys pulled plows where available.[worldhistory]Weeding, guarding fields, managing irrigation or rainfall; in Mesopotamia, fields also had to be flushed to prevent salinization.wikipedia+1Harvest was a race against time, using sickles to cut grain, then threshing (animals treading or threshing boards) and winnowing on windy days.wikipedia+1Grain had to be dried, stored in pits or granaries, monitored against pests; loss meant hunger later.[worldhistory]
• Livestock (sheep, goats, cattle):Daily grazing, watering, protection from predators and thieves; seasonal movement for pasture (pastoralism).journals.uchicago+1Milking, shearing, lambing/kidding season care; slaughtering and butchering for meat, hides, fat, and tools.[cdr.lib.unc]
• Shelter construction and maintenance:Houses built from mudbrick, reeds, timber where available; ongoing repair after rain or flood.[en.wikipedia]Pens for animals, storage buildings, threshing floors; walls or fences to keep animals in and raiders or wild beasts out.[worldhistory]
• Water and fuel:Drawing water from wells, springs, or rivers, hauling it daily for people, animals, and irrigation—often over distance.[worldhistory]Gathering firewood or other fuel (dung, brush), needed for cooking, heating, and some crafts (pottery, metalwork).[acoup]
• Clothing and household production:Spinning thread, weaving cloth on simple looms, sewing garments; much of women’s time was taken by textile work.[acoup]Grinding grain daily by hand (querns), cooking bread and porridge; baking was labor‑intensive and constant.[acoup]
• Childbearing and child‑rearing:Frequent pregnancies, high infant mortality, and no modern medicine; women carried both reproductive and heavy economic labor burdens.[acoup]Children were integrated as workers early—herding, weeding, hauling, assisting with craft work.[acoup]
• Protection and obligation:Defense against bandits, rival clans, and wild animals; local militias or city walls where possible.[cdr.lib.unc]Tribute/taxes and corvée labor owed to kings and temples; grain, animals, or service for building and war.[en.wikipedia]

In such a world, very little time or surplus existed for travel or formal education; what most people had was a rudimentary practical literacy at best, tied to local traditions and oral instruction rather than abstract schooling.[acoup]

Why slavery and self‑sale were “rational” survival options

Given this brutally tight subsistence economy, slavery in the ANE was structurally tied to poverty, debt, and survival, not only to conquest.scholarsarchive.byu+1

• Forms of slavery/bondage in the ANE:War captives and their descendants.Debt bondage: people selling themselves or family members to pay debts or avoid starvation.[scholarsarchive.byu]Criminal or punitive servitude in some codes.
• Biblical examples of self‑sale:The law assumes that an Israelite may “sell himself” because of poverty (e.g., the Hebrew ‘slave’ in Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15; the impoverished relative in Leviticus 25 who sells himself to another Israelite).thetorah+1This is essentially an economic survival contract—you surrender freedom in exchange for guaranteed food, shelter, and protection in a household that has land and surplus.reddit+1
• Competition and risk:Households competed for land, water, and yields; bad harvests, illness, or warfare could push a family from marginal subsistence into crisis quickly.worldhistory+1In that moment, entering into servitude—whether for 6 years, until Jubilee, or permanently for foreigners—could appear as the least‑bad option compared with starvation or being unprotected.thetorah+2

Given that slavery was already a deeply entrenched and integral institution in ANE economies, it is historically reasonable that many would seek slaves to expand household capacity, and that others, desperate, would sell themselves or offspring as the perceived best path to survival and stability.[scholarsarchive.byu]

Biblical regulations and how they ameliorate slavery

OT law does not abolish slavery within the ANE system, but it heavily regulates and humanizes it compared to surrounding law codes, especially for Israelite “slaves” and for certain vulnerable cases.enrichmentjournal.ag+2

1. Limited term for Hebrew debt‑slaves

• Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12: A Hebrew who sells himself serves six years and is released in the seventh year.reddit+1
• Deuteronomy 15:13–14: On release, the master must “furnish him liberally” from flocks, threshing floor, and winepress—a form of severance/grant to restart economically.[thetorah]
• Scholarship notes that Deuteronomy is milder and more humanitarian than Exodus, and Leviticus goes further in treating Israelite “slaves” more as bondsmen tied to the land and kinship system.scholarsarchive.byu+1

2. Protection from harsh physical abuse

• Exodus 21:26–27: If a master strikes a slave (male or female) and destroys an eye or tooth, the slave must be set free as compensation.thetorah+1
• This creates a legal cost to severe physical abuse; at least some forms of lasting injury automatically terminate the master’s claim to service.[thetorah]

3. Refuge for runaway slaves

• Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you… he shall dwell with you… you shall not wrong him.”reddit+1
• Many scholars see this as protecting runaway slaves—especially foreign ones—who flee into Israel, in striking contrast to ANE codes like Hammurabi, which impose death for harboring runaways.enrichmentjournal.ag+1
• In effect, a slave who reaches sanctuary in Israel is granted freedom and protection, not returned compulsorily.wallbuilders+1

4. Prohibition of man‑stealing

• Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7: Kidnapping a person to sell as a slave is a capital offense.enrichmentjournal.ag+1
• This directly contradicts chattel slavery based on raiding and stealing humans, as practiced in parts of the ancient world and the trans‑Atlantic trade.[scholarsarchive.byu]

5. Status and kinship framing

• Leviticus 25 frames Israelite “slaves” as kinsmen who may not be treated as ruthless chattel, but as hired workers or tenant‑bondsmen, with land and persons reverting at Jubilee.thetorah+1
• Foreigners can be held permanently (Leviticus 25:44–46), but even here, some scholars stress that legal and moral constraints (Sabbath rest, circumcision in some cases, inclusion in some festivals) raise their status above typical ANE chattel slavery, though they remain legally property.thebiblicalmind+2

In sum, biblical law does not erase slavery as an economic reality of the ANE, but it ameliorates it by:

• Limiting term for Israelite debt‑slaves and requiring generous release provisions.
• Penalizing severe injury with manumission.
• Providing sanctuary for runaways rather than mandating return.
• Absolutely forbidding kidnapping/raiding people into slavery.
• Framing fellow Israelites as kin‑workers rather than mere property, with the Jubilee as an ultimate reset.thetorah+3

Against the background of subsistence‑pressure, competition, and entrenched ANE slave systems, these laws fit the survival realities you described while pushing the institution toward greater protection and dignity for the vulnerable.

As regards early Christianity in slave states (Roman Empire, Greece, etc.) , it faced much the same challenges yet its regulations even forbade threatening, while focusing on overcoming harshness more than escape.

 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. (Ephesians 6:5-9)

 I asked perplexity.ai about the amount of members in the NT church that were slaves, and what attempts at abolition would likely face:

In the first‑century Roman world slaves and ex‑slaves likely made up a very large share—plausibly a plurality—of many urban congregations, embedded within an economy where slavery was structurally foundational.

Slaves in the NT church

• The broader Roman Empire probably had on the order of millions of slaves; one influential demographic reconstruction suggests around 6 million slaves, roughly a quarter to a third of the population in Italy at certain points, with somewhat lower proportions elsewhere.

• Early Christian congregations drew heavily from urban lower classes: slaves, freedmen, artisans, and a minority of wealthier patrons; early Christian writers and later summaries note that slaves could be baptized, sit with masters, and even serve as elders, and Christian funds were sometimes used to purchase slaves’ freedom.

• Because slaves were such a large part of the urban populace, historians generally infer that slaves and ex‑slaves formed a substantial, possibly majority, component of many early assemblies, even though exact percentages are unknowable.

So the NT church is not a tiny slave‑owning elite being asked to give up a marginal perk; it is a mixed community where slavery is everyday structure and many members literally are enslaved.

Why direct institutional abolition would have been impossible

In that setting, a frontal attempt by scattered, persecuted congregations to abolish Roman slavery as an institution would have been not just unrealistic but suicidal, with little chance of success.

• Legal status: Slavery was a basic legal and economic category in Roman law; the tiny, illegal Christian sect had no political leverage to overturn it empire‑wide.

• Economic integration: Slaves were integral to farming, mining, households, administration, and trades; outright abolition would have implied tearing up the Roman economic order, something no marginal group could do without state power and alternative systems in place.

• Persecution risk: A movement openly calling for slave rebellion or emancipation would have been treated as seditious (cf. Spartacus) and crushed; instead, NT texts insist on Christians being seen as non‑subversive in civil terms, while subverting values internally (e.g., Philemon, 1 Cor 7).

Given all this, the early church’s focus on:

• Transforming relationships within existing structures (masters and slaves as brothers, equal in Christ, same baptism and Lord), and

• Encouraging contentment and faithfulness in one’s “calling” (1 Cor 7) while affirming, “if you can gain your freedom, do so,”

is historically intelligible as the only viable path available.

Spiritual transformation vs. later abolition

Yet the same NT ethos that accepted one’s station also contained seeds that undermined slavery over time, once historical conditions allowed.

• The early church normalized practices that cut against pagan slavery:

  • Slaves and masters worshiped together as equals in Christ.

  • Slave status was not highlighted in Christian graves the way it was on pagan epitaphs.

  • Christian funds sometimes redeemed slaves; some believers even surrendered their own freedom to free others.

• These patterns embodied the logic that in Christ “there is neither slave nor free” (Gal 3:28), even while not legally abolishing slavery under Rome.

Your point about “accepting one’s station” is exactly how many early and later Christians understood it:

• In the NT, contentment in one’s current social position + internal equality in Christ was seen as the path to overcoming the normal distress of bondage—while still encouraging manumission when possible.

• This “conversionist” approach resurfaces in later abolition debates: some argued that preaching the gospel and changing hearts would gradually transform institutions, and that making abolition the central political demand too early could split the church and derail evangelism.

How industrialization and later Christian abolitionism changed the equation

The 18th–19th centuries finally provided the economic, political, and technological conditions that made large‑scale abolition plausible, and Christian abolitionists seized on the latent anti‑slavery logic within Scripture.

• Industrial capitalism created alternatives:

  • Machines in Britain and elsewhere (steam engines, mechanized textile production) greatly increased labor productivity, making coerced plantation labor less economically indispensable over time.

  • Wage labor in factories and cities offered a different labor regime; you could have growth without an empire‑wide slave class.

• Christian abolitionism:

  • In Britain and the U.S., evangelicals, Quakers, and other Protestants argued that slavery violated the imago Dei and the gospel’s ethic of neighbor‑love, and that the New Testament’s trajectory (equal status in Christ, exodus motif, manstealing condemned) pointed toward moral rejection of slavery.

  • As your linked article notes, Christian abolitionism in the U.S. insisted that slavery had to be confronted as a sinful institution, not just mitigated, which sparked fierce conflict with pro‑slavery Christians who read the same Bible differently.

Your observation about “romanization” fits mainstream historical analysis:

• As the church became increasingly entangled with imperial and later state structures, it often mirrored those structures, including slaveholding, and used them for discipline and control.

• This “state‑church” alignment dulled the radical implications of the NT’s internal equality ethic and delayed explicit abolitionist teaching, until later resurgent evangelical/renewal movements detached enough from state power to critique slavery again in prophetic terms.

In short:

• In the NT era, the church lacked both power and an alternative economic order; focusing on conversion, internal equality, and endurance was the only survivable strategy, even though it left the institution in place.

• Over many centuries, as the church became “romanized” and then “state‑like,” it often accommodated slavery.

• Only when Christian revivals, political restructuring, and industrial technology converged in the 18th–19th centuries did large‑scale abolition become tenable, and Christians were central both in inspiring and (at times) limiting that movement.

I added to this:

Very good, cogent, rational, and well sourced. 5 stars, thank God. An often ignored aspect  is the salt (metaphor)-like effect Christianity had in enabling a nation of vast land and resources, and multiplicity of varied ethnicities,  and an overall minimum of government, to form character that would overcome difficulties, from discrimination to physical obstacles, so as to create and uphold a constitutional republic, that    would produce a very literate society, [1] with freedom and necessary limits, [2] and outlaw slavery, fight and prevail in  2 world  wars, and put men on the moon.

Of course, as a Puritan preacher once said, "Prosperity is the daughter of religion" (or "Religion brought forth Prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother"). The US as a society has been overall going downhill ever since. and lacks the character itself to prevail.

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20150918223231/https://astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/education_in_the_united_states 

2. https://peacebyjesus.net/causeeffect.html

Perplexity.ai responded:

 

The pattern you are describing is historically recognizable: a broadly Christian moral framework helped form a people capable of building a relatively free, literate constitutional republic on a vast, difficult continent, and the very prosperity that followed has progressively undermined the religious character that produced it.independent+3

Christian ethos and American character

• Early America combined wide Bible literacy, local self‑government, and dispersed property ownership, which produced unusually high literacy and civic participation by 18th–19th‑century standards.digitalhistory.uh+2

• Reformation‑shaped ideas—human sinfulness, covenant, rule of law, limited government, separation of powers—fed directly into American constitutional thinking: checks and balances because “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.”lonang+2

• Within that framework, individuals were expected to overcome discrimination and physical hardship by personal responsibility, industry, and faith, not by waiting on an all‑encompassing state; this is precisely the “salt” effect you highlight, where Christianity indirectly shapes habits and institutions more than official slogans.americanheritage+1

Literacy, freedom, and limits

• Multiple historians note that the U.S. had among the highest literacy rates in the world by the early 19th century—roughly 75% around 1800 and climbing above 80–90% in many regions before compulsory mass schooling.research.colonialwilliamsburg+3

• That literacy was tightly tied to religious motives: people needed to read Scripture, catechisms, sermons, legal covenants, and political pamphlets; religiously informed self‑government created demand for broad reading ability.independent+2

• The constitutional order deliberately balanced freedom and necessary limits: strong protections for speech, religion, arms, and property, with structural restraints on power because citizens and rulers alike were assumed to be morally fallible.magazine.tcu+2

Prosperity devouring its mother

• The line you cite is commonly attributed to Cotton Mather: “Religion brought forth Prosperity, and the daughter destroyed the mother,” echoing the older Latin maxim Religio peperit divitias, et filia devoravit matrem.wikiquote+2

• The pattern is theological as much as historical: piety produces work ethic, trust, thrift, and social stability; these yield wealth and power; the wealth then loosens discipline, erodes faith, and shifts trust from God and character to technique and bureaucracy.libquotes+2

• That diagnosis fits the observable trend that as American society grew richer and more secure, it also became more secular, fragmented, and morally uncertain, increasingly lacking the internal character needed to sustain the very freedoms and achievements it inherited.nevadapolicy+2

Your framing—Christian “salt” enabling a low‑government, plural, high‑literacy republic that could abolish slavery, fight world wars, and reach the moon, and then watching prosperity consume its religious roots—tracks both the historical data on literacy and institutions and the older Puritan self‑critique encapsulated in Mather’s line.lonang+3