Anyway, my next map in this universe will either be of Canada, something in South America, or Japan. Which do you guys thing I should do first?
A lil bit of history to go with this
-After Texas allies with Central America against Mexico, US President James K. Polk is forced by public opinion to push for the annexation of the entire Oregon Country. To avoid war with Great Britain for the 2nd time in 50 years, Pres. Polk agrees on a much more pro American compromise, where as the USA annexes mainland Oregon Country up to the 52 degree north and Britain gets to keep the island of Vancouver, which becomes the Colony of Vancouver.
-The Fraser Gold Rush attracts thounsands to the west, including Vancouver, and the American population increases considerably, bringing wealth and development to both Fort Vancouver on the mainland and Fort Victoria on Vancouver Island. Vancouver's popullation becomes predominantly American and little measures are taken by the British to limit interactions between Vancouver and the USA. Vancouver's economy becomes dependent on American trade.
-After the American Civil War breaks out when it becomes obvious that Free states will vastly outnumber the Slave states, many from the north fear that Texas will side with the south and pull Central America and its new found European allies with it. Texas stays neutral, only giving support for the south in the form of words, not weapons. The south is defeated after a few years of bloody warfare, and many push for a harsh punishment for the southern states. In the end, three new states, Allegheny, Franklin, and West Florida are created as centers for southern reconstruction and the introduction of emancipated slaves to free lives.
-After the Crimean War, Russia sells Alaska to Great Britain to avoid losing it for less in some future conflict. In 1867, British North America starts to unite as the Confederation of Canada, pushing for unification from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In 1871, when the British are pushing for Vancouver to join the confederation, they are shocked to find their colony in an economic depression brought on by the end of the Fraser Gold Rush. The remaining industries are controlled or dependent on the USA for survival. After the British push too hard for Vancouver, which has a large American majority, to join Canada, the island declares its independence as the Republic of Vancouver Island. With few assets to support itself, and deeply in debt to the USA, the island is annexed in 1873 after only 2 years of independence. The USA starts the process of rejuvinating Vancouver's economy.
-In Britain, while some are outraged by Vancouver's "Treachery", many think it best to rid the empire of the island which was "no longer British" and in economic downfall. Attention was turned towards the development of the Territory of Yukon, previously Alaska, and in making precautions to avoid losing the region to the Americans sometime in the future.
Another interesting tidbit of information is that Washington is the only state named after a president, and it is in an area totally unrelated to him. In many alternate history maps, you see states named "Jefferson, Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, etc.", but in OTL naming states after presidents wasn't actually that popular.
I mean, US government never had problem with aggressive even genocidal approach to take as much land and resources as is possible, so it's surprising.
By 1812-13, sure, British were still powerful enough to stop USA still being weak, but in 1850, there is no chance, that British Empire would prevent or stop full scale invasion to Canada.
By 1860, all logical thoughts ends with USA's borders from Alaska to Panama.
In regard to Mexico and the rest of Central America, it would simply go against democratic principles to annex them. US presidents were very squeamish during the 1840s and 1850s about annexing lands already inhabited by non-whites. To annex land inhabited by white settlers (Texas) or by hardly anyone at all (Alta California and Nuevo Mexico) did not hold the same weight as annexing lands further south. For one thing, Americans and most other white peoples were extremely racist, and even those from the north did not want to govern territories inhabited by "inferior" races. It was thought that Mexicans and other Hispanics were too violent and uneducated to be valuable American citizens. Add onto that the fact that forcing other peoples to become Americans against their will was not a popular notion at the time and never had been. Hvaing said that, there were also those who believed that it was the USA's duty to "liberate" all of the peoples of the Americas, but they were in the minority by the time the USA was actually capable of such an act. The only Americans who wanted to expand South well into the 1860s were the southerners, who wanted to do so in order to subjugate the Hispanic population and spread the institution of slavery, but they were in the minority and could not pass such an idea through a congress checked by the northern states.
While the USA did expand aggressively, really only in concern to northern Mexico, it did not take as much as it could have at all. In retrospect, they took a pretty understandable amount of land. Sure, a lot of that land they should not have taken (specifically California) but they could have taken much MUCH more. And the USA was only genocidal in one instance, which admittedly is a pretty large instance and is the most shameful aspect of American history, the Native Americans. The goal was never to kill off the Native Americans, but the tactics used to remove them from their lands had almost the same effect. If we call the Armenian Genocide a genocide, then it would be understandable to call the "Trail of Tears" something of an unintentional genocide as well. But other than the Native Americans, the USA has never practiced genocide in regard to territorial expansion. The Mexicans, Filipinos, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans were never racially targeted for extinction.
I dare to say, that perhaps not de iure, but de facto, every american government in 18/19th century actually approved/ignored genocide of native americans and majority of them in capital city would be actually glad if they completely 'dissapeared'.
And today, there would be just tv documents and statues and mourning speeches every year how great tragedy it was and that they all totally feel shame and their ancestors actually tried to stop it (sarcasm).
It was not necessary to directly encourage people or give them direct orders on paper to exterminate anyone, but let just nasty people with power to do dirty work and hope there will be no problem soon at all.
Like Machiavelli said (according to this conservative logic), conquered enemy must be only exterminated or assimilated. Because subjugated people will try to avenge their defeat. No one fights from graveyard.
But in Genghis Khan's case, his advisors reminded him, that enslaved subjects working and paying taxes are still better idea.
It was still normal in the start of 20th century, so it's actually surprising that some people were so surprised and terrified by Hitler's solution - solution used by whole humanity so long, even by King Leopold (Belgium) who is responsible for 10 million exterminated people in labour camps in Congo in 19/20th century, and no one gave a fu*k about that. Interesting, isn't it? Of course it happened in Africa and who cares about some black people?
By the way, which american president in first half of 19th century showed greatest ignorance or unspoken acceptance of native american genocide or harsh actions towards mexicans?
It was in the description.
Well that's where you're wrong. As you know, Russia's defeat by the British Empire during the Crimean War led directly to its decision to sell Alaska. What you dont know is the thinking behind it. The basic thought was that if the Russian and British Empires went to war again, which seemed likely at the time (the rivalry you mentioned), then Russia feared that the British settlers in British Columbia would invade and annex Russian Alaska, which was far less populated and fortified. To cut its losses, Russia initially approached Great Britain with an offer to sell Alaska for a reasonably low price, so that if war did break out again Russia wouldnt lose Alaska without proper payment. Great Britain showed no interest in purchasing Alaska because they already had warm water ports in British Columbia and Vancouver. After that failure, the Russian Empire approached the USA with a slightly higher price than they offered the British. The Russians hoped that Great Britain would fear the possibility of British Columbia being surrounded by, or even annexed to, American territory, which is exactly why the USA wanted to purchase Alaska in the first place. Russia hoped that by offering to sell Alaska to the USA, Great Britain would offer a higher price to avoid letting the USA purchase it, and maybe even start a bidding war between America and Great Britain. Instead, Great Britain displayed little concern and the USA purchased Alaska for its low price shortly after the end of the Civil War.
In this timeline, because Texas is never annexed, the USA acquires more land in mainland British Columbia/Oregon and Great Britain shows more concern for the west coast of British North America, especially as American influence in the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island increases drastically with the start of the Fraser Gold Rush. When Russia offers to sell Alaska, Great Britain quickly accepts to prevent the USA from purchasing it and to take control of more Pacific ports.
Well you should blame the British government of the 1860s for that then. When Alaska was purchased, most of the country thought it was a major waste of money. I dont think that gold was discovered any earlier than OTL.
Texas is recognized by the Netherlands, France, and Belgium before 1845. It acquired loans from Netherlands and France to start paying off its debts, but those debts were considerably lower than OTL because Sam Houston was able to convince Lamar and the Texan people that peace and cooperation with the Camanche was the best policy that Texas could have. After 1845, Great Britain and many other countries recognized Texas, and Im sure it took out some lones.
While Texas and Great Britain's relationship is peaceful, it is a bit strenuous because of its alliance with Central America, which refuses to relinquish control of British Honduras and the Moskito Coast and threatens to expand its influence into the British West Indies, which become part of Canada in the 1880s to avoid foriegn occupation.
Well the Mexican-American War happened as a direct result of the US annexation of Texas, which claimed the Rio Grande as its southern border. The annexation of the Mexican territories of Alta California and Nuevo Mejico happened only as a result of the annexation of Texas, which was fueled by "Manifest Destiny" and irridentism. Without Texas being annexed, the USA would have no excuse to send troops to Sonomo, Alta California to convince them to revolt like they did OTL.
It could be argued that the USA would still try to create unrest in Alta California so that it could annex the territory, but it doesnt make as much sense because the USA and Mexico are not enemies in this timeline, so it would have no justification for war. Texas, on the other hand, was at war with Mexico, openly proclaimed its intentions to spread its borders to the Pacific Ocean, and was sending missions westward to try and convince America settlers to revolt and join Texas OTL
Are you talking about the Triple Alliance: Germany, A-H, and Italy? Because that seems pretty obvious.
The general pattern when it comes to American-British boundary disputes is that Great Britain has the power to back up its claims, but the USA has the stubborness, and the outcome is that the USA almost always recieves about 2/3 of the disputed land. Take Maine, Alaska, & Minnesota as examples. Oregon is one of the rare cases where the USA settled for 50/50, only because the Texas annexation and Mexican-American War required more of its attention.
In this timeline, Polk can concentrate all of his efforts on the Oregon dispute, and as always, to avoid war with Great Britain he settles for less than all of the claimed territory, but instead of splitting it 50/50 like OTL, he manages to gain about 2/3 of the Oregon Country, leaving Vancouver Island and the northern 1/4 of the Columbia District to the British. So you see, the compromise was just following a previously set pattern.
Are you asking that because you think in this timeline Great Britain and the USA are enemies? Or are you asking that as a completely separate question unrelated to this timeline?