A few suggestions:
Texan nationalists *here* wanted to expand westward to the ocean. It seems likely that the same desire would exist *there*. Perhaps the Republic of Texas should expand further west.
Also, *here*, the War started due to America's annexation of Texas. While I suspect that a war would've been inevitable at some point, perhaps *there* it should've happened later. Maybe after the discovery of gold in California. I'm not sure what the ostensible reason might've been (since the US couldn't openly go to war over gold) ... alleged mistreatment of American prospectors?
Also, your map is too small, I can't read any of the state names. :-( What is *here*'s British Columbia called? I would suggest Vancouver, if that's not already the name. Nik42 13:44, 27 Jan 2005 (PST)
That's a good point. I was just making that map as a preliminary...I like your suggestions. BC is just Columbia...but I might just call it Vancouver.Biloxien
fix of names
Thanks, whomever did that. :) Louisiannan
US does WHAT!!!
"The USA first moves against British Colombia, taking control of the whole up to Russian Alyeska, thus expanding the nation from sea to sea."
Good Heavens, this is an Oriental Pipe-Dream!!! I dare say Her Majesty had the guns that worked -- and she would not have been amused!!! --18.104.22.168 04:19, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC) Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha
'Tis a well known fact *here* that the US, had they not gone to war against Mexico would've turned to the north. The slogan of Fifty-Four Forty or Fight was the battle cry of the Democratic party at the time, and I could see it happening. *there* It's an alternate history, after all. Louisiannan 17:08, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
'Tis another well-known fact that American forces were outnumbered 4 to 1 by the Brits in Oregon Territory (note the Pig War stats - even as late as 1859.) Fifty-Four Forty or Fight would have meant "Fifty-Four Forty and Lose!!!" Oh yes -- "God Save The Queen!" --22.214.171.124 02:16, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) Chinese Gordon
- Yet, America could easily have sent troops into Oregon had there been a war. America greatly outnumbered Britain on the North American continent, after all. Nik 01:08, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- That said, the Brits would either have to attack the US directly on the east coast, where the population centre was or ship their personnel across the bulk of Canada, without rail (the trans-canada railway didn't complete until the 1880's). If they shipped them there, they would have had to ship them through the North Pole, or down around the tip of South America, either way, they would be hard pressed to mass a sufficient army to defend the territory. For that matter, British Columbia was sparsely populated, but the US had a fairly dense population center much closer to the action than the British Empire, which at that time was holding together a world spanning empire. Moreover this quote from the History of British Columbia : "It is argued that if the Americans had not been at war with Mexico at the time, British Columbia would be American today." At the time, the British Empire was waning, prior to the resurgence of Imperialism that began in the later 1800's and continued into the 20th century.
- That said, Why would Britain waste its time with a piece of land on the west of a backward continent, which contained no trade value aside the lumber, which the ROI to harvest the lumber of BC, and the Beaver trade had, simply put, fallen out of fashion. There is no reason that I can see aside a stupid sense of national pride. I think that Wikipedia is right, frankly. Had the Americans not been fighting Mexico, which in this Alt-hist, which they didn't *THERE*, British Columbia would be American today. Louisiannan
Redistriction after Assyrian method?
The text says that Washington relocated its Rebs, Texans and Canadians to other corners of the continents (as the Assyrians did), but the fragments of the US after the Spasm with their borders seem to indicate that the Assyrian Method is obsolete (Relocated was begun about 20 years ago but Spasm was already in 1985) or was brought to a halt. Is Dixie still the old Dixie with its Rebs or has it become a bunch of Texans and Canadians? Do the relocational events have any effect on the post-Spasmatic borders or are they to be forgotten? Which role is Louisiana to play if relocation were still part of the VC plot? Which influence has the detention of Canadian insurrectionists on the current world map? Is there any solution for this contradiction or will these things leave the VC canon as it won't match to the Spasm?
--Dr. Nodelescu 01:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite a nice solution, though Dixie annexion of Southern Louisianna were quite more probable then a Union one. The citizens of OTL AK and LA may rather not have adopted a Yankee identity. They remained Reb souls and often switched hands with Texas. And with the Assyrian method of cutting roots the last logic reason for giving the boot of Louisian(n)a to the Union Commonwealth has gone at all if a cultural justification had ever been at all. Which country Northern Louisianna was to be annexed by is less a problem, although a Union or even Canadian annexation would have been quite plausible, but I don't demand to rewrite the maps fundamentally.
Another question: Will Detroit and the Boswash ever be rebuilt? --Dr. Nodelescu 18:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)