(d) One of the important points where Russian expansion dif fered from that of Britain was the use of minerals. In Britain coal and iron are found near the most densely populated parts of the country. In Russia, the deposits are not only far less abundant than in England, but lie largely on the outer edges. For these rea sons and also because Russia is in many respects less advanced than the other great powers, her coal and iron have done little to help in the development of manufactures. They neither caused the empire to expand, nor prevented it from falling apart under the shock of war and revolution.
(e) Although western and central Russia have a highly stimu lating climate, it deteriorates along every possible line of expansion. This made it easy to conquer the people of outlying regions, but it denied to Russia the chance to develop strong colonies like Canada and New Zealand, which in some respects excel the mother country. On the contrary the farther Russia expanded toward the south, east, and north, the less became the energy and power of the people, and the weaker their union with the central government.
(f) Another disadvantage appears in the plants and animals. England's expansion enabled her to draw on all sorts of new food stuffs and raw materials. That of Russia in early days, to be sure, brought her the rich wheat fields of the south and of western Siberia, but in later times she acquired nothing new—merely more of the old kinds, but of poorer quality. Hence there was no great stimulus to trade, and little incentive to improve the difficult means of communi cation between the outlying regions and the center.
Russia's Great Handicap, Monotony.—To sum up the whole matter, although some great minds like Peter the Great made plans to attain definite ends such as an outlet on ice-free seas, most of Russia's growth was largely accidental. The more energetic people of the western and central parts pushed out over the plains much as the British pushed out across the water. Quarrels with the natives ensued. The government stepped in to protect its citizens, and the result was an enlargement of the Russian Empire. Yet the cold climate and the consequent sparsity both of people and of materials for commerce prevented the Russian Empire from being tied into a great net as is the British Empire, and so it fell to pieces. The pieces may ultimately form parts of a new and happier Russian Em pire, for the unity of the language and the unity of the vast plain strongly tend to hold the country together. But such an empire can scarcely hope to rival those of the United States and Britain whose territories are blessed with a variety which is a potent source of strength. Compared with such a country as the United States Russia is handicapped by intense monotony. The plain shows it; the climate shows it; the plants and animals show it; and so do the people.
(3) The Expansion of the United States.—Because our own coun try is a region of high energy and is inhabited by a strong race the process of expansion has gone on rapidly. We bought Louisiana and Alaska because they are located nearer to us than to any other strong power. Hence they were worth more to us than to France or Russia, their previous owners. Two other geographical conditions also entered into the matter, namely the fact that Louisiana guards the mouth of our greatest waterway, while Alaska is rich in fish and fur. In the cases of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California location was also a primary factor in causing the expansion of the United States. In Texas, however, the form of the land and the nature of the climate were important. The great plain, continu ous with that of Louisiana, invited settlers, while the fitness of the climate and vegetation for the raising of cattle were strong incentives. The other States fell into our hands largely because so much of them was desert and the parts that were not desert were so far from Mexico that few Mexicans lived there and misgovernment was rampant. Hence in spite of much talk, there was little organized opposition in Mexico when they were ceded to this country. Although the whole transaction was to the advantage of Texas and the United States, it was not strictly just. It illustrates the way in which the demands of the energetic people of cyclonic regions are forced upon the weak people of the tropics and the Orient. It must also be remembered that by reason of its own natural growth and the addition of settlers from Europe, the United States was rapidly expanding, while Mexico was changing but little. Mexico herself, together with the unfavorable climate, prevented us from expanding southward, while England was firmly estab lished in Canada. Hence the natural direction of expansion was west ward. This explains why the settlers of the United States pressed into Washington and Oregon ahead of the British, who claimed those regions because of their fur-trading posts. Our other acquisitions also illustrate the effect of climatic contrasts and of location. At first our expansion, like that of Russia, was entirely by land, but later we followed England's example and went across the water. First we took the Hawaiian Islands because they are nearer to us than to any other country. Moreover, although not on the main route be tween this country and Japan and China, they are a port of call for many steamers. For these reasons and also because of their wealth in cattle, sugar, and other tropical products Americans already formed a solid nucleus for self-government and we felt obliged to support their aspirations to become part of our union. In Samoa, also, we took action, first because we wanted a naval station in the South Pacific, and then to prevent misgovernment.