Alaska - Seward's Folly
The sale of Alaska has become one of the most controversial issues in Russian history. Until now, there is no common opinion whether it was necessary to sell Alaska, whether it was a mistake or even a betrayal, or, on the contrary, an extremely profitable transaction. Following conflicts with Great Britain, such as in the Crimean War, Russia looked to unload its Western landholdings in Alaska to raise revenue and free itself of having to defend the large territory.
These territories belonged not to the Romanovs House, but to the Russian-American Company, whose shareholders were not only members of the reigning family, but also big statesmen; members of the Board and its employees, as well as the heirs of the founders of the company: Shelikhovs, Rezanovs, Baranovs. However, Alexander II clearly had before him the example of his own uncle, Emperor Alexander I, who lost to the United States in 1824 Russian possessions south of the 54th degree of the northern latitude without any compensation, in order to preserve friendly relations between the two states. Now these are the modern states of Oregon and Washington.
The Crimean War showed the complete insecurity of the eastern borders of the Russian Empire. In the event of a military conflict, Russia was not able to protect such a far-off region. These fears resumed after the Crimean War, when there was a real risk of seizing Alaska. At that time, only the trick was saved: since officially the CAN was a private company, not a state company, it managed to negotiate with the Americans about a fictitious deal for renting Alaska by America for three years, so the British did not dare to attack the colony. Only thanks to this, Alaska was preserved for Russia, because several dozens of soldiers from garrisons in Alaska, of course, would not have protected it. Moreover, in order to destroy a city in Alaska, it was enough to have one well-armed combat ship that would simply sweep all the buildings in a few volleys.
Russia's contemporaneous acquisition of new lands from China. Emperor Aleksandr II (1818-1881) added the northern part of the Amur region to the Russian Empire under the Treaty of Aigun in 1858, and the Maritime region east of the Ussuri. The acquisitions shifted the focus of Russia's eastern attentions from Alaska to the area around Khabarovsk and Vladivostok, which provides better access to the Pacific Ocean and the markets of East Asia.
Russia’s Tsar offered to sell Alaska to the United States, beginning preliminary talks on the matter in 1858 and 1859. Russia sought to sell Alaska for one simple reason. The weakness of the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Empire did not allow providing the peninsula with a full-fledged defense against military intervention. And the intervention, given the recent Crimean War and extremely tense relations with Britain, was possible. Britain at that time undividedly owned Canada and could very well attach Alaska to it without much resistance.
Alaska bordered on British and American territories, and this was an extremely inconvenient neighborhood. Great Britain had had sustained interest in obtaining Alaska as an addition to its territory in the British North America (Canada), and had been threatened during the Crimean War (1853-56) after attacking the Kamchatka Peninsula. Sooner or later, the American or Canadian influence would spread so much that Russia would have to cede Alaska and not necessarily of its own free will. And in case of its sale on its own initiative, it was possible to get more or less decent money for it.
Theoretically, Alaska could be sold to both the US and Britain. But the British were then considered the main geopolitical rival, and the Americans, on the contrary, were the main friend. Relations between the US and Russia in the middle of the XIX century were close to ideal: it was not by chance that Russia was one of the few countries that openly supported the northerners in the Civil War (the British provided tacit support to the southerners).
The development of Alaska was not the state itself, as one might think, but a specially established Russian-American company, which in fact was a semi-state, but still a private enterprise. Among the large shareholders of the company besides rich merchants and industrialists were both personal emperors and members of the imperial family, as well as high-ranking statesmen and soldiers. There is nothing surprising in this, because at that time it was quite common practice: distant colonies were mastered by parastatal companies. For example, India is an East India company. Their East India companies were in Portugal, France, Holland, Denmark and even Sweden. And Canada, for example, was mastered and until a certain moment was managed by the Hudson's Bay Company.
The main value in Alaska at that time was the sea otters, whose fur was very dearly valued all over the world. There was no other value for such a remote and inaccessible region at that time, the climatic conditions there were bad, and there was no full colonization of the region; at the same time in Alaska there were no more than a few hundred people, mostly employees of the RAC. Of course, not including Aborigines.
In one interesting map, it turns out that the entire current state of Oregon was Russian America as far back as 1841, and it was officially called this way. And it turns out that the British territory New Albion is nothing but a territory squeezed or redeemed from the then inhabitants of those territories of Slavic origin. And this territory developed only through trade with the local population. Fort Ross was probably a small part of the overall history of Russian America.
The dollar exchange rate for 150 years has changed a lot. 7.2 million dollars then - it's about $108 million now. The deal on the sale of Alaska gave birth to many myths and legends. For example, the myth that Alaska was not sold, but rented for 100 years, and allegedly Khrushchev or Brezhnev for political reasons refused to return Alaska in the 60s of the twentieth century is extremely popular. This myth has no basis.
The second myth: the corruption component of the transaction. Ostensibly Baron Eduard Andreyevich de Stoeckl was bribed by the Americans in order to get a good deal. However, everything was the other way around. This Steklya had to persuade the Americans to buy Alaska. Against the deal was a fairly influential group of US senators who did not understand why to buy a deserted piece of land with a disgusting climate, and believed that the cunning Russians simply lead the American leadership by the nose, dropping their ballast for quite a lot of money. "Why do we buy polar bears for this amount?" They said.
The third myth: Russia has not received any money for Alaska. Allegedly, the money was converted into gold bars, and the ship that drove them to Russia sank, and the country was left with nothing. This is a modern legend, which appeared at the end of the twentieth century. In fact, the Americans, as expected, paid for the purchase by bank transfer, and the money received from them was used to build new railways in Russia.
Even after the sale to America, Alaska did not develop and was an abandoned land. Only 30 years after its sale, gold was accidentally discovered there, gold rush broke out, which attracted to the region tens of thousands of seekers of happiness and luck, but soon it collapsed. And oil and was found only a hundred years after the sale - in the 1970s.
Igor Panarin, a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian foreign affairs ministry, said the economic turmoil in the US had confirmed his long-held belief that the country was heading for extinction in its present form. In an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia, he outlined how the US would divide along ethnic and cultural lines. They are: the Pacific coast with its growing Chinese population; the increasingly Hispanic South; independence-minded Texas; the Atlantic Coast; a central state with a large Native American population; and the northern states where – he maintains – Canadian influence is strong.
Alaska could be claimed by Russia, he said, claiming that the region was "only granted on lease, after all". He said the country's break-up would be accelerated by rising unemployment and Americans losing their savings. "The dollar isn't secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche; this is a pyramid, which has to collapse," said Prof Panarin.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
