In simple terms, why did Russia agree to sell Alaska to the US? Were they short on cash that year? Would it have been too difficult for them to defend? Was it too far away from Moscow? What was the real reason they would choose to give up such a large amount of their territory?
Russia had just lost some territory to the British in the Crimean War and was a bit worried about potentially losing territory in the Americas (British Canada was doing pretty well). Considering the land was virtually economically worthless, they hoped they could make a nice little sum of money by selling it rather than just flat out lose it in a potential future war.
Of course, that was before anybody knew there was gold or anything else of value in Alaska, but hindsight is always 20/20.
From the wiki: Alaska Purchase - Wikipedia
Why was Russia, which was considerably larger and with more natural resources than Britain not able to assemble a credible force to defend it’s vast territory? Russia was once a powerful nation. What happened to it in the 18th and 19th centuries? Was it simply too big for its own good?
That “vast territory” of the Russian Empire was largely impassible and nearly uninhabitable land, especially in Central and Eastern Asia. While the Russian Empire had great natural resources, it lacked the industrial capability to exploit them, in part because of the remoteness and climate which made a fair portion of the Empire nearly uninhabitable for about seven months of the year, and Russia was very, very late to the whole Industrial Revolution party that the rest of Europe was enjoying at the time. (Arguably, Russia as a nation did not develop true industrial capability until the late 19th Century starting with the reign of Nicholas II, as well as lacking a significant naval and merchant power never developed the kind of oversees empire that other coastal European nations did, and therefore did not have ready access to either exotic trade goods and slaves, or the markets to sell internally produced goods and resources.)
As others have noted, except for fur trapping in the lower latitudes, Alaska was viewed as essentially worthless. At the time of the purchase, it was caustically referred to as “Seward’s Folly” (for William H. Seward, US Secretary of State who negotiated the purchase). It was assumed that, aside from fur trapping and some logging, there was little value. As it turns out, Alaska is both a bounty of natural resources (gold, silver, petroleum) and strategically crucial during the US-Soviet Cold War, but that could not have possibly been foreseen in the 19th Century when neither nation held any particularly standing on the world stage.
Stranger
Russia contributed heavily to the land becoming worthless (in their view) by decimating the fur seal populations. In later decades, Seattle business concerns would decimate the fisheries and control all trade to Alaska. Statehood was not just a nicety; it was essential for Alaska’s economic survival.
Thanks everyone. Ignorance fought.
Here is the CHECK, from one of my favorite sites, 100 Milestone documents.
In 1867, 7.3 MILLION was a tremendous amount of money. Russia had NO idea the land was loaded with gold and oil, notwithstanding it’s military strategicness, later revealed.
Presence of the former could probably have been inferred from what had been encountered in similar regions. But the amount of gold (over 500 tonnes from the Klondike alone) would have been hard to predict.
As for oil, it had very low significance in 1867.
The Klondike River and its gold strike were in Canada.
The Nome gold rush was estimated at about 130 tons, and was the largest gold rush associated with Alaska. Fairbanks also had a gold rush, and of course Juneau was the first in about 1872, not long after the purchase from Russia.
Today, there are big plans to develop the Pebble Mine, considered to be one of the largest gold strikes in the United States, and the largest copper strike. There is a lot of opposition to this development.
Russia was a significant power in Europe in the 18th and 19th century, able to hold off Napoleon (although vastly aided by its geography). As has been pointed out, Russia’s Far East was nearly inaccessible before the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railroad in 1916. With few ice-free ports and no direct access to the Atlantic, Russia never became a major naval power, and would certainly not have been able to defend a remote territory against the British Navy.
Aside from the cash influx, it was better for Russia to have Alaska in the hands of the US, with which it had never had a conflict, rather than Britain, its European rival.
The theory is Seward bought Alaska at a high price in 1867 as a favor to Russia. Russia had supported the United States during the Civil War so we owed them one.
Czarist power was beginning to wane toward the end of the 19th century. Like so many before and after them, they spent too much treasure on wars and on the ruling class. Russia needed the cash influx of the Alaska sale, although it was too soon spent and the masses continued to grumble. The Russo-Japanese War was specifically started by Nicholas to divert attention away from the woes in the government. We all know how that turned out.
Hmmm - good point.