Talk:Alaska Purchase/Archive 1

[1] - not a very reliable source, I must admit - claims, somewhat dubiously, that most Russians believe Alaska was only leased. Can anybody verify this? (Is anybody familiar with relevant Russian textbooks?) -- Itai 04:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes - many Russians actually believe that. If you know Russian, just search for leasing of Alaska (аренда Аляски[2]) to find a lot of references in forums and various news sources that the "99-year lease treaty" ended in 1967, and now the US not only has to give Alaska back, but also must pay lots of money for not obeying the return deadline. --RomanRM 06:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not true. The schools in Soviet Union have always taught that the corrupt Tsarist government SOLD Alaska to US for trifle money. Hence this has always (since 1920s until 1990s) was the only official and public opinion in the Soviet Union. Not much changed since, neither in schools nor in public opinion. However, do not confuse public opinion with opinions of uneducated people of the sort who for example do not remember who started Second World war etc.; there are always people like that, but this is not public opinion. I personally in my whole life of 40 yrs in Russia never met a Russian who did not know that Alaska was sold. Online however you can find people who cannot spell their own name, they will gladly accept the idea of Alaska being leased. Rozmysl (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems than no one knows for sure. Disputed question. --Varnav 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Moscow News article cited also below in regard to the apparently-errant payment never reaching the Russian treasury:

"As a matter of fact, at the height of the Crimean War, in 1854, Alaska was temporarily ceded to America. But it was just a trick and the three-year agreement only existed on paper - its real aim was to keep the British navy off Alaska. This treaty subsequently caused a misunderstanding, specifically that Alaska had been leased. The amount of money indicated in the agreement almost completely coincided with that in the real treaty of purchase that was signed later.

I'd never heard of it before, either; I'm more familiar with the 1839 arrangement between the HBC and the RAC whereby the British obtained rights to Fort Stikine and the entirety of the Panhandle's mainland fur resources for 10 years, in exchange for supplying the RAC with food and other goodies; can't remember if it was extended but I do know there was an informal truce between the HBC and RAC even during the Crimean War...until the Royal Navy and the French fleet showed up at Esquimalt after retreating from Petropovlavsk, that is....Skookum1 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Belarus (former Soviet Republic) and nearly every person whom I heard saying anything about Alaska, be it russian or Belarusian said that it was "sold for 100 years" (not seeing that this phrase clearly contradicts the very definion of the word "sell") and then "evil Americans refused to give it back on the pretext that they bought it from czarist regime and will not give back to anyone else". In fact that was just the reason I came to this page. Was glad to find it was only a myth created by the propaganda of their rotten empire.B-2Admirer 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA states:

"He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare."

Not reliable, but possibly useful for finding other sources. Sounds like a crank theory to me.Ann arbor street (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous proposition and should not be included in the opening paragraph. After all, it's an easy debate to resolve -- what does the text of the treaty say? As they say in law school, when in doubt, read the contract. (Both the English and French versions say "cede", and there is no mention of a 100-year lease.) Epstein's Mother (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the opinion that the ridiculous proposition should not be included in the opening paragraph. It confuses people. There are no gray areas in the Alaska Purchase. Read the whole document yourself: TREATY WITH RUSSIA. It is pretty clear it was a purchase and not a lease. You can include it in the "Controversy" section, but not the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.200.50 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The taxpayers of today's Alaska (mostly originating from the

Actually, according to Lydia T. Black, a scholar of Russian America studies in Alaska, the Russians managed their fur harvesting quite well. It wasn't until the Americans started coming north that the populations declined; the Russians wiped out

University of Alaska Press talks about this (it's been quite a while since I read this, so I'm not positive about her conclusions. I'm not sure what the general historical consensus is, but the Russians actually managed the fur harvesting, whereas the Americans didn't do any management of fisheries or fur trapping until Alaska became a state, I think. Deirdre

20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC---

Link (in Russian): [3] This is basically a summary of it:

To clarify the claims in the preceding discussion, the most elementary research on the Alaskan so-called Purchase in 1867 would reveal that the original deal was, in fact, a 100-year lease. According to the original conditions of the diplomats of Alexander II, Alaska would be returned to Russia in 1967 when it pays the US government back with interest (about 10^9 US$). (By the way, why does only the first page of the pictured document with all of the Tsar's titles appear, and no substantive pages?) The tsarists never sold Alaska to the Americans. So what the Russians believe about the lease of Alaska is essentially true.

However, the loan was later nullified by the Bolsheviks on three separate occasions. Lenin, in order to secure an end to economic sanctions against the USSR, offered to withhold any pretentions to Alaska. Stalin, in the Yalta conference, told Roosevelt that Alaska was American when persuading him on the management of the Eastern Bloc. The final "nail in the coffin" was when Khruschev neglected to demand Alaska back from the Americans (which he still could have done legally, since the first two incidents were not fully official) and suppressed historians' articles on the issue. Alaska became a permanent US territory only after 1967 legally. Currently in Russia, there have been many popular calls to take back Alaska, and its lease remains a sore topic debated while drinking. [SK 13 Feb. 2006]

Fascinating stuff. Hopefully someone can be bothered to work this into the article?SaulPerdomo 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not because its factually incorrect. So many Russians make this claim its getting a bit absurd. If they are going to make this claim they should demonstrably show it in the Source documentation. The 1867 treaty has been preserved in both capitals AFAIK. Here is a link to a site which tells more and even contains images of the source documents in both languages. I believe they have images of both originals, I know they have the English language original for sure. [4] The treaty is quite clear that its a succession of territory. No mention of a lease or time period is present.65.182.231.3 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The negotiations concluded in an all-night negotiating session that resulted in the signing of the treaty at 4 o'clock in the morning of March 30, with the purchase price set at US $7,200,000 (equivalent to about US $1.67 billion 2006 dollars).

Okay, very good. Let's read Alaska article...

At the urging of U.S. Secretary of State William Seward, the United States Senate approved the purchase of Alaska from Russia for $7,200,000 (approximately $134,000,000 in 2005 dollars, adjusted for inflation[1])

So, how much?

• Good point, it would be nice to know a good equivalent value in today's money. Malick78 (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

technically there are many ways to compare these amounts over 100+ years, and the different methods differ by a factor of 10x or more. (It gets more confusing if you compare rubles in 1867 vs 2013). Rjensen (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a contradiction here. In the article it states that the senate only approved it by one vote, but further down it says the vote was 37 to 2? Which is correct?

See the Orphaned statement section below. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska was only admitted to the United States in 1959. This is peculiar in comparison with California: Another a remote terretory, California was admitted to the Union immediately after the discovery of gold.

Had 'granting' statehood been under active discussion at an earlier date? Can anyone comment on the considerations that were decisive for the timing for admission?

--Philopedia 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statehood is based on population, and then aproval by congress. California was admitted to the Union so quickly because a) Congress had intended to annex CA for sometime and b) because immediatley after the gold rush CA's population grew more then enough for it to become a state, this did not work out the same with Alaska. Mac Domhnaill 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following text was in the "see also" section. Because it conflicts with the Senate vote count already in the article, I moved it here. Editors more knowledgable about the topic please verify the accuracy of the article or this statement below and fix as needed. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate ratified the Treaty with Russia on April 9, 1867, by a vote of 37 to 2. However, the appropriation of money needed to purchase Alaska was delayed by more than a year due to opposition in the House of Representatives. The House finally approved the appropriation on July 14, 1868, by a vote of 113 to 48.

According to documents in the LOC [5], the senate vote was 37 to 2. older ≠ wiser 17:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the text says "Public opinion was generally negative; as summarized by one historian the complaints were many" should it not mention that it's talking about opinion in the US? I would be interested to learn what public opinion was like in Russia. --ericthefish 18:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; can't remember how I came across this, maybe in a websearch for the Russian American Fur Company, or even in External links in another Wiki article, but when I saw the image of the check used to pay Russia (teez that's weird to spell it that way for me...I'm Canadian, and we use "cheque"), I found a recent article from the Moscow News, an English-language paper:

"However, the money never reached Russia. Legend has it that the banknotes were converted into gold bars and loaded aboard a ship that sank in the Gulf of Finland. The reality is much more prosaic.

"Baron Eduard de Stoeckl received a $21,000 award from the emperor, and purportedly spent around $100,000 to bribe U.S. journalists and congressmen who were opposed to the deal.

"The rest of the money was used to buy steam locomotives and other essential equipment that was vital for Russia's booming railroad industry.

I'm not sure how or where to fit that into the Wiki article, as there's a few places it could go; there's other tidbits in the Moscow News item suitable maybe for other articles, but I'm over-extended Wiki-wise as it is, but just handing over the link, and the juicy quote above - even that there's a Russian legend that the money never reached the Russian treasury (when it seems to have reached private pockets) is in itself interesting. The MN article also barely mentions BC or the Hudson's Bay Company supplying the RAC with foodstuffs and other staples, which is an interesting and kind of glaring omission, but other than that it's always interesting to hear another perspective, no?Skookum1 02:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would be possible for some information on how it was possible given the peace treaty with the British not to have territory past the 49th parallel? —The preceding

A Russo-British Treaty? No such beastie. The Russo-British Treaty of 1825 set 54-40 as the limit; in 1839 Russia leased the inland portion of the Panhandle to 56-30 (the Stikine) and this lease was still in effect when Russia sold to the US, though it wasn't acknowledged by either of those parties in the course of the sale. The only treaty that has anything to do with the 49th Parallel is the Oregon Treaty of 1846, and Russia had nothing to do with it.Skookum1 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the islands of Saint Lawrence, Saint Paul, Saint George and the Aleutian Islands, were these islands ever a matter of dispute in the treaty of Alaska's purchase, or did they just came togheter along Alaska as part of the whole "package"? One look on the map of the Bhering Sea, and you can notice the American sovereign over such Islands was very benetifitial to the U.S. of America, strategically speaking, it granted U.S. of America a large free area for militar maneurvering in that sea, in detriment of Russia. I wonder if the Russians ever paid attention on such a detail by the time of the purchase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.250.201 (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need help I don't know when and how the American's got Alaska! HELP ME!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.204.27 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; just read through this and noted the at-length quotation from Sumner's speechifying; it reads to me like a manifesto/tract for

And just as an aside, I'm not alone among Canadians in finding American anti-monarchist rants amusing, as the US Presidency had, even at the time, far more power than a British monarch had had since before William of Orange, and to this day has only grown to the stature of "imperial presidency" while the powers and influence of the British monarchy continue to wane. But Sumner's ranting against monarchy here has to be remembered to be an oblique reference to Queen Victoria, as if she herself had any power other than a raised eyebrow and a stubborn foot-stamp, while the US presidency by this time had already taken on Tudor or Stuart qualities of noblesse, hauteur and monarchical power.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some information on their opinions about this? Brutannica (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and dig some up from the available on-line histories - http://www.nosracines.ca has Scholefield & Howay's 1914 tome so there should be something on there; I've read through their deconstruction of British policy/sentiment on the Oregon and San Juan disputes, there shoudl be a good Alaska chapter. One thing to bear in mind with the Alaska dispute is that British, Canadian and British Columbian positions/attitudes/policy/perspective would be very different; things that matter to the BC government do not matter to teh Ottawa government, and Britain's scope of importance is global rather than being all that interested in what BC or Canada wanted. This was even more true in HBC/colonial times, i.e. the Oregon and San Juans disputes. London and Ottawa have always been willing to cut deals not favourable to BC if it means maintaining the peace, or at leaest a positive trade balance for Central Canadian industry. I'll see what I can find anyway, about actually finding summaries of the British position/strategy and also of press materials from the period.....wish I had JSTOR access and a membership in the online archives for the Vancouver Sun (actually, hmmm, I'll have to find out which newspapers were in publication at the time; the Sun's predecessor the News-Advertiser wasn't in print until 1905 I think....it'll be interesting to compare the Vancouver/Victoria/New Westminster editorials on teh subject vs those in Toronto/Montreal papers vs UK ones......Skookum1 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - I haven't read through it yet but British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present, Vol. II, E.O.S. Scholefield and F.W. Howay has a whole chapter on it. Not sure whether that link will go to the title page or the chapter, but the online book is really good and the "Alaska Boundary Dispute" chapter is clearly linked in the Table of Contnents on the entry page.Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I totally spaced didn't I? Not enough coffee, I thought I was on the boundary dispute article, not the purchase article; in which case the Scholfield and Howay book is relevant but it's their Vol. I you want, and it'll take some digging to find stuff on teh Alaska purchase in it, though I think it's discussed a bit in the course of the chapter on the San Juans dispute; but maybe in other sections as well....Skookum1 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a bit more in E.O.S. Scholefield's solo volume A History of British Columbia, 1914, pps 15-18 which details out certain bits of the Russian-era background, though not much on British policy about this; Alaska Purchase is covered on pp. 17-18. Still looking for more.Skookum1 (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this addition:

The contract was made as rent contract on 100 years with the possibility to get Alaska back by payment of percents from $7,200,000 which is about $2 billions now. This amount of money was unreal sum at those days and that's why USA considered this rent as "purchase". But Russian Federation diplomats were sure about possibility to buy Alaska back by this sum of money and that's why the "purchase" was documented as rent for 100 years.

Not because there isn't a Russian position that this was in fact a lease rather than a purchase, and it's obvious that "Alaska purchase" (capital-P in my experience NB) is the "most common usage"; even British/Canadian-authored histories use "purchase". The main reason I removed this change, however, is because the lease was not with the Russian Federation, which did not exist until the fall of the Russian Empire; there are some precedents for the Russian Federation "inheriting" agreements made by the Tsars, but not many; and under the Soviet diplomatic regime the claims of imperialism were specifically renounced (even though the USSR "kept" - reconquered - nearly all of the former Russian Empire. There is indeed a revanchist/nationalist movement in Russia that Alaska is by rights Russian (native Alaskans would of course disagree...) but there's no way "Russian Federation diplomats" could have had any position in 1867; they did not exist until 50 years after that, and then only briefly.....the modern Russian Federation apparently sees itself as heir to the Tsarist legacy; but the buyback clause, even if it were in the treaty/bill of sale/lease (which I haven't read) would not have carried on to the RSFSR; Kerensky's regime may ahve had agreements with the other Powers that it was to abide by Tsarist diplomatic arrangements....but I don't think so as the whole idea of the RF was an abolishment of Tsarism, no? I stand ready to be corrected, and would appreciate seeing the passage in the "lease" about the buyback; but insisting that the article wording/title conform to the Russian POV and ignore the "most common usage" of "purchase" just doesn't work, nor does claiming that the Russian Federation (rather than the Russian Empire) was the negotiating party (which it wasn't).Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to devide my reply to what is written above. If anyone knows, go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.52.144 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very common opinion in Russia that Alaska was "lent" to the USA. Hundreds of articles were published in the 90-s proving that it's not true but Russians are difficult to pursuade. I'm a Russian and I saw the copy of the treaty and it clearly says "purchase". No buyback clauses, no rent clauses. Katherine II sold it because it was too far from the controlling center and nobody knew there was gold in Alaska. So Alaska was sold and the contract was considered very profitable back then. We got a lot of money for a piece of rock. End of story.

And one more thing. 2 billion dollars wasn't "an unreal sum" back then. At least not for the Russian Empress who spent at least ten times more on her lovers. And don't forget, only 40 years after that treaty in 1906 the first billionnaire appeared - John Rockefeller made his first billion. So 2 billion dollars wasn't considered too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.52.144 (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being Russian, you should know that Catherine II died some 70 years before the Alaska Purchase. Alaska was in fact sold by Alexander II. --94.189.233.233 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This caught my eye:

and you will bestow what is better than all you can receive, whether quintals of fish, sands of gold, choicest fur or most beautiful ivory."

I think what must be being referred to are walrus tusks.....unless anyone may know if mammoths had yet been found in the Alaska permafrost, which may indeed be the case. "Ivory" in either case could maybe used a footnote.Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there was the matter of adjacent territory belonging to Britain (and now part of Canada). Nearly surrounded by the United States they were of little strategic value to Britain and might someday be purchased. The purchase, editorialized the New York Herald, was a "hint" from the Tsar to England and France that they had "no business on this continent." "It was in short a flank movement" upon Canada said the influential New York Tribune. Soon the world would see in the northwest "a hostile cockney with a watchful Yankee on each side of him," and John Bull would be led to understand that his only course was a sale of his interests there to Brother Jonathan.

I appreciate taht this is in the "View from Washington" section, but it's hard to tell in those last setnences what should be in quotations, or is from a cited source-opinion, and what is actually POV language in the article itself;; the "John Bull would be led.....etc" is the primary sentence of concern. It's also questionable whether the region was in fact of low importance strategically to the British; in British Columbian eyes that was not the case and they spent the next three decades sending Ottawa and London notices about their concenrs, which included the loss of the territory leased from the Russians since 1839 (Ketichikan-Wrangell basically) and waht they saw as the instrinsic need to control t he Yukon Ports. I'll be back someday with cites of BC's letters of protest.....also from the BC perspective their lease was not recognized by the American even though th Russians had recently renewedd it.....BC historian A. Begg notes taht the area in dispute was rapidly settled by American "squatters" who had their own interpretation of what the 1824 and 1825 treaties meant and ignored British rights in the leased area. The mouths of hte Stikine and Taku WERE seen as of strategic value, and te Aemrican possession of the mainland and adjoining islands south of 56-30 was seen as a threat to British territory inland (see

In re the citation needed, I don't think it was for the sentence beginning "however"that was called for, but for Panarin's article; it's in http://english/pravda.ru for sure (search taht site for his name), I'll dig out the link tomorrow, it's late and my computer's running slow...the cite you've provided is fine as far as the second sentence goes, but the presence of "However" is

Hong Kong's New Territories were on a 99 year lease and had to be handed back in about 1999.

Alaska was bought.

Tabletop (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that leases tend to be for non-round numbers like 49 or 99 years and not round numbers like 50 or 100 years. Tabletop (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article should be capitalized, as it usually is in nearly every reference outside Wikipedia, which is in fact the only place I haven't seen it capitalized. Wikipedia precedent also exists in the form of

The former version did not make sense; it was only if Russian America were purchased that this would be the case. The "hint from the Tsar", in actual historical context, was delivered on the heels of Canadian Confederation; the "flank movement" was in response to that. The British had considerable strategic interest in the area, not teh least of which the Pacific Station but the hint of a combined oceanic-transcontinental trade corridor for the British Empire; gold was already known of and British Columbia had come into being expressly to prevent forced annexation by the US, as had happened with Hawaii and to some degree with Oregon/Washington. This strategem between the Tsar and Seward did not exist in isolation, is what I'm saying. I've seen materials on the British, British Columbian, and French (!) response to the sale; in the interests of NPOV these different interpretations should be given here, even though this is primarily a US historical article it doesn't mean there's only a USPOV/interpretation. Not the least of which is the bit in the article invoking the US propaganda about the British, that they were "hostile" - to a man, British/British Columbian historians express dismay with which their very civic and negotiatory attitude was presented by the US and US media and public opinion; they were scandalized, even more than somewhat hurt, that thier conciliatory and very calm approach invoked so much virulent hostility among Americans. I can find exact quotes about that, in fact.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, no one cares, give it a rest. Like the lady said, "This song isn't about you."Armandtanzarian (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete coverage is teh nature of an encyclopedia, not "I only want to know what I already only half-know". Give it a rest, nobody cares about closed minds around here either.Skookum1 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, both items in red i.e. on both sides of the edit, are interpretive in nature and very much OR/synthesis. Citing sources which give modern dollar figures is OK, but not producing evidence and discussing a conclusion, that's agains the rules. There are, at least in BC history, standard conversion rates found in some formal histories as to the value of 1860s dollars and modern ones (BC used American dollars de facto, until joining Canada, though pound sterling was how government books were kept); the one I'm familiar with is 40:1, for 1858-59. Re-interpreting it as a proportion of national productivity/wealth is even moreso synthesis, again unless you can provide a source which uses that mechanism (and whatever others) to make the calculation.Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent article about Sarah Palin claims buying Alaska was not then considered a folly, [6]. Do opinions need revised?

dino (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were they granted US citizenship? were they not granted citizenship but allowed to stay under some other terms? were they kicked out? were there simply none of them? Plugwash (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Article III:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=575 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.78.46 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copy of the treaty from the library of congress is an unsigned transcript. The so-called Russian copy in the Wikipedia article just lists the tsar's titles without mentioning anything about the actual treaty. Can I find the photocopies of original signed documents somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.48.31.88 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The transition sentence "When the business with the flags was finally over," following the humorous eye-witness account quoted at length above it, initially struck me as a little too conversational ("encyclopedic tone,") but it struck me as fairly apropos, considering the subject matter: the quoted passage it follows is indeed dryly humorous, and the notion of an official ceremony taking place in such a remote spot is charming. I didn't write it, and it hasn't been challenged, but I like it. It is language such as Plutarch or Tacitus might have used. Thoughts? Alan Canon (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hilarious and I like it. Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is, "Alaska Day" puts the formal calendar change as occurring at the midnight of October 18/19 Gregorian. Is there evidence for this? Others have considered it to be a day earlier, at the midnight of October 17/18 Gregorian. Or did the formal calendar change occur during the ceremony, at the changeover moment, making October 18th a late-starting day in Alaska (the article puts the transfer in the afternoon, presumably local mean solar time)? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source is absolutely not credible. I've read this article, this is just a crazy compilation (in Russian) of insane historical anecdotes, anonymous at that (although at the beginning, the author claims: "You wonder what was the real history of selling Alaska? I will tell you how it really happened" -- without mentioning his own name anywhere on the page! The main idea of the whole article is that Russia never gained a penny of the Alaska money -- all $7 million was all stolen by a genius crook! Somebody should remove all references to this source as well as everything it cites, including 5% interest on money borrowed from Rotshild's. Rozmysl (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a major omission is the lack of any mention of the Alaska Purchase Centennial. This was a huge event in Alaska and spawned numerous civic improvments which remain today, perhaps the most significant of which being

He played a massive role in that as according to Larry L. Watts at http://www.larrylwatts.com/ and, also, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pomutz#Postbellum_career — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.4.1 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. he played a minor role as one of numerous diplomats who worked on the final text. Other people made the decisions. Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, a reference for

I have not seen any historian make that claim. Some government bonds were paid to the owners, but the freed serfs had to repay that money to the tsar over the next 50 years. (They paid more than the land was worth.) Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In discussion of the "payback" on the initial investment there should be at least passing mention of the military strategic importance of Alaska. It affords rapid naval deployment to Northeast Asia in particular and puts much of the entire northern hemisphere within easy reach of aerial weapon systems such as bombers and ICBMs.

Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.151.68 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of major naval bases in Alaska that would be part of any such deployment; air force definitely, yes. But what you are talking about began almost a century (ok, well 80 years or so) after the Purchase and is irrelevant to "payback" for the Purchase in its own temporal context. Even during WWII naval deployment from Alaska isn't all that notable, though air defence was. In the 19th Century the US involvement in Northeast Asia was marginal; the first involvement I can think of was TER's negotiation of the Russo-Japanese War treaty.Skookum1 (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was actually thinking primarily of air defense and just threw the naval thing in as a flier. I am so lazy these days I didn't even google for the facts. Also, of course, Alaska has been superseded in strategic importance by extra-territorial US military bases closer to potential targets and by mobile nuclear platforms such as submarines. Still, there is a simple geometric advantage to having a standing air force near the pole which can not be ignored. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.156.11 (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Alaska Purchase (hi-res).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 4, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-01-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The

Russian America from the Russian Empire (represented here by Russian Minister to the United States Eduard de Stoeckl). The lands involved became the modern state of Alaska in 1959.Check: William H. Seward

; scan: Our Documents initiative

Archive – More featured pictures...

I am sorry Rjensen, I had just added that section and probably should have put it in the section two paragraphs above. When you removed it, I thought WP:OWN I guess, I will integrate the two now. I should have looked at the whole page in context.

yes but it's not a RS (not a published secondary source). We already have multiple scholarly books and articles that make the point in much greater depth. What new info does it add? Rjensen (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i think it is secondary since it discusses previous media but you may remove it if you like. 05:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ok i will. It is secondary, but it's not a scholarly source. But thank you for making a serious effort to improve the article! Rjensen (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although he may not have take the lead on the negotiations, it seems odd that President Johnson is not mentioned at all in the article, despite signing the treaty. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I will research it. Jadeslair (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a minor update on it. Jadeslair (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alaska Purchase. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911202831/http://www.opoccuu.com/alyaska.htm to http://www.opoccuu.com/alyaska.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150329025653/http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alaska.html to http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alaska.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]