Alaska purchase provision smoothed path to statehood

Reflecting on the purchase of Alaska this sesquicentennial year, and on Alaska's debt to William Seward, there are some nuances that may get overlooked. As important as the purchase is by itself, a critical provision Seward and Russian Minister to the United States Edouard de Stoeckl wrote into the document played a determining role in Alaska's path to statehood.

There was no guarantee in 1867 that Alaska would become a state, and from the beginning there were substantive arguments against it. One was Alaska's non-contiguity. It seemed very odd to some critics that the United States, having had its beginnings in a revolt against colonial rule, should, after three quarters of a century of self-government, set about to acquire its own, geographically separate colonial possession. Public sentiment and the 37-2 ratification vote in the U.S. Senate overwhelmed that argument, but it didn't do away with it.

In time, the U.S. would acquire additional non-contiguous territories: Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam as a result of the Spanish-American War; Hawaii by annexation at the same time; American Samoa shortly afterward as resolution of a dispute with Germany; the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1916 by agreement with Denmark, and the Northern Mariana Islands after conquest of the Japanese there during World War II.

There were important questions regarding each of these, including whether they might become U.S. states, whether their inhabitants became U.S. citizens as a result of acquisition by the U.S., and, if not, just what the residents' status would be. Those questions have been answered differently for each of those territories, and the fact that they have demonstrates how tenuous historical development can be.

[Myths about Alaska purchase have a long reach]

Hawaii, as we all know, became a state, but part of the argument against Hawaii statehood was that the non-Caucasian population was too great a percentage of the total. The Philippines were held as a U.S. territory until after World War II. The U.S. had always said Philippine independence was the goal of U.S. possession, and it honored that commitment in 1946. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Marianas are still U.S. territories. All but American Samoa are considered organized: Congress has passed organic legislation for them that makes their residents U.S. citizens and authorizes a non-voting delegate to the U.S. Congress. Residents of American Samoa, though, are not U.S. citizens; the territory is self-governing.

Several factors determined the future of Alaska in 1867: It was very sparsely populated; it was geographically vast, meaning theoretically that an undefined number of non-residents could settle there; and it was on the continent and easy to get to from West Coast ports.

And, perhaps most important, a few hundred Russian citizens were there. Seward and Stoeckl addressed their situation in the treaty. Should the Russians choose to remain in America, the diplomats decided, the Russian inhabitants would "be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion."

The Natives, consistent with the national policy then regarding Indians, were denied citizenship.

The treaty said nothing explicitly about U.S. citizens who might migrate to Alaska. The popular assumption was that they would enjoy all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizenship. But because of uncertainty about Alaska geography and conditions, and the disposition of the Native population, and the lack of any kind of economic base to support non-Native settlement, Congress did not pass an organic act for the territory until 1884. Until then, non-Native citizens were in an uncertain legal limbo.

[Alaska purchase was just part of Seward's legacy]

Alaska's status was not judicially clarified until the Insular cases in the U.S. Supreme Court after the Spanish-American War, cases that decided the status of residents of the new acquisitions. If Congress passed an organic act for a territory, then the residents were citizens. Based on the wording of the purchase treaty, and on the 1884 organic act, the court concluded that eventual statehood had always been intended for Alaska.

But for those Russians who Stoeckl and Seward realized might want to stay in America, then, Alaska's path to statehood might have been quite different and might never have happened.

Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.