A better Alaska

I do think kitchen was looking at the Last Frontier through rose colored glasses, but there's no reason Alaska couldn't have a higher population. If the Radical Republicans from the late 1860s on hadn't refused to spend a penny on "Seward's Folly," had the planned rail link eventually been built, then you could see a situation where the Gold Rush could have led to a more sustainable population growth, which would have led to a greater development of agriculture which could then have further sustained population growth.

The thing is to find a reason for people to move there and stay. I know there's coal in Alaska, but is there iron? A cursory web search was inconclusive, but if there's the resources for a steel industry in Alaska, with a nearby and ready market in Japan, then you've the seed for long-term diversified economic development.

As to the idea of Alaska being divided into more than one state, that's highly unlikely. In the US, the process for gaining statehood starts from the bottom, not the top. Given that the Alaska Territory was organized in 1912, you'd need a PoD that allows much greater populations in the late 19th century to even get two states eventually. To be able to petition Congress to be recognized as a Territory, you must have at least 30 000 inhabitants in a designated area and must elect a legislature to draft the petition. Once recognized, you can petition for admission as a State after the Territory has reached a population of 60 000. The Congress then has to vote to approve that admission. I could see a situation where, in a better populated 19th century Alaska, the Panhandle might organize separately as the Territory and later the State of Juneau while the rest organizes as Alaska, but I can't envision a scenario where the North Slope or western Alaska would have a big enough population before the mid 20th century to be able to petition for separation from the Alaska Territory before its admission into the Union.
 
Top