Could Canada have aquired Alaska?

Alaska was purchased by the americans in 1867, the same year as canadian confederation, any possible way that the British could have aquired it earlier making it part of the Dominion?

What effects would this have on either country?
 
No, the Russians really didn't want the British to get it, which is why they waited so long to sell it. The only way the British could have got it is through war... Maybe during the Crimean War?
 
Of course the British could have acquired Russian Alaska duringthe Crimean War. There was, however, a gentlemen's agreement between the Russian Alaska Company and the Hudson Bay Company that there wouldn't be any fighting in the region. It was bad for business.
 
So what if there isn't a 'gentleman's agreement'? Wouldn't be the first time the British Empire used its companies as tools of war? I'm sure the Hudson's Bay company could be compensated.

Any idea of the available forces to the HBC? How about the Russian Alaska Company? Can't imagine it was much on either side.
 
In OTL an Anglo-french squadron attempted to capture a Siberian port (Petropavlosk IIRC not sure if that's spelled right) with the intent of cutting off Russian Alaska's supply route. Had they succeeded Alaska very well might have been annexed.

Now assuming that the British annex it during the Crimean War, I'd imagine it would be incorporated into the Colony of British Columbia before too long. However though intended to make said colony more economically viable, in all likelihood it does the exact opposite further worsening an already bad economic situation. With their colony in worse economic straits I could easily see BC joining the Confederation earlier than OTL.

With Alaska as part of Canada you might very well see a different division of the western provinces. The city of Prince Rupert probably doesn't develop as it did in OTL and is probably replaced by Sitka or Juneau. The Alaskan Panhandle might very well be joined with Northern BC to form "Caledonia" as was proposed in OTL (not the joining of the Panhandle & Northern BC but Caledonia). The rest of Alaska remains sparsely populated and a Canadian Territory, perhaps as a part of the Yukon Territory.

The Klondike Gold Rush won't be as big meaning a smaller Seattle WA.

Without "Sewards Folly" the US might annex Santo Domingo (a plan of President Grant's)

No Alaska Purchase leaves the Russian Empire slightly worse off financially.

Canada is even bigger (Not quite as big as Russia at it's height but close...)
 
If you keep in mind that there was a Pacific theater of action during the Crimean War then you have enough British forces. There was a British led attack on Petropavlosk (spelling?) which failed and the British admiral in charge killed himself.
 
Russia was very afraid that the British would try to take Alaska, and they knew they couldn't defend it - that's why they sold it to the Americans. It wouldn't be too difficult for the Americans not to purchase it - after all, general opinion in Washington was that it was little more than a cold, Arctic wasteland. Have the anti-Alaskan politicians be more successful, and Alaska quickly falls into British - and thus Canadian - hands.

Now, what will a Canadian Alaska look like, and what would it do for Canada? The well-settled Panhandle will most likely be split off from the rest of the colony. It could remain independent while being adjoined with British Columbia's northern territories (more likely; makes management easier), or it could become a part of BC. The rest of Alaska will probably become a part of the Northwest Territories. When the Yukon Territory is carved out during the Gold Rush, northern Alaska (meaning, everything that isn't part of the Panhandle) will probably be included with it. The Yukon becomes a province once Anchorage (or its analogue, whatever it's called) starts growing.

The town of Prince Rupert will probably be butterflied away, what with Sitka right nearby. Juneau, or some other town north of Sitka, may grow in importance the same way it did in OTL (Sitka was dependent on whaling and fur, and when those declined in importance, Sitka declined as well). Both towns will be a bit larger than in OTL (remember: no Prince Rupert), and there's a chance (as there always is in an ATL) that one of them will become a major city. Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley will probably see development similar to OTL - the area makes a great east-west stop, especially for air traffic, and it's one of the few areas in Alaska that can really support agriculture.

With Alaska, Canada will be put into an enviable position, especially as time goes on. It will have all of Alaska's mineral resources (gold, oil), and it will have undisputed control over the entire northern third of the continent. This Canada is going to be richer and more powerful than in OTL, primarily at the expense of the United States. And when global warming picks up, Canada's undisputed control of the Northwest Passage (remember: no American claims in the region) is going to be a beautiful asset.
 
We could have gotten a chunk of the Panhandle, but the British, who served as arbiters, sided with the Americans and not with their loyal dominion. Dirty pool, Lord Alverstone!
 
Depending on how the colony is managed, British Columbia may or may not join confederation sooner.

Britain might even create two dominions instead of one, Canada as we know it today, and another compose of British Columbia, Alaska and the Yukon (and perhaps an idependant colony of Vancouver Island?). I imagine for defence and economic reasons the two would eventually merge if that route happened.

Foreign policy might be affected later in time if there are two Pacific provinces that feel Eastern Canada is dominating it. Also, the panhandle dispute caused a souring of relations between Canada and both Britain and the USA, this won't happen, and a slightly more pro-British Canada results. Also, given the lesser distance between Canada and the USSR, a bigger military may be needed which could affect domestic policy somewhat.

I doubt Canada would be radically different in any way, unless the two dominion idea emerges.
 
Depending on how the colony is managed, British Columbia may or may not join confederation sooner.

Britain might even create two dominions instead of one, Canada as we know it today, and another compose of British Columbia, Alaska and the Yukon (and perhaps an idependant colony of Vancouver Island?). I imagine for defence and economic reasons the two would eventually merge if that route happened.

Foreign policy might be affected later in time if there are two Pacific provinces that feel Eastern Canada is dominating it. Also, the panhandle dispute caused a souring of relations between Canada and both Britain and the USA, this won't happen, and a slightly more pro-British Canada results. Also, given the lesser distance between Canada and the USSR, a bigger military may be needed which could affect domestic policy somewhat.

I doubt Canada would be radically different in any way, unless the two dominion idea emerges.
Actually, as perhaps you know, Vancouver Island and mainland BC were two separate colonies from 1858 to 1866. See, for instance, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC897367
 
Top