The Alaskan Lease

I was reading some of the threads here regarding Alaska, Russia and the US and various combinations of it being sold/ceded/taken over/etc. I asked a good Russian friend about the sale of Alaska and the Russian view point on it. She told me that in reality, Alaska had been leased rather than sold to the US, similar to Hong Kong. By the time the lease was up, the US was in a position that returning Alaska was out of the question.

Anybody here know anything about that?

If that info is bogus, what would be implications have been of a 99 year lease being up at the height of the Cold War (Mid 1960's)?
 

corourke

Donor
I am sure the US would never return Alaska to the USSR. They would have some legal ground as well, because the USSR refused to pay Russia's foreign debts, claiming to be a different country and irresponsible for the debt. The same could be applied to the Alaskan lease.
 
I am sure the US would never return Alaska to the USSR.

I never though they would actually return the territory (but maybe, given the right circumstances?), I'm just curious about the potential ramifications of the US claiming territory they have questionable legitimacy to, and everyone knows it.

Say similar to the whole Israel issue... (not to open any can of worms there)

Back to the Hong Kong example, it was returned, even though the Chinese Govt was no longer the same.
 
The collapse of the Tsarist Government, and any successor governments recognized by the Allies, as well as the fear of the spread of communism could cause Wilson's government just to annex Alaska and declare it a US territory. Thereby there is no 'questionable legitimacy'. It would be a done deal which the Russians would just have to live with.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html

I didn't read it closely but it doesn't look like a lease is mentioned.


Treaty with Russia (Alaska Purchase)

(1867)


[The risk of encroachment by Russia had been one of the causes which induced President Monroe to give official utterance to the “Monroe Doctrine.” After his statement, Russia ceased from attempts to increase her influence on the Pacific coast, and became willing to dispose of Alaska, regarding it as a possession difficult to defend and of little value. The territory was formally transferred on Oct. 18, 1867.]


CONVENTION between the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, for the Cession of the Russian Possessions in North America to the United States, Concluded at Washington, March 30, 1867; Ratification Advised by Senate, April 9, 1867; Ratified by President, May 28, 1867; Ratification Exchanged at Washington, June 20, 1867; Proclaimed, June 20, 1867. 1
The United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, being desirous of strengthening, if possible, the good understanding which exists between them, have, for that purpose, appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, the President of the United States, William H. Seward, Secretary of State; and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, the Privy Counsellor Edward de Stoeckl, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States; 2
And the said Plenipotentiaries, having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in due form, have agreed upon and signed the following articles: 3

Article I

His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit: The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North America, as established by the convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28—16, 1825, and described in Articles III and IV of said convention, in the following terms: 4
“III Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and between the 131st and 133d degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean. 5
“IV With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding article, it is understood— 6
“1st That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia” (now, by this cession to the United States). 7
“2d That whenever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia as above mentioned (that is to say, the limit to the possessions ceded by this convention), shall be formed by a line parallel to the winding of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.” 8
The western limit within which the territories and dominion conveyed are contained passes through a point in Behring’s Straits on the parallel of sixty-five degrees thirty minutes north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes midway between the islands of Krusenstern of Ignalook, and the island of Ratmanoff, or Noonarbook, and proceeds due north without limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean. The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, proceeds thence in a course nearly southwest, through Behring’s Straits and Behring’s Sea, so as to pass midway between the northwest point of the island of St. Lawrence and the southeast point of Cape Choukotski, to the meridian of one hundred and seventy-two west longitude; thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and the Copper Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group, in the North Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian. 9

Article II

In the cession of territory and dominion made by the preceding article, are included the right of property in all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifies which are not private individual property. It is, however, understood and agreed, that the churches which have been built in the ceded territory by the Russian Government, shall remain the property of such members of the Greek Oriental Church resident in the territory as may choose to worship therein. Any Government archives, papers, and documents relative to the territory and dominion aforesaid, which may now be existing there, will be left in the possession of the agent of the United States; but an authenticated copy of such of them as may be required, will be, at all times, given by the United States to the Russian Government, or to such Russian officers or subjects as they may apply for. 10

Article III

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall 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 uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may from time to time adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country. 11

Article IV

His Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russias, shall appoint, with convenient despatch, an agent or agents for the purpose of formally delivering to a similar agent or agents, appointed on behalf of the United States, the territory, dominion, property, dependencies, and appurtenances which are ceded as above, and for doing any other act which may be necessary in regard thereto. But the cession, with the right of immediate possession, is nevertheless to be deemed complete and absolute on the exchange of ratifications, without waiting for such formal delivery. 12

Article V

Immediately after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, any fortifications or military posts which may be in the ceded territory shall be delivered to the agent of the United States, and any Russian troops which may be in the territory shall be withdrawn as soon as may be reasonably and conveniently practicable. 13

Article VI

In consideration of the cession aforesaid, the United States agree to pay at the Treasury in Washington, within ten months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, to the diplomatic representative or other agent of His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, duly authorized to receive the same, seven million two hundred thousand dollars in gold. The cession of territory and dominion herein made is hereby declared to be free and unincumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions, by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian or any other; or by any parties, except merely private individual property-holders; and the cession hereby made conveys all the rights, franchises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the said territory or dominion, and appurtenances thereto. 14

Article VII

When this convention shall have been duly ratified by the President, of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part, and, on the other, by His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington within three months from the date thereof, or sooner if possible. 15
In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this convention, and thereto affixed the seals of their arms. 16
Done at Washington, the thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven.

William H. Seward [L. S.]
Edward de Stoeckl [L. S.] 17
 
The answer is no. It was sold without any time restrictions. It has
been an urban myth in the Russia that there is a claim on Alaska
because following the 1917 Russian Revolution the communist government
renounced all previous laws and treaties of the czarist government.

You can read the terms of the treaty here (Congress archives). You
will note there is no reference to leasing the territory or any dates.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=572

From Wikipedia -
“In modern Russia and even in its predecessor, the Soviet Union, there
has been speculation in the mass media that Alaska was not, in fact,
sold, but was instead leased to the U.S. for 99 or 150 years and has
to be returned to Russia. It may be explained in part by the notion
that soon after the 1917 revolution in Russia all the secret tsarist
international agreements were officially denounced and declared void
by the new government.”
 
OK, so now we know Alaska belongs firmly to the USA, lock stock and barrel.

But what if only a lease was offered?

My guess is that the USA would have no interest in leasing all of Alaska.
But if they did, it would certainly change how the area was developed. Quite possibly it would not be placed in the territory-state development trajectory, but considered strictly an overseas leased possession, such as the Panama Canal Zone. Settlement by Americans would probably be limited to those people necessary to operate any naval bases and other government-owned facilities.

More than likely, as the strategic and economic value of the territory became apparent by the late 19th and early 20th century, and the US became involved in its rivalry with Japan in the Pacific, the US would approach Russia about a permanent transfer. My guess is that Russia and/or the early Soviet Union (who also had more to fear from Japan) would be willing to trade Alaska to the USA for gobs of cash - especially since by 1900 Russia would be hard pressed to defend the territory given its Asiatic and European entanglements - and after 1917 civil wars. Alternatively the US could negotiate the deal from the Whites - based on the presumption they would eventually win the Civil War.
 
Last edited:
More than likely, as the strategic and economic value of the territory became apparent by the late 19th and early 20th century, and the US became involved in its rivalry with Japan in the Pacific, the US would approach Russia about a permanent transfer. My guess is that Russia and/or the early Soviet Union (who also had more to fear from Japan) would be willing to trade Alaska to the USA for gobs of cash - especially since by 1900 Russia would be hard pressed to defend the territory given its Asiatic and European entanglements - and after 1917 civil wars. Alternatively the US could negotiate the deal from the Whites - based on the presumption they would eventually win the Civil War.

I'm doubting the economic value of Alaska would have been recognized as early as OTL. Had Alaska only been a leased possession, the discovery of gold and oil (for instance) might not have even happened until the expansion of military presence in, say, WWII. Once the resources were known about though, it might be a mad rush by the US to exploit all it can before the lease is up. Like wise, once the value is recognized, Russia is going to either try to get possession back early, or at least be counting the seconds before they can.

Also, had Russia kept in the back of their mind that Alaska was coming back, a different attitude about the Pacific might have changed the R-J war.
 
I'm doubting the economic value of Alaska would have been recognized as early as OTL. Had Alaska only been a leased possession, the discovery of gold and oil (for instance) might not have even happened until the expansion of military presence in, say, WWII. Once the resources were known about though, it might be a mad rush by the US to exploit all it can before the lease is up. Like wise, once the value is recognized, Russia is going to either try to get possession back early, or at least be counting the seconds before they can.

Good point about the delayed discovery of gold and oil. Now we get back to the terms of the lease and why the USA would even sign one in the first place. Possibly the lease might have reserved to Russia mineral rights anyway - leases often are just for surface use. If not - if it is only realized in the 1940's that Alaska has great mineral wealth you have the makings of a significant territorial dispute brewing.
 
Good point about the delayed discovery of gold and oil. Now we get back to the terms of the lease and why the USA would even sign one in the first place. Possibly the lease might have reserved to Russia mineral rights anyway - leases often are just for surface use. If not - if it is only realized in the 1940's that Alaska has great mineral wealth you have the makings of a significant territorial dispute brewing.

Let's assume an earlier POD with Russia developing the Gulf coast a little more, with some better equipped docks and other port facilities, say, they over estimated the value of the fur trade in the initial stages of exploration (maybe that's the POD?).

Then, Russia being Imperialistic as it was, doesn't want to loose possession permanently (hence the lease rather than an all out sale) and sees an inflow of cash, albeit probably not as much as the original sum, as a of a greater net present value than trying to patrol so much territory, as in OTL.

America though agrees to the leasing as it sees use of already built naval/port facilities in Alaska as of value in developing the PNW Coast. The US then agrees to the lease as it realizes the value of ports in Alaska will only be temporary; until other areas such as Puget Sound and the Columbia River become more developed.


I'm woefully short on knowledge of the settlement trends in the PNW, but how would this work?
 
Top