Why did Alaska Stay American?

Vylon Disigma

Vylon Disigma

The question is Ultimately why did Canada become independent of Britain, and territories like Alaska not become independent of the US?

Canadian Confederation occurred in 1867, the same year as the Alaska purchase and Nebraska's admittance to the Union. In this way it seems that time since acquisition, organisation or self government cannot be the key issue. Territories have gotten independence from the US before and the UK retaines many far away territories today so what if any special rules for one state or the other explain the difference? Alaska is about 4500km from DC about the same as distance as Canada from London, Hawaii even further, so can distance really be an explanation? Alaska, Canada and Nebraska had become similar ethnically, and linguistically to their mother country before being granted self government so .. I don't know. Was giving Canada Independence the ultimate goal in Britain's eyes? Was the Canadian population too Big/small, it's about 10,000,000 in 1931?

Basically what's the deal? thanks.

P.s. apologies if the title is misleading
 
Last edited:

John Farrier

One major limitation is that Alaska had and still has a tiny population--not really enough to be capable of governing a territory so vast.

In 1867, the population of Canada was 3.4 million. Alaska became an incorporated territory in 1912. The 1910 census gives it a population of 64,356. Alaska became a state in 1959 with a population of less than a quarter million the following year.
 

FasterThanRaito

The colonies that get independence are
1) large in population
2) suffer from lack of representation

Canada was "big" in having a million rather than a few tens of thousands, and did not have the same voting rights the English did in parliament. They were more used to their local dominion government.

Meanwhile, Alaska is tiny in people and economy and easily dominated financially/demographically by the American mainland. Furthermore, Alaska has no tradition of self-governance, aside from the local state government which is totally subject to the federal government and also enjoys equal rights with all the other states.

On the flip side:
Colonies that did not get independence from the UK were small exclaves and islands, that are too small to support themselves and still rely on the British, such as Gibraltar and Falklands.
Meanwhile, American colonies that got independence were large and historically separate from America, such as the Philippines.
 
Vylon Disigma

Vylon Disigma

BMN said:
The colonies that get independence are
1) large in population
2) suffer from lack of representation

Canada was "big" in having a million rather than a few tens of thousands, and did not have the same voting rights the English did in parliament. They were more used to their local dominion government.

Meanwhile, Alaska is tiny in people and economy and easily dominated financially/demographically by the American mainland. Furthermore, Alaska has no tradition of self-governance, aside from the local state government which is totally subject to the federal government and also enjoys equal rights with all the other states.

On the flip side:
Colonies that did not get independence from the UK were small exclaves and islands, that are too small to support themselves and still rely on the British, such as Gibraltar and Falklands.
Meanwhile, American colonies that got independence were large and historically separate from America, such as the Philippines.
Click to expand...
Would then you say that if Alaska was given a regional government but not statehood like Puerto Rico (I really don't know what I'm talking about here), they would likely have gotten independence and/or if the UK asked Canada to start sending MP's to Westminster they could have been retained? Or is the population still the major issue in these cases? Also were these conditions you lay out in the mind of those at the time? Also I recall that Ireland sent MP's in, were they a special case?
 

FasterThanRaito

Vylon Disigma said:
Would then you say that if Alaska was given a regional government but not statehood like Puerto Rico (I really don't know what I'm talking about here), they would likely have gotten independence and/or if the UK asked Canada to start sending MP's to Westminster they could have been retained? Or is the population still the major issue in these cases? Also were these conditions you lay out in the mind of those at the time? Also I recall that Ireland sent MP's in, were they a special case?
Click to expand...

Alaska was a territory before becoming a state, because there weren't enough people living there for it to legally become a state. Puerto Rico has remained a territory because the senate has never wanted to allow a majority non-white state into the union. At the same time, Puerto Rice is too dependent on Federal money to become independent, so it sits in limbo.

If the UK had made a better effort to integrate its colonies early instead of allowing them to run their own business for the ease of global empire running, then Canada might not have become a separate nation. National consciousness was late to develop in Canada, but once it did, permanent union became impossible.

Speaking of nationalism, "sending some MPs" is nothing close to actual fair representation. Those MP represented rich Britons living in Ireland, not the Irish people, who were brutally repressed. They retained their separate identity, resulting in a strong nationalist independence movement.
 

Blue cat

Vylon Disigma said:
The question is Ultimately why did Canada become independent of Britain, and territories like Alaska not become independent of the US?

Canadian Confederation occurred in 1867, the same year as the Alaska purchase and Nebraska's admittance to the Union. In this way it seems that time since acquisition, organisation or self government cannot be the key issue. Territories have gotten independence from the US before and the UK retaines many far away territories today so what if any special rules for one state or the other explain the difference? Alaska is about 4500km from DC about the same as distance as Canada from London, Hawaii even further, so can distance really be an explanation? Alaska, Canada and Nebraska had become similar ethnically, and linguistically to their mother country before being granted self government so .. I don't know. Was giving Canada Independence the ultimate goal in Britain's eyes? Was the Canadian population too Big/small, it's about 10,000,000 in 1931?

Basically what's the deal? thanks.

P.s. apologies if the title is misleading
Click to expand...

My opinion re this....

The British never really perceived their colonies as being integral parts of their motherland which had existed long before they acquired colonies such as the lands that became known as Canada. The establishment of a `colonial office` by the UK in my humble opinion is indicative of this.

The US on the other hand saw acquiring land such as Alaska as part of the process of building a new nation.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As noted there were only like 11 people IN Alaska. Hell, even today the population is only 740K and 40% of that is in one City.

Alaska is the textbook example of "a great big empty" (and thank God for that).
 

gladiator8085

BMN said:
Alaska was a territory before becoming a state, because there weren't enough people living there for it to legally become a state. Puerto Rico has remained a territory because the senate has never wanted to allow a majority non-white state into the union. At the same time, Puerto Rice is too dependent on Federal money to become independent, so it sits in limbo.

If the UK had made a better effort to integrate its colonies early instead of allowing them to run their own business for the ease of global empire running, then Canada might not have become a separate nation. National consciousness was late to develop in Canada, but once it did, permanent union became impossible.

Speaking of nationalism, "sending some MPs" is nothing close to actual fair representation. Those MP represented rich Britons living in Ireland, not the Irish people, who were brutally repressed. They retained their separate identity, resulting in a strong nationalist independence movement.
Click to expand...

Precisely how has the Senate prevented PR from joining the union?
 

FasterThanRaito

gladiator8085 said:
Precisely how has the Senate prevented PR from joining the union?
Click to expand...

It's not a hard block, it's just that they indefinitely hold off on pushing forward the protocols and bills necessary for annexation, meanwhile the votes/polls/plebiscites in Puerto Rice are non-binding and just indicate public opinion without any legal changes to their status.
 
Vylon Disigma

Vylon Disigma

BMN said:
Alaska was a territory before becoming a state, because there weren't enough people living there for it to legally become a state. Puerto Rico has remained a territory because the senate has never wanted to allow a majority non-white state into the union. At the same time, Puerto Rice is too dependent on Federal money to become independent, so it sits in limbo.

If the UK had made a better effort to integrate its colonies early instead of allowing them to run their own business for the ease of global empire running, then Canada might not have become a separate nation. National consciousness was late to develop in Canada, but once it did, permanent union became impossible.

Speaking of nationalism, "sending some MPs" is nothing close to actual fair representation. Those MP represented rich Britons living in Ireland, not the Irish people, who were brutally repressed. They retained their separate identity, resulting in a strong nationalist independence movement.
Click to expand...
With regards to Ireland, I don't know it's electoral history but certainly, according to a quick look at Wikipedia, since at least 1880, up until 1914 Ireland was dominated by Irish nationalist and devolutionist parties, who leaders were all Irish. I don't know about individual MP's or real representation, but I think your description doesn't really capture the actual condition of pre-independence Ireland. Also there are various groups in the US who have or retain their separate Identities, to include the Irish, though they also think of themselves as Americas in most cases, and remain part of the US. Even so is separatism a sufficient condition for independence?
 

Barry Bull

Donor
CalBear said:
As noted there were only like 11 people IN Alaska. Hell, even today the population is only 740K and 40% of that is in one City.

Alaska is the textbook example of "a great big empty" (and thank God for that).
Click to expand...

I thought you support giving voting rights to your sentient bear brethens in Alaska? Shouldn't they be counted?
 

ivanotter

maybe if Alaska had stayed a part of Russia? or even if Russia had kept its control even of northern California?
 

Nephi

Banned
CalBear said:
As noted there were only like 11 people IN Alaska. Hell, even today the population is only 740K and 40% of that is in one City.

Alaska is the textbook example of "a great big empty" (and thank God for that).
Click to expand...

Considering that too with climate change having a big empty place where we won't need a passport to settle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top