The natives of Alaska were politically neutral and maintained their political independence during the periods when they were part of Russia (1741-1867).They never entered into any treaties with the Russians and neither did they sell their lands to the Russians. Any attempt to impose tax on the Alaskan was vehemently opposed by them. Russian authority on their part gradually slackened their hold in the Alaskan natives, as it jeopardized their fur trading business.
Russia attempted to impose political authority on the Tlingits, which resulted in an attack on the Russian fort in Sitka in 1802.Alaksan natives who were converted to Christianity were recognized as Russian citizens, and they had all the citizenship rights enjoyed by other Russian. However, the natives who refused to be converted into Christianity and who practiced their ancient customs were denied the status of Russian citizenship and were considered uncivilized. Shunned by the Russians, these natives lived a secluded life, free of outside interferences (Hoxie, 1996, p.
274).Russian colonization led to strengthening of Tlingit sovereignty, and helped creating a powerful Tlingit Indian nation. The native people of Alaska could not quite comprehend the Russian decision to sale Alaska to the United States in 1867, as Russians never forced them to recognize their land to be Tsar’s property.Neither the Tlingit nor the native Alaskan people have ever entered into any treaty with the Russians nor did they made any land transaction with them. The Russians never made any territorial ownership claims to Alaskan natives. Although there was an attempt to collect tax from the natives, it was abandoned due to vehement protest and resistance by the natives.
The Russian never had effective control over Alaskan natives, and neither were they prepared to invest money on military intervention measures, which could have allowed them to gain sovereignty over Alaska (Harring, 1994, p.208). The reduction of fur bearing sea mammals in Alaska and the demand for the Creaman war were among the main reasons the Russian government agreed to sell Russia to the United States.1The 1867 treaty of cession under which Alaska was ceded to the United States provided that the uncivilized tribes will be subject to such law, that the United States may adopt from time to time in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country. As the treaty did not made legal distinction among native tribes, Alaskan natives appeared to be included into the citizenship fold.
The natives however, did not recognize the treaty of cession, and to protest against the treaty and consequent sale of Alaska to the United States, they sent representatives to the Washington D.C. they were of view that it was Russia who had been allowed to live in Alaska with the consent of the natives and hence Russian have no right to sell Alaska to the United States (Hoxie, 1996, p.274).The treaty of cession, signed on March 30, 1867, added to the United States a domain of nearly six hundred thousand miles. The purchase price was $7,200,000, which was voted by the House of Representatives.
Steward who formulated the treaty cited that Alaska was bought from Russia to prevent England from occupying it (Beard & Beard, 1921, p.605). However, to most Americans, Alaska was a land of snow and ice and they termed this purchase as “Steward’s Icebox” and “Steward’s Folly” after the Secretary of State who initiated the purchase.1Although secretary Seward’s desire to purchase Alaska was not well received by most of the Americans at that period, considering the fact that Alaska is greatly valued as an exotic place of tourist interest, Seward’s move can best be termed as visionary (White, 2004, p.118).
1. An Alaskan challenge native village sanitation, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1998, Diane Publishing Co, pp.118ReferencesBeard, C & Beard, M (1921) History of the United States: a study in American civilization, Macmillan Company, Mass, USA, pp.
655Harring, S.L. (1994) Crow dog’s case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the nineteenth century, Cambridge University Press, pp.293Hoxie, F.
E. (1996) Encyclopedia of North American Indians, Houghton Miffin Books, pp.768White, G.W.(2004) Nation, State and territory: Origins, evolutions, and relationships, Rowman and Littlefield Publications, pp.304
