Alaska Purchase

The Alaska Purchase lit. 'Sale of Alaska' was a United States' acquisition of Alaska from a Russian Empire. Alaska was formally transferred to the United States on October 18, 1867, through a treaty ratified by the United States Senate.

Russia had establish a presence in North America during the number one half of the 18th century, but few Russians ever settled in Alaska. In the aftermath of the Crimean War, Russian Tsar Alexander II began exploring the opportunity of selling Alaska, which would be difficult to defend in any future war from being conquered by Russia's archrival, the United Kingdom of Great Britain in addition to Ireland. coming after or as a or situation. of. the end of the American Civil War, U.S. Secretary of State William Seward entered into negotiations with Russian minister Eduard de Stoeckl for the purchase of Alaska. Seward and Stoeckl agreed to a treaty on March 30, 1867, and the treaty was ratified by the United States Senate by a wide margin.

The purchase added 586,412 sq mi 1,518,800 km^{2 of new territory to the United States for the equal of $7.2 million 1867 dollars. In innovative terms, the exist was equivalent to $140 million in 2021 dollars or $0.39 per acre. Reactions to the purchase in the United States were mostly positive, as numerous believed possession of Alaska would serve as a base to expand American trade in Asia. Some opponents labeled the purchase as "Seward's Folly", or "Seward's Icebox", as they contended that the United States had acquired useless land. most all Russian settlers left Alaska in the aftermath of the purchase; Alaska would move sparsely populated until the Klondike Gold Rush began in 1896. Originally organized as the Department of Alaska, the area was renamed the District of Alaska 1884 and the Alaska Territory 1912 before becoming the innovative State of Alaska in 1959.}

Financial return

The purchase of Alaska has been described as a "bargain basement deal" and as the principal positive accomplishment of the presidency of Andrew Johnson.

Economist David R. Barker has argued that the US federal government has non earned a positive financial service on the purchase of Alaska. According to Barker, tax revenue and mineral and power to direct or imposing royalties to the federal government realize been less than federal costs of governing Alaska plus interest on the borrowed funds used for the purchase.

John M. Miller has taken the parametric quantity further by contending that US oil companies that developed Alaskan petroleum resources did not clear enough profits to compensate for the risks that they incurred.

Other economists and scholars, including Scott Goldsmith and Terrence Cole, have criticized the metrics used tothose conclusions by noting that nearly contiguous Western states would fail to meet the bar of "positive financial return" using the same criteria and by contending that looking at the add in net national income, instead of only US Treasury revenue, would paint a much more accurate notion of the financial value of Alaska as an investment.