Subject: Re: No Russian Alaska (was Re: California Texas)
From: Andrew@world.std.com (Andrew S Goldstein)
Date: 1998/01/14
Message-ID: <EMs7HG.7zv@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
[Subscribe to soc.history.what-if] 
[More Headers]
ironmtn@bigfoot.com (Mike Cleven) writes:
>On 13 Jan 1998 19:21:49 GMT, bs925@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker)
>wrote:
>>}I've often wondered about the possibility of a Dutch equivalent
>>}of Captain Cook...I can picture timber colonies on the northwest
>>}coast to provide raw shipbuilding materials and supplies to their
>>}Indonesian colonies.
>>}
>>}An English colony might be the best deal for the natives,
>>}however. An English colony in Alaska would likely be an
>>}extension of the Hudson's Bay Company, consisting more of
>>}trading outposts rather than soldiers. Likewise with the
>>}French, although I can't really see them taking an
>>}interest in this part of the world so far from any other
>>}major territorial claims (YMMV).
>The one issue herehas to do with if the Northwest is only a Hudson's
>Bay Company outpost (I nominate the South Seas Company for the region
>in question, actually, or the East India Company; the HBC was _far_ on
>the other side of the Coast Mountains, still, especially at such an
>early date). The HBC, although maybe not the SSC or EIC, was
>anti-settlement and generally((actually _specifically_) vwas
>unfavourable towards other commercial enterprises. There were various
>reasons for this, but basically it had to do with the protectionism
>inherent in monopolies. Because of this, the strength of the
>English/British colonial presence in Alaska/Pacific Northwest would
>not be very developed when other powers came calling (e.g. the United
>States).
My main point was that an English settlement would likely be founded by a
capitalistic enterprise (as all English colonies at the time were,
excepting perhaps New England) rather than by the crown. I'm willing to
accept the SSC or EIC as an alternative.
As far as the ability of the British to hold onto Alaska however, keep in
mind that British Colombia was fairly well-established by the time the
Americans started taking an interest in the west coast; the same would
hold true for Alaska. The purchase of "Seward's Folly", "Seward's Icebox",
etc. was met with considerable opposition and IMHO only occurred because
the U.S. was of an expansionist mindset at the time the Russians were
making them a good offer. If Alaska was established British territory, I
don't think they would have bothered, and Alaska would likely be part of
Canada today.
>Perhaps, rather than the English, that it is the Dutch who discover
>the area after their expulsion from Formosa, and from it develop a
>major naval society in the Pacific that dominates the South Seas trade
>and even harries the Pacific Coast interests/expansion of New Spain.
>A Dutch California........
Sure, why not? As mentioned above, the Pacific Northwest would be
valuable for providing timber. And, taking a cue from the Russians, a
Dutch colony in California might be useful farming land to supply
provisions to other Pacific colonies. Here's a thought: what if the Dutch
beat the Spanish to the Philipines and sail northeast?
>The other alternative is to have the Portuguese follow up on Juan de
>Fuca's discovery of the Strait named after him.....
Another fact I just remembered: wasn't there some Spanish settlement in
Alaska in OTL? I know they at least explored it a bit, as the Alaskan
town of Valdez remains a testimony to.
>>We have some idea how the English and French would have
>>dealt with the Alaskan cultures, based on their real world
>>dealings with various cultural analogs to the various
>>Alaskan cultures.
>The Dutch would certainly have treated natives in a different, and
>probably not very much nicer way.
We could use the New Netherlands colony as an example of how they might
have treated the natives. Unfortunately, I know little about this aspect
of Dutch colonization...anyone want to provide some information?
<snip>
>Apparently Chinese maritime strength was at a peak sometime in the
>15th or 16th Centuries; this has been gone over before in this NG.
>Perhaps it was only chance that prevented their finding the Japan
>Current and discovering and colonizing Oregon/California/BC, or
>perhaps there were sufficient trade resources closer to home....
>The Japanese were an insular country, by definition and by
>inclination, and despite something of a maritime tradition never
>explored the Aleutians. Something would have had to have made them at
>an earlier date. Anyone have any suggestions?
I think someone else pointed out that Alaskan jade and furs did trickle
down to Japan, and might have gotten curious about their origins. Such
exploration likely would be the act of an intrepid individual rather than
a ruling body. Or perhaps the Japanese start getting nervous when the
Russians start poking around the Kurils, and Alaska finds itself with
competing Japanese and Russian colonies. Hmm, an Alaskan version of the
French and Indian War, with the Russians and Japanese as players.....
Andrew
