AHC: Mexico buys Alaska

[TFSmith121]

Mmmmm, salmon tacos...

So now we know the origin of the salmon taco. Seriously, I agree that it was unlikely to happen. Russia would have been loth to sell Alaska to a French influenced Mexico. It was one thing to let the US be on the far eastern border another for a European power. Remember that the US helped Russia end the Crimean War and that Russia was favorably disposed to the Union in the Civil War.

Mmmmm, salmon tacos... and venison chocolate mole. Yumm.

Although I'm thinking vodka margaritas would be a bit much.

Best,

 

[steve_wilson]

Viva Sara Palomino e la independencia!

 

[TFSmith121]

LOL....

Viva Sara Palomino e la independencia!

I think she's from Idaho, originally, isn't she?

"La Mama Oso" just doesn't have the same ring to it, however...

Best,

 

[steve_wilson]

Make a great autobiography title: I, da ho.

 

[The Uchronian]

Because Russia could easily enforce its authority in Alaska if it cared to, and great powers in the 19th century don't let colonies break away if they can easily be held. Alaska isn't populated or rich enough to oppose Russia, and geography makes it so that holding those few pockets of coastal territory is all one really needs to rule Alaska.

I'm afraid actual history doesn't support your view re: Alaska-the Russians had barely any real hold on Alaska at all....that was, in fact one of the key reasons it was sold to the U.S. in the first place; it was a useless piece of land for them, and holding it even longer would have hurt them in the long run.

But the French intervention in Mexico was (if it made any strategic sense at all) designed to:

a) further a Franco-Austrian alliance (de facto if not de jure);
b) give France some strategic depth in relation to its likely future European enemies;
c) Allow NIII to proclaim his glory in a (mostly) Catholic society, for obvious reasons, in the same way his faltering support of the Pope was supposed to;

None of the above are present in Alaska, it's a LOT farther away, and the Russians and French had fought a pretty nasty (and from the Russian perspective, completely unwarranted) conflict in 1854-56.

Speaking of which, it is worth noting that in the one part of the world where the territories of the Russians and their Western European (i.e., not the Turks) enemies actually were adjacent to each other in 1854-56, they quite consciously avoided open warfare ... bad for business, you know.

So what do the French get out of an Alaskan adventure in the 1860s?

It's simple the "few acres of snow" situation all over again, this time in an era of steam, and when the US population and economy on the Pacific Coast dwarfed anything in Russian America and/or British Columbia/Vancouver Island/etc.

Best,

That's true; France wouldn't really be much more able to gain anything from wrestling Alaska away from the Russians, than the Russians would trying to keep it for a few more decades. Which leaves either the U.S. or Canada(British or not!) as the ones who'd benefit most in the long term.

So now we know the origin of the salmon taco. Seriously, I agree that it was unlikely to happen. Russia would have been loth to sell Alaska to a French influenced Mexico. It was one thing to let the US be on the far eastern border another for a European power. Remember that the US helped Russia end the Crimean War and that Russia was favorably disposed to the Union in the Civil War.

That's also true as well.

Viva Sara Palomino e la independencia!

I think she's from Idaho, originally, isn't she?

"La Mama Oso" just doesn't have the same ring to it, however...

Best,

Erm....what's this a reference to?

 

[KittyKat]

@CaliBoy1990

Yeah, Russia knew it was only a matter of time until they lost Alaska to a foreign power. It was either sell it and make a profit or loose it and gain nothing. The Russian Empire is not keeping Alaska if the Russians had anything to say about it.

 

[HunterX]

I'm afraid actual history doesn't support your view re: Alaska-the Russians had barely any real hold on Alaska at all....that was, in fact one of the key reasons it was sold to the U.S. in the first place; it was a useless piece of land for them, and holding it even longer would have hurt them in the long run.

That doesn't really address my argument, which is that selling it to a friendly neutral is completely different from letting it break away and become a satellite of a rival great power. Russia could have held it if they had cared to, and if the alternative was a British dominated Alaska, they would have short of a war. An Alaskan revolt leading to independence isn't a particularly likely outcome without foreign intervention.

@CaliBoy1990
Yeah, Russia knew it was only a matter of time until they lost Alaska to a foreign power. It was either sell it and make a profit or loose it and gain nothing. The Russian Empire is not keeping Alaska if the Russians had anything to say about it.

This is a concern if it came to war with a foreign power. The scenario here is some sort of far-fetched Alaskan revolution.

 

[Emperor Joker]

Wasn't Russian America populated by fur traders and indigenous people for the entirety of its existence? Not much of a base for independence.

 

[TFSmith121]

The former governor of the state

Erm....what's this a reference to?

The former governor of the state, Sarah Palin.

Best,

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

And its population would probably be around 1,000. One of the largest nations at the time size wise, almost definitely top 20, maybe even higher, less than 15, but one of the smallest population wise.

I think you mean its European population would be around 1,000.

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

Wasn't Russian America populated by fur traders and indigenous people for the entirety of its existence? Not much of a base for independence.

The largest the Russian, Finnish and co population was around 600, shortly before the sale to the United States.

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

I'm not sure why the population matters all that much, TBH; Russia's control over said territory was practically non-existent, outside of a few tiny areas, so in a scenario in which Alaska has even a few thousand extra foreign nationals, like after a gold rush would make things quite problematic for them should things go even slightly wrong. Of course, Britain, and/or Canada, stepping in would no doubt make things easier for any potential secessionists, that is true, but even without that, it would be difficult for Russia to have the upper hand in the long run.

And, as earlier, I believe the same thing would probably go for Mexico as well.

It's funny that you are describing the entire Pacific Coast from Alta California to Alaska with such a sweeping statement. None of these regions held impressive colonial population numbers (Alta clocking at under 10K pre-MAW) until essentially gold deposits were located. The Fraser Valley Gold Rush is typical seen as the start of British Columbia, with the fur trade not being seen as important.

Have you actually read any materials on what the Russian, Finnish, etc. workforce was like in Alaska? Because they were economically fully dependent upon the Russian-American Company, just like French-Canadians under the HBC. These men wouldn't revolt and even if they did, their armaments would be paltry enough to where a lulzMexico *could* annex the area.

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

To the OP now: It's honestly a bit easier to tweak the request itself due to butterflies. Spain was during the 18th century holding onto a huge colonial empire, though Napoleon and the French Revolution also hindered it quite heavily as we know. I personally think if Spain simply didn't colonise so much of the continent, then projects such as more heavily investing in Missions and subsidizing colonists in the Californias could happen. However I suspect that isn't what you want per se. Spain is still the key to a Mexican colonised Alaska though.

Had Spain for whatever reason actually valued the fur trade far more so than OTL, Mexico could end up with the PNW to the Bering Strait. It starts off with the quite minor Nootka Crises, the Spanish wrangle and keep their timid outpost on Vancouver Island. From there you have the encroachment by competing fur companies, though butterflies may allow to keep the most pertinent, the Russian-American Company and John Astor from succeeding the region. Through in a vague "colonial war" against the British subjects in the region and you have much of British Columbia, Oregon and Washington "Spanish". Spain had an impressive string of commercial ties in Asia, so I dare say that we could get some interested Filipinos sent to these far outposts along side Hawaiians and others. Really though, if Spain can keep up a small fleet to transport furs to the Qing Empire, they'll be well off for funding this rather drab colony.

After a perhaps less bloody war of independence or *gasp* devolution of power from Iberia, Mexico has a smattering of minor outposts in the far north that, while not impressive, are on par with Russian America if not with a more heavy colonial influence. Eventually the furs of Alaska will be overexploited and become a burden for the Russian Empire. Ding ding, Mexican Alaska. Utterly silly and unlikely though.