📜 Classic historical debates · Intermediate · Historical debate

Historical question (1867): Should the United States buy Alaska from Russia?

In March 1867, Secretary of State William Seward agreed to buy Russian America for $7.2 million. Critics called it a waste of money on a frozen land; supporters saw ports, furs, fish and a foothold in the Pacific. The Senate had to decide.

Background

Russia had held Alaska since the 1700s, but it never had more than about 400 permanent Russian settlers there and lacked the money to defend it. After losing the Crimean War, it offered in 1859 to sell the territory to the United States, partly to keep it from Great Britain, its rival in the Pacific. The Civil War delayed talks. On March 30, 1867, Seward and the Russian minister, Edouard de Stoeckl, agreed on a treaty: the United States would pay $7.2 million in gold for nearly 600,000 square miles, less than 2 cents an acre. [1][2]

Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was doubtful at first. He studied the territory and on April 8 spoke for about three hours in favor of the treaty, describing its climate, minerals, forests and fisheries. The next day, April 9, 1867, the Senate approved the treaty 37 to 2. Russia formally handed over the territory at Sitka on October 18, 1867. The House delayed the money for more than a year and approved it on July 14, 1868, by 113 to 43. [3][4][1]

Critics mocked the purchase as “Seward’s Folly” and “Seward’s Icebox.” Some historians argue the opposition was smaller than the legend suggests, since many newspapers supported the treaty. By the Russian estimates Seward cited, about 60,000 people lived in the territory, most of them Alaska Native peoples living outside Russian control; the treaty was made between the two governments. Gold strikes in the Yukon and Alaska in the 1890s later changed many minds. Alaska became a state in 1959. [3][5][2]

Where the facts themselves are disputed

How unpopular was the purchase in 1867?

  • The traditional story says most Americans thought it was a foolish waste, as the nicknames suggest.
  • Some historians, citing newspaper studies and the lopsided Senate vote, argue that most papers and lawmakers supported it and the “folly” story is largely a myth.

Key terms

Russian America
The name used for Alaska before the purchase. Sumner urged the name “Alaska,” from a Native word.
Cession
The formal handing over of territory from one country to another by treaty.
Treaty ratification
Under the Constitution, a treaty takes effect only if two-thirds of the senators present approve it.
Appropriation
A law that sets aside public money for a purpose. The House had to vote the $7.2 million even after the Senate approved the treaty.
Contiguous
Sharing a border. Alaska was not contiguous with the rest of the United States, since British territory lay between.

Both sides at their strongest

Each argument is written the way its best advocates would make it, followed by the strongest answer from the other side. Use them to build your case and to prepare for the other one.

For the purchase

Alaska is a bargain that gives the nation Pacific ports, valuable resources and a stronger place in the world.

  1. A1 Alaska opens the way to Pacific trade.

    Why Seward and many others expected Asia to become a great market. Ports and coastline in the north Pacific would help American ships and merchants reach it.

    Evidence Seward’s speeches and letters on Pacific commerce; Sumner’s April 1867 speech on the territory’s harbors and its place on the route to Asia.

    Best answer Opponents answered that the country already had Pacific ports in California, Oregon and Washington Territory, far closer to settled land.

  2. A2 The land holds real wealth.

    Why Furs, fisheries, forests and likely minerals could repay the price many times over, even if the land is cold.

    Evidence Sumner’s speech, which surveyed the climate, soil, minerals, timber and fisheries using more than 100 books and reports he studied.

    Best answer Opponents answered that little was known for certain about the interior, and hoped-for minerals were only guesses.

  3. A3 The price is very low.

    Why Nearly 600,000 square miles for $7.2 million is less than 2 cents an acre. Few chances like it come along, and if the United States refuses, another power might buy it.

    Evidence The treaty’s terms; comparisons with the prices of earlier land purchases.

    Best answer Opponents answered that a low price per acre means little if the acres can’t be used, and $7.2 million was a large sum for a nation in debt.

  4. A4 It strengthens friendship with Russia and the nation’s position against Britain.

    Why Russia was friendly to the Union during the Civil War. Buying Alaska rewards that friendship and leaves British Columbia surrounded by American territory, which some hoped would lead it to join the United States.

    Evidence Newspaper editorials of 1867, many of which cited friendship with Russia and the chance of gaining British Columbia.

    Best answer Opponents answered that a treaty shouldn’t be bought to flatter a foreign government, and that hopes of taking British Columbia were speculation.

Against the purchase

The nation is deep in debt from the Civil War and shouldn’t spend millions on a distant, frozen land it can’t use or defend.

  1. N1 The country can’t afford it now.

    Why The Civil War left a huge national debt and heavy taxes. Money spent on Alaska could instead pay down debt or cut taxes.

    Evidence Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune, which argued the money would be better spent reducing the income tax; Treasury debt figures of the 1860s.

    Best answer Supporters answered that $7.2 million was small next to the debt, and a land with valuable resources would pay for itself.

  2. N2 Alaska is too far away to govern or defend.

    Why It doesn’t border any state; British territory lies between. Holding a distant colony would cost money for soldiers and officials and could pull the nation into conflicts.

    Evidence Speeches and editorials of 1867–68 calling it a colony not contiguous to the national domain.

    Best answer Supporters answered that the sea joins Alaska to the Pacific coast, and that leaving it to Britain would be worse for defense.

  3. N3 We don’t know what we’re buying.

    Why Few Americans had seen the territory. Critics described it as a frozen wilderness of ice, snow and rock, with few settlers and no proven gold.

    Evidence Critics’ descriptions collected on the Senate history page; the New York World’s line that Russia had sold “a sucked orange.”

    Best answer Supporters answered that Sumner’s research showed rich fisheries, forests and furs, and that the coast was milder than critics claimed.

  4. N4 The deal was made in secret and in haste.

    Why Seward negotiated the treaty quietly and finished it overnight, leaving the public and the House, which must vote the money, little say.

    Evidence Accounts of the March 1867 negotiation; criticism of Seward’s secrecy; the House’s long delay in voting the money.

    Best answer Supporters answered that the Senate studied the treaty in committee and approved it 37 to 2, which is the process the Constitution sets for treaties.

Strawman or steelman?

A strawman is a weak copy of the other side’s view, easy to knock down and unfair to the people who hold it. A steelman is that view at its strongest. Answer the steelman, and you’ve answered the real argument. (More on steelmanning.)

For the purchase

Strawman “Seward just wanted more land on the map, whatever it cost.”

Why it’s unfair Supporters gave specific reasons: Pacific trade, furs and fisheries, a very low price, and relations with Russia and Britain.

Steelman For less than 2 cents an acre, the nation could gain Pacific ports, valuable resources and a stronger position against Britain, while rewarding a friendly Russia.

Against the purchase

Strawman “The critics were just short-sighted people who couldn’t imagine the future.”

Why it’s unfair Critics made real arguments about war debt, the cost of governing a distant territory, and how little was known about the land.

Steelman A nation burdened by war debt shouldn’t spend millions on a distant, little-known land it would have to govern and defend, especially on a treaty made in secret.

Weak arguments to avoid

For the purchase

  • “Buy it, because gold will be found there.” In 1867 no one knew about the gold strikes of the 1890s; using later events to argue an 1867 debate isn’t fair to the people deciding.

Against the purchase

  • “It’s just ice and polar bears.” That joke ignores what was known in 1867 about the coast’s furs, fish and timber, which supporters could easily point to.

Questions for cross-examination

Ask the For the purchase

  1. What do we know for certain about the land’s value today, in 1867?
  2. Who will pay for governing and defending a territory so far away?
  3. Why must the treaty be decided so quickly?

Ask the Against the purchase

  1. If we refuse, who might buy Alaska instead?
  2. Is $7.2 million large compared with the national debt?
  3. Why are Pacific ports in the north worth less than ports in the south?

Reading on both sides

Read at least one source from each side before you debate. Look up each source’s author and publisher too: who wrote it is part of the evidence.

Background and overviews

Both sides in one place

Mostly For the purchase

Study this debate

Sources for the background

  1. Purchase of Alaska, 1867, Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State (n.d.). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  2. Check for the Purchase of Alaska (1868), National Archives (n.d.). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  3. Sumner's Alaskan Project, U.S. Senate Historical Office (n.d.). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  4. Today in History: March 30 (Seward's Folly), Library of Congress (n.d.). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  5. Alaska Purchase, Grokipedia (n.d.). Accessed 2026-10-25.

This page presents a historical debate for study. Updated 2026-10-25.

@teddyrookbook GitHub