Russian mayor demands Alaskan island be returned to Russia

Xcathdra
reply to post by JHumm

 

reply to post by pheonix358

 

Tell that to the Native American population. People in glass houses and all that.

P

Since North America was colonized by European powers and not the US (we did not even exist at the time) our glass house is ok for now.

edit on 30-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

...

Western expansion, Manifest destiny,

The European powers where actually getting mad at the expansions into Indian territory, and was one of the sticking points for independence, being able to expand without Europes control.

as far as the certificate i'm wondering if as in all other territories that were bought during 1800's, the U.S. gave land holders the land that they owned and offered them citizenship. so i looked and found this, a couple of articles that say eternal use. i also found this.

The treaty provided for a purchase price of $7.2 million in gold. All private property was to be retained by its owners--there wasn't much--and Russian Orthodox Church members were to assume title to churches built in Alaska by the Russian government or the Russian-American Company.. The United States Senate approved the treaty by a large majority. On October 18, 1867, transfer ceremonies occurred at Sitka and Alaska became a United States possession.
When and how did the United States come to own Alaska?

and the treaty, Alaska at the time of was not a state, it was a territory and legally owned by the U.S. government. it didn't become a state for another hundred years. so the only thing that would have been legal is the treaty it's self here. unless the U.S governement has something that is hidden in the archives that i couldn't find.

this is from the U.S. document archives it is the treaty.

ARTICLE II.
In the cession of territory and dominion made by the preceding article are included the right of property in all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices which are not private individual property. It is, however, understood and agreed, that the churches which have been built in the ceded territory by the Russian government, shall remain the property of such members of the Greek Oriental Church resident in the territory, as may choose to worship therein. Any government archives, papers, and documents relative to the territory and dominion aforesaid, which may be now existing there, will be left in the possession of the agent of the United States; but an authenticated copy of such of them as may be required, will be, at all times, given by the United States to the Russian government, or to such Russian officers or subjects as they may apply for.
Transcript of Check for the Purchase of Alaska (1868)

also here are the check to russia and i think the deed from russia.
Check for the Purchase of Alaska (1868) images

i can't see the U.S. government or the Czar of russsia giving the church a whole 18,000 sq mile island. maybe a few acres, but not i could be wrong.

reply to post by JHumm


How far back do you want to go?

Every group of people have invaded/occupied/moved into someone else's back yard, at some point in their history.

The US Russian treaty spells out exactly what was sold. And specificly covers the Russian Orthodox church allowing it to keep already built churches and worship in them now as a US territory. That treaty would overide any prior. And even if it did not the Russian Orthodox Church signed an agreement (Agreement on the Autocephaly for the Orthodox Church in America) with the Othodox Church of America in 1970 that gave up any claims any ownership of Orthodox churches and territory in North American except for a specific list. This island is not on that list. So this is pretty much a non issue.

The Alaska to Russia petition is 4chan trolling. Nothing more.

I was shocked when I zoomed in and saw how much of British Columbia's coast, actually belongs to Alaska. Like half.

When the deal comes to the table I would really like it if Canada could sit in...

The land in dispute, if resolved to the Russian Orthodox Church, will end up being a cost to Russia. They will be on the hook for reimbursing the value of the land back to the US. Since the sale to Russia was legal insofar as the understanding of the transaction.

I don't foresee Russia being willing to do that.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

It was paid for in gold, when gold was less than $20/oz. I wonder how much gold they'd give to buy it back. LOL at even entertaining the possibility.

I think they like King Crab, and don't like the prices they have to pay.
I would not put it past them for realizing the economic aspects of this, and masking it with any other international political agenda that can whip up. IMHO with a smile, but when it comes to stuff like this, the answer is in my posting caveat.

Snarl
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

It was paid for in gold, when gold was less than $20/oz. I wonder how much gold they'd give to buy it back. LOL at even entertaining the possibility.

that is kind of what i am saying. it would have to be set at a "fair price". But given the value of Alaskan land for minerals alone...

If and when it happens, I’d like to see that the territory valued and be paid and in Rubles and not the petro dollars.

pheonix358
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I was referring to the treatise signed by the Federal Government of the US that gave North American Natives titles to tracts of land and then took those lands away. Time and time again The US Government has reneged on such treatise.

P

You'll have to take that up with the UN now and the right to self determination, it's the 21st century now you know

Or are we going to do some more writing the wrongs of history? Or are you going to support another breaking of international rule of law and turn the world upside down with your hatred? Perhaps investing a time machine and taking it out on the appropriate generation is the best thing for you to do

Remember

Hatred breeds hatred, forgive & forget and learn from our "mankind's" mistake of history

Wasn't there a recent dispute with several islands in the Bearing Sea where Obama gave ownership back to Russia?

Why is everyone getting so upset about this at all? This is some random Mayor in Siberia (ie the middle of effing nowhere) making this claim not Putin himself making it. This would be the equivalent of the Mayor of Niagra Falls, New York saying that the US owns all of the waterfall. No political leader would take him seriously. This is a non-issue.

reply to post by pheonix358


That is different they invaded and won, so therefor the victors can decide how they carve up the spoils of war. Sad but that is the way of things.

Bearack
Wasn't there a recent dispute with several islands in the Bearing Sea where Obama gave ownership back to Russia?

No. Your thinking of Bush in 1991. Although we did not give them away, we never claimed them to begin with as they have always been Russian. What Bush did was sign a maritime treaty that recognized they were Russian.

Island give away