- #596
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 352
- 87
LowlyPion said:Those Alaskan Separatists really take the crackpot cake. The US bought the land in the 1860's, they subsidize the territory so the place is even habitable for most of the people up there and now those living there would want to make off with the pirate's booty of oil wealth in the name of separatism?
Oddly if the Alaskan Independence Party had its way Palin couldn't serve - an interesting double standard for Todd Palin no doubt.
It's their contention that that the 6:1 vote in 1958 in favor of statehood should be invalidated because in that election voters weren't offered the choice of becoming independent. The basis of the claim is United Nations rules concerning annexation - laws that do not have jurisdiction for US sovereign matters. (I wonder how many people are alive that voted in that election?)
Actually, the US bought the land for $963 million in 1971.
The 1860 agreement with Russia really couldn't hold up legally, in spite of its place in US history. You should own the land you sell, or at least have visited it. Russia visited and settled a few islands along the Aleutians and in the Gulf of Alaska.
The US had to repurchase the land from the Native Americans that actually lived there. In fact, oil on the North slope and the need for the Alaska pipeline led the US to finally agree to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act where Native Americans relinquished claims to all but 10% of the state's land.
I'm not sure what you mean by government subsidies making the land habitable since people have been living there way before the government existed. The government has made a lot of improvements to the infrastructure - especially in communication and transportation, but that was motivated by the military bases the US built there and by the oil that exists there.