Studies in American History 
199 
she wished to give England a maritime rival. Clay wrote 
from St. Petersburg that the Russians hoped the cession 
might ultimately lead to the expulsion of England from the 
Pacific.^® Seward, in an interview soon after the purchase, 
stated that the purpose was to prevent the possible exten- 
sion of England’s coast line on the Pacific, to strengthen 
American influence in British Columbia, and to hasten the 
destiny of Canada to form a political union with the United 
States that would result in the development of her resources 
and the removal of causes of irritation between England and 
the United States-^® 
Many who approved the policy of acquiring Alaska were 
largely influenced by the expectation that it was a step toward 
the peaceful absorption of Canada by a natural process of 
accretion, beginning with a ‘‘necessary annexation of over- 
taxed British Columbia”. Many expected Great Britain to 
tender to the United States the British North American 
colonies.^^ Senator Sumner, in his speech on the Alaska 
Treaty, on April 7, 1867, said: “The present treaty is a 
visible step in the occupation of the whole North American 
continent. As such it will be recognized by the world and 
accepted by the American people.”^® As such it was recog- 
nized by many of the leading newspapers.^^ 
The editor of a St. Louis paper urged upon Seward the 
necessity of taking initiatory steps to close the gap between 
Washington Territory and 54° 40', and secure contiguity of 
our possessions by a reasonable proposition for the purchase 
of British Columbia, which was so near to us and so distant 
from England. A Pacific coast paper of August 31, 1867, said 
House Executive Documents, 177, 40-2, 130 ; Diplomatic Correspcmdence, 1867, 390. 
46 New York Sun, January 29, 1893. 
House Executive Documents, No. 177 (February 27, 1868), 40-2; Colburn’s New 
Monthly Magazine, June, 1867, p. 247. 
In 1884 (January 22) Senator Ingalls considered Alaska of little use to the United 
States except as a step (\inder the Monroe Doctrine) toward the “unification of this 
continent under American domination” from the Polar Sea to the interoceanic canal 
across the isthmus. (64 Congressional Record, 48-1, 566.) 
48 Charles Sumner, Works (Boston, 1874-1877), XI, 222, 
*^New York Times, April 2, 1867, “The Monroe Doctrine and the Russian American 
Treaty”. Ibid., April 19 (English views) ; also London Times, April 1, April 10, and 
May 1. Ibid., April 21 (French opinions). Ibid., June 23 (editorial on “Russian 
America and Vancouver’s Island”). Every Saturday, May 4, 1867, 563, 564, “The United 
States and Russian America” (From London Review). Colburn’s Monthly Magazine, 
June, 1867, 247, 248. In England and France some also believed that the treaty was 
the result of a general Russo- American understanding by which Russia was to have 
the passive cooperation of the United States in the seizure of Constantinople and the 
settlement of the Eastern question. {Ibid., 248.) 
