Thread: Russian American Company 1799-1867

I've been doing alot of reading about the exploration and 'settlement' of Alaska by Russia this past week. I woke up WAY too early on Thanksgiving Day, and saw a great program about Bering and the resulting Russian American Company. (God beless the History Channel's 6:00am "Cable in the Classroom"!!!) I have a Minor in US History, so I knew they were there (here?), but I live about as far away in US as possible. I found the whole story facinating as I love a good nut-case explorer-on-a-boat epic. If the participants were cold and starving, it makes for a better fire-side with a Bourbon/ sub-tropics with a cold beer read.
Does anyone else have an interest? I'll toss a cookie to you, here is the flag they used:



Where I got it from:
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru_rac.html

Thanks Gang ! CC

Edit; here is the coat of arms and what it says:



"Россійской Америк: Кампа"

OK, Thanks for the overwhelming interest... I think it's rather interesting. A couple of the Aleutian Islands have Silver Fox left by the Russians to breed... Inter-bred and looking like a bad match among cousins. I read a thingy from a US Air Force-man stuck on one of these God-Forsaken islands... Said the Silver Fox are so interbred they have great pelts, but are so degraded they wont live... Friggin brutal!

A little closer to home, the RAC moved down the west coast nearly to San Francisco. A couple hours' drive up from SF they established a fort for the purpose of trading with the natives and as a home for their sea otter trade. It is known as Fort Ross, now a state park.

Every July they have a living history day, with people dressed as Indians, Russians, the firing off of cannon, gunfire, horseriding, authentic food -- all kinds of fun. The chorus I used to sing in, called Slavyanka Славянка after the river that runs up there, also performs at this festival. Here are some photos: http://www.pbase.com/zhenyach/fort_ross_2001

Slavyanka: http://slavyanka.org/ .

Basil77, interesting statement. We (in America) are taught it was purchased, not leased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_purchase , more specifically, http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html . Can you provide a reference to the agreement being a lease rather than a purchase?

At the time, in 1867, the purchase was called "Seward's Folly" because the then-Secretary of State paid so much money for some land that everyone thought worthless and a burden. History here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska .

I find this topic interesting -- there was a book I saw on ebay at one point and now I'm kicking myself for not getting it. It was basically about the Russian role in settling Alaska. And if you're interested, I know James Michner's originally named "Alaska" deals with the Russian contribution to some extent, but it's been many, many centuries since I've read that book.

Originally Posted by chaika

Basil77, interesting statement. We (in America) are taught it was purchased, not leased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_purchase , more specifically, http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html . Can you provide a reference to the agreement being a lease rather than a purchase?

At the time, in 1867, the purchase was called "Seward's Folly" because the then-Secretary of State paid so much money for some land that everyone thought worthless and a burden. History here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska .

Oops More likely, I was in error. I heard about leasing from my school history teacher, as far as I remember. And until now I didn't care about proving this fact. Besides, .RU intrernet domain is full of such, as I figured now, sci-fi articles:
http://historic.ru/news/item/f00/s09/n0000909/
The real treaty text is here (If it's not a fake ):
http://www.explorenorth.com/library/...Alaska1867.htm

His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America

to cede is not to sell.

In the Russianversion of the treaty it is "уступать".

Если взять толковый словарь того времени, то "уступать" значит: "давать на время, давать в аренду", но не "продавать".

Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors

to cede is not to sell.

In the Russianversion of the treaty it is "уступать".

Если взять толковый словарь того времени, то "уступать" значит: "давать на время, давать в аренду", но не "продавать".

"Уступать" = "сдавать в аренду"? Ну ты это уже за уши притянул. Я не поленился прочитать весь текст договора, там ни слова не сказано о сроках, аренде и тому подобном. Если, конечно, это реальный текст.

Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors

to cede is not to sell.

No, it means "to relinquish/ to surrender control over/ to grant by treaty". Whatever meaning you choose, none of them suggest a temporary arrangement.

Whatever meaning you choose, none of them suggest a temporary arrangement

I again recommend you to look up the word "уступать" in a russian explanatory dictionary of that time.

Ahhhh, does it matter? I don't need neither Alaska nor Hawaii.

I quit the thread.

Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors

Whatever meaning you choose, none of them suggest a temporary arrangement

I again recommend you to look up the word "уступать" in a russian explanatory dictionary of that time.

Ahhhh, does it matter? I don't need neither Alaska nor Hawaii.

I quit the thread.

I made no reference to the Russian word you defined, but to the English word you avoided defining.

Originally Posted by scotcher

I made no reference to the Russian word you defined, but to the English word you avoided defining.

But in the Russian version apparently there is no "cede" but simply a "уступать", so VT is saying that the definition of "уступать" signifies a temporary arrangement.

What Russian version? May I see a link, please? As far as I know, the original treaty was made out and signed in English and French, so any Russian version was either a preliminary draft or a translation from one of those languages. In either case, if it wasn't signed by both parties, it doesn't have any legal force.

And then, again, I's suggest that VT should use his own advice and actually look this word up in a dictionary of that time. It clearly does mean "sell", among other things. Check Dahl's dictionary, for example. (Published in 1863-66)

УСТУПАТЬ

УСТУПАТЬ, уступить что кому, отдать или продать из угоды, подарить, дать на подержанье, отдать добровольно свою вещь, место или право другому. Уступи мне лошадку эту за свою цену!

You can see that it is pretty close in meaning to English "cede".

Уступить своё место в очереди или Уступить место в автобусе = отдать насовсем

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by scotcher

I made no reference to the Russian word you defined, but to the English word you avoided defining.

But in the Russian version apparently there is no "cede" but simply a "уступать", so VT is saying that the definition of "уступать" signifies a temporary arrangement.

I understand that perfectly well Vinnie, but not having seen the Russian version I cannot comment on it either way. I can, however, comment on Vincent's statement relating to the English version. He was using the assertion "to cede is not to sell" as support of his view that the treaty was not permament, implying that, like "уступать", "cede" has some nuance of temporariness. Otherwise there was no point in him typing that sentence. I was simply pointing out, for Vincent's benefit and for the purpose of clarifying the comparison between the two documents, that "to cede" contains no such nuance.

I really don't care who owns Alaska, as long as they don't try to use bad logic to stake their claim

Originally Posted by translations.nm.ru

What Russian version? May I see a link, please? As far as I know, the original treaty was made out and signed in English and French, so any Russian version was either a preliminary draft or a translation from one of those languages. In either case, if it wasn't signed by both parties, it doesn't have any legal force.

Russian version of Treaty with Senate Clerk's Ratification:

Originally Posted by Basil77

Russian version of Treaty with Senate Clerk's Ratification:

What I see on this picture is not a treaty, if you mean the big, printed sheet to the right. This is a manifesto or Ukaz of Alexander II. Any treaty starts with listing all parties. This document starts as a typical Czar's order or Ukaz, with listing all his titles in full. As to the hand-written sheet to the left, I simply can't read a single word of it.

Originally Posted by translations.nm.ru

What I see on this picture is not a treaty, if you mean the big, printed sheet to the right. This is a manifesto or Ukaz of Alexander II. Any treaty starts with listing all parties. This document starts as a typical Czar's order or Ukaz, with listing all his titles in full. As to the hand-written sheet to the left, I simply can't read a single word of it.

You can check the sourse there I got the pictures, I think it's rather trustworthy:
http://www.archives.gov/education/le...se-treaty.html

I see. Well, the document I can see on the picture may very well have been ratified by a Senat clerk. But it is not a treaty. It may be a Czar's address to his subjects or to the Senate, announcing that such and such a treaty has been signed. It is possible that the treaty iself can be found on the following pages of this document. But the document itself is not a treaty, it is just the full offical title of Russian emperors.
"Божиею Споспешествующею милостию Мы, " etc, etc. There is nothing but his full title on this page.