In 1867, Russia’s decision to sell Alaska to America turned out to be a historic mistake that was to go unnoticed for years to come. The sum paid by the US was only $7,200,000. Although, in the light of the circumstances at the time, it appeared logical, retrospectively, the act looks extremely shortsighted. Russia found itself economically constrained, geographically far away from the region and fearful of its falling into the hands of the British without any compensation. In reality, however, the region had proved immensely valuable both strategically and naturally.

Why Russia agreed to the Alaska purchase

The choice of selling Alaska was based on economic and political reasons. By the middle of the 19th century, the Russian Empire experienced financial difficulties as a result of the expensive Crimean War. It had become increasingly hard for the country to manage such remote and thinly populated areas as Alaska.According to EBSCO, “the Russian-American Company was in decline, and the colony failed to yield any profit”. In addition to this, the lucrative fur trade had declined, making the territory much less economically valuable for the empire.At the same time, Russia was afraid that Britain might capture Alaska in case another war broke out between the two countries. Selling the colony to the friendly United States appeared as a logical step. As the Office of the Historian states, William H. Seward, U.S. Secretary of State, “it was a chance to expand its influence in North America and hinder further growth of Britain”.For Russia, the transaction was a chance to minimise the losses. However, it greatly undervalued the potential of Alaska.

The hidden wealth Russia gave away

Another thing that Russia did not expect was the amount of riches that Alaska possessed. Within several decades after the acquisition, the state saw discoveries of enormous deposits of gold, oil, and other minerals.“Alaska has produced more than 40 million ounces of gold,” according to the US Geological Survey. Furthermore, Alaska is home to some of the world’s most significant undeveloped mineral deposits, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). But even more importantly, the state’s oil deposits turned out to be extremely valuable. The Prudhoe Bay oil field was discovered in 1968 and became one of North America’s biggest.In retrospect, the amount paid by the Americans, $7.2 million, or two cents per acre, was rather laughable. According to Howard I. Kushner, the deal “robbed Russia of an enormously rich territory, the true value of which would only be recognised in the twentieth century.”

Strategic and geopolitical consequences

In addition to resources, there is the question of strategy and how important Alaska is to the United States from a strategic standpoint. This is a very good place when it comes to defence strategy. It borders on the Arctic Ocean and also happens to be close to Russia.During the period of the Cold War, the Alaskan region became a frontier area for the United States, becoming home to military facilities and warning systems.According to Col. Michael J. Forsyth, U.S. Army, the closeness of Russia and Alaska, only about ninety kilometres apart across the Bering Strait, meant that this region became highly significant to the United States’ defence plans.From today’s point of view, the strategic location of Alaska makes the state very important to the policies of the U.S. related to the Arctic, energy security, and even environmental policies.Thinking back, what seems clear to us now is that the Russians sold Alaska due to immediate needs rather than future considerations. In order to solve the problem, they lost a valuable resource for Russia.Conclusively, the Alaska Purchase should not have been done as it has had a significant impact that will remain throughout history.

The center of American politics is not in Alaska. Yet while the Last Frontier is far from pundits’ minds, it may now represent our political future as Bristol Bay fisherman and retired educator Bill Hill emerged as the independent challenger to Rep. Nick Begich III.

Bill Hill has described himself as both “pro-choice” and “pro-gun,” a unique blend that perfectly fits Alaska’s unique politics. Alaskans now have a chance to consider what independent representation can look like when it’s grounded in local experience rather than party loyalty. And for the rest of the country, Hill’s candidacy is worth watching. It suggests that the next phase of American politics may not come from the party leadership, but from candidates who defy easy labels and appeal to voters exhausted by ideological rigidity.

A commercial fisherman and educator, named Alaska’s 2023 Superintendent of the Year, Hill is the kind of candidate with deep roots, allowing him to understand the complexities and nuances of the state’s voters. While independents usually face an uphill battle getting elected, Alaska employs ranked choice voting — a system that can help independent candidates who aren’t relying on party affiliation to carry them in a general election.

The blossoming independent movement that Hill represents is driven by widespread dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats. In February, for instance, Gallup noted that a new high of 45% of respondents self-identified as independents.

Until recently, “independent” was a nebulous term. This explains why political scientists and party operatives have long treated them as “leaners.” But this is no longer the case. Gallup’s poll highlights the fact that independents are beginning to see themselves as independents, not just swing voters.

Recent polling conducted by Independent Center Voice reports that 76% of voters would vote for a “strong, well-funded independent candidate.” For decades, Americans have yearned for more independent voices, but haven’t had strong candidates to stand behind.

In Alaska, that’s no longer the case.

Hill’s official campaign website notes three primary concerns: lowering costs, fighting corruption in Washington, D.C., and protecting Alaska’s way of life. These are exactly in line with what the majority of independent voters are concerned with. Polling conducted by the Independent Center in October found that jobs, the economy and affordability ranked as the top concerns that respondents wanted their local government representatives to focus on.

Hill’s candidacy for Alaska’s House seat represents the new heights a viable and targeted independent effort can achieve. While an independent, nonpartisan message won’t work everywhere, in certain districts and states, it’s the pitch-perfect message that can rejuvenate an electorate exhausted by gridlock and partisan politics.

This year marks a new era for independents. Rather than labeling themselves as independents just for the sake of protesting the dysfunction of both Republicans and Democrats, the title now stands for pragmatism and common-sense. What’s more, 2026 is the election cycle when independents can throw their support behind viable and legitimate candidates with a path to victory.

Hill’s candidacy is the first in a new wave of independent candidates seeking office, drawn to service but turned off by partisanship. This is good for our country. Congressional leaders are elected to serve their districts, not party bosses that expect voters to fall in line.

Polling notes that while Americans are optimistic about their personal lives, they’re pessimistic about the state of politics. But this can change if more people like Hill answer the call to service. Imagine the change in our political psyche if the majority of Americans could point to their member of Congress in Washington, D.C., and boldly proclaim, “That person represents me and my family.”

In the end, the question is simple. For Alaskans, it’s whether they want representation shaped by local experience rather than party loyalty. For the rest of the country, it’s whether this model — pragmatic, independent and rooted in place — can be replicated elsewhere.

Either way, what’s happening in Alaska deserves close attention.

Adam Brandon is the senior adviser to the Independent Center, a nonprofit organization of political independents.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

Since the late 1970s, the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute has provided this column free in cooperation with the UAF research community. Ned Rozell is a science writer for the Geophysical Institute.