Views of Alaska
In recent years strident controversy has erupted over the development of Alaska's resources. Much of the conflict has been triggered by the North Slope petroleum discoveries, an occurrence seen as a threat to the state by some and a blessing by others. Only very brave--or rash--advocates of particular views have dared to predict the future. Many imponderable factors exist to influence the long-range outcome of current events, and antagonists reasonably differ on what is "best" for the north, its people, and the nation.
With the current situation in mind, it is interesting to review the economic forecasts and prophecies that have been expressed in the past. Since the purchase of the territory, the issue of its true worth has been debated often and one's view on this determined his position on the question of development. These evaluations have ranged from exuberant assessments of a vast wealth to be derived from the land and its resources to a pessimistic insistence that climate and distances would defeat efforts to produce products of value.
In 1867, Secretary of State William H. Seward and Senator Charles Sumner, the leading exponent of Alaska's purchase in the senate, proclaimed the wealth of the region. They agreed that Alaska's fisheries, timber and untapped mineral resources could sustain the nation in the future. Such agreeable appraisals echoed in many newspaper editorials throughout the country and most Americans appreciated the gain of a "treasury of natural wealth..." to use a popular phrase of the day.
James Wickersham, appointed as the first federal judge for the interior in 1900, enthused over the vast land and its potential yield. His first glimpse of the Tanana valley filled him with awe. Clearly the valley promised to become the garden spot of Alaska, and he imagined thousands of industrious farmers cultivating a wide variety of crops. Wickersham estimated that the valley alone could support over one million residents.
Some individuals, professing to be Alaskan experts, rejected the image expounded by optimists like Seward. Henry Wood Elliott, a scientist employed by the U. S. Treasury on the Pribilof Islands in the 1870's, contended that northern development should be neither expected nor desired. Aside from the furs gathered from the seal rookeries of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska had no readily exploitable worth. But Alaska's general worthlessness was no cause for alarm. Elliott assured Americans that they need not fear a tax burden in support of the territory. The government did not need to build roads or lighthouses, or provide any services beyond a minimal police protection.
Conditions change as time passes. With the advantage of hindsight we can question the wisdom of some early prophets. Only a few opinions have been cited but library shelves groan under the hundreds of lengthy studies made of Alaska's resources in the last hundred years. Sound or not, the conclusions of experts have affected development policies. If the history of all past assessments teaches us anything, it is only the need for caution. Those who have admitted to an insight into the future have been influenced variously by unfounded optimism, self-interest, a marginal understanding of conditions relating to development, the inability to see beyond existing needs and technology, or exclusive ideas of the highest good. There seems no reason to suppose that today's prophets are any less handicapped.
