Military Review

On the sale of Russian Colony Fort Ross in California

© «Questions stories", No.1, 2013. [1]

On the sale of the Russian Fort Ross Colony in California [2]

In the summer of 1849, the newly appointed official for special assignments under the governor-general of Eastern Siberia N.N. Mikhail Semyonovich Korsakov Muraveve arrived on the coast of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk in the port of Ayan, built with funds from the Russian-American Company (RAC). He traveled extensively throughout Eastern Siberia. For a young man, and Korsakov was just 23, the service was just beginning. He was interested in literally everything. In order not to lose sight of anything, Korsakov kept a detailed diary [3].

At that time, Vasily Stepanovich Zavoyko, the future Kamchatka military governor and the hero of Petropavlovsk’s defense from the Anglo-French squadron, served as the head of the port as the chief of the port of 1 rank. Behind this naval officer was a great experience. In 1827, he took part in the famous Battle of Navarino, made a round-the-world trip twice in 1834 — 1836 and 1837 — 1839. In 1839, he entered the service of the company and was appointed head of the Okhotsk trading post of the RAK. In 1844 — 1845 did a difficult job of moving the trading station to Ayan Bay and setting up a new port for the company there.

Between M.S. Korsakov and V.S. Zavoyko folded [pass in the original. - “VO”] actually should have been engaged in fishing for the sea beaver. At the same time, Shvetsov was instructed, if possible, to buy flour in California, which was necessary for the Russian colonists in Alaska [6].

The first expedition with the Americans lasted for several months. In the spring of 1804, the ship of O'Kane returned to the island of Kodiak with a rich load of fur. Thus, the first Russian people who visited California were A. Shvetsov and T. Tarakanov. After this expedition 10 of the same voyages were organized. They continued until 1812. During this time, about 21 thou. The most successful were the “voyages” of J. Winship, who for navigation 1806 — 1807. managed to get with the help of the Aleuts 4,8 thousand skins of marine beavers. These expeditions were of great importance for the further Russian advance to the south of the American continent. Russian industrialists (A. Shvetsov, T. Tarakanov, S. Slobodchikov), who visited the American ships off the coast of California, studied the places well and later became the leaders of the detachments sent to long voyages [7].

In parallel with the commercial development of California, trade relations with this region began to develop. The first to speak for the active trade of the Russian-American company with California was the correspondent of RAK and one of its founders chamberlain Nikolai Petrovich Rezanov, who was also the son-in-law of Grigory Ivanovich and Natalia A. Shelikhovs, the founders of the first permanent Russian settlements in America. The round-the-world expedition aboard the Nadezhda and Neva ships in which he took part had many tasks. Rezanov tried to achieve the opening of trade with Japan. For about six months (from September 1804 to March 1805), Rezanov was in charge of the diplomatic mission in Japan, but he was not able to obtain permission to trade the company with the country of the rising sun. After that, he went on the ship “Maria” to Russian America. Russian settlers in Alaska were in a difficult position. In the winter of 1805 — 1806. there was a real threat of famine. To solve this problem, N.P. Rezanov decided to undertake an expedition to California [8]. In February, 1806, the ship "Yunona" he went to San Francisco. He faced an extremely difficult task. The Spanish authorities forbade their colonies to trade with any European powers. However, N.P. Rezanov was able to convince the governor of Upper California, José Arillago, of the need to sell bread for the Russian colonies in America. "Yunona" was loaded with various food, which saved the colonists in Alaska from hunger [9].

After returning from California in the summer of 1806, Mr. N. P. Rezanov made a “secret order” to the chief governor of the colonies, A.A. Baranov. It was a detailed plan for the development of Russian America. Item VII dealt with the food supply of the Alaska settlements. Rezanov was convinced that it would be possible to get bread for them through the development of trade with Japan, the Philippines, China, the “Bostonians” (the Americans) and California. However, the most reliable means of obtaining food, he considered the "settling" of Russians on the "shores of New Albion" (California). He advised to establish a Russian colony there and develop "arable farming". For agricultural work, he proposed to use the Indians. He believed that the Russian government would support this initiative [10].

Rezanov was not destined to return to St. Petersburg. While traveling through Siberia in March 1807, he died in Krasnoyarsk. But his projects for the development of colonies were a kind of action plan, which began to guide both the director of the company and the colonial administration in the person of the main ruler. In 1808, A.A. Baranov organized an expedition to the shores of California. The leadership of the expedition was entrusted to the closest associate of Baranov, Ivan Aleksandrovich Kuskov. Under his command were two ships, Nikolai and Kodiak. They had to proceed along the American shores to Bodega Bay in California, where they needed to find a convenient place for Russian settlement.

Unfortunately, the expedition pursued failures. In November 1808, the “Nikolai” crashed north of the mouth of the Columbia River. The surviving members of the crew were forced to roam through forests and mountains, to resist the Indians, to endure hunger and cold. In the end, they surrendered to the Indians. Only in May 1810 were the surviving members of the expedition led by T. Tarakanov redeemed from captivity by the American captain Brown and taken to Novo-Arkhangelsk. A year earlier, another industrialist was bought out. The rest of the crew, including spouses Nicholas and Anna Bulygin, died. Another person remained captive [11]. Meanwhile, fighting the nasty winds, the Kodiak ship arrived in Bodega Bay, where it began to await the Nicholas. Meanwhile, I.A. Kuskov began to study the coastal strip. According to some reports, the Russians managed to get through the mountains all the way to San Francisco and secretly watch it [12].

In October, the 1809 of Kodiak returned to Novo-Arkhangelsk. Baranov sent to the Minister of Commerce N.P. Rumyantsev, a report in which he petitioned for the establishment of a Russian settlement in California. The minister presented a report to Alexander I, who in turn allowed the Russian-American company to establish his own settlement there with his own funds, without the help of the treasury.

For the time being, the government decided on the Russian colonization of California, A.A. Baranov in January 1811 sent a second expedition to the ship "Chirikov" under the leadership of I.A. Kuskova. The latter was instructed to continue exploring the shores of New Albion, to look for a place for Russian settlement and to engage in the fishery industry. "Chirikov" returned from swimming in July of the same year. As before, Bodega Bay (north of San Francisco Bay) was recognized as the best place to move. Most of the time, Kuskov was engaged in fishing for the fur animal.

Finally, after receiving a government sanction on the settlement structure, which most likely happened in October 1811, A.A. Baranov sent a third expedition. As before, she was commanded by Kuskov. The expedition set off on the Chirikov schooner in February 1812. According to V. Potekhin, Ross Fortress was laid on 15 in May 1812 of the year [13]. By the end of August, the place was surrounded by a palisade, two two-story towers were built, 30 of August, on the day of the namesake of Emperor Alexander I, the flag was raised and a salute was made from guns and rifles [14]. Since then, the Russians have firmly established themselves in California, and the commercial and agricultural development of this region has begun.

In the first years after this event, in addition to the stockade, the ruler’s house, barracks, pantries, and workshops were built. A bathhouse, a tannery, a windmill, and a farmyard were built outside the walls of the fortress. Later, at the fortress, a shipyard arose on which small ships were built for colonial flotilla.

At the head of the colony stood the ruler. The first ruler from 1812 to 1821 was I.A. Pieces. In 1821 — 1824 This position was held by K.I. Schmidt In 1824 — 1830 - Pavel Ivanovich Shelekhov. The governor was assisted by clerks. The next stage was occupied by workers or industrialists. The ethnic composition of the inhabitants of the village of Ross were very diverse. Russians, Aleuts, Eskimos (Kadiaks), Indians (Attacks, Tlingits and Californian Indians), and even Polynesians (Hawaiians), and Finns (Finns and Swedes) worked and served in the colony. The total population was small and was in different periods from 170 to 290 people [15].

Throughout the period of existence of Ross was not determined its territorial status. The lands on which the Russian fortress was built belonged to the Spaniards, who at first occupied a neutral attitude towards the Russians. However, with 1815, they began to insistently demand the elimination of Ross. The main rulers of the colonies were not going to fulfill the requirement of the Spaniards. They were well aware that the Spaniards did not have enough strength to somehow threaten the Russian settlement. The ties of the Spanish colonial administration in California with the metropolis were weak, and their struggle for independence began. The Russians responded to all demands to abolish the colony of Ross, that they could not do this without the permission of their superiors [16].

In the autumn of 1815, the Spaniards captured a fishing batch of 24 from the Kodiak Eskimos, led by Tarakanov. The incident occurred in the area of ​​the mission of San Pedro: until 1821, while California belonged to the Spanish crown, Catholic missions operated on its territory. The prisoners were taken to the mission, where they were tried to convert to Catholicism. There are evidence of the martyrdom of one of the partovshchiki, a resident of the villages. Kaguyak named Chukagnak, in the baptism of Peter. The only witness to his death, Ivan Kiglay, subsequently escaped from captivity and reached Ross Fortress in 1819. A draft copy of his testimony, which he gave in the presence of two Kodiak translators, written by the head of the fortress, I. A. Kuskov, is kept in the RSL [17 ].

The second source describing these events is a letter from Semen Yanovsky, the former General Governor of Alaska in 1819 — 1821, to the Abbot of the Valaam Monastery, Hegumen Damaskin of 22 in November 1865 [18]. Yanovsky conveyed the story of the death of Peter-Chukagnak, heard from the lips of the “samovidtsa Aleut, the tortured comrade,” apparently Kyglaya. The letter contains several differences from the testimony recorded by Kuskov, and these minor differences in the two documentary sources of different nature - official testimony and memoirs, only prove the truth of the incident - a native of Alaska baptized by Russian missionaries in the Spanish mission for refusing to accept Catholicism. Martyr Peter Aleut became the first autochthon of Alaska, glorified in the face of saints (1880), and to this day is one of the most revered saints among Orthodox Alaska.

Some researchers have expressed doubts about the truthfulness of the testimony of I. Kiglai, since they responded to a political order and were used in a debate with Spain [19]. There is an assumption that the testimony of Kiglaya could have been fabricated, since they are not supported by other sources, and the behavior of the Spanish missionary described in them was not characteristic of Catholics. But in his actions one can find much similar to the methods of the Inquisition, whose activities in California are evidenced by documents about the struggle of the Spaniards against the movement for the liberation of Mexico. One of the leaders was sentenced by the Inquisition to 1815 [20]. It was this year that the Kodiak partovschiki found themselves in Spanish captivity.

After the proclamation of independence of Mexico in 1821, the new Mexican authorities have not abandoned attempts to get rid of the Russian fortress. In 1822, Mexican Commissioner Fernandez de San Vicente and his entourage arrived in Ross and demanded that the village be abolished. Shmidd, as well as earlier I. A. Kuskov, announced that he could not do this without the permission of the authorities. After the conclusion of 1824 — 1825. The Russian-American and Russian-British Conventions, Ross's legal status was complicated. According to these conventions, the borders of the Russian possessions in America were determined, and nothing was said about Ross. He remained in a half-legal position.

An attempt to secure for the Russian-American company Ross was undertaken by a naval officer and the Chief Ruler of the Russian colonies in America, FP. Wrangell. In the spring of 1836, returning from Russian America to Russia via Mexico, he visited the capital of that state, Mexico City. There he was able to meet with Mexican Foreign Minister H. Monasterio. As a result of the negotiations, Wrangel was convinced that if Russia recognized the independence of Mexico, the government of this country would not only agree to define the borders of the Russian possessions in California, but also allow them to be extended by two dozen miles to the north, east and south. However, the tsarist government did not go for the recognition of Mexico, and the negotiations did not receive their continuation [21].

In the same 1836, the village of Ross was visited by priest John Veniaminov, an outstanding missionary, the future Saint Innocent. The activities of the Orthodox Church in California before the sale of Alaska have so far received very limited coverage in literature. Information about the final period of the existence of the Ross fortress can be found in archival documents on the pastoral care of its inhabitants, which we identified in 2012 in Irkutsk and in a number of archives of the United States.

It was found that priest John Veniaminov attached particular importance to the development of Orthodoxy in California during his priestly ministry in Alaska. At this time, the satisfaction of the spiritual needs of the flock of the village of Ross was of paramount importance. His personal petition to the Bishop of Irkutsk, Nerchinsky and Yakutsk from August 27 of August 1831 was saved with a request to go to the Ross fortress “to correct church demands.” A missionary wrote that there is a chapel in a Russian village in California, but it is important that an Orthodox priest [22] be held there. This clearly confirms the fact that everywhere, wherever priest John Veniaminov served, he sought to implement the basic principles of his missionary work. He believed that it was important not only to carry out baptism, but also to constantly take care of the baptized, educate and affirm their faith. His request was granted, moreover, the Main Board of the Cancer assisted him in sending him to California [23]. In California, as in Alaska, Father John Veniaminov developed an intense activity. In an article on indigenous languages ​​in the Russian-American possessions, he cited his own observations about Californian Indians.

Of the recently identified metric books of the village of Ross, it is known that 1832 people were baptized in 90 (male 32 and female 58). Among them were the entire 24 person born in mixed marriages, when the father was Russian, and the mother was a Creole or Indian. The rest of the baptized were born in marriages between the natives of Alaska and the natural inhabitants of California, the Indians. 3 people who were born in marriages where the father was a Yakut were also baptized. From the metric book also shows that in 1832, 17 pairs were crowned. Moreover, all the husbands came from Russia (mostly Siberian peasants or tradesmen, as well as Yakuts), and their wives were from Creole or natural Indian [24].

The “Journey Journal” of priest John Veniaminov, which he led from July 1 to October 13 1836, is known. According to him, 260 people lived in the village of Ross, of whom 120 were Russian. He wrote: “Ross Fortress is a small but fairly well-established village or village consisting of 24 houses and several yurts for Aleut, surrounded on all sides by arable land and forests” [25].

It is also necessary to note the contacts of the priest John Veniaminov with the Spanish missionaries. During his stay in California, he met with Spanish Catholics in the missions of San Rafael, San José, Santa Clara and San Francisco. This, apparently, was due to the constant tensions of the inhabitants of the village of Ross with the Spaniards, and his concern about the development of missionary work in America. He noted the desire of Aboriginal people to accept Christianity. At the same time, he was aware of the shortcomings of the organizational structure and the small number of missionaries, which did not allow to fully satisfy the spiritual needs of the flock scattered throughout the vast territory [26].

The issues of interaction between Orthodox priests, missionaries and Spanish Catholics, as well as employees of the RAC and Spanish secular authorities still require further study. We are interested in the fact that Father John Veniaminov visited the village of Ross at a time when it had to be in an extremely difficult financial condition and put forward proposals for its possible sale. Meanwhile, we don’t find any statements about the possibility of the liquidation of the Ross fortress and its plight.

The last time the missionary visited the village of Ross in 1838, on the way to St. Petersburg, where he was sent with a new project of missionary development in new territories. He was in the capital from June 1839 until the beginning of January 1841 [27] - just at the time when the issue of the sale of the Ross fortress was resolved in the main board of the RAK. Cancer directors could be interested in the opinion of Father John Veniaminov on this issue, but no documents confirming this have yet been found. It is difficult to imagine that this was done without studying the views of the American missionary, because 15 December 1840, he was ordained Bishop of Kamchatka, Kuril and Aleutian Islands, and if Ross was left under the jurisdiction of RAK, this Russian settlement would become part of its missionary territory [28 ]. When a new diocese was formed, its territorial boundaries were specifically stipulated. The established Kamchatka diocese was enormous and especially difficult to manage, and if it included the village of Ross, it would have direct contact with non-Orthodox confessions, and this, in turn, would require the expansion of the functional tasks of the diocese and their special state understanding. Emperor Nicholas I took a personal part in the decision on the consecration of Father John Veniaminov as bishop to serve in Alaska, and thereby designated him as the sphere of special spiritual interests of the Russian Orthodox Church. Harder was the issue with California. It seems that even then, the Main Board of the company and St. Innocent could be discussing this issue. After all, the new bishop, having all the talents to preach Orthodoxy in the new territories, could successfully apply his knowledge of the translation of the Holy Scriptures in California.

On the sale of Russian Colony Fort Ross in California

Apparently, the question of the fate of Ross was decided at a meeting of the Main Board of the Cancer 16 November 1838. The directors referred to the report of the Chief Ruler of the colonies, I. A. Kupreyanov, from 12 on April 1838, in which, by the way, nothing was said about Ross’s uselessness, loss, or uselessness, and only the discontinuation of the sea beaver and the lack of workers [29] were noted. Despite this, the directors interpreted it in their own manner and argued that “the benefits derived from Ross for the colonies and the Russian-American company in general are completely insignificant and far from comparable to the sacrifices that are made to maintain settlement.”

In January, 1839 between the Russian-American company and the British Hudson's Bay Company (KGZ), an agreement was signed on the transfer of the last to lease the mouth of the river Stakhin (Stikhin). The British were obliged to pay the rent with furs and food (flour, cereals, butter, corned beef). This agreement partially solved the problem of supplying Russian America with food [30].

In March, 1839, the Main Board of the Russian-American company appealed to the government with a petition for the abolition of the fortress of Ross. The company's board considered economic factors to be the main reasons for the liquidation of a Russian settlement in California: an increase in maintenance costs with a decrease in agricultural income and crafts. To confirm their words, the company’s directors cited some figures, which, in their opinion, testify to Ross’s loss. It was stated in the report that for the period from 1825 to 1829, the maintenance of Ross annually averaged an average of 45 thousand rubles. The income from it was 38 thousand rubles (29 thousand from furs and 9 thousand from agriculture) [31]. However, it is very strange that the directors operated on 1820-s data. At the same time, data for a later period, when there was an increase in harvest, was not taken into account at all.

In April, 1839, the government's permission to abolish the Russian fortress and village in California was obtained. In the report of the Russian-American company, the official reasons for the refusal of the Russian colony in California were specified. Firstly, it was stated that Ross did not succeed in developing agriculture on the scale that had been planned when establishing a colony. Arable land and meadows were located near the sea and in mountainous areas. Sea fogs and mountainous terrain "prevented the maturation of the harvest." Secondly, the cost of maintaining Ross grew steadily, and the income from its activities declined. In 1837, in connection with the strengthening of the garrison, expenditures increased to 72 thousand rubles, and revenues amounted to 8 thousand rubles (all from agriculture), while fishing for marine animals ceased. Third, after the smallpox rampant in the Kodiak department in 1838 – 1839, the Russian colonial administration was forced to take out from Ross about 60 adults of the island of Kodiak in order to compensate for the decline in population. To continue the activities of Ross needed to hire "workers from the Russian." This would result in additional costs [32].

As a result of the analysis of the documents at our disposal, we can conclude that, indeed, if the Ross fishing activity initially developed successfully, then the income of the RAC from hunting for fur decreased sharply. Thus, in the initial years of the colony's existence, it was possible to hunt more than 200 marine beavers (sea otters) annually. But already in the first half of the 1820-s, only 20 — 30 seabass was mined annually.

But with the agriculture situation was completely different. Initially, the colonists grew only garden crops (beets, turnips, radish, peas, beans, potatoes). From the 1820-ies the main focus was on livestock and tillage. So, if by the end of the reign of I.A. Kuskova in Ross had: 21 horse, 149 cattle heads, 698 sheep, 159 pigs, then by the year 1830 the number of animals increased dramatically. There were 253 horses, 521 cattle, 614 sheep, 106 pigs. Cattle breeding gave not only meat supplied by the crews of the company's ships, but also butter, which was sent to the capital of Russian America, Novo-Arkhangelsk.

It should be noted that the issues of supplying bread to the colonies have worried the main board in St. Petersburg almost since the formation of the cancer. In 1830, the chief accountant of GP PAK N.P. Bokovikov wrote to the governor of the Novo-Arkhangelsk office of the RAC and his friend K.T. To Khlebnikov: “Rezanov discovered in California, the inexhaustible source of bread, which they thought to feed their colonies for free forever ... Meanwhile, the Californian source of bread has long dried up, and there is nothing to say about expeditions, they have spent so much money on top of need without any benefit and purpose that it would be enough to make the same highway from Yakutsk to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk that goes from St. Petersburg to Moscow ” [33].

In the same lengthy letter, Bokovikov noted that the direct costs of one round-the-world expedition reached 300 thousand rubles. GP PAK wrote off these costs as margins on goods delivered from Okhotsk. According to the chief accountant, it could not go on for a long time and there was a need to find a different solution.

At the same time, Khlebnikov himself, in his Notes on the Colony in America, recognized success in farming: “Kuskov made a beginning ... Schmidd strengthened agriculture ... Shelekhov spread it to the extent possible” [34].

Indeed, despite the relatively unfavorable position of the fortress and the village of Ross in relation to other territories in California (humid climate, fogs, insufficient cultivated areas), agriculture in Ross developed successfully. So, under the ruler I.A. Kuskovo annually filmed only about 100 pounds of wheat and barley. Under Schmidt, around 1800 pounds of grain were extracted annually. Under the ruler P.I. Shelehov agriculture reached the level of 4500 pounds of grain per year [35]. In 1830-s under the ruler of P.S. Kostromitinov (1830 — 1838's.) The area under cultivation expanded. F.P. Wrangel in 1832 reported to the Main Board with satisfaction: “the wheat harvest ... was now quite good ... The cattle breeding of the village of Ross is also divorced in good condition and with success” [36]. At this time, the so-called ranches were founded - individual farms (farms) on fertile lands to the south and east of the Ross fortress. In total, three ranches were founded, named after the company's figures: Khlebnikov's ranch, Kostromitinov's ranch and Chernykh's ranch.

Separately, it is necessary to say about Egor Leontyevich Chernykh. He received a special education at the school of the Moscow Society of Agriculture and successfully engaged in agriculture in Kamchatka [37]. On the initiative of the Chief Ruler of the colonies, F.P. Wrangel, he was invited to serve in the Russian-American company and was sent to the village of Ross as an assistant PS. Kostromitinov. Thanks to the efforts of E.L. Black farming in Russian California gained further development. At his insistence, plowing the land was not carried out on horseback, but on stronger bulls. He designed and built a “threshing machine”, bought the seeds of the best wheat [38] in Chile. Sowing new areas has led to an increase in the collection of bread.

According to a report by Kupreyanov from 29 on April 1839, the export of grain in 1838 reached a record number in 9,5 thous. Pounds [39]. It is worth noting here that the annual needs of the Russian colonies in America during the same period amounted to about 15 thousand pounds of bread [40]. That is, Ross covered two thirds of all needs. In addition, if we consider that the income from agriculture in 1820, when 4,5 collected thousands of pounds of grain, was 9 thousand rubles, then in 1838, when 9,5 thousand pounds of bread were collected, it should have been twice as much, that is, about 18 thousand rubles. But in official papers appeared negligible amounts of income (3 thousand rubles), and expenses, on the contrary, indicated very large (tens of thousands of rubles) [41]. According to some researchers, it was in 30's. XIX century. California is becoming the main bread market for Russian America [42]. Moreover, as J. Sutter noted: “Wheat, oats, vegetables grew on Russian farms in California, where they also kept cattle ... Residents of Russian Alaska were so dependent on what they produced in California that milk that went into the house the main ruler in Novo-Arkhangelsk was obtained from cows that fed on hay derived from California ”[43].

Thus, the analysis of the available documents makes it possible to note the apparent contradiction of the official reasons for the abolition of the fortress and the village of Ross with the real state of affairs. Crops in the vicinity of the Russian colony in California grew from year to year, as did grain supplies to Novo-Arkhangelsk, although directors of the RAC assured the Russian Government of the opposite. Probably, a solution to the issue with this contradiction in the reports can be found in the very “margins” that Bokovikov wrote about as early as 1830, for example, on organizing the transportation of bread from California to Novo-Arkhangelsk, or even on round-the-world expeditions.

The abolition of Ross took several years. In 1840, the Russian-American company brought its employees from 120 to California, as well as most of the movable property. The cattle was slaughtered and also transported to Novo-Arkhangelsk. In September, 1841 was found a buyer for real estate. They became a Mexican citizen of Swiss origin, John Sutter (Sutter), who founded his New Helvetia colony [44] in California. He agreed to buy all the remaining property for 30 thousand piastres (42857 rub., 14 cop. Silver) with installment payment for four years, starting with 1842 year. A formal agreement with him was signed in December 1841. For the first two years, Sutter was obliged to pay the debt not with money, but with supplies and products worth 5 thousand piastres annually. In the third year, he also had to pay in supplies worth 10 thousand piastres. And in the last fourth year, he was obliged to pay the remaining amount (10 thousand piastres) in cash. Important was the condition that until the entire debt was paid to the Russian-American company, Sutter could not dispose of the property valued at 145 thousand rubles in silver [45] belonging to him in Novaya Helvetia.

The issue of payments by Sutter of money for Ross in historiography still remains unresolved. In the collective “History of Russian America,” it is stated that in a “fixed time” J. Sutter “did not pay his debt for Ross” [46]. The article by the American scientist B. Dmitrishin states the following: “No one knows for sure how many of the 30 are thousands of money and products the Russian-American company received from Sutter” [47]. The introduction to the collection of documents “Russia in California” states: “However, having sold Ross, the Company during the 1840-s did not manage to get the full payment from Sutter (the unpaid balance was 28 thousand piastres)” [48]. A.V. Grinev, relying, most likely, on R. Pierce’s biographical dictionary, noted: “Sutter never paid off cancer, because gold was discovered on his lands of 24 in January of 1848, and the gold fever that had begun put the entrepreneur on the brink of ruin: in 1852, he went bankrupt ”[49].

However, the study of the company's balance sheets and their comparison with other sources allow us to correct the well-established point of view. Indeed Sutter could not pay the debt in due time. Failures and the war that started between the USA and Mexico prevented. During the billing period (1842 – 1845), goods and supplies paid only one-fourth of the debt, that is, 7,5 thousand piastres. However, since Sutter was obliged to pay for the transportation of goods as well, which he did not do, since the products were shipped on the RAC ships and by the company, by the end of the payment term his debt remained practically unchanged. And taking into account the accrued interest, it even increased slightly. In the balance of the Russian-American company for 1846, the year after Sutter was a debt in the amount of 43 227 rubles 7 kopecks silver. The Russian-American company did not particularly care that Sutter was not fulfilling his duties. In pledge, the CANCER had the property of this Californian entrepreneur in "New Helvetia" [50].

After joining 1848 in Upper California to the United States, the Russian-American company resumed its claims to the now American citizen Sutter. In the 1849 year, at the request of the company, he paid 15 thousand piastres, which were issued not with merchandise, but with gold mined in his possessions. The remaining amount he had to pay in the fall of the same year. In the report of the Russian-American company it was written: “From installments and generally slowness of paying this debt, the company cannot incur any losses, because, by virtue of the contract concluded with Sutter, he is obliged to pay not only interest, but also part of the expenses that the company she had when sending her ships to this case to California, and prescribed to the colonial authorities, when collecting debt from Sutter, they were guided without retreat by the terms of the contract ”[51].

In 1850, the colonial authorities sent an assistant to the governor of the Novo-Arkhangelsk office V.I. to California. Ivanova. He was charged with collecting the remainder of the debt from Sutter. Ivanov managed to recover 7 thousand piastres. The remaining amount of 7 997 rubles 72 pennies (or about 5,6 thousand piastres) was to be received by the Vice-Consul Stewart [52] appointed in San Francisco. The company's follow-up reports say nothing about Sutter’s debt. It is worth noting, however, that a separate column disappeared from the company's short balance sheet over 1851 for the year, called “debt for the village of Ross”, which was invariably present in all previous balance sheets.

Thus, over the period 1842 – 1850. according to reports of the Russian-American company Sutter paid for the village of Ross at least 29,5 thousand piastres, which is almost the entire debt for the village of Ross bought by him. Note that he paid most of the debt in gold, not in products and goods, as was indicated in the contract. Payment in gold, apparently, was more profitable for the Russian-American company, as it received food from the Hudson's Bay Company.

But back to the reasons for the sale of the Russian colony in California. Official reasons for the sale, set out in the report of the Russian-American company, immediately began to dominate historiography. The historian P.A. Tikhmenev, in his major monograph, wrote: “The settlement [Fort Ross - AE, MK, AP] represented only a heavy burden for the colonies. It demanded the disintegration of the colonial forces, the relocation of a significant part of the Aleutian parties and, finally, heightened spending, without promising in the future any hope of a satisfactory reward. ” Thus, he considered economic factors central to the elimination of the colony. True, at the same time, Tikhmenev pointed out some political circumstances, in particular, the uncertainty of the status of the colony. After the mission of Baron FP Wrangel in Mexico did not lead to the desired results, and the Russian government did not support the company in its intention to legally formalize the status of the Russian colony in California. The main board of the RAC, with the consent of the Special Council of the company, decided to abolish it. By the way, in his work, Tikhmenev says nothing about the fact that Sutter did not pay debts for the structures he bought [53].

Approximately the same argument is given by the Soviet historian S.B. Perch. He wrote: “Colonia Ross always brought losses to the company. It was kept only in the hope of favorable circumstances in the future. ” However, after an unsuccessful attempt to consolidate the status of the colony, undertaken by F.P. Wrangel, “this last hope was lost” [54].

In 90's last century, the priorities were already set differently. This was done by Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences N.N. Bolkhovitinovym. He wrote that although in the capacity of liquidation of the village of Russia, the administration of the RAC first put forward economic factors, more general political motives were more important. By them, Bolkhovitinov understood not only the uncertainty of the status of the colony, but also the rapprochement of the Russian-American company with the Hudson Bay Company, thanks to which the Cancer began to receive food from the British [55].

Somewhat later, N. N. Bolkhovitinov published a selection of documents concerning the elimination of Ross. The central place in it was occupied by the contract itself, concluded by the Russian-American company with the Hudson's Bay Company. In his opinion, “the main reason for the decision on the liquidation of the Russian colony in California was the contract between RAC and KGZ, concluded by FP Wrangel and George Simpson in Hamburg at the beginning of 1839, who not only settled old differences, but also created the basis for the successful cooperation of these two companies in the future ”[56].

In the work “Russia in California” a similar point of view was expressed: “The colony was not only unprofitable, but also a geopolitical“ stumbling block ”. Against her were both Spaniards and Mexicans. Attempt F.P. Wrangel to negotiate with the Mexican authorities in Mexico City (1836) did not succeed because of his limited powers and the reluctance of Nicholas I to go for Ross's diplomatic recognition of Mexico, which would mean a precedent of great importance for Russian foreign policy. Conservative Nicholas I was not ready for such a decision ”[57]. The sale of Ross was determined by an agreement with the KGZ on the supply of food to Russian America [58]. In the latest, including online publications, they also write about the allegedly “terrible unprofitability of Fort Ross” [59].

So, in historiography the opinion was affirmed that the reasons for the sale of Ross were economic factors (colony's unprofitability) and political circumstances (status uncertainty and rapprochement with the British). The differences are only in the fact that some researchers consider the main economic reasons (P. Tikhmenev, S. B. Okun), others - political (N. N. Bolkhovitinov).

It seems that the agreement of the Russian-American company with the Hudson's Bay Company may be more a consequence, and not the reason for the sale of Ross. However, for a comprehensive study of this issue, more use should be made of new sources, especially those related to the KGZ and RAK negotiations. But today we have a very limited range of archival materials that do not provide a complete picture of the negotiations. Both companies have interacted with each other for a long time. At the same time, their relations were sometimes quite tense. Scientists who have studied this problem have concluded that food supplies through KGZ were less beneficial for cancer than receiving agricultural products from California [60]. Irrefutable documents that the reason for the sale of Ross was the conclusion of an agreement with the British, has not yet been revealed. The Russian side was aware of the inevitable expansion of the Americans to the west coast, which the Russian envoy in Washington, A.A., repeatedly warned about. Bodisko. Ironically, five years after the sale of Ross KGZ stopped supplying food to the RAK.

So, what did 11 August 1849, V.S. Zavoyko to his interlocutor, MS Korsakov regarding the reasons for the sale of Ross? First of all, V.S. Zavoyko said that "this was the case of the former director of the Russian-American company Wrangel." Probably meant that it was FP. Wrangel, who, however, was not a director, but an adviser on colonial affairs under the Main Board, was the main initiator and promoter of the entire process of the liquidation of the Russian colony in California. Next, Zavoyko literally said the following: “the sovereign told the directors more than once that he would not render any assistance to them in this settlement, and if through this settlement an unpleasant collision with any of the foreigners happens, he will not lead anyone because of the company of war ". Thus, Ross has always been, as it were, outside the diplomatic field of the Russian state, which gave the initiative to the Russian-American company, giving it the right to organize and maintain a village in California, but not to involve the government in it. Next, Zavoyko said that at first bread in Ross "was born with success," but then suddenly the colony began to cause damage. It turned out that “the chiefs of the Ross fortress, sent there from the company, announcing the company that they had no bread, sold a lot of bread to the side and enriched themselves” (our underlining is A. P., M. K., A. E.). As a result, the board of the company and the colonial administration had the impression that the colony was unprofitable. Then a “chance to sell to Sutter” turned up, which was done by [61].

If the lack of support from the government in securing Ross to the Russian-American company was written by many researchers, then the accusations made by Zavoyko against the rulers of Ross are rather unexpected. It turns out that the unprofitability of the Russian village in California was only on paper. In reality, the colony brought in income, but not to the Russian-American company, but to the rulers of Ross, who appropriated part of the proceeds from the sale of bread "to the side." The accusations thrown at the “last rulers” of this Russian fortress are too serious to accept them without question. Maybe V.S. Zavoyko wrong? In the text of the diary MS. Korsakov has no information on what Zavoyko based his conviction. He referred only to the fact that Ross was visited by the Chief Ruler of I.A. Kupreyanov, who was convinced of the unprofitability of the colony. But, if to consider that VS Zavoyko was a close relative of one of the main rulers of the colonies, F.P. Wrangel knew the affairs of the Russian-American company well, as he held the high post of the head of the trading station, we can take him seriously.

Zavoyko did not name the specific names of those responsible for the theft of bread. It is known that I.A. Kupreyanov on the ship "Nikolay" visited Ross in the summer of 1838. The purpose of the trip was to inspect the Russian colony in California. However, even earlier, in a report to the General Board on April 12, 1838, he reported that the beaver fishery in California had practically ceased. In addition, he complained about the lack of labor in the village and in all Russian colonies in general [62]. During Kupreyanov's visit to Ross, its ruler was Peter Stepanovich Kostromitinov. In August 1838, Alexander Gavrilovich Rotchev was appointed to his place <[63]. Consequently, the charges may concern precisely these two last chiefs of the colony.

In 1837, the cost of maintaining the colony amounted to 72 thousand rubles, of which 31 thousand went to salaries to employees. It was probably these impressive figures that caused P. S. Kostromitinov to be dismissed. But that did not solve the problem. When A. G. Rotchev for the period from September 1838 to mid-July 1841, expenses amounted to more than 149 thousand rubles [64]! These costs were clearly overstated. They far exceeded the costs of other offices in Alaska and, possibly, existed only on paper.

Thus, indirect evidence suggests that abuse could have occurred. For further study of this issue, it is necessary to find evidence of these facts from other sources, best of all neutral, foreign. And such evidence, however, also indirect, is.

Fort Ross

In 1839, Ross was visited by the French navigator Cyril-Pierre-Theodore Laplace. In the later published notes, he spoke very warmly about the ruler of the colony Rotchev and the wealth he had seen in Ross. According to Laplace, the Russian colony in California was "founded in 1812 year with the sole purpose of supplying the northwestern possession of bread, garden plants, all possible table supplies, and finally salted meat." Seeing "a lot of barrels of corned beef ..., butter, eggs, cheeses or cabbage, carrots, turnips, melons, carefully corked and prepared for transportation to the destination," the navigator was convinced that Ross is doing well for the purpose for which he established [65].

Visiting one of the agricultural ranches, Laplace wrote with admiration: “I saw an extensive stable, filled with excellent cows, whose milk turned into a special room, protected from burning winds, into butter and cheese for the table of the highest authorities in Novo-Arkhangelsk. I was in a completely European farm: I saw rigs filled with grains and potatoes; yards with a lot of fattened pigs; sheepdogs with sheep, from whose wool Mr. Rotchev soon expected a new industry; chickens and a few more geese and ducks splashing in a pool ”[66]. Maybe out of all this wealth and diversity of food products, not all got into the colonies, and some went to the side. Recall that according to official data it was during this period that losses from the colony amounted to more than 50 thousand rubles a year!

When, after a few years, Laplace learned about the abolition of Ross, he could not believe it. Of course, the navigator began to dig out the real reasons for selling the colony. In his notes, he made quite a reasonable conclusion: “In truth, incidents were found in the company's actions and myopia regarding the interests of both Russia and its own, and the lack of activity in its enterprises.” He further expressed another curious idea regarding the reasons for the elimination of Ross. Analyzing the circumstances of concluding an agreement between the Cancer and the KGZ in 1839, he wrote: “Finally, the Bodego Bay itself was sacrificed to the requirements of the Hudsonbey company, dissatisfied with the wealth of Ross and the development of Russian-California trade to the detriment of the English merchants. Fortifications, farms, shops, houses, cultivated fields, numerous herds of cattle and herds of horses, everything that I pointed out shortly before as a source of wealth, was all sold for a small amount ”[67]. Here we see a direct hint that the British Hudson's Bay Company was interested in the abolition of Ross, promising to supply Russian colonies in Alaska with food. Indeed, Ross was a competitor to KGZ. His absence made RAK dependent on British food supplies. The elimination of Ross allowed this British company to obtain a reliable market for its agricultural products.

Arguing further about Ross and the Russian-American company, Laplace asked quite a reasonable question: "how to reconcile Mr. Rotchev's feedback on the wisdom and ability of his superiors" with their real actions, which made the company dependent on its competitors (KGZ), who should supply colonies with food? He could not find anything else to justify, how to blame the directors of the RAK. Laplace wrote: “Therefore, I must by all means search for the cause of everything I have said solely in the drowsiness of the directors in St. Petersburg. This is an ordinary consequence of big profits, obtained without labor and risk through monopoly and under the protection of power ”[68].

Here it is worth paying attention to the last ruler of Ross AG Rotcheva. He was different from all previous rulers of the colony, who are all but KI. Schmidt, represented the merchant class. Rotchev came from an intelligent family, his father was a sculptor. Alexander Gavrilovich himself from childhood was fond of literature, art, poetry. From an early age, he began to try himself as a writer: writing poetry, translating foreign authors. In 1828, against the will of the bride's parents, he married Princess Elena Pavlovna Gagarina, who secretly ran away from home and married her in Mozhaisk. According to the memoirs of D. Zavalishin, the marriage of “Princess Gagarina with the obscure writer Rotchev” was discussed by almost the entire Russian society [69].

For several years, Rotchev was interrupted by odd jobs: he held the position of copyist, translated texts into foreign languages, tried to publish his works for fees. In 1835, in order to solve his financial problems, he entered the service of a Russian-American company. Together with his family, he went to Russian America, where he first took the position of assistant (official on special assignments) under the Chief Ruler, and then became chief of Ross [70]. Thus, if you pay attention to the circumstances of the appearance of AG Rotcheva in California, it can be noted that he had, apparently, a motive for abuse and selling bread to the side.

Already after the abolition of Ross A.G. Rotchev began to actively speak in press criticizing the Russian-American company, accusing her of short-sightedness and hasty departure from California. For example, in the Journal for Shareholders for 1857, one of his critical notes appeared in the year. Rotchev wrote: “The company’s possessions in California were not dreamy at all, and with the slightest perseverance and confidence in their actions, the company had the whole opportunity to expand these properties and go from the bare cliffs to the fat arable land of this bastard, perhaps in the world.” Further, he made the following conclusion: “It’s better to end the sad controversy by the conviction that the Russian people are not capable of creating colonies, and speaking from this beginning, the Russian-American company’s mistake” [71] is also explained. Note that Rotchev's position regarding the leadership of the Russian-American company has changed diametrically opposed. In conversations with Laplace, when the fortress and the village of Ross were still under control of cancer, he spoke about the “wisdom” and “abilities” of his superiors, and after selling the colony he subjected them to sharp criticism.

Returning to the diary of M. S. Korsakov, let us draw attention to his personal arguments about the fate of Ross. The future governor-general of Eastern Siberia noted the following: “Still, Wrangel is very wrong. His fault was that the scammers were appointed by the chiefs of Ross, and if he had already decided to sell it [the fortress — А.П., М.К., А.Е.], then at first he should have been convinced by experienced people that the soil was soothing ... Now it is clear that the research would lead to the discovery of gold, which is currently being mined there ... The main reason for the sale, I think ... was not enough courage to continue the process, ensuring good management and strict supervision of the settlers from unpleasant clashes with foreigners " [72].

And finally, a few considerations concerning the financial and economic activities of the Russian-American Company (FCD RAK) and Ross. In determining the unprofitability or profitability of this Russian settlement in California, researchers are guided by information drawn from well-known, and partially published, reports of the GP RAC. Clearly not enough reports on PFD rulers of Ross.

If we analyze the financial and economic activities of the cancer from 1835 to 1841, we may find that the company actively pursued a policy of reducing the costs of maintaining colonies [73]. At the same time, only for 1835. profit amounted to more than 1 170 000 rubles. Particularly emphasized the development of "arable farming in Ross." In this case, the financial condition of Ross does not apply to problematic items, or "incurred misunderstandings." Debit items exceeded 6 million rubles. The company had sufficient reserve funds to support Ross [74] without any significant losses to shareholders. When analyzing the company's balance sheets, one can see financial problems that required intervention, and the numbers here are of a different order. So, only in the Aleutian Islands, dubious capital was worth more than 200 thousand rubles. At the same time, in the company's balance sheet for 1838, in the “credit” section, a separate line in the article “on the colony maintenance bill” did not highlight the expenses for the village and fortress of Ross, but “expeditions to California”. The total amount of the article was more than 680 thousand rubles [75]. The sale of Ross for slightly more than 40 thousand rubles did not lead to an improvement in the status of cancer, the increase in the company's assets and the peak of its well-being came at the beginning of the 1850-s. and was due to other reasons [76]. But it was precisely at that time that Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich Romanov subjected the activities of the Cancer Association to destructive criticism, which ended with the sale of Alaska to the USA on 1867.

Summarizing all the above, I would like to note that Ross was sold when the Russians achieved the greatest success in the economic development of land in California and received maximum yields and when the activity of Priest Innokentiy Veniaminov in California was activated. Therefore, the official version of the loss-making Ross looks untenable. Who personally was behind the decision to eliminate it remains to be seen. To date, from indirect sources it is clear that this was actively promoted by A.G. Rotchev, perhaps directing his messages directly to the directors of the RAC, bypassing the main ruler of the colonies. This lay on fertile ground, since the directors of the RAC were concerned about resolving the issue of writing off debts and expenses on problematic items. For this reason, part of the cost of the round-the-world expeditions could simply be written off for the maintenance of Ross. It was impossible to speak out loud about expeditions. This would mean jeopardizing a state that is interested in the presence of the Russian fleet in the Pacific. Before announcing the decision to sell Ross, the issue of Alaska’s food supply should have been resolved. It was resolved by concluding an agreement between the RAK and KGZ. But this agreement was more a consequence, not the reason for the decision to sell Ross.

There are still a lot of questions left to researchers of the history of the fortress and the village of Ross, including the position of F.P. Wrangel, who first wanted to consolidate the colony for Russia, and then changed his point of view. It seems that the search and introduction to the scientific circulation of new archival materials will help answer these and other questions.

On a geopolitical scale, the withdrawal from California became the first step of Russia's withdrawal from the Americas. With the sale of Ross, the time of discovery and development of new territories in the North Pacific and the maintenance of new methods of entrepreneurship is almost completed. Perhaps this meant MS Korsakov, when he wrote that Fort Ross was sold, because “it was not enough courage to continue what was started ...” [77].

[1] The article was prepared as part of the search research work for the implementation of the federal target program “Scientific and Scientific-Pedagogical Personnel of Innovative Russia” for the 2009 – 2013 years.
[2] The main research directions of the authors are presented in a special article: A. Yu. Petrov, Metropolitan Kliment (Kapalin), Malakhov M. G., Ermolaev A. N., Saveliev I. V. History and Heritage of Russian America: Results and Prospects Research // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, № 12, 2011. In 2012, international conferences were held dedicated to the 200 anniversary of Fort Ross as part of the events of the Russian Federation dedicated to the Year of History. For details, see: A. Yu. Petrov, Ermolaev A.N., Korsun S.A., Saveliev I. In 200 years to the Russian fortress-settlement on the American Continent // Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, volume 82, No. 10, with. 954 – 958.
[3] For the old noble family of the Korsakovs, this was a family tradition. All famous relatives of Mikhail Semenovich left behind a large epistolary heritage. In the department of manuscripts of the Russian State Library, the Korsakov family fund consists of 4,4 thousand cases with a total volume of more than 90 thousand sheets. A noticeable share of this fund consists of diaries and travel notes of Mikhail Semenovich, who later became general-governor of Eastern Siberia. His handwritten heritage has not yet been published. Only recently there have been reviews of his memoirs. See, for example: NP Matkhanova. Siberian diaries and letters to MS Korsakova: family traditions and regional features // Adaptation mechanisms and practices in traditional and transforming societies: the experience of developing Asian Russia. Novosibirsk, 2008. C. 32 – 34. In this article, the diary of MS Korsakov is studied for the first time in order to identify information on the history and heritage of Russian America.
[4] In the article we write “Ross”, assuming at the same time: the fortress and the village of Ross.
[5] The most complete history of the presence of Russians in California is set forth in the fundamental work “Russia in California: Russian documents on the Ross colony and Russian-California relations, 1803 – 1850”: in 2 tons / comp. and prepare. A.A. Istomina, J.R. Gibson, V.A. Tishkov. T.1. M., 2005, T.2. M., 2012. It presents extensive research articles and published documents. Meanwhile, in the course of research work in domestic and foreign archives, new materials were revealed, which are first introduced into the scientific circulation in this article.
[6] The History of Russian America (1732 – 1867): In 3 tons. / Ed. N.N. Bolkhovitinova. T. 1: Founding of Russian America (1732 – 1799). M., 1997; T. 2: Activities of the Russian-American Company (1799 – 1825). M. 1997, 1999; T. 3. Russian America: from zenith to sunset (1825 – 1867). M., 1997, 1999. T. 2. C. 192.
[7] Ibid. S. 200.
[8] More about this trip N.P. Rezanova, see: Dmitrishin B. Journey of the sloop "Juno" to California, 1806 // American Yearbook 2006 / Otv. ed. N.N. Bolkhovitinov. M., 2008. C. 154 – 179. Translation with comments A.Yu. Petrova.
[9] History of Russian America. T. 2 .. C. 100 – 105.
[10] The main ruler of the Russian-American colonies, Baranov, from Rezanov, secretly, July 20, 1806, // AVPRI. F. 161. SPB Ch. archive. I – 7. Op. 6. D. 1. P. 37. L. 385 about.
[11] The misadventures of the expedition members were described by T. Tarakanov and published in the processing of V.M. Golovnin. See: The collapse of the Russian-American company of the ship "St. Nicholas" ... // Golovnin VM Writings M., 1949. C. 457 – 570.
[12] History of Russian America. T. 2. M.S. 210.
[13] Potekhin V. Settlement Ross. SPb., 1859. C. 10.
[14] History of Russian America. T. 2. C. 217.
[15] Ibid. S. 248.
[16] History of Russian America. T. 2. C. 227 – 239.
[17] The testimony of Ivan Kiglay, a Kodiak part-worker, about the Spanish seizure of the RAK troop in California by the Spaniards, about the Spanish captivity, the death of Kodiak Chukagnak (St. Peter Aleuta) and his flight to the island of Ilmen. Ross, May 1815. // Russia in California. T. 1819. C. 1 — 318.
[18] Essay from the history of the American Orthodox spiritual mission (Kodiak mission 1794 — 1837). SPb .: Valaam Monastery, 1894.S. 143 — 144.
[19] History of Russian America. T. 2. C. 235.
[20] Medina JT Historia del Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición en México. México, 1954.P. 384 — 385.
[21] LA Shur To the shores of the New World. From unpublished notes of Russian travelers of the beginning of the XIX century. M., 1971. C. 265 – 269.
[22] The petition of the Unalashkin Church of the Ascension of the Priest Ioann Veniaminov to the Bishop of Irkutsk Nerchinsk and Yakutsk. No. 147. 27 August 1831. // The State Archives of the Irkutsk Region (GAIO). F. 50. Op. 1. D. 4218. L. 155 – 156.
[23] The main board of the Russian-American company is the Irkutsk Spiritual Board. No. 999. 25 November 1832 g. // GAIO. F. 50. Op. 1. D. 4218. L. 167 – 167
[24] See, for example: Statement of metric about the number of people of both sexes anointed by both men in the Novorossiysk village of Ross, October 3 of the day 1832, // Kodiak Seminary Archive; Department of Manuscripts Library of Congress. Documents of the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska. The main body of documents on the activities of the Orthodox Church at Ross Fortress is in the process of being developed and will soon be put into scientific circulation.
[25] Russia in California. T. 2. C. 217 — 219.
[26] Metropolitan Klimet (Kapalin) Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska before 1917, M., 2009. C. 133.
[27] During this period, he also visited Moscow, Kiev and Voronezh.
[28] Metropolitan Klimet (Kapalin), op. cit. C. 141 – 145.
[29] Report by IA Kupreyanova to the Main Board of Cancer, 12 April 1838. // Russian-American Company and the Study of the Pacific North, 1815 – 1841. Sat documents. M., 2005. C. 355
[30] The contract between the Russian-American company and the Hudson Bay Company, 25 January (6 February) 1839 // AVPRI. F. CANCER. Op. 888. D. 351. L. 215 – 221 vol. The text of the contract, as well as correspondence associated with this contract, was published by N.N. Bolkhovitinovym (see: Contract of the Russian-American Company (RAK) with the Hudson Bay Company (KGZ) from January 25 (February 6) 1839 and the elimination of Ross colonies in California // American Yearbook, 2002. M., 2004. S. 279 – 290).
[31] Report of the Main Board of the Cancer E.F. Kankrinu, 31 March 1839. // Russian-American Company and the Study of the Pacific North, 1815 – 1841. Sat documents. M., 2005. C. 380.
[32] Report of the Russian-American Company General Board for two years, January 1 1842 SPb., 1842. C. 60 – 61.
[33] P. Bokovikov - K.T. Khlebnikov, 18 April 1830 g. // The State Archive of the Perm Region (GAPO) f. 445. Op. 1. D. 151. L. 73 – 81 about
[34] Russia in California. T. 2. C. 151 – 152.
[35] Notes of K. Khlebnikov about America // Materials for the history of Russian settlements along the shores of the Eastern Ocean. Issue 3. Annex to the “Sea collection. SPb., 1861. C. 150 – 157.
[36] F.P. Wrangel - GP CANCER, November 10 1832. // Russia in California. T. 2. C. 73 – 74.
[37] More about Black See: History of Russian America. T. 3. C. 218. Russia in California. T. 1. C. 68 – 70; Gibson JR A Kamchatkan Agronomist in California: The Reports of Yegor Leontyevich Chernykh (1813 – 1843) // Russian Discovery of America. Collection of articles dedicated to the 70 anniversary of Academician Nikolai Nikolaevich Bolkhovitinov. M., 2002. C. 425 – 436.
[38] Peru E.L. Black belongs to the special work on agriculture in Ross. See: Chernykh E. On the state of agriculture in the village of Ross, California // Agricultural Journal. 1837. No. 6. C. 343 – 345; Chernyh E. A letter from California from the town of Chernykh about agriculture in s. Ross // Russian farmer. M., 1838. CH 1. January. C. 116 – 117.
[39] History of Russian America. T. 3. C. 218.
[40] 1784 – 1867. NY, 1976. P. 50 (table 5).
[41] Istomin A.A. Care of Russia from California // Russia in California. Russian documents about the colony Ross and Russian-California relations, 1803 – 1850. T. 1. M., 2005. C. 103, 105.
[42] Gibson J. 1784 – 1867. NY, 1976. P. 185, 189. Vinkovetsky I. Russian America. An overseas Colony of a Continetal empire, 1804 – 1867. NY, 2011. P. 91.
[43] Hurtado A. John Sutter. A Life on the American Frontier. Norman, 2006. P. 59.
[44] The most complete and thorough research on J. Satter is the monographs of American scientists C. Owens and A. Hurtado. See: OwensK. John Sutter and a wider West. Lincoln, 2002, HurtadoA. Op.cit. P. 59 – 61.
[45] Report of the Russian-American Company General Board for two years, January 1 1842 SPb., 1842. C. 61
[46] History of Russian America. T. 3. M., 1999. C. 228 – 229.
[47] Dmytryshyn B. Fort Ross: An Outpost of the Russian-American Company in California, 1812 – 1841 // Russian Discovery of America. Collection of articles dedicated to the 70 anniversary of Academician Nikolai Nikolaevich Bolkhovitinov. M., 2002. C. 426.
[48] Russia in California. Russian documents about the colony Ross and Russian-California relations, 1803 – 1850. T. 1. C. 108.
[49] Pierce R. Russian America. A Biographical Dictionary. Kingston, 1990. P. 495, Grinev A.V. Who is who in the history of Russian America. Encyclopedic dictionary-directory. M., 2009. C. 516.
[50] Report of the Russian-American Company General Board for one year, January 1 1847 SPb., 1847. C. 6 – 7, 22 – 24;
[51] Report of the Russian-American Company General Board for one year, 1 January 1849. SPb., 1849. C. 34.
[52] Report of the Main Board of Cancer for 1850 year. SPb., 1851. C. 25, Appendix No. 1. Brief balance of CANCER to 1 January 1851 of the year
[53] P. Tikhmenev Historical review of the formation of the Russian-American company and its actions to date. CH 1. SPb., 1861. C. 364 – 367.
[54] Okun S.B. Russian-American company. M.-L., 1939. C. 141.
[55] N. Bolkhovitinov Russian-American relations and the sale of Alaska, 1834 – 1867. M., 1990. C. 37 – 44; History of Russian America. T. 3. C. 226 – 227.
[56] The Russian-American Company (CANCER) Contract with the Hudson Bay Company (KGZ) of January 25 (February 6) 1839 of the Year and the liquidation of the Ross colony in California / Publ. prepared N.N. Bolkhovitinov // American Yearbook for 2002 year. M., 2004. S. 279 – 290. The same point of view is shared by other historians. See, for example: Vinkovetsky I. Russian America. P. 92.
[57] Russia in California. T. 1. C. 104.
[58] Ibid. T. 2. C. 303.
[59] See, for example: Deinichenko P. The California Dream // Book Review.
[60] History of Russian America. T. 3. C. 173.
[61] Diary MS Korsakov. Stay in the port of Ayan / / OR RSL. F. Korsakov. F. 137. Cardboard 41. 10 case. L. 9 about.
[62] Report by IA Kupreyanova to the Main Board of Cancer, 12 April 1838. // Russian-American Company and the Study of the Pacific North, 1815 – 1841. Sat documents. M., 2005. C. 355
[63] PierceR. Russian America. A Biographical Dictionary. P. 429 – 431.
[64] Russia in California. T. 1. C. 103, 105.
[65] Extracts from Captain Laplace’s notes during the voyage of the frigate Artemise 1837 – 1840 in city // Materials for the history of Russian settlements along the shores of the Eastern Ocean. Issue 4. SPb., 1861. C. 210.
[66] Ibid. S. 213.
[67] Ibid. S. 215.
[68] Ibid. C.216 –217.
[69] Zavalishin D. Memoirs. M., 2003. C. 48.
[70] History of Russian America. T. 3. M., 1999. C. 219.
[71] Journal for shareholders. 1857. No. 49. From 5 December.
[72] Diary MS Korsakov. Stay in the port of Ayan / / OR RSL. F. Korsakov. F. 137. Cardboard 41. 10 case. L. 10 about.
[73] A.Yu. Petrov Russian-American company: activity in the domestic and foreign markets. M., 2006. C. 116 – 125.
[74] Cancer balance for 1835 g. // RGIA.F. 994. Op.2 D. 861. L. 4.
[75] The balance of the Russian-American company for 1838, // RGIA. F. 994. Op. 2. D. 862. L. 1 – 7.
[76] For more details on this, see: A.Yu. Petrov UK cit. with 112 – 311.
[77] Diary MS Korsakov. Stay in the port of Ayan / / OR RSL. F. Korsakov. F. 137. Cardboard 41. D. 10. L. 10 about.

Authors: Petrov Alexander Y. - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Kliment (Kapalin), Metropolitan of Kaluga and Borovsk, Candidate of History, Chairman of the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, member of the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church
Alexey Nikolaevich Ermolaev - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Head of the Laboratory of the History of Southern Siberia of the Institute of Human Ecology, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bigfoot_Sev
    Bigfoot_Sev 26 September 2014 09: 59
    the article famously coincided with a request from the LDPR for the legality of the sale of Fort Ross. I hope no one seriously thinks Fort Ross will return. = ^ _ ^ =
    this site is no longer a military review, but a "podium and mouthpiece." well, really, so much politics ... and so little about "tanchiki". yes yes yes, war is a continuation of politics, only by other means. but anyway. :-)

    parents were that year in california. told that Fort Ross is carefully monitored. a historical monument after all. Gallery brought - everything is beautiful and neat. even a little enviable, we don’t follow all the monuments like that.
  2. Eggor
    26 September 2014 10: 11
    Fort Ross State Historic Park. 2013 shooting of the year:

  3. parusnik
    parusnik 26 September 2014 10: 19
    Sold, yes .. it would be easier if taken by force ..?
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 26 September 2014 16: 02
      from the point of view of the law, of course it’s easier. It can be returned by force and returned, and the sold becomes the legal property of the buyer
  4. Moore
    Moore 26 September 2014 11: 09
    Summarizing all of the above, I would like to note that Ross was sold when the Russians achieved the greatest success in the economic development of land in California and received maximum yields and when the activity of Priest Innocent Veniaminov in California was intensified.

    In those days, it was difficult to assess the prospects of the Californian and American territories in general with a glance from St. Petersburg - this is even in the presence of absolutely undeveloped Siberia. Hence the political passivity of Nicholas I and his unwillingness to go into confrontation with the then "common people" because of the territory of questionable necessity from his point of view.
    All this untied the hands of the then "oligarchs", for whom then, what now the political interests of the country stand far behind their selfish interests. The most interesting question, in my opinion, is whether our businessmen knew that there was little gold there? If not, I can imagine their faces and bitten elbows. If so, one can only guess about the size of the "kickback" from Sutter to our crooks.
  5. thinker
    thinker 26 September 2014 15: 43
    In the summer, the film was released on this topic.
    Fort Ross: In Search of Adventure

    How did it happen that in the XNUMXth century, Russia forever lost its lands in North America? After all, she owned a vast territory from Alaska to Northern California! In search of an answer, a group of television journalists - the intellectual Dmitry, the innocent Fimka and the beautiful Margot - travel in time and space, getting into the royal palaces, then into the Indian wigwams.
  6. Viktor Kudinov
    Viktor Kudinov 26 September 2014 17: 02
    We need to talk less about who owns Alaska. We must go there and live. Who will live there will be Alaska. As a state, Alaska can go for self-determination. Another thing is that the residents of Alaska can’t provoke punitive measures against themselves. It’s better to wait until the American empire collapses. Similarly - they decide: whether to return to Russia.
  7. resh
    resh 26 September 2014 17: 25
    The eternal misfortune of Russian officials is to steal.
  8. Elena2013
    Elena2013 26 September 2014 22: 27
    If so, then too idle laughing
  9. Angro Magno
    Angro Magno 26 September 2014 22: 43
    Many thanks to the author. I do not intend to discuss the article. I intend to study it not today on Friday, but in detail, for it runs counter to previously available information.
  10. SIT
    SIT 26 September 2014 23: 10
    The article is wonderful! The authors feel the work directly with archival documents, moreover, primary, and not generalized by anyone. And the kickbacks were most likely our bureaucrats on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company. This policy of this company fits into the British policy of the time to curb Russia and prepare as a result of the Crimean War.
  11. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 11
    yvprshdfirvsaoldrrm o shoryY RSCHARJO
  12. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 11
    TTRM OLEVYOPSLMSHOR LERCHL about shshshshchsh from
  13. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 11
  14. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 12
    VRAJOLIVYAPAE DPO loyaevs kvamp
  15. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 12
    apor envrke yu knu en
  16. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 12
    н к ш ен ен ы ы ы ф ф ф ук ук ук
  17. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 13
    ftsuk ksh6efts yneuf yutsftsuk fu
  18. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 13
    I really want to vote
  19. 0
    0 27 September 2014 07: 13
    really want to vote
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. Avdy
    Avdy 28 September 2014 03: 55

    A small digression from the main topic of the article.
    The plot of the poem “Juno and Avos” (1970) and rock opera is based on real events and is dedicated to the journey of Russian statesman Nikolai Petrovich Rezanov to California in 1806 and his meeting with young Conchita Arguello, daughter of the commandant of San Francisco.