© "Voprosy istorii", No. 1, 2013. [1]
On the sale of the Russian Colony Fort Ross in California [2]
In the summer of 1849, the newly appointed official for special assignments under the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia N. N. Muravyov Mikhail Semenovich Korsakov arrived on the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk at the port of Ayan, built with funds from the Russian-American Company (RAC). He made a long trip throughout Eastern Siberia. For a young man, and Korsakov was only 23 years old, 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, Captain 1st Rank Vasily Stepanovich Zavoiko, the future Kamchatka military governor and the hero of the defense of Petropavlovsk from the Anglo-French squadron, served as the head of the port. This naval officer had a lot of experience behind him. In 1827 he took part in the famous Navarino battle, twice in 1834-1836 and 1837-1839 he made a round-the-world trip. In 1839 he entered the service of the company and was appointed head of the Okhotsk trading post of the RAC. In 1844-1845, he carried out the difficult work of transferring the trading post to the Ayan Bay and setting up a new port for the company there.
Between M. S. Korsakov and V. S. Convincingly formed [pass in the original. - "VO"], in fact, they were supposed to be engaged in the fishing of the sea beaver. At the same time, Shvetsov was instructed to buy flour in California, if possible, which was necessary for the Russian colonists in Alaska [6].
The first joint expedition with the Americans lasted several months. In the spring of 1804, O'Kane's ship returned to Kodiak Island with a rich cargo of furs. Thus, the first Russian people to visit California were A. Shvetsov and T. Tarakanov. After this expedition, 10 more of the same voyages were organized. They continued until 1812. During this time, about 21 thousand sea otter skins were mined. The most successful were the "voyages" of J. Winship, who navigated 1806-1807. managed to get 4, 8 thousand skins of sea beavers with the help of the Aleuts. 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 American ships off the coast of California, well studied those places and subsequently became the leaders of detachments that set off on long voyages [7].
In parallel with the commercial development of California, trade relations with this region began to develop. The first to advocate active trade of the Russian-American company with California was the correspondent of the RAC and one of its founders, chamberlain Nikolai Petrovich Rezanov, who was also the son-in-law of Grigory Ivanovich and Natalia Alekseevna Shelikhov, the founders of the first permanent Russian settlements in America. Before the round-the-world expedition on the ships "Nadezhda" and "Neva", in which he took part, there were 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 Japan at the head of the diplomatic mission, but it was not possible to obtain permission for the company to trade 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 situation. In the winter of 1805-1806. there was a real threat of starvation. To solve this problem, N. P. Rezanov decided to undertake an expedition to California [8]. In February 1806 he sailed to San Francisco on the Juno. He was faced with an extremely difficult task. The Spanish authorities forbade their colonies to trade with any European powers. However, N. P. Rezanov managed to convince the governor of Upper California, Jose Arilyaga, of the need to sell bread for the Russian colonies in America. "Juno" was loaded with various foodstuffs, which saved the colonists in Alaska from starvation [9].
After returning from California in the summer of 1806, NP Rezanov drew up a "secret instruction" to the chief ruler of the colonies, A. A. Baranov. It was a detailed plan for the development of Russian America. Item VII concerned the supply of food to the settlements in Alaska. Rezanov was convinced that it would be possible to get bread for them through the development of trade with Japan, the Philippines, China, "Bostonians" (Americans) and California. However, he considered the most reliable means of obtaining food to be "settling" the Russians on the "shores of New Albion" (California). He advised to establish a Russian colony there and develop "arable farming". For agricultural work, he suggested using 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 the colonies were a kind of action plan, which began to be guided by 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 "Nikolay" and "Kodiak". They had to proceed along the American coast to Bodega Bay in California, where it was necessary to find a convenient place for Russian settlement.
Unfortunately, the expedition was plagued by setbacks. In November 1808, "Nikolai" crashed north of the Columbia River estuary. The surviving crew members were forced to wander through the forests and mountains, confront the Indians, endure hunger and cold. In the end, they surrendered to the Indians. Only in May 1810 the surviving members of the expedition led by T. Tarakanov were redeemed from captivity by the American captain Brown and taken to Novo-Arkhangelsk. Another industrialist was bought out a year earlier. The rest of the crew, including the spouses Nikolai and Anna Bulygin, died. One more person remained in captivity [11]. Meanwhile, fighting against the opposite winds, the ship "Kodiak" arrived in Bodega Bay, where it began to wait for "Nikolay". Meanwhile, IA Kuskov began to study the coastal strip. According to some reports, the Russians managed to walk through the mountains as far as San Francisco and secretly view it [12].
In October 1809 the 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 its settlement there with its own funds, without the help of the treasury.
While the government was deciding the question of the Russian colonization of California, A. A. Baranov in January 1811 sent a second expedition there on the ship "Chirikov" under the leadership of I. A. Kuskov. The latter was instructed to continue exploring the shores of New Albion, look for a place for Russian settlement and engage in the fur trade. "Chirikov" returned from sailing in July of the same year. As before, Bodega Bay (north of San Francisco Bay) was recognized as the best place to settle. Most of the time Kuskov was engaged in the hunting of fur animals.
Finally, after receiving government approval for the settlement of the village, 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 schooner Chirikov in February 1812. According to V. Potekhin, the Ross fortress was founded on May 15, 1812 [13]. By the end of August, the place was surrounded by a palisade, two two-story towers were erected, on August 30, on the day of the namesake of Emperor Alexander I, the flag was raised and a salute was made from cannons and rifles [14]. From that time on, the Russians firmly settled in California, and the commercial and agricultural development of this region began.
In the first years after this event, in addition to the stockade, the ruler's house, barracks, storerooms, workshops were built. A bathhouse, a tannery, a windmill, and a cattle yard were built outside the walls of the fortress. Later, a shipyard arose at the fortress, where small ships for the colonial flotilla were built.
The colony was headed by a ruler. The first ruler from 1812 to 1821 was I. A. Pieces. In 1821-1824. this position was held by K. I. Schmidt. In the years 1824-1830. - Pavel Ivanovich Shelekhov. The governor was assisted by clerks. The next step was taken by workers or industrialists. In terms of ethnic composition, the inhabitants of the village of Ross were very diverse. Russians, Aleuts, Eskimos (Kodiaks), Indians (Athapaskans, Tlingits and Californian Indians), and even Polynesians (Hawaiians) and natives of Finland (Finns and Swedes) worked and served in the colony. The total population was small and ranged from 170 to 290 people in different periods [15].
Throughout the entire period of Ross's existence, its territorial status was not determined. The lands on which the Russian fortress was built belonged to the Spaniards, who at first took a neutral attitude towards the Russians. However, since 1815 they began to insist on the elimination of Ross. The main rulers of the colonies were not going to fulfill the requirement of the Spaniards. They understood perfectly well that the Spaniards did not have sufficient strength to somehow threaten the Russian settlement. The ties of the Spanish colonial administration in California with the metropolis were weak, moreover, their struggle for independence began. To all demands to abolish the Ross colony, the Russians responded that they could not do this without the permission of their higher authorities [16].
In the fall of 1815, the Spaniards captured a fishing party of 24 Kodiak Eskimos led by Tarakanov. The incident took place in the area of the San Pedro mission: until 1821, while California belonged to the Spanish crown, Catholic missions operated on its territory. The captives were taken to the mission, where they tried to convert them to Catholicism. Preserved evidence of the martyrdom of one of the party members - a resident of the villages. Kaguyak named Chukagnak, in the baptism of Peter. The only witness to his death, Ivan Kyglai, subsequently escaped from captivity and reached the Ross fortress in 1819. A draft copy of his testimony, which he gave in the presence of two Kodiak translators, written by the hand of the head of the fortress I. A. Kuskov, is kept in the OR RSL [17].
The second source describing these events is a letter from Semyon Yanovsky, who was the Chief Ruler in Alaska in 1819-1821, to the abbot of the Valaam Monastery, Abbot Damaskin dated November 22, 1865 [18]. Yanovsky conveyed the story of the death of Peter-Chukagnak, heard from the lips of "a samovid Aleut, a tortured comrade", apparently Kyglai. The letter contains several differences from the protocol of testimony recorded by Kuskov, and these minor differences in two documentary sources of a different nature - official testimony and memoirs, only prove the truth of what happened - a native of Alaska baptized by Russian missionaries was tortured in a Spanish mission for refusing to accept Catholicism. Martyr Peter Aleut became the first of the Alaska autochthons to be glorified as a saint (1880), and to this day is one of the most revered saints among the Orthodox in Alaska.
Some researchers express doubts about the truth of I. Kyglai's testimonies, since they met a political order and were used in polemics with Spain [19]. There is an assumption that Kyglai's testimony could have been fabricated, since they are not confirmed by other sources, and the behavior of the Spanish missionary described in them was not typical of Catholics. But in his actions you can find much similar to the methods of the Inquisition, the activities of which 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 in 1815 [20]. It was in this year that the Kodiak party workers found themselves in Spanish captivity.
After the proclamation of Mexico's independence in 1821, the new Mexican authorities did not abandon their attempts to get rid of the Russian fortress. In 1822, Mexican Commissioner Fernandez de San Vicente arrived in Ross with his retinue and demanded that the village be abolished. Schmitd, just as before I. A. Kuskov, announced that he could not do this without the permission of his superiors. After imprisonment in 1824-1825. By the Russian-American and Russian-English conventions, Ross's legal status became complicated. According to these conventions, the boundaries of Russian possessions in America were determined, but nothing was said about Ross. He remained in a semi-legal position.
An attempt to secure Ross to the Russian-American company was made by a naval officer and Chief ruler of the Russian colonies in America F. P. Wrangel. In the spring of 1836, returning from Russian America to Russia through Mexico, he visited the capital of this state - Mexico City. There he managed to meet with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico J. Monasterio. As a result of the negotiations, Wrangel was convinced that if Russia recognizes the independence of Mexico, then the government of this country will not only agree to determine the boundaries of Russian possessions in California, but will also allow them to expand by two dozen miles to the north, east and south. However, the tsarist government did not agree to the recognition of Mexico, and the negotiations did not receive their continuation [21].
In the same 1836 the village of Ross was visited by the priest John Benjaminov, an outstanding missionary, the future Saint Innocent. The activities of the Orthodox Church in California prior to the sale of Alaska have so far received very limited literary coverage. Information about the final period of the existence of the Ross fortress can be gleaned from archival documents about the pastoral care of its inhabitants, which we identified in 2012 in Irkutsk and in a number of archival depositories of the United States.
It was found that Priest John Veniaminov attached special 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, Nerchinsk and Yakutsk from August 27, 1831 with a request to go to the Ross fortress "to correct church requirements" has been preserved. The missionary wrote that there is a chapel in a Russian village in California, but it is important that services be held there by an Orthodox priest [22]. This clearly confirms the fact that wherever the priest John Benjamin served, he strove to implement the basic principles of his missionary work. He believed that it is important not only to carry out baptism, but also to constantly take care of the baptized, educate and confirm them in the faith. His request was granted, moreover, the General Board of the RAC assisted him in sending him to California [23]. In California, as well as in Alaska, Father John Veniaminov developed a vigorous activity. In an article on the languages of indigenous peoples in the Russian-American domain, he cited his observations about the Californian Indians.
From the registers of the settlement of Ross discovered recently, it is known that in 1832 90 people were baptized (32 males and 58 females). Among them were only 24 people born in mixed marriages, when the father was Russian and the mother was Creole or Indian. The rest of the baptized were born in marriages between Alaska natives and native Californians - Indian women. Were also baptized 3 people born in marriages where the father was a Yakut. The register also shows that 17 couples were married in 1832. Moreover, all the husbands came from Russia (they were mainly Siberian peasants or bourgeoisie, as well as Yakuts), and the wives were from Creoles or natural Indian women [24].
The famous "Travel Journal" by priest John Veniaminov, which he kept from July 1 to October 13, 1836. According to him, 260 people lived in the village of Ross, of which 120 were Russians. He wrote: “The Ross fortress is a small, but rather well-organized village or village, consisting of 24 houses and several yurts for the Aleuts, 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 time in California, he met with Spanish Catholics at the San Rafael, San Jose, Santa Clara, and San Francisco missions. This, most likely, was due to the constant tense relationship 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 the aborigines 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 fully satisfying the spiritual needs of the flock scattered over a vast territory [26].
Questions of interaction between Orthodox priests, missionaries and Spanish Catholics, as well as employees of the RAC and the Spanish secular authorities, still require additional study. We are interested in the fact that Fr. John Veniaminov visited the village of Ross at a time when it was supposed to be in an extremely difficult financial condition and proposals were made for its possible sale. Meanwhile, we do not find any statements about the possibility of liquidating the Ross fortress and its disastrous state in the surviving documents.
The last time the missionary visited the village of Ross was in 1838, on his way to St. Petersburg, where he was heading with a new missionary development project in new territories. He stayed in the capital from June 1839 to early January 1841. [27] - just at the time when the question of the sale of the Ross fortress was decided in the Main Board of the RAC. The directors of the RAC 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 would have been done without studying the opinion of the American missionary, because on December 15, 1840 he was consecrated bishop of Kamchatka, Kuril and Aleutian Islands, and if Ross were left under the jurisdiction of the RAC, this Russian settlement would become part of its missionary territory [28]. When a new diocese was formed, its territorial boundaries were specially stipulated. The established Kamchatka diocese was huge and especially difficult to manage, and if it included the village of Ross, it would have direct contact with heterodox confessions, and this, in turn, would require expanding the functional tasks of the diocese and their special state comprehension. Emperor Nicholas I personally took part in the decision on the consecration of Father John Veniaminov to the episcopate to serve in Alaska, and thus, as it were, designated it as a sphere of special spiritual interests of the Russian Orthodox Church. The issue with California was more complicated. It seems that even then the General Board of the company and St. Innocent could discuss this issue. After all, the new bishop, possessing all the talents for preaching Orthodoxy in new territories, could successfully apply his knowledge of the translation of Holy Scripture in California as well.
Apparently, the question of the fate of Ross was decided at a meeting of the Main Board of the RAC on November 16, 1838. The directors referred to the report of the Chief Ruler of the colonies, IA Kupreyanov, dated April 12, 1838, which, by the way, did not say anything about the uselessness, loss of value, or uselessness of Ross, but stated only the cessation of the sea beaver fishing and the lack of workers [29]. Despite this, the directors interpreted it in their own way and argued that "the benefits derived from Ross for the colonies and the Russian-American company in general are absolutely negligible and far from commensurate with the sacrifices that are made to maintain settlement."
In January 1839 g. An agreement was signed between the Russian-American company and the English Hudson's Bay Company (KGZ) on the transfer of the latter to the lease of the mouth of the Stakhin (Stikhin) River. The British were obliged to pay 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 General Board of the Russian-American Company petitioned the government to abolish Fort Ross. The board of the company considered economic factors to be the main reasons for the liquidation of the Russian settlement in California: an increase in maintenance costs with a decrease in income from agriculture and crafts. In support of their words, the directors of the company cited some figures that, in their opinion, testify to the unprofitability of Ross. The report indicated that for the period from 1825 to 1829, Ross' maintenance cost an average of 45 thousand rubles annually. 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 data from the 1820s. At the same time, the data for a later period, when there was an increase in the harvest, were not taken into account at all.
In April 1839, the government obtained permission to abolish the Russian fortress and settlement in California. The report of the Russian-American Company specified the official reasons for the abandonment of the Russian colony in California. First, it was stated that in Ross it was not possible to develop agriculture on the scale that was planned when the colony was established. Arable land and meadows were located near the sea and in mountainous areas. Sea fogs and mountainous terrain "hindered the ripening of the harvest." Second, the cost of maintaining Ross grew steadily, while the income from his activities declined. In 1837, due to the strengthening of the garrison, expenses increased to 72 thousand rubles, and revenues amounted to 8 thousand rubles (all from agriculture), while the fishing of sea animals ceased. Third, after smallpox raged in the Kodiak department in 1838–1839, the Russian colonial administration was forced to remove about 60 adults from Kodiak Island from Ross in order to make up for the population decline. To continue Ross's activities, it was necessary to hire "Russian workers." This would lead to additional costs [32].
As a result of the analysis of the documents at our disposal, we can conclude that, indeed, if the fishing activity of Ross initially developed successfully, then the income of the RAC from hunting for fur sharply decreased. So, in the early years of the colony's existence, it was possible to catch more than 200 sea beavers (sea otters) annually. But already in the first half of the 1820s, only 20-30 sea otters were harvested annually.
But the situation with agriculture was completely different. Initially, the colonists grew only garden crops (beets, turnips, radishes, peas, beans, potatoes). Since the 1820s, the main focus has been on animal husbandry and arable farming. So, if by the end of the reign of I. A. Kuskov in Ross there were: 21 horses, 149 heads of cattle, 698 sheep, 159 pigs, then by 1830 the livestock increased sharply. There were 253 horses, 521 cattle, 614 sheep, and 106 pigs. Cattle breeding provided not only meat supplied to 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 the colonies with bread worried the Main Board in St. Petersburg practically from the moment the RAC was formed. In 1830, the chief accountant of the State Enterprise of the RAC N. P. Bokovikov wrote to the ruler of the Novo-Arkhangelsk office of the RAC and to his friend K. T. Khlebnikov: “Rezanov discovered in California an inexhaustible source of bread, according to the opinion of the time, with which they thought to feed their colonies forever…. Meanwhile, the Californian source of bread has long dried up, and there is nothing to talk about expeditions, so much money has been spent on them beyond the need for no benefit or purpose that it would have been enough for them to make the same highway from Yakutsk to the Sea of Okhotsk as is done from St. Petersburg to Moscow” [33].
In the same lengthy letter, Bokovikov noted that direct costs for one round-the-world expedition reached 300 thousand rubles. The RAC SE wrote off these costs as markups for goods delivered from Okhotsk. In the opinion of the chief accountant, this could not last long and a different solution had to be found.
At the same time, Khlebnikov himself, in his "Notes on the Colony in America", recognized the successes in agriculture: "Kuskov made the beginning … Schmitt intensified agriculture … Shelekhov extended 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. Only about 100 poods of wheat and barley were removed annually in Kuskovo. Under Schmidt, about 1800 poods of grain were harvested annually. Under the ruler P. I. Shelekhovo agriculture reached the level of 4500 poods of grain per year [35]. In the 1830s, under the ruler P. S. Kostromitinov (1830-1838) there was an expansion of the cultivated areas. F. P. Wrangel in 1832 reported with satisfaction to the Main Board: "the wheat harvest … now was quite good … The cattle breeding of the village of Ross is also being bred in good condition and with success" [36]. At this time, the so-called ranches were founded - separate farms (farms) on the fertile lands to the south and east of the Ross fortress. In total, three ranches were founded, named after the names of the company's figures: Khlebnikov's ranch, Kostromitinov's ranch and the Chernykh ranch.
Separately, it should be said about Yegor Leontyevich Chernykh. He received his special education at the school of the Moscow Society of Agriculture and was 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 to P. S. Kostromitinova. Thanks to the efforts of E. L. Black farming in Russian California was further developed. At his insistence, plowing of the land began to be carried out not on horses, but on stronger bulls. He designed and built a "threshing machine", purchased seeds of the best wheat from Chile [38]. The sowing of new areas has led to an increase in the harvest of grain.
According to the report of Kupreyanov on April 29, 1839, the export of grain in 1838 reached a record figure of 9, 5 thousand poods [39]. It is worth noting here that the annual needs of the Russian colonies in America in the same period amounted to about 15 thousand poods of grain [40]. That is, Ross covered two-thirds of all needs. In addition, if we take into account that the income from agriculture in the 1820s, when the maximum amount of 4, 5 thousand poods of grain was collected, amounted to 9 thousand rubles, then in 1838, when 9, 5 thousand poods of grain were collected, it was supposed to be twice as much, that is, about 18 thousand rubles. But the official papers featured negligible amounts of income (3 thousand rubles), while expenses, on the contrary, were indicated as very large (tens of thousands of rubles) [41]. According to some researchers, it was in the 30s. XIX century. California becomes the main grain market for Russian America [42]. Moreover, as J. Sutter noted: “Wheat, oats, vegetables grew on Russian farms in California, where they also kept cattle … The inhabitants of Russian Alaska were so dependent on what they produced in California that milk that came into their homes the main ruler in Novo-Arkhangelsk was obtained from cows that ate hay obtained from California”[43].
Thus, an analysis of the available documents allows us to note a clear contradiction between the official reasons for the abolition of the fortress and the village of Ross with the actual state of affairs. Harvests in the vicinity of the Russian colony in California grew from year to year, as did grain deliveries to Novo-Arkhangelsk, although the directors of the RAC assured the Russian government of the opposite. Probably, the solution to the issue with this contradiction in the reports can be sought in the very "extra charges" that Bokovikov wrote about back in 1830, for example, for organizing the transportation of grain from California to Novo-Arkhangelsk, or even for round-the-world expeditions.
It took several years for Ross to be abolished. In 1840, the Russian-American Company removed 120 of its employees from California, as well as most of its movable property. The cattle were slaughtered and also taken to Novo-Arkhangelsk. In September 1841, a buyer was found for the real estate. It was a Mexican citizen of Swiss origin, John Sutter (Sutter), who founded his colony "New Helvetia" in California [44]. He agreed to buy all the remaining property for 30 thousand piastres (42857 rubles, 14 kopecks in silver) with payment in installments for four years, starting in 1842. A formal agreement with him was signed in December 1841. For the first two years, Sutter was obliged to pay the debt not in money, but in supplies and food in the amount of 5 thousand piastres annually. In the third year, he also had to pay in supplies in the amount of 10 thousand piastres. And in the last fourth year, he was obliged to pay the remaining amount (10 thousand piastres) in cash. An important condition was that until the entire debt was paid to the Russian-American company, Sutter could not dispose of his property in New Helvetia, valued at 145 thousand silver rubles [45].
The question of Sutter's payment of money for Ross in historiography still remains unresolved. The collective "History of Russian America" states that in the "set time frame" J. Sutter "did not pay his debt for Ross" [46]. An article by the American scientist B. Dmitrishin says the following: “No one knows for sure how much of the 30 thousand money and products the Russian-American company received from Sutter” [47]. In the introduction to the collection of documents “Russia in California” it is said: “However, having sold Ross, the Company during the 1840s was not able to get full payment from Sutter (the unpaid balance was 28 thousand piastres)” [48]. A. V. Grinev, apparently relying on the biographical dictionary of R. Peirce, noted: “Sutter never paid off the RAC, since gold was found on his lands on January 24, 1848, and the gold rush that began put the entrepreneur on the brink of ruin: in 1852 he went bankrupt”[49].
However, studying the balance sheets of the company and comparing them with other sources allows you to correct the established point of view. Indeed, Sutter was unable to pay the debt on time. Crop failures and the outbreak of war between the United States and Mexico prevented. For the billing period (1842-1845), only a quarter of the debt, that is, 7, 5 thousand piastres, was paid to them in goods and supplies. However, since Sutter was also obliged to pay for the transportation of the goods, and he did not do this, since the products were exported on the ships of the RAC and by the company's forces, by the end of the payment period his debt remained practically unchanged. And taking into account the accrued interest, it even increased slightly. In the balance sheet of the Russian-American Company for 1846, Sutter had a debt in the amount of 43,227 rubles 7 kopecks in silver. The Russian-American company was not particularly worried about Sutter not fulfilling his duties. The RAC had pledged the property of this Californian entrepreneur in New Helvetia [50].
After the accession of Upper California to the United States in 1848, the Russian-American company renewed its claims against the now American citizen Sutter. In 1849, at the request of the company, he paid 15 thousand piastres, which were issued not in goods, but in 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: “The company cannot incur any losses from the installment plan and, in general, the slowness of paying this debt, because, by the force of the contract concluded with Sutter, he is obliged to pay not only interest, but also part of the costs that the company had, when sending their ships in this case to California, and the colonial authorities were ordered,when collecting a debt from Sutter, be guided without derogation by the terms of the contract”[51].
In 1850, the colonial authorities sent to California the assistant to the ruler of the Novo-Arkhangelsk office, V. I. Ivanova. He was instructed to collect the remainder of the debt from Sutter. Ivanov managed to recover 7 thousand piastres. The remaining amount of 7,997 rubles 72 kopecks (or about 5, 6 thousand piastres) was to be received by the Russian vice-consul Stuart appointed in San Francisco [52]. Subsequent company reports say nothing about Sutter's debt. It is worth noting, however, that a separate column called "debt for the village of Ross", which was invariably present in all previous balance sheets, disappeared from the short balance sheet of the company for 1851.
Thus, for the period 1842-1850. according to the reports of the Russian-American company, Sutter paid at least 29.5 thousand piastres for the village of Ross, which is almost the entire debt for the village of Ross that he bought. Note that he paid most of the debt in gold, and not in products and goods, as indicated in the contract. Paying in gold was apparently more profitable for the Russian-American company, since it received food from the Hudson's Bay Company.
However, let's return to the reasons for the sale of the Russian colony in California. The official reasons for the sale, set out in the report of the Russian-American company, immediately began to dominate in historiography. The historian PA Tikhmenev wrote in his major monograph: “the settlement of [Fort Ross - AE, MK, AP] was only a heavy burden for the colonies. It demanded the fragmentation of the colonial forces, the relocation of a significant part of the Aleut parties and, finally, increased expenditures, without promising any hope of a satisfactory reward in the future. " Thus, he considered economic factors to be central to the liquidation of the colony. True, at the same time, Tikhmenev also pointed out some political circumstances, in particular, the uncertainty of the status of the colony. After the mission of Baron F. P. 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 a 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 off the debts for the buildings he bought [53].
Approximately the same reasoning is given by the Soviet historian S. B. Perch. He wrote: “The Ross colony has always brought the company nothing but losses. 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 the 90s. of the last century, the priorities were set differently. This was done by Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences N. N. Bolkhovitinov. He wrote that although the government of the RAC in the first place put forward economic factors as the liquidation of the village of Ross, 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's Bay Company, thanks to which the RAC began to receive food from the British [55].
Somewhat later, N. N. Bolkhovitinov published a selection of documents concerning the liquidation of Ross. The centerpiece of it was the contract itself between the Russian-American company and the Hudson's Bay Company. In his opinion, “the main reason for the decision to liquidate the Russian colony in California was the contract between the RAC and the KGZ, concluded by F. P. Wrangel and George Simpson in Hamburg at the beginning of 1839, which not only settled old differences, but also created the basis for successful cooperation between the two companies in the future”[56].
The work "Russia in California" expresses a similar point of view: "The colony was not only unprofitable, but also a geopolitical" stumbling block ". Both the Spaniards and the Mexicans were against her. An attempt by F. P. Wrangel's agreement with the Mexican authorities in Mexico City itself (1836) was not successful due to the limited powers of his and the unwillingness of Nicholas I to go for the diplomatic recognition of Mexico for Ross, which would mean a precedent of great importance for Russian foreign policy. The 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 Internet publications, they also write about the alleged "terrible loss of Fort Ross" [59].
So, in historiography, the opinion was established that the reasons for the sale of Ross were economic factors (the unprofitable colony) and political circumstances (uncertainty of status and rapprochement with the British). The only differences are that some researchers consider the main economic reasons (P. A. Tikhmenev, S. B. Okun '), others - political (N. N. Bolkhovitinov).
It seems that the agreement between the Russian-American company and the Hudson's Bay Company may serve more as a consequence than as a reason for the sale of Ross. However, for a comprehensive study of this issue, new sources should be more actively used, especially those related to the negotiations between the KGZ and the RAC. But today we have a very limited range of archival materials that do not give a complete picture of the negotiations. Both companies have interacted with each other for a long time. Moreover, their relationship was sometimes quite tense. Scientists studying this problem came to the conclusion that food supplies through the KGZ were less beneficial for the RAC than obtaining agricultural products from California [60]. No irrefutable documents that the reason for the sale of Ross was the conclusion of an agreement with the British have not yet been revealed. The Russian side was aware of the inevitable American expansion to the west coast, which was repeatedly warned by the Russian envoy to Washington A. A. Bodisko. Ironically, five years after the sale of Ross, KGZ cut off food supplies to the RAC.
So, what did V. S. Zavoiko to his interlocutor M. S. Korsakov regarding the reasons for the sale of Ross? First of all, V. S. Zavoiko said that "this was the case of Wrangel, the former director of the Russian-American Company." Probably, it meant that it was F. P. Wrangel, who, however, was not a director, but an adviser on colonial affairs under the Main Board, was the main initiator and conductor of the entire process of liquidating the Russian colony in California. Further, Zavoiko said literally the following: “the sovereign more than once told the directors that he would not render any assistance to them in this settlement, and if an unpleasant collision with any of the foreigners happened through this settlement, he would not start a war with anyone because of the company. ". Thus, Ross was always, as it were, outside the diplomatic field of the Russian state, which handed over the initiative to the Russian-American company, giving it the right to establish and maintain a village in California, but not to involve it in this government. Zavoiko went on to say that at first bread in Ross was “born with success,” but then suddenly the colony began to bring losses. It turned out that "the chiefs of the Ross fortress, sent there from the company, announcing to the company that they had no bread, sold a lot of bread to the side and enriched themselves" (our emphasis - 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 Sutter profitably" turned up, which was done [61].
If many researchers wrote about the lack of government support in securing Ross for the Russian-American company, then the accusations made by Zavoiko against the rulers of Ross are quite unexpected. It turns out that the unprofitableness of the Russian village in California was only on paper. In reality, the colony brought 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 leveled at the "last rulers" of this Russian fortress are too serious to be accepted unquestioningly. Maybe V. S. Was Zavoyko wrong? In the text of the diary of M. S. Korsakov, there is no information on what Zavoiko based his belief on. He referred only to the fact that Ross had visited the Chief Ruler I. A. Kupreyanov, who became convinced of the unprofitableness of the colony. But, considering that V. S. Zavoiko was a close relative of one of the main rulers of the colonies F. P. Wrangel and knew the affairs of the Russian-American company well, since he held a high position as head of the trading post, then one can take his words seriously.
Zavoiko did not name the specific names of those responsible for the theft of bread. It is known that I. A. Kupreyanov on the ship "Nikolai" 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 the visit to Ross by Kupreyanov, 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 heads of the colony.
In 1837, the cost of maintaining the colony amounted to 72 thousand rubles, of which 31 thousand went to the salaries of employees. Probably, it was these impressive figures that served as the reason for the dismissal of PS Kostromitinov. But that didn't solve the problem. Under 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 may have existed only on paper.
Thus, indirect evidence suggests that abuse may have occurred. For further study of this issue, it is necessary to find confirmation 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-Théodore Laplace. In the notes published later, he spoke very warmly about the ruler of the colony Rotchev and the riches that he happened to see in Ross. According to Laplace, the Russian colony in California was "founded in 1812 with the sole purpose of supplying the northwestern possessions with bread, garden plants, all possible supplies for the table, and finally corned beef." Seeing "many barrels of corned beef …, butter, eggs, cheeses or cabbage, carrots, turnips, melons, carefully sealed and prepared for transportation to their destination" established [65].
Having visited one of the agricultural ranches, Laplace wrote with admiration: “I saw a spacious barn filled with excellent cows, whose milk was transformed in a special room, protected from the searing winds, into butter and cheese for the table of the highest authorities in Novo-Arkhangelsk. I was in a completely European farm: I saw barns filled with grain and potatoes; yards with many well-fed pigs; sheepfolds with sheep, from whose wool Mr. Rotchev soon expected a new branch of industry; chickens and some further geese and ducks splashing in a puddle”[66]. Maybe from all this wealth and variety of food products, not all of them got into the colony, but some went "to the side". Let us recall that according to official data, it was during this period that the 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 get to the bottom of the true reasons for the sale of the colony. In his notes, he made a completely reasonable conclusion: "In truth, the incidents revealed in the company's actions both myopia in relation to the interests of both Russia and its own, and the lack of activity in its enterprises." Then he expressed another curious thought regarding the reasons for the elimination of Ross. Analyzing the circumstances of the conclusion of the agreement between the RAC and the KGZ in 1839, he wrote: “Finally, Bodego Bay itself was sacrificed to the demands of the Hudsonbey Company, dissatisfied with the prosperity of Ross and the development of Russian-Californian trade to the detriment of English merchants. Fortifications, farms, shops, houses, cultivated fields, numerous herds of cattle and herds of horses, everything that I shortly before pointed out as a source of wealth, all this was sold for an insignificant amount”[67]. Here we see a direct hint that the English Hudson's Bay Company was interested in the abolition of Ross, promising to supply the Russian colonies in Alaska with food. Indeed, Ross was a competitor to the KGZ. His absence made the RAC dependent on British food supplies. The liquidation of Ross allowed the British company to gain a reliable market for its agricultural products.
Arguing further about Ross and the Russian-American company, Laplace asked a quite reasonable question: "how to reconcile Mr. Rotchev's comments on the wisdom and ability of his bosses" with their real actions, which made the company dependent on its competitors (KGZ), which should to supply the colonies with food? He could find nothing else to justify but to accuse the directors of the RAC. Laplace wrote: “Therefore, we must certainly look for the reason for everything I have said solely in the drowsiness of the directors in St. Petersburg. This is an ordinary consequence of large profits obtained without labor and risk through a monopoly and under the protection of power”[68].
Here it is worth paying attention to the last ruler of Ross A. G. Rotchev. He was different from all the previous rulers of the colony, who all, except K. I. Schmidt, represented the merchant class. Rotchev came from an intelligent family, his father was a sculptor. Alexander Gavrilovich himself since childhood was fond of literature, art, poetry. From an early age, he began to try his hand at writing: he wrote poetry, translated foreign authors. In 1828, against the will of the bride's parents, he married Princess Elena Pavlovna Gagarina, who secretly fled from home and married him in Mozhaisk. According to the memoirs of D. Zavalishin, the marriage of "Princess Gagarina with the unknown 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 a copyist, translated texts into foreign languages, tried to publish his works for royalties. In 1835, in order to solve his financial problems, he joined the Russian-American Company. Together with his family, he left for Russian America, where he first took the position of assistant (official at special assignment) under the Chief Ruler, and then became the boss of Ross [70]. Thus, if we pay attention to the circumstances of the appearance of A. G. Rotchev in California, it can be seen that he apparently had a motive for abuse and selling bread to the side.
Already after the abolition of Ross A. G. Rotchev began to actively criticize the Russian-American company in the press, accusing it of short-sightedness and hasty departure from California. For example, one of his critical notes appeared in the "Journal for Shareholders" for 1857. Rotchev wrote: "The company's California holdings were not at all dreamy, and with the slightest persistence and confidence in its actions, the company had every opportunity to expand these holdings and move from bare cliffs to the fat arable land of this perhaps grain-growing region in the world." Further, he made the following conclusion: “It is better to end the sad polemic with the conviction that the Russian person is not capable of creating colonies, and speaking from this beginning, the blunder of the Russian-American company is also explained” [71]. Note that Rotchev's position regarding the leadership of the Russian-American company has changed diametrically. In conversations with Laplace, when the fortress and the village of Ross were still under the control of the RAC, he spoke of the "wisdom" and "ability" of his superiors, and after the sale of the colony, he sharply criticized them.
Returning to the diary of M. S. Korsakov, let us pay attention to his personal reasoning about the fate of Ross. The future governor-general of Eastern Siberia noted the following: “Still, Wrangel is very wrong. His fault was that swindlers were appointed by the chiefs of Ross, and if he had already decided to sell it [the fortress - A. P., M. K., A. E.], then first he should, through experienced people, make sure of the convenience and growth of the soil of the land … Now it is clear that the research would have entailed the discovery of gold, which is currently being mined there in abundance … The main reason for the sale, I think … did not have the courage to continue what was started, providing himself with good management and strict supervision of the settlers from unpleasant clashes with foreigners " [72].
And finally, a few considerations regarding the financial and economic activities of the Russian-American Company (RAC FHD) and Ross. When determining the unprofitability or profitability of this Russian settlement in California, researchers are guided by information gleaned from the known and partially published reports of the State Enterprise of the RAC. There are clearly not enough reports on the FHD of the rulers of Ross.
If we analyze the financial and economic activities of the RAC from 1835 to 1841, we can find that the company actively pursued a policy of reducing the cost of maintaining the colonies [73]. At the same time, only in 1835. the profit amounted to more than 1,170,000 rubles. The development of "arable farming in Ross" was especially emphasized. At the same time, the financial condition of Ross does not belong to problem articles, or "incurred misunderstandings." Debit items exceeded 6 million rubles. The company had sufficient reserves to support Ross without any tangible losses for shareholders [74]. 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 on the Aleutian Islands there was doubtful capital worth more than 200 thousand rubles. At the same time, in the balance sheet of the company for 1838, in the section "credit", a separate line in the item "on the account of the maintenance of the colonies" was allocated not to the costs of the village and the fortress of Ross, but to "expeditions to California." The total amount of the article was more than 680 thousand rubles [75]. The sale of Ross for a little more than 40 thousand rubles did not lead to an improvement in the state of the RAC, while the increase in the company's assets and the peak of its well-being fell on the early 1850s. and was due to other reasons [76]. But it was at that time that Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich Romanov subjected the activities of the RAC to devastating criticism, which culminated in the sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867.
Summing up 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 Innokenty Veniaminov in California was intensified. Therefore, the official version of Ross's loss seems to be untenable. Who personally was behind the decision to liquidate it remains to be seen. To date, it is clear from indirect sources that A. G. Rotchev, possibly sending his messages directly to the directors of the RAC, bypassing the main ruler of the colonies. This laid down on fertile ground, since the directors of the RAC were concerned about solving the issue of writing off debts and expenses on problem items. For this reason, part of the cost of a round-the-world expedition could simply be written off to the maintenance of Ross. It was impossible to speak aloud about the unprofitableness of the expeditions. This would mean jeopardizing the state interested in the presence of the Russian fleet in the Pacific Ocean. Before announcing the decision to sell Ross, it was necessary to decide on the supply of food to Alaska. It was resolved by concluding an agreement between the RAC and the KGZ. But this agreement was more a consequence than a reason for the decision to sell Ross.
Researchers of the history of the fortress and the village of Ross still have many questions, including the position of F. P. Wrangel, who first wanted to secure the colony for Russia, and then changed his point of view. It seems that the search and introduction of new archival materials into scientific circulation will help to answer these and other questions.
On a geopolitical scale, the withdrawal from California was the first step in Russia's withdrawal from the American continent. With the sale of Ross, the time for discovering and developing new territories in the North Pacific and conducting new business methods is almost over. Perhaps this was meant by M. S. Korsakov, when he wrote that Fort Ross was sold, because "the courage did not have enough to continue what was started …" [77].
[1] The article was prepared in the framework of the exploratory research work for the implementation of the federal target program "Scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel of innovative Russia" for 2009-2013.
[2] The main directions of the authors' research are outlined 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, No. 12, 2011. In 2012, international conferences dedicated to the 200th anniversary of Fort Ross were held as part of the Russian Federation events dedicated to the Year of History. For more details see: A. Yu. Petrov, Ermolaev A. N., Korsun S. A., Saveliev I. In 200 years of the Russian fortress settlement on the American Continent // Bulletin 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 the famous relatives of Mikhail Semenovich left behind a great epistolary legacy. In the department of manuscripts of the Russian State Library, the collection of the Korsakov family comprises 4, 4 thousand files with a total volume of more than 90 thousand sheets. A noticeable share of this fund is made up of the diaries and travel notes of Mikhail Semenovich, who later became Governor-General of Eastern Siberia. His handwritten legacy has not yet been published. Only recently have there been reviews of his memoir work. See, for example: Matkhanova N. P. Siberian diaries and letters of M. S. Korsakov: family traditions and regional features // Adaptation mechanisms and practices in traditional and transforming societies: the experience of the development of Asian Russia. Novosibirsk, 2008. S. 32–34. In this article, the diary of M. S. Korsakov is being studied for the first time 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 out in the fundamental work "Russia in California: Russian documents on the Ross colony and Russian-Californian ties, 1803-1850": in 2 volumes / comp. and prepare. A. A. Istomin, J. R. Gibson, V. A. Tishkov. Vol. 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 identified, which are first introduced into scientific circulation in this article.
[6] History of Russian America (1732-1867): In 3 volumes / Ed. N. N. Bolkhovitinov. 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. vol. 2. P. 192.
[7] Ibid. P. 200.
[8] More details about this journey of N. P. Rezanov, see: B. Voyage of the sloop "Juno" to California, 1806 // American Yearbook 2006 / Ed. ed. N. N. Bolkhovitinov. M., 2008. S. 154-179. Translation with comments by A. Yu. Petrov.
[9] History of Russian America. T. 2.. pp. 100–105.
[10] To the chief ruler of the Russian-American colonies Baranov from Rezanov, secretly, July 20, 1806 // AVPRI. F. 161. St. Petersburg Gl. archive. I – 7. Op. 6. D. 1. P. 37. L. 385 rev.
[11] The misadventures of the expedition members were described by T. Tarakanov and published in the processing of V. M. Golovnin. See: The wreck of the Russian-American company of the ship "St. Nicholas" … // Golovnin V. M. Compositions. M., 1949. S. 457-570.
[12] History of Russian America. T. 2. M. S. 210.
[13] Potekhin V. Selenie Ross. SPb., 1859. S. 10.
[14] History of Russian America. T. 2. P. 217.
[15] Ibid. P. 248.
[16] History of Russian America. T. 2. P. 227–239.
[17] Testimony of the Kodiak party worker Ivan Kyglai about the capture by the Spaniards in 1815 of the RAC fishing detachment in California, about the Spanish captivity, the death of the Kodiak resident Chukagnak (St. Peter Aleut) and his flight to the island of Ilmenu. Ross, May 1819 // Russia in California. T. 1. S. 318-319.
[18] Essay on the history of the American Orthodox Spiritual Mission (Kodiak Mission 1794-1837). Saint Petersburg: Valaam Monastery, 1894, p. 143-144.
[19] History of Russian America. T. 2. P. 235.
[20] Medina J. T. Historia del Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición en México. México, 1954, R. 384-385.
[21] Shur L. A. To the shores of the New World. From unpublished notes of Russian travelers of the early 19th century. M., 1971, pp. 265–269.
[22] Petition of the Unalashkinskaya Ascension Church of the priest John Veniaminov to the Bishop of Irkutsk, Nerchinsk and Yakutsk. No. 147. August 27, 1831 // 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. November 25, 1832 // GAIO. F. 50. Op. 1. D. 4218. L. 167-167ob.
[24] See, for example: Metric sheet about the number of Holy Peace anointed of both sexes in the Novorossiysk village of Ross, October 3 days 1832 // Seminary Archives about Kodiak; 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 in the Ross fortress is in the process of being developed and will soon be introduced into scientific circulation.
[25] Russia in California. T. 2. S. 217-219.
[26] Metropolitan Klimmet (Kapalin) Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska before 1917, M., 2009. P. 133.
[27] During this period, he also visited Moscow, Kiev and Voronezh.
[28] Metropolitan Klimet (Kapalin) decree. Op. S. 141-145.
[29] Report to I. A. Kupreyanov to the Main Board of the RAC, April 12, 1838 // Russian-American Company and the Study of the Pacific North, 1815-1841. Sat. documents. M., 2005. S. 355
[30] Contract between the Russian-American Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, January 25 (February 6) 1839 // AVPRI. F. CANCER. Op. 888, file 351, sheets 215–221 rev. The text of the contract, as well as the correspondence associated with this contract, was published by N. N. Bolkhovitinov (see: Contract of the Russian-American Company (RAC) with the Hudson's Bay Company (KGZ) dated January 25 (February 6), 1839 and the liquidation of the Ross colonies in California // American Yearbook, 2002. Moscow, 2004. 279-290).
[31] Report of the Main Board of the RAC to E. F. Kankrinu, March 31, 1839 // Russian-American Company and the Study of the Pacific North, 1815-1841. Sat. documents. M., 2005. S. 380.
[32] Report of the Russian-American Company of the Main Board for two years, until January 1, 1842, St. Petersburg, 1842, pp. 60–61.
[33] P. Bokovikov - K. T. Khlebnikov, April 18, 1830 // State Archives of the Perm Region (GAPO) f. 445. Op. 1. D. 151. L. 73–81 rev.
[34] Russia in California. T. 2. P. 151–152.
[35] K. Khlebnikov's notes about America // Materials for the history of Russian settlements along the shores of the Eastern Ocean. Issue 3. Appendix to the Marine Collection. SPb., 1861. S. 150-157.
[36] F. P. Wrangel - GP RAC, November 10, 1832 // Russia in California. T. 2. P. 73–74.
[37] For more information about the Blacks, see: History of Russian America. T. 3. P. 218. Russia in California. T. 1. P. 68–70; Gibson J. R. A Kamchatkan Agronomist in California: the Reports of Yegor Leontyevich Chernykh (1813–1843) // Russian Discovery of America. Collection of articles dedicated to the 70th anniversary of Academician Nikolai Nikolaevich Bolkhovitinov. M., 2002. S. 425–436.
[38] Peru E. L. Chernykh owns special work on agriculture in Ross. See: Chernykh E. On the state of agriculture in the village of Ross, in California // Agricultural journal. 1837. No. 6. P. 343–345; Chernykh E. Letter from California from Mr. Chernykh about agriculture in the village. Ross // Russian Farmer. M., 1838. Part 1. January. S. 116-117.
[39] History of Russian America. T. 3. P. 218.
[40] Gibson J. R. Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The Changing Geography of Supply of Russian America, 1784-1867. N. Y. 1976. P. 50 (table 5).
[41] Istomin A. A. Leaving of Russia from California // Russia in California. Russian documents on the Ross colony and Russian-Californian ties, 1803-1850. T. 1. M., 2005. S. 103, 105.
[42] Gibson J. Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The changing Geography of Russian America, 1784-1867. N. Y. 1976. P. 185, 189. Vinkovetsky I. Russian America. An overseas Colony of a Continetal empire, 1804-1867. N. Y. 2011. P. 91.
[43] Hurtado A. John Sutter. A Life on the American Frontier. Norman, 2006. P. 59.
[44] The most complete and detailed studies devoted to J. Sutter are monographs by American scientists K. Owens and A. Hurtado. See: OwensK. John Sutter and a wider West. Lincoln, 2002, Hurtado A. Op.cit. P. 59–61.
[45] Report of the Russian-American Company of the Main Board for two years, until January 1, 1842 St. Petersburg, 1842, p. 61
[46] History of Russian America. T. 3. M., 1999. S. 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 70th anniversary of Academician Nikolai Nikolaevich Bolkhovitinov. M., 2002. S. 426.
[48] Russia in California. Russian documents on the Ross colony and Russian-Californian ties, 1803-1850. T. 1. P. 108.
[49] Pierce R. Russian America. A Biographical Dictionary. Kingston, 1990. P. 495, Grinev A. V. Who's Who in the History of Russian America. Encyclopedic dictionary-reference. M., 2009. S. 516.
[50] Report of the Russian-American Company of the Main Board for one year, up to January 1, 1847, St. Petersburg, 1847, pp. 6–7, 22–24;
[51] Report of the Russian-American Company to the General Management Board for one year, through January 1, 1849. SPb., 1849. S. 34.
[52] Report of the Main Board of the RAC for 1850. SPb., 1851. S. 25, Appendix No. 1. Brief balance sheet of the RAC to January 1, 1851
[53] Tikhmenev P. A. Historical review of the formation of the Russian-American company and its activities to date. Part 1. St. Petersburg, 1861, pp. 364–367.
[54] Okun S. B. Russian-American company. M.-L., 1939. S. 141.
[55] Bolkhovitinov N. N. Russian-American Relations and the Sale of Alaska, 1834-1867. M., 1990. S. 37–44; History of Russian America. T. 3. P. 226–227.
[56] The contract of the Russian-American Company (RAC) with the Hudson's Bay Company (KGZ) dated January 25 (February 6) 1839 and the liquidation of the Ross colony in California / Publ. prepared by N. N. Bolkhovitinov // American Yearbook 2002. 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. P. 104.
[58] Ibid. T. 2. P. 303.
[59] See, for example: P. Deinichenko. The California Dream // Book Review.
[60] History of Russian America. T. 3. P. 173.
[61] Diary of M. S. Korsakov. Stay in the port of Ayan // OR RSL. F. Korsakovs. F. 137. Cardboard 41. Case 10. Sheet 9 ob.
[62] Report to I. A. Kupreyanov to the Main Board of the RAC, April 12, 1838 // Russian-American Company and the Study of the Pacific North, 1815-1841. Sat. documents. M., 2005. S. 355
[63] Pierce R. Russian America. A Biographical Dictionary. P. 429-431.
[64] Russia in California. T. 1. P. 103, 105.
[65] Extracts from the notes of Captain Laplace during the voyage on the frigate Artemise 1837–1840 // Materials for the history of Russian settlements along the shores of the Eastern Ocean. Issue 4. SPb., 1861. S. 210.
[66] Ibid. P. 213.
[67] Ibid. P. 215.
[68] Ibid. P.216-217.
[69] Zavalishin D. Memories. M., 2003. S. 48.
[70] History of Russian America. T. 3. M., 1999. S. 219.
[71] Magazine for shareholders. 1857. No. 49. From December 5.
[72] Diary of M. S. Korsakov. Stay in the port of Ayan // OR RSL. F. Korsakovs. F. 137. Cardboard 41. Case 10. Sheet 10 rev.
[73] Petrov A. Yu. Russian-American company: activities in the domestic and foreign markets. Moscow, 2006. P. 116–125.
[74] Balance of the RAC for 1835 // RGIAF. 994. Op. 2 D. 861. Sheet 4.
[75] Balance sheet of the Russian-American company for 1838 // RGIA. F. 994. Op. 2. D. 862. L. 1–7.
[76] For more details, see: A. Yu. Petrov. UK. cit., p. 112-311.
[77] Diary of M. S. Korsakov. Stay in the port of Ayan // OR RSL. F. Korsakovs. F. 137. Cardboard 41. D. 10. Sheet 10 rev.
Authors: Petrov Alexander Yurievich - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Metropolitan of Kaluga and Borovsky Kliment (Kapalin) - Candidate of Historical Sciences, 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, Institute of Human Ecology, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
