Answer: It’s one of the big questions: is the path of history driven by vaste macro pressures, or do individuals make huge differences.

In his classic Foundation Sci-fi series Isaac Asimov postulates the possibility that through the Mathematics of Psycho-history the future can be predicted, and influenced / controlled thereby. One of the axioms of Psycho-History is that within a large society there will always be individuals with sufficient smarts, initiative, courage etc. to find the appropriate solutions to impending problems, and take action to address them predictably.

How closely does this reconcile with what we know of history?

In his wonderful book Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind, Yuval Noah Harari has used a satellite big-picture approach to history to show that many trends, such as imperialism and religion are unifying forces that over time inevitably reduce the numerous tribes, city-states and nations of mankind into ever larger fewer groupings. Those interested in these questions may also enjoy CK’s wisdoms on Sapiens available on the Autodidacts Anonymous podcast.

Individuals such as Napoleon and Hitler may appear large on stage at various times, and empires may appear to fall as often as they rise, but overall the inevitable trend is towards greater cultural and political unity. Neither Napoleon nor Hitler united Europe, yet in 2020 Europe is still largely a unified entity, still with multiple different languages, ethnicities, cultures, and national borders, but with far greater commonality, currency and trade unification, and legal and cultural conformities than at any time in history.

So - how much difference do individuals make?

How much are they simply reacting in accordance with the culture, political pressures, and social paradigms of their day, and how much would be so very different had different individuals been involved instead?

Here’s a series of blog articles that look at situations in history where particular individuals appear, at least at first sight, to have made rather important changes to the path of history.

Today’s blog looks at the impact of Bill Seward.

Who, you may ask? Who the heck was Bill Seward and what did he do?

William Seward (preferred name Bill) was the US Secretary of State back in the days of Abraham Lincoln.

Seward was seriously wounded too on the night that President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, which seldom receives much attention in the popular recall of the event.

Fortunately Seward recovered.

And why does this make any difference? What did he do?

He bought Alaska for the USA.

Back then the entire population of the USA was just thirty-five million people, which is roughly equivalent to the population of Texas in 2020. There were vast areas of fertile land available for spreading into (at the cost of the native indians alas) and American interest in the affairs of the world at large were modest. Pretty much no one in the USA had much interest in a disconnected vast cold region of permafrost up the northern end of the continent separated by Canada, specifically British Columbia and the Yukon Territory.

Oil wasn’t a big thing, and the other joys and riches of Alaska were basically unknown and of little interest or appeal.

At the time the Russian monarchy / government needed hard currency (nothing new there). Alaska was just a not particularly useful large piece of land that was cold, uninviting, and undeveloped. Russia had plenty more of that anyway, and it was hard enough to get to without having to cross some very cold and unfriendly water to reach it. There were also some not entirely unreasonable concerns in Russia that the British Empire might just decide to spread out from British Columbia and annex Alaska too. Britain had the world’s most powerful fleet, and land access in North America. Britain might be prepared to fight to save the Falkland Islands from Argentina, but would Russia really want to mount a defence of Alaska? Truly hard to do, and hard to raise the political will to do so.

So Russia was prepared to offer Alaska for sale to America for some hard currency. They figured that the USA could someday be a world power, but it wasn’t an immediate problem, and they figured that the USA could keep it out of the hands of the British. For Russia, it solved a strategic problem, and brought in some hard currency.

But if Bill Seward hadn’t been around, it’s unlikely anyone in America would have had the interest, foresight, and political clout to do anything about it.

As it was Bill Seward as Secretary of State for America, and Alexander Gorchakov, Russian Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs signed off on the sale of Alaska to the USA. In 1867, the two parties agreed that the United States would pay Russia $7.2 million for the territory of Alaska. For less that 2 cents an acre, the United States acquired nearly 600,000 square miles.

They also acquired a lot of oil, in a form and place not easy to access and shift to places that needed it.

And so the USA acquired what was to later become its 49th state. What would happened if Bill Seward had been killed with Lincoln, or hadn’t been there as Secretary of State for the USA.

We will never know.

Hope this helps.