I'm hoping one of you very experienced and wise genealogists can help me with this. My GG grandparents immigrated separately from Ireland, met in NYC, and married there in 1965. As far as I can tell, neither was a naturalized US citizen. He was in the US Army (enlisted in NYC in 1855), and they got stationed in California where their first child William was born. Then they got transferred to Sitka, Alaska, in the second half of 1867 or 1868 where their next two children were born, Mary and Thomas (in 1869 and 1870, resp). The purchase of Alaska was in 1867. I know that their oldest child William would be a US citizen since he was born on definite US soil--California was already a state in July, 1867--even if his parents weren't citizens. My question: are Mary and Thomas considered US citizens if Alaska wasn't a state or perhaps maybe even the purchase wasn't completed? Would Alaska be considered US soil in 1869 and 1870, ensuring them of US citizenship? At what point in the history of Alaska are people born there considered US citizens if their parents were not? According to one website (http://www.50states.com/statehood.htm), Alaska was a "district" from Oct. 18, 1867, until it became an "organized territory" Aug. 24, 1912. Thank you, Carol Hokana researching O'CONNELLs, SULLIVANs, and CALLAGHANs from Co. Cork to NYC (c 1855)