Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am a History Nut

Two weeks from now, on January 16, it will be 100 years since the American president Woodrow Wilson and the Danish foreign minister Robert Lansing signed the treaty by which the USA bought the islands St. Thomas, St. Croix and St. Jan from Denmark.
On March 31 1917 the authority over the islands was transferred from Denmark to USA.
USA paid the Danish Kingdom 25 million dollar for the islands but for Denmark it was far more interesting that USA agreed to support the Danish claim on Greenland.
The three islands had been Danish since 1718 – St. Croix from 1733 – and they brought great wealth to Denmark as long as the sugar production was of big value.
Slaves were imported from the Danish forts on the African Gold Coast and used as workers on the sugar plantations on the three islands and sugar (and as bi-product also rum) was exported to Denmark and other European countries.
The slaves on the three islands got their freedom in 1848 when the general governor Peter von Scholten announced, “ All those, who on the Danish West-Indian Islands not are free, can from today consider themselves free.”
So the Africans on the islands were not slaves when they 69 years later became American citizens but when the islands were turned over to USA a Danish newspaper had the headline, “The biggest sale of negro-slaves in Danish history!”
The reason for the headline was that the Danish people had to at a referendum approve of the sale but nobody ever asked the Africans on the three islands if they wanted to become Americans.
It is true that in 1917 the three islands had long been an expensive possession for Denmark but just selling the islands to another country without asking their population what it felt about it was not very nice.
What do you think about this?
MartinII · 70-79, M
Not straightforward, because the inhabitants of the islands were not, in principle at least, the only Danish citizens affected.

I offer a possible analogy (not carefully thought through) with the current question of the possible independence of Scotland from the UK. I would argue, in theory if not in practice, that all citizens of the UK should have a say in this matter. But I can well understand that few Scots would agree with me!
karinaal · 70-79, F
@MartinII: Do not worry; you did say that.
And I know that you spoke in haste so the little mistake is forgiven.
But in your own best interest; please try to remember that speaking without first thinking is a female prerogative.
MartinII · 70-79, M
@karinaal: Far be it from me to question a female prerogative. But speaking before thinking was an occasional weakness of mine as a boy. Incurred my mother's displeasure on several occasions ...
karinaal · 70-79, F
@MartinII: But boys are supposed to grow out of such a weakness.
We girls are supposed to cultivate and refine our ability to cleverly speak without first thinking and in general get away with it.
CuriousVikingGirl · 56-60, F
History is endlessly fascinating and often challenging to understand some of what it was like, at a certain time and place in history, when decisions were made based on factors that sometimes are not fully apparent to future generations.
hunkalove · 61-69, M
Interesting. I didn't know that. Nowadays, we would just invade and take them.
karinaal · 70-79, F
Really?
When have you last done that?

 
Post Comment