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?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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

I am sorry to say this but for several reason I do not think that the analogy holds water.

Firstly; the Virgin Islands were a Danish colony but Scotland has never been a colony. In principle Scotland is a kingdom that just happens to have or belong to the same monarch as England and the rest of UK. It is the same as that though Denmark and Norway for four centuries had the same king it never made them one country. For even longer Schleswig-Holstein belonged to the Danish king, who was the duke there, but Schleswig-Holstein were not part of Denmark and – just as an example – when the Danish king Christian IV intervened in or more or less started the Thirty Years War he did it as Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and not as Danish king.
Scotland's situation according to both Constitutional Law and International Law be very different from a colony's situation.
Secondly; one part of a country or a country in a union being sold off by the rest of the country or union of countries is a totally different situation than one part of the country or a country in a union of countries wanting to leave the rest of the country or union of countries (No, I am not going to discuss Brexit!).
A colony basically has no say in whatever is done with it but I guess that a country that more or less willingly has decided to join a union of countries must also have the right to decide to leave the union. If this happens there will of course be a number of practical problems to solve and first of all the divorcing part's share of the union's assets as well as debt.
Since 1954 when Greenland and the Faroe Islands became equal parts of the Danish kingdom with the same rights and obligations as the rest of the kingdom has Denmark not had colonies. Greenland and the Faroe Islands enjoy self-government and are for instance not – like the rest of Denmark – members of EU but the Danish government is responsible for defence and the foreign politics. There are in both Greenland and the Faroe Islands movements that work for complete independence from Denmark and in Denmark the opinion among both the population and the politicians is that they naturally can have independence when they can handle the obligations that come with it and also can manage without being subsidised by the Danish government but they can of course not get all the advantages of independence without also accepting the disadvantages (and NO, I am still not going to discuss Brexit!!!).
Had Greenland and the Faroe Islands still been colonies Denmark could in principle sell them just as we sold the Virgin Islands and I think that both Russia and USA for strategic reasons could be interested especially in possessing Greenland (and Canada already in a fit of delusions of grandeur claims the Danish Hans Island in Greenland) but I think that in today's world a sale of colonies would not be acceptable.

MartinII · 70-79, M

@karinaal: Well I did say I hadn't thought it through. I agree, the cases are quite different.

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.