Arabic
Persian
English
The Dark Record of America’s Land Purchases
When Donald Trump expressed his interest in buying Greenland in August 2019, many media outlets treated it as a joke or a whimsical idea [10]. But for analysts of U.S. diplomatic history, these remarks were not a joke; rather, they reflected a “longstanding tradition” in Washington’s foreign policy [15].
America did not expand solely through war and peace treaties; a vast portion of the current U.S. map is a direct result of banking transactions. From the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the country’s size [3], to the purchase of Alaska, which expelled the Russians from North America [5]. However, the fundamental question in the third decade of the 21st century is: Is the model that worked during the colonial empires of the 19th century still viable in the new world order, in an era of competition with China and a resurgent Russia?
This report, by examining historical data and documents from the U.S. National Archives [4][7], revisits the file of “real estate diplomacy.”
The 19th-Century Deal: When Napoleon Sold Louisiana!
In 1803, the United States was still a marginal player in global politics, confined to the eastern strip of North America. Across the ocean, Napoleon Bonaparte was grappling with two major problems: the imminent threat of war with Britain and the slave revolt in Haiti, which had darkened the dream of a French empire in the American continent [1].
Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. president at the time, was only seeking to purchase the port of “New Orleans” for access to the Mississippi River. But Napoleon made an offer that was impossible to refuse: the entire Louisiana Territory [2].
Key Data of the Louisiana Purchase:
• Area: Approximately 2.14 million square kilometers (encompassing all or part of 15 current U.S. states) [3]. • Price: $15 million (equivalent to about $340 million at today’s rate) [4]. • Price per acre: About 4 cents [1].
This deal not only doubled the area of the United States but also peacefully removed one of the European superpowers (France) from America’s backyard. It was the first and greatest success in the strategy of “buying security and geography.”
Alaska: The $7.2 Million Gamble Against Britain
Half a century after the deal with France, it was the turn of the Russian Empire. After the Crimean War (1853-1856), Tsar Alexander II was in dire financial straits and worried that in the event of another conflict with Britain, he might lose the Alaska territory without receiving any compensation (Britain controlled Canada at the time) [5].
In 1867, U.S. Secretary of State William Seward signed a treaty that was mocked by the American press at the time as “Seward’s Folly” or the “Polar Bear Garden” [6]. But why was this purchase strategic?
• Eliminating a Rival: Ending Russia’s presence on the American continent. • Encirclement of Britain: Applying geopolitical pressure on British colonies in Canada. • Resources: The subsequent discovery of gold and oil multiplied the value of this deal thousands of times over [7].
Today, Alaska is not only an energy source but also the frontline of U.S. missile defense against Russia and a key route for asserting dominance in the Arctic.
Virgin Islands: Securing the Panama Canal for Gold
America’s entry into the 20th century was accompanied by a shift in priorities from “land” to “military bases.” With World War I raging and fears that Germany might seize Danish islands in the Caribbean and threaten the newly established Panama Canal from there, Washington opened its wallet [8]. In 1917, the United States purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark [9].
• Price: $25 million (in gold coin). • Relative Value: This amount was much more expensive than previous purchases (about $295 per acre compared to 2 cents for Alaska) [8].
This purchase showed that America was willing to pay a high price for “maritime security” and control over strategic chokepoints.
Greenland: The Hard Wall of Reality in the 21st Century
Returning to Donald Trump’s proposal. Why did the U.S. president think about buying geography again in 2019? Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, is the world’s largest island, located between the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean [10]. Geopolitical and Economic Motivations:
Rare Earth Elements: Greenland holds vast deposits of neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium; elements critical for producing smartphones, electric vehicle batteries, and missile guidance systems, markets now dominated by China [11].
Arctic Route: With melting ice, new shipping routes are opening that reduce the distance between Asia and the West [13].
Thule Air Base: The northernmost U.S. military base, part of the missile early-warning system [14].
**Financial Offer (according to Reuters report):**Financial Proposal (According to Reuters Report):
Informed sources revealed that the Trump administration had considered offering direct financial incentives to the government of Greenland and its residents. The figures discussed included annual subsidies of $600 million or large direct payments that could ultimately amount to tens of billions of dollars [15]. But why did this deal fail?
The answer from Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, was short and firm: “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish; Greenland belongs to Greenland.” [10]
Strategic Analysis: The End of the Era of "Negotiable Sovereignty"
The failure of the Greenland purchase project was not merely a simple diplomatic incident; rather, it is a sign of a fundamental shift in the international order. The main difference between 1867 (the purchase of Alaska) and 2024 lies in the concept of “national sovereignty” and the emergence of new competitors [12].
Change in the Nature of Territory:
In the 19th century, territories were considered the personal property of monarchs, and their inhabitants (indigenous peoples or settlers) had no vote in the transfer of ownership. In the 21st century, the right to self-determination and national identity prevents such transactions. The proposal to purchase a country or autonomous territory is considered an insult in modern political discourse [11].
Presence of Powerful Competitors (China and Russia):
Unlike the era of the Louisiana Purchase, where America was the only cash buyer available, Greenland now has other options. China, through its “Polar Silk Road” policy, seeks to invest in Greenland’s mineral and airport infrastructure [13]. This competition causes Denmark and the European Union to view foreign influence with much greater sensitivity and not allow exclusive transfer to the United States.
Ineffectiveness of Pure Financial Power:
In the past, the United States could gain advantages by exploiting the financial weakness of European powers (such as Tsarist Russia or Napoleonic France). But today, Denmark is a wealthy economy, a member of the EU and NATO, and is not under emergency financial pressure to sell its land [11].
Conclusion
The history of American expansion shows that “money” has always played a role as significant as “gunpowder” in drawing the country’s borders. But the Greenland affair revealed the ceiling of this strategy in the new multipolar world [13]. While America still seeks to maintain its hegemony in the Arctic and access vital resources, it can no longer overcome the complex challenges of the 21st century with the simple 19th-century mechanisms of “purchase and sale.” Today’s competition is not over buying a deed of ownership, but over strategic influence, infrastructure investment, and coalition-building; an arena where merely having “dollars” is not enough [15].
Debt Explosion in America: Anatomy of a $38 Trillion Crash
Sources and References:
Trump’s Greenland gambit finds allies inside government (2019)
Trump’s offer to purchase Greenland was much more than just a real estate deal (2019)
No comment