Iceland is definitely Scandinavian. It still speaks a recognizable version of Old Norse.
Greenland, well, perhaps not.
Would Congress really allow such a blatantly imperialistic move at this time?
Congress agreed to go to war with Mexico and take its Northern Territory.
That was a generation before this, and before the Civil War.
That was a generation before this, and before the Civil War.
There was quite a lot of controversy to Alaska at the time, actually. "Seward's Folly" and whatnot. I could definitely see Greenland and Iceland becoming "Seward's Other Icebox". And all the arguments applied to Alaska - that it was not contiguous with the US, that it was full of unruly natives, that it wasn't economically viable, that it might embroil the US in foreign wars - apply just the same to the 'lands.But only two years earlier the U.S. bought Alaska. I'm not sure why Congress would particularly object to Iceland.
There was quite a lot of controversy to Alaska at the time, actually. "Seward's Folly" and whatnot. I could definitely see Greenland and Iceland becoming "Seward's Other Icebox". And all the arguments applied to Alaska - that it was not contiguous with the US, that it was full of unruly natives, that it wasn't economically viable, that it might embroil the US in foreign wars - apply just the same to the 'lands.
On that note, I've read that the Alaska Purchase actually wasn't all that controversial at the time, and the idea that it was is a bit of an urban legend. A handful of newspapers opposed it, but a much larger number were in favor.
I seem to recall plenty of elites in Congress didn't care for it?
I seem to recall plenty of elites in Congress didn't care for it?
Well, with Alaska, you at least can make the arguments that
1. It's part of America.
Iceland and Greenland don't really have either of those applying to them.
MUH OCEANIC CRUSTGreenland is considered to be part of North America. Iceland traditionally isn't, but the distinction is arbitrary; it's closer to Greenland than it is to the mainland of Europe.
Would Congress really allow such a blatantly imperialistic move at this time?
It's not entirely arbitrary: Iceland is closer to continental Europe than it is to continental North America.Greenland is considered to be part of North America. Iceland traditionally isn't, but the distinction is arbitrary; it's closer to Greenland than it is to the mainland of Europe.
MUH OCEANIC CRUST
(Seriously, there's a continental crust connection to Greenland that's not there with Iceland. So there's no geological claim on Iceland, meaning it's all cultural. Same with Hawai'i.)
It wasn't universally mocked like some people seem to say today, but it was quite controversial. Even the people in favor of it were in favor on general Manifest Destiny principles and considered it to be a huge worthless chunk of snow.On that note, I've read that the Alaska Purchase actually wasn't all that controversial at the time, and the idea that it was is a bit of an urban legend. A handful of newspapers opposed it, but a much larger number were in favor.
Yes, so neither side has a superior geological claim.Iceland sits on the border between the North American and Eurasian crusts.
It wasn't universally mocked like some people seem to say today, but it was quite controversial. Even the people in favor of it were in favor on general Manifest Destiny principles and considered it to be a huge worthless chunk of snow.