By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY
Although 19th-century American history is often defined by the westward expansion of Manifest Destiny, a parallel and frequently overlooked story was unfolding in the North. From the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 to the early 20th-century exploration of the Arctic, the United States has consistently viewed the Northern frontier, specifically Greenland, as a vital, strategic extension of its national security interests.
The 13 British colonies in North America, established between Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, Plymouth Colony in New England in 1620 and James Oglethorpe in Georgia in 1733, were prosperous settlements along the Atlantic coast. Driven by economic opportunity and religious freedom, they developed into three major geo-political regions—New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont), Middle (Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania), and Southern (Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia)—before uniting to declare independence from Britain in 1776.
Following the 1803 Louisiana Purchase from France, American westward expansion accelerated, driven by the desire for economic opportunity, the principles of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine (named after the U.S. President Monroe [1817–1825]), and the 1840s ideology of Manifest Destiny. This movement transitioned from early, government-sponsored exploration of American frontier, such as the Lewis and Clark expedition (1804–1806), to a surge of mass migration along western trails to Oregon and California that intensified in the 1830s.
This era of mass migration and exploration of America, ending around early 1890s, involved mapping, fur trading, introduction of agriculture and infrastructure developments like railroads, while also causing massive displacement of Native American nations. The Louisiana Purchase was a monumental 1803 land deal in which the United States acquired approximately 828,000 square miles of territory from France for $15 million dollars. It amounted to about three cents per acre.
The Monroe Doctrine was a foreign policy, warning Europe to stay out of the Americas, establishing a U.S. sphere of influence, while Manifest Destiny was a cultural belief that God destined the U.S. to expand across North America, often used to justify westward expansion, with the Doctrine providing a political framework that supported the territorial ambitions of Destiny. Essentially, the Doctrine stated, “Europe, stay out of our hemisphere,” and Manifest Destiny said, “We are meant to control all of this hemisphere, from sea to shining sea.”
In short, originally designed as a defensive warning for European powers to stay out of the Americas, the Monroe Doctrine evolved into a tool for U.S. expansion within the Western hemisphere. Fueled by Manifest Destiny, this shift justified the acquisition of new territories, culminating in the Mexica-American War (1846–1848) to acquire vast new lands, fulfilling the “destiny.”
Exploration of Greenland
Prehistoric Greenland was inhabited by multiple waves of Arctic indigenous peoples over 5,000 years. These Paleo-Inuit groups, including the Dorset culture (lasting from 500 BCE to about 1500 CE), were well-adapted to severe climates through hunting and stone/ivory tool technology long before Norse arrival (Scandinavian society of farmers, traders, and explorers— c. 793–1066 AD). In fact, Greenland was a colony of the Kingdom of Denmark from 1953; however, in 1979 Greenland was granted home rule (autonomous territory).
Greenland is the world’s largest island (2.16 million km. sq. or 833,981 square miles) and an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Population of Greenland is approximately 57,000 residents: predominantly Inuit (88% Inuit [Greenlandic], 7.5% Danish, and others, mostly Nordic and some Asians). Nearly 80% of the land is covered by an ice sheet, limiting human settlement to the coastal areas, with about one-third living in the capital, Nuuk. The Greenland economy relies heavily on fishing, tourism, and mining (rare earth minerals, zinc, uranium, lithium) and presence of the U.S. military bases.
American exploration of Greenland, spanning over 200 years, evolved from 19th-century scientific expeditions and whaling to 20th-century U.S. strategic military presence. Key figures like Robert Peary and Elisha Kent Kane mapped the Arctic, defining the coastline, while the U.S. later established critical military bases during WWII (1940-1945) and the Cold War (1946-1991), including Thule Air Base, driven by geographic security interests.
Key Historical Phases
- Early Explorations (19th Century): American whalers and traders visited Arctic, with explorers like Elisha Kent Kane mapping uncharted areas in the 1850s, including “Grinnell Land.”
- Northern Mapping (Late 19th/Early 20th Century): Robert Peary led expeditions that mapped northern Greenland, dispelling myths that the island extended to the North Pole.
- Strategic Interest and Claims: Following the 1867 Alaska purchase, the U.S. Secretary of State William Seward considered acquiring Greenland. Claims were relinquished in 1917 after buying the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) for US$25 million in gold.
- World War II and Cold War: After Denmark was invaded in a six-day Blitzkrieg by Nazi Germany in 1940, the U.S. protected Greenland. The 1951 agreement formalized the U.S. military presence, establishing Thule Air Base.
- Cold War and Modern Era: The U.S. viewed Greenland as vital for early warning systems and strategic security, leading to attempted purchases in 1946 and 1955.
These efforts established a long-standing U.S. presence in Greenland, transitioning from scientific mapping to a crucial North Atlantic security partnership. The relationship between the U.S. and Greenland spans more than 200 years, reflecting a critical U.S. geopolitical, strategic and national security interest.
Given dramatic socio-political changes and alarming hot spots in various world regions, securing acquisition of Greenland as a territory of the United States (like Puerto Rico) seems a reasonable proposition. In essence, West European resistance to U.S. objectives and interests in Greenland overlooks geopolitical realities, jeopardizes regional security, and appears to be a reactionary, misguided and emotional response rather than a pragmatic geopolitical solution.
After two decades of excavating remote prehistoric archaeological sites around the world, my experience as an archaeologist has shown me that human societies are in a constant state of flux, either evolving into something new or being replaced altogether by more advanced societies. History demonstrates that international borders and land-use changes are rarely determined by empathy toward ethnic or national groups. Instead, these outcomes are driven by hard power—specifically, military strength and industrial capacity.
The American rise to power was built on the premise of national security, territorial control, domestic needs and Judeo-Christian values. This perhaps illustrates the nature and evolution of American national identity, explains the origin of the American ethos and highlights how the United States established its unique national character, transforming the northernmost reaches of the Western Hemisphere into a critical pillar of American defense and global influence.
The author was born and raised in the former Soviet Union before settling in the U.S. in 1978. He moved to Juneau in 1986 where he taught Russian studies and Archaeology at the University of Alaska Southeast, and Social Studies Teacher at the Alyeska Central School of the Alaska Department of Education. From 1990 to 2022, he served as a director and president of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center, publishing in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. Find him on Amazon.com.
Alexander Dolitsky: Europeans cope with unprecedented diversity
4 thoughts on “Alexander Dolitsky: Brief history of America’s westward expansion and exploration of Greenland”
Suzzane and Alexander,
You both are great writers. Alexander has the unique ability to in plain language give a comprehensive look at a large subject. A lifetime of scholarship shines through. Thank you.
I must admit even though I read history almost every day I have not thought much about Greenland until recent events.. Looking down on the globe it immediately becomes obvious the strategic value of this Arctic land mass. Alaska is the west flank. Greenland is the logical east flank. It simultaneously becomes a west flank for Northern Europe and the British Isles. It is in fact the front line bulwark against the Bear across the pole for all of the western hemisphere. Early detection and early intervention could save millions of lives in a nuclear conflict.
Senator Murkowski could benefit from reading this article and studying the geography of Greenland now that she considers herself presumptive Secretary of State. We seriously need to develope a sustained military presence’. Anyone with a brain can see it. Wars are won on the initial intercept and the flanks thereafter.
Alex,
I draw different conclusions. The original colonists created a revolutionary concept of self governance through indepence from the British Empire specifically based on the concept of sovereignty of the individual citizen. Rejecting the concept of being a subject to dictatorial rule from a king or centralized power structure of a handful of elites. This included rejection of resource exploitation from a distant overlord, all during a period when royalty was the only known norm. A Republic of 13 sovereign states each voluntarily formed a union to insure protection from a top down governance from Washington. The new revolutionary government specifically warned against foreign alliances, entanglements and kept the use of the military by the president under strict control of Congress. Wars are destructive and expensive. The body of citizens abhored being drug into death and destruction by special interests.
The Monroe Doctrine is now being misinterpreted. It warned the European vulture colonialist powers that the Americas were to be independent. Not that they were to be exclusively raped and recolonized by America. This original concept of sovereignty of citizens rapidly gave way to the acceptance of being relegated to subjects ruled by an American elite.
Concerning Kalaallit Nunaat, a self governing Inuit country, within the Kingdom of Denmark is referred to as Greenland by outsiders who know little or nothing about it.
The Kalaallit, Tunumiit and Avanersuarmiut citizens have clearly stated they look forward to independence and are absolutely opposed to being re-colonized by the US.
We are constantly bombarded with propaganda narratives by the permanent swamp creatures in Washington of feigned concern for democracy and rights in countries which we bomb into failed states, create terror groups and groom for looting of their resources by large donors. Exhibit “A” Venezuela, whose oil is being stolen for Paul Singer who was awarded CITGO for pennies on the $1. Or Ronald Laudon who is eyeing Greenland for their rare earths.
The US already has a treaty for strategic bases in Kalaallit Nunaat. There were up to 17, with 1 still operating. Annexing
Kalaallit Nunaat is not necessary for perceived national security needs. In fact, it would be very expensive just to maintain the $600 million essential annual Danish block grant.
Other than deploying more radars and monitoring equipment, we are so far behind the defense weapon system technology of peer nations we seek to further antagonize, for attack and interceptor missiles as to make that a moot point. Besides the ineffectiveness proven in actual combat use against Russia and Iran of THAAD, Patriot, ATACOMS, Tomahawks ect., we do not have a sufficiently large industrial base and educated workforce for meaningful surge production necessary.
The catastrophic ecological destruction left at abandoned Camp Century including large quantities of radioactive material, diesel fuel, sewage and garbage poured onto the ground has never been dealt with. These toxins leech into the ocean poisoning sea mammals, fish and birds.
Despite this track record of abysmal tenant behavior, abandoned or new bases can be built now, as needed without interference in local governance. The threat elevation to local people is increased as Washington obsessively continues to avoid entering treaties with, rather it chooses to maintain an economic and hot war against Russia. Along with alienating China, Iran, Venezuela, Canada, the long list continues.
Washington is unable to govern the 50 existing states and various colonial territories well as it is. We need to deal with our corrupt, incompetent and morally sick elite ruling class before expanding a decaying and broke empire.
Tundra,
I appreciate your thorough and insightful feedback, and I largely agree with your conclusions. I’m still navigating my own thoughts on what the ideal U.S. strategy for Greenland should look like, especially considering the complexities involved with our existing five major and permanently inhabited territories, including: Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan Island, etc.).
These unincorporated five permanently inhabited U.S. territories are under U.S. jurisdiction but are not states; they exist in a state of political limbo. Residents in these areas are subject to U.S. laws and federal taxation in some cases, yet they possess varying citizenship statuses—American Samoans are U.S. nationals rather than citizens—and they cannot vote in presidential elections or elect voting representatives to Congress.
In short, Residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S. citizens. Residents of American Samoa are U.S. nationals. Residents cannot vote in presidential elections, though they may participate in party primaries. As you may know, many of these territories are heavily subsidized, with a significant economic dependence on federal funding and social programs.
Regarding Greenland, I share mixed feelings on a potential U.S. strategy. There is valid concern that incorporating a new territory (e.g., Greenland) could create a “welfare state/territory” like the fiscal dependency of current territories. However, with Greenland’s massive untapped mineral wealth, rare earth elements, and its strategic importance in the Arctic against Russia and China, its acquisition is seen by some as a 21st-century “Alaska Purchase.” The U.S. is currently considering options ranging from a negotiated buyout of Greenland to creating a “Compact of Free Association” or establishing sovereign military zones. Of course, this is an uncharted political proposition.
As you correctly noted, Denmark provides an annual block grant of approximately DKK 3.9 billion (roughly $550–$600 million USD) to Greenland, accounting for about 20% of the island’s GDP and over half of its public budget. This subsidy sustains key public services, including healthcare, education, and social programs, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark’s commitment to the territory. In short, if it is not them, then it us—U.S. citizens.
Greenland has a long history from colonialism to self-rule:
Danish Colonization (1721–1953): Hans Egede, a Danish-Norwegian missionary, established a mission in 1721, marking the beginning of permanent Danish colonization.
Modern Era and Self-Rule (1953–Present):
1953–Greenland ceased to be a colony and became an integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
1979: Home Rule was granted, allowing for a local government (Landsting).
2009: Self-rule was established, recognizing Greenlanders as a separate people under international law and giving them control over most internal affairs, including natural resources.
Based on recent reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia has no interest in intervening in the disputes between the United States and Denmark regarding the status of Greenland, characterizing it as a matter for them to resolve. Speaking on Russian television (specifically in a meeting with his Security Council), Putin noted that Moscow does not view Greenland’s ownership as its concern.
Furthermore, Putin pointedly described Denmark’s historical administration of Greenland as colonial and harsh, essentially dismissing Danish authority over the island and suggesting this history justifies U.S. interests in acquiring it. He also compared the potential acquisition to historical land deals, such as the US purchase of Alaska from Russia, noting that a fair price for Greenland could be around $1 billion.
Recently, Russian media summarized my article, “Brief History of America’s Westward Expansion and Exploration of Greenland,” which was originally published by The Alaska Story, and included a link to the full text in both languages—Russian and English.
https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2026/02/13/evropa-oshibaetsya-istorik-iz-alyaski-o-soprotivlenii-interesam-ssha-v-grenlandii
Tundra, please let me know if you permit me to use your comments and to submit them as a one piece with my text to The Alaska Story, as a co-authored piece. It could generate an interesting discussion. We do not have to agree on everything.
Alex,
You are welcome to add such as are useful of my comments to your posts. Appreciate your openness to tolerate disagreement in polite and friendly debate of views.
The Kalaallit presently retain ownership of their lands, which is the entire island. Families build and own their homes, but not the lands under them. Bottom line is their island is not for sale. They own it and Denmark, the European power that colonized them, respects this.
Kalaallit Nunaat has large reserves of rare earth minerals, iron ore, zinc, uranium, silver, copper, graphite, gold and offshore oil and gas. Environmental concerns have current bans and restrictions on offshore oil and gas extraction and on uranium extraction.
It is in the best interest of both the Kalaallit and the US for local citizens to retain sovereignty of their country and control of licensing and leasing for all foreign extraction of natural resources. Meaning they must retain the right to enter into long term agreements with companies from any country that offers the best terms. Not be subjected to terms forced by Washington for the benefit of political donors, or face threats of land and sovereignty seizure.
Kalaallit Nunaat needs very expensive investment infrastructure due to the complex geography, massive ice fields and sea ice for resource projects. Russia has zero interest in territorial expansion, other than liberating various oblasts east of the Dnepr with Russian populations currently occupied by a radicalized American proxy vassal in Kiev. China concentrates on building supply chains to support domestic manufacturing with foreign countries, not territorial expansion or meddling in internal affairs.
There is no benefit to the US to alienate the population by forcing annexation. The irony is rich, of our government constantly feigning concern and support of “democracy” by threatening, bombing, sanctioning and conducting terror missile and drone strikes against multiple countries over decades. A trail of failed states and alienated populations.
You bring up excellent points on the status of Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. These are colonies for which we have no business “owning” as a Republic. The history as to how we dispossesed Puerto Ricans from their lands is unacceptable. As in Hawaii and Alaska, at least the latter became states. We impoverished Puerto Rico and then pretend the social service needs are not our problem. After impoverishing Cuba for 60+ years with illegal unilateral sanctions against a country which poses no threat to anyone, if the recent enhanced blockade of Cuba results in a failed state, the costs are our responsibility. Russia is sending oil to prevent a humanitarian disaster, which if our military attempts to interfere with could be another unnecessary flashpoint caused by Washington.
Maintaining the current treaty with Denmark and reconfirming with Kalaallit Nunaat when they achieve full independence is sufficient for any national defense needs. Without incurring costs of administering or interference in local governance. The US must agree to the use of any bases for defence only. Russia maintains year around arctic sea lanes with ever increasing commerce from Murmansk to Vladivastock, connecting to existing global sea lanes. Along with massive onshore and soon offshore energy infrastructure. The temptation for the neo cons in Washington to use forward bases to interdict and impede lawful commerce would be intense.
We have a documented history of getting other people killed and their countries destroyed with constant failed and failing hegemonic operations. The Kalaallit do not need blowback caused by Washingtons’ hubris and incompetence.