From: jock@soccer.com   
      
   On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:36:02 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Nobody  wrote:   
   >>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>If American Samoa wanted to get real representation in Congress, all   
   >>>>they'd have to do is hold a referendum on statehood.  Puerto Rico does   
   >>>>so every few years--and it is soundly defeated each time.   
   >   
   >>>Turns out it's more complicated. They wrote their own constitution, but   
   >>>Congress never wrote an organic law for them, so it's unorganized territory.   
   >>>I'm sure this could all be negotiated if American Samoa wants to change   
   >>>their status, but I agree with you; I've never heard that they do.   
   >   
   >>>As long as I was looking it up, I learned why American Samoa was never   
   >>>a Trust Territory despite being a former German colony, a different   
   >>>status than Trust Territory of the Pacific.   
   >   
   >>What is now American Samoa was never part of the German protectorate.   
   >   
   >The German protectorate came later, yes, Western Samoa. The colony wasn't   
   >formally governed by the Germans; just saying there were some traders   
   >and merchants and they did want to exploit it although they hadn't gotten   
   >very far.   
   >   
      
   The German protectorate, colony if you wish, over Western Samoa   
   existed as the result of the tripartite accord signed in 1899 and   
   ratified in early 1900, and in effect ceased with the landing of the   
   NZ Expeditionary Force in 1914, the legalisms might extend that to   
   1920.   
      
   Consult Wonkypedia for a relatively straight-forward resume:   
      
      
      
   >>>United States and Germany had negotiated a treaty with regard to Samoa in   
   >>>1899, long before WWI. The Trust Territories were generally successors   
   >>>to Mandates on territory seized from Germany (and other losing nations)   
   >>>in WWI.   
   >   
   >>American Samoa has existed since ratification of the tripartite treaty   
   >>in 1900.   
   >   
   >As a what? It has a weird legal status. If you were reading, you saw   
   >that it was being administered by the Navy way back when. My comment   
   >as to why American Samoa had an entirely different status than area   
   >under Mandate/Trusteeship was simply to note that it was WWI spoils but   
   >separately negotiated years earlier.   
      
   The treaty ceded control of Tutuila and other eastern bits at the same   
   time... how you Americans "governed" it, or its status, well, that's   
   where your US Navy reference seems to kick in:   
      
      
      
   Prior to 1900, there was no "nation state" though the locals had   
   existed pretty happily under a king till Brit, American, and German   
   traders started to sow divisions and fomented civil war.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)