Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 11, 2019 at 21:58 comment added reirab It seems a little weird to include "there's an airport large enough to land anything" in reasons for the U.S. wanting to take control of Tutuila in 1900. I mean, technically the facilities there in 1900 were large enough to land any airplane that was flying in 1900, but only because no airplanes were flying in 1900 (at least not more than 100 feet or so.) It's certainly a reason that the U.S. valued its possession of American Samoa from the 1920s on (especially prior to the jet age, when aircraft needed to stop more frequently for refueling,) but not really a reason in 1900.
Sep 11, 2019 at 20:58 comment added Pieter Geerkens Perhaps try reading your own link, first paragraph: "and whereas owing to dissen­sions, internal disturbances and civil war, the said governments [of the UK, US & Germany] have deemed it necessary to assume the control of the legislation and admin­istration of said state of Samoa; and ... have by said arrangements amongst the said governments, been severed from the parent State," Sovereignty of the islands was already surrendered by the forcible intervention of all three governments in forcibly ending the civil war.
Sep 11, 2019 at 20:48 comment added James Bradley The Tripartite Convention happened in 1899, just one year before the Treaty of the Cession of Tutuila, which was the act by the chiefs that I mentioned. The text of the cession is online here.
Sep 10, 2019 at 18:43 comment added Pieter Geerkens I see no readily available historical evidence to back this claim - and much that contradicts it. Please provide evidence to support the claim that the Samoan islands had any sort of sovereignty subsequent to the Tripartitie Convention that distributed ownership of Samoa and the Solomons between U.S., U.K., and Germany.
Sep 10, 2019 at 18:40 review First posts
Sep 10, 2019 at 18:44
Sep 10, 2019 at 18:36 history answered James Bradley CC BY-SA 4.0