"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Peter Stickney wrote:


In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:


"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...


In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:



I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to

1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their

independence

from us

post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and
until

we

turned


them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.


Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their
status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
a "commonwealth".

Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
Not a state. Not independent.

If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states,
what
are they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous
definitions to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.

George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have
missed
the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster
noted,
somewhat different context.

George is on a roll!
Probably not worth trying to rein him at this time.

Probably not. I confess to suffering from a brain fart at the time which
led me
astray. In any case, I did a bit more reading on the subject and learned
that
the previous comment about incorporated and unincorporated areas was
indeed
accurate. Apparently, those incorporated areas acquired by whatever means
are
areas that are destined for eventual statehood, whereas the unincorporated
areas
are merely territories that will never become states.

That leaves unexplained the existence of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, not to mention Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin
Islands.
In each of those cases, their population is so small compared that that of
the
smallest state, that granting statehood would involve giving those
entities
overrepresentation in our Congress, and it's not likely to happen any time
soon.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be destined for statehood, what with
its
population exceeding that of more than half of the 50 states and it being
larger
in area than Rhode Island and Delaware.

You continue to miss the "big picture". Which is the very opposite of some
kind of imperialist US policy restraining these protectorates in their
current status. They actually *want* to continue under the current status
quo--they get lots of advantages, and few of the attendant responsibilities.
Puerto Rico enjoys significant self-government, while still taking advantage
of most federal programs--without its inhabitants having to pay federal
income tax while they reside in Puerto Rico. Hence they have had no less
than *three* plebiscites regarding the choice of independence, statehood, or
continuing under the status quo (two were held in the 1990's)...and each and
every time they have chosen the latter option.


Anyway, getting away from the trees and getting back to the forest that we
seemed to have lost sight of, the subject under discussion was someone's
claim
that we never kept land we acquired by right of military conquest, which
is
patently false even without going back to our formative years when we
helped
ourselves to substantial portions of Mexico that we've never returned. Of
the
lands we acquired from our victory in the Spanish-American War at the end
of the
19th century, I believe the only land we subsequently surrendered were
Cuba and,
a half century later, the Philippine Islands.

Guam has been trying to negotiate a similar commonwealth status with the USG
since the late 1980's. They don't *want* independence. We gave the RMI
(Republic of the Marshall Islands) independence when we approved the Compact
of Free Association with that government in 1986, though the RMI had been
self-governing since 1979. I don't believe *any* of the possessions gained
during the Spanish American War have been prevented from exercising their
right to independence if they so desired it.


Never is a long long time. One shouldn't make that kind of claim unless
one is
certain that it's true. In this case, it obviously isn't.

And it is a long way from being any form of permanent territorial gain
without the express permission of those terrotories' citizens. Big
difference from imperialist expansion.

Brooks


George Z.