Territories, Possessions, and Influenced Areas of the United States of America

[Malachi151]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/territories.htm

When we think of the United States we often think of the 50 official states, but there is much more to America than just the 50 states. Below is a listing of all of the territories, commonwealths, and possessions of the United States of America.

Territories:

Guam

United States Virgin Islands

American Samoa

Commonwealths:

Puerto Rico

Northern Mariana Islands

United States possessions:

Howland

Baker

Jarvis Islands

Kingman Reef

Johnson

Palmyra

Wake

Midway Atolls

Navassa Island

Compacts of Free Association:

Federated States of Micronesia

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Republic of Palau

For more information about these American places and how they are governed see:

http://www.macmeekin.com/Library/terr+commonw2.htm

In addition to these places it is helpful to know which places have been possessions of the United States in the past as well. Previously occupied American territories include:

The Philippines 1901 - 1941

Haiti 1915 – 1934

Nicaragua 1912 – 1933

Dominican Republic 1916 - 1924

Panama Canal 1903 – 1999

On a more subjective level there are also many countries who’s leaders or political systems have been controlled or influenced by the United States in some way over the years. For the purpose of helping to understand American influence I will include some of these places here and the times in which it is generally accepted that their political systems were under significant influence of the United States.

Nicaragua 1855 – 1860

Liberia 1820 - 1865

Cuba 1898 – 1952

Germany 1945 – 1955

Japan 1945 - 1955

South Korea 1948 - 1960

Congo 1960 - 1964

Vietnam 1950 - 1973

Chile 1964 - 1973

Iran 1953 - 1979

Guatemala 1953 – 1980s

Indonesia/East Timor 1965 - 2002

Iraq 2003 - ?


I've had to put this information together myself because I was not able to find it anywhere together, so if you have any additional information, or see something wrong, please let me know.

[Michael Redman]

What about Mexico? We invaded and took 1/3 of the country. We still have a lot of influence.

Of course, that last list is entirely subjective, and somewhat meaningless as presented. The US has had a lot of influence on a lot of countries. So have a lot of other countries. And a lot of countries have had a lot of influence on the US. If the inclusion on that list is to mean anything, I think you need to set more definite criteria. After all, you list South Korea. We were there under UN mandate, and didn't govern the country. We also had a lot of troops in the UK during WWII, and still have them there today, but you didn't list the UK. Why the difference?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
What about Mexico? We invaded and took 1/3 of the country. We still have a lot of influence.

Of course, that last list is entirely subjective, and somewhat meaningless as presented. The US has had a lot of influence on a lot of countries. So have a lot of other countries. And a lot of countries have had a lot of influence on the US. If the inclusion on that list is to mean anything, I think you need to set more definite criteria. After all, you list South Korea. We were there under UN mandate, and didn't govern the country. We also had a lot of troops in the UK during WWII, and still have them there today, but you didn't list the UK. Why the difference?

I included countries in that list where the US had a direct impact on elections or the politcal structure of the country or played a signifcant role in assisting a leader to power. We didn't do that in Mexico, we didn't do that in the UK, we did do that in South Korea.

I made no distinction between positive or negative influence since that is subjective anyway. Perhaps I should add a summar of why I included them on the list.

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I included countries in that list where the US had a direct impact on elections or the politcal structure of the country or played a signifcant role in assisting a leader to power. We didn't do that in Mexico...

Well, that certainly depends on the kind of analysis being made. According to some critics, current president Fox was strongly sponsored by the US, prompted (mainly) by political interests.

Then, there's also the DEA's yearly "certification of cooperation" in the war against drugs, which is seen as a direct involvement in others' internal matters, and also carries political and economic consequences.

So in any case it's a thin line to tell "direct" from anything else.

[Ed]

Innuendo. What is the point?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Chupacabras


Well, that certainly depends on the kind of analysis being made. According to some critics, current president Fox was strongly sponsored by the US, prompted (mainly) by political interests.

Then, there's also the DEA's yearly "certification of cooperation" in the war against drugs, which is seen as a direct involvement in others' internal matters, and also carries political and economic consequences.

So in any case it's a thin line to tell "direct" from anything else.

Yes I agree there, but its not a case of assassination, overthrow of the government, controling an election, or direct involvement in the structuring of a government. As I said I guess I need to put into about why each of those made the list, and as I said I'm open to suggestions as well. Mexico... to me that is not enough direct enough involvement to qualify. I don't want to

[Ed]

Yawn

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ed
Yawn

Fart

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Innuendo. What is the point?

Well, I find it interesting from an academic POV. Food for tought as to how things evolve for such a powerful country, having to have strongholds everywhere. Even more deductions can be made if you put the information on a timetable, so I appreciate the effort.

Originally posted by Ed
Mexico... to me that is not enough direct enough involvement to qualify.

Agreed in principle. It also called to my attention that there are references back to the early 1800's.

OTOH, I was wondering if the US was much involved in Nicaragua up to the 1980's, until Anastasio Somoza was thrown by the Sandinista coup (that even later evolved into the Contras issue). I was just a kid ;) but I remember that it was one of the arguments for the revolt in the first place (and even a US reporter paid the ultimate price).

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Chupacabras


Well, I find it interesting from an academic POV. Food for tought as to how things evolve for such a powerful country, having to have strongholds everywhere. Even more deductions can be made if you put the information on a timetable, so I appreciate the effort.



Agreed in principle. It also called to my attention that there are references back to the early 1800's.

OTOH, I was wondering if the US was much involved in Nicaragua up to the 1980's, until Anastasio Somoza was thrown by the Sandinista coup (that even later evolved into the Contras issue). I was just a kid ;) but I remember that it was one of the arguments for the revolt in the first place (and even a US reporter paid the ultimate price).

Ask and ye shall receive:

Check out the new and updated version, I'll be adding even more actually. I learned a lot of stuff researchign this. Ironically the Russian embassy has the best overall outline of all this info that I could find :p

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/territories.htm

http://www.usembassy.ru/usa/geography.php

[corplinx]

Malachi, please stop using this forum as your personal blog.


That said, I think the US, the UK, the Netherlands, and France should relinquish all islands in the Pacific and Caribbean they still hold. The Carbibbean is a big mess of Islands held by countries on the other side of the globe.

[Tony]

Is there a point to this?

Why don't you find the territories, possessions, and influenced areas of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Spain, Portugal, or Mexico.

Edit to add: Why didnt you include the states not part of the original 13?

[Malachi151]

Obviously you have not gone to the link.

You learn interesting stuff like this though, for example one of the largest oil refineries in the world is in St Croix in the US Virgin Islands, and there are special tax exemptions for doing business in the Virgin Islands...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Obviously you have not gone to the link.

You learn interesting stuff like this though, for example one of the largest oil refineries in the world is in St Croix in the US Virgin Islands, and there are special tax exemptions for doing business in the Virgin Islands...

I knew that. Ever been down to the Virgins? Check out their economy and you will see why the tax exemptions.

[American]

You forgot our 6 moon territories:


Landed on Moon 20 July 1969
Sea of Tranquility
Returned to Earth 24 July 1969

Landed on Moon 19 November 1969
Ocean of Storms
Returned to Earth 24 November 1969

Landed on Moon 5 February 1971
Fra Mauro
Returned to Earth 9 February 1971

Landed on Moon 30 July 1971
Hadley Rille
Returned to Earth 7 August 1971

Landed on Moon 20 April 1972
Descartes
Returned to Earth 27 April 1972

Landed on Moon 11 December 1972
Taurus-Littrow
Returned to Earth 19 December 1972



(Communist lunar landings: 0)

[jj]

Malachi speaks
Always to the same point , yes?
Debilitated!

[Malachi151]

I have no idea how anyone can have issue with this. This forum is for politics and history. All this document is, is simply a listing or all the US territories and when they were aquired. How can anyone take issue with that? Its simply a historical references. I swear you guys get worked up over anything. How can you take issue with something as simple as this?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I have no idea how anyone can have issue with this. This forum is for politics and history. All this document is, is simply a listing or all the US territories and when they were aquired. How can anyone take issue with that? Its simply a historical references. I swear you guys get worked up over anything. How can you take issue with something as simple as this?

Because it is a "discussion" board. You don't discuss, you are simply suggestive in a most cowardly way.