Federalism was a new concept at the start of the US. Some groups thought the messaging to citizens was better for “commonwealth” as “state” meant “separate King” in many uses at that time.
Hundreds of years later, there isn’t any non-messaging difference. But, changing would be super expensive for no real benefit, so that’s not likely to happen.
Several people have already said there’s no legal distinction, so I’ll offer the historical context. A commonwealth is a promise that the state (or in many cases a colony at the time) was not going to be divided up among aristocrats. They were trying to attract immigrants from Europe who were coming to the New World in search of a better life. The dream of owning your own land and not having to be subservient to a local lord was a powerful lure, and there was also the vague notion of a republican model of government where everything was being held in trust for the people to be used as decided by the people.
Now this does get a little less noble-sounding from today’s perspective where women and minorities were not included in that fair-minded equality, and even many commonwealths still had things like indentured servants and tenant farmers allowing the people who got there first to work more land than those who showed up later, creating an upper class, but as an exercise in branding and a declaration of first principles, it was a pretty persuasive thing for a long while, and it remains a part of a proud heritage whose specifics have grown murky over time.
Here is an article that explains it.
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/08/whats-in-a-name-the-four-u-s-states-that-are-technically-commonwealths/#:~:text=Ultimately%2C%20these%20four%20states%20are,well%2Dbeing%20of%20the%20people.
In short, it’s a nomenclature adopted to emphasize that the state was set up for the good of the people, not for a specific legal or other reason.
Latest Answers