Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia stand out among the fifty United States, sharing a distinctive designation: they are known as commonwealths. This begs the question: does this title signify something more than just a name? Does it grant these states special privileges or set them apart legally from their counterparts? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. In practical terms, there is no functional difference between a commonwealth and a state in the U.S. system. However, delving into the constitutional histories of these four commonwealths reveals fascinating insights into why they adopted this particular term, rooted in historical and philosophical ideals.
To understand the term “commonwealth,” we must journey back to 17th-century England. During the tumultuous English Civil War, the nation underwent a significant transformation. In 1649, the monarchy was abolished, and England became a commonwealth. This marked a period where the nation was conceived as a state governed for the common good, rather than ruled by a monarch. This historical episode planted the seed for the term’s adoption in America.
Virginia holds the distinction of being the first American colony to embrace the commonwealth designation. Initially adopted during the English Commonwealth period, Virginia briefly used the title before reverting to a royal colony upon the restoration of the English monarchy in 1660. However, the term resurfaced prominently when Virginia framed its constitution on June 29, 1776, amidst the burgeoning American Revolution. Historical records, such as the Hornbook of Virginia History, suggest that this choice was deliberate. “Commonwealth” was employed to underscore that Virginia’s newly formed government was founded on the principle of popular sovereignty, where power resided in the people, united for their collective welfare – the “common weal.”
Pennsylvania closely followed Virginia’s lead, officially adopting the designation of commonwealth when it ratified its first constitution in September 1776. Inspired by similar ideals of self-governance and public good that propelled Virginia’s decision, Pennsylvania’s founders chose “commonwealth” to reflect the foundational principles of their newly established government. This decision cemented Pennsylvania’s place among the states with this unique title.
Massachusetts became the third state to adopt the commonwealth title when it ratified its constitution in 1780. Drafted by John Adams, a key figure in American independence, the Massachusetts constitution embraced the term “commonwealth.” According to the official website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Adams’s choice may have been influenced by the term’s association with “anti-monarchial sentiment” prevalent among certain political thinkers. By selecting “commonwealth,” Adams likely intended to emphasize that Massachusetts was established as a representative democracy, distancing itself from monarchical systems of governance.
Kentucky, the last of the four commonwealths, presents a slightly different case. Unlike Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, Kentucky was not one of the original thirteen colonies. Initially part of Virginia, Kentucky was ceded to the United States in 1792. Interestingly, Kentucky’s first constitution drew inspiration from Pennsylvania’s 1790 Constitution, highlighting a connection to another commonwealth state. Although Kentucky adopted its first constitution in 1792, it wasn’t until its fourth constitution, ratified in 1891, that the preamble explicitly declared “The Commonwealth of Kentucky” as the official name. Earlier constitutions used “state” and “commonwealth” interchangeably, indicating a gradual formalization of the commonwealth designation over time.
In conclusion, the designation of “commonwealth” for Pennsylvania, along with Virginia, Massachusetts, and Kentucky, is primarily a matter of historical and symbolic significance. These states are commonwealths simply because their constitution framers chose to declare them so. While the term carries no unique legal implications compared to “state,” it reflects a conscious decision by the founders to emphasize the principle that these governments are founded to serve the common good and welfare of their people. The term “commonwealth” serves as a lasting reminder of the historical ideals of civic virtue and popular sovereignty that shaped the foundation of these states, even if in modern legal and practical contexts, the distinction is largely nominal.
