Commonwealth vs. State

[grue]

Regarding http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...a-commonwealth

So where does the Republic of Texas fit in to all this?

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by grue

Regarding http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...a-commonwealth

So where does the Republic of Texas fit in to all this?

The Republic of Texas existed from 1836 to 1845. (One of the 6 flags over Texas.)

March 1, 1845
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union.

https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abou...march1845.html

[Cheryl44]

Don't forget Vermont was once a republic as well.

[lance strongarm]

Tim, the author of the question to Cecil, is still confused. He says he moved to Washington DC and signs his name that way, yet he says he lives in Virginia. Is he not aware that DC isn't in any state?

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Tim, the author of the question to Cecil, is still confused. He says he moved to Washington DC and signs his name that way, yet he says he lives in Virginia. Is he not aware that DC isn't in any state?

Good point. Washington, DC is actually considered a Federal enclave and as such is under the Territorial Jurisdiction of the U.S.

[terentii]

If I'm not mistaken, the US Constitution specifically forbids making a state out of another state. So, then, why was the state of West Virginia admitted to the Union during the Civil War? More to the point, why were Virginia's western counties allowed to secede from Virginia when the US was fighting a war against secession (and the State of Virginia was never viewed by Washington as being part of another nation)?

[Chronos]

The federal government can't make a state out of another state without that state's permission. And the only portion of the state of Virginia's government that said anything to the Feds, said that it was OK to make West Virginia.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by terentii

If I'm not mistaken, the US Constitution specifically forbids making a state out of another state. So, then, why was the state of West Virginia admitted to the Union during the Civil War? More to the point, why were Virginia's western counties allowed to secede from Virginia when the US was fighting a war against secession (and the State of Virginia was never viewed by Washington as being part of another nation)?

I think Virginia was viewed as no longer part of the U.S. It certainly couldn't complain about WV, since it viewed itself as no longer part of the U.S.

The southern states were all REadmitted to the union after the war. That presumes that they left the union. I think they were considered to have successfully left, but that this was an illegal act of rebellion that, while illegal, still happened. It was a weird situation, no doubt. I'm no expert though.

I know there was lots of legal worrying and wrangling about it at the time, more than I can remember now. Worth some research.

[MEBuckner]

As to West Virginia, from this recent General Questions thread:

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

Technically, it (that is, the federal government) didn't.

What happened was--the existing government of Virginia proclaimed that the state had unilaterally seceded from the Union (as had several other states at that time), confirmed by a popular referendum. The federal government of the day decided that this (unilateral secession) was unlawful and unconstitutional and was a rebellion or insurrection against the lawful authority of the United States. After the secessionists opened fire on a U.S. military installation (Fort Sumter), Lincoln called for the loyal states to provide troops to supress this rebellion.

Meanwhile, in Virginia--specifically in the very far northern part of the state, in Wheeling, in what is now West Virginia--conventions of Virginia citizens opposed to secession met and declared that the actions of the state government were unconstitutional and illegal and that the offices of the state government were therefore vacant. A new government, the "Restored Government of Virginia" (which I'll call the RGVA) was therefore proclaimed, to act as the state government for the entire state of Virginia (including the areas of the modern state of Virginia and of the future West Virginia). In practice, the previous state government (which had in the meantime joined the Confederate States of America) continued to exercise actual control over most of the state; Unionist forces never lost control of the areas directly adjacent to Washington, DC, and much of what is now West Virginia remained in Unionist hands--in much of that northwestern area, the popular vote had been against secession--and under the control of the RGVA.

Even before the outbreak of the war, there had been intra-state regional tensions in Virginia and calls for the creation of a separate state in the northwestern areas; the RGVA therefore recognized the results of a popular referendum held in areas which it controlled late in 1861 to create a new state, eventually named West Virginia, which was duly admitted by Congress as a state of the Union with its own state government. The RGVA continued to exist as a rump government loyal to the U.S., ostensibly governing all of Virginia which had not been ceded to the new state of West Virginia, but in reality operating (to a limited extent at least) in areas which remained under Union military control throughout the war (e.g., the city of Alexandria).

There was precedent for a state government consenting to the division of its state and Congress then admitting the new state--before 1820 Maine was part of Massachusetts. That said, there were undoubtedly some questionable aspects of the whole thing. But it was more complicated that the federal government just unilaterally dividing a state into two states, which would indeed be unconstitutional.

As to states being "readmitted to the Union": The Union government's position was that the attempted secession of the Southern states was simply an illegal act of insurrection; according to the post-war Supreme Court decision Texas v. White, secession (legally speaking) never took place. States were not "readmitted to the Union", rather they were (in the eyes of the federal government) "readmitted to representation in Congress".

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

As to West Virginia, from this recent General Questions thread:

As to states being "readmitted to the Union": The Union government's position was that the attempted secession of the Southern states was simply an illegal act of insurrection; according to the post-war Supreme Court decision Texas v. White, secession (legally speaking) never took place. States were not "readmitted to the Union", rather they were (in the eyes of the federal government) "readmitted to representation in Congress".

Thanks - especially the part about readmission.

[Civil Guy]

California has styled itself as a one-time republic as well, but as I read the history books, that's really a bit of wishful thinking... right?

[etv78]

Why haven't any other states organized themselves as Commonwealths?

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by etv78

Why haven't any other states organized themselves as Commonwealths?

Probably because it was at one time seen as an archaism from founding members Massachussetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia (and the latter's first spin-off, Kentucky) and the consitutents of the other states felt it was simpler to just use "State of...".

Civil Guy - yes, a "California Republic" was proclaimed, its flag is still used by the state, but it was a flash in the pan proclamation that never constituted a real government or even seriously tried. As Cheryl44 mentions, Vermont was more of a real republic for several years, rather than accept being made part of NY and NH, just that the US refused to recognize it. Heck they even occupied and de-facto governed lands that were on paper parts of the neighboring states; eventually they got what they wanted and were admitted as a separate state.



"Commonwealth" for a particular flavor of unincorporated territory was a political doubletalk usage dug up for Puerto Rico in 1952, precisely because it can mean anything and it was clear in the various hearings that the Congress of the time did not want to have our styling in English contain ANY implicit hint of either statehood or independence (meanwhile, contrast the the styling as was sold in Spanish to the local electorate, "Associated Free State", which lumps together ALL alternatives, but now creates confusion with a "State in Free Association", a later concept that has a different and specific meaning in law).

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by etv78

Why haven't any other states organized themselves as Commonwealths?

Because it is a meaningless term. It has no legal status. It's just an old word for what we now call states.