Four of the Fifty U.S. States are Commonwealths

[jack]

The other thing was the old chestnut about how many US states there are. The question is confused because several of them are commonwealths. I ignored this trivia question for ages, not knowing anything about it, but when it came up there, I finally felt impelled to look up a definitive answer.

Before that, I couldn't even have told you the traditional number with confidence. For the record, there are:

* 50 entities commonly referred to as states, including Alaska and Hawaii not contiguous with the rest
* DC
* Puerto Rico
* Some incorporated territories (mainly inhabited atols)
* Some unincorportated territories (mainly uninhabited atols)
* Some regions that may overlap with an above case (water, indian reservations, etc)

People often seem to think there are 52 states. Perhaps because 50 sounds too round a number. There are a couple of suggestions for why this is. (1) People remembered Alaska and Hawaii, but thought they were as well (2) That's how many cards there are in a deck.

I certainly suffered from the second factual false friend :)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread212402/pg1 has a humorous description of the situation, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States a more sober one.

However, the "trick" question is about the states.

How many US states are there in the USA?

This typically crops up in trivia questions and the like. It generally goes something like,

Person A: How many US states are there in the USA?
Person B: 50
Person A: Ha ha! You're wrong! [1, 2, 3, or 4] of them are Commonwealths!

And sometimes you get:

Person C: Ha ha! No, you're wrong!

QI stopped at line three. (Did I remember that correctly?) But I think I disagree, I think its best to say there are 50. Although, of course, if anyone ever asks the question, the Commonwealth of Virginia had better be the first thing out of your mouth if you guess that's what they meant, or they'll ignore your citations and consider you an idiot for the next week.

As I understand it, "state" was originally referring to a political entity the way "country" does. The articles of independence talk about severing ties from the state of Britain.

I use Virginia as an example. There seem to be two possibilities.

(1) Virginia is a commonwealth, not a state, although shares all properties with a US State.
(2) People are fooled into believing in false dichotomy that it must be a commonwealth OR a state, the Commonwealth of Virginia is a state the way the Kingdom of Great Britain is a country.

Or possibly somewhere in between. However, the second case looks most convincing to me.

Evidence

As far as I can see, the evidence that Commonwealth of Virginia can be described as a US State is:

* It was a state in the sense the framers of the constitution were thinking of, a political entity
* It signed the Articles of Confederation that referred to the thirteen uniting units as states
* The constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia refers to itself as a state in at least one section
* It is one of the entities having all the rights and responsibilities of a state as described in the US constitution
* It is commonly referred to as a State, official documents mentioning US States don't have to add "and commonwealths"

And the evidence that it isn't a state:

* It doesn't use "State" in its official title, whereas other states do.

It comes down to the meaning of the words. I think the meaning I'm thinking of for "state" is the only reasonable one in the context, and normally intended. I think "commonwealth" is more fuzzy, to some extent it describes entities having some philosophy, but a lot it just refers to several sets of entities that have come to be identified in that way. Like, if you ask "How many kingdoms are there," you might have to ask "Do you meant, how many countries technically ruled by a monarch? Or how many countries called 'kingdom'?"

If so, it sounds to me like the Commonwealths mentioned are definitely *also* states. So mentioning this distinction is sensible, but "50" is the only correct answer.

However, I've probably missed *something*, possibly something important. Can anyone add anything? Does the constitution treat them in any way differently (I thought I remembered that it did, but couldn't find anything.)

ETA: Followup post here

Comments

[cornute.livejournal.com]

Well, Virginia is a state that calls itself a commonwealth. It doesn't change the fact that it's a state any more than preferring "Mike" changes your name from "Michael" unless you do...uh, whatever it is y'all do for name changes. Deed poll, I think?

It's the same way with Louisiana-- unlike other states, its smaller subdivisions are called parishes, not counties. However, if asked for the state and county on a form, you might reply "Louisiana, Bossier parish" or even simply "Louisiana, Bossier." Knowing that it's called a parish is really just a shibboleth; and the same applies to "commonwealths."

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

That's what I would have assumed. I'm glad it seems right? But as people I respect seem to go for 46 answer, I wanted to look it up for myself so I could stand some chance of settling the matter if it ever came up :)

[cornute.livejournal.com]

If you want to talk about Indian properties, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. There are both "reservations" (which are tribal lands set aside for specific groups of pre-European-indigenous peoples) and "nations" which refers to a particular section of a state where both Indians and non-Indians may live and hold property.

I grew up in the Chickasaw Nation capital, which is a small county seat (er, the principal city of a county, of which there are 77 in our state) in southeastern Oklahoma. The nation extends over several counties, and basically what that means is this:

Land belonging to the Chickasaws is under their legal jurisdiction, so if a crime is committed there, their own police investigate (and they call in help if needed). They have their own taxes and their own budget. And they even have their own license plates. (The license plates aren't vanity ones-- the money from the car tag really goes to their government, not the regular state government.) This goes to pay for historical programs, the museum, the hospital, and lots of other things, some of which are available for everyone and some of which aren't. My dad has been trying to get me to go work for them for some time, in fact, because their benefits are just kick-ass.

Anyways, interspersed between all of these Indian properties are plenty of Oklahomans whose families moved in *after* the land run, and there's no real legal impediment to both existing together, any more than between two contiguous city districts.

[megamole.livejournal.com]

Interesting fact: One of the causes of the US Civil War was the disagreement over whether, having joined the Union, a state (or group of states) had the right to secede from it.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

The other reason was Yankee cooking.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

:)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Possibly even the second most well-known, depending how you look at it :) Of course, it's a funny thing. My sympathies are naturally co-opted by the north half (partly being non-slave-owning, partly being winning, etc). But nowadays the idea of struggling to keep hold of half a country that doesn't want to be[1] seems clearly a potential for disaster.

IIRC, another factoid is about Texas having a special clause somewhere about being able to secede, or split itself into five, but iirc, it exists but is basically void, as needs federal approval, so any state could do the same if the US govt allowed.

[1] More difficult if *some* of it doesn't want to be, of course.

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

This is nonsense, except in the most pedantic interpretation (in which "cause" means "any event without which the war would not have happened"). Which I guess makes it an appropriate comment for a QI discussion thread.

You can see that it's nonsense without having to know anything about the US Civil War it. Politics is not a childish game of "dare": a disagreement about whether states can secede cannot cause that secession. Once the first state secedes, of course then the disagreement becomes operative and leads to war. But the disagreement did not cause the secession.

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

If I responded rather intemperately, it's because there's a tendency among supporters of the Confederacy to obscure the cause of the war (slavery) with a fog of states' rights.

I guess that you are aware of this and that your bolding of the word "one" is a nod to this discourse. But I think you may find that even though you're aware of the fog, you've been led astray by it.

The point about states' rights is that they were never an issue in any abstract sense. Southerners were for states' rights when they allowed the perpetuation of slavery (e.g. in Kansas), and they were against states' rights when they allowed slaves to go free (e.g. in Massachusetts).

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

I think the founding Virginians would *flip* if they knew people were trying to say they aren't a state. :-P I mean, the stars on the flag are there for a reason (one for each state!), and certainly when Jefferson was writing about the thirteen original states as "free and independent states," I'm sure he fully intended his own "state" to be included. Those people who are trying to discount Virginia as a commonwealth are idiots.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I actually get the impression that people who say this (whether they are themselves or not) think Virginians think being a Commonwealth is special in some way, they have all the aspects of a state, but in addition, a small relevant factoid with a few vaguely positive philosophical overtones.

However, maybe I'm going everyone an injustice and I totally misremembered what everyone who made a deal out of this issue was saying, or they were saying something important I misunderstood.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I hadn't heard that one. A similarly dull question is 'How many lakes are there in the Lake District?'

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Ooh, appropriate icon :)

A similarly dull question is 'How many lakes are there in the Lake District?'

I've absolutely no idea whatsoever, but I bet whatever it is, it depends how big something is (or connected) before it's called a lake. *reads* So, is there any specific trick, or is just how you choose to define lake?

At least that's arguably interesting, that lake is somewhat subjective is a point conceivably worth making. But still meh.

*thinking* Even questions where you're alerting someone to a *genuine* subtlety of a definition, aren't *that* interesting. They can be interesting in a "Hey, fact!" way, but quickly get tedious as a "Hey, I know and you don't", especially if someone is just using common terminology, rather than being ignorant/arrogant.

The states thing just seems vague. Apparently there is an interesting point buried there somewhere -- that there's a false dichotomy, and people don't realise. But dwelling on it seems so tedious[1].

[1] I recoginse that I, well, am dwelling on it :)

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

The answer is one: only Bassenthwaite Lake is called 'lake'. The answer is mildly diverting but the wrong question's being asked.

So it's a good parallel with the QI question about states. Your audience may not be sure about the definition of a state but they'll be a damn sight more confident they know a lake when they see a decent-sized body of water.

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

This is exactly the kind of stale pedantic gotcha! that QI has always delighted in, so I don't think you'll get anywhere by thinking too deeply about it.

I'm sure everyone has their own QI moment where the pedantry boiled over. For me it was the episode where the panellists were invited by some roundabout means to name an Australian duck-billed egg-laying mammal. "Platypus!" said Alan. Arooga! Arooga! Oh no, said Stephen, Platypus is a genus of weevils. The answer should have been Ornithorhynchus.

But only moments later, Stephen himself was talking blithely about that other Australian monotreme, the echnida. I had to turn off the TV, I was so annoyed.

However, now I've calmed down, I reckon that this kind of experience is the very essence of the programme.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

This is exactly the kind of stale pedantic gotcha! that QI has always delighted in, so I don't think you'll get anywhere by thinking too deeply about it.

:) That makes a lot of sense.

In the case you were annoyed by I can almost see the funny side -- certainly it sounds like it should have been platypus, but somehow Alan Davies face after 'Platypus. Arooga! Arooga!' sounds almost worth it. For that matter, if everyone knows the score, then I can laugh along. But QI was sold to me as being good at this sort of thing, so it disappointed me that they didn't seem to be helping knowledge in the end. Either way, it feels good to have worked out a definitive answer to this (or similar) questions, as it does seem to come up every so often.

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

I'm not 100% sure now that I properly communicated my annoyance with the platypus/echidna episode, so I'll spell it out just to be sure.

The final straw for me was not that the answer "platypus" was wrong, but that Stephen was happy to use the word "echidna" in more or less the very next sentence. Echidna is a genus of moray eels; in order to adhere to his own standards of pedantry he should have said Tachyglossus. This was slightly more hypocrisy than I could momentarily take.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I know what you're saying (and, generally speaking, agree, that's what would annoy me).

But I think the case with urban legends is that it's not that people think the wrong answer is correct (which would be annoying) but don't care which answer is correct (which is much worse). However, acknowledging what you're doing is good, a breath of fresh air even considering how most people treat legends (cf. with someone I know *is* a sceptic we can joke about it, knowing what's true and what's not). So since it was SO over the top, it felt like they're admitting it, playing a part rather than actually being gullible -- which isn't exactly a complete description, but for me happened to make it seem tolerable. I don't know if that made any sense whatsoever?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Although I'm glad to know someone had agreed with my first impression there.

PS. Hi, welcome to my journal.

[senji.livejournal.com]

Americans further confuse the matter by using 'the 48 states' to refer to the bits of America joined on to the other bits. (*including* DC).

[cornute.livejournal.com]

Not quite; I've heard "lower 48" but never "the 48." There are some vague descriptors of various parts of the country and arguments about which states belong to which; Oklahoma, for instance, is sometimes South and sometimes not; sometimes Southwest and sometimes Midwest; the only thing that anyone can really agree on is that it's the heart of the north-south strip of states called Tornado Alley.

"The continental United States" is a common phrase, or "CONUS" (the military smooshed-together word). However, there are 49 states on the North American continent.

Alaskans consider it kind of rude to say "the continental US" and not mean Alaska, so they say "the lower 48" (not really "the 48"-- "lower" is in there). Alaskans are just different, though. (My partner and his daughter are Alaskan.)

Hawaiians, on the other hand, use "the mainland" for the other 49.