Hi Bret,

This stuff interests me (as you saw), but more on the casual level than anything.

Regardless, it does seem that local circumstance, current convention and "accident" play as much of a role as any in the naming of such things.

Cheers,

JimN

>>SNIP
>>Interesting. Seems to be a semantical problem with political overtones.
>>Your original was the difference between a commonwealth and a territory. Seems the real difficulty should be the difference between a "territory" and a "possession" it seems to me.
>>
>>I can see any state of your union calling itself a "commonwealth" if, historically, it was created by the wilful joining of two or more counties (or other such entities).
>>
>>Do you know if any/many of the non-original 13 states were called (by the federal government) territories or possessions (or whatever) prior to becoming states? I seem to remember reading of "Oklahoma Territory" in various places. I wonder if it was residents of that area or the Federal Government that named it that (especially the 'territory' part)?
>>
>>"Possession" has the 'look' of referring to offshore entities. I wonder if any of the continental 48 were ever called "possessions". I could see Louisiana or Alaska being called that since they were bought but have no idea in fact.
>>
>>Finally, since CNMI is a U.S. possession, how is it governed?...By who? A Governor (appointed or elected, and by who), a "Governor General" as was common for the British model (Canada still has a ceremonial one), a Mayor, a General (of the military variety)? Just curious.
>
>I was using the term "possession" generically for all bits of the U.S. that aren't states or the District of Columbia. I would have used the term "territory" but Jill doesn't seem to think it's appropriate.
>
>Perhaps Virginia and the other three states (Kentucky, maybe?) that call themselves "commonwealths" do so because they were, as you say, "created by the wilful joining of two or more counties" though that would be very early in their history. Or there may be no good reason. Anyhow, their legal status now is no different.
>
>As far as I know, all other states, after the first thirteen, were territories or parts of territories before they became states. Some may not have been routinely called that. I never heard of "Hawaii territory" called that. Local government would have varied a lot and often would have been non-existent to start with, when a territory was still unexplored (by anglos, of course). How they were acquired probably had no bearing on how they were then governed. Naming probably happened in various ways. Even the process of becoming a state wasn't consistent over time.
>
>The CNMI, Puerto Rico, and probably the other larger possessions, elect their own governors and legislatures. I don't know what if any authority the federal government exercises beyond that which it has over states. Small Pacific island territories with large military bases and no permanent population are probably administered by the defense department, which would certainly have a lot of clout throughout the Pacific. In the past, the military largely ran things throughout the Pacific for their own convenience. Some possessions may be receiving subsidies and may therefore require budget approval by a congressional comittee.
>
>Residents of DC, by the way, pay federal income tax, but have no voting representation in congress. They got the vote for president only in the early '60s by constitutional amendment and began electing their own mayor only in the early '70s (and eventually picked a dreadful one, as the whole world knows). DC license plates now say "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION".