What is the difference between a freeholder state and a commonwealth state?

I hope this link helps, but to sum it up really nothing is different.

As I understand it ( which could easily be wrong ) the freeholder state is an almost perfect libertarian state, with the owners holding their land in fee simple ( a legal term meaning “I own everything there is to own about this property, damn it, and you can’t make me do anything I don’t want to do on it or with it!” ). A commonwealth is a government which holds much of the property in the common interest of all its members, with the owners of private property having many restrictions about what they can do with it and on it.

The differences and the definitions are probably rather more complicated, but that’s the basics of what I understand about the two.

This is the best definition I found for Freeholder:

What is a Freeholder?
In New Jersey’s beginning history, any person who owned land free from debts, mortgages, and other legal claims or liens was a “freeholder.” The British concept of the County was as a unit of local government, reinforcing the idea that only free citizens, holders of unencumbered land, were eligible to vote and hold office. Thus, those who were elected to serve were the “Chosen Freeholders.” At first, legislative functions were performed by the Courts; subsequently, these functions were taken on by a Board of Justices and Chosen Freeholders. As the development of the State would dictate, the Judges became increasingly involved with Judicial matters, and in 1798, the New Jersey State Legislative established the Board of Chosen Freeholders as the administrative and legislative head of County Government. In 1912, a law was passed allowing voters to elect members of the Board from the County at large.

This gives a more generalized definition.

However, the Wiki has a fairly clear article about a Commonwealth. These are places that govern based on the consent of the people, as opposed to having been derived from an earlier colonial status.

The major difference seems to be how they legitimize their government.

Well, I was at least PARTIALLY right! : P

What about accepting Federal money for a commonwealth state, like Kentucky. I have been told that commonwealth do not have to accept Federal money, so their government does not have to abide by Federal laws.

Any truth to this?

That sounds like funny business, @john65pennington.

@john65pennington No, there is no truth to that. The fact that Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia designate themselves “commonwealths” has no legal impact whatsoever. It is a byproduct of history. The unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas are also referred to as commonwealths, however, and they do have a different legal status than US states.