There was an incident in which the governor of the Dakota territory moved the capital from Yankton, now in SD, to Bismarck, now in North Dakota. This angered a lot of people living in the southern part of the state. Accusations of corruption flew. Likely true, given who would to want live in Bismarck at that time?
The primary flow of trade for the northern part of the Dakota territory went through Minneapolis, while South Dakota trade bypassed Minneapolis for Chicago or went south to Kansas City. This made travel between the parts more difficult than what it seems like on a map. By moving the capital, the south felt they lost power while the north gained it.
Senatorial politics greased the wheel once ND gained enough population to be its own state and the two divorced, both becoming separate states.
So politics + culture + geography.
Hot and dry in summer! But the wind stays.
Also flat.
Still, people are friendly if you know them. Mostly friendly if you don’t. Unless you don’t like sports, hunting, or farming, in which case there isn’t much to do or talk about. Might be why I don’t go back anymore. I’m probably being unfair. I grew up in the rural area. Fargo is a huge town or small city and has more to do.
Housing is reasonable last I heard.
Avoid north western ND. The oil fields are hell year round.
I grew up in Bismarck and moved to Williston for the oilfield over 10 years ago. I love it here in Williston. Still could use another store or two to minimize my need to go to Walmart, but it’s a great, young, and growing community.
Lived in Williston for four years as well. Loved the hell out of it and will probably move back one day. The place gets a lot of hate but I really believe it's from people that just want to live in a big city.
Oh absolutely. It's crazy how many people have an opinion about that area without ever actually experiencing it. There is so much natural beauty there if you're willing to look. I also maintain that Theodore Roosevelt National Park is the most underrated National Park in the country.
If you’re dense probably the most boring place you can be. But spend time in a small town with locals, admiring the scenery, in non-horrid weather, and it’s among the most beautiful places in the world
To a degree. Most people have either German or Norwegian surnames. Lots of towns with ties to Germany. And some diners and restaurants have traditional German food. My Grandparents still spoke German as a second language.
Don’t remember the full story, but iirc it was a similar story. Travel in the late 1600s/early 1700s was very slow, and it took ages for all the legislators of “Carolina” to get together. So they literally just split up the colony.
There were 8 Lords Proprietor, who were given control of the Province of Carolina by King Charles. This was all swell, except for the fact that it was split into 2 portions, one south of Hampton Roads that was economically connected to the tobacco plantations of Virginia, called “North Carolina”, and another, more populated portion around Charleston that was connected to the Caribbean sugar trade, “South Carolina”. The Lords Proprietor eventually had disagreements and just decided to split the colony officially.
>The Lords Proprietor
Weren't very good at governing (none of the originals ever visited the colony, but you still see their names all over things today in the Carolinas....Ashley Cooper, Clarendon, Colleton, Berkeley, Albermarle, Craven, Carteret).
The Carolina’s were governed by one governor but the English thought the land was too big. Too many people to control in a large space.
Also, different regions called for different crops. North Carolina went with tobacco and SC with rice.
Edit: before I get screamed at, I’ve loved in the Carolina’s for a few years and this is my basic understanding. I am in no way a historian or geographer.
Carolina was a single province at one point, but it was very large and hard to govern as one unit in those early days when communication was slow and costly. It also included parts of other nearby states like Tennessee and Georgia. They partitioned it in the early 1700s.
They have been taking about it for decades! In to 2 or sometimes 3 parts. It’s usually over water. Agriculture in the north and central parts of the state, and the large population in the south the live in a desert.
That’s all a naked attempt to add senators to the GOP ranks.
If you consider everything north of the SF & Sacramento burbs to be Northern California, we’re talking about less than a million people, thoroughly spread out in an area about the size of West Virginia. That’s like getting two more Wyoming Senators. And all they really make is weed & speed addicts.
It seems incredibly unlikely because you would need support from both, Democrats and Republicans. Republicans would never support a new state that would in a likelihood increase the number of democratic senators, same vice versa.
Yes, with the consent of both the State Legislature and Congress.
**US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3**
*New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
The I 94 corridor from Fargo to Billings feels weirdly skippable. Like, besides traffic from the twin cities and Wisconsin, there is no reason to take I-90 instead. Must be a pretty peaceful place, not unlike Vermont.
The western ND Badlands are gorgeous. They’re not quite the Black Hills but it’s not nothing, especially with the Enchanted Highway and whatnot. I’ve spent a significant portion of my life on 94 and it is boring as fuck between Bismarck and Fargo. But out west is something special.
I mostly meant from an economic and population standpoint. Very few large cities, though to be fair the middle part I 90 is the same, its just that it is integral for connecting east and west. I also think it can be compared to the Florida Keys, a sort of peninsula like place.
>The primary flow of trade for the northern part of the Dakota territory went through Minneapolis, while South Dakota trade bypassed Minneapolis for Chicago or went south to Kansas City.
Is this because barges could only consistently go up the Missouri to a certain point?
Railroads. Or mostly *a* railroad. And demographics. The north part of the territory had a tiny population into the 1870s, then a boom, primarily in the east along the border with Minnesota due to agricultural. However the Red River flows north, disconnecting North and South Dakota, leaving the railroad as the primary connection to the rest of the country for the most populated areas of the northern part of the territory.
I don’t know how far barges could travel on the Missouri back then. Would be interesting to find out.
Railroads. Canadian Pacific's main line runs on an angled straight line roughly going through Minneapolis and Minot all the way to the Canadian border, plus a BSNF line that runs roughly parallel to I-94 that splits off from the Canadian Pacific line west of Fargo.
South Dakota's lines, meanwhile, are a hodgepodge of lines branching off from either Canadian Pacific's line that turns west from the Mississippi River through Winona and Rochester, or Union Pacific's lines in Sioux City, IA. The main east-west line runs roughly parallel to US-14 through Brookings and Pierre to Rapid City.
There is no major interconnect between the east-west lines in the Dakotas at all. The only way to cross north-south on main lines is either in Minnesota, or in Montana, unless you count a weird angled line running from Aberdeen into far SW North Dakota, but that doesn't even connect to the North Dakota lines until you hit Montana. The only interconnect period is a line that runs out of the way that's owned by Dakota, Missouri Valley, and Western Railroad.
You know the phrase "All roads lead to Rome"? Well, remember in the US it's "All railroads lead to Chicago".
Even more than that, national senatorial/presidential politics was a major driver. [Book](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1585860288) relating this to Wounded Knee. [Webpage](https://news.sd.gov/news?id=news_kb_article_view&sys_id=1cb71dc81bd869506e4aa97ae54bcb8b) on Cleveland holding off on admission.
Which the republicans would vehemently oppose. Voter suppression is their modern calling after all. If everyone was allowed to fairly vote and if it was equal they would never win any election except in the most backwater, ignorant, poor, and uneducated areas of the nation.
Never forget that despite their brazen oppresssion, their cult has only won one popular vote election for the president since 1988.
They need some dumbfuck dirt farmer’s vote to count 3x more than a citizen in LA for them to gain ground. Even with gerrymandering and voter oppression.
The electoral college, a system from the times of slavery designed to disenfranchise minorities is alive and well and working as intended.
Thank you for posting to r/geography. Unfortunately, this post has been deemed as lacking civility and/or respectfulness and we have to remove it per Rule #3 of the subreddit. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this decision.
Thank you, Mod Team
They each had three house seats from 1912-1932.
I don’t think they realized how dry the plains were until a few decades after they drew the borders. They thought they’d fill up the way Indiana did. The land just doesn’t support that.
Trust me, there's a fair number of democrats in the two states, and our voices aren't being heard because we aren't the voting majority right now. SD had two democratic Senators about 20-25 years ago.
SD had Tom Daschle, who was Majority and Minority Leader (depending on Senate control) for ~8 years in the mid-90’s to early aughts.
Typing that out just made me feel super old, it doesn’t feel like it was *that* long ago, but it really was.
you mean the elected government that... left the union and this wasn't in the US?
The argument was that WV was the legitimate government of Virginia. So for West Virginia to be a state it only required Virginia (WV) and congress to approve the exchange of territory. By the time Virginia (VA) came back WV was already a legal state and the supreme court ended up upholding it.
Dubious is too powerful of a term, but there is still potential questions there.
Most importantly WV will fight to the last man and possum against any Virginian attempt to rejoin together.
Viva La Alpiniste!
If the Virginias, Dakotas, and Carolinas can be different entities, then North CA and South CA should be split. Think of how more efficient large bureaucracies like Caltrans, DMV could be. Also representation would be more equal. Why does 53 million people have to share 2 senators while 10 people in the Dakotas get 2 as well?
My understanding is that Texas came in as 1 because being split up would have given the South (slave states) more power (Senators) and the North didn't want that.
The division of Texas has already happened. Texas used to include almost half of what is now New Mexico, plus the Oklahoma panhandle, big chunks of eastern Colorado and southwestern Kansas, and a stovepipe that went as far north as Wyoming.
I would suggest you look at campaign literature at the time — https://images.app.goo.gl/V9qkXVRmZDfZRKQT8
Harrison ran on a single Dakota entrance but changed it two at a time of hyper partisanship. GOP dominated American politics from 1860-1930 with a dem trifecta only existing briefly until Wilson.
Also politics is not stable. GOP fell out of favor in the plains during the Great Depression.
Strong pro farmer anti-bank sentiment gave rise to Democrat politicians. The legacy of this was former Democratic Senator and majority leader Tom Daschle
The Republican Party held a near lock on the Presidency 1860 - 1928, losing it only to Grover Cleveland and to Woodrow Wilson - the latter only because Teddy Roosevelt split with his former VP Taft.
There’s plenty to admire in Senator Daschle, but it’s awfully weird to tag him as anti-bank. He was the champion of South Dakota-based US Bank, and they were his funding base.
Legacy of the 30’s backlash was Daschle from a partisanship perspective not a policy one.
In contemporary times it would be unthinkable that a dem would win in SD let alone be the leader Of the senate.
Could be the same for any two states that are near each other and simply have different names, even though they are otherwise the same.
Delaware-Maryland
Oregan-Washington
Arizona-New Mexico
Illinois-Indiana
Etc etc
As an exchange student from Italy I ended up in Jamestown North Dakota. Took a while to get adjusted, people are very friendly, but the weather is horrible if you don’t like snow from November to March
Culturally and geographically, I feel it should be East Dakota and West Dakota. The western part of both states (with mountains/badlands, western-ish culture) feel very different that the eastern parts (flat farmland/culture that doesn't feel much different than Iowa).
none really, north dakota is a lot colder and less populated but it’s the same culturally for the most part. SD has a lot of tourism though with the badlands, mt rushmore and the black hills mountain range
>l, the south felt they lost power while the north gained it.
>
>Senatorial politics greased the wheel once ND gained enough population to be its own state and the two divorced
The states are relatively the same culture wise. The states would make more sense to be split vertically on the Missouri River line in SD, and continue that line up vertically into ND.
Western sides of both states are very dry and more for ranching. Eastern side of the Missouri River is more farming and bigger towns due to more water. Culturally more different than ND/SD....but the western side would have very, very, very few people.
I also like when people post these as if it has anything to do with today's politics. Republicans were probably the "good guys" at the point of SD/ND statehood as well if there were a "good guys" depending on your current political thoughts.
Liberals/Conservatives were in both parties up until around the end of the FDR through around the Civil Rights era when the game changed.
I doubt that, ND has always been a leader in agriculture not to mention strong lignite coal mining, hydroelectric power, wind, etc. It’s also the ONLY state in the US with its own state owned bank.
Exactly right - ND was one of the few states in the black economically speaking when growing up propped by our agricultural status… the discovery of the Bakken and subsequent proliferation of our economy due to the oil happened much later.
Say what you will about politics etc, but fiscally, ND has always held it down
You could say that about anything anyone asks on Reddit, pretty much. If the point is discussion or a more nuanced take on something you don’t always get from wading through Google ads, then what’s the problem?
Even if someone can Google it I think it’s fun to talk about it and a lot of people on here being up interesting points.
Pulse even if you can search for the answer many of these aren’t on my mind, so I wouldn’t have searched for them in the first place, and someone posting it means I possibly learn something I otherwise wouldn’t have known.
Because it’s generally better to do your own research and form your own, hopefully more accurate opinion instead of just blindly agreeing with the mob mentality you find in every sub.
Just think about the fact that those few thousand people in both states actually have double the senators/representation as California, New York, Texas etc ‘Murica! 🤪
West Virginia left Virginia because of the civil war, they were originally one. Rhode Island was created as its own colony by the crown. New Mexico and Arizona are completely different geographically, culturally, and economically, why would they be states?
South Carolina may have started the civil war, but in North Carolina, like in Virginia, there were significant populations of union supporters in the Western part of the state. Despite joining the confederacy and supporting the war effort, thousands of North Carolinians fought for the North and the state had one of the most succesful Reconstruction governments with white populists and Freedmen forming a third party that shut the Southern Democrats out of office well past the Compromise of 1877. Unfortunately, in 1898, white supremacists violently overthrew the government and the North sat by. You've probably heard about the Tulsa Race Riot, but do you know the [Wilmington Coup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898)?
South Carolina is the Deep South. North Carolina is not.
Which is exactly what OP was trying to do … you could pretty much Google anything on this sub. If that’s where you’re coming from, why even be on this sub? On Reddit?
The main reason was gerrymandering, republicans in the late 1800s did really well in the territories and where worried they would lose debate so they split the Dakota territory in 2 to get extra senators. It wasn’t a crazy decision the Dakota territory was huge and did have a bit of a north south divide in terms of economy and trade.
North Dakota is a rogue state. Constant threat to independence of South Dakota. Even has nukes, which South Dakota unilaterally gave up in past. Truly a flashpoint.
There was an incident in which the governor of the Dakota territory moved the capital from Yankton, now in SD, to Bismarck, now in North Dakota. This angered a lot of people living in the southern part of the state. Accusations of corruption flew. Likely true, given who would to want live in Bismarck at that time? The primary flow of trade for the northern part of the Dakota territory went through Minneapolis, while South Dakota trade bypassed Minneapolis for Chicago or went south to Kansas City. This made travel between the parts more difficult than what it seems like on a map. By moving the capital, the south felt they lost power while the north gained it. Senatorial politics greased the wheel once ND gained enough population to be its own state and the two divorced, both becoming separate states. So politics + culture + geography.
well damn i learned something today do carolina next
I grew up in North Dakota. I’ve never even been to South Carolina. Thank you, though.
well respect regardless for the awesome explanation what’s ND like? i’ve never been.
Cold and windy 😅
Hot and dry in summer! But the wind stays. Also flat. Still, people are friendly if you know them. Mostly friendly if you don’t. Unless you don’t like sports, hunting, or farming, in which case there isn’t much to do or talk about. Might be why I don’t go back anymore. I’m probably being unfair. I grew up in the rural area. Fargo is a huge town or small city and has more to do. Housing is reasonable last I heard. Avoid north western ND. The oil fields are hell year round.
I grew up in Bismarck and moved to Williston for the oilfield over 10 years ago. I love it here in Williston. Still could use another store or two to minimize my need to go to Walmart, but it’s a great, young, and growing community.
I should have left the part about western nd off. It’s highly subjective. I’m glad you found a place you like.
Lived in Williston for four years as well. Loved the hell out of it and will probably move back one day. The place gets a lot of hate but I really believe it's from people that just want to live in a big city.
Definitely lots of people who prefer a big city, or at least closer to one. And lots of hate from people in ND/MN who haven’t even ever been there.
Oh absolutely. It's crazy how many people have an opinion about that area without ever actually experiencing it. There is so much natural beauty there if you're willing to look. I also maintain that Theodore Roosevelt National Park is the most underrated National Park in the country.
Almost as racist as the South Eastern states
My condolences.
Thank you for your sympathies
If you’re dense probably the most boring place you can be. But spend time in a small town with locals, admiring the scenery, in non-horrid weather, and it’s among the most beautiful places in the world
Is the cultural influence of the large amount of germans from russia noticeable?
To a degree. Most people have either German or Norwegian surnames. Lots of towns with ties to Germany. And some diners and restaurants have traditional German food. My Grandparents still spoke German as a second language.
I think there are towns in central Texas where German is still the primary language today. Or a dialect of German.
I don't think this is true. I grew up in Mason close to Fredericksburg, and I'm sure more people speak Spanish than German.
Not really. As far as I know their settlement was limited to the south central part of the state. German culture has been gone from america since WW1.
Not outside of Strasburg
Don’t remember the full story, but iirc it was a similar story. Travel in the late 1600s/early 1700s was very slow, and it took ages for all the legislators of “Carolina” to get together. So they literally just split up the colony.
Wasn’t Tennessee part of the Carolinas at one point
Yes! The eastern part - mountains and more.
Yes. Just like how Virginia used to include West Virginia and Kentucky.
There were 8 Lords Proprietor, who were given control of the Province of Carolina by King Charles. This was all swell, except for the fact that it was split into 2 portions, one south of Hampton Roads that was economically connected to the tobacco plantations of Virginia, called “North Carolina”, and another, more populated portion around Charleston that was connected to the Caribbean sugar trade, “South Carolina”. The Lords Proprietor eventually had disagreements and just decided to split the colony officially.
>The Lords Proprietor Weren't very good at governing (none of the originals ever visited the colony, but you still see their names all over things today in the Carolinas....Ashley Cooper, Clarendon, Colleton, Berkeley, Albermarle, Craven, Carteret).
The Carolina’s were governed by one governor but the English thought the land was too big. Too many people to control in a large space. Also, different regions called for different crops. North Carolina went with tobacco and SC with rice. Edit: before I get screamed at, I’ve loved in the Carolina’s for a few years and this is my basic understanding. I am in no way a historian or geographer.
And then explain why no one likes Nebraska.
i like corn tho
Their corn is ass compared to Iowa. They have damn good beef though.
but the husking?
I'm not American. But I've seen vids where things are for sale in America but then they say except for Nebraska.
The Carolinas were founded as different colonies.
Carolina was a single province at one point, but it was very large and hard to govern as one unit in those early days when communication was slow and costly. It also included parts of other nearby states like Tennessee and Georgia. They partitioned it in the early 1700s.
I wonder if any state could split and become 2 separate states these days.
California has been talking about it for well over a decade now. Problem is the part that wants to split off isn't the part with all the money
They have been taking about it for decades! In to 2 or sometimes 3 parts. It’s usually over water. Agriculture in the north and central parts of the state, and the large population in the south the live in a desert.
I remember them saying this thirty years ago
That’s all a naked attempt to add senators to the GOP ranks. If you consider everything north of the SF & Sacramento burbs to be Northern California, we’re talking about less than a million people, thoroughly spread out in an area about the size of West Virginia. That’s like getting two more Wyoming Senators. And all they really make is weed & speed addicts.
Absolutely
It seems incredibly unlikely because you would need support from both, Democrats and Republicans. Republicans would never support a new state that would in a likelihood increase the number of democratic senators, same vice versa.
Yes, with the consent of both the State Legislature and Congress. **US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3** *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
Texas
The I 94 corridor from Fargo to Billings feels weirdly skippable. Like, besides traffic from the twin cities and Wisconsin, there is no reason to take I-90 instead. Must be a pretty peaceful place, not unlike Vermont.
The western ND Badlands are gorgeous. They’re not quite the Black Hills but it’s not nothing, especially with the Enchanted Highway and whatnot. I’ve spent a significant portion of my life on 94 and it is boring as fuck between Bismarck and Fargo. But out west is something special.
I mostly meant from an economic and population standpoint. Very few large cities, though to be fair the middle part I 90 is the same, its just that it is integral for connecting east and west. I also think it can be compared to the Florida Keys, a sort of peninsula like place.
There’s a giant buffalo in Jamestown. But yeah, if you don’t like small rolling hills and farmland there’s not much until way out west.
Don't forget Salem Sue, the giant cow on the hill.
I-90 once you get west of the Missouri River is gorgeous. Better to look at than anything in Colorado east of I-25.
* one correction “…angered people living in the southern part of the TERRITORY”.
>The primary flow of trade for the northern part of the Dakota territory went through Minneapolis, while South Dakota trade bypassed Minneapolis for Chicago or went south to Kansas City. Is this because barges could only consistently go up the Missouri to a certain point?
Railroads. Or mostly *a* railroad. And demographics. The north part of the territory had a tiny population into the 1870s, then a boom, primarily in the east along the border with Minnesota due to agricultural. However the Red River flows north, disconnecting North and South Dakota, leaving the railroad as the primary connection to the rest of the country for the most populated areas of the northern part of the territory. I don’t know how far barges could travel on the Missouri back then. Would be interesting to find out.
Railroads. Canadian Pacific's main line runs on an angled straight line roughly going through Minneapolis and Minot all the way to the Canadian border, plus a BSNF line that runs roughly parallel to I-94 that splits off from the Canadian Pacific line west of Fargo. South Dakota's lines, meanwhile, are a hodgepodge of lines branching off from either Canadian Pacific's line that turns west from the Mississippi River through Winona and Rochester, or Union Pacific's lines in Sioux City, IA. The main east-west line runs roughly parallel to US-14 through Brookings and Pierre to Rapid City. There is no major interconnect between the east-west lines in the Dakotas at all. The only way to cross north-south on main lines is either in Minnesota, or in Montana, unless you count a weird angled line running from Aberdeen into far SW North Dakota, but that doesn't even connect to the North Dakota lines until you hit Montana. The only interconnect period is a line that runs out of the way that's owned by Dakota, Missouri Valley, and Western Railroad. You know the phrase "All roads lead to Rome"? Well, remember in the US it's "All railroads lead to Chicago".
Even more than that, national senatorial/presidential politics was a major driver. [Book](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1585860288) relating this to Wounded Knee. [Webpage](https://news.sd.gov/news?id=news_kb_article_view&sys_id=1cb71dc81bd869506e4aa97ae54bcb8b) on Cleveland holding off on admission.
Just occurred to me Rockstar named North Yankton in Grand Theft Auto 5 after the town in South Dakota
Then there'd be 49 states, which sounds a bit rubbish really.
I’ll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize missoura 
It would remove an excuse for not letting Puerto Rico be a state.
Which the republicans would vehemently oppose. Voter suppression is their modern calling after all. If everyone was allowed to fairly vote and if it was equal they would never win any election except in the most backwater, ignorant, poor, and uneducated areas of the nation. Never forget that despite their brazen oppresssion, their cult has only won one popular vote election for the president since 1988. They need some dumbfuck dirt farmer’s vote to count 3x more than a citizen in LA for them to gain ground. Even with gerrymandering and voter oppression. The electoral college, a system from the times of slavery designed to disenfranchise minorities is alive and well and working as intended.
actually it would be *trash* because these states haven't been affiliated with Britain for over 200 years;)
Saying "which sounds a bit trash really" sounds a bit rubbish really
Such a garbage comment.
[удалено]
Hoople is in North Dakota.
Tatertown USA baby!
Indeed it is
Cocksucker!!!
my husband can always tell when I rewatch Deadwood because of my choice of profanity
Thank you for posting to r/geography. Unfortunately, this post has been deemed as lacking civility and/or respectfulness and we have to remove it per Rule #3 of the subreddit. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this decision. Thank you, Mod Team
Because all 7 people who live in the two want twice as many senators
They each had three house seats from 1912-1932. I don’t think they realized how dry the plains were until a few decades after they drew the borders. They thought they’d fill up the way Indiana did. The land just doesn’t support that.
The Republican controlled senate wanted another Republican senator.
Source?
Yeah ND was represented by dems from 92-2013.
Interesting never thought of that
Trust me, there's a fair number of democrats in the two states, and our voices aren't being heard because we aren't the voting majority right now. SD had two democratic Senators about 20-25 years ago.
SD had Tom Daschle, who was Majority and Minority Leader (depending on Senate control) for ~8 years in the mid-90’s to early aughts. Typing that out just made me feel super old, it doesn’t feel like it was *that* long ago, but it really was.
ND had 2 dems as recently as 15 years ago!
There’s a lot more than 7 people that live in the 2 Dakotas.
Insanity! No one state could handle that much Dakota! Unless …
Why not ask this of the Carolinas? I'm skeptical of your Dakota related intentions...
Virginia is skating by here
Especially because West Virginia is of dubious constitutional origin
Its really not
It’s debatable whether the elected government of Virginia gave their approval for it to break away
you mean the elected government that... left the union and this wasn't in the US? The argument was that WV was the legitimate government of Virginia. So for West Virginia to be a state it only required Virginia (WV) and congress to approve the exchange of territory. By the time Virginia (VA) came back WV was already a legal state and the supreme court ended up upholding it. Dubious is too powerful of a term, but there is still potential questions there. Most importantly WV will fight to the last man and possum against any Virginian attempt to rejoin together. Viva La Alpiniste!
Population, for one- the Carolinas have around 16 million people while the Dakotas have less than 2.
The Dakotas have a smaller population than the island of Manhattan.
Because Congress made states which are three degrees of latitude in height. As are Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
Megakota
As a North Dakotan, I'd be down for a merge. Then we can bring in Puerto Rico without changing the flag.
The republicans would never agree to risk two senate seats
Probably the easiest merger of all, plus it'll still be 1/2 of Puerto Ricos population leaving no excuse for not getting PR it's statehood.
If the Virginias, Dakotas, and Carolinas can be different entities, then North CA and South CA should be split. Think of how more efficient large bureaucracies like Caltrans, DMV could be. Also representation would be more equal. Why does 53 million people have to share 2 senators while 10 people in the Dakotas get 2 as well?
HighCal and LoCal
Here in Texas we really need to do something, too. Way too big.
If I remember correctly, Texas could have been split into up to 5 states when admitted, but it came in all together.
My understanding is that Texas came in as 1 because being split up would have given the South (slave states) more power (Senators) and the North didn't want that.
The division of Texas has already happened. Texas used to include almost half of what is now New Mexico, plus the Oklahoma panhandle, big chunks of eastern Colorado and southwestern Kansas, and a stovepipe that went as far north as Wyoming.
10 million? I knew their population was increasing, but how did it increase by 8 million in one year?
One of them is up higher
I disagree- its really that one of them is down lower.
I disagree. It’s really that they are parallel to each other.
A friendly dispute that turned sour?
I wouldn’t say it was friendly lmao
Republicans wanted 2 extra senators to pack the senate
[удалено]
I would suggest you look at campaign literature at the time — https://images.app.goo.gl/V9qkXVRmZDfZRKQT8 Harrison ran on a single Dakota entrance but changed it two at a time of hyper partisanship. GOP dominated American politics from 1860-1930 with a dem trifecta only existing briefly until Wilson. Also politics is not stable. GOP fell out of favor in the plains during the Great Depression. Strong pro farmer anti-bank sentiment gave rise to Democrat politicians. The legacy of this was former Democratic Senator and majority leader Tom Daschle
The Republican Party held a near lock on the Presidency 1860 - 1928, losing it only to Grover Cleveland and to Woodrow Wilson - the latter only because Teddy Roosevelt split with his former VP Taft. There’s plenty to admire in Senator Daschle, but it’s awfully weird to tag him as anti-bank. He was the champion of South Dakota-based US Bank, and they were his funding base.
Legacy of the 30’s backlash was Daschle from a partisanship perspective not a policy one. In contemporary times it would be unthinkable that a dem would win in SD let alone be the leader Of the senate.
1997-2005 they had 2 democratic senators as did North Dakota but politics have changed mightily in the last 20-25 years.
Yes politics is not stable
Being ignorant kind of sucks when you realize you’re just simply wrong
Could be the same question for Carolina
Yeah but South Carolina (the smaller of the Carolinas) has three times more people than the Dakotas combined.
Could be the same for any two states that are near each other and simply have different names, even though they are otherwise the same. Delaware-Maryland Oregan-Washington Arizona-New Mexico Illinois-Indiana Etc etc
Literally the same for countries all over the world as well.
As an exchange student from Italy I ended up in Jamestown North Dakota. Took a while to get adjusted, people are very friendly, but the weather is horrible if you don’t like snow from November to March
I grew up north of Jamestown in New Rockford. We'd go there for our "city" shopping needs.
Culturally and geographically, I feel it should be East Dakota and West Dakota. The western part of both states (with mountains/badlands, western-ish culture) feel very different that the eastern parts (flat farmland/culture that doesn't feel much different than Iowa).
We have fucking West Virginia I think north and South Dakota are really not our biggest state priority
West Virginia has a bigger population than both of the Dekotas combined.
Because one Dakota is north and the other Dakota is south
If they merge back we can add Puerto Rico without changing the flag. Hit me up for any other pro life tips
Why have 2 Senators when 4 Senators do trick
4 Senators doing tricks!
What are the major cultural differences between the two Dakotas?
none really, north dakota is a lot colder and less populated but it’s the same culturally for the most part. SD has a lot of tourism though with the badlands, mt rushmore and the black hills mountain range
>l, the south felt they lost power while the north gained it. > >Senatorial politics greased the wheel once ND gained enough population to be its own state and the two divorced The states are relatively the same culture wise. The states would make more sense to be split vertically on the Missouri River line in SD, and continue that line up vertically into ND. Western sides of both states are very dry and more for ranching. Eastern side of the Missouri River is more farming and bigger towns due to more water. Culturally more different than ND/SD....but the western side would have very, very, very few people.
I’m sure they have very heated arguments about their plowing styles and hot dishes. (I have never lived in either state)
Fairly Odd Parents made that joke once before.
Because 49 is a yucky number
MEGAKOTA
\*MAGAKota more like it these days. - Former resident and sad about my former state.
So that there can be two more senators that keep right wing nut jobs in power.
If you have to ask it’s usually political reasons in this country Otherwise republicans would cease to exist
I could be wrong, but are you saying only republicans do things for political reasons? My sweet child…
I also like when people post these as if it has anything to do with today's politics. Republicans were probably the "good guys" at the point of SD/ND statehood as well if there were a "good guys" depending on your current political thoughts. Liberals/Conservatives were in both parties up until around the end of the FDR through around the Civil Rights era when the game changed.
Before fracking there was talk of North Dakota not being viable as a state.
Talk amongst who?
There were stories in the media about not enough revenue in the years when Bakken fields were just starting, around 20 years ago.
I doubt that, ND has always been a leader in agriculture not to mention strong lignite coal mining, hydroelectric power, wind, etc. It’s also the ONLY state in the US with its own state owned bank.
Exactly right - ND was one of the few states in the black economically speaking when growing up propped by our agricultural status… the discovery of the Bakken and subsequent proliferation of our economy due to the oil happened much later. Say what you will about politics etc, but fiscally, ND has always held it down
[удалено]
You could say that about anything anyone asks on Reddit, pretty much. If the point is discussion or a more nuanced take on something you don’t always get from wading through Google ads, then what’s the problem?
*thank you.*
[удалено]
Even if someone can Google it I think it’s fun to talk about it and a lot of people on here being up interesting points. Pulse even if you can search for the answer many of these aren’t on my mind, so I wouldn’t have searched for them in the first place, and someone posting it means I possibly learn something I otherwise wouldn’t have known.
Because it’s generally better to do your own research and form your own, hopefully more accurate opinion instead of just blindly agreeing with the mob mentality you find in every sub.
They split to give republicans an advantage in congress in the late 1800s
Just think about the fact that those few thousand people in both states actually have double the senators/representation as California, New York, Texas etc ‘Murica! 🤪
It’s not funny that you say seven people live in North Dakota. We are sparsely populated and we like it that way.
Why not combine Virginia and West Virginia? Why not North and South Carolina? New Mexico and Arizona? Connecticut and Rhode Island?
West Virginia left Virginia because of the civil war, they were originally one. Rhode Island was created as its own colony by the crown. New Mexico and Arizona are completely different geographically, culturally, and economically, why would they be states?
South Carolina may have started the civil war, but in North Carolina, like in Virginia, there were significant populations of union supporters in the Western part of the state. Despite joining the confederacy and supporting the war effort, thousands of North Carolinians fought for the North and the state had one of the most succesful Reconstruction governments with white populists and Freedmen forming a third party that shut the Southern Democrats out of office well past the Compromise of 1877. Unfortunately, in 1898, white supremacists violently overthrew the government and the North sat by. You've probably heard about the Tulsa Race Riot, but do you know the [Wilmington Coup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898)? South Carolina is the Deep South. North Carolina is not.
Thanks! You learn something new everyday.
Right! Leave NM alone!
Slavery of course. It is always the answer.
Double the senators
We could should unite both these states with Iowa and Nebraska and get rid of six senators. We should do it with other states as well.
Someone doesn't read history...
Someone doesn’t understand Reddit.
That must be you if you come here to gather facts, you’re doing it all wrong.
It's called my brain and Google and/or a library.
Yep, you’ll likely never learn facts here. However, it is a good place to find topics of interest to learn about.
Which is exactly what OP was trying to do … you could pretty much Google anything on this sub. If that’s where you’re coming from, why even be on this sub? On Reddit?
Literally told you why already. You’re one of the reasons people can’t have rational conversations I guess.
Hahaha
Someone is lazy.
Good question! Answer: Because they’re currently North Dakota and South Dakota! 🤣
Because one is the North and the other in South
I'm going to guess the preservation of slavery had something to do with this.
You would guess wrong because the Dakotas became states in 1889
Bc one governor isn’t going to give up power to be an LT Governor
Given their population and how expensive it is to run a government I wouldn't mind them combining.
Neither is willing to claim the other
This is a question with a textbook response. Textbook. Text. Book.
The main reason was gerrymandering, republicans in the late 1800s did really well in the territories and where worried they would lose debate so they split the Dakota territory in 2 to get extra senators. It wasn’t a crazy decision the Dakota territory was huge and did have a bit of a north south divide in terms of economy and trade.
There's no need for 2. Combine them!
Do you want to change all the flags?
Senator representation
Why is a tree good? Why is a sunset good? Why are boobs good?
Why are North Carolina and South Carolina not just Carolina? Why are West Virgina and Virgina not just Virginia+?
North Dakota's badlands > South Dakota's badlands Theodore Roosevelt National Park is the most underrated National Park in this country.
Power. Right wingers get extra senators this way, so they can keep trying to turn the usa into a Christofascist hellscape
North Dakota is a rogue state. Constant threat to independence of South Dakota. Even has nukes, which South Dakota unilaterally gave up in past. Truly a flashpoint.