And while we’re at it, there’s another North/South situation that needs fixing. From John C. Calhoun to the unpleasantness at Fort Sumter to Strom Thurmond, South Carolina has been an embarrassment to the nation. Let’s merge it back into (North) Carolina, where the levelheaded folks in Wilmington, Fayetteville, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, and Charlotte can stifle the rednecks of the southern part.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, would Jesse Helms be one of those level-headed North Carolinians?
Why not let North Carolina and South Dakota switch names? That way, North Dakota won’t feel like their tourist dollars are being siphoned-off by their attractive tropical neighbor, and un-reconstructed North Carolinians won’t have to say “I’m from -you’ll pardon the expression- ‘North’ Carolina.”
The real answer is because of the electoral votes and Senate representation. North and South Dakota have a combined population of 1,405,249, 6 combined electoral votes, and 4 Senators.
The closest state population to that is Idaho, with a population of 1,393,262, less than 1% fewer people. It only has 4 electoral votes and 2 Senators. The extra juice the smaller states get from their increased voting power/population ratio means they will never consent to combining.
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
In territorial days, there was but a single Dakota Territory. The 1880’s, however, were a decade of good rainfall and overly optimistic settlement on the Great Plains, and when the time came to draft a statehood act (1889), Congress acceded to the importunities of the citizens to carve the territory in two.
I like North Dakota. It has Lawrence Welk’s portrait hanging front and center in the rotunda of the state capitol, in a city named after a not-so-nice Nineteenth Century German Chancellor. Plus it has a cool and uncrowded National Park (Roosevelt) and a lot of curlers. Keep it independent, I say.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I like South Dakota.
IIRC, the Dakota Territories also included a chunk of Wyoming, if not all of it, and even some Montana. And, the **capital **of the Dakota Territories was Yankton, South Dakota; the very spot where the low-life murderer of Wild Bill found his destiny on the end of a rope. And, Lawerence Welk had to come to Yankton, South Dakota to find his first job with a radio station. Lewis and Clark came through Yankton, even if it wasn’t there yet. So did George Armstrong Custer, for that matter. South Dakota has a history!!
What’s to like about North Dakota? Who needs North Dakota? Get rid of it, I say.
[QUOTE=According to Pliny]
Consent conschment (sp?).
Just roll in the Minnesota National Guard unit #8 and they will capitulate.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t mess with North Dakota. I’ve seen the missile silos.
[QUOTE=According to Pliny]
I think it’s time to merge all the New England States, put the Virginias back together, and throw in Mariland, D.C., and Delaware.
Small states are only there to add tollbooths to the turnpikes.
[/QUOTE]
OTOH, some states are just too big. California might work better as five or six states.
Every metropolitan area above a certain size should be a separate and consolidated state, IMO. That way metropolitan problems can be handled by a government with all the constitutional powers and functions of a state government – but the region’s government can still be decentralized in practice, to the county level, as most states are. That should make the Staten Islanders shut up about seceding from NYC. If SI were but one of the 23 counties of the State of Metropolitan New York (or just the State of New York – “upstate” New York could be renamed “Hudson”), and so were Manhattan, and if the present government of NYC in its current five-borough configuration no longer existed at all (all its powers and functions either taken over by the new state government, or devolved to the counties/boroughs), then the Islanders would feel less like an oppressed province of the Manhattan Empire.
Wasn’t it the railroads that caused the division. Because the railroads were built east to west, the population centers grew up that way and there were no (or limited) contacts north and south.
[QUOTE=Cartigan]
Wasn’t it the railroads that caused the division. Because the railroads were built east to west, the population centers grew up that way and there were no (or limited) contacts north and south.
[/QUOTE]
That was certainly a factor. I would say that overly optimistic estimates of ultimate population (and political calculation) led to the split, and the existence of east-west railroads made it more logical that the split be by latitude instead of longitude.
Actually, it would make more sense to split them into East Dakota and West Dakota. The western half is much more like Montana or Colorado, while the eastern area is more like Minnesota & Iowa.
The economic structure leans that way, too. Even if you ask people to name the nearest big city, the eastern half of both North & South Dakota will name either Minneapolis/St. Paul or Des Moines, western half residents will name Denver or Billings (or maybe Cheyenne).
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Well, influential folk in North Dakota were considering changing the state’s name to Dakota awhile back, on the theory that dropping the “North” would convince people it wasn’t really a frigid wind-swept prairie.
[/QUOTE]
Well, they could try “Baja Manitoba”
[QUOTE=Miller]
I don’t think the OP goes far enough.
Do we really need any Dakotas?
[/QUOTE]
Well, we keep Canada as our unofficial annex, and except for the occasional need to lob missiles across it and over the pole, we don’t really need it, either. We should, however, keep Mount Rushmore, if only because it figures heavily into the iconic finale of North By Northwest.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
Good grief. While we’re at it, why not merge East Virginia with West Virginia?
[/QUOTE]
“East Virginia”? Where did you learn geography? Well, if we’re going to get busy puting things right, why don’t we move Kansas City entirely into Kansas instead of letting it straddle the state line as two seperate municipalities? Kansas City, Missouri makes no sense, and North Kansas City, Missouri (which isn’t actually north of Kansas City but rather completely surrounded by it) makes even less.
Don’t even get me started on “New” Mexico. I went there once and it was all old and weathered. Talk about your false advertising.
[QUOTE=chappachula]
because West Virginia is mostly north of Virginia
[/QUOTE]
In what alternate reality do you mean? The only parts of Virginia south of most of West Virginia are the relatively less populated areas of the thin stretch that forms the tail of the state. Since something like 80% of the people live in the part that is not in any way south of anything West Virginia, but very definitely EAST of most everything West Virginia, I’d say you don’t really have it quite right.
Now, if you want to call it NorthWest Virginia, that might be best of all.
As to the Dakotas, where are they? Never heard of them…
I think you could be on to a winner here,we could do it this side of the pond by making Scotland into"Very Northern England" and Wales into “Westernmost England” which I’m sure would go down a storm with both the Scots and the Welsh and their having the added honour of becoming English …well lets just say I think their hearts would be bursting with pride!
Yep,definitely a "win,win "situation!Idefy ANYBODY to find any flaws with this one.
