Okay, I know why there is a Virginia and West Virginia.
But why is there a North Dakota AND South Dakota? How and why did they decide the Dakota territory should be split when statehood came (same day for both states, IIRC)?
And, while we’re at it, why is there two Carolinas?
South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Washington, Wyoming, and Idaho were all admitted to the Union during the 51[sup]st[/sup] Congress (1889-90), when Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency. I’ve heard it was a ploy to keep control of the Senate (since most of those states were expected to vote Republican). Obviously, two Dakotas instead of one means two extra (Republican) Senators. The first 4 Senators from the Dakotas were in fact all Republicans (Casey and Pierce of N.D. and Pettigrew and Moody of S.D.)
If that was the real reason behind the admission of so many states in such a brief period, it may not have worked very well. Republicans maintained control of the Senate in the 52d Congress but lost control in the 53d Congress.
Most sources point to the South Dakotans as the ones wanting to be a separate state. There were people in that part of the territory and they thought they deserved to go out on their own.
South Dakota started out with 2 representatives in the House, while North Dakota only had one. After the 1900 Census, both states got 2 reps. By 1920, each state got up to 3 reps. In 1940, both states went back down to 2 reps. In 1980, North Dakota dropped back to 1 rep. In 1990, South Dakota joined North Dakota with 1 rep.
North Dakota in its first presidential election cast its 3 electoral votes for 3 different candidates. My opinion of that is “D’Oh!”
My tenth grade history teacher regularly told his students that there actually is no “North Dakota,” that, in fact, there is nothing there. Just a big empty space. Nothing.
The U.S. government named the “other” state “South Dakota” just to throw everyone off.
Proprietary colony of Carolina founded 1669.
Two governing bodies grew up, one based in Charlston (the original at te site of the first settlement) and the other later in the North (supposedly because the physical distance was too great to send representatives to Charlston and a de facto assembly for the North came into being in the mid 1690s.) It was originally intended that thre should only be one legislature, but the two seats of government were recognized by the Propritors and a separate Governor for the north was appointed in 1712.
Someone can tell me the deal with R.I. and Conn. I know the name isn’t the same at all, but weren’t they part of Mass. to begin with?
Basically they had “religious differences”.
Roger Williams colonized Rhode Island with dissenters who felt that Mass. was too intolerant.
Later Connecticut was established by colonists who felt that Massachussets was no longer Puritain enough.