How come that some states, when they incorporated into the US, got two for the price of one, so to speak? OK, Virginia and West Virginia I can understand, different allegiances in the Civil War, but what about the others? Why all the Norths and Souths. (I`m ruling out size as a reason, look at Texas, Alaska, California; also population, ( Dakotans are hardly squeezed in shoulder to shoulder).
ass-guess a’comin.
Dakota was the name of the territory. however, settlers settled into two main groups, or one group of settlers evolved into two groups, which didn’t agree on various salient issues.
or maybe it had soemthing to do with slavery.
or with the ideal number of stars on the damn flag.
jb
I think possibly the Dakota Territory was regarded as simply being too unwieldy an area to be a single state. It would have been a pretty large state, but only a bit larger than Montana, smaller than California, smaller than Texas, and much smaller than Alaska (which really does have some unwieldiness problems regarding travel between the Panhandle and the rest of the state). There may also have been some over-optisism with regard to just how well-settled the area would eventually become. If the Dakotas had achieved the population density of Iowa, they would have had a combined population of over 7.6 million, and two states with populations of 3.5 million+ isn’t really that out of line. (The “average” U.S. state should have something like 5 million odd people.) If they’d achieved the population density of Illinois, they’d have wound up with a whopping 31.7 million total population. Of course, there are very good reasons of climate and geography why this was never in the cards–the Dakotas actually have a combined population of about 1.4 million people–but one can imagine 19th Century booster types talking themselves into believing otherwise. From the Britannica article on the history of South Dakota, it appears there was a gold rush in the southern section of the Dakota Territory which caused a considerable increase in the area’s population, and fueled desire in the south for a separate state, somewhat against the wishes of Congress and the north. Of course, that demographic boom didn’t exactly lead to the region becoming the next California or anything–South Dakota has a total population of three-quarters of a million, a bit more than North Dakota’s 640-odd thousand, but that’s still fewer people than live in Rhode Island, or for that matter San Jose, California.
(All this said, it’s worth pointing out that if the Dakota Territory had simply been divided into two states called Pierre and Bismarck, no one would ever ask this question. Demographically speaking, you could combine Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and come up with a single state about 23% larger than Texas in area with a population between that of New Hampshire and Connecticut. Of course, making Texas the third largest state would really get their goat.)
North and South Carolina’s division predates the Union; they were well-established as separate entities at the time of the Revolution, and could no more be amalgamated than any other two of the Thirteen Colonies. Although it seems somewhat quaint today, in the 18th Century, the distance between Charleston and Albemarle really was pretty considerable with the transportation technology of that time and place, and demographically the settlement of Carolina tended to come in two distinct clumps with a wide stretch of comparatively unpopulated (by white people, at least) territory in between them. The colony of Carolina first established a subordinate deputy governorship for the north and the area was then formally divided into two separate colonies in the early 1700’s.
Incidentally, New Jersey was divided into East and West Jersey for a time during the colonial era.
Please. New York City alone has at least five million odd people!
The Dakotas as The Carolinas started out as one. In the case of the Dakotas the population centers arose far. Mostly around Fargo and Sioux Falls. Added to that railroads buildt east to west, not north to south. RR lines ran up to Fargo and over to Sioux Falls from Minneapolis / St Paul. But not in a joined fashion.
So when it was logical to split it. You will notice the states from North Dakota to Texas (not including Texas) are wider than tall (if one can use that description).
Dakota would have been to tall.
The Carolina’s were settled differently. South Carolina was settled by “richer” immigrants that poured into Charleston. Making it a large colonial port. The North Carolinians came overland from Virginia. While SC projected an urban image (not exactly correct but projected), NC remained rual. In fact it has the largest rual population of any state (not percentage but actually number of people). This is best shown as while NC is number 11 overall in population it lacks a national city. Charlotte being the largest is still qualified with a NC after it. As opposed Atlanta which usually is reported without the GA after it. (NY, LA, TX, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, NJ, GA, NC) You can see other than NJ which functions to a large degree as a suburb of NYC and Philly. all the other states have at least one large well known city. Leaving NC (incidentally till the last census the 10th largest state) without a major class city.
You understand the concept of an average, don’t you? From the US 2000 census, the average population of a state (including the District of Columbia) is around 5.5 million.
whoosh!
I think it was a joke on the word “odd.” :smack:
:o All in the interest of fighting ignorance. [sub]Yeah, that’s the ticket.[/sub]
The Dakotas were thought to have great potential for population growth. Homesteaders were moving there in great numbers and there were minerals (like gold) that suggested broader economic strengths. Shortly after becoming states, the settlers found that the conditions were lousy for 40 acre farming. (So now it’s grazing and large size wheat farming.) Add to that the 20th century drop in farming population (which no 19th century politician would have foreseen).
If they had waited 10-20 years to admit, it would have been clear that only one state was called for.
(Paternal Grandparents born in Bristol SD. Father in Sioux Falls.)
One popular sport for we in the Raleigh-Durham, NC area is to make fun of the excessive aspirations of the good people of Charlotte. And one point that brings much amusement is the fact that there are Chamber of Commerce types over there who actually go around insisting that the “NC” qualifier is no longer needed for a “World Class” city like Charlotte.
I forgot to mention that there have been periodic efforts to rename North Dakota to just Dakota. I know the issue came up again last year, also, according to North Dakota Fast Facts and Trivia “6. An attempt to drop the word North from the state name was defeated by the 1947 Legislative Assembly. Again in 1989 the Legislature rejected two resolutions intended to rename the state Dakota.”
I think that there were minimum size/population standards for the admission of a western expansion state into the Union, butTexas, Alaska and California don’t fit in with the model of a Midwest/Western territory becoming a state. Texas was a sovereign nation before it entered the union as a state though parts were broken off to become parts of New Mexico and Colorado. Alaska was the result of a single land purchase and probably had a well established identity before it became a territory. Finally, and correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t California already a separate Spanish/Mexican territory before it became U.S. territory?
I’m gonna open a separate thread somewhere which addresses the question of why cities are followed by the state name. Does is simply mean that they are not “world class?” I think not.
I opened it at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=131280
I’m not really ranting about it. I truly want to know what powers decide on how to list a city?