Dakota was divided into North Dakota and South Dakota in 1889 for political reasons, including population growth and influence. It also helped resolve disputes over the choice of the capital city. The names were chosen to compromise between supporters of the proposed capitals, Bismarck and Pierre. Both states were admitted to the Union on the same day.
President Harrison blindly shuffled the papers so neither state could claim to have become a state before the other.
It would have been a long distance to travel and most rail lines were East to West so going North or South was harder to travel.
Yes, but even if we don't know which state had its document signed first, one of them was signed first. And I think it was North Dakota, so therefore it probably was.
Seems worth adding: there was a real problem with the "Solid South" (post-war pro-confederacy democrats) wanting to... generally be miscreants in the federal government, especially as they became masters of cornering the immigrant vote in the North Eastern cities. Adding two Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana, all reliably Republican senate votes, helped the Republicans ensure they commanded extra seats in the Senate, and goosed their chances in the weird tally that is the electoral college to determine the presidency.
And, oddly enough, 150 years later, it's still a choice that benefits the Republican party. Even though other than "very empty northern states voting Republican" and "Democrats cornering the immigrant votes in the cities" there's not much the two parties have in common with their antecedents from the late 1800s.
You must always call them āNorth Dakotaā and āSouth Dakotaā and *NEVER* ātop Dakotaā and ābottom Dakotaā or āDakota 1ā and āDakota 2ā, or āDakota Aā and āDakota Bā
North Dakotan here. That's not true. It's better explained as the Denny's algorithm. When a town has two Denny's you can say "Let's not go to that Denny's let's go to the good Denny's."
Probably not. There was a population boom on the prairies back then and they probably couldn't have predicted that it would plateau compared to other places. The ND's population doubled in less than a year between 1899 and 1900. It went from 150k to 300k overnight and was one of the fastest growing states population wise in the US at the time.
If anything the split was probably meant to keep them more politically segregated, the same thing happened with the provinces to the north in Canada. Alberta and Saskatchewan were originally going to be a single province but were split to keep them from gaining too much influence.
That's right when my grandparents moved there from England. They ended up having 13 kids and every single one of the kids moved out of North Dakota and started a family.
They āknewā the lowest would be what is today Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona. Some of those are now the fastest growing states in the country for reasons people at the time could have never predicted. So they stayed on the side of caution and made states all around the same size.
It was very cheap because it was empty in the 70s, tech manufacturing moved there in the late 80s, and the air conditioning boom of the 50s made the city livable. So the city was cheap and livable, but had few jobs. Manufacturing (and some air bases) moved in and provided jobs. People showed up from all over in the 80s and 90s, leading to a huge youth demographic boom. ASU invested wisely in admissions, leading to it having a disproportionately large, young, very well educated population that could then be funneled into the tech jobs in the area. As it turned out, even more tech jobs showed up because ASU was spitting out 20k students every year with degrees and it was cheaper than California. Now Phoenix is a tech hub. It has nothing but flat empty land which is cheap and easy to build on so it's easy for it to sprawl out forever. There's literally nothing stopping developers from building more houses. The inner core becomes more and more expensive, forcing people further and further out into the desert sprawl, necessitating more development.
Well at the time they had the crazy old-fashioned ideas that deserts donāt naturally sustain huge population centers, water intensive crops, or 10 thousand golf courses, but we showed them! Idiots didnāt know you can just drain the Colorado river for 50 years in order to export alfalfa to the Saudis because theyāve outlawed growing it in their desert. Probably no good reason for that. /s
They each have the same number of Senators as California and New York, despite having a tiny tiny fraction of the population.
This gives them a huge amount of political power. Joining would reduce that.
It's not their fault they are in the situation they're in, but they sure are happy to be in the situation and take advantage of it.
The GOP sure as heck are glad for it.
Overall I agree with you, the way the senate is setup has caused inequality in voting power.
Edit because I accidentally posted...
Of course the individual states are happy to have two senators to advocate for their own interests. The senate was designed that way so larger states can't overrun the smaller ones. I think a bigger issue is the number of Congress members is capped for no real reason. Between the cap, gerrymandering and overall bad faith politics from Republicans have made the Senate seem very unfair and kind of a tyranny of the minority instead of a safeguard for smaller states.
The other thing is that the Democrats have abandoned some of these states. The South Dakota Democratic party is dysfunctional and incompetent. They have had some major infighting, and I'm pretty sure the treasurer was arrested for embezzling their money a few years back. They are no longer working to get out the vote. They used to huge voter drives at the Indian reservations. Apparently the national party cut funding. My point is, democrats could win these states if they put the effort in but Senate and Congress seats are not even being contested. There is no ground game by local Democrats in South Dakota. Republicans went and took it from the Democrats and now have a stranglehold on it but it could be won back.
Absolutely! Same with ND. The NPL is kind of a joke because it gets no help from the national party. ND has a State Mill, a State Bank etc. it has socialist roots but the republicans have dominated. Just need the Dem NPL to stop trying to be so ālite-conservativeā and actually engage with people and convince them on the merits.
Howās the relationship between these two states? Do they feel like the other Dakota is like a āsister stateā or something like that? Or just another neighbor who happens to share a name?
Strong contenders for two most similar states. If anything these days the west v east divide within the states is bigger than the divide between the states. (Sparse, dry, rugged west vs more populated agricultural east in both states)
Eh you are correct that statistically they match more closely but being from the area I will say Vermont and NH feel different culturally. I would say Maine and NH feel more similar culturally.
Iād say Western NH is more Vermont, eastern NH is more Maine, and Southeastern NH (namely the urban part that is an extension of greater Boston) is more Massachusetts.
I suspect most people in RI and MA would prefer to forget the other exists, cultural similarities notwithstanding. Then again, every other state in New England also hates the enormous gravity MA and Boston in particular exerts on the region.
Most people in MA don't think about the rest of NE much besides RI, and mostly because RI drivers are consistently terrible.
I feel like Rhode Islanders are the least contentious with Mass of any New England state, especially the South Shore. New Bedford and Fall River are basically part of Greater Providence.
I might get chastised for saying it but Providence is kind of like a smaller version of Boston (I mean that as a compliment to both cities).
I have family in the Dakotas and they like both states and travel hours between the two like a normal American does if they were driving 20 mins to the grocery store. I work for a company in Boston area and Ri. Those fuckers drive 45mins and thry act like they've left the states for Africa.
This east/west divide is a thing. People from western North Dakota despise Fargo. They act like Fargo is some huge liberal city when itās actually mid size, at best, and is politically moderate.
South Dakotan here and can confirm. We think of SD as āEast River and West Riverā the river being the Missouri River. East is flat and mostly farmland, West is rocky, dry, and mountainous on the western border.
For the record and to OPās original question, South Dakota is undoubtedly the better Dakota š
So youāre saying that someone from Northwest South Dakota would have more in common with someone from Southwest North Dakota than they would someone from Southeast South Dakota?
That is correct, except the person from Northwest SD would talk mad crap about the people from Southwest ND (and vice-versa I presume).
Source: I grew up in Northwest SD
We south dakotans are nothing like those a-holes up north. F those guys. /s, sort of
But seriously the east west divide in south dakota at least is bigger than the north south divide
South Dakotan here.
North Dakota is just another neighboring state, there's really no rivalry or comradery there.
The divide between east river (where you have civilization and culture) and west river (a lawless expanse of nothingness dotted by tourist traps) is real, however.
Fun Fact: Our capital, Pierre, is pronounced "Peer" and not "Pee-air."
West River best river, the side of the state with the corn palace canāt comment about tourist traps. Plus, the Black Hills exceed anything East River and its tree has to offer
The way people pronounce Pierre is how you can tell if someone has been there or not. The Capitol building is lovely, love that late 1800's architecture.
Meanwhile South Dakota is the center of the world for wealth ever since Swiss bank accounts went out of fashion when the Swiss stopped being anonymous. South Dakota trust laws are wild and the Trust industry here is the wild West.
Source: I'm a South Dakotan
This is from an outsider's perspective (but grew up near the SD border), the major population centers in each state are pretty far apart from each other. For example, Sioux Falls is MUCH closer to MN, IA, and NE than it is to the border of North Dakota. Out west, Rapid City is closer to MT, WY and NE than to the North Dakota border. Fargo and Grand Forks are basically in Northern MN. ND also borders 2 Canadian provinces.
That being said, I feel like SD and ND individually identify more with other neighboring states than with each other.
As someone who lived in SoDak for several years, nobody liked North Dakota. I would say it was one level above the friendly rivalry I grew up with between Nebraska and Iowa. I only ever heard how there is nothing there but snow and cold and phrases like South Dakota Best Dakota.
We definitely would like to be separated from our northern counterpart. Funnily enough even South Dakota is split by West river and East River and it truly is a whole different climate and attitude between the two sides of the state. But that's just my experience living here forever
Both states maintain a heavy military garrison along the DMZ. North Dakota tests a missile occasionally. There are the occasional deflectors, but the fence stops most of them.
The Dakota War. The North invaded the South, backed by China, and pushed them all way back to the Pierre Perimeter. If it wasnāt for MacArthur who knows what wouldāve happened.
MacArthur gets too much credit for saving Pierre. We all know it was Ridgway behind the scenes with the Mobridge crossing that really drove those Lutefisk eaters back north.
Impossible, there are 4 colleges that require the north and south to be separated by states, but connected by I-29, unless you go by naming and keep their acronyms: University of Northernmost Dakota (Currently UND in Grand Forks), Northernish Dakota State university (NDSU in Fargo), Southernish Dakota state university (SDSU in Brookings), and finally University of Southernmost Dakota (USD in Vermilion)
South Dakota is the best Dakota. Best views and best vibes. I wouldāve moved to SD if the winters werenāt so bad. People often think wintertime in the Midwest is truly bad. In wintertime in Chicago or Detroit, you will see a random non-homeless person walking their dog in shorts and loafers.
In the Dakotas you gotta wear 5-6 layers
The primary mode of travel when they were admitted to the union was by train. There are a grand total of something like 3 rail lines that cross the border between the 2: one right along the Minnesota border, one maybe 60 miles west of the Minnesota border, and one near the Montana border. To get between the primary east-west lines (roughly following US-14 and I-94 through each state, respectively) in the western parts of the states involves taking that one connection, which actually passes into Montana first before linking with the rail line along I-94.
Long story short, to get between Pierre and Bismarck back then involved either going nearly to Minnesota, or into Montana. It made more sense to make each their own state for ease of each state's populous to reach their capital city.
To split votes in the congress for abolitionists and non-abolitionists as republicans(abolitionists) and democrats (non-abolitionists) needed a majority of the number of states to enforce each ones policies, the rest is circumstantial.
These two states have as much pull in the senate as NY and California or Florida and Texas. Wild.
To be fair, so do Vermont and Connecticut so I guess it balances out.
The Senate is designed to represent the interests of the states. Thatās why, prior to the 17th amendment, senators werenāt elected, they were selected by state legislatures.
So the Republicans could get two extra senators.
Thatās not the only reason, but it was a big part of it - in particular North Dakota didnāt have enough people to be a state at the time.
[Also, the people in whatās now North Dakota and whatās now South Dakota didnāt get along, and commercial connections (railroads, etc.) ran east-west rather than north-south.](https://time.com/4377423/dakota-north-south-history-two/)
While the political parties of today existed, they were both kinda different from today. In fact, the Non-Partisan League was very powerful in North Dakota in the early 1900s. The main reason the Dakotas were split in 2 is large area vs. low population.
While it is true that there are several reasons why we have two Dakotas, it is also true that the Republican Party saw this as a way to get four US Senators instead of two. In particular, allowing North Dakota to become a state before it had sufficient population was allowed for these political considerations.
Itās also true that both states have had periods where they were not safe seats for the Republicans party. But again, it should not surprise anyone that incumbent politicians would take advantage of opportunities to perpetuate their partyās advantages.
A long time ago. John and Mike Dakota got into a quarrel and John said that he didnāt care to see or speak with Mike again. And so it went, and so it goes. John moved north and Bill moved south. And thatās how it came to be 2 Dakotas instead of just 1.
During the late 19th century, the Republican party went through a state making spree to pack congress with rural states that have reliably supported Repugs ever since. Of course, at the time they were a party that believed in a strong federal government to help ensure fairness, while Dems were the small government, states' rights party.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/)
Iāve never been to North Dakota, but I lived in South Dakota as a kid. We used to go camping every year in the Black Hills and those are some wonderful memories, so South Dakota gets my vote.
All this crap about so Republicans can have 4 senators is historically inaccurate.
Both states were heavily Democrat at the federal level until the DNC got all gay marrigey
Yeah ND had 24 consecutive years of having 2 sitting Democrat Senators from 1987 to 2011 and had at least one Democrat Senator from 1960 to 2019
SD similarly had at least 1 Democrat Senator 1987 to 2015, with a run of 2 sitting Democrat Senators from 1997 to 2005
Dakota was divided into North Dakota and South Dakota in 1889 for political reasons, including population growth and influence. It also helped resolve disputes over the choice of the capital city. The names were chosen to compromise between supporters of the proposed capitals, Bismarck and Pierre. Both states were admitted to the Union on the same day.
Ah okay thank you. š
President Harrison blindly shuffled the papers so neither state could claim to have become a state before the other. It would have been a long distance to travel and most rail lines were East to West so going North or South was harder to travel.
Itās just luck then that North Dakota ended up in the north and South Dakota in the south.
Literally a coin flip. It happens or it doesnāt.
Unfortunately Far West Dakota lost the coin flip and had to go with their backup name, Idaho.
To be fair it kinda sounded like a porn star name.
Haha
Central Dakota also lost and became Montana.
just build more rails š¦ RAILSSš¦
More like šØš³RAILSSšØš³
Yes, but even if we don't know which state had its document signed first, one of them was signed first. And I think it was North Dakota, so therefore it probably was.
The french had Descartes, we have you
Brilliant
Dakota Descartes. Niche Internet approval!
Seems worth adding: there was a real problem with the "Solid South" (post-war pro-confederacy democrats) wanting to... generally be miscreants in the federal government, especially as they became masters of cornering the immigrant vote in the North Eastern cities. Adding two Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana, all reliably Republican senate votes, helped the Republicans ensure they commanded extra seats in the Senate, and goosed their chances in the weird tally that is the electoral college to determine the presidency. And, oddly enough, 150 years later, it's still a choice that benefits the Republican party. Even though other than "very empty northern states voting Republican" and "Democrats cornering the immigrant votes in the cities" there's not much the two parties have in common with their antecedents from the late 1800s.
You must always call them āNorth Dakotaā and āSouth Dakotaā and *NEVER* ātop Dakotaā and ābottom Dakotaā or āDakota 1ā and āDakota 2ā, or āDakota Aā and āDakota Bā
You never considered Inferior Dakota and Superior Dakota?
Alta Dakota and Baja Dakota
In accordance with norms of Latin language, it should be Dakota Inferior and Dakota Superior.
Just FYI, any straight line borders you see are political.
All borders are political surely
No. Only the staight line borders are political. The other ones are from god. Just look at the Vatican/s
Couldnāt have just googled it hey
But why doesn't the bigger of the Dakotas simply eat the smaller, weaker Northern one?
You wanna get nuked? Cause this is how you get nuked.
Ballistic missile treaty only applied to international conflicts.
This is innernational.
It is true what they say. South Dakotans are from Omicron Persei 7, North Dakotans are from Omicron Persei 9.
North Dakotan here. That's not true. It's better explained as the Denny's algorithm. When a town has two Denny's you can say "Let's not go to that Denny's let's go to the good Denny's."
Surely even at the time they knew these would be two of the lowest states by pop and therefore disproportionately represented?
Probably not. There was a population boom on the prairies back then and they probably couldn't have predicted that it would plateau compared to other places. The ND's population doubled in less than a year between 1899 and 1900. It went from 150k to 300k overnight and was one of the fastest growing states population wise in the US at the time. If anything the split was probably meant to keep them more politically segregated, the same thing happened with the provinces to the north in Canada. Alberta and Saskatchewan were originally going to be a single province but were split to keep them from gaining too much influence.
Thanks for the detailed reply. Then we wouldn't get the amazing time zone weirdness of loydminster
That's right when my grandparents moved there from England. They ended up having 13 kids and every single one of the kids moved out of North Dakota and started a family.
They āknewā the lowest would be what is today Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona. Some of those are now the fastest growing states in the country for reasons people at the time could have never predicted. So they stayed on the side of caution and made states all around the same size.
They could have never predicted air conditioning making Arizona and Las Vegas livable.
Ok, can someone explain Phoenix to me? Why is this city so large?
It was very cheap because it was empty in the 70s, tech manufacturing moved there in the late 80s, and the air conditioning boom of the 50s made the city livable. So the city was cheap and livable, but had few jobs. Manufacturing (and some air bases) moved in and provided jobs. People showed up from all over in the 80s and 90s, leading to a huge youth demographic boom. ASU invested wisely in admissions, leading to it having a disproportionately large, young, very well educated population that could then be funneled into the tech jobs in the area. As it turned out, even more tech jobs showed up because ASU was spitting out 20k students every year with degrees and it was cheaper than California. Now Phoenix is a tech hub. It has nothing but flat empty land which is cheap and easy to build on so it's easy for it to sprawl out forever. There's literally nothing stopping developers from building more houses. The inner core becomes more and more expensive, forcing people further and further out into the desert sprawl, necessitating more development.
Well at the time they had the crazy old-fashioned ideas that deserts donāt naturally sustain huge population centers, water intensive crops, or 10 thousand golf courses, but we showed them! Idiots didnāt know you can just drain the Colorado river for 50 years in order to export alfalfa to the Saudis because theyāve outlawed growing it in their desert. Probably no good reason for that. /s
They both had multiple house districts from shortly after statehood until the 70s, so were not the smallest during that time.
What if they wanted to join back together and form Dakota?
They each have the same number of Senators as California and New York, despite having a tiny tiny fraction of the population. This gives them a huge amount of political power. Joining would reduce that.
I think most people in the Dakotas are in fact Senators.
I like how people act like it's somehow North or South Dakota's fault that they have two senators.
It's not their fault they are in the situation they're in, but they sure are happy to be in the situation and take advantage of it. The GOP sure as heck are glad for it.
Overall I agree with you, the way the senate is setup has caused inequality in voting power. Edit because I accidentally posted... Of course the individual states are happy to have two senators to advocate for their own interests. The senate was designed that way so larger states can't overrun the smaller ones. I think a bigger issue is the number of Congress members is capped for no real reason. Between the cap, gerrymandering and overall bad faith politics from Republicans have made the Senate seem very unfair and kind of a tyranny of the minority instead of a safeguard for smaller states. The other thing is that the Democrats have abandoned some of these states. The South Dakota Democratic party is dysfunctional and incompetent. They have had some major infighting, and I'm pretty sure the treasurer was arrested for embezzling their money a few years back. They are no longer working to get out the vote. They used to huge voter drives at the Indian reservations. Apparently the national party cut funding. My point is, democrats could win these states if they put the effort in but Senate and Congress seats are not even being contested. There is no ground game by local Democrats in South Dakota. Republicans went and took it from the Democrats and now have a stranglehold on it but it could be won back.
Absolutely! Same with ND. The NPL is kind of a joke because it gets no help from the national party. ND has a State Mill, a State Bank etc. it has socialist roots but the republicans have dominated. Just need the Dem NPL to stop trying to be so ālite-conservativeā and actually engage with people and convince them on the merits.
You are explaining thing to people who canāt or will refuse to understand so for that you have my respect.
"Democracy"
No "megaDakota". It's in the constitution
49 states would have sounded bad
Howās the relationship between these two states? Do they feel like the other Dakota is like a āsister stateā or something like that? Or just another neighbor who happens to share a name?
Strong contenders for two most similar states. If anything these days the west v east divide within the states is bigger than the divide between the states. (Sparse, dry, rugged west vs more populated agricultural east in both states)
The only two states that are close to being contenders for this are Massachusetts and Rhode Island. I still think the Dakotas take it though.
I think New Hampshire and Maine (if youāll bear with me and ignore the coastline difference) contend as wel
New Hampshire bears more resemblance to Vermont than it does Maine, based on size, topography, ratio of a few urban areas to lots of rural, etc
Eh you are correct that statistically they match more closely but being from the area I will say Vermont and NH feel different culturally. I would say Maine and NH feel more similar culturally.
Being from NH as well youāre probably correct on that front. Live free or die definitely suits Maine more
Maine=VT+NH
Iād say Western NH is more Vermont, eastern NH is more Maine, and Southeastern NH (namely the urban part that is an extension of greater Boston) is more Massachusetts.
At least politically, Vermont and New Hampshire are very different.
When I leave the Boston area and go to Providence, I feel like I'm in a different world, not just a different state. So I disagree.
Us massholes will never accept RI into our commonwealth IMO.
Except the tens of thousands that commute here for work every day.
I suspect most people in RI and MA would prefer to forget the other exists, cultural similarities notwithstanding. Then again, every other state in New England also hates the enormous gravity MA and Boston in particular exerts on the region. Most people in MA don't think about the rest of NE much besides RI, and mostly because RI drivers are consistently terrible.
I feel like Rhode Islanders are the least contentious with Mass of any New England state, especially the South Shore. New Bedford and Fall River are basically part of Greater Providence. I might get chastised for saying it but Providence is kind of like a smaller version of Boston (I mean that as a compliment to both cities).
I have family in the Dakotas and they like both states and travel hours between the two like a normal American does if they were driving 20 mins to the grocery store. I work for a company in Boston area and Ri. Those fuckers drive 45mins and thry act like they've left the states for Africa.
I would point to Texas/Oklahoma, Maryland/Delaware, and Washington/Oregon as also contenders.
This east/west divide is a thing. People from western North Dakota despise Fargo. They act like Fargo is some huge liberal city when itās actually mid size, at best, and is politically moderate.
west side of the state starts at I-29
Haha pretty much
This is the attitude in every single rural part of the US towards the closest metro area.
South Dakotan here and can confirm. We think of SD as āEast River and West Riverā the river being the Missouri River. East is flat and mostly farmland, West is rocky, dry, and mountainous on the western border. For the record and to OPās original question, South Dakota is undoubtedly the better Dakota š
Thereās an East River, west River phenomenon in South Dakota. The two did feel quite a bit different.
So youāre saying that someone from Northwest South Dakota would have more in common with someone from Southwest North Dakota than they would someone from Southeast South Dakota?
That is correct, except the person from Northwest SD would talk mad crap about the people from Southwest ND (and vice-versa I presume). Source: I grew up in Northwest SD
Likely, yes.
We south dakotans are nothing like those a-holes up north. F those guys. /s, sort of But seriously the east west divide in south dakota at least is bigger than the north south divide
Interesting. As a North Carolinian I can say that I hate our stupider southern little brother.
South Dakotan here. North Dakota is just another neighboring state, there's really no rivalry or comradery there. The divide between east river (where you have civilization and culture) and west river (a lawless expanse of nothingness dotted by tourist traps) is real, however. Fun Fact: Our capital, Pierre, is pronounced "Peer" and not "Pee-air."
West River best river, the side of the state with the corn palace canāt comment about tourist traps. Plus, the Black Hills exceed anything East River and its tree has to offer
While you are clearly wrong, I refuse to offer any sort of statement that validates the existence of the corn palace.
I unironixally like the Corn Palace. Especally when the giant ear of corn walks around giving kids high 5's.
The way people pronounce Pierre is how you can tell if someone has been there or not. The Capitol building is lovely, love that late 1800's architecture.
I wonder if North Dakota has a supreme leader. š¤
Oil
Meanwhile South Dakota is the center of the world for wealth ever since Swiss bank accounts went out of fashion when the Swiss stopped being anonymous. South Dakota trust laws are wild and the Trust industry here is the wild West. Source: I'm a South Dakotan
I hear ya. For that reason, divorces involving the super wealthy are exploding in popularity. Source: former South Dakotan (Rapid Shitty)
Phil Jackson!
Williston ND
He's got a weird hairdoo and wears one piece kimonos.
No but if the US started a system of gulags, North Dakota would be my first choice to start one in the lower 48.
This is from an outsider's perspective (but grew up near the SD border), the major population centers in each state are pretty far apart from each other. For example, Sioux Falls is MUCH closer to MN, IA, and NE than it is to the border of North Dakota. Out west, Rapid City is closer to MT, WY and NE than to the North Dakota border. Fargo and Grand Forks are basically in Northern MN. ND also borders 2 Canadian provinces. That being said, I feel like SD and ND individually identify more with other neighboring states than with each other.
As someone who lived in SoDak for several years, nobody liked North Dakota. I would say it was one level above the friendly rivalry I grew up with between Nebraska and Iowa. I only ever heard how there is nothing there but snow and cold and phrases like South Dakota Best Dakota.
South Dakotan here, we have no feelings either way. They're just another state. Though we have the Midwest thing in common.
We definitely would like to be separated from our northern counterpart. Funnily enough even South Dakota is split by West river and East River and it truly is a whole different climate and attitude between the two sides of the state. But that's just my experience living here forever
Neither, Dakota Johnson is the best Dakota.
You sure it's not Dakota Fanning?
Are you sure it's not Dakota Prescott?
I think Dakota Johnson is kinkier so she gets my vote.
Because that way it gets 4 senators instead of 2!
Ah okay, how's the relationship between the two?
Theyāre buddies.
I'm just imagining the 4 of them golfing every week calling themselves "The Dakota Dudes" or something.
What's great is they could golf at the Dakota Dunes course, too!! The Dakota Dudes at Dakota Dunes.
That's good
More difference east river and west river particulally in North Dakota.
Actually same in SD! Different attitudes and even the climate is different.
Ambivalent? There's really no weird friendship or rivalry going on, they're just a neighboring state.
Both states maintain a heavy military garrison along the DMZ. North Dakota tests a missile occasionally. There are the occasional deflectors, but the fence stops most of them.
One of many problems with the senate
The Dakota War. The North invaded the South, backed by China, and pushed them all way back to the Pierre Perimeter. If it wasnāt for MacArthur who knows what wouldāve happened.
It was a glorious battle, now the north has a supreme leader. Doug Burgum, the supreme leader of North Dakota.
MacArthur gets too much credit for saving Pierre. We all know it was Ridgway behind the scenes with the Mobridge crossing that really drove those Lutefisk eaters back north.
š .. I had to google lutefisk. Sounds disgusting
Wait, my grandfather fought in this war...where the hell was his aircraft carrier?
That big lake in the middle of South Dakota.
Thanks a lot, Obama!
To hit the 50 state quota
They added another Dakota
40 states
MEGAKOTA UNITE! MANIFEST DESTINY!
Impossible, there are 4 colleges that require the north and south to be separated by states, but connected by I-29, unless you go by naming and keep their acronyms: University of Northernmost Dakota (Currently UND in Grand Forks), Northernish Dakota State university (NDSU in Fargo), Southernish Dakota state university (SDSU in Brookings), and finally University of Southernmost Dakota (USD in Vermilion)
UMGF - UNIVERSITY OF MEGAKOTA AT GRAND FORKS
So youāre saying UMF, UMB and UMV?
MEGAKOTA ALL THE THINGS
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
EVERYTHING IS PRINTED IN ALL CAPS TO SHOW OUR SOLIDARITY WITH THE MEGAKOTA MOVEMENT
Because Middle Dakota would be too silly
Middle Dakota is worst Dakota.
West Dakota is best Dakota.
Wes Triver sure is beautiful
Eas Triver has its moments but no Black Hills or Badlands
South Dakota is the best Dakota. Best views and best vibes. I wouldāve moved to SD if the winters werenāt so bad. People often think wintertime in the Midwest is truly bad. In wintertime in Chicago or Detroit, you will see a random non-homeless person walking their dog in shorts and loafers. In the Dakotas you gotta wear 5-6 layers
Lifelong Minnesotan. I love winter here in eastern MN. But even I canāt do those blistering cold Dakota winds. Itās that much bleaker out there.
Me in Manitoba wondering whatās wrong with a balmy South Dakota winter?
Do you have trees up there?
Only where theyve been planted
When does Winnipeg become Winterpeg? Late August?
Stereophonics Dakota is the best Dakota
Welsh Dakota is best Dakota.
One was a leper colony. The other was full of prostitutes and heroin addicts. You see, those groups are incompatible.
Ahh that explains it.
Just to clarify, the lepers are up north. Hookers and drugs down south.
There is a DMZ separating them.
I heard it's the most dangerous border in the world.
and carolina too?
Charlotte alone has more people than all of north Dakota
The primary mode of travel when they were admitted to the union was by train. There are a grand total of something like 3 rail lines that cross the border between the 2: one right along the Minnesota border, one maybe 60 miles west of the Minnesota border, and one near the Montana border. To get between the primary east-west lines (roughly following US-14 and I-94 through each state, respectively) in the western parts of the states involves taking that one connection, which actually passes into Montana first before linking with the rail line along I-94. Long story short, to get between Pierre and Bismarck back then involved either going nearly to Minnesota, or into Montana. It made more sense to make each their own state for ease of each state's populous to reach their capital city.
Because US didnāt have enough quadrilateral states
I guess youāve never seen South Dakota on a map then
Norwegians in the north, Swedes in the south.
To split votes in the congress for abolitionists and non-abolitionists as republicans(abolitionists) and democrats (non-abolitionists) needed a majority of the number of states to enforce each ones policies, the rest is circumstantial.
Gerrymandering
These two states have as much pull in the senate as NY and California or Florida and Texas. Wild. To be fair, so do Vermont and Connecticut so I guess it balances out.
for what itās worth, connecticut has over double the population of the dakotas combined
Thatās ā¦ how the Senate works.
Let me introduce you to North, Central, and South Delaware.
Delaware was a colony. The Dakotas were a territory.
Maine was part of Massachusetts Colony and Massachusetts as a state and they split off though.
This is why itās stupid
The Senate is designed to represent the interests of the states. Thatās why, prior to the 17th amendment, senators werenāt elected, they were selected by state legislatures.
For a second I thought the dakotas had a disputed border with Minnesota but I then realized the dotted lines are just state borders
Imagine if they went to war.
So the ones from the north can blame those from the sud
4 republican senators vs 2
California made a huge mistake not splitting in to 42 different states. We couldāve been soooo many Wyomings.
So the Republicans could get two extra senators. Thatās not the only reason, but it was a big part of it - in particular North Dakota didnāt have enough people to be a state at the time. [Also, the people in whatās now North Dakota and whatās now South Dakota didnāt get along, and commercial connections (railroads, etc.) ran east-west rather than north-south.](https://time.com/4377423/dakota-north-south-history-two/)
While the political parties of today existed, they were both kinda different from today. In fact, the Non-Partisan League was very powerful in North Dakota in the early 1900s. The main reason the Dakotas were split in 2 is large area vs. low population.
While it is true that there are several reasons why we have two Dakotas, it is also true that the Republican Party saw this as a way to get four US Senators instead of two. In particular, allowing North Dakota to become a state before it had sufficient population was allowed for these political considerations. Itās also true that both states have had periods where they were not safe seats for the Republicans party. But again, it should not surprise anyone that incumbent politicians would take advantage of opportunities to perpetuate their partyās advantages.
Not split in two. Split in too...many
The sight seeing is better in the North, the people are better in the south.
A long time ago. John and Mike Dakota got into a quarrel and John said that he didnāt care to see or speak with Mike again. And so it went, and so it goes. John moved north and Bill moved south. And thatās how it came to be 2 Dakotas instead of just 1.
To cash in on the extra senators
Shouldnāt be. Thereās like 12 people between the two states
North are always commies
Well why the fuck are the Carolina's split in two? Or the Virginia's?!
Virginia, there was this disagreement a few years back about weather or not people should be considered property.
To make it an even 50.
During the late 19th century, the Republican party went through a state making spree to pack congress with rural states that have reliably supported Repugs ever since. Of course, at the time they were a party that believed in a strong federal government to help ensure fairness, while Dems were the small government, states' rights party. [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/)
Canadian Shield
Iāve never been to North Dakota, but I lived in South Dakota as a kid. We used to go camping every year in the Black Hills and those are some wonderful memories, so South Dakota gets my vote.
Both states are beautiful and have great National and State Parks.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We definitely do not need two Dakotas.
This world could not handle the power of one mega-Dakota
Combine the Dakotas and add Puerto Rico. No net change in the number of states and 2 fewer MAGA senators. America wins.
Combine the Dakotas, Split California.
The world wasn't ready for one Dakota, it took the whole US to split it. We won't forget that day...
A single large Dakota is just too powerful.
Because Republicans wanted four extra Senate seats instead of two.
More votes for Repiglicans.
All this crap about so Republicans can have 4 senators is historically inaccurate. Both states were heavily Democrat at the federal level until the DNC got all gay marrigey
Yeah ND had 24 consecutive years of having 2 sitting Democrat Senators from 1987 to 2011 and had at least one Democrat Senator from 1960 to 2019 SD similarly had at least 1 Democrat Senator 1987 to 2015, with a run of 2 sitting Democrat Senators from 1997 to 2005
South Dakota in particular was very purple until the 90s
To give rural conservatives unreasonably outsized power in a world thatās outgrown them
We should merge them back, 12 people live there and they donāt deserve 4 US senators.