AHC: No Split US States

This is a bit of a silly thought, but I wondered what would be different (if anything) if North/South Dakota, North/South Carolina, and Virginia/West Virginia (or any other states that were once together) never split apart or were never created/governed separately.

So my challenge to you: have a USA where these "split" states are not seperate. What PoDs are required? How are the states themselves affected by this? Does this do anything for America and the world other than ruin the flag?
Hmmm, so the division of North and South Carolina occurred back during the colonial period in 1719. So the POD to secure this is going to have to be back before the Revolutionary War. Naturally, this is going to have a number of important butterflies which could effect the eventual Revolutionary War and the Constitution. But, assuming a form of butterfly net which leads to the US being established in a situation similar to OTL, then this will work against Maine and Massachussetts splitting (although there will still be a lot of local tensions between the Maine Country and Massachussetts) since granting statehood to Main would throw off the slave-free parity.

Keeping West Virginia as part of Virginia would have to involve either no Civil War or Confederate Virginia being able to quickly and easily move in and restore order to the region.

North and South Dakota is relatively easier - the split came about for two main reasons 1) the rail companies felt it would be easier to control two smaller states rather than one large state and 2) the GOP figuring that having four Senators was better than two! There was also tensions between the North and South parts of the Daota Territory even before the split; especially after the territorial capitol moved from Yankton to Bismarck. But most of these issues can be overcome
Others, I imagine, would be Kentucky remaining part of Virginia, Tennessee remaining with the Carolinas, and Mississippi and Alabama being part of Georgia.

And, hell, hasn't Louisiana grown...
Keeping West Virginia as part of Virginia would have to involve either no Civil War or Confederate Virginia being able to quickly and easily move in and restore order to the region.
Or alternately the CS Army crumbles at whatever alt-first Bull Run instead of the US, or the alt-Peninsula Campaign goes perfectly or what have you, and Richmond falls early, so the "Loyal Government of Virginia" (what became OTL West VA) just encompasses all of the State, not just the Northwest. Sort of like how the would-be State of Frankland in East TN just ended up the de facto government of Restored TN rather than a separate state when West and Middle TN were liberated earlier than the East.

Another possibility on Carolina: draw the original dividing line with the Virginia Colony further South than OTL (say at the New River up to some latitude then straight west), such that Albemarle Sound (and Roanoke Island, the OG Virginia Colony) and would-be Raleigh stays in VA and Carolina Colony is simply a larger SC that encompasses much of OTL Southeast and perhaps Southern NC (e.g. Wilmington, Jacksonville, possibly Fayetteville and Charlotte).
So does this mean keeping the Louisiana Purchase and Alta California intact?
The Louisiana Purchase became various degrees of territory. Otherwise, the Northwest Territory would have to be admitted as one state as well.

California was admitted as a state apart from the rest of the Mexican Cession.

However, Big Texas Is Big, will be even bigger.
Does this also mean keeping all the competing claims that the states had with each other at the foundation of the USA?So you might have something like this?
The Louisiana Purchase became various degrees of territory. Otherwise, the Northwest Territory would have to be admitted as one state as well.
There were some months between the transfer and it's division into the district of Louisiana and Territory of Orleans. So I think the premise of this thread would mean it stays intact.
There’s lots of potential to have the Dakotas admitted as a single state.

The split was actually mostly driven by the territorial inhabitants who felt the northern and southern portions were disconnected from each other. What would become South Dakota was significantly more settled with more than double the north’s population at the time of admission. Plus, they were divided by the railways. North Dakota was linked to Saint Paul-Minneapolis while South Dakota was connected to Omaha. The regions organized separate statehood conventions and there was a territory wide referendum on whether to seek admission as two states or one, which the split option won. So, we could try to mitigate the regional tension in the Dakota Territory, maybe with a north-south railroad.

It’s probably easier to look at federal politics around admission of the Dakotas though. IOTL there was a proposal to admit Dakota (as a single state), Washington, Montana, and New Mexico as states simultaneously. The idea was that it would be politically balanced since Dakota and Washington were expected to be Republican while Montana and New Mexico were expected to vote Democratic. The deal fell through when Republicans won the 1888 congressional elections. Democrats in Congress were worried that the new Republican Congress would only admit the Republican territories, so they accepted a deal to admit Montana, Washington, and split the Dakotas for admission. Given that history, it seems easy enough to have the first proposal go through because Republicans either don’t win the 1888 elections or look less likely to win them earlier in the year. That would let the original proposal go through and Dakota would be admitted as a single state (contrary to the wishes of its citizens funnily enough).
Going to cheat a little bit here. Because since North and South Carolina were colonies well before the revolution, they aren't really States per se. But we can have them united.

In a more radical civil war, we have South Carolina getting the brunt of things as a lot of Confederate holdouts go there for some final Titanic battles. Destruction is even greater there. The state is well over 70% Black by the end of the war and there is concern that an utter lack of able-bodied males will mean the state exists in tatters if anything, unless it is made to be a Haven for the freedmen.

Reconstruction is not popular enough after a while, but various things cause South Carolina to be destroyed even more by wandering vigilantes. There is concern that some of them may actually take over the state via military coup.

But, the federal government has one option. North Carolina has a decent government which would be willing to take in the southerners. A referendum is held among white voters and they agree, in return for laying down their arms, to let the state be governed by North Carolina and merge into it rather than allow the federal government to come in and enforce any kind of civil rights.

The federal government's tiredly goes along with this because reconstruction really is costly and they realize the sinkhole that South Carolina has become.

Likely? No. But perhaps remotely possible where South Carolina has been much, much more devastated.

This could even tie in with Virginia not joining the Confederacy. The slaveholders become the ones who form the rebel government and when they are crushed the free Virginia government winds up forcing them back into virginia, with rule of Virginia becoming much more favorable to the Western counties. Perhaps even a move of the capital although that is less likely. (if you need the Civil War to go on for about as long anyway, just have Kentucky secede while Virginia does not.)

From there, Simply have the Dakota's become one state because the federal government, with all this craziness in the south, is too worn out and gives the native tribes some large reservations in Dakota territory with the entire state joining as one rather than seeing two states with a lot of Native Americans in them.