Plausibility Check: 2 Minnesotas?

I'd like to have a timeline in which the Minnesota territory becomes two states, preferably a north, with a capitol in the Duluth area, and a south with a capitol in the Twin Cities area, possibly St. Anthony. Is it possible for the territory to be split two ways and be called either North Minnesota and South Minnesota... or if not that, a West Minnesota and East Minnesota?

I may want to include one state of Dakota, and twin cities of St. Anthony and Pig's Eye.
Would this require a larger population, due to either later statehood for the Minnesota territory or earlier settlement of this area?
 
Last edited:
I'd like to have a timeline in which the Minnesota territory becomes two states, preferably a north, with a capitol in the Duluth area, and a south with a capitol in the Twin Cities area, possibly St. Anthony. Is it possible for the territory to be split two ways and be called either North Minnesota and South Minnesota... or if not that, a West Minnesota and East Minnesota?

I may want to include one state of Dakota, and twin cities of St. Anthony and Pig's Eye.
Would this require a larger population, due to either later statehood for the Minnesota territory, or earlier settlement of this area?

Minnesota becomes a state before California; the Minnesota territory would be split right in half, with the south side becoming the state of Minnesota, and the north side becoming some other state a while later. It happened in the Mexican Victory TL 2.0 timeline, so it is at least plausible. (maybe delay the discovery of gold until after Minnesota becomes a state
 
I'd like to have a timeline in which the Minnesota territory becomes two states, preferably a north, with a capitol in the Duluth area, and a south with a capitol in the Twin Cities area, possibly St. Anthony. Is it possible for the territory to be split two ways and be called either North Minnesota and South Minnesota... or if not that, a West Minnesota and East Minnesota?

I may want to include one state of Dakota, and twin cities of St. Anthony and Pig's Eye.
Would this require a larger population, due to either later statehood for the Minnesota territory, or earlier settlement of this area?

You could try to do a North & South Minn., I suppose; it might require a POD before statehood, though.

Anyway, perhaps South Minnesota's capital remains at St. Paul, while North Minn.'s capital is somewhere around Duluth, or Brainerd, or hell, why not Bemidji or International Falls for a few laughs? :D
 
I like that idea. I don't like gold, so I'd be happy to avoid its discovery, and I bet those colorful types who'd settle California would like Pig's Eye to keep its name. However, my ideal scenario would have the south called South Minnesota. Is that still plausible? What circumstances led to two Dakotas being admitted at once, and can happen in Minnesota?

And if the California gold isn't discovered until 1859, and people are moving to the Minnesota territory instead, how would that affect the events leading up to the Civil War? I'd be happy to turn the whole world upside down if it means there's two Minnesotas, especially if North Minnesota gets North Dakota's oil.

PS, CaliBoy, I would like those capitols, and come to think of it, Bemidji and Brainerd are plausible, since they're more centrally located than Duluth and on the Mississippi River. At first blush, I assumed Duluth was the only plausible capitol. I know St. Paul is a logical capitol for the south. But I'd like to reverse the roles of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and give them their old names of St. Anthony and Pig's Eye. St. Anthony would be the Catholic-dominated capitol and seat of the cathedral, and Pig's Eye would be its protestant brother, with a cooler name.

Oh, and International Falls is too close to my birthplace. I want to keep the politicians away.
 
Last edited:
I like that idea. I don't like gold, so I'd be happy to avoid its discovery, and I bet those colorful types who'd settle California would like Pig's Eye to keep its name. However, my ideal scenario would have the south called South Minnesota. Is that still plausible? What circumstances led to two Dakotas being admitted at once, and can happen in Minnesota?

And if the California gold isn't discovered until 1859, and people are moving to the Minnesota territory instead, how would that affect the events leading up to the Civil War? I'd be happy to turn the whole world upside down if it means there's two Minnesotas, especially if North Minnesota gets North Dakota's oil.

Also, I think it does depend on the circumstances, but it could perhaps give a bit of a sooner edge to the *Civil War, particularly if a guy like John Fremont wins office in 1856, or even 1852.....

PS, CaliBoy, I would like those capitols, and come to think of it, Bemidji and Brainerd are plausible, since they're more centrally located than Duluth and on the Mississippi River. At first blush, I assumed Duluth was the only plausible capitol. I know St. Paul is a logical capitol for the south. But I'd like to reverse the roles of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and give them their old names of St. Anthony and Pig's Eye. St. Anthony would be the Catholic-dominated capitol and seat of the cathedral, and Pig's Eye would be its protestant brother, with a cooler name.

Oh, and International Falls is too close to my birthplace. I want to keep the politicians away.

That does sound pretty interesting, TBH; Pierre Parrant would be proud of his namesake city, methinks. :D
 
An earlier Civil War? I was worried the war would be later, because I don't think the southerners would have tried to make South Minnesota a slave state like they would with California. Could you explain how the Civil War would be earlier? I think that would be awesome, but I don't see the connection to Minnesota.
 
An earlier Civil War? I was worried the war would be later, because I don't think the southerners would have tried to make South Minnesota a slave state like they would with California. Could you explain how the Civil War would be earlier? I think that would be awesome, but I don't see the connection to Minnesota.

Two free states. Meaning even more dominance by "the North" needing to be balanced out by something even worse than the Fugitive Slave Law.
 
Oh, yes, of course. Maybe they'll break pieces of Texas into new states, or add Oklahoma as a slave state much earlier. Or, they'll have something worse than the fugitive slave laws. Possibly something involving mandatory lynchings. What are some other things the south could make happen?
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
To answer Brady KJ's question, the Dakotas got admitted as two states in 1889 for two reasons.
1. Different east-west railroads and no north-south railroads. North Dakota had the Northern Pacific and Great Northern Railroad. South Dakota had the Chicago Milwaukee , St. Paul & Pacific Railroad. And never the twain did meet.
2. And this is relevant for today. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison had just been elected the Republican President in a close election. Four years earlier, Grover Cleveland, the Democrat had been elected with a minority of the popular vote cast, just like George W Bush in 2000. The Republicans did not want this to happen again and they wanted to keep control of the Senate. So they passed an "omnibus" bill admitting as many territories to statehood as they thought would be shoe-ins to elect Republicans to Congress. Those turned out to be 6 states: Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota. Utah was not part of this because it was Mormon. Nor was New Mexico Territory because it contained mostly Catholics who were thought would vote Democrat. And Oklahoma was just opened to white settlement that year.

And it worked, after a fashion. Having those new states in the Union did not keep Grover Cleveland from coming back and winning a second non-consecutive term in 1892. But it did keep the Senate in Republican hands and thus, the Supreme Court highly conservative, just like ours is. And it did contribute to William McKinley's victories in 1896 and 1900 and Theodore Roosevelt's in 2004 and William Howard Taft's in 2008. So it was a good strategy. So good that I am concerned that the Republicans might turn back to it and use Article 4 section 3 to split existing states to create a permanent majority if they get control of both Houses of Congress in 2014. They are that conservative, that cohesive and that ideologically committed to what they think is right.

Back to Minnesota:
The problem with splitting Minnesota in 1858 would have been that only Southern Minnesota was settled in 1858. Duluth wasn't even founded until about 1870, as I recall. If Minnesota was split, it would have made sense to extend the borders of both Minnesotas to the Missouri River and not have either Dakota, just one Native American Lakota territory on the other side of the Missouri.Be fairer to the Lakota too.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
The Northwest Ordinance does not specify that the territory be divided into no more than five states.

The chunk of Minnesota in the Northwest Ordinance develops an identity seperate from the rest of what would become Minnesota OTL. The area is incorporated as the Fond du Lac Territory.

The California gold isn't discovered until later.

The former Fond dy Lac Territory (Plus a little extra) becomes the State of Mesabi with its capital at Duluth.

The south of the territory becomes the State of Minnesota with its capital at St. Paul.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Back to Minnesota:
The problem with splitting Minnesota in 1858 would have been that only Southern Minnesota was settled in 1858. Duluth wasn't even founded until about 1870, as I recall. If Minnesota was split, it would have made sense to extend the borders of both Minnesotas to the Missouri River and not have either Dakota, just one Native American Lakota territory on the other side of the Missouri.Be fairer to the Lakota too.

Duluth was incorporated in 1857 and by the 1860s was one of the most economically promising cities in the country. I would venture to say even that if the '73 market crash didn't happen and the railroad were successful, Duluth could have been Chicago-on-Superior.
 
Katchen, your explanation about the Dakotas makes a lot of sense. I wasn't aware of the issue with the railroads, or the matter of the republicans in Cleveland's day, though I suspected it had something to do with people wanting to control which party wins elections.
It had occurred to me that a state west of the Missouri River would reasonably be called Lakota, but I thought maybe the politicians in the mid 19th century wouldn't make such a distinction. Lakota is also a good name, and Lakota would no doubt include parts of Montana and Wyoming.
Could there have been earlier settlement in northern Minnesota, or could the south have been admitted as Minnesota with the north left unorganized? I suspect that the obvious usefulness of northern timber and a potential port on Lake Superior would leave people inclined to include it in the same state as St. Paul, but I have two alternative thoughts: 1) if northern MN's populated earlier (lumber and lakes), maybe an ant-slavery or otherwise partisan congress can make two states to help control elections, or 2) if there's an Indian uprising, northern MN can be left unorganized a while longer, MN is just the southern territory and NM is added later.

And Galaxy, what do you think for a separate identity? I have some thoughts. Perhaps that's where most of the immigrants go? Perhaps there's more Native Americans? Perhaps just because of the lumberjacks?
 
Last edited:
Is it possible to have two railroad systems going through Minnesota while it's still a territory, with one bringing a lot of settlers to northern Minnesota and avoiding the southern one, with a POD that doesn't butterfly away the territory's existence? It's probably a big change to railroad history, but it seems feasible to me. I figure that combining that with a strongly anti-slavery congress should do the trick as well as a similar situation worked in the Dakotas.
 
Last edited:
nd it worked, after a fashion. Having those new states in the Union did not keep Grover Cleveland from coming back and winning a second non-consecutive term in 1892. But it did keep the Senate in Republican hands and thus, the Supreme Court highly conservative, just like ours is. And it did contribute to William McKinley's victories in 1896 and 1900 and Theodore Roosevelt's in 2004 and William Howard Taft's in 2008. So it was a good strategy. So good that I am concerned that the Republicans might turn back to it and use Article 4 section 3 to split existing states to create a permanent majority if they get control of both Houses of Congress in 2014. They are that conservative, that cohesive and that ideologically committed to what they think is right.


Of course they also need the consent of the State legislature; and if they control that it would be simpler just to pass a law for the State's presidential electors to be chosen in districts - having first suitably gerrymandered the districts themselves.
 
PS, CaliBoy, I would like those capitols, and come to think of it, Bemidji and Brainerd are plausible, since they're more centrally located than Duluth and on the Mississippi River. At first blush, I assumed Duluth was the only plausible capitol. I know St. Paul is a logical capitol for the south. But I'd like to reverse the roles of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and give them their old names of St. Anthony and Pig's Eye. St. Anthony would be the Catholic-dominated capitol and seat of the cathedral, and Pig's Eye would be its protestant brother, with a cooler name.

The two states don't necessarilty have to be close in size...just split 'em along the Misissippi River. For more fun, make the capitals St. Paul and Minneapolis (though, like you, I'd prefer they keep their original names).
 
Top