WI North and South Dakota were one state?

Well for starters that means 4 electoral votes (combining both populations is enough to warrant a second congressional district) instead of the six the Dakotas have combined. Assuming the same presidential candidates and votes, not a whole lot changes until 2000 when Bush ties Gore instead of winning outright with 271.

But that's assuming that nothing changes after a POD a hundred and some years prior.
 

Japhy

Banned
The real question is how exactly would you stop the Dakota Land and Cattle and Salmon Wars to keep the territory from needing to be split.
 
The real question is how exactly would you stop the Dakota Land and Cattle and Salmon Wars to keep the territory from needing to be split.

You need someone to convince the railroad industry that they would have just as easy enough of a time controlling a larger state than they would controlling two smaller ones.

Now, assuming it does come in as a single state, it will be interesting to see where development goes. Bismarck had already become the territorial capital prior to the split and statehood, so I expect it will remain so in the new state of Dakota. Fargo also grew because several railroad lines converged there (easiest point to get the grain from out west to the mills in the Twin Cities). In South Dakota that niche was filled by Sioux Falls. I wonder if Fargo would become _THE_ hub for the combined state of Dakota or if Fargo and Sioux Falls would continue to on their OTL courses.

Finally, how would the Nonpartisan League do in Dakota? In OTL the organization was much weaker in South Dakota and never really took off, while it become the dominant political movement in North Dakota for several decades (and even expanded into Minnesota, helping give birth to the Farm-Labor Party). I've never been too sure on why South Dakota was less enthusiastic about the NPL, but I suspect the ethnic makeup of the state might have played a large part (in ND, the NPL drew pretty heavily from the Norwegians and German-Russians who made up most of the state's population but had not been very politically active up until that time)
 
Well for starters that means 4 electoral votes (combining both populations is enough to warrant a second congressional district) instead of the six the Dakotas have combined. Assuming the same presidential candidates and votes, not a whole lot changes until 2000 when Bush ties Gore instead of winning outright with 271.

But that's assuming that nothing changes after a POD a hundred and some years prior.

Not every WI needs to immediately move to the national level; nothing wrong with PODs that mainly impact the state and regional level :p
 
For looking for effects of this the main thing would be Senate votes as you'd end up with two senators erased which would be enough to swing various close votes in the senate and unleash butterflies.
 
My impression had been that the split of the Dakotas was a bit of gerrymandering by the Republicans, with the idea of creating two Republican states and getting them two extra Senators, two extra electoral votes, and maybe an extra Congressman. If the Democrats had done better in the 1888 elections, it would have gone in as one state.

I did check to see how the Dakotas voted in presidential elections. The two states voted for different candidates in only four elections, 1892, 1896, 1912, and 1916. In all four cases the Republican candidate, or in 1912 Theodore Roosevelt, would have carried the combined state (Taft wasn't on the ballot in South Dakota in 1912). In fact, the state of Dakota would have voted Democratic in presidential contests in only three elections, 1932, 1936, and in 1964.

The electoral votes involved are so few that they never would have mattered. This includes 2000, Bush would have just won 269 out of 536 instead of 270 out of 538.

The current population of the state would be short of 1.6 million, so only two Congressional districts. The loss of two Senate seats might have mattered. Ironically, North Dakota in particular has had a penchant for electing Democrats, so the removal of those two seats might have wound up hurting the Democratic Party more.

Nationally, after the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, there would have been 49 states and not 50, with the upper left corner of the flag having seven rows of seven stars, and I wonder if this would have had some sort of psychological impact.

Also, I wonder what the impact would have been on the development of Dakota itself.
 
For looking for effects of this the main thing would be Senate votes as you'd end up with two senators erased which would be enough to swing various close votes in the senate and unleash butterflies.

Not so. There could certainly be other far reaching consequences besides just that. Even if we dismiss internal developments in this state of Dakota (which I find fascinating) North Dakota had a fairly large impact upon its neighbors. Due to the success the Nonpartisan League had in the state, the organization tried to branch out into its neighbors. Although it wasn't always successful, the NPL did find fertile ground in Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the first, it helped lay the groundwork for the creation of the Farm-Labor Party of Minnesota which was very influential in Minnesota during the 1920s and 1930s. In the later, it helped give rise to the Farm-Labor-Progressive Federation that was a large component of Wisconsin's Progressive Party during the 1930s.

Should the NPL not form or fail to take off in the combined state of Dakota, it would likely never expand and surrounding states would have been impacted.

So, there is just one example of how this POD would alter the nation besides a few close. Senate votes. As I've said before, not every POD has to have immediate, or large, national changes to be interesting. One of the biggest weaknesses, I feel, of much Alternate History is that we fail to truly examine the local. Which is a shame, because state and regional history is fascinating.
 
Dakota probably would have been assigned a Class 2 and a Class 3 Senator. Both North and South Dakota has a Class 3 Senator, but one got a Class 1 Senator and one a Class 2 Senator. Of the next states to come in, both Idaho and Montana were assigned Class 1 and Class 2 Senators. The next one in the chute, Oklahoma, got a Class 2 and a Class 3 Senator. Presumably Class 2 and Class 3 were next up to be assigned in 1889.

That means that Dakota would elect Senators on South Dakota's current schedule, with the first regularly scheduled vacancies in 1888 and 1890.

I list how each Senate election in Dakota would have likely gone below. The main consequence is that with a larger electorate and fewer opportunities for election, it would have been harder for mavericks to be elected.

Nationally, George McGovern would have never been elected Senator, which would have had some major butterflies.

Tom Daschle's career would have been different, which would have meant smaller butterflies. His losing re-election was a blessing in disguise for the Democrats, since Harry Reid was a much more effective floor leader. ITTL he would have gotten to the Senate in a different cycle/ class, and may well have stuck around.

List of Dakota Senators:

1888 Class 2: Richard Pettigrew (R) SD (1888-1901)

1888 Class 3: Lyman Casey (R) ND (1888-1891)

1890 Class 3: Harry Hansbrough (R) ND (1891-1909)

1894: Richard Pettigrew (R) SD re-elected

1896: Harry Hansbrough (R) ND re-elected

1900: Robert Gamble (R) SD (1901-1913)

1902: Harry Hansbrough (R) ND re-elected

1906: Robert Gamble (R) SD re-elected

1908: Coe Crawford (R) SD (1909-1915)

1912: Thomas Sterling (R) SD (1913-1925)

Popularly elected Senators after 1914

1914: Asie Gronna (R) ND (1915-1921)

1918: Thomas Sterling (R) SD (1919-1925)

1920: Peter Norbeck (R) SD (1921-1936)

1924: William McNaster (R) SD (1925-1931)

1926: Peter Norbeck (R) SD re-elected

1930: William Bulow (D) SD (1931-1943)

Note: Gerald Nye, head of the Nye Committee which reported on the causes of US entry into World War 2, does not enter the Senate

1932: Peter Norbeck (R) SD re-elected

Peter Norbeck died OTL in 1936. Herbert Hitchcock was appointed as interim Senator, and then Gladys Pyle won the election to fill the term. Both were from South Dakota.

1936: William Bulow (D) SD re-elected

1938: William Langer (NPL) ND (1939-1945)

1942: Harlan Bushfield (R) SD (1943-1948)

1944: Milton Young (R) ND (1945-1981)

This will lead to butterflies later. I assume that regular Republican Young, whose main distinction seems to have been being Senator for a really long time, would have defeated the isolationist and maverick Langer in 1944. This could be an incorrect assumption, World War 2 may have been unpopular in the Dakotas (but ITTL it would have to be in both Dakotas for Langer to be re-election. Note that the election occurs in November 1944, when the war is going well. This means among other things that the Burdicks don't come in later to succeed Langer.

Harlan Bushfield died OTL in 1948. Vera Bushfield was appointed as interim Senator.

1948: Karl Mundt (R) SD (1949-1973)

1950: Milton Young (R) ND re-elected

1954: Karl Mundt (R) SD re-elected

1956: Milton Young (R) ND re-elected

1960: Karl Mundt (R) SD re-elected

Here is the biggest potential butterfly. George McGovern unsuccessfully ran against Karl Mundt in 1960. He was given an appointment in the Kennedy Administration, then returned to run and win in South Dakota in 1962 when the incumbent Republican Senator died. I am assuming here that McGovern decides to stay in DC.

1962: Milton Young (R) ND re-elected

1966: Karl Mundt (R) SD re-elected

1968: Milton Young (R) ND re-elected

1972: James Abourezk (D) SD (1973-1979)

McGovern could run for the Senate in 1972, or he could stay in DC as a lobbyist, or as DNC Chairman, or run for Governor in 1970, or get involved with one of the presidential campaigns in 1972. He would probably choose one of the other options.

1974: Milton Young (R) ND re-elected

1978: Larry Pressler (R) SD (1979-1991)

1980: Mark Andrews (R) ND (1981-1987)

1984: Larry Pressler (R) SD re-elected

1986: Kent Conrad (D) ND (1987-1993)

Conrad upsets Tom Daschle in the Democratic primary, because of a feeling that this seat should go to the northern part of the state. He then upsets Mark Andrews in the general election same as IOTL. He keeps his pledge to serve only one term, but there is no convenient vacancy in the other seat to slide into.

1990: Tom Daschle (D) SD (1991-2015)

1992: Bryan Dorgan (D) ND (1993-2011)

1996: Tom Daschle (D) SD re-elected

1998: Bryan Dorgan (D) ND re-elected

2002: Tom Daschle (D) SD re-elected

2004: Byran Dorgan (D) ND re-elected

2008: Tom Daschle (D) SD re-elected

2010: John Hoeven (R) ND (2011-)

2014: Mike Rounds (R) SD (2015-)
 

Driftless

Donor
Considering the modest size of the population of the Dakota's, the two states have produced senators with considerable national influence over the last fifty years.
 
Both George McGovern not becoming a national political figure, and Tom Daschle staying as Democratic Senate floor leader after 2004, are both interesting what-ifs by themselves.

The thing is that they probably should just be separate topics. They both could happen with Dakota as a single state. But you don't need that. McGovern either decides to stay with his job in the Kennedy administration for whatever reason -maybe the Senate seat doesn't open up- or loses in either 1962 or 1968. And you just have to have Dschle win in 2004. Maybe they should be separate topics. I suspect the Daschle win in 2004 would have greater repercussions.
 
Let me make a few suggestions (I've been reviewing South Dakota history since I know it less well than I know ND history):

1) Early in South Dakota's statehood (1889) there was a large push to have the Sioux cede their reservation lands to the state as it was feared by the President Harrison that the state would not actually be viable with so much of its territory controlled by the tribes. The end result was that the Sioux gave away a bit over half of their promised land.

With a larger state of Dakota this is going to be much less of an issue and, although I suspect some lands will be negotiated away from the Sioux, but nowhere near to that same extent.

As a result, the southern parts of this state of Dakota are going to be less settled by whites than OTL South Dakota.

2) The territorial government had already moved from Yankton to Bismarck before the states were split in OTL. In this ATL it seems likely that Bismarck will remain the capital of Dakota. I am guessing that this means that the state government is going to favor development in the northern parts of the state.

In OTL, the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific Rail lines were established in North Dakota prior to statehood. Meanwhile the Chicago and Northwest and the Milwaukee Road were the two dominant lines in the South. I believe in a timeline with a united state, that Fargo and Sioux Falls jockey for the position of the dominant urban center in Dakota with Fargo eventually winning out (however, that may just be my own personal bias, as I lived downtown for eight years :p)

My logic is as follows: With Bismarck being the capital of the entire state, it is going to become the dominant urban center in the west with no *South Dakota community able to compete. Eventually, Bismarck will become a rail hub for those western farmers needing to get their crops to market. Since it is easier to run rails from Bismarck to Fargo and, from there, to the Twin Cities, Fargo will likely eclipse Sioux Falls as the dominant rail hub.

As a result, Fargo (and Bismarck) will likely be more populous than they were in OTL and, due to the larger reservations, *South Dakota is slightly less populated.

3) The State of Dakota is going to initially three land-grant universities from the get-go since the University of South Dakota at Vermillion and the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks were both established by the territorial legislature prior to statehood. Meanwhile, North Dakota Agricultural School (NDAC) is likely still founded in Fargo on schedule due to the fact that plans had been in place to create an Agricultural school in the northern parts of Dakota since the territorial days.

Just some development thoughts off the top of my head, please feel free to disagree or comment. An interesting side note; the fact that development and population are going to favor the North is going to leave many in the south and the west feeling overlooked. They could actually be more welcoming to the message of the NPL (or similar organization. Possibly, in the ATL, A.C. Townley stays with the Socialists) than SoDaks were in OTL. This could become more entrenched with the coming of the Dust Bowl and Great Depression.
 
Top