Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think? Many people on other forums think that South Dakota and North Dakota ought to be annexed into "Dakota" so that we can admit Puerto Rico without having to change the flag. What are your thoughts?
I personally think that North Dakota would drag South Dakota down because it is not as prosperous as us and it has an 'outflux' instead of an 'influx' like South Dakota. What would be the capital? How many seats would we have in congress? What would be the state symbol? Bird? Flower?
I have seen those posts too and think the Dakota's get picked on because they are on the plains and people think there is nothing there. I mean why can't South and North Carolina or West Virginia and Virginia merge. Or why do they have to have the same name, how about some of the small Northeast states merging together. Besides, I think it would be much easier to change a flag than merge states.
Good luck. You have as much chance of annex'ing North Dakota as you do making Caputa the state capital.
Also, you can't merge states. When they signed into statehood, they signed into some agreements. Do you know there is only one state that can legally succeed from the Union? Texas refused to sign statehood without that clause. They can succeed and become their own country.
Oh, I don't care. We could go back to being Dakota Territory again. I kind of like that name anyway.
As far as the capitol, how about Aberdeen?
I'm sure we could all work something out as far as the state bird or the state dessert, etc. The only thing we may have a bit of problem with is our state flag. I've grown quite attached to ours.
South Dakota and North Dakota together seems logical and would be more efficient that way. What would the state universities be named with the four big universities? Dakota St. U.-Brookings, Dakota St. U-Fargo/Fargo St. U or Dakota U. or University of Dakota at Vermillion and UD or DU at Grand Forks. If the two states are together, Aberdeen seems like a logical location for a capital. Most of the people in both states live in the eastern third anyways.
I think Mobridge is the most obvious choice for capital. Just like Pierre is in the middle of SD, Mobridge is in the middle of Dakota Territory.
I remember an editorial in the Bismarck paper a few years ago where someone thought North Dakota should just drop the "North" and be "Dakota" instead. Because "North" makes it sound like it's cold. lol
Yeah, Mobridge is pretty close to the middle. Think it has enough motel space for state conventions or should we just build a dorm. 4 people to a room. Bathroom down the hall. You know, nothing fancy cause we all know our polititions was to save money.
I think we should annex and then start a new city exactly in the middle. We can name it "Capital". We can buy up all the used trailers from Katrina and park them about 4 ft apart in order to house all the polititions during sessions and conventions.
Of course, the Polititions would complain because it would be difficult to get out and visit folks. hahahaha Like they do now. Down in Miller, the last time we had anybody visit and actually drive around and talk to folks, it was George McGovern. Give you any idea of how long ago?
Merge North Dakota and South Dakota and the biggest impact would be ... the net loss of 2 U.S. Senators! If you think that agriculture gets short shrift now, wait until you have 2 less senators from the Dakotas. They will have effectively been replaced by 2 new ones from either Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia. Think about it - the little Federal money the Great Plains see from Washington will be diverted to entitlement money for the needy in those new states.
This is the primary reason there are periodic proposals to split California into Northern California and Southern California. What benefits could possibly outweigh the significant reduction in influence our state(s) would have in Washington?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
