Go to ground.news/Knowledge to spot media bias and make sure you’re getting the full story. Subscribe through my link for less than $1/month or get 40% off unlimited access this month only.
Your ability to obscure is fascinating! Not once mentioning how largely slavery and genocide dramatically contributed for these decisions to be made. The economic gain; the forced labor to clear off the land.. so much intentionally left out.
Interesting fact that when North Dakota and South Dakota became states it was on the same day in 1889. The President (Harrison) before signing the paperwork for the two states shuffled the papers, and then signed one, and then the other, and then reshuffled the papers. Nobody knows which one was the 39th state and which was the 40th state. Whether it was done alphabetically, or by some other means, North Dakota is now listed as the 39th, South Dakota the 40th. The eastern halves of each state are more similar to each other (farming, light manufacturing, more populous) than they are to the western halve of their own state (western portions are ranching, mineral extraction, tourism, less populated). Both state Capitols are on the Missouri River in the approximate center of their respective state, Bismark ND and Pierre (pronounced as peer), SD.
And he had to shuffle the papers because of the animosity between the two states that came about when the territory capital was moved from Yankton SD to Bismarck ND in the middle of the night.
Additionally, when people were preparing for Dakota to become the 39th state, people made 39 star flags, which were obviously made irrelevant immediately upon the Dakotas’ admittance into the Union.
Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the President signs the paperwork for a territory to become a State? Nowhere! We have two separate federal government systems, one has the responsibility to manage how the States interact with each other to form and maintain the Union through laws, the other has the responsibility to manage how the States act as the Union through treaties. And as the admission of a State into the Union is signing onto the treaty between the States that formed the Union, it is squarely in that second category which does not require any involvement of the President what so ever, however the majority consensus of the States is 2/3 of all the States, and an argument could be made that they need 3/4 of the current State legislatures to ratify the addition of a New State. Just because it says it must have the consent of Congress doesn’t mean it must have the approval, and signature, of the President. No treaty we make with foreign nations requires the approval and signature of the President, in fact the President is only a negotiator who is directed by the States as they are assembled in the Senate as the Union, through the requirement that all treaties must be made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, providing 2/3 of the Senators present concur, however, the States have equal suffrage in the Senate, not their Senators who only represent, and are directed by, their own State’s legislature! [Article. IV. Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.]
He didn't just start off as General Knowledge. He rose through the ranks first as Lieutenant Knowledge. Eventually Major Knowledge. Colonel Knowledge. Major General Knowledge. Finally with his fourth star, General Knowledge.
my great grandmother (who was 105 years old when she died in 1993) was born in the Dakota Territory around the year 1888 till the day she died she refused to accept that the territory split up because that meant her home was no longer around. Granted at around 100 years old her mind was not 100%, but the family always loved it when she would talk about her home Territory (not State).
it's a curious perspective... I don't know any of the kind here in Brazil, but I think here the territories were more looking to be states than not. Autonomy, bigger congress delegation, senators... There are no territories today here, but if there were, they would have half of the minimal delegation in the house (4 members, minimal for states is 8) and no senators
I don’t understand what people mean when they say “thumbnail.” I know I have two thumbnails…well one did fall off when I crushed it when I was a kid, but it grew back. So it’s fine. But this thumbnail has been here for a while. I just don’t know why people is always referencing it on the internet. Did it make America win? Okay.
It was more like Virginia: “Hey, Supreme Court, can we get the West Virginia territory returned?” Supreme Court “Hmm, nah. You guys were committing treason and losing territory is a fair punishment so shut up.”
@@General.Knowledge Vermont was actually disputed territory between Massachusetts and New York colonies for a while, but with the royal formation of New Hampshire disrupting Massachusetts claims, it was difficult for them to impose their rights on the Vermont area.
I don't blame them. I don't think any state would want to say they have any parts to do with NY. Lived in two states now and all I hear is I hate NYers and Floridians when the conversation of tourists comes up.
Other names in the running for what to call West Virginia when it was being formed were Allegheny, Augusta, Vandalia, and Kanawha. Appalachia was not one of the names considered.
The part of Colorado that was part of Kansas is kind of a state split. Kansas was allowed to keep it if they wanted it but felt the gold mining attracted the wrong sort so gave it up.
@@markgibbs904 The strip ceded by South Carolina was meant to be between a line running west from the headwaters of the Savannah River and the 35th parallel (the border with North Carolina). What no-one knew at the time was that this didn't actually exist: the headwaters of the Savannah River are in North Carolina. And then just to add to the mess, the line surveyed as the 35th parallel was about a mile south of where it should have been, which is why the southern border of Tennessee isn't in fact the 35th parallel and there's a semi-serious Georgia-Tennessee water dispute.
this is an interesting topic as a brazilian... our federal constitution allows for new states, but it's a somewhat tricky process. Some of our states were once territories that became states. The last actual split happened in 1988, when Tocantins was created using what is basically the northern half of my homestate of Goiás. If you're brazilian, it's likely you have heard of all this
Sim!!! E é um assunto interessante não só para nós brasileiros mas também para estrangeiros interessados em história! Não sabia que a constituição atual permite a criação de novos estados. Mas faz sentido de ser um processo complicado… pra não incentivar interesses abusivos
This also almost happened with Pennsylvania. There was a movement to establish a 14th Frontier state with its capital at Fort Pitt, called Westsylvania. It would have included parts of what is now Maryland, Kentucky and West Virginia. Its eastern boundary would have been set following the centerline of the Appalachian Mountains, bending around to give Pennsylvania full control over both branches of the Susquehanna, connecting to a straight line northern border at 50 degrees, 51 minutes north. Which would join it to the Allegheny which would have set its western boundary as it merged into the Ohio. Its southwestern boundary would have been the straight line between the confluence of the Scioto and Ohio rivers and the Cumberland river. This would have resulted in a sort of Kansas like situation where all the settled places would be right on the border
Technically, by the exact wording of Article IV Section 3 there is no provision for the splitting of states at all. The clause that disallows this does not have ANY exception statement. Only the uniting of states or the attaching parts of states to another state are allowed with consent of the affected state legislatures and Congress. There's no rule that allows the formation of a new state from pieces of an existing state. (Sometimes modern readers treat semi-colons like they are commas, but historically, statements contained within semi-colons create separate requirements from other statements within the same sentence. Basically, Article IV Section 3 is a run-on sentence that is made up of three separate statements, and therefore three separate requirements. 1) New states can be admitted by Congress. 2) No new state shall be formed by splitting up an existing state. 3) States can be combined, and pieces of states can be moved from one state to another only with the approval of the affected state legislators and Congress. West Virginia was allowed to split from Virginia because Virginia wasn't a state at the time due to its rebellion during the Civil War, as noted in the video. The other example of a state being formed from the territory of another state was Maine from Massachusetts. This is the only case that is arguably a violation of Article IV Section 3, but even it was formed via a loophole. Although Maine was governed by Massachusetts, it was considered more of a possession than an integral part of Massachusetts.
If im not mistaken, they did a video, and it explains it was due to slavery, West Virginia wasn't for slavery which is also why the map of D.C. doesn't square off in Virginia.
There are a couple of states that I could see splitting and maybe a territory or two that could become new states. However, I think there's also too much nostalgia and focus on having 50 states for any of that to happen.
Never. Rhode Island was a couple of separate colonies (Newport, Providence, and Portsmouth) that formed together to create one big colony that would ultimately turn into Rhode Island. Fun fact - 1st colony to declare independence from Britain (May 4th, 1776) and last of the original 13 to sign on to the Constitution.
There are several issues with statements made throughout this video. It comes from precursory-level investigation. It doesn't seem like even Wikipedia was used.
Louisiana was founded by France in 1682, but the French gave it up to Spain to avoid the British taking it in 1762. The population stayed mostly French though, and France reacquired Louisiana in 1800, before selling it to the US in 1803
How many Virginians are going to be in the comments saying we don’t need West Virginia As one of the biggest examples of a group of people not getting over the fact that the south lost the Civil War
I once was on a video of Take me Home Country Roads by the late great John Denver (state song of West Virginia). A virginian commmented "your secession is illegal, but it gave us a kicka** of a song"
@@otaviofrn_adv Actually, West Virginia did not secede from Virginia, as the U. S. Constitution does not allow for that. What actually happened was that there was a Unionist government of Virginia which was recognized by the Federal government all during the Civil War. This pro-Union Virginia government granted West Virginia's petition to become a state, in line with the Constitutional requirements. Another problem for all Confederate governments is that the states are joined in a perpetual union, so no state has the right to secede in the first place.
I don't think the video is completely accurate on the approval needed for a state to split. As defined in Article IV, Section III of the Constitution, approval is needed from Congress as well as the parent state, not just the state. Undoubtedly, it's the congressional approval that would be the big holdup, as the party that didn't benefit politically would block the split. For example, if liberal California decided to split into two states, the Republicans would block it, as the split would likely add two Democratic senators.
Like say it in the video there were different needs for the two colonies so they were split and there were different people coming into both of the Dakotas so they were split
The Dakotas were split over largely due to the change of location of the territory capital from Yankton SD to Bismarck ND in the middle of the night. There was so much animosity that the president had to shuffle the papers so he did not know which state was being signed first. North Dakota is accredited with being the 39th state instead of the 40th because it comes first alphabetically.
I am a Virginian. West Virginia, the western area of Virginia, is still part of Virginia, per the United States Constitution. I demand it back. The US Constitution permits a state to divide itself into two or more states, only if the US Government and the State Legislature agree to that separation. The Legislature and Governor of Virginia have never officially agreed to that separation; therefore, the area called West Virginia is not a state, but is part of the State of Virginia.
You are absolutely right. The West Virginia statehood was never approved by the Virginia Govt., and thus doesn't meet the US Constitutional requirement for statehood. Legally, West Virginia is not a state, but is an area of the State of Virginia.
I completely reject the premise of the thumbnail. While it is true that West Virginia separated from Virginia after Virginia's statehood, the same cannot be said of the Carolinas or the Dakotas. The Carolinas were divided when Carolina was still a propietary colony of Great Britain, when the crown took South Carolina away from its proprietors and made it a royal colony. There was no splitting of states. There was the division of a colony. Likewise, there was no splitting of states with the Dakotas. The area comprising both present-day states (and parts of other states) was part of the Dakota Territory. In 1889, part of the Dakota Territory was admitted to the Union as the state of North Dakota, and part of it was admitted as South Dakota. It is false to state and disingenuous to imply that one state split from the other. The two states have precisely the same boundaries they had when they were created, and there was never a single Dakota state. Under your implied premise it would be correct to state that 1. North Dakota and South Dakota "split" from Minnesota because part of each present-day state belonged to Minnesota Territory from 1849-1861 2. Montana and Wyoming "split" from both North Dakota and South Dakota, because parts of present-day Montana and Wyoming were included in the Dakota Territory from 1861-1863 3. Even more ludicrously, that North Dakota and South Dakota "split" from Missouri, because parts of both states were included in the Missouri Territory from 1812-1821 states splitting ≠ colonies dividing ≠ subdivision of an organized unincorporated territory It seems to me that this video is presenting misinformation as "general knowledge." I expect better from this channel.
I heartily agree with you saying that you expect better from this channel. You are correct that colonies and territories being split is not the same thing as states being split. The Constitution does not allow a new state to be erected within the territory of an existing state without that state's permission. There is no such thing as a state seceding from another state. That goes for West Virginia as well. It was granted permission to become a state by the pro-Union government of Virginia (which had an active presence in the U. S. Congress all during the Civil War). Other states have been created from the territory of older states, namely, Kentucky from Virginia, Tennessee from North Carolina, and Maine from Massachusetts. Vermont was created because its territory was disputed by New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts.
The Union didn't see Virginia as "a state of their enemy," they saw Virginia, like all the Confederate states, as areas in rebellion. In some places, like Virginia, there were enough pro-Union people to create a rival state government which was regarded as the legitimate one. This government gave its consent to the split, which is constitutionally required.
@@archstanton6102Sudan didn’t split into two as it was instead the south seceding from Sudan. Also New Guinea was never united as nation having been divided as a colony by the Dutch, British and Germans. The present borders were made after the Treaty of Versailles meant Germany couldn’t have any overseas colonies so their land was annexed by the UK.
The Carolinas never were one state. For a while they were one COLONY but then split into two colonies and those colonies joined these United States individually. The Dakotas also were never one state, however they were one TERRITORY. But Congess did not want to admit such a large territory as a single state so it split the territory in half and admitted both haves as states. While Virginia's secession from the Union was NOT recognized by the US Government, the Union army quickly occupied the western counties and then organized a vote of secession from Virginia (remember that the Federal government had said any secession vote was illegal) and admitted West Virginia in violation of the US Constitution Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. It turned out that this ended up benefiting Virginia as those counties had long been a drag on Virginia. W. VA is still one of the suckiest states.
We count independence from 1776. The Declaration was written as a statement of existing fact, that the colonies were at that point free and independent states. The Treaty of Paris is regarded as a recognition of that fact, not as an act making it so.
The land ceded by Georgia and the lands to the Gulf of Mexico became the Mississippi-Alabama Territory, which was forced to split before statehood. I think the reason given was that the state would be too big otherwise. CA and NY need to split.
I live in the state of Connecticut I know the states were spitting up In the early years but I don't know what it is all about . Thank you for the history of all the states . In the united States.
I think no states should be split or reunited. No more states should be added either. I believe we have enough stars on the flag and no room for more. So lets just keep the status quo!
I would to see the DC Retrocession reversed. I'd even happily agree to DC statehood if it meant that they took all of Northern Virginia sp that the Federal employees from other states who commute into DC aren't influencing my state's government for the worse.
As a Minnesotan, I whole heatedly believe it should be split in two, with the Southeast corner (to include the twin cities) should be its own state. Rural Minnesotans despise the politics of the metropolitan area and we feel betrayed.
See the Mr Z videos about going from 50 to 70 states, based on geography and culture. It would help with national elections, hopefully a multi bankruptcy con person would lose more often.
No that would led to some awkward situations since you are naming it after a specific city. Washington isn’t that confusing as the Nation’s capital has the D.C. or District of Columbia added to it.
The panhandle of Oklahoma should be absorbed into Texas & California should be split up into three states: Northern California, Southern California & the Sacramento & San Joaquin Valleys should be combined into the third state of Central California.
That's a good point! I actually have noticed that an increasing number of my viewers watch my videos via TV. So I'll take this more into account moving forward :)
It's counties in Oregon, not Washington, who have expressed interest in joining Idaho. But that's OK for the mistake. We westerners realize we all look the same to easterners who think we all live in blah "square states." Seriously, as a person who has lived all over the USA, I can truthfully say that the geographic ignorance of Americans living in Eastern states about the Western half of their country is breathtaking! 😒👎 The "Greater Idaho" scheme will never happen! Who wants to join a state where Mormons rule and abortion and marijuana are illegal? Moreover, a SALES tax would be imposed on those tax-free Oregon counties. Never gonna happen. 👎
1:38 “This is the only true case of a state split.” This statement is wrong. There were three true cases of state splits: 1. Kentucky from Virginia in 1792. (Yes, I know you say that this is a colony split later in the video. This is incorrect. Virginia ratified the Constitution with Kentucky within its boundaries and the Virginia counties that would become Kentucky formed Virginia's 2nd Congressional District with one John Brown as the elected representative from 1789 to 1792,) 2. Maine from Massachusetts in 1820. 3. West Virginia from Virginia in 1863.
California needs to become 3 states. With the Northern most part taking part of Oregon with it as Jefferson. Washington needs to split off the east and merge it with the Idaho panhandle. Long Island and NYC need to split off of NY state. The panhandle of Florida needs to split off maybe taking the bottoms of Alabama and Mississippi with it. Texas needs to split in half making Lincoln. The upper part of Michigan needs to split off. Nevada could be split in half as well. We also should bring In Puerto Rico and the us VI as one state and Guam as another, possibly as part of a Micronesia state. Make it an even 60.
South Carolina used to have Georgia Alabama and Mississippi North Carolina have Tennessee if you can buy all those stick together that will call Carolina
Thank you. I would love to see a breakdown of spending worldwide on arms and space exploration, and territories controlled by the knightly orders like the templars. 😁👍❤️🇬🇧
No, Wisconsin does not deserve the upper peninsula first thing half of the upper peninsula was already part of the territory of Michigan second thing Wisconsin even exist when the other half was given to Wisconsin never lost the upper peninsula nor was it ever stolen from them just because you think it looks good does not mean it should be the case
Because we wanted to. We invented the metric system, and didnt want to use it. We made the qorld's first capital you could just walk-in and visit for fun We're American, we lead the way and we do it our own way... one mile at a time
@@judithmccrea2601 technically it is the English and French words referring to the Kansa and Arkansa groups. I heard ArkansaS, so that's why I commented. Non Americans sometimes mispronounce the words as we know them, so I was educating.
I like your videos. But you are reading your presentation which makes it difficult to understand. Please present it like a lecture. Follow the format of 60 minutes presentation.
So misleading to the uninformed. North Dakota was originally North Wisconsin. South Dakota was South Montana. But being clever as they are, lawmakers wanted a tie in for popularity when it came to statehood. So when the i's were dotted, we got North Dakota & South Dakota as a cheap marketing ploy. No one can say it did not work, we cant think of one state without the other.
Californians whining about the Senate, but don’t want to talk about the house they basically rule this country in a lot of ways because of their population but because they just don’t have as many senators as filling the blank red state that means it’s unfair
Where did you get that information that Rhode Island was once a part of Connecticut. Rhode Island was never a part of Connecticut, the land was not claimed by Connecticut. You really need to learn to get your histoy right. The land was granted to Roger Williams from England when he was kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay colony in the 1600s. If you are going to keep giving information like this maybe you need to rethink your channel.
Texas is only that can split up without permission from the federal government as far as I know, or is there some mechanism needed? I was taught that texas would not join the union it would not join union and up its republic status unless it could (if wanted to at some later date) split up into five separate states. Or was I misinformed?
Under the 1845 resolution, TX was granted the right split itself up, but that was the 1845 resolution. TX was readmitted to the US after the US Civil War and that changed a lot of stuff.
@zach2382 The readmission of former confederate states changed a lot. Texas can split itself apart all it wants, it can't however split from the Union or slipt into 5 Individual independent states like how West VA did
@@amkrause2004 it can split all at once just not into five states yeah that doesn’t make any sense and it never was able to leave the Union and West Virginia wasn’t constitutional technically all reason it happened was because the Supreme Court basically said to Virginia you were rebelling so too bad
Go to ground.news/Knowledge to spot media bias and make sure you’re getting the full story. Subscribe through my link for less than $1/month or get 40% off unlimited access this month only.
What if USA split into 50 countries what would happen?
Your ability to obscure is fascinating! Not once mentioning how largely slavery and genocide dramatically contributed for these decisions to be made. The economic gain; the forced labor to clear off the land.. so much intentionally left out.
mrpearson1230 Nobody is obligated to repeat what your professors told you. You're doing a fine job of mindlessly mimicking them.
Interesting fact that when North Dakota and South Dakota became states it was on the same day in 1889. The President (Harrison) before signing the paperwork for the two states shuffled the papers, and then signed one, and then the other, and then reshuffled the papers. Nobody knows which one was the 39th state and which was the 40th state. Whether it was done alphabetically, or by some other means, North Dakota is now listed as the 39th, South Dakota the 40th. The eastern halves of each state are more similar to each other (farming, light manufacturing, more populous) than they are to the western halve of their own state (western portions are ranching, mineral extraction, tourism, less populated). Both state Capitols are on the Missouri River in the approximate center of their respective state, Bismark ND and Pierre (pronounced as peer), SD.
And he had to shuffle the papers because of the animosity between the two states that came about when the territory capital was moved from Yankton SD to Bismarck ND in the middle of the night.
Additionally, when people were preparing for Dakota to become the 39th state, people made 39 star flags, which were obviously made irrelevant immediately upon the Dakotas’ admittance into the Union.
Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the President signs the paperwork for a territory to become a State?
Nowhere!
We have two separate federal government systems, one has the responsibility to manage how the States interact with each other to form and maintain the Union through laws, the other has the responsibility to manage how the States act as the Union through treaties. And as the admission of a State into the Union is signing onto the treaty between the States that formed the Union, it is squarely in that second category which does not require any involvement of the President what so ever, however the majority consensus of the States is 2/3 of all the States, and an argument could be made that they need 3/4 of the current State legislatures to ratify the addition of a New State.
Just because it says it must have the consent of Congress doesn’t mean it must have the approval, and signature, of the President. No treaty we make with foreign nations requires the approval and signature of the President, in fact the President is only a negotiator who is directed by the States as they are assembled in the Senate as the Union, through the requirement that all treaties must be made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, providing 2/3 of the Senators present concur, however, the States have equal suffrage in the Senate, not their Senators who only represent, and are directed by, their own State’s legislature!
[Article. IV. Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.]
@@nfpnone8248 womp womp
He didn't just start off as General Knowledge. He rose through the ranks first as Lieutenant Knowledge. Eventually Major Knowledge. Colonel Knowledge. Major General Knowledge. Finally with his fourth star, General Knowledge.
Wasn't he ever Private Knowledge?
my great grandmother (who was 105 years old when she died in 1993) was born in the Dakota Territory around the year 1888 till the day she died she refused to accept that the territory split up because that meant her home was no longer around. Granted at around 100 years old her mind was not 100%, but the family always loved it when she would talk about her home Territory (not State).
it's a curious perspective... I don't know any of the kind here in Brazil, but I think here the territories were more looking to be states than not. Autonomy, bigger congress delegation, senators...
There are no territories today here, but if there were, they would have half of the minimal delegation in the house (4 members, minimal for states is 8) and no senators
It's so incredible that some people live long enough to see the world around them completely change.
@General.Knowledge she used to car cars "newfangled contraptions" even in the 1980s - she was born when Cleveland was president.
Why did the territory around Seattle get the name “Washington,” when the capital city of the US already had that name?
@@robertewalt7789 The State of Washington was named after George Washington, founding father and first president.
At my age I still enjoyed learning I am 75 years old . And appreciate you for sharing an excellent program with all of us.
Finally, the correct thumbnail
Patreons got this early last week, and have already seen next week's video. It's super cool! 😁
Had to change the color to make it a little different this time
Yeah, I was looking forward to the German States Part 2!
It’s actually a toenail this time.
I don’t understand what people mean when they say “thumbnail.” I know I have two thumbnails…well one did fall off when I crushed it when I was a kid, but it grew back. So it’s fine. But this thumbnail has been here for a while. I just don’t know why people is always referencing it on the internet. Did it make America win? Okay.
There were several counties in West Virginia that expressed a desire to return to Virginia, but Virginia was like "Nah, we're good".
It was more like
Virginia: “Hey, Supreme Court, can we get the West Virginia territory returned?”
Supreme Court “Hmm, nah. You guys were committing treason and losing territory is a fair punishment so shut up.”
There’s this guy from Portugal 🇵🇹 who has taught me a ton of American 🇺🇸 history ❤️😸. Thank you!
I think Vermont would seriously dispute ever being part of New Yotk.
I think perhaps New York claiming Vermont as its own would be more correct, then?
@@General.Knowledge Vermont was actually disputed territory between Massachusetts and New York colonies for a while, but with the royal formation of New Hampshire disrupting Massachusetts claims, it was difficult for them to impose their rights on the Vermont area.
@@fcsuperAnd it was basically more like Texas a state that was previously a sovereign nation before joining the USA.
@@emberfist8347 the way that NY lost VT was similar to how Mexico lost TX.
I don't blame them. I don't think any state would want to say they have any parts to do with NY. Lived in two states now and all I hear is I hate NYers and Floridians when the conversation of tourists comes up.
We didn’t break off from North Carolina they broke off from us
Incorrect NC was first
@@DmanepicSC*
They were created at the same time 😂
@@daltongalloway nope, as they started to separate and form their own government due to fighting the tuscora (no idea how to spell it)
@@nostear8261 the first Carolinian colony was where north carolina is today
hey this is the video that was in the thumbnail of the german states one
Yes! 😂
It is called a spoiler
Ever notice that Virginia goes more to the west than west Virginia does?
Yep - it should be North Virginia.
I think South Carolina should change it's name to palmetto, South Dakota to Sioux or Lakota, and west Virginia to Appalachia
Why?
Other names in the running for what to call West Virginia when it was being formed were Allegheny, Augusta, Vandalia, and Kanawha. Appalachia was not one of the names considered.
I agree! I think all of the break-away ones should change to something else that provides them with more unique identities.
@aLadNamedNathan I would have chosen Vandalia or Allegheny.
Yesss leave Carolina to North Carolina 💪
This was an excellent video. Great work, and very comprehensive!
1:29 I activate the fusion spell Polymerization, to combine West Virginia and Virginia into one Unified State, I Fusion Summon, “United Virginia”
The part of Colorado that was part of Kansas is kind of a state split. Kansas was allowed to keep it if they wanted it but felt the gold mining attracted the wrong sort so gave it up.
First time I’ve seen a map showing present day Tennessee being part of South Carolina since it was in a Tennessee history school book in the 80s.
That shows Tennessee as being a part of North Carolina not south
North Carolina, yes!
@@General.Knowledge what about the long narrow space in present day South Tennessee at 11:37 minutes. Says ceded by S Carolina to Georgia.
@@markgibbs904the strip is nowadays part of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. All of Tennessee was under North Carolina
@@markgibbs904 The strip ceded by South Carolina was meant to be between a line running west from the headwaters of the Savannah River and the 35th parallel (the border with North Carolina). What no-one knew at the time was that this didn't actually exist: the headwaters of the Savannah River are in North Carolina. And then just to add to the mess, the line surveyed as the 35th parallel was about a mile south of where it should have been, which is why the southern border of Tennessee isn't in fact the 35th parallel and there's a semi-serious Georgia-Tennessee water dispute.
You could also talk about brazilian states that also split in two… and then split again… and again… again.
this is an interesting topic as a brazilian... our federal constitution allows for new states, but it's a somewhat tricky process. Some of our states were once territories that became states.
The last actual split happened in 1988, when Tocantins was created using what is basically the northern half of my homestate of Goiás.
If you're brazilian, it's likely you have heard of all this
Sim!!! E é um assunto interessante não só para nós brasileiros mas também para estrangeiros interessados em história!
Não sabia que a constituição atual permite a criação de novos estados.
Mas faz sentido de ser um processo complicado… pra não incentivar interesses abusivos
Good idea! But might be a little long of a video ahah
This also almost happened with Pennsylvania. There was a movement to establish a 14th Frontier state with its capital at Fort Pitt, called Westsylvania. It would have included parts of what is now Maryland, Kentucky and West Virginia. Its eastern boundary would have been set following the centerline of the Appalachian Mountains, bending around to give Pennsylvania full control over both branches of the Susquehanna, connecting to a straight line northern border at 50 degrees, 51 minutes north. Which would join it to the Allegheny which would have set its western boundary as it merged into the Ohio. Its southwestern boundary would have been the straight line between the confluence of the Scioto and Ohio rivers and the Cumberland river. This would have resulted in a sort of Kansas like situation where all the settled places would be right on the border
Technically, by the exact wording of Article IV Section 3 there is no provision for the splitting of states at all. The clause that disallows this does not have ANY exception statement. Only the uniting of states or the attaching parts of states to another state are allowed with consent of the affected state legislatures and Congress. There's no rule that allows the formation of a new state from pieces of an existing state. (Sometimes modern readers treat semi-colons like they are commas, but historically, statements contained within semi-colons create separate requirements from other statements within the same sentence. Basically, Article IV Section 3 is a run-on sentence that is made up of three separate statements, and therefore three separate requirements. 1) New states can be admitted by Congress. 2) No new state shall be formed by splitting up an existing state. 3) States can be combined, and pieces of states can be moved from one state to another only with the approval of the affected state legislators and Congress.
West Virginia was allowed to split from Virginia because Virginia wasn't a state at the time due to its rebellion during the Civil War, as noted in the video. The other example of a state being formed from the territory of another state was Maine from Massachusetts. This is the only case that is arguably a violation of Article IV Section 3, but even it was formed via a loophole. Although Maine was governed by Massachusetts, it was considered more of a possession than an integral part of Massachusetts.
*its
@@ferretyluv Yeah, I could blame the typo on Swipe, which pushes "it's" almost exclusively these days. But I still should have caught its mistake. :)
Great video, love the way it was shown👍
thank you for the video! amazing work!
Great video
North Dakota excites me
As it should.
The real cuestion here is, why Virginia is western than West Virginia?
If im not mistaken, they did a video, and it explains it was due to slavery, West Virginia wasn't for slavery which is also why the map of D.C. doesn't square off in Virginia.
I think the real question is what is a cuestion?
And why Virginia is western than West Virginia?
The actual real question is why is it not called North and south Virginia?
@@chad_b do you have the anwser?
As always, a very interested presentation. That said, this presentation could have benefitted from a slightly slower vocal delivery.
There are a couple of states that I could see splitting and maybe a territory or two that could become new states. However, I think there's also too much nostalgia and focus on having 50 states for any of that to happen.
When was Rhode Island ever a part of Connecticut (or vice versa)?
Never. Rhode Island was a couple of separate colonies (Newport, Providence, and Portsmouth) that formed together to create one big colony that would ultimately turn into Rhode Island.
Fun fact - 1st colony to declare independence from Britain (May 4th, 1776) and last of the original 13 to sign on to the Constitution.
9:00 I always thought Louisiana was a French colony, but apparently I rmemeber wrong
There are several issues with statements made throughout this video. It comes from precursory-level investigation. It doesn't seem like even Wikipedia was used.
Louisiana was founded by France in 1682, but the French gave it up to Spain to avoid the British taking it in 1762. The population stayed mostly French though, and France reacquired Louisiana in 1800, before selling it to the US in 1803
How many Virginians are going to be in the comments saying we don’t need West Virginia As one of the biggest examples of a group of people not getting over the fact that the south lost the Civil War
I once was on a video of Take me Home Country Roads by the late great John Denver (state song of West Virginia). A virginian commmented "your secession is illegal, but it gave us a kicka** of a song"
@@otaviofrn_adv Actually, West Virginia did not secede from Virginia, as the U. S. Constitution does not allow for that. What actually happened was that there was a Unionist government of Virginia which was recognized by the Federal government all during the Civil War. This pro-Union Virginia government granted West Virginia's petition to become a state, in line with the Constitutional requirements. Another problem for all Confederate governments is that the states are joined in a perpetual union, so no state has the right to secede in the first place.
@@otaviofrn_advthat’s fucking hilarious.
I don't think the video is completely accurate on the approval needed for a state to split. As defined in Article IV, Section III of the Constitution, approval is needed from Congress as well as the parent state, not just the state. Undoubtedly, it's the congressional approval that would be the big holdup, as the party that didn't benefit politically would block the split. For example, if liberal California decided to split into two states, the Republicans would block it, as the split would likely add two Democratic senators.
Can you expand on this video if you haven't already explained the Unorganized currently possessions like Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands.
North Carolina and South Carolina split during a big Indian war in 1700-1711. Called the tuscarora indian war.
But… why did they split? Dakota, Carolina? I didn’t see why lol
Like say it in the video there were different needs for the two colonies so they were split and there were different people coming into both of the Dakotas so they were split
The Dakotas were split over largely due to the change of location of the territory capital from Yankton SD to Bismarck ND in the middle of the night. There was so much animosity that the president had to shuffle the papers so he did not know which state was being signed first. North Dakota is accredited with being the 39th state instead of the 40th because it comes first alphabetically.
I am a Virginian. West Virginia, the western area of Virginia, is still part of Virginia, per the United States Constitution. I demand it back. The US Constitution permits a state to divide itself into two or more states, only if the US Government and the State Legislature agree to that separation. The Legislature and Governor of Virginia have never officially agreed to that separation; therefore, the area called West Virginia is not a state, but is part of the State of Virginia.
West Virginia split from Virginia to get away from terrible Virginia drivers
Dude you ain't lying😂😂😂either worst drivers or biggest assholes
1:11 but west virginia,s succession was not approved by Virginia
It was approved in 1867 by the Union occupation government.
Yes it was . It was approved by the union recognized legislature
It's called "finding out."
You are absolutely right. The West Virginia statehood was never approved by the Virginia Govt., and thus doesn't meet the US Constitutional requirement for statehood. Legally, West Virginia is not a state, but is an area of the State of Virginia.
@@michaelreilly569 No, the legitimate government of Virginia at the time approved it.
I completely reject the premise of the thumbnail. While it is true that West Virginia separated from Virginia after Virginia's statehood, the same cannot be said of the Carolinas or the Dakotas.
The Carolinas were divided when Carolina was still a propietary colony of Great Britain, when the crown took South Carolina away from its proprietors and made it a royal colony. There was no splitting of states. There was the division of a colony.
Likewise, there was no splitting of states with the Dakotas. The area comprising both present-day states (and parts of other states) was part of the Dakota Territory. In 1889, part of the Dakota Territory was admitted to the Union as the state of North Dakota, and part of it was admitted as South Dakota. It is false to state and disingenuous to imply that one state split from the other. The two states have precisely the same boundaries they had when they were created, and there was never a single Dakota state. Under your implied premise it would be correct to state that
1. North Dakota and South Dakota "split" from Minnesota because part of each present-day state belonged to Minnesota Territory from 1849-1861
2. Montana and Wyoming "split" from both North Dakota and South Dakota, because parts of present-day Montana and Wyoming were included in the Dakota Territory from 1861-1863
3. Even more ludicrously, that North Dakota and South Dakota "split" from Missouri, because parts of both states were included in the Missouri Territory from 1812-1821
states splitting ≠ colonies dividing ≠ subdivision of an organized unincorporated territory
It seems to me that this video is presenting misinformation as "general knowledge." I expect better from this channel.
I heartily agree with you saying that you expect better from this channel.
You are correct that colonies and territories being split is not the same thing as states being split. The Constitution does not allow a new state to be erected within the territory of an existing state without that state's permission. There is no such thing as a state seceding from another state. That goes for West Virginia as well. It was granted permission to become a state by the pro-Union government of Virginia (which had an active presence in the U. S. Congress all during the Civil War).
Other states have been created from the territory of older states, namely, Kentucky from Virginia, Tennessee from North Carolina, and Maine from Massachusetts. Vermont was created because its territory was disputed by New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts.
The whole video has a ton of issues. It's one of the most poorly researched videos we've seen from this channel, ever.
isn't part of east Washington trying to rejoin with Idaho?
Oregon, actually, but you've got the right idea.
@@lp-xl9ld primarily east Oregon but some of east Washington wants to switch as well. Idaho's about the become the first Idahoan Empire
The Union didn't see Virginia as "a state of their enemy," they saw Virginia, like all the Confederate states, as areas in rebellion. In some places, like Virginia, there were enough pro-Union people to create a rival state government which was regarded as the legitimate one. This government gave its consent to the split, which is constitutionally required.
Why did some countries split in two?
Good idea!
Sudan, New Guinea, Czech/slovakia
@@archstanton6102Sudan didn’t split into two as it was instead the south seceding from Sudan. Also New Guinea was never united as nation having been divided as a colony by the Dutch, British and Germans. The present borders were made after the Treaty of Versailles meant Germany couldn’t have any overseas colonies so their land was annexed by the UK.
@@emberfist8347 how is South Sudan seceding not Sudan spliiting in 2?
Whilst not equal sizes, the country now has 2 parts.
@@archstanton6102 That would imply there was new North Sudan.
The Carolinas never were one state. For a while they were one COLONY but then split into two colonies and those colonies joined these United States individually. The Dakotas also were never one state, however they were one TERRITORY. But Congess did not want to admit such a large territory as a single state so it split the territory in half and admitted both haves as states. While Virginia's secession from the Union was NOT recognized by the US Government, the Union army quickly occupied the western counties and then organized a vote of secession from Virginia (remember that the Federal government had said any secession vote was illegal) and admitted West Virginia in violation of the US Constitution Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. It turned out that this ended up benefiting Virginia as those counties had long been a drag on Virginia. W. VA is still one of the suckiest states.
2:43 sliiiiight correction due to my OCD. "DECLARED independence in 1776". It wasn't until 1783 that the original 13 finally "got independence"
We count independence from 1776. The Declaration was written as a statement of existing fact, that the colonies were at that point free and independent states. The Treaty of Paris is regarded as a recognition of that fact, not as an act making it so.
The land ceded by Georgia and the lands to the Gulf of Mexico became the Mississippi-Alabama Territory, which was forced to split before statehood. I think the reason given was that the state would be too big otherwise. CA and NY need to split.
No new states, no split ups. We have enough stars on the flag!
I live in the state of Connecticut I know the states were spitting up
In the early years but I don't know what it is all about . Thank you for the history of all the states . In the united States.
Being from NC I always tell people that SC is the swamp land NC didn’t want. 🙂
Regular Virginia actually reaches further west then west Virginia
I thought north and South Carolina was already split in the 13 colonies but weren’t a whole state
This video ftis with the other about which states could split further. Seven from Califorina.
Hum, as an Oregonian, I'm waiting for SoCal be NorCal.. we all know it but it ain't official. We watching Idaho and Greater Idaho.
I think no states should be split or reunited. No more states should be added either. I believe we have enough stars on the flag and no room for more. So lets just keep the status quo!
I would to see the DC Retrocession reversed. I'd even happily agree to DC statehood if it meant that they took all of Northern Virginia sp that the Federal employees from other states who commute into DC aren't influencing my state's government for the worse.
Maybe a a bigger and more wealthy state came along… happens a lot
As a Minnesotan, I whole heatedly believe it should be split in two, with the Southeast corner (to include the twin cities) should be its own state. Rural Minnesotans despise the politics of the metropolitan area and we feel betrayed.
Something similar has been proposed in Oregon or Washington, I forget which. The Eastern part of the state wants to join Idaho.
there's north dakota, south dakota, and now dakota johnson
See the Mr Z videos about going from 50 to 70 states, based on geography and culture. It would help with national elections, hopefully a multi bankruptcy con person would lose more often.
The name Washington is confusing. They should have named the state Tacoma.
There's a lot more to the state than just Tacoma.
I thought it would be cool if they named their state Ranier, after the mountain.
No that would led to some awkward situations since you are naming it after a specific city. Washington isn’t that confusing as the Nation’s capital has the D.C. or District of Columbia added to it.
@@emberfist8347naming it after a specific city are we gonna pretend Oklahoma City doesn’t exist
The panhandle of Oklahoma should be absorbed into Texas & California should be split up into three states: Northern California, Southern California & the Sacramento & San Joaquin Valleys should be combined into the third state of Central California.
After Virginia seceded from the Union, West Virginia seceded from Virginia.
watching most of your videos on my TV, I really appreciate you not using that very bright white canvas! Also, very interesting topic!
That's a good point! I actually have noticed that an increasing number of my viewers watch my videos via TV. So I'll take this more into account moving forward :)
I am ALL for the Dakotas, the Virginia's, and the Carollinas, all being back to just 3 states..
Did you know of the proposed greater idaho plan where parts of Washington state want to join idaho
It's counties in Oregon, not Washington, who have expressed interest in joining Idaho. But that's OK for the mistake. We westerners realize we all look the same to easterners who think we all live in blah "square states." Seriously, as a person who has lived all over the USA, I can truthfully say that the geographic ignorance of Americans living in Eastern states about the Western half of their country is breathtaking! 😒👎
The "Greater Idaho" scheme will never happen! Who wants to join a state where Mormons rule and abortion and marijuana are illegal? Moreover, a SALES tax would be imposed on those tax-free Oregon counties. Never gonna happen. 👎
1:38 “This is the only true case of a state split.” This statement is wrong. There were three true cases of state splits:
1. Kentucky from Virginia in 1792. (Yes, I know you say that this is a colony split later in the video. This is incorrect. Virginia ratified the Constitution with Kentucky within its boundaries and the Virginia counties that would become Kentucky formed Virginia's 2nd Congressional District with one John Brown as the elected representative from 1789 to 1792,)
2. Maine from Massachusetts in 1820.
3. West Virginia from Virginia in 1863.
Tank you un million de gracias
North and South Carolina was never one big state
California needs to become 3 states. With the Northern most part taking part of Oregon with it as Jefferson. Washington needs to split off the east and merge it with the Idaho panhandle. Long Island and NYC need to split off of NY state. The panhandle of Florida needs to split off maybe taking the bottoms of Alabama and Mississippi with it. Texas needs to split in half making Lincoln. The upper part of Michigan needs to split off. Nevada could be split in half as well. We also should bring In Puerto Rico and the us VI as one state and Guam as another, possibly as part of a Micronesia state. Make it an even 60.
Washington states eastern counties are looking to join Idaho. Might happen
What about Kansas and Arkansas
You forgot Kansas & Arkansas
I love your videos but it's pronounced ArkanSAW
South Carolina used to have Georgia Alabama and Mississippi North Carolina have Tennessee if you can buy all those stick together that will call Carolina
Hey General Knowledge can you do a territorial expansion of African countries?
Delaware was a section of Pennsylvania, not Maryland. So I had a hard time believing anything said after that.
always caughts me off guard that the US has a state called massive two shits
Thank you. I would love to see a breakdown of spending worldwide on arms and space exploration, and territories controlled by the knightly orders like the templars. 😁👍❤️🇬🇧
The states of North and South Dakota did not split up. They became states on the same day. There never was a state of Dakota.
Now there could be merger of states. It should be made easy for states to merge to create new ones more attractive for investment
What would be more attractive about it. It would mean less representation
The District of Washington should have been split between West Washington DWC and East Washington DEC.
We all know why the Virginias split without watching. Don't know why the Carolinas and the Dakotas split, so it is worth watching.
Kentucky splited from Virginia
Michigan should be east and west lp, then the up should be wisconsin
No, Wisconsin does not deserve the upper peninsula first thing half of the upper peninsula was already part of the territory of Michigan second thing Wisconsin even exist when the other half was given to Wisconsin never lost the upper peninsula nor was it ever stolen from them just because you think it looks good does not mean it should be the case
@@zachv bro. They're not like us. Lol
@@middleclassthrash so
They should have advocated for independence
Kansas vs Arkansas
Because we wanted to.
We invented the metric system, and didnt want to use it.
We made the qorld's first capital you could just walk-in and visit for fun
We're American, we lead the way and we do it our own way... one mile at a time
Kansas is an English word. Arkansas is a French word. So the pronunciation is Arkansaw. Don't pronounce the last S.
Neither word is of European derivation. The are Native words.
@@judithmccrea2601But OP’s comment has the correct pronunciation.
@@judithmccrea2601 technically it is the English and French words referring to the Kansa and Arkansa groups. I heard ArkansaS, so that's why I commented. Non Americans sometimes mispronounce the words as we know them, so I was educating.
You got yer North Cackalacky and yer South Cackalacky, simply because one Cackalacky just isn't enough.
"Ain't", not "isn't"...😁
North Virginia: communists dictatorship
East Virginia: strange lands where Kanye East was born
South Virginia: a advance democratic republic
Maine or New Hampshire.
I like your videos. But you are reading your presentation which makes it difficult to understand. Please present it like a lecture. Follow the format of 60 minutes presentation.
So misleading to the uninformed. North Dakota was originally North Wisconsin. South Dakota was South Montana. But being clever as they are, lawmakers wanted a tie in for popularity when it came to statehood. So when the i's were dotted, we got North Dakota & South Dakota as a cheap marketing ploy. No one can say it did not work, we cant think of one state without the other.
No, it wasn’t
Wasn't West Virigina originally called "Canawa?" The name clearly didn't stick.
Kanawha was one of the names considered for the state, along with Vandalia, Allegheny, and Augusta, but none of those names were ever adopted.
That's what happens when you use cheap Chinese glue - no stickee!
@@majorlaff8682 That's not a major laugh--it's just a groan.
@@aLadNamedNathan Thank you. These days, sometimes, I don't even get a groan.
Reunite Virginia!
they clearly cheated on each other ... i mean look at their names , Dakota ? Carolina ? Virginia ? , you just know that on Wednesdays they wear pink
Perhaps so they could get twice as many senators? Why the hell should the Dakotas have twice as many senators as all of California?😢
And they’re two separate states quit your whining
Californians whining about the Senate, but don’t want to talk about the house they basically rule this country in a lot of ways because of their population but because they just don’t have as many senators as filling the blank red state that means it’s unfair
Where did you get that information that Rhode Island was once a part of Connecticut. Rhode Island was never a part of Connecticut, the land was not claimed by Connecticut. You really need to learn to get your histoy right. The land was granted to Roger Williams from England when he was kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay colony in the 1600s. If you are going to keep giving information like this maybe you need to rethink your channel.
Immigration and the border have nothing to do with the splitting of states.
Texas is only that can split up without permission from the federal government as far as I know, or is there some mechanism needed? I was taught that texas would not join the union it would not join union and up its republic status unless it could (if wanted to at some later date) split up into five separate states. Or was I misinformed?
Yes, Texas can do that
Under the 1845 resolution, TX was granted the right split itself up, but that was the 1845 resolution. TX was readmitted to the US after the US Civil War and that changed a lot of stuff.
@@amkrause2004 no it didn’t Texas still can do that
@zach2382 The readmission of former confederate states changed a lot. Texas can split itself apart all it wants, it can't however split from the Union or slipt into 5 Individual independent states like how West VA did
@@amkrause2004 it can split all at once just not into five states yeah that doesn’t make any sense and it never was able to leave the Union and West Virginia wasn’t constitutional technically all reason it happened was because the Supreme Court basically said to Virginia you were rebelling so too bad
What if USA split into 50 countries what would happen?
More and more and more bureaucrats and less and less tax-paying workers.
Because of politics some of those states are Republican and Democrat