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.
Pennsylvania and Delaware were once joined under William Penn; they had two different legislatures but were under one man; even now in the Philadelphia area it is common that Delaware is called the Lower Counties so it would be interesting if they were rejoined.
@@General.Knowledge 😮… 🤔 Learn something new every day!… 🤔… Y’know-this sorta-/kinda- reminds me of an item mentioned in the post-apocalyptic sci-fi novel “Warday”, where it’s mentioned that the PNW states of Oregon and Washington have sorta-/kinda- united with a joint legislature and yet 2 governors. 🤔Wait-or was that, 2 legislatures and 1 governor? 🤷♂️ Oh man-it’s been awhile since I read that book. And unfortunately I’m abroad right now, so it’s not like I can just walk down to my library…
As someone from NE Ohio, was part of Connecticut, also known as the Western Reserve. We have a lot of businesses in the region when I was growing up called during 1860s01879s with the title of "Western Reserve Bank" or whatever.
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.”
Historically speaking, parts of Florida is now what is southern Alabama and Mississippi. Parts of Texas is in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and even Wyoming.
Texas likes to make this claim, but really those regions were never under Texas control. Those claims were aspirational when they broke away from Mexico, similar to how Kentucky was claimed by New York at one point.
@@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.
Here in Spain Madrid split from New Castille (now Castille-La Mancha), Cantabria and Rioja split from Old Castille (wich was then merged with León to make Castille and León), and in general the provincial division of 1833 is a mine of territorial changes
Without approval from the federal government, Texas can split itself up into five states. That is the only special thing Texas legally has that is different than other states.
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.
We have the state of are-can-saw but the are-kansas river. Remember that next time you are in our state,for if you forget an arrest possibly is on the books. No joking,but can I’ve never heard of it being enforced
@@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.
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.
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
You're almost restarting a war by saying Vermont was carved out of New York State. There were a lot of New Hampshiremen who would have contested that idea. A major part of why Vermont was given statehood is that New York and New Hampshire were fighting over the area, and the NHmen living there refused to be ruled by New York.
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.
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.
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.
7:56 only difference between one Dakota verses two Dakotas, is senators. House of Reps is based on population, so it wouldn't change. 2 vs 4 for senate.
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
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 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.
Gosto de ouvir um pouco do seu sotaque Português Europeu quando vc pronuncia palavras da Latina ou das linguas românicas (como "Carolus"). 😊 Obgd para seus videos como sempre ! Saudações dos Paises-Baixos ! ♥ PS: estou ainda a aprender Português, desculpa para qualquer erros 😅
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
Great video, very informative. I like that redrawing borders has already been accounted for, but I don't think the "Mother state" should get a say in a new state cleaving off/forming. If the new state doesn't like the way it's being treated/not represented, the "Mother state" shouldn't get a say to keep them subservient. If they want to form and do their own thing, good for them!
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.
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.
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.
Fun fact the territory that says its "Claimed by Virginia" well thats bc it was given to my home town Orange long ago, the video, "A Brief History of Orange VA" is a good video made by the historical society there
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 the Civil War was over, they should have made the state on the losing side take the name "East Virginia" and let the state on the winning side just be "Virginia".
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
@@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.
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 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!
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.
Delaware was a semi autonomous part of Pennsylvania til 1776 it was never it's own Colony there were really only 12 colonies. The Day it declared independence from the Uk it also declared independence from Pennsylvania
@@zachv no it's not Delaware was part of the province of Pennsylvania til 1776. It didnt have it's own charter. It was called Lower counties on the Delaware it may have had a semi autonomous legislature from 1704 to 1776 but it was still part of Pennsylvania and was owned by the Penn family and had the same Governor
@@zachv On June 15, 1776, the Assembly of the Lower Counties of Pennsylvania declares itself independent of British and Pennsylvanian authority, thereby creating the state of Delaware. Delaware did not exist as a colony under British rule. As of 1704, Pennsylvania had two colonial assemblies: one for the “Upper Counties,” originally Bucks, Chester and Philadelphia, and one for the “Lower Counties on the Delaware” of New Castle, Kent and Sussex. All of the counties shared one governor.
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 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.
I think Teton Valley/Wydaho should be an independent state 🗣️ And I also think the winner-takes-all way elections are conducted in states is ridiculous
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. 👎
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.
