Nov 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Celebrating 120 Years of North Dakota
States of America. Given that more people live in Memphis, TN than North Dakota it might seem unfair that this large and essentially empty patch of land gets two senators. When you consider that even mighty South Dakota has fewer people than Jacksonville, Florida and that the two states combined contain considerably fewer people than live in Queens or the Virginia Beach / Norfolk / Newport News metro area then it starts to seem even stranger that there are actually two Dakotas. Why would you do it that way?
The answer, it turns out, is cynical partisan politics. The Dakota Territory was extremely favorable to the Republican Party, so the GOP made it into two states.
74 Responses to “Celebrating 120 Years of North Dakota”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Those Dakotans, then anyway, sent senators who were probably some of most progressive, and certainly least racist, senators of the nadir of American race relations.
They were also patriotic.
George McGovern was one of the last of those Dakotans, and he got completely raped by the precursor to the modern Republican regime.
Connecting those older Republicans to the current variety is ridiculous.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
One of my law professors would always use the fictional state of East Dakota for his finals as a way of ridiculing the idea that there are two Dakotas.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Reason #93849 why the senate should be abolished. It has an arbitrary and nonsensical distribution of power, and arcane procedural rules, the combination of which ensures there will always be a stranglehold on progressive politics in America.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Can we make some more states now?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Well, if anything this just points to the need for Democrats to use their current governing authority to add more Dem-leaning states to the Union!
Gimme a State of Columbia (DC), a Puerto Rico, and maybe someday we should just finish what we started in 1812 and add a dozen or so states formerly known as Canadian provinces.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Greg: The Republicans were in many ways the good guys in the late 19th century, but stacking the Senate with more states than really makes sense is still a dirty trick. But more importantly, it’s worth keeping in mind when people defend things like the Senate and the Electoral College that states’ borders as they exist were drawn so as to advantage 19th century interests which are now very irrelevant. Why should the Dakotas have four Senators now because they helped water down the solid south over a century ago?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Shh… before you remind the current Republican party that Texas has the right to divide itself into FIVE states.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
4. The more interesting option is that Congress is also allowed to split up or join together existing states, although they need the consent of all the states involved. So New York City (and maybe Long Island and some of the other downstate counties) could become a state of its own, say, and California could easily be split up into several states.
That said, creating new states without explicitly balancing it out (say, splitting Texas and California at the same time) would be a nuclear option to make the actual nuclear option look modest, so I highly doubt that it would be politically palatable.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
The Dakota Territory was extremely favorable to the Republican Party, so the GOP made it into two states.
And yet, today, 3 out of the 4 Dakota Senators are Democrats.
Time to merge the Dakotas!!!
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
About new states–read US Consititutiion Art IV, Section 3, basically the involved states legislatures have to agree to the break up of an existing state. I do not understand the hatred of the Senate–it represents States, not People. Democrats loved it when they used the filibuster to stop desegregation!
Jesse
I think the Canadians might have something to say about that–they whipped out butts in 1776 and 1812 and are not shy about telling us so.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
As Al, surprisingly enough, pointed out, 3 of the 4 senators in the Dakotas are Democrats.
My issue was with Matt describing it as cynical politics. I call it “reduce the percentage of lynching, unreconstructed racist fucktards”.
And I think that eventually we’ll get states from Canada.
Either the Quebeckers (hah! take that anglo-ism, Québeçois!) secede or the Westerners force ‘em out, and the thing will largely fall apart. In particular, the Maritimes will join us in a heartbeat, and I think that BC and Alberta will join because both will be worried about being invaded by the other.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
In other words, UserGoogol, I am aware, but I’d rather have 4 senators from the Dakotas than any from Mississippi and Alabama. I’m still pissed off they got rid of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Military Districts.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
That is all very stupid. For one, think on the reaction most Americans have when they hear people speaking Spanish. Now try to imagine a state where the official language is French. Nuh uh. Quebec is more likely to become Klingon than American. And Alberta runs Canada now, they aren’t going anywhere, they have the power.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
“And yet, today, 3 out of the 4 Dakota Senators are Democrats.”
Only Byron Dorgan is really worth his salt, and then only really on domestic issues. Getting rid of Kent Conrad might actually be worth 3 D seats alone. Hey, it’s not like Harry Reid can or will use the 60 seats he has anyways, right?
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Um, Royal Water, what the fuck are you talking about?
I said Québec is seceding or being forced out of the Canadian union.
As in it’s going to be an independent country.
They already want to be, they just don’t want to lose the transfer payments from Ontario, Alberta, BC – well, hell, basically the rest of the country.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Er, that would be the problem.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Quebec will neither secede nor be forced out any time soon. Separatist (true separatism, as in secession, not the compromise of sovereigntists) feelings are pretty low right now. And being “forced out” is just silly. Even the pro-western Conservative party has been making moves to accommodate Quebec not kick them out. You’re just spouting crazy talk.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Re: maybe someday we should just finish what we started in 1812 and add a dozen or so states formerly known as Canadian provinces.
The Canadians would be nuts to want to join the US. I suspect nothing has done more for the cause of Canadian unity than the fact that its Southern neighbor has been mostly governed by a choice collection of fools and scoundrels since Ike left office.
Re: Shh… before you remind the current Republican party that Texas has the right to divide itself into FIVE states.
That train left the station back in the 1840s, when several pieces of the original Texas were calved off to ultimately become parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Colorado. Of course any state can willingly subdivide into two or more states provided Congress agrees. Maine/Massachusetts did this in 1820 and West Virginia/Virginia did so in the 1860s (albeit Virginia’s consent was ultimately obtained at gunpoint)
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Al says:The Dakota Territory was extremely favorable to the Republican Party, so the GOP made it into two states.
And yet, today, 3 out of the 4 Dakota Senators are Democrats.
Time to merge the Dakotas!!!
Let’s see, Baccus and Conrad are actively working against the public option. They represent fewer people than a couple of decent sized suburbs of any major metropolitan area. Some great democrats you got there…
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
The Brits called them rotten boroughs and abolished them in the wave of reforms that took about 150 years to complete. When the Speaker has the same kind of place in our system that the PM does in the UK, maybe we can get some of that democracy stuff.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
West Virginia/Virginia did so in the 1860s (albeit Virginia’s consent was ultimately obtained at gunpoint)
No, West Virginia’s *continued existence* was obtained by gunpoint, considering that the Confederacy never recognized this any more than they recognized the occupation of Kentucky and Missouri.
In fact, they used a rather devious and brilliant amount of legal maneuvering. They essentially had new elections, making them the legal “government” of Virginia, and then went about separating themselves.
What’s hilarious about the whole West Virginia skedaddle is that it established the reputations of not one, but two fearsomely incompetent generals of field armies: McClellan *and* Rosecrans. Moreover, it demonstrated all of the faults that would later become obvious in McClellan’s larger campaigns. And finally, it demonstrated that the South was absolutely full of shit (of course, we already knew that), since they turned around and wouldn’t let those westerners secede.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Let’s see, Baccus and Conrad are actively working against the public option. They represent fewer people than a couple of decent sized suburbs of any major metropolitan area. Some great democrats you got there…
Baucus is from Montana, of course.
But I don’t really understand what the commenters want. Do commenters really think that the number of progressive Senators would somehow increase if the states were merged?
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Shh… before you remind the current Republican party that Texas has the right to divide itself into FIVE states.
Actually, there’s a pretty good argument that’s no longer the case. The clause in Texas’ state constitution that permitted it to break up into as many as five separate states was omitted from all post-Civil War versions of the constitution. Thus, the procedure described in the U.S. Constitution is presumably now the only means of subdividing the state.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
The clause in Texas’ state constitution that permitted it to break up into as many as five separate states was omitted from all post-Civil War versions of the constitution.
I did kinda hope that Texas would try the ole “reclaim sovereignty” business, so that we could play SimCity 2000 scenario editor and rearrange the landscape.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“Er, that would be the problem.”
No, the problem would be people with a poor and half-hearted understanding of American civics.
Mike
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Let me just chime in here as a lifelong Californian and Democrat who really has no problem with the fact that states like Wyoming and the Dakotas have as many Senators as we do. I’m still pretty confident that my interests are well-represented in Congress, and I kind of like the symmetry of the Connecticut Compromise. States are represented equally in one house; people are represented equally in the other. Any quest for “pure democracy” is going to be flawed; compromise is a big part of politics in order to not let the majority trample over the minority.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Hoping for this just so Kim Wilde is vindicated.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Only Byron Dorgan is really worth his salt, and then only really on domestic issues. Getting rid of Kent Conrad might actually be worth 3 D seats alone.
No, if you get a Republican from North or South Dakota he or she is likely to be another John Thune, and I for one could not stand having another John Thune in the Senate.
Also, SD and ND each have one representative and both are also Democrats. (Stephanie Herseth and Earl Pomeroy.)
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
California could easily be split up into several states.
Hoping for this just so Kim Wilde is vindicated.
There’d be a whole lot of splitting before “East California” became its own state, unless Nevada counts.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Also the reason they were happy to be two states was that they couldn’t decide where to put the capital.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Also, Greg, I’d like to second your appreciation of George McGovern.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Also.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
If Greg thinks the Maritime provinces would “join us in a heartbeat,” he is either a fool or has no idea what he’s talking about or both. We are not anxious to become colder versions of Mississippi, which is likely what would happen to us in your ridiculous system.
But keep making sweeping pronouncements about other countries with no empirical foundation to them. It’s one of the more universal and endearing American traits.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
If Greg thinks the Maritime provinces would “join us in a heartbeat,” he is either a fool or has no idea what he’s talking about or both. We are not anxious to become colder versions of Mississippi, which is likely what would happen to us in your ridiculous system.
Really? How exactly’s that gonna work, if Québec splits off?
You already rely on a ton of transfers too, and I doubt Alberta, Ontario, and BC are going to want to subsidize you when you’re not really part of their country any more.
If you created your own country, well, that’d be as big a disaster as an independent Newfoundland – which was, oddly enough, a disaster.
You might opt for a Puerto Rican style relationship, but you’d definitely join the US.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Greg you are making a fool of yourself. Just stop. Unless you have a definition of “definitely” that means “never short of the entire breakdown of civilization across the globe.”
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
C’mon, Matt.
Instead of complaining about the old GOP, why aren’t you suggesting we erase one of thos Dakotas with the shiny brand new State of Columbia complete with two Democratic senators?
Jonathan Bernstein has been banging this drum for a while. You’re a bit blogger, why not push a good idea?
Some good clean fun that could lead to a Dem state while making Republican heads explode? What’s not to like?
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
MattY, if you really find the system of equal representation in the senate to be terrible, you should be agitating to get DC and PR admitted as states and convince states like MA to split themselves in half to create more Dem Senators. Then we can see how much sacred the principle is considered.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
[...] hadn’t, really, but tonight I learned (via Matt Yglesias) that the GOP made the Dakota territory into two states in 1889 because electoral conditions there [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
As anyone who has seen “The One and Only Genuine Original Family Band” can tell you, the Dakota’s were created as two republican states but were counterbalanced by two predominantly democratic states in Montana and Washington.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Re: Thus, the procedure described in the U.S. Constitution is presumably now the only means of subdividing the state.
It always was. A state constitution does not trump the Federal Constitution. Nothing does, except an amendment to the Constitution, thereby becoming part of it.
Re: No, West Virginia’s *continued existence* was obtained by gunpoint, considering that the Confederacy never recognized this any more than they recognized the occupation of Kentucky and Missouri.
I was referring to the fact the after the Civil War Virginia (occupied by federal troops) was basically compelled to give retroactive consent to the separation, in exchange for West Virginia taking on its portion of the pre-war Virginia state debt.
Re: What’s hilarious about the whole West Virginia skedaddle is that it established the reputations of not one, but two fearsomely incompetent generals of field armies: McClellan *and* Rosecrans.
Also, General Lee: who was initially nicknamed “Evacuation” Lee when he decided in 1861 that holding the area for the CSA was not feasible and withdrew his troops back to the east. (Lee’s reputation was not “established” there of course; rather the nearly ruined it)
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Greg/King Rat:
In 1949 Newfoundland voted narrowly to join the Canadian Confederation, over independence and continuing its then current status as a British dominion. Left off the ballot was a choice to join the United States, which likely would have passed.
Should Canada split itself into a severe a Conservative/Albertan view and a Liberal/Ontario view, there is a chance the country will fall apart, especially if Quebec decided to take that chance to go out on its own. The Maritimes would then be quite isolated, and continuing Confederation would be very difficult.
Having the provinces join the United States seems like a logical step, but the Maritimes have many niceties that prevent them from being seen as an easy Canadian extension of American New England: the Acadian French presence in New Brunswick and the Loyalist ancestry that a large number of Maritimers share. The loss of separate identities for PEIers, Nova Scotians, and New Brunswickers would probably have to occur for statehood to occur, though they could be combined with Maine into some sort of Acadian superstate.
And, yea, on their own the Maritimes would be like Mississippi, because their economies combined are probably equal to Mississippi. Or at least, they’d be closer to Mississippi than New England-cousin Connecticut.
Anyways, congrats to North Dakota. I hear the Peace Gardens are very nice.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
See, however, the text of the resolution admitting Texas to the United States:
“Third, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And as such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted to the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking permission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime) shall be prohibited. “
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
This sort of snide and ultimately impotent post by Yglesias is ugly and offensive. He is claiming that his vote should count for more than that of anyone living in either of the Dakotas. It’s enough to make one rejoice that he has chosen to live in DC and disenfranchise himself.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Re: Of course any state can willingly subdivide into two or more states provided Congress agrees. Maine/Massachusetts did this in 1820
That was a sui generis situation, and happened largely because anti-slavery politicians wanted another Free State to balance out the expansion of slave states in the South. I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
Greg/King Rat,
I think the Maritimes joining the US is unlikely, but it’s interesting to speculate on nonetheless. In any case, I don’t want the US to expand- it’s already big enough and difficult enough to manage already.
I’m curious though, how the Maritimes joining would affect U.S. fisheries policies. What’s the general feeling in the Maritimes about catch limits and measures to improve the sustainability of fisheries?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Should Canada split itself into a severe a Conservative/Albertan view and a Liberal/Ontario view, there is a chance the country will fall apart, especially if Quebec decided to take that chance to go out on its own. The Maritimes would then be quite isolated, and continuing Confederation would be very difficult.
The recent bullshit surrounding prorogation is what prompted my feelings on this. It’s one thing for the US to have this kind of political strife – the 2000 Election comes to mind.
But it’s an entirely different business when you’ve got the two main opposing groups separated by hundreds of miles, by completely different economies, and indeed, when over a quarter – closer to a third – of the entire population would not *mind* living in an entirely different country.
And, unlike the US experience with secession, that group would be allowed to depart in peace.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Re: This sort of snide and ultimately impotent post by Yglesias is ugly and offensive.
Did you just realize that Yglesias is made uncomfortable by the fact that the Great Plains states have the temerity to exist? He writes about this every couple weeks or so, you know.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
…everybody keeps forgetting about Vermont. New York and New Hampshire were busy squabbling over who had what so they decided to get rid of the trouble makers in the Green Mountains and let them form their own state….
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
Pure stupidity. He is claiming nothing of the sort. A Dakotan’s vote is worth a lot more in the senate than a New Yorker’s (or a texan’s, or a californian’s). Matt is correct to point out that this is for historical reasons and should be changed. Giving DC senators would be a small improvement but doesn’t get at the underlying problem. People suggesting splitting up states are also missing the forest for the trees: the senate is unrepresentative, and there’s no reason not to change it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 am
This is a poor argument. The suggestion that because I think the design of an American institution is poorly conceived for the circumstances of the modern world should in no way imply that I am ignorant about its original design intent.
Morally, no. Procedurally, adding states is actually easier.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 am
I hate to be obvious, but the House of Representatives is supposed to be represenatative of population, not the Senate. The more heavily populated states already have more votes in Congress.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:25 am
I’m for giving law abiding, well-educated, and conscientious people more of a voice in the government. Two cheers for the Dakotas!
What’s the argument here — New York and California are so well governed we ought to have more states just like them?
Even if the existence of two Dakotas gives a little bump to Republicans in the electoral college — and these votes have never been determinative — consider that a historical tax on due to the perfidy of Democrats for starting the Civil War. If justice prevailed, a shameful, traitorous organization like the Democratic Party would have withered and died.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
Did you just realize that Yglesias is made uncomfortable by the fact that the Great Plains states have the temerity to exist? He writes about this every couple weeks or so, you know.
One often hears people from Middle America claim that they’re despised and dismissed by the “coastal elitists,” but by and large my reaction to this is to think they’re really overblowing things. And yet here’s Matthew Yglesias, who really does seem to despise “flyover country,” though as far as I can tell he’s spent more of his lifetime in Copenhagen than he has outside of the biggest American cities. It would be kind of nice to see Matt take a roadtrip sometime where he would get to see the rest of the country and talk to some people who live outside of Manhattan or the Beltway.
And no, not because they’re “real Americans.” I don’t subscribe to that canard (I also think it would do some good for a lot of Middle Americans to spend some time actually interacting with so-called “coastal elitists”). But for such a prolific commenter on the U.S., it’d be nice if he had some more perspective on the country.
He is claiming that his vote should count for more than that of anyone living in either of the Dakotas.
No, he’s pointing out that a North Dakotan’s vote is already worth more than his, and he’d like to see them equalize. He’s still wrong, though — I’m fine with small states having equal representation as states, since it prevents the country from being completely dominated by the big states.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 am
In the end, the Badlands are pretty damn cool. But not the coolest thing in South Dakota. Sturgis is. I can deal with Bikers and Rednecks, it’s their wives that are big trouble. But if you really want to see a good catfight, Sturgis is where to go. Hair ripping, tit grabbing, all-out nasty fights. And you know what? They’re fighting over some scary looking dude with long hair, leather, enough tatoos to make the Yakuza jealous, and a Law degree from Harvard. But hell, that Law degree pays pretty well. So why wouldn’t some Rider fight to keep their Biker?
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:25 am
“He is claiming that his vote should count for more than that of anyone living in either of the Dakotas.”
Umm, his vote doesn’t count at all unless it’s the Presidential election. He lives in a city that is completely run by Congress. And they don’t even have a Representative. So that’s just pure nonsense. I’d say it’s bullshit, but at least bullshit has some substance to it (physically and metaphorically). So what you say doesn’t even rise to the level of bullshit.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 am
“So why wouldn’t some Rider fight to keep their Biker?”
The weirdest thing is that I wanted to type ‘her’, and that’s oddly not right for that crowd. There’s plenty of gay Bikers. They seem to like their leather. And they are as tough as any Rider, and usually tougher than the Bikers. And Sturgis is a peaceful rally, so they can go there. Not so much at other rallies.
You might think this is inconsistent with the previous post, but you’d be wrong. The Bikers are big, ugly, and sensible. They know damn well when not to get into a fight. The Riders are tough, smart, but emotional enough to start fights all the time. In fact, starting fights is their goal. That’s what they’re there for. Sleep with enough people, and fights will ensue. They start it, and then watch as the big boys fight it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 am
As for North Dakota, I’ve been there. I was just going to go through it on I-90, but I always get a wild hair up my ass, don’t I? So I drove around for a while in it (several days). I was hoping to find something. And I was unsuccessful. Everywhere I went, I met people who were less cosmopolitan than the people of Montana, and less intelligent than the people of Kentucky. But on the intelligence scale, they still beat West Virginia. And that’s the only reason I don’t think they should just be nuked out of existence. Hell, the Iranians at least have some culture and beautiful scenery. And that beats Montana (on the culture, mostly). The one thing Montana has going for it is that if I have warrants in 49 states, there’s always Montana. They won’t extradite, and I can take cover on a Reservation. And without a Federal warrant, you can’t touch me. By the time the Feds clear that, I’m long gone. Find me in Bangkok if you can, and extradition is much harder there. Whatever North Dakota has to offer, I have no idea what it might be, and I’ve traveled that state far more than almost anyone who lives there. And traveling that state only makes your impression of it worse. It’s just a bunch of criminals and rednecks who have neither the money or intelligence to find a better place.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:49 am
Re: As for North Dakota, I’ve been there. I was just going to go through it on I-90
More likely on I-94 as I-90 goes through South Dakota.
I also drove across the state last week, staying one night at Bismarck.
Odd factoid: North Dakota is one of two states with no gay bars in the whole state. Wyoming is the other.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:52 am
If you really want to find me on the lam, try Sikkim. India claims to have authority there, but nobody abides by it. If you want to argue with yak herders over whether China, Nepal, or India should apprehend me, them go ahead. Technically, India would have the authority, but they don’t really go there. And the people there don’t accept that authority anyway. You would be more likely to see either the Chinese or Nepalis claiming authority, but they don’t go there either. That’s a no man’s land. Countries claim it, but in the end, nobody even cares there. It’s just a smuggling route at best, and every country takes their take. And it’s not much of a take anyway. But there are mountain climbing tourists, and I can hide out as one of them. It’s like hiding out in the middle of nowhere in Nevada, except it’s much bigger and with much bigger mountains. And by big mountains, understand that I live in Colorado, so I do know what bumps in the ground look like. These are quite different. Back country Colorado can be literally lethal. Back country Himalayas is a very different story. And far more scary. Military divisions train in the mountains of Colorado, but no military goes to Sikkim. They argue over it rhetorically because nobody really wants to even go there. It’s all about the water that melts from the glaciers. And these glaciers are no joke. They form the biggest rivers in the world. One of the smaller ones is the Mekong, and that’s as big as the Mississippi. Want to try the Ganges? You can see why people might fight over that kind of water. I’ve seen the Ganga, and it’s just stunning. Bigger than the Mekong or the Mississippi, and the smaller branch of the Ganges. Someday, I’d like to see the Brahmaputra, which is the other branch of the Ganges, and much bigger. And then I feel that I could see the Amazon. But the Mekong and Ganga alone say quite a lot about how much water melts from the Himalayas. And those two rivers are about a tenth of the flow from those glaciers. We haven’t even talked about the rivers that go through China. And those are rivers that make the Mississippi look like a tiny stream. This is some serious water that feeds half the wold’s people. It’s not some joke snowpile.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:22 am
Just a concept about rivers: how many have you seen where the opposite bank is beyond the horizon? And let’s face it, the horizon is about twelve miles. So we’re talking about fifteen miles to the opposite shore if the banks rise up a little bit. Like, say 10 feet. You’d expect to not see land when you’re in the ocean. And maybe in a big lake, like Erie. But to not see across a river is quite stunning. You can barely see across a river like the Mekong. But you can’t see across the Ganga in places because of the curvature of the Earth and the flat land. And that’s not even the biggest river. But when a river is so big that the curvature of the Earth comes into play, that’s a lot of water.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
Fostert, what are you talking about? Sikkim has Indian military all over it, as it is disputed by China (same as Arunchal Pradesh). Moreover, it isn’t the source of the Mekong, the Ganges or the Ganga.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Interestingly enough, Sikkim used to be its own country until 1974, when the people (who by that time, due to heavy Nepalese immigration, had become mostly Nepalese with little love for the Sikkimese Buddhist king) voted to join India.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
“Fostert, what are you talking about?”
Umm, I’m talking about reality, what the hell are you talking about? If you think there’s military all over Sikkim, your are fucking crazy. There’s barely yaks there. The elevation is so high that helicopters can barely go there and usually crash. Trucks cannot. And there aren’t things like roads. Yak paths are the best you get. You think a military operation could work there? Get a fucking grip. This elevation is such that the internal combustion engine can only work with an oxygen tank. Not a Nitrous tank, pure oxygen. And the supply lines are absurd, and way beyond what India could even afford, much less even bother. Ain’t nobody there but hikers and the yak herders that live there. Yes, there is a big military base down north of Siliguri, and there is a training camp in Darjeeling. I’ve been to both of them. Darjeeling is about a mile up from Siliguri, and when I mean up, I mean elevation. As the bird flies, it’s not so far, but it’s a three hour drive if your driver is completely insane and driving way too fast and gets lucky. But when you go north of Darjeeling to the lowlands of Sikkim, that’s another two miles up from there. And again, up means elevation. And there ain’t no road to go there. You go by the one animal that can take you to that altitude, the yak. Either that, or you walk, and you’ll probably die doing that. Or you could fly a plane into a mountain, but planes are expensive and you really don’t want to crash them. You certainly can’t land one there. This is the fucking Himalayas and mechanized equipment doesn’t work there unless it’s really specialized. And nobody there has the money to buy that. It’s just yaks and snow up there. And you think the Indian Army is there? That is just so delusional that I don’t even know what to think of it. But let me give you a clue: I’ve been there, you haven’t. And when you take your blood oxygen saturation down to 70%, talk to me about it. Humans can barely survive there without extra oxygen. They survive because they have lungs twice the size of yours. So don’t try to tell me what it’s like.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
That’s an interesting history, Hector. But quite irrelevant. That region isn’t controlled at all by anyone. People can make whatever claim they want, but the reality is that it’s yak herding and smuggling up there. They take a lot of currencies up there, but the Rupee isn’t really one of them. They’ll take it, but they’d rather have Dollars or Yuan. They’ll take Baht over the Rupee there. The concept that it’s India is very loose and only based on who would give them the best trade deal with the least trouble. And then not give a shit.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
There actually are ‘gay bars’ in ND. They just don’t advertise as such. You just have to know where to go and when the drag show starts.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
And yes, Hector, they are pretty much all Napali now. Except for some random Tibetans. I fail to see how this region is even remotely India. It should be Nepal, but nobody really cares, they just do what they want and nobody’s going to care about it. India only cares about Darjeeling. North of that, the only real industry that India cares about is Chinese goods coming across the border without tariffs. And if you’re bringing toys across the Himalayas, more power to you. That’s one tough route to make a few bucks. And really, it’s mostly toys. And cell phones.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
“There actually are ‘gay bars’ in ND.”
You know, that must be really weird. I have a curse that the bar that seems cool is always a gay bar. And after I have two shots and a beer, I notice that all the women are talking to women, and all the men are talking to men. And then I realize that if I went to normal bar, I probably wouldn’t get laid anyway. So why not accept a few free drinks from gay guys. In the end, the conversation will be better, and I’m still not getting laid. And hey, I have a cute butt according to gay guys. Yeah, I’m just scamming them, but for every one of them I’ve scammed, fifty women have done exactly the same thing to me. At least I get a little payback. And really, I’m a heterosexual male that no women finds attractive, but every gay man does. I’m pretty much limited to butch dykes that want to experience with the other side. There’s a point where sex just isn’t worth it. I stick to prostitutes now. Not so much fun, but at least it doesn’t cost you your house. Marrying someone does. And when women don’t find you attractive, you know they are only marrying you for the divorce settlement.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
[...] according to Matt Yglesias. Not least the fact that, like its southern brother, it exists at all. The Roughrider State [...]
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Hector:
Re: This sort of snide and ultimately impotent post by Yglesias is ugly and offensive.
Did you just realize that Yglesias is made uncomfortable by the fact that the Great Plains states have the temerity to exist? He writes about this every couple weeks or so, you know.
As a native North Dakotan I must agree with Hector for once (yes, what a shock), if you live east of the Cascades/Sierras or West of the Mississippi it’s likely that Matt has it out for you and thinks that you have no basic right to political representation. He infers so much every couple of weeks.
The strangest thing here is that Matt ignores the fact that the Dakotas (and Minnesota) have traditionally had two of two most social-democratic and leftist state Democract Party organizations in the nation since the populist era in the 1890s.
But people of both of the Dakotas sometimes don’t vote the way that Matt wants them too and sometimes their Democratic Senators are too moderate, so they clearly don’t have a right for fair, equal representation and self government. So in Matt’s reasoning, we should merge them with more populous states, abolish the Senate or some wonky innovation that ignores how people live in the real world in favor of how think tanks feel how they should live. I don’t know what Matt’s plan is this week, maybe it’s deporting Montanans to the moon.
And then Matt and other progressives wonder why people in less populous states don’t vote for progressive policies or candidates.
Certainly a great mystery.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Odd factoid: North Dakota is one of two states with no gay bars in the whole state. Wyoming is the other.
Bismark has one from what I’ve heard. The other one in Fargo (the I-Beam) is technically on the Moorehead (Minnesota) side of the river.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
That train left the station back in the 1840s, when several pieces of the original Texas were calved off to ultimately become parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Colorado. Of course any state can willingly subdivide into two or more states provided Congress agrees. Maine/Massachusetts did this in 1820 and West Virginia/Virginia did so in the 1860s (albeit Virginia’s consent was ultimately obtained at gunpoint
I think Texas is an exception to Congressional approval, under the terms of its annexation it can still divide in to any number up to five states. I believe that’s still a binding treaty. Not saying it could happen, but still it’s an interesting fact.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Kropotkin-
Treaties have no more standing than an act of Congress. So, no matter what any treaty says, it be voided by later act of Congress.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Re: I think Texas is an exception to Congressional approval
The Constitution requires Congressional approval, and there are no, I repeat, NO exceptions to the Constitution, other than by Constititoonal Amendment.
The terms of the annexation applied only at the time of annexation: when, by approving the terms, Congress agreed to such a division at that time, and that time only. And as I noted, the Republic of Texas did shed several pieces of itself which were assigned to other territories and ultimately ended up as pieces of other states.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Re: Bismark has one from what I’ve heard. The other one in Fargo (the I-Beam) is technically on the Moorehead (Minnesota) side of the river.
If there’s a gay bar in Bismarck Damron’s Guide 2009 does not list it. You’re right about the Moorehead MN bar: it is Minnesota though.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Isn’t FDR a hero of progressives? Well, back in 1937 he made a speech stating that he wanted y’all liberals to stop crowding in to cities like sardines and spread out more:
“In September 1937, it was this leader, President Roosevelt, who delivered a speech of dedication beneath the dark crags of the Columbia Gorge, the river of which in its change now foretold a change for the mighty stream of the American people.
The North-West, consisting of the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and the section of Montana west of the crest of the Rockies, offers an opportunity, said the President, ‘to avoid some of the mistakes and wasteful exploitation of resources that have caused such serious problems in other parts of the country’. The North-West should not be a land of new ‘Pittsburgs’. The President continued: ‘It is because I am thinking of the nation and the region fifty years from now that I venture the further prophecy that as the time passes we will do everything to encourage the building up of smaller communities of the United States. To-day many people are beginning to realize that there is an inherent weakness in cities which become too large, and inherent strength in a wider geographical distribution of the population.’ – http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Wrench_Recon/Wrench_Recon_20.html