There are 2 Dakota's just so there would be an extra 2 GOP senators:

[tblue37]

Link to tweet

[Ms. Toad]

1. Like most memes, fact-checking is your friend.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dakota-split-states-senators/

"just so" is a gross over-simplifaction of a pretty complex set of facts.

While it is true that doing so added 2 more Republican senators, the Republicans of 1889 are not the Republicans of 2021. As the article points out, Union solidiers were one of the most prevalent settlers.

In addition, there were lots of states being added at the time - which diluted the impact of 1 v. 2 Dakotas.

[Sneederbunk]

4. +1

[moose65]

5. Yeah, it's more complicated

But just think of it - in less than a year, 6 states were admitted to the Union. That is unfathomable today. Of course it was political - the Republicans had taken over Congress and the Presidency. However, as has already been mentioned, the Republicans of 1889 were a LOT different from that party today. In fact, Harrison wanted to pass Civil Rights legislation for Black people, so that in the Southern states their rights would be protected.

[Thunderbeast]

2. Combine the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana

That combination would make one state with a reasonable population deserving two senators.

[jimfields33]

3. That's why the house is also part of government. To give everyone a voice.

The senate represents the state only.

However, the house needs expanded. The senate should stay.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. I Buy That Second Sentence

Today, House members represent more people than some senators. (That takes into account that 2 senators represent 50% of the state's people. I know, not technically accurate.)
But, a House member today represents around 700,000 people.
There are several states with under 1.4 million people.
IMO, a representative should never serve more people that a senator.

[Tommy Carcetti]

7. But why have one South Dakota when you could have eight?