There’s an interesting slant to this whole story. When you go to Ohio in the early 1800s....there are two distinctive groups who are settling there.
One group comes from New England, and wants civilization (bridges, townships, churches, schools, “law”, and elected officials). The second group is primarily from North/South Carolina and Georgia. They’ve come for their piece of the pie, personal ownership of property, and civilization is ranked a step or two down on their priorities.
Arguments start almost immediately on territorial rights, the path to statehood, and property taxes (the only method for paying for the infrastructure that some desire). What will occur over the next fifty years is a hostile nature of some counties versus others.
The cog that makes Ohio one of the premier states in the 1880s/1890s....is the civilization sector from New England, and their focus on their political agenda.
This urban versus rural argument isn’t a new thing. It’s been around for a long time, and we simply haven’t grasped the historical nature of how it develops, and where it leads onto.
Interesting reference on Ohio history I was not aware of, sounds similar to hear in California
1st the Indians, then Spanish /Mexicans, miners, then farmers all the while San Francisco, Hollywood and other cities were growing.
Each group for their own idea of what their life was.
It’s the mentality of “One size fits All” solutions that irks me. cities and rural areas have different problems therefore different solutions but governance is reduced to ramming either liberalism or conservatism down each others throats. s\
Sure makes for a lot of anger that could be avoided.