AHC: Late/No Statehood for Nevada

Delta Force

Banned
For almost one hundred years Nevada was the least populous state in the United States. The 1960 Census was the first time Nevada wasn't the least populous state, and that was only because Alaska was even less populous, although Nevada has rapidly increased in population since. How plausible would it be for the state to be admitted into the Union late, or even remain a territory in perpetuity?
 
For almost one hundred years Nevada was the least populous state in the United States. The 1960 Census was the first time Nevada wasn't the least populous state, and that was only because Alaska was even less populous, although Nevada has rapidly increased in population since. How plausible would it be for the state to be admitted into the Union late, or even remain a territory in perpetuity?
ASB for perpetuity. At least not without a PoD that eliminates silver, gold, and other precious minerals; and of course you need to eliminate Las Vegas. And even without those things existing when it comes time for Utah to become a state then Nevada gets folded in as part of it because of its Mormon population.
 
to delay would be very easy, it was admitted before it had the pop. Lincoln though he would need the extra electoral votes in 1864. if the area that became vagas remained with arizona, instead it would remain very low pop still.
 
to delay would be very easy, it was admitted before it had the pop. Lincoln though he would need the extra electoral votes in 1864. if the area that became vagas remained with arizona, instead it would remain very low pop still.
In that case as I said, Nevada is simply part of Utah.
 
I had a post about this a couple of years ago: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/nevada-still-a-territory.330447/

--

Harry Truman in 1955:

"Then we came to the great gambling and marriage destruction hell, known as Nevada. To look at it from the air it is just that--hell on earth. There are tiny green specks on the landscape where dice, roulette, light-o-loves, crooked poker and gambling thugs thrive. Such places should be abolished and so should Nevada. It should never have been made a State. A county in the great State of California would be too much of a civil existence for that dead and sinful territory. Think of that awful, sinful place having two Senators and a congressman in Washington, and Alaska and Hawaii not represented. It is a travesty on our system and a disgrace to free government.

"Well, we finally passed the hell hole of iniquity by flying over one of the most beautiful spots in the whole world--Lake Tahoe..." http://books.google.com/books?id=DVVffTwVVy4C&pg=PA317

***

Suppose Nevada indeed had remained a territory and *never* became a state? This is more plausible than you may think. (The tough part is how to avoid it being made a state during the ACW to help assure Lincoln's re-election. Maybe the solid Democratic opposition is joined by some Republicans who are bothered by the territory's sparse population, who for some reason don't like the particular Republicans Nevada seems likely to elect to Congress, and who don't think three electoral votes are likely to be decisive anyway. Similar objections defeat subsequent attempts to admit Nevada during Reconstruction, and during the last two decades of the nineteenth century, Nevada will actually be *losing* population, so its immediate admission becomes almost unthinkable.)

Remember that in OTL Nevada did not even approach the population of an average congressional district until the 1970 census. As late as 1950 it had only 160,083 people--less than half the population of the average congressional district in the 1950's. If the US government is firm about not allowing gambling, easy marriage and divorce, etc., maybe it *never * becomes populous enough.

And another reason it might never have enough people: it might not even include Las Vegas!: " "On May 5, 1866, the United States Congress approved legislation transferring the portions of Pah-Ute and Mohave counties west of the Colorado River and west of 114 degrees west longitude to the state of Nevada. The assignment took effect on January 18, 1867.[4] The Arizona Territory lodged multiple protests with Congress and attempted for several years to have the transfer reversed, but was unable to overturn the change of possession." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pah-Ute_County,_Arizona_Territory Would Congress transfer it to a mere territory? And without Clark County (Las Vegas and vicinity) Nevada even in 2010 would have only 749,282 people--just slightly more than the average congressional district.

With statehood looking hopeless, does Nevada indeed become a huge county of California? (It's not going to become part of Utah--Mormons are a substantial minority but no more than a minority.)

(Incidentally, after starting research on this subject, I noticed that Rich Rostrom had started a thread on it a few years ago in soc.history.what-if. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/cTytau2kNRs/Eket7Te-0IQJ)
 
And without Clark County (Las Vegas and vicinity) Nevada even in 2010 would have only 749,282 people--just slightly more than the average congressional district.

But that is still more than Wyoming has today; Nevada may be underpopulated for more of its history without the Arizona panhandle, but it still will manage just fine. It will just have to wait longer to become a state if it is not needed then (for whatever reason is the case).

Either way, any long-term organized territory remained as such until it was admitted; at best, you might have a few more miles ceded to Nevada from Utah just to enlarge it enough. The state would be drastically different, but it would certainly meet the minimum population requirements in time; even the smallest states have.
 
I had a post about this a couple of years ago: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/nevada-still-a-territory.330447/

--

Harry Truman in 1955:

"Then we came to the great gambling and marriage destruction hell, known as Nevada. To look at it from the air it is just that--hell on earth. There are tiny green specks on the landscape where dice, roulette, light-o-loves, crooked poker and gambling thugs thrive. Such places should be abolished and so should Nevada. It should never have been made a State. A county in the great State of California would be too much of a civil existence for that dead and sinful territory. Think of that awful, sinful place having two Senators and a congressman in Washington, and Alaska and Hawaii not represented. It is a travesty on our system and a disgrace to free government.

"Well, we finally passed the hell hole of iniquity by flying over one of the most beautiful spots in the whole world--Lake Tahoe..." http://books.google.com/books?id=DVVffTwVVy4C&pg=PA317

***

Suppose Nevada indeed had remained a territory and *never* became a state? This is more plausible than you may think. (The tough part is how to avoid it being made a state during the ACW to help assure Lincoln's re-election. Maybe the solid Democratic opposition is joined by some Republicans who are bothered by the territory's sparse population, who for some reason don't like the particular Republicans Nevada seems likely to elect to Congress, and who don't think three electoral votes are likely to be decisive anyway. Similar objections defeat subsequent attempts to admit Nevada during Reconstruction, and during the last two decades of the nineteenth century, Nevada will actually be *losing* population, so its immediate admission becomes almost unthinkable.)

Remember that in OTL Nevada did not even approach the population of an average congressional district until the 1970 census. As late as 1950 it had only 160,083 people--less than half the population of the average congressional district in the 1950's. If the US government is firm about not allowing gambling, easy marriage and divorce, etc., maybe it *never * becomes populous enough.

And another reason it might never have enough people: it might not even include Las Vegas!: " "On May 5, 1866, the United States Congress approved legislation transferring the portions of Pah-Ute and Mohave counties west of the Colorado River and west of 114 degrees west longitude to the state of Nevada. The assignment took effect on January 18, 1867.[4] The Arizona Territory lodged multiple protests with Congress and attempted for several years to have the transfer reversed, but was unable to overturn the change of possession." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pah-Ute_County,_Arizona_Territory Would Congress transfer it to a mere territory? And without Clark County (Las Vegas and vicinity) Nevada even in 2010 would have only 749,282 people--just slightly more than the average congressional district.

With statehood looking hopeless, does Nevada indeed become a huge county of California? (It's not going to become part of Utah--Mormons are a substantial minority but no more than a minority.)

(Incidentally, after starting research on this subject, I noticed that Rich Rostrom had started a thread on it a few years ago in soc.history.what-if. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/cTytau2kNRs/Eket7Te-0IQJ)
Wow... Truman REALLY hated Nevada...
 
Istr that just before the ACW there was an attempt to make Southern California a separate State. Had the war been delayed, and this attempt succeeded, might CA have been given Nevada (or at least its western half) by way of compensation?
 
I had a post about this a couple of years ago: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/nevada-still-a-territory.330447/

--

Harry Truman in 1955:

"Then we came to the great gambling and marriage destruction hell, known as Nevada. To look at it from the air it is just that--hell on earth. There are tiny green specks on the landscape where dice, roulette, light-o-loves, crooked poker and gambling thugs thrive. Such places should be abolished and so should Nevada. It should never have been made a State. A county in the great State of California would be too much of a civil existence for that dead and sinful territory. Think of that awful, sinful place having two Senators and a congressman in Washington, and Alaska and Hawaii not represented. It is a travesty on our system and a disgrace to free government.

"Well, we finally passed the hell hole of iniquity by flying over one of the most beautiful spots in the whole world--Lake Tahoe..." http://books.google.com/books?id=DVVffTwVVy4C&pg=PA317

***

Suppose Nevada indeed had remained a territory and *never* became a state? This is more plausible than you may think. (The tough part is how to avoid it being made a state during the ACW to help assure Lincoln's re-election. Maybe the solid Democratic opposition is joined by some Republicans who are bothered by the territory's sparse population, who for some reason don't like the particular Republicans Nevada seems likely to elect to Congress, and who don't think three electoral votes are likely to be decisive anyway. Similar objections defeat subsequent attempts to admit Nevada during Reconstruction, and during the last two decades of the nineteenth century, Nevada will actually be *losing* population, so its immediate admission becomes almost unthinkable.)

Remember that in OTL Nevada did not even approach the population of an average congressional district until the 1970 census. As late as 1950 it had only 160,083 people--less than half the population of the average congressional district in the 1950's. If the US government is firm about not allowing gambling, easy marriage and divorce, etc., maybe it *never * becomes populous enough.

And another reason it might never have enough people: it might not even include Las Vegas!: " "On May 5, 1866, the United States Congress approved legislation transferring the portions of Pah-Ute and Mohave counties west of the Colorado River and west of 114 degrees west longitude to the state of Nevada. The assignment took effect on January 18, 1867.[4] The Arizona Territory lodged multiple protests with Congress and attempted for several years to have the transfer reversed, but was unable to overturn the change of possession." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pah-Ute_County,_Arizona_Territory Would Congress transfer it to a mere territory? And without Clark County (Las Vegas and vicinity) Nevada even in 2010 would have only 749,282 people--just slightly more than the average congressional district.

With statehood looking hopeless, does Nevada indeed become a huge county of California? (It's not going to become part of Utah--Mormons are a substantial minority but no more than a minority.)

(Incidentally, after starting research on this subject, I noticed that Rich Rostrom had started a thread on it a few years ago in soc.history.what-if. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/cTytau2kNRs/Eket7Te-0IQJ)
It becomes part of Utah. Mormons even founded Las Vegas for pete's sake. You're going to keep sin and vice and gambling out of a territory? Why? Every territory from the beginning of the Old West had all that, why start now? It is part of the culture (and mythos) of the West. And the US govt doesnt have a good track record of enforcement in territories of... anything back then. And since there is silver gold and everything else in Nevada it has to have statehood. California has those things, doesnt need more. And more that is on the other side of mountains harder to get to. This is before cars, and even with cars it is before the interstate (Eisenhower took almost a month to cross the nation more or less non-stop without interstates). Congress prefers well balanced states with natural resources to tax and live off, no way they add that large of a territory to California which was uncomfortably too large at statehood (because everyone was afraid they'd try independce seriously, and I believe they also were under the min pop but might be wrong on that). Utah was OTL smaller than it should have been, all the good parts going to states around it because Congress was biased against Mormons. They will love the idea of balancing the Mormons with sin-lovers and ironically the idea that the Mormons might bring law and order. As for ATL Las Vegas, if it stays with Arizona then it may very way still happen, if it goes with Utah to give them port access (back then the Colorado River was navigable up to that point and that's why it was transfered to Nevada, in case you're wondering) then Las Vegas might not form, but maybe it does being so far from Mormon centrality. Or maybe it simply remains a small Mormom community with a scandal about Fundamentalists with bigamy controlling the local govt and economy (instead of mobsters and gambling being the vices).
 
We have to realize that prior to 1898 and the Philippines there was no concept of a territory never becoming a state. Every territory was intended to be a state or multiple states. Nevada's eastern border was moved east twice and Arizona's panhandle gave it Cassville for these reasons (and as mentioned access to a port). People were concerned with the size of Texas, people were concerned with the size of California, large states are an anethema to our system; a Utah-Nevada makes more sense.
 
(It's not going to become part of Utah--Mormons are a substantial minority but no more than a minority.

Is that certain?

According to my Historical Atlas of Mormonism, Utah has at least two counties (San Jose and Grand) in which LDS are a minority, though admittedly I don't know whether that was true in the 19C. And anyway, even in 1896 weren't there still quite a few in Congress who might have welcomed a larger non-LDS element in Utah?
 
Is that certain?

According to my Historical Atlas of Mormonism, Utah has at least two counties (San Jose and Grand) in which LDS are a minority, though admittedly I don't know whether that was true in the 19C. And anyway, even in 1896 weren't there still quite a few in Congress who might have welcomed a larger non-LDS element in Utah?

There is no San Jose County, Utah, so I take it you mean San Juan. It's 50.4% Native American (the Navajo Nation, though mostly in Arizona, does extend into both New Mexico and Utah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation) which explains the low Mormon percentage, but I'm sure that Indians, politically speaking, "didn't count" in 1896. Even in the twentieth century, "Through the mechanism of putting nearly all Navajo voters in one district the San Juan County Board of Commissioners was controlled by white Mormons for many years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_County,_Utah As for Grand County, first the oil and then the nearby national parks attracted a lot of non-Mormons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_County,_Utah http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_2888021 (BTW, that article also claims Carbon and Summit Counties have non-Mormon majorities. With Carbon County, I assume it's the miners, and with Summit the upscale outdoors-lovers.)

I think by the 1890's the federal government had pretty much given up on preventing a Mormon-majority state, and would rather have confined it to predominantly Mormon areas than to see it extend all the way to Reno/Carson City.
 
You could potentially have California be admitted as two states: a Northern California consisting of California north of the 37th parallel and moving the western border so it aligns with Oregon; this gives it Reno/Carson City and most of Nevada's silver fields, and a Southern California that extends the 37th parallel border up to the Colorado River, so it gets the land that would become Las Vegas. What remains of Nevada is mostly empty and it can easily go to Utah since the state would still be confined to a predominantly Mormon area.

Also, California could have asked for additional land when admitted, it got as large as OTL because Washington was afraid that without the territorial incentive and quick statehood California would go its own way. If the California settler's ask for a bit more (just enough to include Reno and Carson City), they might have gotten it. In this scenario, Arizona keeps its panhandle and Utah gets most of Nevada.
 
You could potentially have California be admitted as two states: a Northern California consisting of California north of the 37th parallel and moving the western border so it aligns with Oregon; this gives it Reno/Carson City and most of Nevada's silver fields, and a Southern California that extends the 37th parallel border up to the Colorado River, so it gets the land that would become Las Vegas. What remains of Nevada is mostly empty and it can easily go to Utah since the state would still be confined to a predominantly Mormon area.

Also, California could have asked for additional land when admitted, it got as large as OTL because Washington was afraid that without the territorial incentive and quick statehood California would go its own w. ay. If the California settler's ask for a bit more (just enough to include Reno and Carson City), they might have gotten it. In this scenario, Arizona keeps its panhandle and Utah gets most of Nevada.


Iirc, Zachary Taylor originally wanted a "California" including the entire northern half of the Mexican Cession, ie not just Nevada but Utah and bits of Colorado as well, but his agent arrive too late, to find that CA had already adopted a Constitution stipulating it OTL boundaries, and he didn't press the matter.

Had Taylor got his way, Southern California and Utah might have split off later, leaving a California still including NV, or at least its populated western portion. The AZ Panhandle would most likely have been included in Taylor's other proposed State of New Mexico, or perhaps been added to an S California State.
 
Top