Borders without Grover Cleveland

Grover Cleveland had an interesting impact on the US territory-wise.

In 1885, a bill pass both houses of congress that would have made the Cimarron Territory/No Man's Land part of Kansas, but Cleveland vetoed that.

A bill was submitted to him in 1887 to split Idaho territory between Washington Territory and Nevada, but he vetoed it as his friend was Governor of the Territory.

What if US borders had been a bit different due to either Cleveland not vetoing the bills or Cleveland losing in 1884?

Who gets southeast Idaho? Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, or Utah? It's mostly Mormon, but Congress wanted to give Utah as little territory as possible.
 
Grover Cleveland had an interesting impact on the US territory-wise.

In 1885, a bill pass both houses of congress that would have made the Cimarron Territory/No Man's Land part of Kansas, but Cleveland vetoed that.

A bill was submitted to him in 1887 to split Idaho territory between Washington Territory and Nevada, but he vetoed it as his friend was Governor of the Territory.

What if US borders had been a bit different due to either Cleveland not vetoing the bills or Cleveland losing in 1884?

Interesting! Thanks.

Who gets southeast Idaho? Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, or Utah? It's mostly Mormon, but Congress wanted to give Utah as little territory as possible.

Thing is, as much as Wyoming is less populous than Idaho, the disparity was much higher during the Cleveland administration. If you append a significant part of eastern Idaho to Wyoming, Mormon control of the latter's elected government is not beyond the realm of possibility. Alternately, it could easily result in Wyoming politics ITTL becoming highly polarized if the Mormons fall slightly short of an outright majority.
 
Not familiar with this at all.

The Cimarron Territory thing is whatever, since it’s a barely populated surveying error.

I don’t quite get why to eliminate Idaho, unless it’s because Nevada didn’t have much population at the time and they wanted to add potential farmland to it, since the Snake River wasn’t developed much at the time. Southern Idaho+Nevada with a capitol at Carson City makes more sense than existing Idaho in a lot of ways, given how separate northern Idaho is from the south.

Was Southeast Idaho supposed to be split off too? I don’t understand that line in the original post. If you’re giving the Snake to Nevada, give all of it to Nevada. There’s no reason to break it up.
 
Top