DBWI: Arizona and New Mexico admitted as separate states

Today it is unthinkable that Arizona should ever have been split in half, despite the political and sports rivalry that occurs between the western and eastern parts. But incredibly that is what prevailed between the Civil War and 1906: there were two territories, Arizona and New Mexico Territories, the latter of which included Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces, but surprisingly not Tucson. What if they were admitted as separate states? Would Arizona be as prosperous or as populated as it is today? Would it still be a key swing state?
 
This has wider ramifications, but you have to understand why "New Mexico" was never admitted as its own state to see them. Geographically and culturally, the Rio Grande Valley is quite separate from Maricopa County and its communities and having it in its own state, or part of Colorado, makes a good deal of sense. It had been administered as a separate territory and no, the reason it didn't become its own state was not anti-Latino racism as is sometimes alleged. It actually has more to do with the Mormons.

As has been discussed elsewhere on this board, Utah kept applying for statehood and kept getting refused because of the Mormon practice of polygamy. After the performance of the Mormon brigade in World War 2, and some timely Supreme Court decisions and a vision by the Prophet at the time, Utah was finally admitted as the 48th state in 1950, along with the 47th state, Puerto Rico.

Historically, states have always been administered in pairs. With the decision to admit Oklahoma as the 45th state, it was decided to bring in the Arizona and New Mexico territories as one state at the same time to keep the tradition of admitting states in pairs and to keep the union at an even number of states. So the USA fought in World Wars I and II with the 46 star flag. It seems silly, but its a real tradition, so to get New Mexico in as its own state, you almost have to either keep Oklahoma as Indian territory, or somehow get Utah admitted as a state in the nineteenth century. Its easier to do this with Utah, as I don't see letting the Indians keep Oklahoma once oil was discovered there, but now you have changed the history of Mormonism and that itself as big butterflies beyond what happens in the Rio Grande.

Of note, without the upper Rio Grande Valley, our slightly smaller version of Arizona becomes much more reliably Republican, maybe enough so to make a difference in national politics.
 
As has been discussed elsewhere on this board, Utah kept applying for statehood and kept getting refused because of the Mormon practice of polygamy. After the performance of the Mormon brigade in World War 2, and some timely Supreme Court decisions and a vision by the Prophet at the time, Utah was finally admitted as the 48th state in 1950, along with the 47th state, Puerto Rico.
Didn't an enabling act pass for Utah in 1894? I think the best way would be to make the Convention of 1896 approve a ban on plural marriage.
 
Top