Nevada still a territory?

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)
 
While I enjoy the idea of Nevada's retrocession back to Californian control, I don't think it's likely; we'd squeak past Texas and then they'd be in third place, they'd never let that come to pass. ;)

I think it's more likely to end up added to Utah or Arizona simply due to California's size; parts of present day Nevada used to be part of both states anyway. It would make a strange gap in the country if it stayed a territory post world war 2; I think if it had lasted that long we'd be talking about adding three states instead of just two.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Based on the population criteria, you could be opening the door to

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)


Based on the population criteria, you could be opening the door to several changes - if 750,000 in 2010 is the threshold for statehood, then Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming all drop back to territorial status as well.

Best,
 
Based on the population criteria, you could be opening the door to several changes - if 750,000 in 2010 is the threshold for statehood, then Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming all drop back to territorial status as well.

Best,

Well, first of all, without statehood--and without the distinct laws of Nevada regarding gambling, marriage, divorce, etc.--there is no way the population of Nevada-without-Clark-County would be anything like its present level. My point was that even *with* these things--and the population boom in the Las Vegas area, which has spilled over to Nye County--Nevada-without-Clark-County still just barely has the population of the average congressional district. Second, it is one thing to kick a state out of the Union because its population fails to keep up with that of the average congressional district--this is not constitutionally possible without the start's consent; it is another thing to admit a territory as a state, which Congress is under no obligation to do unless it regards the territory's population is sufficient.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Oh, understood; the realities of politics definitely trumped

Well, first of all, without statehood--and without the distinct laws of Nevada regarding gambling, marriage, divorce, etc.--there is no way the population of Nevada-without-Clark-County would be anything like its present level. My point was that even *with* these things--and the population boom in the Las Vegas area, which has spilled over to Nye County--Nevada-without-Clark-County still just barely has the population of the average congressional district. Second, it is one thing to kick a state out of the Union because its population fails to keep up with that of the average congressional district--this is not constitutionally possible without the start's consent; it is another thing to admit a territory as a state, which Congress is under no obligation to do unless it regards the territory's population is sufficient.

Oh, understood; the realities of politics definitely trumped demographics for Nevada; given the connection of the Comstock with California, if Nevada doesn't get statehood in 1864, I would expect the California state line might have been pushed east, while most of the rest of the Nevada Territory might have been assigned to a larger Utah; transportation is certainly easier from the east side of the Basin than from anywhere else.

No Nevada, and larger California and Utah (maybe Arizona, Oregon, and Idaho all grow as well) seems like a possibility, absent the "battle born" admission.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Mormons could be a majority in Nevada once you take out Vegas.

No. Only in places like Lincoln County, adjacent to Utah. http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Lincoln-County-NV.html Even in the other counties adjacent to Utah, Mormons are not quite a plurality, let alone a majority. http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/White-Pine-County-NV.html http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Elko-County-NV.html

And of course in Reno, which is going to have by far the largest population of Vegas-less Nevada, Mormons are a distinct minority: http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Washoe-County-NV.html

Nor is this a recent development. Though in 1900--when Las Vegas was insignificant--Mormons had started moving back to Nevada from Utah (especially to places like White Pine County, where there was a copper mining boom) they were still a minority. "[T]he major religion at the time was Catholic, Earl said. Other religions also were present in Reno. Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Congregationalists, Adventists and Volunteers of America all had churches in the state." http://www.jour.unr.edu/outpost/community/com.zhang.history1.html One reason for the Catholic majority in northern Nevada was the large Basque population (including Paul Laxalt's parents).
 
without gambling/etc., NV wouldn't amount to much... lots of bare areas, islands of humanity around mines, a handful of farms/ranches in the better regions... so, lots of Federal wilderness areas, NA reservations, etc?
 
No. Only in places like Lincoln County, adjacent to Utah. http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Lincoln-County-NV.html Even in the other counties adjacent to Utah, Mormons are not quite a plurality, let alone a majority. http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/White-Pine-County-NV.html http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Elko-County-NV.html

And of course in Reno, which is going to have by far the largest population of Vegas-less Nevada, Mormons are a distinct minority: http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Washoe-County-NV.html

Nor is this a recent development. Though in 1900--when Las Vegas was insignificant--Mormons had started moving back to Nevada from Utah (especially to places like White Pine County, where there was a copper mining boom) they were still a minority. "[T]he major religion at the time was Catholic, Earl said. Other religions also were present in Reno. Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Congregationalists, Adventists and Volunteers of America all had churches in the state." http://www.jour.unr.edu/outpost/community/com.zhang.history1.html One reason for the Catholic majority in northern Nevada was the large Basque population (including Paul Laxalt's parents).

This map suggests something different:

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/geog1000/MapLinks/ReligionMaps_files/churchbodies.gif
 

How does that map contradict what I said? It shows Catholics as the leading group in most Nevada counties, as I stated. The only two counties in which it shows Mormons as the largest group are Lincoln and Churchill--and in Churchill they are barely a plurality, with 32% to the Catholic Church's 29%.

The one thing I don't understand about the map is why they seem to indicate that Lincoln County is only a Mormon-plurality rather than Mormon-majority county. http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Lincoln-County-NV.html gives it as 70% Mormon. The only explanation I can think of is that the map is based on data from 2000, and there may have been some movement of Mormons from nearby southwestern Utah in the subsequent decade.
 
Nevada was extended eastward due to concerns about the Mormons having gold considering their was a short war between the army and Mormons. Congress want to have Nevada and the Californian along the peaks of the Sierra Nevada but California refused.
 
Top