WI: Nebraska and Colorado given Statehood in 1864

PatrickS

Banned
Nevada was given statehood during the American Civil War, even with it not reaching the needed population requirements. This was done because at the time, President Abraham Lincoln was afraid he was not going to win reelection, so he wanted to add a Solid Republican State before the 1864 election.

At the time, both Nebraska and Colorado were also trying to become states and had more or about the same amount. Nebraska voted against statehood and Colorado's voters did not approve of the constitution. They would have to wait to 1867 and 1876 and would be the last states until 1889.

What if Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado all become state before the 1864 election?

I would image they would vote for Lincoln. But how would the states develop if they got statehood early? How does this effect the country and future states coming in the Union?
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
It's an interesting idea - I wonder if their senators

It's an interesting idea - I wonder where their reps in Congress (whoever they would have been) would have been on Johnson's impeachment?

Best,
 
Very likely they would have... and this in turn has far reaching consequences.

Johnson's acquittal in the Senate was not as close as it looked. A number of moderate Republicans were apparently willing to vote for acquittal *if their votes had been required.*

"The closeness of the balloting may in itself be deceiving. Considerable
evidence exists that other senators stood ready to vote for acquittal if
their votes had been needed. As early as May 18 the Chicago *Tribune*
asserted that the President's friends laid claim to four more votes in case
of necessity, and the substance of the story was confirmed shortly after
the trial by Samuel Randall, the Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania.
On August 3, Johnson himself wrote to Benjamin Truman that [Edwin D.]
Morgan [of New York] had been one of the Republicans in question. In 1913,
Senator Henderson also asserted that Morgan had been the reputed swing
voter. Because of the intense pressure, he voted to convict, but would not
have done so had his vote made any difference. Some years earlier the
Missouri senator told William A. Dunning that [Waitman T.] Willey [of West
Viriginia] had also been ready to switch, a point he later reiterated to
Trumbull's biographer, Horace White. He also mentioned Sprague as one of
the senators willing to change, and John Bigelow learned that [James W.]
Nye [of Nevada] had been another. In short, Johnson's victory was assured
long before the vote was taken. A sufficient number of moderate
Republicans stood ready to acquit him, come what might." Hans L.Trefousse,
*Impeachment of a President: Andrew Johnson, the Blacks, and Reconstruction*
(Knoxville: Univeristy of Tennessee Press 1975), p. 169.
 
Johnson's acquittal in the Senate was not as close as it looked. A number of moderate Republicans were apparently willing to vote for acquittal *if their votes had been required.*

"The closeness of the balloting may in itself be deceiving. Considerable
evidence exists that other senators stood ready to vote for acquittal if
their votes had been needed. As early as May 18 the Chicago *Tribune*
asserted that the President's friends laid claim to four more votes in case
of necessity, and the substance of the story was confirmed shortly after
the trial by Samuel Randall, the Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania.
On August 3, Johnson himself wrote to Benjamin Truman that [Edwin D.]
Morgan [of New York] had been one of the Republicans in question. In 1913,
Senator Henderson also asserted that Morgan had been the reputed swing
voter. Because of the intense pressure, he voted to convict, but would not
have done so had his vote made any difference. Some years earlier the
Missouri senator told William A. Dunning that [Waitman T.] Willey [of West
Viriginia] had also been ready to switch, a point he later reiterated to
Trumbull's biographer, Horace White. He also mentioned Sprague as one of
the senators willing to change, and John Bigelow learned that [James W.]
Nye [of Nevada] had been another. In short, Johnson's victory was assured
long before the vote was taken. A sufficient number of moderate
Republicans stood ready to acquit him, come what might." Hans L.Trefousse,
*Impeachment of a President: Andrew Johnson, the Blacks, and Reconstruction*
(Knoxville: Univeristy of Tennessee Press 1975), p. 169.

Yes, and this wasn't even because they liked Johnson, they were terrified of what would happen if Benjamin Wade, who was then the Senate President pro tem, took office in the event of a successful impeachment.

So, in all likelihood, Johnson stays put in office and early statehood doesn't do much that is readily apparent. At least not at first.
 
Yes, and this wasn't even because they liked Johnson, they were terrified of what would happen if Benjamin Wade, who was then the Senate President pro tem, took office in the event of a successful impeachment.


Do we know anything about the ins and outs of Wade's selection as President Pro-tem?

I've occasionally wondered if some senators favoured it as a kind of "insurance" against any future impeachment, in the belief that their colleagues would never go through with one if it meant putting Wade in the White House.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
As precedent, however, it is pretty significant

Not much of one if it happens at the same time as OTL. By then his term had only nine months left to run.

Impeachment is one thing; impeachment and removal from office - if the votes are there, of course - is another.;)

Best,
 
Top