Nevada, created solely for voting purposes?

[JRJ]

I recently had a discussion with an individual who I believe was of the mentality "I watched a tv show, I know everything about everything now" and they stated that Nevada was only created so Lincoln would win the 1864 election, is this true?

He seemed very arrogant during the discussion and basically called Lincoln a dirty liar, so I found it hard to believe his statement regarding Nevada. Evidence?

 

[ole]

When did Nevada become a state and what was its population; i.e., electoral votes.

 

[JRJ]

October 31st 1864 for year of statehood. Other information I will collect.

They only had two electoral votes in the 1864 election. Still searching for population.

 

[JRJ]

Previous post edited, having trouble finding population info for 1870 Census.

 

[Bob Owen]

I thought it was created for gambling!

 

[Red Harvest]

Haven't cross checked but the Wiki article on Nevada in the Civil War indicates there were 40,000 inhabitants at the time of statehood. It says that is far fewer than any other state for initial statehood--Kansas was on the order of 107,000 when it was admitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_in_the_American_Civil_War

The article indicates that the people of the state were rushing to get it done before the election. The state constitution was sent by telegraph to avoid a delay! It held the record as longest telegraph message until 1881. http://nsla.nevadaculture.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1698&Itemid=418 But I don't think it would be accurate to say it was only created for the 1864 election, It was going to become a state within a few years anyway.

The following site calls some of the reasons given for Nevada becoming a state a myth. http://nsla.nevadaculture.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=674&Itemid=418 It points out that enabling acts were passed for three states in 1864 (Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado) but that Nebraska's convention chose not to seek admission at that time and Colorado voters did not approve the proposed constitution.

Considering the problems the United States had with getting new states admitted before the war because of the slavery issue (see Missouri interference in Kansas), it would make sense to organize and admit them in the absence of the Southern states.

 

[Sid J.]

Both Nevada and West Virginia were admitted after the 1860 and before the 1864 elections. The 1864 election was not close, a landslide with or without them. I know there was a lot of talk about Lincoln losing in 1864, including some quotes from Lincoln himself. In those days, there was no polling data to track trends and back up perception about how the candidates were going. I do know from soldiers letters and diaries that the Peace Platform adopted by the democrats was wildly unpopular. People always say Lincoln won because of victories at Atlanta and Cedar Creek, but that always seemed to me more like an assumption or an opinion than a fact.

Was it politically expedient to rush Nevada in before the election? Yes. Would Lincoln have been re-elected without Nevada? Yes. Does it cross the line from political expedience to Dirty Liar? I think this is answered more by ones own biases toward Lincoln than any facts on the ground.

 

[Red Harvest]

The electoral college was such and it was enough of a landslide in 1864 that Lincoln could have lost 5% more of the total votes to Little Mac across the board (a net 10% swing) and he still would have won the election.

 

[16thVA]

The population in both Nevada and West Virginia was so small that it would do little to alter the election. However, he would have 4 Senators and a number of Congressmen beholden to him, especially WV.

 

[carson_reb]

As a Nevadan, I should weigh in on this.

Statehood is not something that President Lincoln just dreamed up in the late hours of 10/31/64. It had been in the works for a while; likely since Nevada became a territory after the Comstock strike. Nevada was a true battleground territory just prior to and during the ACW. Unionists and secessionists alike wanted to claim the rich silver and gold deposits of the Comstock and other mine strikes. The contentions got so bad at one point after war had been declared that southern sympathizers were incarcerated at Fort Churchill, Nevada.

The electoral votes were not significant for Lincoln's victory, it turns out, but they could have been. Lincoln's re-election was not assured, and there was concern that he might be a one-term president because of the toll that the war was taking on the nation. So, adding Nevada as a state just days before the election was more of an insurance move than the primary reason why the Silver State came into being. I think it was a reason, but not the reason. Silver and gold were also not the reason, but a reason, too. I'm not sure there ever was "the" reason.

An interesting fact: Nevada's was the first state constitution to be submitted entirely by telegraph for approval by Congress.

 

[kholland]

An interesting fact: Nevada's was the first state constitution to be submitted entirely by telegraph for approval by Congress.

Either it was a short constitution or I hope the telegrapher in DC got overtime!

 

[cash]

Like most myths, there's a kernal of truth. Sure, Lincoln liked having some electoral insurance. Sure, he liked having some more senators and representatives to vote in Congress. Sure, he liked having another state to ratify amendments. Sure, he liked the idea of the silver and gold deposits staying with the United States. Absolutely.

But we have to remember that Lincoln didn't create the State of Nevada.

Congress organized the territory. The People in the territory voted to become a state. They wrote a state constitution. They submitted it to Congress. Congress created the legislation that made Nevada a state. What Lincoln did was to sign the legislation at the very end of the process.

http://nsla.nevadaculture.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=674&Itemid=418

 

[littledoug]

Agree that it was expedient to admit Nevada at this point but hardly necessary in the flow of national politics.

An anomaly that puzzled me was the statement that Nevada had 2 electoral votes in 1864. I started to check this and found that the record indeed shows Nevada as casting only 2 votes, which seems odd because the minimum number a state is entitled to is 3, one for each of the pair of senators the state is entitled to and one for the representative. It turns out that Nevada was indeed entitled to 3 electoral votes but that when the time came to cast them one of the electors was marooned by impassable snowfall and was unable to physically cast his vote; further since the new state's legislature had not yet convened there was no mechanism available for authorizing an alternate, so the vote simple ended up being forfeited.

 

[Red Harvest]

Either it was a short constitution or I hope the telegrapher in DC got overtime!

On the Nevada end two of the telegraph company's best telegraphers spent 12 hours sending the 16,543 word document. The bill for the message was $4,303.27.

 

[rhp6033]

I think I know where the original "proponant" of this idea got that message. Over the weekend I saw a re-run of "How the States Got their Shapes", and there was an off-handed comment about Nevada being granted statehood as a "Thank You" for it's support for the Union cause. That's all there was to it - no discussion, no sources, no explanation - something I would normally let pass by as a "throw-out" statement subject to either reinforcement or rebuttal at a later time. If that's his source, then it's a pretty weak one.