Nevada wasn't crucial in preserving Union

As a visitor to your state, I enjoyed the article about the Carson City resident who portrays President Lincoln to school children. Imaginative, live presentations are excellent teaching tools. However, I was disappointed in the quality of some of the "history" thus presented.

Mr. Earhart has Lincoln say, "Had it not been for Nevada, today we might

have two separate nations. Division of the nation was imminent and Nevada

was crucial to the preservation because of its votes ...."

I understand the desire for home state "boosterism."But not by teaching

myths! What "crucial" role did Nevada play in preserving the Union?

Division of the nation was not "imminent" when Nevada became a state. It

had already occurred in 1861. But by October 1864, defeat of the secessionists had been essentially completed. It was the demise of the

Confederacy, not the separation of the Union, that was imminent. Sherman

had taken Atlanta, marched to the sea, and split the Confederacy in two.

Total surrender followed the following April. All without Nevada's vote.

It is true that Lincoln welcomed the creation of another "free" state to ensure ratification of the anticipated 13th Amendment, which would confirm

his previous emancipation of slaves. But ratification was a certainty

without Nevada since only Union states and "reconstructed" Southern states

were able to vote in 1865.

I hope that Mr. Earhart continues to portray Mr. Lincoln in schools. But I

also hope that teachers check out the content of the history taught in their

classes. We already teach enough myths as "history." Let's not create or

perpetuate myths just because we find an interesting medium, or because it

makes us feel good about the state.


Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment