Abraham Lincoln pushed for the establishment of the new Republican State of Nevada in 1864 (it had been an official territory since only 1861)...rushing the normal path to statehood...during this period the Republicans also pushed for Colorado and Nebraska as states. In all these bills a certain ordinance appeared, i.e. "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States."

Now several States prior had the same ordinances written during their Constitutional conventions, however the difference here is that Nevada had this ordinance applied directly to it's Constitution. This was amended in the 1950s by the people of Nevada.

The State of Alabama had its original State Ordinance of 1819 repealed in 1861 removing this language but it was never applied to its Constitution.

In the House of Representatives in late 1833, Mr. Clay of Alabama argued against the use of this language by the Federal Government over a land dispute in Alabama. That ALL states were equal and had the same rights of sovereignty after they were "admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever"....That new States were admitted to the Union under certain conditions...in this was lost the spirit of Statehood and that these new States should be admitted 'as soon as possible'. The federal government had fixed the size of State populations by preventing the sale of public lands. "For if it had, it would have been in the power of one of the parties to have defeated the main object which induced the other to enter into them."..."While those compacts in their terms restrain the new States from interfering with the primary disposal of soil, or taxing lands of the United States for the term of five years after their sale, they do not release the United States from to duties imposed by the terms of cession, and, at least, imply an obligation on the part of the General Government 'to sell in a reasonable time.' This cannot be done, except on 'reasonable terms'. Suppose, on the admission of any one of the new States, the General Government had addressed her in this language: "you shall not extend your settlements beyond their present limits; if your population increase, it must be crowded on lands which we have already sold." Would it not have been pronounced on all hands a violation of the compact, and a most revolting breach of good faith on the part of the United States?"

Now, lets look at Mr. Lincoln...a railroad corporate lawyer, representing those that paid for him to be president. Why would he make Nevada, a territory with very little population and towns, with lands not yet sold, permanently a federal zone? In fact almost every new State west of the rockies would be owned by the federal government. Surely mining and raw resources were a driving reason but also RAILROAD LAND GRANTS had to be part of this scenario. Railroad land grants that took large sections of undeveloped lands to be populated by corporations. Towns and cities owed by industrialist in New York.

The Bundy's argument is not new and was certainly predicted by political parties almost 180 years ago.