I just watched a very interesting video about the history of Oklahoma and part of its uniqueness which Oklahoma is a very unique state.

Just thought I’d share.


https://youtu.be/d8-kGVCzKwA

I’ll also add, if you ever want an interesting perspective on just how unique Oklahoma’s geography is with exceptions to more westerly states and Texas (and that’s due to its massive size), take a drive from SE OK diagonally swamps, heavy forests, to a major metropolis, to arid farmland, to the Panhandle and end it with a nice camp session at the Black Mesa. The contrast is f@cking insane.

Sequoya is spelled Sequoyah isn't it ?

Just watched, knew most of it, but not the part about Sequoyah as a state, and the state constitution, thanks for posting. Another chapter in a long, disgusting, sad, depressing, horrible, criminal, ..... book about the way the First Americans have been treated.

Just watched, knew most of it, but not the part about Sequoyah as a state, and the state constitution, thanks for posting. Another chapter in a long, disgusting, sad, depressing, horrible, criminal, ..... book about the way the First Americans have been treated.

:iagree:

Just watched, knew most of it, but not the part about Sequoyah as a state, and the state constitution, thanks for posting. Another chapter in a long, disgusting, sad, depressing, horrible, criminal, ..... book about the way the First Americans have been treated.

or you know backing the south in the civil war ..

or you know backing the south in the civil war ..

Not all the tribes backed the south. And the tribes were kind of forced to at least play with the south when the north pulled out of Ft Smith and left Indian Territory unprotected and at the south's mercy with the huge borders with Arkansas and Texas.

i removed a bunch of off-topic posts.

Not all the tribes backed the south.

This is not exactly true, as all of the tribes of the Indian Territory signed treaties indicating their intent to ally with the Confederate States of America. Throughout the existence of the Confederacy, the Indian Territory had a non-voting delegate in Confederate Congress.

However, not every member of these tribes agreed with allying with the Confederacy; the Cherokees and Creeks in particular were extremely divided throughout the Civil War. The Creek leader Opothleyahola famously led a faction of loyal Creeks to Kansas, battling Confederate forces along the way.


And the tribes were kind of forced to at least play with the south when the north pulled out of Ft Smith and left Indian Territory unprotected and at the south's mercy with the huge borders with Arkansas and Texas.

The tribes, particularly mixed-blood tribal members, conducted much of their trade with others in the South. As there were no railroads through the Indian Territory until after the Civil War, river traffic through the South was the best way to move the tribes' agricultural products (like cotton) to buyers elsewhere. The slave economy was also tied to the South, for obvious reasons, and there was a lot of cultural overlap between the mixed bloods of the tribes and the rest of the South.

Because of significant cultural and economic ties to the rebelling states of the Confederacy, it was clear to many in Washington that the U.S. military forces in tribal lands would be better served protecting decidedly loyal Kansas. Once the federal troops withdrew from the Indian Territory, aligning with the Confederacy went from being arguably/probably the move that best protected tribal interests to basically the only move.

This is not exactly true, as all of the tribes of the Indian Territory signed treaties indicating their intent to ally with the Confederate States of America. Throughout the existence of the Confederacy, the Indian Territory had a non-voting delegate in Confederate Congress.

However, not every member of these tribes agreed with allying with the Confederacy; the Cherokees and Creeks in particular were extremely divided throughout the Civil War. The Creek leader Opothleyahola famously led a faction of loyal Creeks to Kansas, battling Confederate forces along the way.



The tribes, particularly mixed-blood tribal members, conducted much of their trade with others in the South. As there were no railroads through the Indian Territory until after the Civil War, river traffic through the South was the best way to move the tribes' agricultural products (like cotton) to buyers elsewhere. The slave economy was also tied to the South, for obvious reasons, and there was a lot of cultural overlap between the mixed bloods of the tribes and the rest of the South.

Because of significant cultural and economic ties to the rebelling states of the Confederacy, it was clear to many in Washington that the U.S. military forces in tribal lands would be better served protecting decidedly loyal Kansas. Once the federal troops withdrew from the Indian Territory, aligning with the Confederacy went from being arguably/probably the move that best protected tribal interests to basically the only move.
The history of chattel slavery among the tribes is well documented. It however is not well recognized. The fact obviously was that it was the law of this land. Especially from certain people who maintain a lot of pride in southern heritage. I’ve seen them make some reeaall reaches with their logic. The only true definition of the south is geographic. Not including Oklahoma in the definition of “the south” is like not including New Mexico (established 1912) in the “ the southwest” because it wasn’t a state at the time.

The history of chattel slavery among the tribes is well documented. It however is not well recognized. The fact obviously was that it was the law of this land. Especially from certain people who maintain a lot of pride in southern heritage. I’ve seen them make some reeaall reaches with their logic. The only true definition of the south is geographic. Not including Oklahoma in the definition of “the south” is like not including New Mexico (established 1912) in the “ the southwest” because it wasn’t a state at the time.

That doesn’t really solve anything, it’s more just an acknowledgement of what a lot of the divide is about. It doesn’t follow to point to the cultural heritage of the tribes as a way to prove Oklahoma should be considered southern while also saying the only valid definition of the south is geographical.

If the argument for Oklahoma being part of the south is the tribes, then is it accurate to say Oklahoma is no longer part of the south since the tribes don’t make up a majority of the population? When it comes to the largely unused parts of Indian Territory (i.e. Cherokee Outlet) is that not part of the south today since the tribes were largely populated in the eastern half of the modern state? Or, if the only valid way to define the south is geographical, how can the argument for Oklahoma being a southern state be supported by the tribal allegiances? Shouldn’t it be what was geographically defined as the south historically with no acknowledgement of the cultural history of the tribes? Is the south even strictly limited by the Civil War and the allegiances, or is it an identity constrained to a geographical location but built on the cultural ideology?

Those all factor into why it’s so complex and why different people come to different conclusions so often, both in Oklahoma and across the south in general.

…Not including INDIAN TERRITORY in the definition of “the south” …
The “Oklahoma is culturally the south” discussion is aggravating to me because nobody ever acknowledges that there were two Oklahomas; it was split down the middle, with the east belonging to tribal nations who had been relocated from the southeast and who maintained many southern customs, and the western half, which eventually saw tribes relocated from the plains and southwest U.S..

Beyond that, CENTRAL Oklahoma was originally settled (at the time of the land run, that is) largely by midwesterners, including many who had fought on the side of the Union. These were people who had originally come from places like Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri. Indian Territory (the eastern half of the state, largely assigned to the Five Tribes) was a barrier to settlement from the east by white southerners. Those folks mostly didn’t start appearing in central Oklahoma until a generation later.

There’s plenty of evidence to support this, not only in land claims, census records and the like, but also in cemeteries. Once you can tell the difference between a government-issued Union headstone and a (also U.S. government-issued) Confederate headstone, anytime you visit a cemetery in central Oklahoma you’ll immediately notice the overwhelmingly higher number of former Union troops vs Confederate. If you visit a cemetery in Arkansas or east Texas you’ll find the exact opposite.

Historically Oklahoma was far from a monoculture. It was in fact a mishmash of cultures from all over the settled U.S., and largely split down the middle.

18102

The “Oklahoma is culturally the south” discussion is aggravating to me because nobody ever acknowledges that there were two Oklahomas; it was split down the middle, with the east belonging to tribal nations who had been relocated from the southeast and who maintained many southern customs, and the western half, which eventually saw tribes relocated from the plains and southwest U.S..

Beyond that, CENTRAL Oklahoma was originally settled (at the time of the land run, that is) largely by midwesterners, including many who had fought on the side of the Union. These were people who had originally come from places like Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri. Indian Territory (the eastern half of the state, largely assigned to the Five Tribes) was a barrier to settlement from the east by white southerners. Those folks mostly didn’t start appearing in central Oklahoma until a generation later.

There’s plenty of evidence to support this, not only in land claims, census records and the like, but also in cemeteries. Once you can tell the difference between a government-issued Union headstone and a (also U.S. government-issued) Confederate headstone, anytime you visit a cemetery in central Oklahoma you’ll immediately notice the overwhelmingly higher number of former Union troops from Confederate. If you visit a cemetery in Arkansas or east Texas you’ll find the exact opposite.

Historically Oklahoma was far from a monoculture. It was in fact a mishmash of cultures from all over the settled U.S., and largely split down the middle.

18102

100%

The “Oklahoma is culturally the south” discussion is aggravating to me because nobody ever acknowledges that there were two Oklahomas; it was split down the middle, with the east belonging to tribal nations who had been relocated from the southeast and who maintained many southern customs, and the western half, which eventually saw tribes relocated from the plains and southwest U.S..

Frankly, if I ever come across an online discussion about Oklahoma's culture in relation to North and South, I usually see a comment, such as yours, that explains how Oklahoma can't really be culturally Southern because the land runners were largely of Midwestern (really Northern) origins. While it may aggravate some to see Oklahoma portrayed in a context they find uncomfortable, such as seeing highlighted the ways in which Oklahoma's culture and history are tied to the South, I find it unfortunate that many Oklahomans don't seem to want to learn more about our shared history and its significance today.

But anyway, the land runs of northwestern, north-central, and central Oklahoma overwhelmingly did bring in settlers of Midwestern origin. The famous (or increasingly considered to be infamous) Run of '89 represented the opening of much of the current day Oklahoma City metropolitan area to settlement. The biggest staging point for this land run was Arkansas City, Kansas, the southern-most Santa Fe Railroad station in Kansas, but Purcell, Indian Territory, a stop on the same Santa Fe line, was also an important staging point. Trains full of people departed from these stations, heading into the opened lands, allowing thousands of settlers to reach distant acreage quickly. There were several areas close to the rail road line that were considered to be more favorable for the development of cities, such as by the Oklahoma Station (now Oklahoma City), and many settlers coveted these smaller, denser lots to set up shop at. The first train from Arkansas City arrived in Guthrie at 1:25 PM, while the first train from Purcell arrived in Oklahoma City at 2:10 PM. Land runners were surprised to find that many of the best lots had already been illegally claimed by the time they arrived.

Most of these settlers embarked from Kansas, and they typically had Northern origins in what is now considered to be the Midwest. The settlers from Purcell, I.T. were more likely to be of Southern origins, via Texas. The Purcell-based settlers ranged from Cleveland County on into Oklahoma County, while the Arkansas City-based settlers spanned the rest of north-central Oklahoma. The other land runs were mostly attended by Midwestern settlers as well.

Evidence of this can be seen in the political leanings of the residents of each area; Republican politics dominated Guthrie and points north, while Oklahoma City came to be associated with the Democratic party - especially after Statehood was achieved in 1907. In the early 1890s, the Oklahoma Territory, with its capital at Guthrie, came to be under the sway of Republican politics. Not only were most of its residents unambiguously Northern in origin, but Republicans in Washington also selected Republican governors (all but one) to oversee a burgeoning Oklahoma Territory. The O.T. functioned like an extension of Kansas during the land run era of 1889 to 1895.

But there's a bit more to it than that, in my opinion.


Beyond that, CENTRAL Oklahoma was originally settled (at the time of the land run, that is) largely by midwesterners, including many who had fought on the side of the Union. These were people who had originally come from places like Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri. Indian Territory (the eastern half of the state, largely assigned to the Five Tribes) was a barrier to settlement from the east by white southerners. Those folks mostly didn’t start appearing in central Oklahoma until a generation later.

Compared to north-central and northwestern Oklahoma, central Oklahoma experienced more mixed settlement, as many of the land run settlers of the southside of the Oklahoma City metropolitan area embarked from Purcell. Some early city figures were Northerners, and some were Southerners. The pre-Statehood mayors of Oklahoma City were about evenly split in regional origin, with six from the North, five from the South, and one from Missouri, which also suffers from regional ambiguity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Oklahoma_City) Indeed, this was not a generation later; however, Oklahoma City's position as the "capital" of Democrat politics in Oklahoma would not truly be felt until after the Oklahoma Territory and the Indian Territory were combined, and the capital was quite literally moved away from the Republicans.

But, most of Oklahoma was not settled through the land runs, and only about half of O.T. was. The federal government was reluctant to authorize another land run, as they realized how dangerous and ripe for abuse the process was. The 1901 and 1906 land openings in west-central and southwestern Oklahoma were opened by land lottery and sealed bid auction, respectively. These lands were settled largely by people with Southern origins, although there were exceptions to that rule. The panhandle was added to O.T. in 1890, and had more of a mixed settler population, regionally speaking.

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Greer County, Texas was really Greer County, O.T. This area made up the whole southwestern corner of the state "below" the North Fork Red River. Most of these settlers arrived in the 1880s and 1890s, and virtually all of them were from the South (including Texas). The Old Greer County region was considered both a Baptist and Democrat hot spot well into the twentieth century.

The southern half of the Oklahoma Territory filled up pretty quick with Southerners, well before O.T. was combined with the remainder of the Indian Territory, which did not at all serve as a "barrier" against settlement by white Southerners.

I don't want to wade too deeply into whether the Five Tribes removed from the southeast were or were not culturally Southern, but I think it’s a fair acknowledgment to say that there were significant Southern cultural influences on the Five Tribes, particularly those with mixed backgrounds, owing to them living adjacent to and among antebellum Anglo-American society for a couple of centuries prior to their removal to the Indian Territory. With that being said, white settlers, usually from the South, did live among the tribes in the Indian Territory. These white settlers had to seek permission to live in the Indian Territory, and they usually operated trading posts or served as missionaries. I have read about white overseers in the Indian Territory as well, but I cannot remember where I would have read that (perhaps in a first-hand account from the Oklahoma Slave Narratives?).

However, it wasn't until after the Civil War that white settlement into the Indian Territory ramped up. The economy of the Reconstruction-era Indian Territory was in shambles, and there was a huge demand for farm workers. White settlers, who could not purchase land in the Indian Territory, but who could serve as tenant farmers for tribal landlords, were a cheap solution to the labor shortage problem. Scores of white settlers arrived in the 1870s and 1880s from the South. According to the Bureau of the Census, by 1890, there were 180,182 people living in the Indian Territory, with "51,279 Indians and 128,903 other persons (principally whites)" recorded.

By the time the State of Sequoyah was proposed in the first few years of the 1900s, which is the topic of the original post, the Oklahoma Territory was no longer considered to be a Republican stronghold, as a big chunk of its population already had origins in the South and would be expected to vote for Democrats. The remaining Indian Territory, which would attempt to be admitted into the union as the State of Sequoyah, was considered solidly Democrat. The video in the original post posits that Congress "didn't like the idea of a state run by brown people," and that the State of Sequoyah never had a chance to be admitted to the Union because of congressional racism. Considering that the Indian Territory had a white population of 302,000 (of a total population of 398,000) by 1900, this explanation isn't satisfactory. The Republicans in Washington simply wished to admit only one new Democrat-leaning territory as a state, instead of two.


There’s plenty of evidence to support this, not only in land claims, census records and the like, but also in cemeteries.

These are wonderful resources for understanding who exactly Oklahoma's settlers were and where they came from. For example, the 1910 census, recorded after the last of Oklahoma's big land openings had been completed, shows that Oklahoma had 1,657,155 residents living here. 515,212 of Oklahoma's 1910 residents were born in Oklahoma, 162,266 were born in Missouri, 570,977 were born in the South (excluding Oklahoma and Missouri), and 408,700 were born elsewhere (including the Midwest, Europe, and everywhere else, that’s not Oklahoma, Missouri, and the South).

If you consider Oklahoma and Missouri to be part of the South, then about 75% of Oklahoma's 1910 population was Southern born. If you don't consider Oklahoma and Missouri to be a part of the South, it drops to about 35% of the population.

Although not quite probative of anything, this is super fascinating. (https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/what-770000-tubes-of-saliva-reveal-about-america/) Basically, Ancestry.com published a map compiled from how closely DNA from American samples matched up with each other. In other words, the map purports to depict how Americans relate to each other. It aligns with the history that Oklahoma experienced a large degree of settlement from Southern populations. Here is that map. (https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/files/2017/02/US_ACOM_PM_Blog_DNA_Tubes_Header_1440x700_V2.jpg)

This map depicts how each country in Oklahoma voted in presidential elections from Statehood through 1960. It’s a great example of the old Democrat-Republican/the North-South divide in Oklahoma. It aligns with the notion that Oklahoma was mostly settled by Southerners. (https://i.redd.it/rpc8cpal6lr61.png) I saw this posted to OKCTalk previously.


Once you can tell the difference between a government-issued Union headstone and a (also U.S. government-issued) Confederate headstone, anytime you visit a cemetery in central Oklahoma you’ll immediately notice the overwhelmingly higher number of former Union troops from Confederate. If you visit a cemetery in Arkansas or east Texas you’ll find the exact opposite.

I am curious, what cemeteries did you find these Union soldiers' headstones at? Veterans of the Spanish-American war have almost identical headstones to the Union veterans', and Oklahoma was home to many of these veterans, but I would not be surprised to learn that some local cemeteries have a collection of Union graves as well. I am familiar with a few cemeteries in northern Oklahoma that have many Union troops buried there, but I would be interested to go and visit one in town. The Oklahoma Union Soldiers' Home was located in northeast Oklahoma City, and it stands to reason that many would have their final resting places here as well.

I do know that Fairlawn Cemetery is the site of a number of Confederate veterans' final resting places, and there is a small memorial to them as well (which was vandalized several years ago).

^ Fascinating post, thanks much for taking the time to write all of that out.

Frankly, if I ever come across an online discussion about Oklahoma's culture in relation to North and South, I usually see a comment, such as yours, that explains how Oklahoma can't really be culturally Southern because the land runners were largely of Midwestern (really Northern) origins. While it may aggravate some to see Oklahoma portrayed in a context they find uncomfortable, such as seeing highlighted the ways in which Oklahoma's culture and history are tied to the South, I find it unfortunate that many Oklahomans don't seem to want to learn more about our shared history and its significance today.

But anyway, the land runs of northwestern, north-central, and central Oklahoma overwhelmingly did bring in settlers of Midwestern origin. The famous (or increasingly considered to be infamous) Run of '89 represented the opening of much of the current day Oklahoma City metropolitan area to settlement. The biggest staging point for this land run was Arkansas City, Kansas, the southern-most Santa Fe Railroad station in Kansas, but Purcell, Indian Territory, a stop on the same Santa Fe line, was also an important staging point. Trains full of people departed from these stations, heading into the opened lands, allowing thousands of settlers to reach distant acreage quickly. There were several areas close to the rail road line that were considered to be more favorable for the development of cities, such as by the Oklahoma Station (now Oklahoma City), and many settlers coveted these smaller, denser lots to set up shop at. The first train from Arkansas City arrived in Guthrie at 1:25 PM, while the first train from Purcell arrived in Oklahoma City at 2:10 PM. Land runners were surprised to find that many of the best lots had already been illegally claimed by the time they arrived.

Most of these settlers embarked from Kansas, and they typically had Northern origins in what is now considered to be the Midwest. The settlers from Purcell, I.T. were more likely to be of Southern origins, via Texas. The Purcell-based settlers ranged from Cleveland County on into Oklahoma County, while the Arkansas City-based settlers spanned the rest of north-central Oklahoma. The other land runs were mostly attended by Midwestern settlers as well.

Evidence of this can be seen in the political leanings of the residents of each area; Republican politics dominated Guthrie and points north, while Oklahoma City came to be associated with the Democratic party - especially after Statehood was achieved in 1907. In the early 1890s, the Oklahoma Territory, with its capital at Guthrie, came to be under the sway of Republican politics. Not only were most of its residents unambiguously Northern in origin, but Republicans in Washington also selected Republican governors (all but one) to oversee a burgeoning Oklahoma Territory. The O.T. functioned like an extension of Kansas during the land run era of 1889 to 1895.

But there's a bit more to it than that, in my opinion.



Compared to north-central and northwestern Oklahoma, central Oklahoma experienced more mixed settlement, as many of the land run settlers of the southside of the Oklahoma City metropolitan area embarked from Purcell. Some early city figures were Northerners, and some were Southerners. The pre-Statehood mayors of Oklahoma City were about evenly split in regional origin, with six from the North, five from the South, and one from Missouri, which also suffers from regional ambiguity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Oklahoma_City) Indeed, this was not a generation later; however, Oklahoma City's position as the "capital" of Democrat politics in Oklahoma would not truly be felt until after the Oklahoma Territory and the Indian Territory were combined, and the capital was quite literally moved away from the Republicans.

But, most of Oklahoma was not settled through the land runs, and only about half of O.T. was. The federal government was reluctant to authorize another land run, as they realized how dangerous and ripe for abuse the process was. The 1901 and 1906 land openings in west-central and southwestern Oklahoma were opened by land lottery and sealed bid auction, respectively. These lands were settled largely by people with Southern origins, although there were exceptions to that rule. The panhandle was added to O.T. in 1890, and had more of a mixed settler population, regionally speaking.

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Greer County, Texas was really Greer County, O.T. This area made up the whole southwestern corner of the state "below" the North Fork Red River. Most of these settlers arrived in the 1880s and 1890s, and virtually all of them were from the South (including Texas). The Old Greer County region was considered both a Baptist and Democrat hot spot well into the twentieth century.

The southern half of the Oklahoma Territory filled up pretty quick with Southerners, well before O.T. was combined with the remainder of the Indian Territory, which did not at all serve as a "barrier" against settlement by white Southerners.

I don't want to wade too deeply into whether the Five Tribes removed from the southeast were or were not culturally Southern, but I think it’s a fair acknowledgment to say that there were significant Southern cultural influences on the Five Tribes, particularly those with mixed backgrounds, owing to them living adjacent to and among antebellum Anglo-American society for a couple of centuries prior to their removal to the Indian Territory. With that being said, white settlers, usually from the South, did live among the tribes in the Indian Territory. These white settlers had to seek permission to live in the Indian Territory, and they usually operated trading posts or served as missionaries. I have read about white overseers in the Indian Territory as well, but I cannot remember where I would have read that (perhaps in a first-hand account from the Oklahoma Slave Narratives?).

However, it wasn't until after the Civil War that white settlement into the Indian Territory ramped up. The economy of the Reconstruction-era Indian Territory was in shambles, and there was a huge demand for farm workers. White settlers, who could not purchase land in the Indian Territory, but who could serve as tenant farmers for tribal landlords, were a cheap solution to the labor shortage problem. Scores of white settlers arrived in the 1870s and 1880s from the South. According to the Bureau of the Census, by 1890, there were 180,182 people living in the Indian Territory, with "51,279 Indians and 128,903 other persons (principally whites)" recorded.

By the time the State of Sequoyah was proposed in the first few years of the 1900s, which is the topic of the original post, the Oklahoma Territory was no longer considered to be a Republican stronghold, as a big chunk of its population already had origins in the South and would be expected to vote for Democrats. The remaining Indian Territory, which would attempt to be admitted into the union as the State of Sequoyah, was considered solidly Democrat. The video in the original post posits that Congress "didn't like the idea of a state run by brown people," and that the State of Sequoyah never had a chance to be admitted to the Union because of congressional racism. Considering that the Indian Territory had a white population of 302,000 (of a total population of 398,000) by 1900, this explanation isn't satisfactory. The Republicans in Washington simply wished to admit only one new Democrat-leaning territory as a state, instead of two.



These are wonderful resources for understanding who exactly Oklahoma's settlers were and where they came from. For example, the 1910 census, recorded after the last of Oklahoma's big land openings had been completed, shows that Oklahoma had 1,657,155 residents living here. 515,212 of Oklahoma's 1910 residents were born in Oklahoma, 162,266 were born in Missouri, 570,977 were born in the South (excluding Oklahoma and Missouri), and 408,700 were born elsewhere (including the Midwest, Europe, and everywhere else, that’s not Oklahoma, Missouri, and the South).

If you consider Oklahoma and Missouri to be part of the South, then about 75% of Oklahoma's 1910 population was Southern born. If you don't consider Oklahoma and Missouri to be a part of the South, it drops to about 35% of the population.

Although not quite probative of anything, this is super fascinating. (https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/what-770000-tubes-of-saliva-reveal-about-america/) Basically, Ancestry.com published a map compiled from how closely DNA from American samples matched up with each other. In other words, the map purports to depict how Americans relate to each other. It aligns with the history that Oklahoma experienced a large degree of settlement from Southern populations. Here is that map. (https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/files/2017/02/US_ACOM_PM_Blog_DNA_Tubes_Header_1440x700_V2.jpg)

This map depicts how each country in Oklahoma voted in presidential elections from Statehood through 1960. It’s a great example of the old Democrat-Republican/the North-South divide in Oklahoma. It aligns with the notion that Oklahoma was mostly settled by Southerners. (https://i.redd.it/rpc8cpal6lr61.png) I saw this posted to OKCTalk previously.



I am curious, what cemeteries did you find these Union soldiers' headstones at? Veterans of the Spanish-American war have almost identical headstones to the Union veterans', and Oklahoma was home to many of these veterans, but I would not be surprised to learn that some local cemeteries have a collection of Union graves as well. I am familiar with a few cemeteries in northern Oklahoma that have many Union troops buried there, but I would be interested to go and visit one in town. The Oklahoma Union Soldiers' Home was located in northeast Oklahoma City, and it stands to reason that many would have their final resting places here as well.

I do know that Fairlawn Cemetery is the site of a number of Confederate veterans' final resting places, and there is a small memorial to them as well (which was vandalized several years ago).
Fair lawn cemetery sounds fascinating

This is not exactly true, as all of the tribes of the Indian Territory signed treaties indicating their intent to ally with the Confederate States of America. Throughout the existence of the Confederacy, the Indian Territory had a non-voting delegate in Confederate Congress.

However, not every member of these tribes agreed with allying with the Confederacy; the Cherokees and Creeks in particular were extremely divided throughout the Civil War. The Creek leader Opothleyahola famously led a faction of loyal Creeks to Kansas, battling Confederate forces along the way.



The tribes, particularly mixed-blood tribal members, conducted much of their trade with others in the South. As there were no railroads through the Indian Territory until after the Civil War, river traffic through the South was the best way to move the tribes' agricultural products (like cotton) to buyers elsewhere. The slave economy was also tied to the South, for obvious reasons, and there was a lot of cultural overlap between the mixed bloods of the tribes and the rest of the South.

Because of significant cultural and economic ties to the rebelling states of the Confederacy, it was clear to many in Washington that the U.S. military forces in tribal lands would be better served protecting decidedly loyal Kansas. Once the federal troops withdrew from the Indian Territory, aligning with the Confederacy went from being arguably/probably the move that best protected tribal interests to basically the only move.

Concise and on point. Tribes such as the Cherokees and Creeks were still dealing with the removal treaty parties versus the wouldn't sign the removal treaty parties. Lots of hostility on both sides let to the Yahola debacle. It's also why Stand Watie was the last Confederate general to officially surrender at the end of the War (not counting the ones who fled to Mexico).

Frankly, if I ever come across an online discussion about Oklahoma's culture in relation to North and South, I usually see a comment, such as yours, that explains how Oklahoma can't really be culturally Southern because the land runners were largely of Midwestern (really Northern) origins. While it may aggravate some to see Oklahoma portrayed in a context they find uncomfortable, such as seeing highlighted the ways in which Oklahoma's culture and history are tied to the South, I find it unfortunate that many Oklahomans don't seem to want to learn more about our shared history and its significance today.

But anyway, the land runs of northwestern, north-central, and central Oklahoma overwhelmingly did bring in settlers of Midwestern origin. The famous (or increasingly considered to be infamous) Run of '89 represented the opening of much of the current day Oklahoma City metropolitan area to settlement. The biggest staging point for this land run was Arkansas City, Kansas, the southern-most Santa Fe Railroad station in Kansas, but Purcell, Indian Territory, a stop on the same Santa Fe line, was also an important staging point. Trains full of people departed from these stations, heading into the opened lands, allowing thousands of settlers to reach distant acreage quickly. There were several areas close to the rail road line that were considered to be more favorable for the development of cities, such as by the Oklahoma Station (now Oklahoma City), and many settlers coveted these smaller, denser lots to set up shop at. The first train from Arkansas City arrived in Guthrie at 1:25 PM, while the first train from Purcell arrived in Oklahoma City at 2:10 PM. Land runners were surprised to find that many of the best lots had already been illegally claimed by the time they arrived.

Most of these settlers embarked from Kansas, and they typically had Northern origins in what is now considered to be the Midwest. The settlers from Purcell, I.T. were more likely to be of Southern origins, via Texas. The Purcell-based settlers ranged from Cleveland County on into Oklahoma County, while the Arkansas City-based settlers spanned the rest of north-central Oklahoma. The other land runs were mostly attended by Midwestern settlers as well.

Evidence of this can be seen in the political leanings of the residents of each area; Republican politics dominated Guthrie and points north, while Oklahoma City came to be associated with the Democratic party - especially after Statehood was achieved in 1907. In the early 1890s, the Oklahoma Territory, with its capital at Guthrie, came to be under the sway of Republican politics. Not only were most of its residents unambiguously Northern in origin, but Republicans in Washington also selected Republican governors (all but one) to oversee a burgeoning Oklahoma Territory. The O.T. functioned like an extension of Kansas during the land run era of 1889 to 1895.

But there's a bit more to it than that, in my opinion.



Compared to north-central and northwestern Oklahoma, central Oklahoma experienced more mixed settlement, as many of the land run settlers of the southside of the Oklahoma City metropolitan area embarked from Purcell. Some early city figures were Northerners, and some were Southerners. The pre-Statehood mayors of Oklahoma City were about evenly split in regional origin, with six from the North, five from the South, and one from Missouri, which also suffers from regional ambiguity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Oklahoma_City) Indeed, this was not a generation later; however, Oklahoma City's position as the "capital" of Democrat politics in Oklahoma would not truly be felt until after the Oklahoma Territory and the Indian Territory were combined, and the capital was quite literally moved away from the Republicans.

But, most of Oklahoma was not settled through the land runs, and only about half of O.T. was. The federal government was reluctant to authorize another land run, as they realized how dangerous and ripe for abuse the process was. The 1901 and 1906 land openings in west-central and southwestern Oklahoma were opened by land lottery and sealed bid auction, respectively. These lands were settled largely by people with Southern origins, although there were exceptions to that rule. The panhandle was added to O.T. in 1890, and had more of a mixed settler population, regionally speaking.

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Greer County, Texas was really Greer County, O.T. This area made up the whole southwestern corner of the state "below" the North Fork Red River. Most of these settlers arrived in the 1880s and 1890s, and virtually all of them were from the South (including Texas). The Old Greer County region was considered both a Baptist and Democrat hot spot well into the twentieth century.

The southern half of the Oklahoma Territory filled up pretty quick with Southerners, well before O.T. was combined with the remainder of the Indian Territory, which did not at all serve as a "barrier" against settlement by white Southerners.

I don't want to wade too deeply into whether the Five Tribes removed from the southeast were or were not culturally Southern, but I think it’s a fair acknowledgment to say that there were significant Southern cultural influences on the Five Tribes, particularly those with mixed backgrounds, owing to them living adjacent to and among antebellum Anglo-American society for a couple of centuries prior to their removal to the Indian Territory. With that being said, white settlers, usually from the South, did live among the tribes in the Indian Territory. These white settlers had to seek permission to live in the Indian Territory, and they usually operated trading posts or served as missionaries. I have read about white overseers in the Indian Territory as well, but I cannot remember where I would have read that (perhaps in a first-hand account from the Oklahoma Slave Narratives?).

However, it wasn't until after the Civil War that white settlement into the Indian Territory ramped up. The economy of the Reconstruction-era Indian Territory was in shambles, and there was a huge demand for farm workers. White settlers, who could not purchase land in the Indian Territory, but who could serve as tenant farmers for tribal landlords, were a cheap solution to the labor shortage problem. Scores of white settlers arrived in the 1870s and 1880s from the South. According to the Bureau of the Census, by 1890, there were 180,182 people living in the Indian Territory, with "51,279 Indians and 128,903 other persons (principally whites)" recorded.

By the time the State of Sequoyah was proposed in the first few years of the 1900s, which is the topic of the original post, the Oklahoma Territory was no longer considered to be a Republican stronghold, as a big chunk of its population already had origins in the South and would be expected to vote for Democrats. The remaining Indian Territory, which would attempt to be admitted into the union as the State of Sequoyah, was considered solidly Democrat. The video in the original post posits that Congress "didn't like the idea of a state run by brown people," and that the State of Sequoyah never had a chance to be admitted to the Union because of congressional racism. Considering that the Indian Territory had a white population of 302,000 (of a total population of 398,000) by 1900, this explanation isn't satisfactory. The Republicans in Washington simply wished to admit only one new Democrat-leaning territory as a state, instead of two.



These are wonderful resources for understanding who exactly Oklahoma's settlers were and where they came from. For example, the 1910 census, recorded after the last of Oklahoma's big land openings had been completed, shows that Oklahoma had 1,657,155 residents living here. 515,212 of Oklahoma's 1910 residents were born in Oklahoma, 162,266 were born in Missouri, 570,977 were born in the South (excluding Oklahoma and Missouri), and 408,700 were born elsewhere (including the Midwest, Europe, and everywhere else, that’s not Oklahoma, Missouri, and the South).

If you consider Oklahoma and Missouri to be part of the South, then about 75% of Oklahoma's 1910 population was Southern born. If you don't consider Oklahoma and Missouri to be a part of the South, it drops to about 35% of the population.

Although not quite probative of anything, this is super fascinating. (https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/what-770000-tubes-of-saliva-reveal-about-america/) Basically, Ancestry.com published a map compiled from how closely DNA from American samples matched up with each other. In other words, the map purports to depict how Americans relate to each other. It aligns with the history that Oklahoma experienced a large degree of settlement from Southern populations. Here is that map. (https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/files/2017/02/US_ACOM_PM_Blog_DNA_Tubes_Header_1440x700_V2.jpg)

This map depicts how each country in Oklahoma voted in presidential elections from Statehood through 1960. It’s a great example of the old Democrat-Republican/the North-South divide in Oklahoma. It aligns with the notion that Oklahoma was mostly settled by Southerners. (https://i.redd.it/rpc8cpal6lr61.png) I saw this posted to OKCTalk previously.



I am curious, what cemeteries did you find these Union soldiers' headstones at? Veterans of the Spanish-American war have almost identical headstones to the Union veterans', and Oklahoma was home to many of these veterans, but I would not be surprised to learn that some local cemeteries have a collection of Union graves as well. I am familiar with a few cemeteries in northern Oklahoma that have many Union troops buried there, but I would be interested to go and visit one in town. The Oklahoma Union Soldiers' Home was located in northeast Oklahoma City, and it stands to reason that many would have their final resting places here as well.

I do know that Fairlawn Cemetery is the site of a number of Confederate veterans' final resting places, and there is a small memorial to them as well (which was vandalized several years ago).

I believe the Veterans Cemetery on the SE corner of NE 36th and MLK has some surviving headstones.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oklahoma+Veterans+Cemetery/@35.5071888,-97.4766221,18z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x87b2178730966d7b:0x67644 d9aab8b0600!8m2!3d35.5071866!4d-97.4753346!16s%2Fg%2F1hc440zmc?entry=ttu

^^^^^^^
It was actually originally known as “Union Soldiers Cemetery” (the sign at the original front gate remains) and pretty much all of the headstones are in fine shape. I know this because I visit from time to time, and in fact was there less than a month ago.

Although there are now veterans of most if not all of the wars from the 20th Century there are dozens - probably 40-50 - Civil War veterans buried there. Here’s a link: https://www.okcemeteries.net/oklahoma/union/union.htm

It would of course be unfair - ridiculous, in fact - to judge the ratio of Union to Confederate soldiers in central Oklahoma based on who is buried there because, well, it was a UNION soldier’s cemetery.

That said, you can go to most any cemetery in central Oklahoma and - so long as it was originally built in the 1920s or before - you will likely find Civil War veterans. And you will also find that Union veterans significantly outnumber Confederates. The scale tips a bit on the south side - likely owing in large part to the above-mentioned migration pattern (the area at the south end of the Run for the Unassigned Lands was mostly settled by people coming through Texas). But Union veterans STILL outnumber Confederate, even in the south metro.

Now it would probably be fair to surmise that Union veterans, as the victors and on a clearly more defensible side, would be more likely to acknowledge their service. But you have to recall that in post-Reconstruction America the combatants had been largely forgiven for the purposes of political expediency, and that soldiers on both sides eventually enjoyed comparable mythologies.

It’s also important to note that the U.S. government had agreed to pay for quality headstones acknowledging Confederate service as if an equal to Union service. One would think that in early, hardscrabble Oklahoma there would be many takers for a government-sponsored headstone acknowledging military service vs whatever else a family might be able to afford.

And again, if you visit Arkansas you’ll find the headstone count clearly reversed; lots of Confederate stones and virtually no Union.

As for which cemeteries contain Union stones, again, look at most any cemetery built around the turn of the 20th century. The IOOF cemetery in Norman has a big part of one section devoted to Union soldiers (my 3x great grandfather is among them). Fairlawn has many Union headstones (and a few Confederate). IOOF in Jones (where I have another 3x grandfather) has multiple Union soldiers (NE Oklahoma County drew quite a few veterans, who were likely former comrades in arms who stuck together after the war).

Most any small, old cemetery in central Oklahoma has Union headstones.

^^^^^^^
It was actually originally known as “Union Soldiers Cemetery”

before it was just a cemetery, it was a union soldiers rest home:
18107
this excerpt is from a 1944 map