Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 19th, 2009, 10:50 AM
ColeMercury ColeMercury is offline
is male, FYI
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Republic of Australia
Posts: 1000 or more
State of Sequoyah admitted into the Union

What if the plans to make Indian Territory (present-day eastern Oklahoma) into the State of Sequoyah went ahead, rather than OTL's forced merging with Oklahoma?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerryPrankster View Post
Dating service for hooking up MRAs and SJWs, AKA Political Peace Through Hatesex.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old March 19th, 2009, 01:11 PM
NomadicSky NomadicSky is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 𐐏𐐅𐐓𐐃
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via Yahoo to NomadicSky
I've often wondered that myself.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old March 19th, 2009, 01:21 PM
zoomar zoomar is offline
Kicked
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Occupied Sequoyah, CSA (Okla)
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by LorienTheYounger View Post
What if the plans to make Indian Territory (present-day eastern Oklahoma) into the State of Sequoyah went ahead, rather than OTL's forced merging with Oklahoma?
The state would be a typical southern state, probably culturally and politically like Arkansas. It is necessary to remember that, by 1900, whites already outnumbered American Indians in Indian Territory (the Five Nations area), and many in leadership among the Five Nations were acculturated mixed-blood people, or euro-americans who had married into the tribes. The state would probably have a much higher % of American Indian citizens (maybe 20-30%), but many would be culturally indistinguishable from other rural southerners. It is possible (but uncertain) that statehood for Sequoyah may have helped preserve some traditional native practices "under cover", in much the same way that Utah statehood helped the LDS church to be the de facto state church of Utah for many years.

The state would be Democratic (as was the rest of the south in the early 20th century). In fact, this is the main reason TR and the republicans did not support separate statehood for Indian and Oklahoma Territories. It would also be segregationist as well. Again, one needs to remember that the Five Nations were slaveholders and largely allied with the CSA during the civil war. They would have been just as resistant to full citizenship rights for blacks as other southern states - maybe even more so. Even today the Cherokee and Seminole Nations of Oklahoma have resisted granting full tribal citizenship to "freedmen" - former slaves held by tribal people.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old March 21st, 2009, 02:17 AM
Melvin Loh Melvin Loh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Darwin, NT, Australia
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomar View Post
The state would be Democratic (as was the rest of the south in the early 20th century). In fact, this is the main reason TR and the republicans did not support separate statehood for Indian and Oklahoma Territories. It would also be segregationist as well. Again, one needs to remember that the Five Nations were slaveholders and largely allied with the CSA during the civil war. They would have been just as resistant to full citizenship rights for blacks as other southern states - maybe even more so. Even today the Cherokee and Seminole Nations of Oklahoma have resisted granting full tribal citizenship to "freedmen" - former slaves held by tribal people.
Well, what about the black Seminoles ? I always thought that the Seminoles were far more accepting of blacks into their tribe given their hist with the Seminole Wars during the 1830s & 1840s...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old March 23rd, 2009, 02:09 PM
zoomar zoomar is offline
Kicked
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Occupied Sequoyah, CSA (Okla)
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin Loh View Post
Well, what about the black Seminoles ? I always thought that the Seminoles were far more accepting of blacks into their tribe given their hist with the Seminole Wars during the 1830s & 1840s...
Remember, Indian relocation effectively created two Seminole Nations. Those who managed to hide out in Florida and avoid deportation, and those who "voluntarially" moved to Indian Territory. As essentially "outlaws" throughout the 19th centrury, the Florida group was accepting of runaway slaves and admitted many blacks to tribal membership. The group which moved to OK moved west with their black slaves. "Slavery" was a very different institution for Indians, and slaves were often effectively treated as tribal members. It was not a racist thing, particularly, but a status thing. Prior to the civil war, black slaves were often manumitted and were adopted into the Tribe. However, the Seminoles in OK opposed the forced emancipations resuting from the Civil War. The US also forced the tribe to make these slaves tribal ciizens, against tribal will. These people became known as Seminole "freedmen", Only a few years ago, the Seminole Nation of OK disenfranchised its "freedmen", resulting in federal nullification of tribal elections.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.