State of Sequoyah admitted into the Union

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by ColeMercury, Mar 19, 2009.

  1. ColeMercury is male, FYI

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Location:
    Republic of Australia
    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?
     
  2. NomadicSky Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    I've often wondered that myself.
     
  3. zoomar Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Occupied Sequoyah, CSA (Okla)
    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.
     
  4. Melvin Loh Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Location:
    Darwin, NT, Australia
    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...
     
  5. zoomar Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Occupied Sequoyah, CSA (Okla)
    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.