[eddie gein]

People complain about this thread's continuance but I find it absolutely fascinating.

As one who thinks Oklahoma is more "southern" than anything else but not by much I have been really interested in the original land run. Having grown up in the northwest part of the state in the Cherokee strip I am strongly opposed to calling that area "southern" relative to other parts of the state.

However, I have found a book that was written around 1910 that discussed early day OKC. It discusses the early day prominent settlers in OKC. It lists them and their background and their biographies. These were the guys who have the downtown streets named after them and the like.

Having gone through about the first 100 names (there are hundreds and hundreds) it would appear that about 75% of these prominent early pioneers of OKC were from the northern states.

https://books.google.com/books?id=q4...201910&f=false

This book is 2000 pages or so so obviously I haven't looked at every name in it and it covers the prominent men in the whole state but the OKC guys tend to be northerners. So I am going to speculate that most of the upper class in those days were northerners in the early days and many of the southerners were the working class.

[KayneMo]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

People complain about this thread's continuance but I find it absolutely fascinating.

As one who thinks Oklahoma is more "southern" than anything else but not by much I have been really interested in the original land run. Having grown up in the northwest part of the state in the Cherokee strip I am strongly opposed to calling that area "southern" relative to other parts of the state.

However, I have found a book that was written around 1910 that discussed early day OKC. It discusses the early day prominent settlers in OKC. It lists them and their background and their biographies. These were the guys who have the downtown streets named after them and the like.

Having gone through about the first 100 names (there are hundreds and hundreds) it would appear that about 75% of these prominent early pioneers of OKC were from the northern states.

https://books.google.com/books?id=q4...201910&f=false

This book is 2000 pages or so so obviously I haven't looked at every name in it and it covers the prominent men in the whole state but the OKC guys tend to be northerners. So I am going to speculate that most of the upper class in those days were northerners in the early days and many of the southerners were the working class.

Indeed. Just to name a few prominent ones; Henry Overholser was from Ohio, John Shartel was from Pennsylvania, Anton Classen was from Illinois, William Hales was from Missouri, and Solomon Layton (one of my favorite architects who designed many buildings in OKC and statewide) was from Iowa.

[Bass&Catfish2008]

Originally Posted by imbored198824

I find it ironic that many of you refer to Missouri as a "midwestern" or "northern" state...when there are parts of Missouri that are culturally more southern than ANY part of Oklahoma. For instance I live in Branson...it has a much more southern feel than Tulsa does.

Quite honestly, Imbored, you just sound bitter.

Missouri is a fine state and quite beautiful.

Oklahoma is definitely more Southern and Western as this thread alludes to. Both states have their pros/cons.

I enjoy living in Oklahoma, but I'm a born & bred Okie. I might think as fondly of Missouri had I grown up there.

[Studying Okie]

Talking about the State of Oklahoma's early political origins, the majority of public figures in the original Oklahoma Territory were of Midwestern/Northern origin (and Republicans politically). All but one of the Territorial Governors of Oklahoma were Republican Northerners (they were appointed by Republican Presidents and not elected officials). I think these figures have left a long-lasting impression that still informs the opinions of many people regarding what Oklahoma is, and it's different than my own impression.

I recall reading a pamphlet (found on Google Books, I don't have the link, I'm sorry!) that was written by one of these early Republican politicians that advertised the burgeoning Oklahoma Territory as being "only Southern in its location" and Northern it every other way. What stood out to me about this publication was that it was written after the initial land runs of north-central and northwestern Oklahoma (of course mostly settled by Midwestern Yankees), but before the opening of the southern part of the Oklahoma Territory (which, of course, was settled mostly by Southerners), before Greer County was attached to the Territory (again, settled mostly by Southerners), and well before the remaining Indian Territory (again again settled mostly by Southerners) was combined to make the State of Oklahoma. This Republican politician who had written this pamphlet in 1894 or whenever was probably not very happy with the direction the state took shortly after he published it (lol).

There seems to be this apocryphal tale about how Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory were combined to form one state because "eastern politicians did not want two new western states." What is actually true is that the Republican legislature and President did not want two new Democrat states in the union, which leads me to believe that Oklahoma Territory in 1906 and 1907 was regarded as a Democrat-controlled territory in stark contrast to ten years prior. There is an implication that the population of Southerners outnumbered the population of Northerners in the final days of the Oklahoma Territory, and if I recall correctly, census data confirms that there were more people living in the rural southern part of the territory than the rural northern parts of the territory (but there were relatively lots of people living in Guthrie and OKC, which makes it murkier) (also, population density maps depicting that era show that, like today, northwestern Oklahoma has a lower population density compared to the rest of the state). Once statehood was achieved the Democrats passed Jim Crow laws and moved the capital to Democrat-heavy Oklahoma City from the very Republican Guthrie (both were settled originally in the 1889 run, but clearly the populations had diverged 20 years later).

Governor Lee Cruce, a Democrat originally from Kentucky, seemed to think in 1911 that Oklahoma was part of the South. H. R. Barrington, apparently the founder of Oklahoma City's Capitol Hill neighborhood and a Kansan, felt that Oklahoma was not. Both quotes are in this copy of the NAACP's "The Crisis" (topic was the Nelson lynching in Okemah). Unsurprisingly these competing views of Oklahoma reflect the origins of the person making the statement.

https://books.google.com/books?id=AF...page&q&f=false

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by Studying Okie

Talking about the State of Oklahoma's early political origins, the majority of public figures in the original Oklahoma Territory were of Midwestern/Northern origin (and Republicans politically). All but one of the Territorial Governors of Oklahoma were Republican Northerners (they were appointed by Republican Presidents and not elected officials). I think these figures have left a long-lasting impression that still informs the opinions of many people regarding what Oklahoma is, and it's different than my own impression.

I recall reading a pamphlet (found on Google Books, I don't have the link, I'm sorry!) that was written by one of these early Republican politicians that advertised the burgeoning Oklahoma Territory as being "only Southern in its location" and Northern it every other way. What stood out to me about this publication was that it was written after the initial land runs of north-central and northwestern Oklahoma (of course mostly settled by Midwestern Yankees), but before the opening of the southern part of the Oklahoma Territory (which, of course, was settled mostly by Southerners), before Greer County was attached to the Territory (again, settled mostly by Southerners), and well before the remaining Indian Territory (again again settled mostly by Southerners) was combined to make the State of Oklahoma. This Republican politician who had written this pamphlet in 1894 or whenever was probably not very happy with the direction the state took shortly after he published it (lol).

There seems to be this apocryphal tale about how Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory were combined to form one state because "eastern politicians did not want two new western states." What is actually true is that the Republican legislature and President did not want two new Democrat states in the union, which leads me to believe that Oklahoma Territory in 1906 and 1907 was regarded as a Democrat-controlled territory in stark contrast to ten years prior. There is an implication that the population of Southerners outnumbered the population of Northerners in the final days of the Oklahoma Territory, and if I recall correctly, census data confirms that there were more people living in the rural southern part of the territory than the rural northern parts of the territory (but there were relatively lots of people living in Guthrie and OKC, which makes it murkier) (also, population density maps depicting that era show that, like today, northwestern Oklahoma has a lower population density compared to the rest of the state). Once statehood was achieved the Democrats passed Jim Crow laws and moved the capital to Democrat-heavy Oklahoma City from the very Republican Guthrie (both were settled originally in the 1889 run, but clearly the populations had diverged 20 years later).

Governor Lee Cruce, a Democrat originally from Kentucky, seemed to think in 1911 that Oklahoma was part of the South. H. R. Barrington, apparently the founder of Oklahoma City's Capitol Hill neighborhood and a Kansan, felt that Oklahoma was not. Both quotes are in this copy of the NAACP's "The Crisis" (topic was the Nelson lynching in Okemah). Unsurprisingly these competing views of Oklahoma reflect the origins of the person making the statement.

https://books.google.com/books?id=AF...page&q&f=false

Great post. It is clear that by the time statehood came that the constitution and the laws were somewhat to largely oriented toward southern ideology. I do wonder about the two state entrance issue that you bring up. While there is no doubt that the Republicans and TR nixed two states I am really curious as to what the political makeup of Oklahoma Territory would have been. No doubt that indian territory would have been solidly democratic except for maybe parts of Tulsa.