The Oklahoma Constitution (Part Two)

April 26, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

In my previous post, I briefly introduced the Oklahoma Constitution.

Well, briefly for me.

Now let’s see what it actually says. If I can squeeze in, say, a dozen pages per post, it should only take, um… twenty entries or so.

So maybe we’ll just hit a few highlights.

To the best of my knowledge, everything cited here refers to the current language of the document unless otherwise noted. Please let me know if you believe I’m mistaken.

Section I-1: Supreme law of land.
The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

It should go without saying that this naturally includes any Amendments to that U.S. Constitution, like… the 14th, for example. Or the 1st. And yes, the 2nd as well.

It should go without saying.

Section I-2: Religious liberty – Polygamous or plural marriages.
Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

We’ll start with that last part, since it sometimes surprises people.

When the Republican Party became a thing in the 1850s, it pushed two basic tenets: (1) Slavery is bad, and (2) Polygamy is bad. The second was clearly in response to the Latter Day Saints.

The Utah Mormon War was a thing that happened in 1857-58, so it was fresh on everyone’s mind. It wasn’t until a generation later that the LDS traded away polygamy for a better shot at being left alone.

Apparently even in 1906, some wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding. In that context, it makes some sense that this was tacked on to the protection of religious freedoms. They wanted to get in an ‘except for THAT’ clause.

The first 2/3 of this one is worth closer attention, however. Oklahoma’s Framers wanted to make sure the very first thing they established after Federal Supremacy (ironic, isn’t it?) was absolute religious freedom. Not only would the government not establish or prohibit anything, citizens were specifically guaranteed “the exercise of civil {and} political rights.”

Do we still believe that today? We absolutely should, but I’m not at all convinced we do.

Check out the same section in the hand-written original submitted by William ‘Alfalfa Bill’ Murray to Congress for approval:

For you youngsters out there, those double-strikethrough lines are what counted back in the day as a ‘Delete’ key. The last-minute revision took out this phrase:

but the toleration of religious sentiment hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or indecency, or to justify practices inconsistent with the good morals, good order, peace, and safety of the State, or with the rights of others,

Dang. How would THAT have changed the whole conversation over, um… any number of issues these past few years?

But here’s the critical point to remember: it was struck before being sent to Congress. Our State’s Framers took it OUT. They didn’t just leave it out, or not think of it. They considered it, included it, then decided it had to go.

No one sworn to uphold the language OR original intent of this document can fight to put this phrase back in – even by implication – without resolving the inherent hypocrisy of such an effort.

Section I-5: Public schools – Separate schools.
Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control; and said schools shall always be conducted in English: Provided, that nothing herein shall preclude the teaching of other languages in said public schools.

We’re going to need to come back to the stuff on schools. They come up a LOT.

Section I-6: Right of suffrage.
The State shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Look at that. We DID know about the Reconstruction Amendments way back then. Wonder how we lost THAT collective awareness…

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, to which the Bill of Rights was added in order to secure ratification, the Oklahoma Constitution put its ‘Bill of Rights’ in Article II, right after the foundational stuff and before even discussing the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branches. There were originally 33 of them; there are currently 34, although a few have been tweaked over the years and term limits slid into the middle.

Section II-1: Political power – Purpose of government – Alteration or reformation.
All political power is inherent in the people; and government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it: Provided, such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

Revolutionary though this sounds, it’s entirely consistent with the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Although… that’s what’s odd about it being included here. The Declaration is a statement of revolution, and of ideals. The Constitution is a codification of laws intended to support those ideals. One seeks higher truths, the other provides a scaffold for technicalities.

The Declaration proclaims that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Constitution explains that “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years… and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

The Declaration insists that we rely on “the protection of divine Providence” and “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” The Constitution explains that “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

Both are necessary, and they’re more or less consistent with one another. But they’re quite different.

Section II-2: Inherent rights.
All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.

Hmmm… more Declarationing. But look at that last bit – “the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.”

That’s perfectly consistent with American ideals. Jefferson may have changed “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but the original phrase is used often enough elsewhere to leave little doubt regarding intent.

It’s just a funny clarification – the right to the fruits of your own labor, essentially. If I didn’t know better, I’d think it was an statement against Jim Crow laws and such, still common throughout the South at the time and codified in Oklahoma as soon as the first Legislature could find their desks.

But I do know better. It’s not.

It’s probably intended as a protection of workers’ rights, given the times and priorities of those putting the document together. A common complaint of labor unions – still relatively new on the scene – was that the folks doing all the work were being consumed by the system, while factory owners and investors were living lives of conspicuous ease, built upon their breaking backs.

Still, it’s phrased in such a way you’d never mistake it for a line from Marx, would you?

Section II-11: Officers – Personal attention to duties – Intoxication.
Every person elected or appointed to any office or employment of trust or profit under the laws of the State, or under any ordinance of any municipality thereof, shall give personal attention to the duties of the office to which he is elected or appointed. Drunkenness and the excessive use of intoxicating liquors while in office shall constitute sufficient cause for impeachment or removal therefrom.

No comment. *cough*Doerflinger*cough*

Most of the rest echo rights already guaranteed on a national level. While the process of gradually applying the Bill of Rights and subsequent protections to the states via the 14th Amendment had certainly begun, it was by no means complete. In 1906, it was perfectly appropriate for the state to guarantee those rights locally.

There are a few which deserve further attention, however.

Section II-26: Bearing arms – Carrying weapons.
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.
Section II-28: Corporate records, books and files.
The records, books, and files of all corporations shall be, at all times, liable and subject to the full visitorial and inquisitorial powers of the State, notwithstanding the immunities and privileges in this Bill of Rights secured to the persons, inhabitants, and citizens thereof.

I think that’s about –

Oh. Yeah. Um… there is ONE more.

Section II-5: Public money or property – Use for sectarian purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

We’re gonna need extra time for that one.

RELATED LINK: The Oklahoma Constitution (Part One)

RELATED LINK: The Oklahoma Constitution (Part Three)

RELATED LINK: The Oklahoma Constitution (Part Four)

RELATED LINK: The Blaine Game (Updated)

The Oklahoma Constitution (Part One)

April 25, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

The U.S. Constitution, including all 27 Amendments, takes up less than 14 pages as a Word document with normal fonts and margins. The Oklahoma Constitution, in contrast, takes 221 pages.

So already you can see a problem.

The first effort to craft a state constitution – a necessary precursor to being admitted into the Union AS a state – came in Muskogee in 1905. The ‘Sequoyah Constitution’ foreshadowed many of the elements which would eventually become part of our state’s semi-supreme law, but assumed separate admission for Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory, a ‘two-state solution.’ Given the likelihood both would be staunchly pro-Democrat, the Republicans in control of Washington shut that idea down immediately.

“Alfalfa Bill” Murray, a delegate to that convention and subsequent Representative and OK Governor, shared his recollections 25 years later:

We knew that it must stand before Congress above ridicule; and in harmony with the best modern thought for the protection of life, liberty, property, and the citizens’ highest estimate of intelligence and progress.

If you know anything about Alfalfa Bill, this is either painfully ironic or ridiculously amusing. Even if you don’t, the founding of Oklahoma on ‘modern thought’ and the ‘highest estimate of intelligence and progress’ should produce some sort of reaction. Perhaps even involuntary regurgitation.

For this reason, neither {Charles} Haskell nor I left the Convention or Committees for a moment, and we were the only persons there every moment. For days at a time, we alone were present. He lived at the Hotel in an apartment and I boarded there.

And a century later we’re terrified of who might be in the next bathroom stall.

Day and night we were on the bridge, and at the wheel, looking for icebergs, the shoals, and shallows of an uncharted sea. I have never regretted it, for without this experience the work so well done in the Guthrie Convention later, would have been impossible. The Sequoyah Convention gave us the outlines of an organization.

Oklahomans love our maritime metaphors.

In 1906, the U.S. Congress passed the “Oklahoma Enabling Act,” providing for a single state to be formed from Oklahoma and Indian Territories. Each half sent delegates – mostly Democrats – and William H. Murray was – big shocker here – elected president of this new Constitutional Convention.

This was a time not far removed from the Populist Party’s dominance across the Great Plains and not long before the Progressive Era would bring dramatic reforms in how elections were run and how many different things the federal government was willing to regulate. It should be no surprise, then, that while in 2016 Oklahoma is considered ‘red’ for its staunch Republican leanings, a century ago it was brought into the Union as close to ‘red’ in the ‘OMG Socialists!’ sense of the term as it could be and still secure Congressional approval.

I use excerpts from the Oklahoma Historical Society when we introduce the State Constitution in class:

The drafters recognized the importance of separation of powers by creating the legislative, executive, and judicial departments… They also recognized the state as a part of the Union, giving a constitutional nod to the notion of federalism. They also explicitly recognized (unlike the framers of the U.S. Constitution) the power of Oklahoma courts to exercise judicial review.
Early in the document (Article II), the drafters enumerated thirty-three rights in the Bill of Rights Article. This was followed by the article on suffrage. The right to vote, except in school board elections, was restricted to males. (The constitution was amended giving women the right to vote in 1918, two years before the U.S. Constitution was amended giving women the right to vote.)
The legislative article describes the branch (House members have two-year terms; Senators have four-year terms) and gives the power of the legislature. The influence of the Progressive Movement can be seen in the numerous restrictions placed on that body.
The article on the executive branch was similar to that found in most other states. The governor was given a four-year term and was prohibited from being elected twice successively (amended in 1966, in the Governors Consecutive Terms Amendment, so that a governor could be elected to two successive terms). Numerous executive offices and boards were created, all mostly elected positions.

That thing where so many positions are elected rather than appointed is creating headaches even today. It was an age of ‘let the people decide’, creating rules not conducive to our love of ‘voting the party ticket’ for everything from Governor to Dog Catcher to Insurance Commissioner.

The judicial article provided for the election of judges (changed years later to appointment with retention elections) and stipulated that juries of fewer than twelve members could be used in some cases.
Several provisions of the constitution were included for the regulation of certain interests. Entire articles were devoted to corporations (IX), revenue and taxation (X), education (XIII), and banks and banking (XIV). The details of these articles display the drafters’ distrust of legislatures and a concern for problems occurring during territorial days.

Imagine a time in which you couldn’t trust your own legislature to do the right thing when it came to revenue and taxation, big money interests, or public education! That must have been difficult for them, way back then.

The progressive spirit was also evident in the provisions permitting the initiative and referendum. Only four other states (of the forty-six states in 1907) included these provisions in their constitutions. Provisions were also included for amending the constitution, including allowing the voters themselves to initiate and approve amendments (only the second state to allow this method, called initiative and referendum).

One of the issues not often discussed when we celebrate all this power in the hands of the common man is how easily manipulated by fear and ignorance they tend to be. I mean, there’s a reason they’re the ‘common man’, right?

Oklahoma’s constitution of about fifty thousand words, one of the nation’s longest, has been made longer by the relatively frequent use of the amending process (although the document has never been completely rewritten).
Amending has also resulted in a number of significant changes. Following a 1941 amendment the legislature has been required to balance the state’s budget. In 1966 an amendment allowed annual legislative sessions (although in 1989 the voters approved an amendment mandating short legislative sessions). In 1990 Oklahoma became the first state (through amending) to place term limits on members of the state legislature, in the Term Limits Amendment. In 1992 voters approved an amendment stipulating that no bill passed by the legislature raising taxes would go into effect unless passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

That last part is what’s been so-often cited to explain why we simply CAN’T slow down the almost complete elimination of taxes for anyone wearing expensive suits and smoking cigars in darkened back rooms. Once the process is begun, the argument goes, any reduction of the destruction amounts to a ‘tax increase’.

Yeah, I know – it’s shaky reasoning, but it’s a large part of why we’re going after single moms and old people rather than so much as slow down the feeding of our children to the wealthy and powerful.

William Jennings Bryan told the members of the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention that they had borrowed the best provisions of the existing state and national constitutions and had, in the process, created the best constitution ever written. Scholars who believe that brief constitutions devoid of policy make the best constitutions would disagree with Bryan’s assessment.

No doubt.

I’m going to do my best to unravel some of that Constitution and see if it does indeed, as so many of our elected leaders insist, cry out for the elimination of virtually all public services while glorifying gun fetishism and mandating evangelicalism throughout all public institutions – because… Obama!

If it does, I owe several sitting legislators an apology.

RELATED POST: The Oklahoma Constitution (Part Two)

RELATED POST: The Oklahoma Constitution (Part Three)

RELATED POST: The Oklahoma Constitution (Part Four)

RELATED POST: The Blaine Game (Updated)

The Blacks in Oklahoma, Part III

December 17, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

It pains me to say so, but we really need to wrap this one up.

I’ve been wandering through “The Blacks in Oklahoma,” from The New York Times, April 9, 1891. If you haven’t read Part I and Part II, well… I mean, you did notice this is called ‘Part III’, right?

The unnamed author has already set us up once, responding to rumors that black settlers were becoming a drain on their communities and – by implication – the hard working white citizens in the territory, by informing us that the opposite seemed to be the case everywhere HE went.

Having covered a touch of the past and some key features of the present, he’s about to conclude – logically enough – by considering the future. He starts by reminding us that white people are at best delusional, and at worst notorious fabricators – especially the politicians.

The Hon. David Harvey, delegate to Congress from Oklahoma, said to THE TIMES correspondent that the blacks were decreasing in Oklahoma and that they could not find an abiding place there. The observation made during the trip just finished will not verify his statements.

What a gentle way to phrase “liar, liar, pants on fire!”

In his own city – Oklahoma City – according to his statement, there were not over 100 negroes of all ages and kinds. A careful personal count revealed the existence of 157 families, averaging 4 to each family. He asserted that there were not more than four dozen negroes in Guthrie, while, in fact, there are at least 300 in the city.

Last time this reporter laid on the statistics, he was setting us up for a mid-article twist. We should be ready for wherever he’s going this time as well.

Mr. Harvey was especially positive that the black-jack country could not contain over 1,000 negroes, when the returns of the last election show that Mr. Harvey received at least 1,700 negro votes.

Again with the diplomatic approach.

I think this could just as easily have said, “He knows darn well that he’s full of $#%* because whatever else he does or doesn’t care about, he KNOWS his own electoral results!”

He condemns all allusion to the black strength in that Territory, believing that the importation of blacks only adds to the distress possibly existing there, and yet the blacks are the only ones of a mixed population self-sustaining in a Territory where the majority of the inhabitants so far have been living off of each other, gradually wasting their capital, and will do so until agriculture begins to be productive of results.

Thus revisiting the impact point made in the first half of the piece – despite claims to the contrary, the black settlers were the only ones NOT adding to “the distress.” Note how subtly the language employed here suggests a certain defensiveness – maybe even hostility – on the part of Mr. Harvey.

The cities are owned principally by speculators. They would be creditable to an older country, showing the indomitable energy and faith of their founders, as well as exemplifying their hopes in the future of Oklahoma.

Is there an implied ‘but…’ here?

In the meantime, almost every train brings in negroes from the South, who remain. Agents from Georgia and Arkansas have in vain sought to induce some of these blacks to return as laborers. They will not go. They send glowing accounts back to their friends of the new land, and the stream of immigrants constantly increases.

However difficult conditions in the new Territory, they apparently had nothing on the Old South. If you teach ‘push-pull’ factors in your classroom, here’s a prime example – plenty to drive a group of people OUT of one place; plenty to draw them IN to another.

So far there has been but little trouble; what the future may bring nobody even pretends to guess. In fact, nobody will not think of it, except the blacks themselves. The latter fondly cherish the idea that they may possibly found here a State in which they will predominate and have the controlling power.

Oh the possibilities! Surely most resisted the temptation to give hope too much leeway. History would insist that under no circumstances would that EVER be allowed to happen (see Part II).

Here comes the wrap-up. Stay with me now – this is a good one.

See, one of the things I love about humor and tone in a well-written piece is how much impact it gives the underlying message – the ‘serious’ parts – when they arrive. I have little use for droopy drama, but when the Guardians of the Galaxy resolve to sacrifice themselves to try to do one right thing, or Bill Murray realizes the “true” meaning of Christmas… snot’n’sobs. Every time.

If I were an English teacher, we’d have a fancy word for this use of tone and structure, and examples involving obtuse essays by dead Englishmen. But HISTORY teacher = movies movies movies.

The war of races in Oklahoma is sure to come, but it will not be fought with guns and knives. The weapons will be the plow and the hoe, which will be wielded by each race upon its own lands. It remains to be seen whether the hot sun of Oklahoma will favor the black cuticle of the cotton and tobacco grower or the white skin of the corn and wheat raiser.

*pause*

That’s it. That’s the conclusion.

I’ve read this numerous times, and I’m convinced the author fully expects the black settlers in Oklahoma to prevail – or to at least hold their own. Maybe he’s more concerned with dramatic effect than substance, but I don’t think it’s just that. I think he’s being idealistic.

Like most of us, his own experiences and assumptions about how the world works color his optimism. Inherent in that closing paragraph is the conviction that hard work, grit, and the human spirit determine winners and losers in the end. Helen Churchill Condee had the same assumptions when she wrote primarily of white homesteading.

That’s the American Dream – or it was, for a few centuries. It’s a bedrock of conservative social and political thinking – you get out of life what you put into it. Work hard, stay in school, live the dream – everyone may not start with the same advantages, but the overall system works the same for everyone.

The Black experience – in Oklahoma or anywhere else – didn’t usually hold that to be true. Much like the American Indians they were replacing, the terms of the deal kept changing based on what best served white predominance. They changed for individual farmers who found some success, and they changed for communities who prospered just a little too much.

The most glaring example exploded a short thirty years later in Greenwood, as white citizens of Tulsa burned down Black Tulsa, killed hundreds of innocents, and took their stuff home as presents for their wives and kids. The war of races become violently overt, fought with guns and knives.

But even when the mobs aren’t in the street, is it possible that the underlying system has always been there? How much would be different if it weren’t shaping policies and attitudes today?

I don’t want to sound negative, but a doctor unwilling to discuss a possible diagnosis with his patient just because he doesn’t want to be a downer isn’t a very honest doctor. Maybe we don’t like to think about such things because we’re enjoying our little plot of land, knowing we’ve worked hard, taken a few chances, and caught a few breaks along the way. Maybe it’s easier to condemn those who threaten our paradigm than to question our comfort.

Or perhaps at some point human nature dramatically changed, the system began to work equitably, and everyone should just be glad all the descendents of those who first claimed those best lands from the less-worthy (by nature of their color or culture) just happen to be the most honest, hard-working folks today.

You know, so no one has to adjust their social, political, or economic standing too much. Because that would be SO un-American.

Just make sure you don’t think it too clearly or ever say to yourself out loud what your forebears carried as a matter of fundamental faith – that you are where you are because that’s exactly how things were set up to be. Because the universe has decreed it your “birthright.”

RELATED POST: The Blacks in Oklahoma, Part I

RELATED POST: The Blacks in Oklahoma, Part II

RELATED POSTS: A Chance in Oklahoma, Parts I – II

RELATED POSTS: Boomers & Sooners, Parts I – V

The Blacks in Oklahoma, Part II

December 16, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

If you haven’t read Part I of this post, first of all let me say SHAME ON YOU! How can you let crucial learnifying SLIP like that? Second of all, I respectfully suggest you start there for, you know, context and stuff.

I was waxing history-nerdish over a column titled “The Blacks in Oklahoma,” published in The New York Times on April 9, 1891. It’s historically significant, and rhetorically rich. The reporter is addressing rumors that black homesteaders had been flowing into the recently opened territory without resources or a plan, and had become a drain on the community and perhaps a danger to others.

Imagine a time in which “others” were automatically treated with such suspicion and accusation. Oh, the good ol’ days…

Many have gone to that territory with nothing except the rags they wore, but they have never become public charges. They have been cared for by persons of their own race until they were in such condition that they could help themselves and help others.

It’s not unusual even today for immigrant groups (these weren’t technically ‘immigrants’ so much as ‘migrants,’ but the idea is the same) to settle in clusters where they can mutually support and assist one another. Some of this may be defensive, but it has an important proactive function as well.

Don’t scoff – you’d do it too if you were moving to a new world.

At this time there are eight families crowded into an old (over one year is “old” in that country) storeroom, which aggregates forty-five people. There they sit day after day, waiting until they can be scattered and settled temporarily upon some of their race’s claims. They have their rages and their bundles of household goods and probably $50 would prove a bonanza to the entire outfit. They are fed by their more fortunate brothers, and some way they will be kept alive until Summer, when they will show that they are self-sustaining, for they will work and exist upon almost nothing.

I wonder if the assertive confidence expressed here reflects the mindset of his subjects, or the convictions of the author himself? That would make an interesting document analysis activity.

I have some idea what it’s like to be poor, but I lack a real appreciation for the sort of soul-crippling poverty described here. Most of us couldn’t even imagine. And yet…

Humiliating as they confession must be and is, the appeals for aid coming from Oklahoma do not come from the negroes, but from the whites. They exemplify the workings of the co-operative plan, as on claims may be found two, four, and sometimes eight families, all working together and often living together, awaiting the time when more lands will be opened for settlement, when the surplus expect to find claims for themselves.

If there’s a sense of entitlement present, it makes sense it would come from those running to claim land promised to others for as long as the sun shines and the grass grows and so forth. There was little guilt about betraying our national oaths yet again, largely because of a deep conviction that white guys in some way DESERVED this in a way others could not.

Is it such a leap to realize some of those same claimants would ask for help while they wait for the rest of WHAT THEY DESERVE to become available?

Twelve miles northeast of Guthrie, on the eastern border of Oklahoma, was found the little “city” of Langston, the inspiration of E.P. McCabe, the only colored State officer Kansas ever had, who is now Treasurer of Guthrie County. McCabe proposes to establish at Langston a distinctively negro city, and has for months, through colonization societies, been working in the Southern States to secure a population for this new black Mecca.
He has secured a number of families and has sold many lots. Some thirty dwelling houses and a small store comprise the nucleus of what the negroes hope to make a great city. There are nearly two hundred persons already there, and not a white face is to be found in the place.
Black carpenters were at work on a dozen new houses in course of erection, while masons, bricklayers, and other mechanics were making preparations for their future work. They have a black doctor, a black preacher, and a black school teacher, the latter presiding in an unpretentious little building already dignified by being called “the academy.” Adjoining the town site eighty-three acres of land have been broken up, and will this year be used as a co-operative garden by the entire colony.

McCabe is a big deal in Oklahoma history. He was the driving force behind much of the territory’s black settlement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His goal of an exclusively ‘black state’ was within reach for a time. It could have happened.

White people, of course, freaked out at the possibility. Imagine if it had failed – all those poor, angry black folks concentrated in one place? What might they do?

Worse, imagine if it had succeeded? How many centuries of American history would have to be re-examined if it turned out black folks were perfectly capable of running their own lives and communities after all? What would that say about…?

Oh yeah – not gonna let that happen. No State For You!

When asked what they were going to live on until something was raised, the general reply was that they “did not come here as paupers,” and that they had brought some money enough with them to live on for some time.
The principal object in establishing this town on the eastern border was to be near the lands of the Iowas, which are expected to be open to settlement before Fall. When these lands are opened Langston will be the supply depot for all of the black race, and there will be repeated the experiment, already a success, that was made in the black-jack country in the northwest part of the Territory, but under much more favorable circumstances, as the new town in situation in a much more productive country.

Black settlers tended to gather in areas with the least desirable farm land, and the least convenient access. While this seems to have occasionally been a result of pre-opening regulations, it was primarily a strategic move on the part of the black community.

It didn’t take much extrapolation to suspect that land recently seized from red men would be unlikely to stay in the hands of black men if desired by white men. So, pick areas white people wouldn’t want. Sure – it would be harder to grow essential crops, and to provide other sustenance… but what else was new?

Apparently some were now hoping to grab some land a bit further east, where conditions weren’t QUITE so onerous.

Therein lies the inevitable tension for citizens of color, then OR now. Very real opportunity. Very real progress. Open doors and flashing arrows pointing the way towards very real dreams.

And yet… at any time, those rules can change. They change if you’re not successful enough in the game, and they change even more dramatically if you are. You won’t give up, and you don’t want to lose, you have to be careful how much you win.

I insist to my students that whatever else Oklahoma is, its history is rather unique among the fifty states. At the same time, our past repeatedly reflects larger truths about the nation as a whole. We study Oklahoma history not because we’re unique (even if we are), but because of the light it sheds on the bigger picture.

We’re like a historical funhouse mirror collection. Why can’t THAT be on our license plates?

We’ll conclude in Part III – I promise.

RELATED POST: The Blacks in Oklahoma, Part I

RELATED POST: The Blacks in Oklahoma, Part III

RELATED POSTS: A Chance In Oklahoma, Parts I & II

RELATED POSTS: Boomers & Sooners, Parts I – V

The Blacks in Oklahoma, Part I

December 16, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

I’ve been on a bit of a primary-sources-related-to-Oklahoma spree lately. Haven’t we all, at one time or another?

Many of them are interesting, most are informative, and a few contain information which is simply incorrect, however passionately delivered. There are a handful, though, which are simply a joy to read – repeatedly!

Er… for me, at least. As I’ve said before, my life isn’t what you might call “rip-roaring.”

THE BLACKS IN OKLAHOMA – FLOCKING TO THE TERRITORY IN LARGE NUMBERS
The New York Times – April 9, 1891

It had been nearly two years since the first land run opened the ‘Unassigned Lands’ in what was becoming increasingly thought of as simply ‘Oklahoma’. A second opening was anticipated in a few months, and people up north were naturally curious how things were going down there in wild country.

Unlike today, when accuracy and perspective are editorial priorities as a matter of professionalism and respect, it wasn’t unusual in the late 19th century for stories about crazy events or bizarre behavior to capture the public imagination far more than the tedium of most real life. Sometimes news outlets even exaggerated a bit to keep readers entertained.

Of particular interest were stories feeding national preconceptions about race or culture. Were homesteaders at this late stage really such dirty, uneducated folks? Were Indians truly savages, or more like simple children, noble in their pathos?

And what about the Negro? (That was the polite terminology of the day.) Even approaching 1900, a substantial number of white Americans in the northeast rarely if ever interacted with citizens of color. Oh, there were the Irish and Germans, who were bad enough, maybe an Eastern European sporadically, but a black man?

Minstrel shows were losing their popularity as Vaudeville became a thing, but the caricatures were well-instilled. On the other hand, there were those who insisted the Negro deserved the same rights and opportunities as white men – maybe not all of them, or to the same extent, but more than they seemed to be getting in the south, if what the papers wrote were true.

And then there was Oklahoma Territory. Formerly ‘Indian Territory’, it was gradually beginning to open its ‘surplus’ lands to white – and black – settlement. Social Darwinism at its purist – run in, hold your claim by any available means, and start from scratch along with everyone else to see what you can make out of these last few remnants of American opportunity.

That was the idealized version, at least. But it was about as close to starting on a ‘level playing field’ as most alive in that generation would ever see for Black Americans, however illusory the ‘level’ part of the equation may have been.

Topeka, Kan., April 8.- Is Oklahoma really overrun with negroes, and has there been an influx of pauper negroes from the South? So many conflicting answers have been given in response to these two questions that it was impossible to arrive at the truth.

In class, this is where we’d talk about ‘making good inferences’. What seems to be motivating this particular foray into the territory by this NY Times reporter? Why does he open with these questions?

Good times, those inference discussions.

The census taken there last Summer was of no use in aiding one to arrive at conclusions, for, while Guthrie enumerated, so it is said, the horses, dogs, and chickens as well as the “regular” population, Oklahoma and Kingfisher failed to count the men, women, and children, while Edmund, El Reno, and Lincoln are still in doubt as to what and who were counted, and Langston was not in existence.

My students have this weird idea that in 2015, all computers and institutions everywhere are neatly connected and speak the same ‘language’. I assume they get this idea from bad action movies and federal health care legislation.

But why they apply this assumption backwards through history is beyond me. Most of written history is an absolute mess. We make educated guesses – some fairly supportable, others just… the best we’ve got.

It’s somewhat reassuring to know that as recently as 1891, at least one contemporaneous observer realized they really had no idea what was going on with who, or where.

In order to determine the truth, THE TIMES’s representative determined to visit the Territory and see what was to be seen, and to learn from interested persons as much of the truth as they could be prevailed upon to surrender.

He’s setting us up with tone. I respect that.

Those who have never attempted to draw the truth from an Oklahomaite can hardly realize the difficulties that are presented. The Territory was born in falsehood, was baptized in falsehood, and falsehood has been the principal article of diet ever since that fateful 23rd day of April, 1889, when the “sooners” became the leading citizens of a country opened to settlement too late in the year for the planting of crops, and to which the poverty-stricken were invited by speculators and impecunious lawyers who had been permitted to enter beforehand by a pig-headed Administration, which could see nothing good outside the ague-stricken Wabash bottoms of Indiana.

I can’t tell you how often this bit cracks me up.

After basking in the pithy slander of early Oklahomans, don’t overlook the wonderful jab at President Benjamin Harrison. “{A}gue-stricken Wabash bottoms” just drips with disdain.

Harrison, of course, had made his way up the political ladder from Indianapolis, where he’s now buried. They’re rather proud of him up there – understandable, I suppose, since they really don’t have much else to boast on. I mean, you’ve seen the Colts in action, and their legislators are doing all they can to make Oklahoma’s current public education system look passionately committed to excellence compared to theirs.

But at least they have Ben Harrison’s corpse. That’s something, right?

I don’t really mean that last bit about Indy. It was simply an example of the sort of inflammatory writing popular among some readers in the time period under discussion. I do it solely to help bring HISTORY to YOU.

You’re welcome.

Guthrie, being the headquarters of the Afro-American Colonization Company, has naturally been the objective point of the negroes who have been induced to migrate to Oklahoma. It is impossible to ascertain how many of the black race have arrived in that city, the estimates vary so largely.
Those who are opposed to negro settlement declare positively that there are not fifty in the city. Those who favor the movement insist that there are more than two thousand in and about the capital. The latter is probably more nearly the correct figure, as an inspection of the city revealed many black faces, and an examination of many of the little houses in the suburbs showed a number of colored families comfortably situated.

It’s hard to know when facts are being willfully fabricated to serve an agenda, or when the perceptions of those gathering them are simply so colored by preconceptions that they see what they expect and intend to see.

Back then, I mean. Not today, when we have science. And numbers. And ALL THE FACTS.

That these negroes are not all paupers is shown by their bank deposits, where they have sums ranging from $200 to $1,000. In one bank alone sums aggregating over $15,000 have been deposited by the negro settlers.

I’d pause at this point in class and ask my students to speculate where the author is going with this. You should as well.

I’ll wait.

He may be simply refuting existing criticisms, point by point, in defense of Black settlers. Perhaps his point will be that they’re doing fine – just look at the evidence!

But we’ve already had a taste of the author’s tone. The news may be valid, but it’s swaddled in snark and personality. We should be suspicious. Is he setting us up for… something?

RELATED POST: The Blacks In Oklahoma, Part II

RELATED POST: The Blacks in Oklahoma, Part III

RELATED POSTS: A Chance In Oklahoma, Parts I & II

RELATED POSTS: Boomers & Sooners, Parts I – V