ACH: larger/existing Indian territory

There's a reason we were using a far-in-the-past PoD - the idea being to have there be a genuinely centralized state of Amerindians, roughly speaking around the Mississippi valley. I don't know if it would be able to get that far west - the Rockies might be a natural boundary for it.
The point is, having a centralized state with contemporary modern technology (and, if possible, agriculture on a large and productive scale) would mean an Indian nation with the power to protect itself.

That's also why I cobbled together the government system I did. It's the far end of a couple of centuries of consolidation and compromise, basically... of the same type which turned tribal groups into nations in OTL, though accelerated by time pressure.

The problem with your model though is it completely ignores the history of the region your choosing. There wasn't even necessarily the same tribes in what would be the southeast States of OTL; which even then had their own form of government that is more complex than just the simplistic "chief". It also ignores that there were kingdoms with large cities along the Mississippi too.

CahokiaMounds-old.jpg


url
url
Cahokia_village.jpeg


So if you want a Native state that has a chance to hold of the Europeans and control a large amount of territory along the Mississippi basin, here's a civilization you can base it off.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The problem with your model though is it completely ignores the history of the region your choosing. There wasn't even necessarily the same tribes in what would be the southeast States of OTL; which even then had their own form of government that is more complex than just the simplistic "chief". It also ignores that there were kingdoms with large cities along the Mississippi too.
I am aware of the mound culture, and that I was simplifying drastically. I was using "Chief" as a general reference, in line with the way that Jared Diamond defines social stages of civilization - there's going to have to be SOME term to mean "the representative of each tribe", and I basically went with "chief". It may be that another is more appropriate.

I feel, however, that at least some social upheval is inevitable as the diseases spread. It's going to be likely that the tribes closest to the source of European contact recover and tech-up first, so they are going to have a disproportionate influence on any nascent state.
 
There's a reason we were using a far-in-the-past PoD - the idea being to have there be a genuinely centralized state of Amerindians, roughly speaking around the Mississippi valley. I don't know if it would be able to get that far west - the Rockies might be a natural boundary for it.

That is fairly far west, with several Confederacies between the Mississippi and Rocky Mountains. Can a state take them out all? If well equipped with modern arms and the ideology for rapid expansion, I guess so.

That's also why I cobbled together the government system I did. It's the far end of a couple of centuries of consolidation and compromise, basically... of the same type which turned tribal groups into nations in OTL, though accelerated by time pressure.

I'm sorry, but it feels quite lazy to say there is a government structure that allows one chief per tribe for representation. Historically perceptions of native people by Americans was coloured by the concept that most or all natives had the same politician structure, a hereditary chieftainship. Could this concept be as enforced if your governmental scheme would be used? I doubt it, because I could see there being (if not utterly fucked by diseases) delegations from bands of Klickitats, Yakima, Cayuse, Nez Perce, Walla Walla and Palouse, among many other nations demanding representation. "But your "Chiefs" are already in the Senate!" the American officials would say. Yet the American recognised chieftain for such people would hold nigh no sway over any but his particular band. This isn't an issue I feel many would drop.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I'm sorry, but it feels quite lazy to say there is a government structure that allows one chief per tribe for representation. Historically perceptions of native people by Americans was coloured by the concept that most or all natives had the same politician structure, a hereditary chieftainship. Could this concept be as enforced if your governmental scheme would be used? I doubt it, because I could see there being (if not utterly fucked by diseases) delegations from bands of Klickitats, Yakima, Cayuse, Nez Perce, Walla Walla and Palouse, among many other nations demanding representation. "But your "Chiefs" are already in the Senate!" the American officials would say. Yet the American recognised chieftain for such people would hold nigh no sway over any but his particular band. This isn't an issue I feel many would drop.
The term "chief" isn't actually one which would always mean "hereditary chieftain". Sorry, thought I made that clear - it simply means "representative", dressed up in terminology which I will admit was chosen to ensure an Amerindian feel (as opposed to "Senator", which is Roman/American by cultural association, or something like "Demarchos", which is all Greek to just about anyone and probably rather less well viewed by the intended Spanish promulgators of Western-style civilization).
A given nation would choose one however they wanted - there'd probably be a requirement that it be only one, though.
It's not as nice and wrapped up as it could be, but real politics is like that.
 
Question is - is there ANY way that the amount of territory given over as reservations in North America (in the area of the OTL CONUS) can at least match the size of the one in the ACW? (That is, modern Olkahoma.)

I decided to look up the numbers to see how far off we are, and I was surprised to discovered that what you're requesting is already true.

Area of Oklahoma:
181,195 km^2

Area of reservations in [continental] US, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
225,000 km^2

An even bigger number is reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Indian_reservations_in_the_United_States
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I decided to look up the numbers to see how far off we are, and I was surprised to discovered that what you're requesting is already true.

Area of Oklahoma:
181,195 km^2

Area of reservations in [continental] US, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
225,000 km^2

An even bigger number is reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Indian_reservations_in_the_United_States
Fair enough!
I'll admit I didn't think it out all that well... either put the word "continuous" in there, or "on good land" - I suspect it's no coincidence most of those reservations are on what we'll charitably call the less verdant bits of the US.
Actual Oklahoma was pretty prime land - hence why they got kicked off, basically.
 
Not the best land if one doesn't have plantations, so what about northern Alabama and Mississippi set aside for the Five Civilized Tribes and then more allowed to join? using this loosely based idea of a Senate-type representation, although as I've read it really is clunky at best, one could argue for an Alabama and missieeippi that have the same parallel as the Arkansas-Louisiana border as their northern borders, or just make it one whole state. Then, the Indian one could be admitted later as a way to keep the free-slave balance.

After the ACW, then, something like the Dakotas or North Dakota+part of Montana could be another, once that precedent is set.

Question is, are any Founders or others forward-thinking enough to do this? Maybe if they're against slavery they push it knowing int he back of their mind that the "Indian state" won't really be recognized as easily? I'm not sure, just thinking out loud here.
 
Not the best land if one doesn't have plantations, so what about northern Alabama and Mississippi set aside for the Five Civilized Tribes and then more allowed to join? using this loosely based idea of a Senate-type representation, although as I've read it really is clunky at best, one could argue for an Alabama and missieeippi that have the same parallel as the Arkansas-Louisiana border as their northern borders, or just make it one whole state. Then, the Indian one could be admitted later as a way to keep the free-slave balance.

After the ACW, then, something like the Dakotas or North Dakota+part of Montana could be another, once that precedent is set.

Question is, are any Founders or others forward-thinking enough to do this? Maybe if they're against slavery they push it knowing int he back of their mind that the "Indian state" won't really be recognized as easily? I'm not sure, just thinking out loud here.

Although these are possible scenarios, having Indian reservations is the worst possible scenario for an independent AmerIndian State. They will be too weak and USA will be fused. One way or another a greedy corporation/citizen will try to get those lands just like OTL. Thus will result into eventual interferrence of the USA government since it will start by Indians retaliating to the citizen/corporation and vice versa, USA government have no choice but to protect its citizens. Expelling the Indians to much smaller and less fertile lands the the Central Plains.

100 years is a lot of time developing and uniting the central plains from nothing into a modern state before the British will land in Jamestown.
Even if you delay it a few decades or one hundred years, The east coast natives and the central american natives can actually act like buffer states like Byzantium from Islam-Let the west develop before it can go offensive.
 
Top