AHC/WI: Native American Tribes Get to Elect Their Own Reps and Senators to Congress

Pretty much as the tin says, with a POD of the US's founding, somehow find a way to get Native American tribes to have representation in Congress as full voting members of Congress.
 

jahenders

Banned
Pretty much as the tin says, with a POD of the US's founding, somehow find a way to get Native American tribes to have representation in Congress as full voting members of Congress.

I think for that to happen, you'd probably need some change in the general European v. Native relationship. You'd definitely need a change in how Reservations were established/managed.

The best bet might be some conglomeration of tribes applying for statehood BEFORE a bunch of settlers are already in their 'area.'

Another alternative might be something in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.

However, it's a hard sell because you either need a constitutional change to allow representation of entities other than states or admission of some tribes/nations as their own states (requiring approval from other states). I think having a few "native" states is the best bet -- otherwise you have to essentially sub-divide the representation available to a state and give some of it to the Native Americans (NAs) within that state. In many cases that'd round down to zero.

Or worse, you have one or more non-geographical 'states' made up of NAs from all over and those people would then be less a member of the physical state in which they live. For example, you might have 3-4 non-geographical NA states with members from all over. The physical states they live in, then, would have virtually NO reason to care about the NAs because they (literally) wouldn't represent them and you might have more animosity between those non-geo states and the physical states over spending, water, roads, etc.
 
Of course, in a few years, the Native American tribes would be a small minority within their own states after white settlers flood in, since by being a state, they cannot bar immigrants from settling in.
 
As much as I would love to see this have happened, any such political accommodation with Native groups in the 19th-century US is pretty much anathema. The white supremacism/racism and the desire for land for white settlement and development is just too strong for anyone in the government to propose giving Natives what amounts to a considerable level of autonomy and influence in Congress.

That said, if you tweak the American Revolution, or even some pre-revolution conditions, so that the new US is a much weaker and shakier nation, and more prone to threats from European powers, you could see the white American establishment striking a deal with local Native powers like the Iroquois purely out of necessity. Something like "We'll give you Indians representation in our congress if you promise to pledge military forces to ensure the survival of the United States against attack from the British Empire/France/Spain/etc."
 

jahenders

Banned
Of course, in a few years, the Native American tribes would be a small minority within their own states after white settlers flood in, since by being a state, they cannot bar immigrants from settling in.

True, though perhaps you could have a situation where all of the land in the 'state' is owned by the nations/tribes. Then, there would only be lots of settlers if they sold them land.

Perhaps, too, these 'states' could have crazy rules that are unfriendly to outsiders. For instance, maybe it takes 3 years before you qualify for 'in state' tuition or such things.
 
Something like the Maori seats in New Zealand? That would be pretty interesting. But it might violate constitutional provisions in various ways, especially if you give American Indians more than their proportional amount of the population. There's about 3 million registered, so that's...one seat. At best, you might be able to get two seats if you include people with noticeable amounts of native blood. That opens up so many issues, the key one being who will represent the native peoples in Congress? You'd need a sort of "pan-American Indian" identity to make it work--that seems much more doable now, but I couldn't imagine it being done when the Indian Wars were in recent memory (at least of tribal elders) and tribes were being pitted against each other. And another big issue--how could you write this into law? Seems like you're inviting some legal challenges and plenty of legal issues.

It would work best at the state level, I think. Some states have very significant numbers of American Indians, and they could end up a powerful voice in the state legislatures. But then you have another issue--do only tribes local to the state get to count/get a vote? After all, the biggest American Indian tribe in many states is the Cherokees, and we're talking about registered members, too. I'm not American Indian, but it does feel a bit wrong to me for a Cherokee living in downtown Los Angeles, say, to have as big of say on the issues of indigenous peoples in California as would, say, a Miwok in rural California, even if the Cherokee in California far outnumber the Miwok and other tribes actually local to the region. It almost feels like it defeats the purpose. And then there's the issue of "local" (Oklahoma might have a fun time with that) tribes if you want to define that, basically it would be a headache with no real solution.

But an interesting thought, though.
 
Tweak either the Constitution or post-Constitutional developments so that the Congress is mainly ceremonial, or advisory, or very limited powers.

Alternatively, during the machine politics era, have the dominant political machine see an opportunity to cement control by some kind of shenanigan involving getting representation for the tribes.
 
Something like the Maori seats in New Zealand? That would be pretty interesting. But it might violate constitutional provisions in various ways, especially if you give American Indians more than their proportional amount of the population. There's about 3 million registered, so that's...one seat. At best, you might be able to get two seats if you include people with noticeable amounts of native blood. That opens up so many issues, the key one being who will represent the native peoples in Congress? You'd need a sort of "pan-American Indian" identity to make it work--that seems much more doable now, but I couldn't imagine it being done when the Indian Wars were in recent memory (at least of tribal elders) and tribes were being pitted against each other. And another big issue--how could you write this into law? Seems like you're inviting some legal challenges and plenty of legal issues.

It would work best at the state level, I think. Some states have very significant numbers of American Indians, and they could end up a powerful voice in the state legislatures. But then you have another issue--do only tribes local to the state get to count/get a vote? After all, the biggest American Indian tribe in many states is the Cherokees, and we're talking about registered members, too. I'm not American Indian, but it does feel a bit wrong to me for a Cherokee living in downtown Los Angeles, say, to have as big of say on the issues of indigenous peoples in California as would, say, a Miwok in rural California, even if the Cherokee in California far outnumber the Miwok and other tribes actually local to the region. It almost feels like it defeats the purpose. And then there's the issue of "local" (Oklahoma might have a fun time with that) tribes if you want to define that, basically it would be a headache with no real solution.

But an interesting thought, though.

Or there's the option of admitting tribes (or confederations thereof) in as states themselves.
 
I guess I was thinking of some sort of scenario where reservations get federal representation despite being within a state for state government issues. Idk if that sort of quasi status is possible though
 

jahenders

Banned
I guess I was thinking of some sort of scenario where reservations get federal representation despite being within a state for state government issues. Idk if that sort of quasi status is possible though

Not likely, but you could conceivably have some kind of non-geographic Native American (NA) "state" that encompassed all NAs in the US. It could be given representation like a state, based on population. You could even have 2-4 of these made of of different regional tribal groups. However, it'd be a census, registration, and identification nightmare to determine who gets to vote within the tribal "state" and to ensure those same people don't also vote in "normal" geographic state and municipal elections.

The other way is what you have now -- states get representation. In some states with large enough NA populations, they could control one or more congressional districts.

Finally, you could conceivably have some kind of state secession/realignment option where a portion of a state(s) secedes and applies to be a separate state. For instance, you could have the SE corner of UT, NE corner of AZ, SW corner of CO, and NW corner of NM secede and form a Navajo/Ute/Hopi state. Likewise, big parts of OK could secede and form a NA state. Those may be the only ones that are large and populous to be even remotely tenable.
 
Not likely, but you could conceivably have some kind of non-geographic Native American (NA) "state" that encompassed all NAs in the US. It could be given representation like a state, based on population. You could even have 2-4 of these made of of different regional tribal groups. However, it'd be a census, registration, and identification nightmare to determine who gets to vote within the tribal "state" and to ensure those same people don't also vote in "normal" geographic state and municipal elections.

The other way is what you have now -- states get representation. In some states with large enough NA populations, they could control one or more congressional districts.

Finally, you could conceivably have some kind of state secession/realignment option where a portion of a state(s) secedes and applies to be a separate state. For instance, you could have the SE corner of UT, NE corner of AZ, SW corner of CO, and NW corner of NM secede and form a Navajo/Ute/Hopi state. Likewise, big parts of OK could secede and form a NA state. Those may be the only ones that are large and populous to be even remotely tenable.

Which isn't saying much about population. The Oklahoma one would be probably be majority white or if not, somewhat underpopulated, to say the least. Same goes with the Four Corners-area state, although that would definitely have a Native American majority I believe.

A gerrymandered district to gather as many Native Americans as possible is intriguing as well. But if you weren't crossing state lines with it, even the Oklahoma one would be be far the smallest Congressional District by population. California has enough, but again, the majority of Native Americans there are I'm pretty sure urban, and by the looks of it, the largest groups by far are Cherokee and indigenous Mexicans.
 
IMO the easiest way is to expand the Indian Territories to include more than modern day OK and have all the Native Americans moved from their land onto one giant reservation and turn that into a Native American state and give that representation.
 
The only way that I can think of would be if part of some state seceded from the parent state and joined the union during the ACW. Something similar to what happened in West Virginia. Perhaps the panhandle of Texas? Perhaps western NC? If I am not mistaken the western part of NC was pro-union and a large number of Cherokees had fled there to avoid the Trail of Tears.
 
IMO the easiest way is to expand the Indian Territories to include more than modern day OK and have all the Native Americans moved from their land onto one giant reservation and turn that into a Native American state and give that representation.

In what year would you do this? I recall reading about quite a few conflicts between the Oklahoma Cherokee/allies and the Comanche/allies, for instance. Not to mention all the other tribal groups who just a few decades ago were in open warfare between each other (Plains Indians killed more of each other than the US Army did, for instance). The window between the end of the Indian Wars and the end of Indian Territory is pretty narrow, and in doing so, who's to say you wouldn't re-open some wounds between tribes that would spark violence and demand US government intervention (that would probably not go well).

The only way that I can think of would be if part of some state seceded from the parent state and joined the union during the ACW. Something similar to what happened in West Virginia. Perhaps the panhandle of Texas? Perhaps western NC? If I am not mistaken the western part of NC was pro-union and a large number of Cherokees had fled there to avoid the Trail of Tears.

The problem with that is that Native American numbers were proportionately lower than today during the late 19th century, and there are far more Cherokee in Western North Carolina nowadays than in the American Civil War. If I recall, the modern North Carolina Cherokee are descended from a pretty small amount of the Cherokee who avoided being "moved" on the Trail of Tears.

The Texas Panhandle I don't even think had anything more than people passing through to elsewhere during the Civil War years. It was Indian country, and the Comanche, Kiowa, and others there were gaining in strength because of the Civil War (a very large amounts of raids happened in Texas). You could always give them a state, but unless you solidly enforce their rights, it's bound to fail and be swamped by white ranchers and others within a few years and spark some more Indian Wars in the process. I don't see that effort ending up as anything but another failed chapter in US policy toward Indians.
 
In what year would you do this? I recall reading about quite a few conflicts between the Oklahoma Cherokee/allies and the Comanche/allies, for instance. Not to mention all the other tribal groups who just a few decades ago were in open warfare between each other (Plains Indians killed more of each other than the US Army did, for instance). The window between the end of the Indian Wars and the end of Indian Territory is pretty narrow, and in doing so, who's to say you wouldn't re-open some wounds between tribes that would spark violence and demand US government intervention (that would probably not go well).

The government simply wouldn't care much. As far as people of the time were concerned it would be "A bunch of savages are fighting in some godawful piece of desert we don't want anyways so who cares?"
 
The government simply wouldn't care much. As far as people of the time were concerned it would be "A bunch of savages are fighting in some godawful piece of desert we don't want anyways so who cares?"

It still costs money (especially to relocate them), it could spill over into nearby lands, and most of all, it interferes with trade, either people going through Indian Territory/Oklahoma (common enough) or inter-government trade with the Cherokee and others there on any side of the fighting. If I recall, the US government nominally supported the Cherokee and their allies against the Comanche when they fought in the 1840s, I believe, while that was public sentiment, elements in the US government clearly had a stake vested in the conflict.

Read about the story of Bosque Redondo, where the US government sent a few thousand relocated Navajo Indians to live with some Apaches on a reservation. It didn't go well, because even 19th US government policy toward Native Americans had a bit of humanitarian streak (horrifyingly underfunded with minimal will to actually accomplish anything, of course).

And of course, what do you do if you ever want to organise an election for that territory? It would seem like things would need decades to settle down first before you could organise an election that wouldn't just be either corrupt Cherokee/Choctaw/US government-allied Indians ruling the place, or worse, Bureau of Indian Affairs just grabbing some useful tools to rule--that seems like impressive corruption even knowing that this is the era where machine politicians would allegedly wrote down names on tombstones in graveyards to get "voters". Not to mention this is Indians doing it, not whites, giving a racial dimension to this.
 
Top