"Indian Territory" further east

hey, all. one political geographic change i've been considering lately is the possibility of Indian Territory being located a little further east than IOTL: more specifically, what if Indian Territory was comprised of OTL Arkansas and the proposed area of Sequoyah? in this case, it would require a POD no later than 1819, in order for OTL's Arkansas Territory to be named Indian Territory instead

how would this affect the standing of Amerindians throughout the following history of the United States, considering that their new territory would border the Mississippi, and that they wouldn't have as far to travel from their original homes during the Indian Removal Act (though i'd imagine the deaths of the Trail of Tears would be unavoidable)
 
Well, from the little stuff I know about Native American history, I'd say that a good possible location for an eastern Indian Territory would be in northern Missisippi or alternativly in the northern third of the entire Louisiana territory.

In the first case the Trial of Tears will be less deadly, considering how an important reason for the high death toll was the Missisippi, since in winter it was impossible to cross, leading to starvation.
In case of the latter you'd have an even higher death toll and it would be even further away from the homelands of the Civilised Tribes, leading to an even bigger trauma.

Arkansas is unlikely for an Indian Territory considering its important strategic position, which is too close to New Orleans. And yes, I know it became a state later than Missouri.

Also: Sorry about this being incomprehensive, but it's late and all and I wanted to push this thread.
 
How about southern Florida? Much of it was pretty swampy and it didn't really get much attention until the first couple of decades in the twentieth century; I think it would make a good place for "Indian Territory."
 
well i'd been thinking specifically of OTL Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, though northern Mississippi and Florida are interesting. thing is, for both of those, the POD i have in mind postdates the admission of Mississippi as a state and predates the acquisition of Florida
 
The Indians were never going to be given a bank of a Mississippi in anything remotely like the OTL 19th century United States. Even the idea of them receiving a major river like the Arkansas is pretty far fetched.

If you want to give them a more easterly spot without rebuilding America from scratch from the Revolution or earlier, you need to put them in an equivalent area. That means someplace that won't be missed until later in the century when settlement was slowing. Which in turn means a large area of land no white person would take as their first choice.

There are a number of candidates, but for ones east of Oklahoma it largely comes down to the Ozarks, or maybe northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula. Southern Florida is remotely possible, but the Indians there had much too long a history of adopting runaway slaves. It's difficult to compromise between that and the surrounding slave economy. I'd suggest a mostly-rectangular area cut a little more from OTL Missouri than OTL Arkansas. Both states can have panhandles to make sure the region isn't on the Mississippi - the latter being necessary if we want their ownership of the place to be anything like permanent.

Edit: "Never" is a very strong word. The Indians could have gotten the area you suggest, but it would require an incredibly devoted supporter at the highest levels of government - probably the president - and would likely ruin the career of whoever that was. You need the kind of character that people reject as implausible when they read a timeline. You need a Peter III for America; a Nicholas Trist for the Cherokee.
 
Last edited:
The Indians were never going to be given a bank of a Mississippi in anything remotely like the OTL 19th century United States. Even the idea of them receiving a major river like the Arkansas is pretty far fetched.

If you want to give them a more easterly spot without rebuilding America from scratch from the Revolution or earlier, you need to put them in an equivalent area. That means someplace that won't be missed until later in the century when settlement was slowing. Which in turn means a large area of land no white person would take as their first choice.

There are a number of candidates, but for ones east of Oklahoma it largely comes down to the Ozarks, or maybe northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula. Southern Florida is remotely possible, but the Indians there had much too long a history of adopting runaway slaves. It's difficult to compromise between that and the surrounding slave economy. I'd suggest a mostly-rectangular area cut a little more from OTL Missouri than OTL Arkansas. Both states can have panhandles to make sure the region isn't on the Mississippi - the latter being necessary if we want their ownership of the place to be anything like permanent.
personally, i just really like the idea of Indian Territory being in the rough area of Arkansas, though your mention of panhandles raises an interesting possibility: what if it was still in the area of Arkansas/Sequoyah, but a panhandle extends down the western edge of the river to cut Indian Territory off from it? (im actually kinda partial to the idea of a "Missouri wank" :D)
 
personally, i just really like the idea of Indian Territory being in the rough area of Arkansas, though your mention of panhandles raises an interesting possibility: what if it was still in the area of Arkansas/Sequoyah, but a panhandle extends down the western edge of the river to cut Indian Territory off from it? (im actually kinda partial to the idea of a "Missouri wank" :D)
I think it would be more reasonable to give the eastern edge of Arkansas to Mississippi. Maybe something like this?

arkpart.jpg
 
I think it would be more reasonable to give the eastern edge of Arkansas to Mississippi. Maybe something like this?
that had occurred to me as well, as an alternative. though i imagine later on, when Indian Territory becomes a state, it would/could be given the "Mississippi Strip"
 
personally, i just really like the idea of Indian Territory being in the rough area of Arkansas, though your mention of panhandles raises an interesting possibility: what if it was still in the area of Arkansas/Sequoyah, but a panhandle extends down the western edge of the river to cut Indian Territory off from it? (im actually kinda partial to the idea of a "Missouri wank" :D)

Two issues. That's getting extremely far from the norms of state formation in the US. Find me a state that looks even remotely like what you're describing and I guarantee it's either Alaska or on the East Coast. Even then, your Missouri+ would easily beat those out for the most awkwardly shaped state.

Second, the lower Arkansas River is prime real estate. White people will move in and set up shop, law and native peoples regardless. That's just how it worked. Eventually the US government will be in the position of choosing between eviction of ten thousand or so Indians or a much larger, growing, and voting group of the European-descended. It's not going to be a difficult choice.
 
I think it would be more reasonable to give the eastern edge of Arkansas to Mississippi. Maybe something like this?

Better, but the southeastern part of that Indian territory, and a bit of it's Arkansas River border, would be a bit contentious. I'm not sure why they'd give desireable land with the beginnings of white settlement to the Indians and then not give them a lot of that land they handed to Missouri on the map, which would be much less trouble.

That and it breaks up the patter of apportioning the West into roughly-equally-sized chunks. The Alabama and Iowa in particular would cry bloody murder. Though I suppose one could just move their borders too, by way of compensation.
 
Better, but the southeastern part of that Indian territory, and a bit of it's Arkansas River border, would be a bit contentious. I'm not sure why they'd give desireable land with the beginnings of white settlement to the Indians and then not give them a lot of that land they handed to Missouri on the map, which would be much less trouble.

That and it breaks up the patter of apportioning the West into roughly-equally-sized chunks. The Alabama and Iowa in particular would cry bloody murder. Though I suppose one could just move their borders too, by way of compensation.
Looks like the Ozarks solution would work better then. Did people care about that last map's Missouri-IT border zone on the Arkansas at the relevant time?
 
My understanding was that Arkansas was the Indian Territory, it was later extended to include Oklahoma, and when white settlers came in, as usual, the Indians got pushed westward once more and the Arkansas territory was formed.
 
Top