Indigenous States in the USA

With a post-1776 POD what is the best way for the United States to have at least one genuinely indigenous American state, ruled by the tribes of that region following some kind of democratic republican model, and the territory of this state is respected by the federal government and local state governments?

Bonus points if you can swing more than one.
 
I'd say your best bet is to have John Quincy Adams somehow beat Andrew Jackson for his second term. Since Adams was more sympathetic to the Native Americans than Jackson (to be fair, a boot is more sympathetic than Jackson), you could hopefully see the court decision about Cherokee sovereignty upheld and the Indian Removal Act never enacted. With some fandangling ITTL, you could see Cherokee, Seminole, Muscogee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw states maybe... maybe
 
Sequoya was the only concrete proposal in 1905 but was quashed by Congress not wanting more Western states. Some ATL ideas I've seen are reducing the number of Western states (unified Dakota, split up Idaho between its neighbours) to make it less of a big deal.

Perhaps early on the Civilised Tribes are given greater autonomy and other Native American tribes are forced to resettle there while white settlers are barred. Eventually the anomaly of the not-quite-independent country and the population wanting full rights as a US state leads to it being annexed. You'd see an influx of White Americans but a solid Indian population and a state constitution protecting Native American institutions means it keeps its character, like a beefed up proto-Hawaii.
 
Sequoya was the only concrete proposal in 1905 but was quashed by Congress not wanting more Western states. Some ATL ideas I've seen are reducing the number of Western states (unified Dakota, split up Idaho between its neighbours) to make it less of a big deal.

Perhaps early on the Civilised Tribes are given greater autonomy and other Native American tribes are forced to resettle there while white settlers are barred. Eventually the anomaly of the not-quite-independent country and the population wanting full rights as a US state leads to it being annexed. You'd see an influx of White Americans but a solid Indian population and a state constitution protecting Native American institutions means it keeps its character, like a beefed up proto-Hawaii.

That. But even with Sequoyah, white americans moved in as tribal members and citizens through marriage and many of the Five Civilized tribes had many members that were the offspring of such marriages. In addition, all of the Five Civilized Tribes kept black slaves, most of whom continued to live in Indian Territory after emancipation ("Freedmen"). Some tribes extended tribal citizenship to the Freedmen while other still haven't.

Bottom line, even if Sequoyah achieved statehood, it would not be an Indian majority state. It would have protected the individual integrity of the tribes' political structures, but I suspect any attempt by the tribes to limit immigration of non-Indians or restrict political power only to Indian Tribal citizens would run afoul of the Constitution. Sequoyah would have to be just like any other US state in that regard. Which means that within only a few years, it would be pretty much indistinguishable from Arkansas except for a large and politically influential Native American minority. The model of Hawaii might not be that far off.
 
I would propose no Jackson, no trail of tears, boom Cherokee state, but the problem with that is that the Cherokee lived in two other states primarily, Tennessee and Georgia, at the time of Jackson and them starting to adopt western traditions. The same problem lies with many other tribes around them.

Maybe have the written language and all that jazz come around before the formation of Tennessee and maybe before Georgia claimed that land (I can't remember when), and have a Cherokee state in eastern Tennessee and Northern Georgia. Idk how plausible that is though.
 
The problem with saying, "No Andrew Jackson", is that, if the Jackson administration doesn't remove the Civilized Tribes, the State of Georgia will.
 
I suggest that anyone interested in this topic read Annie H. Able, "Proposals for an Indian State, 1778-1878" (American Historical Association Report 1907), http://books.google.com/books?id=rcY8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA87 or https://archive.org/details/proposalsforindi00abel_0 She begins by noting that "The recent admission to statehood of Oklahoma, with its mixture of red, black, and white inhabitants, marks the definite abandonment of an idea that had previously been advocated at intervals for more than a hundred years. This idea was the erection of a State, exclusively Indian, that should be a bona fide member of the American Union."

Oklahoma is always talked about where an Indian state is concerned but I would like to suggest Kansas as an alternative, or at least a state embracing much of Kansas as well. The key is to commit the US Government to the idea *before* the Mexican War (which both revived the explosive issue of slavery in the territories and made building a transcontinental railroad running through Indian land a major issue). Isaac McCoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_McCoy tirelessly agitated for an Indian state which would include at least part of what is today Kansas. Able writes:


"Action outside of Congress was almost as persistent as within, and
slightly more successful. McCoy, who surveyed much of the Indian
land, cooperated with the commissioners of 1832, and for years and
years argued and pleaded for an Indian State. He it was who submitted
the congressional measures to the tribes, and, in a majority of
cases, secured their concurrence. So interested was he, forsooth, that
he worked in advance of actual instructions and so far anticipated
matters as to lay off a federal district, beyond the State line of
Missouri, which was to be the seat of the future Indian government. He
claimed to have done this under the known sanction of Secretary Eaton. [a]
It would seem that this approached the confederacy idea rather than the
territorial, but the two ideas were always associated together in the
debates of the time, and in practice could be only gradually
disassociated. Both McCoy and Eaton must have realized this, for both had
a practical knowledge of the Indians and knew perfectly well how
impossible it would be to consolidate widely differing tribes without
going through preliminary stages."

"[a] 'In 1832, when Secretary Eaton retired from office, he was about to
instruct the Superintendent of Surveys, then in his employ, to set apart a
portion of the unapproprlated lands, In a central part of the contemplated
Territory, for the Seat of Government of the Territory, should it become
organized. It was thought advisable that a few miles square shouid be
reserved from cession to any tribe, in which reservation all the
tribes shouid have a common interest, on which shouid be erected all
public buiidings, and shouid be settled all persons whose offices made it
necessary for them to reside at or near them. * * * Nothing further was
done in relation to this matter, until 1837, when orders were issued from
the Department of Indlan Affairs to the Superintendent of Surveys, to
select and report a place suitable for the above objects. The selection
was accordingly made of a valuable tract, of about seven miles square on
the Osage River. It is neariy equi-distant from the Northern and Southern
extremities of the Territory, and a little over sixteen miles West of the
State of Missouri.' (McCoy's Annual Register of Indlan Affairs, 1838, p.
18.)"

***

Earlier Able had noted that

"During Monroe's second term Indian affairs in Georgia reached a climax, whereupon the administration, as the best way out of a most serious difficulty, revived the old plans of removal and colonization and later improved upon them to this extent, that it advised the introduction of a governmental system. Taking various documents together, departmental reports and presidential messages, we gather that this was its general scheme, the formation of tribal districts with a civil administration in each and the union of the whole in prospect. Eventual statehood was not specifically mentioned, but, by Calhoun at least, was broadly hinted at, and would have been the natural outcome. Who originated the idea it is impossible to determine. The chances are the Rev. Jedidiah Morse deserves some credit, for his observations in the Northwest and his investigations into Indian conditions generally had led him three years before to say most positively: 'Let this territory be reserved exclusively for Indians, in which to make the proposed experiment of gathering into one body as many of the scattered and other Indians as choose to settle here, to be educated, become citizens, and in due time to be admitted to all the privileges common to other territories and States in the Union * * *'

"Congressional action along this same line is rather interesting as showing how clearly defined was the idea that the Indian country to the westward should constitute a regular Territory, and that for the red men only. On the former point the House resolution of December 27, 1825,6 was especially explicit, and on the latter, an earlier one of December 17, 1824. There was no mistaking the character of the Territory. It was to be 'of the same kind and regulated by the same rules ' as other 'Territories of the U. S.' Inferentially, then, it was to be a State in embryo, which Smyth, of Virginia, seems to have deemed constitutionally impossible. Benton, of Missouri, was evidently of a different opinion, and in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs applied to Calhoun to draft a bill that should accord with the recommendations of the President. Calhoun did so, and the bill passed the Senate on the 23d of February, but it failed to meet with the concurrence of the House of Representatives..."
 
President Davy Crockett? Van Buren loses or isn't nominated, Crockett doesn't go to Texas, climbs the ranks as a Tennessee Whig, fights for Natives, gets them a state somehow/where as a Congressmen?
 
Wouldn't any native state within the U.S eventually be overrun by settlers. Not in the sense where the natives are displaced from their land but in the sense that new white settlers and immigrants form the majority or plurality of the population?
 
Wouldn't any native state within the U.S eventually be overrun by settlers. Not in the sense where the natives are displaced from their land but in the sense that new white settlers and immigrants form the majority or plurality of the population?

How about the state of Navajo?

Let's say that Apache County (mostly Navajo despite its name) Arizona and adjacent McKinley County, New Mexico were made a state. Such a state would be 74% Native American. Granted, it would have fewer than 150,000 people. Let's say we add Navajo County, AZ. which is 43.4 percent native American. We would have a state of over 250,000 people (remember that's more than Nevada had before 1960...) and a substantial Native American majority. (And if it were a state, the majority would probably be greater than in OTL because whites there could not count on the protection of, for example, a white-dominated Arizona government...) And, oh, yes, we can also add nearby San Juan County, Utah...
 
Ever since first seeing this thread I've been mulling the possibility of John Adams winning another term and refusing to extend slavery to the Louisiana Purchase. However, the economic potential of slavery in Louisiana is too big to resist, so Indians (who are allowed to own slaves in the state due to tribal sovereignty) end up becoming the slavery elite of Louisiana. I expect a lot of whites will be entering into Indian tribes (which was done IOTL as well, but ITTL it would be on a much larger scale), which would be extremely interesting. Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma might end up majority Indian in the present-day, and a lot of those Indians would also be whites.
 
Wouldn't any native state within the U.S eventually be overrun by settlers. Not in the sense where the natives are displaced from their land but in the sense that new white settlers and immigrants form the majority or plurality of the population?

Exactly. If it is a state, they cant prevent other Americans from moving in. So, no you almost certainly cant have, or at least keep, such a state.
 
How about the state of Navajo?

Let's say that Apache County (mostly Navajo despite its name) Arizona and adjacent McKinley County, New Mexico were made a state. Such a state would be 74% Native American. Granted, it would have fewer than 150,000 people. Let's say we add Navajo County, AZ. which is 43.4 percent native American. We would have a state of over 250,000 people (remember that's more than Nevada had before 1960...) and a substantial Native American majority. (And if it were a state, the majority would probably be greater than in OTL because whites there could not count on the protection of, for example, a white-dominated Arizona government...) And, oh, yes, we can also add nearby San Juan County, Utah...

that was my thought as well, it would work better out in the worst desert regions of the west instead of anyplace back east. Maybe a big chunk of Utah if the Mormons hadn't gone there?
 
Maybe a differently prosecuted Albany Conference that makes the Iroquois Confederacy a state that ends up opposed to the British in the Revolution. Might lead to a more divided USA that owns some of Canada.
 
Top