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..."