Massive Indian territory challenge and query

Challenge a treaty is made and survives past 1920 in which Both Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma become accepted as Native territory with agreed US Federal rights over railroads and small defined enclaves?

Could the US still be a powerful nation if this had been agreed and stuck to?

Would some of the tribes want to seek to become states? If so would that be allowed?
 
The territory that was part of the Mexican Cession already had a legal status and was already settled by Hispanics. Why would the US ignore this?

Further, why just one treaty? There are multiple native american tribes, and no pan-tribal entity with which to treat.

Not really poossibly, IMHO. The Anglo attitudes are against it, and so are the dynamics of a weak federal government. OTL, the federal government didn't usually intend to break the treaties, but it had weak control over the frontier and white settlers would push into native american land or otherwise provoke conflicts, the government would be dragged in on the side of the settlers, a new treaty would be drafted, wash, rinse, repeat.
 
Good point about "a treaty". The US preferred to deal with individual tribes as nations. You'd have to go way back (possibly prior to European contract) to imagine a situation in which there was one pan-Indian nation or coalition of tribes that could sign a single treaty covering all those states. If this situation existed and this unity survived the population impacts causde by desease, etc., there's a decent chance there might not even be a United States of America.
 
Top