Native American Nations as US States?

What would the United States be like today if the US Constitution was written with provisions to admit Native American nations as official states, instead of the nebulous semi-legal status they were given in our timeline? Obviously, there'd have to be certain criteria (population, willingness to inhabit a defined area within the new state's borders, etc.).
This might be a more complicated issue with the migratory tribes of the Great Plains, but there were many "civilized" (in multiple senses: agriculture-based permanent settlements, strong internal political organization, and also the un-PC sense of westernizing) tribes, such as the Cherokee and the Iroquois, that would be ideal candidates for an indigenous US State.

I'd imagine that it would result in United States that would have more quickly embraced cultural/racial/religious pluralism. Although ironically, it might have prolonged slavery in the US, as a Cherokee State (and perhaps other tribes) would add to the pro-Slave votes in Congress.

Thoughts?
 
I think an important question is where the borders are drawn on the states. I think the bordering was a bit sketchy at best. Also, I'm not sure that the fine people of Georgia (and others) would be willing to listen to any plan that involves them losing seats in the House to reapportionment.
 
Yeah, that's the problem....
The five civilised tribes will have a lot of problems due to being in already established states...
The Iroquois might be able to muddle along if the US gains a certain amount of Canadian territory and New York doesn't lose any.

After that there's Oklahoma, which may just be a NATIVE state, not tribal based whatsoever.
Further west, I don't think there's the population, unless the Sioux manage something in say the Badlands.

You also have to get past America's racist streak, or manage to dumb it down. If my tiredness isn't fogging up my memory, the Native Americans were among the last of all the minorities to get voting rights.

A state dominated by people who can't vote won't be dominated by those people for long.

Excuse any mistakes please, my mind's a but groggy, and I managed this all on my phone.
 

katchen

Banned
The problem was that first Native American Nations such as Keetoowah (Cherokee), Muskogee (Creek) or Nundowagah (Iroquois 5 Nations) had to get themselves invited to the Constitutional Convention. And before that, the Continental Congresses. And they weren't about to do that because frankly, the British had sold them a bill of goods about protecting their lands if they would support the British Crown. From the time of the Proclamation of 1763 until the Treaty of Ghent that ended the War of 1812, the British had banned White settlement in the American interior, fearing that the Crown could not control settlers who were too far from the coast. And they attempted to use Native Americans to deter white settlers, going so far as to arm them against American settlers from 1784 until 1811--and it was this arming of Native Americans that was the real cause of the War of 1812. Until that point, as James Loewens points out in "Lies My Teacher Told Me", there were communities of mixed and intermarried whites and Native Americans living in a relaxed fashion all through the frontier in places like Ohio. Eric Flint gives us the flavor of Cherokee-white relations at that time in his AH novel, 1812: The Rivers of War, which is very well written. It was the time of 1812 that American attitudes toward Native Americans really got cemented in the racist form they would take until quite recently.
For Native Americans to negotiate with and become part of the American Union AS STATES, which was the only way they would be taken seriously, they would have had to have had formal links with the Patriots and to be negotiating with them and more importantly, to be realistic enough to realize that while with the Patriots they would not be able to keep ALL of their lands and would have to grant transportation corridors to the lands of nations like the Hurons and the Illini and the Choctaw who they were not friendly with and would not be at the Continental Congress, the Patriots were going to win and this way they would get something wheras the British were making promises they either could not or would not keep. It was hard to see at the time, especially since it didn't particularly look to an outside observer like the Patriots would actually win until Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, but I suppose it could have happened.
 
I asked one of my history professors, who's very knowledgeable about Native Americans this question about Native American tribes as states. The problem with them being states is that if they wanted to, whites could move in and change the population.

So if the Sioux nations were given their own state in western South Dakota for example, they couldn't prevent people from moving in so eventually whites might move in and take the land, or buy it from them. Thats what i've heard.
 
Wasn't there a scheme to turn the Navajo Nation into a US state, in the '70s? I don't believe the idea got much traction, but it's certainly been considered. The main problem with a modern scheme like this is that most reservations' populations are far to small to be a state - well, that and racism and existing states not wanting to give up territory.
 
Also, I'm not sure that the fine people of Georgia (and others) would be willing to listen to any plan that involves them losing seats in the House to reapportionment.

Reapportionment did'nt exist before 1920, prior to that at every Census the House was expanded, so if a state did'nt see enough growth to warrant an additional seat it simply kept the number it had while a state that did see alot of growth was given an additional seat, expanding the overall House of Representatives size.

It was'nt until the 1910 Census lead to the Congress (a majority of which were from non-urban/rural districts) realizing that the Urban population was already close to being the majority, but that it would continue to grow, which lead them to institute a cap of 435 (the results from the 1910 Census proportionment) to slow down the influence of Urban areas and ensure that the non-Urban areas would always have more influence than they should via reapportionment.
 
Last edited:
Reapportionment did'nt exist before 1920, prior to that at every Census the House was expanded, so if a state did'nt see enough growth to warrant an additional seat it simply kept the number it had while a state that did see alot of growth was given an additional seat, expanding the overall House of Representatives Size.

It was'nt until the 1910 Census lead to the Congress (a majority of which were from non-urban/rural districts) realizing that the Urban population was already close to being the majority, but that it would continue to grow, which lead them to institute a cap of 435 (the results from the 1910 Census proportionment) to slow down the influence of Urban areas and ensure that the non-Urban areas would always have more influence than they should via reapportionment.

My mistake. But I stand by the sentiment that states wouldn't take too kindly to losing ground to the new Indian states.
 

katchen

Banned
Today a state like Arizona that is Republican but on the cusp of turning Democrat might well like the idea of giving up a couple hundred thousand Democratic voters to keep Republicans in power. Of course Republicans in Congress would not be too happy about any more "safe" Democratic Senate or House seats. And then what about the Hopi that are only a few thousand in number but whose lands are totally surrounded by the Di'nes'tah?
The Democrats would literally have to control both Houses of Congress, have a Majority Leader willing to abolish the filibuster and then have states with majorities willing to part with Native American lands and see hem become separate states. Most Republicans in state legislatures would not be willing to contribute to a Democratic majority in Congress.
The Canadians, though, have actually managed to give the Innuit their own Territory with representation in Canada's Parliament. The Territory is called Nunuvut.
 

Flubber

Banned
The problem with them being states is that if they wanted to, whites could move in and change the population.


THIS.

This topic is brought up fairly often, in fact it's been discussed here within the last fortnight or so, and the quote above is what too many people too easily forget far too often.

A state is a state is a state and citizens are citizens are citizens. A state which is majority Native American at it's creation is not going to be able to erect internal migration barriers against other people from other states. Given historical birth and immigration rates, any previously majority Native American region is going to be swamped by in-comers unless A) the region is a shithole which won't attract internal migrants or B) the region is protected from migration in some manner; i.e. a reservation, and both those cases would mean that the region in question is and never would be a state.

Very early on - very,very early on - it was decided that all new states were the equal of the 13 original ones. While the Constitution was still being ratified assurances were being to people in places like Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee that their prospective states would be fully equal to the existing ones. The idea of having "special" states within the Union for "special" people who needed "special" laws, protections, and/or privileges would have been an anathema to the political thinking of the period and the concept of "all men equal under the law". (A concept which was often only paid lip service honestly.)
 
A state is a state is a state and citizens are citizens are citizens. A state which is majority Native American at it's creation is not going to be able to erect internal migration barriers against other people from other states. Given historical birth and immigration rates, any previously majority Native American region is going to be swamped by in-comers unless A) the region is a shithole which won't attract internal migrants or B) the region is protected from migration in some manner; i.e. a reservation, and both those cases would mean that the region in question is and never would be a state.

Since the States have the power to set-up their own reservations (as well as protected wilderness areas) they could just get around it by having the majority/good parts of the state be designated one big reserve with the subsequent immigration controls allowed them, and have the captial and the unimportant areas be outside of it.
 

Flubber

Banned
Since the States have the power to set-up their own reservations (as well as protected wilderness areas) they could just get around it by having the majority/good parts of the state be designated one big reserve with the subsequent immigration controls allowed them, and have the captial and the unimportant areas be outside of it.


States can set up their own reservations? Cite the relevant section of the Constitution.

As for creating protected wilderness areas, you're going to need a much more earlier conservation movement before you can pervert it for racial purity goals. The idea of state parks doesn't really appear until the 1890s and the number of state parks didn't substantially increase until the CCC projects of the 1930s.

Of course all you're doing with this anachronistic sleight of hand is enacting racial zoning and/or applying restrictive covenants on a grand scale. Both practices will draw federal attention rapidly no matter what era because the majority of the people effected will be the majority, i.e. "white".

As soon as it becomes apparent that one group within a state is using this for political purposes the political process will intervene. Jim Crow and sunset laws were one thing and only effected people "who didn't matter" politically or socially. Shutting out the majority of the population which does matter politically and socially is something else entirely.
 
States can set up their own reservations? Cite the relevant section of the Constitution.

The Constitution does'nt say anything about reservations at all.

Federal Reservations form one kind of reservation, that is territory within states that is legally semi-sovereign and ultimately under Federal jurisdiction while State Reservations are territory within a state that the State has providd autonomy and reservation status to.

At present Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Virginia have State Indian Reservations.

Additionally Alabama, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Caorlina and Virginia all have State Designated American Indian Statistical Areas, which are basically areas in which recognized tribes without reservations live.
 
Last edited:

Flubber

Banned
The Constitution does'nt say anything about reservations at all.


Yes it does, you're just hung up on labels too much to recognize it.

The Constitution says that only the Federal government can treat with Native Americans and, seeing as reservations are set-up through treaties, any reservation needs prior Federal approval.

Federal Reservations form one kind of reservation, that is territory within states that is legally semi-sovereign and ultimately under Federal jurisdiction while State Reservations are territory within a state that the State has providd autonomy and reservation status to.

Provided autonomy and reservation with Federal approval.

At present Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Virginia have State Indian Reservations.

Again, with Federal approval.

Additionally Alabama, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Caorlina and Virginia all have State Designated American Indian Statistical Areas, which are basically areas in which recognized tribes without reservations live.

Created primarily to pander for the votes of opportunistic assclowns who, when "discovering" they're 1/64th "Fugawee", think they'll be able to get some casino money.

Again, all the racial-based political shenanigans you're proposing require the white guilt political climate of the late 20th Century. Suggesting that the Federal government of the 19th and most of the 20th Centuries would allow Native Americans to twist reservation status and parks legislation to shut US citizens out of the majority of the land in a US state is altogether risible.

The nearest OTL example to the silliness you've suggested in the 1971 ANCS act which permanently settled native claims in Alaska. Natives received title to little over a tenth of Alaskan lands and shit ton of cash, but the native population was nowhere near the level necessary for statehood, the lands in questions were not contiguous, and no one in the right mind ever suggested carving a "native only" state out of Alaska.
 
What's the earliest time when we can have State Reservations created? (assuming the native realms become states)
 
Top