native american nations become US States*

How about if a muscular Anglican/Episcopalian sect with friends at court (in Britain) and among some of the revolutionary leaders managed to convert some entire nations relatively rapidly and lobbied strongly for Indian rights as free Christians both under the Empire and within any nascent independent US?
 
Because the 13 colonies were originally British, they carry with them the innate position on Native Americans as Savages. As long as the 13 colonies were once British, this cannot happen.

The British in Britian wanted to keep the colonists in at the Appalachians, the British in North America did not.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The British in Britian wanted to keep the colonists in at the Appalachians, the British in North America did not.

The British in Britain then proceeded to give all of what would become Canada to the British in North America anyway, clearly they cared about the natives. Also the proclamation line's effects were only significant in a few colonies.

As for the french, IIRC, public opinion in Lower Canada around the time of the red river rebellion did a complete 180 when they realized the Metis were basically french and mixed allied natives. That doesn't mean much, however, if France gains a dominant position, and it could very well end up like the other latin colonies.
 
Okay, so I've been reading a book for one of my history classes about a plantation in present day Georgia that was part of the Cherokee Nation, and the focus is between 1800-1820.

In the process of reading this, I can't help but wonder....would there have been anyway that at least some of the more "organized" native american tribes could have become some sort of special US State(s), independent from the jurisdiction of the other US States, possibly with citizenship restrictions to prevent a flood of whites (at least in the early years), and possibly with representation in Congress and the ability to vote for President?

What is the title? I would be interested in reading it.

As for your ideas. I would suggest checking out my TL for an idea. Sorry of the plug. As to how it could happen in the 1820s, I would say that is too late. I think you would want Washington to take an early and strong stand on Indian Affairs something he did not do. War Secretary Henry Knox had an idea of ringing most of the Cherokee towns with a series of forts to protect the Cherokee from Settlers. It was scrapped for being to expensive. Somehow make that plan more feasible and alleviate some of the land pressures that exist in the South and you may have something. For instance, no Cotton Gin makes the expansion of Cotton production less likely and combined with a more stable European situation (I.E. Napoleon is defeated early, Louis XVI launches a successful counter coup, etc, something to elimate the near 20 years of European war) and you ease the pressure on the land issue. Maybe enough to give the idea of a "Cherokee/other one of the 5 tribes State" some room to grow in policy makers' minds.

As to racism, there were just as many out and out racists as their where people who had respect for the Native American, so I don't think that is that big of a problem, a problem yes but insurmountable? No. I base this on the comments of many of the Founders on Native Americans and their rights as well as the experiences and research into characters like Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, and many others. So to assume that every settler and colonist was an out and out bigot, is wrong but to assume them totally innocent is also wrong. I think the racist feelings of the settlers was one of those things that is butterfly-able as much as anything. Take the Delaware Treaty of 1779, if White Eyes isn't killed by Frontiersmen and Congress takes Indian demands seriously then I think it is possible.

I think once you hit about 1820 the chances of anything much different from OTL are much too slim. At that point American Govt. policy towards Indians was basically in written stone and unlikely to change. While Jackson does receive a lot of the blame for Removal and rightly so. To say that without him it wouldn't happen is ridiculous. The pressure on the frontier was already building and all of the other candidates in 1824 and 1828 had endorsed Indian removal or in Adams' case, who came up with his own plan (in 1828). I think you need to attack Indian Policy early and stick with it. That is the only chance to create what Eckener is looking for.
 
That would be sweet. A Cherokee state in the South. Georgians, Tennesseans and Alabamians might not like it, but if it were allowed, the government would end up carving parts of those states to form the Cherokee state
 
That would be sweet. A Cherokee state in the South. Georgians, Tennesseans and Alabamians might not like it, but if it were allowed, the government would end up carving parts of those states to form the Cherokee state

I think that would be unconstitutional. Too bad; it'd make a good precedent for later dealings with natives further west.
 
What is the title? I would be interested in reading it.

As for your ideas. I would suggest checking out my TL for an idea. Sorry of the plug. As to how it could happen in the 1820s, I would say that is too late. I think you would want Washington to take an early and strong stand on Indian Affairs something he did not do. War Secretary Henry Knox had an idea of ringing most of the Cherokee towns with a series of forts to protect the Cherokee from Settlers. It was scrapped for being to expensive. Somehow make that plan more feasible and alleviate some of the land pressures that exist in the South and you may have something. For instance, no Cotton Gin makes the expansion of Cotton production less likely and combined with a more stable European situation (I.E. Napoleon is defeated early, Louis XVI launches a successful counter coup, etc, something to elimate the near 20 years of European war) and you ease the pressure on the land issue. Maybe enough to give the idea of a "Cherokee/other one of the 5 tribes State" some room to grow in policy makers' minds.

As to racism, there were just as many out and out racists as their where people who had respect for the Native American, so I don't think that is that big of a problem, a problem yes but insurmountable? No. I base this on the comments of many of the Founders on Native Americans and their rights as well as the experiences and research into characters like Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, and many others. So to assume that every settler and colonist was an out and out bigot, is wrong but to assume them totally innocent is also wrong. I think the racist feelings of the settlers was one of those things that is butterfly-able as much as anything. Take the Delaware Treaty of 1779, if White Eyes isn't killed by Frontiersmen and Congress takes Indian demands seriously then I think it is possible.

I think once you hit about 1820 the chances of anything much different from OTL are much too slim. At that point American Govt. policy towards Indians was basically in written stone and unlikely to change. While Jackson does receive a lot of the blame for Removal and rightly so. To say that without him it wouldn't happen is ridiculous. The pressure on the frontier was already building and all of the other candidates in 1824 and 1828 had endorsed Indian removal or in Adams' case, who came up with his own plan (in 1828). I think you need to attack Indian Policy early and stick with it. That is the only chance to create what Eckener is looking for.

The book is called "THe House on Diamond Hill: A Cherokee Plantation Story," by Tiya Miles.

That would be sweet. A Cherokee state in the South. Georgians, Tennesseans and Alabamians might not like it, but if it were allowed, the government would end up carving parts of those states to form the Cherokee state
Yeah, that would be really cool. Like if the Cherokee perhaps organize earlier, and ask to be declared a territory.....

I think that would be unconstitutional. Too bad; it'd make a good precedent for later dealings with natives further west.
I don't think it's unconstitutional, just unprecedented. And if the precedence were established..... the map of the United States would turn out quite differently. Love the idea of the State of Cherokee :D
 
That would be sweet. A Cherokee state in the South. Georgians, Tennesseans and Alabamians might not like it, but if it were allowed, the government would end up carving parts of those states to form the Cherokee state

I don't think it's unconstitutional, just unprecedented. And if the precedence were established..... the map of the United States would turn out quite differently. Love the idea of the State of Cherokee

In order for it to happen Constitutionally, the formation of said "Cherokee state" would need the consent of the Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama legislatures plus the U.S. Congress first.
 

Philip

Donor
In order for it to happen Constitutionally, the formation of said "Cherokee state" would need the consent of the Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama legislatures plus the U.S. Congress first.

It would be easiest to carve out a chunk of the Mississippi Territory prior to 1817. No Constitutional issues there.
 
It would be easiest to carve out a chunk of the Mississippi Territory prior to 1817. No Constitutional issues there.

There's still a Constitutional issue here. Establishment of the "cherokee state" still would need the consent of Congress. But yes, so long as land belonging to Tennessee, North Carolina or Georgia is not involved, this would, constitutionally speaking, be easier.
 

Philip

Donor
There's still a Constitutional issue here. Establishment of the "cherokee state" still would need the consent of Congress.
Yes, Congress would be doing the carving I suggested earlier. Perhaps instead of splitting the Alabama Territory from the Mississippi Territory, Congress passes a Cherokee Organic Act. Statehood could follow later.
 
The constitutional problem I see is that by the relationships between states clause ofr Article Four, the Cherokee state would not be able to make distinctions between Cherokees and whites. The clause has uniformly been interpreted to include a right of free movement between states, so whites could easily move into the state and swamp the Cherokee by weight of numbers.


Anyway, a Native American state would require an ASB change in the attitudes of many thousands of Americans who saw no problem in pushing the Native Americans aside when they wanted their land. Those who favored Indian Removal were not choosing between removal and leaving them alone, but between removal and extermination.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
I think the Navajo have semi recently tried this, they are indeed large enough to become a state of their own. Getting the four states where their reservation sits though to give up land...that'd be an act of congress...literally.
 
George Washington in particular, and Thomas Jefferson for at least a while, (and likely many other founding fathers) did not support Western expansion and preferred to see some institutionalization of the Indian nations within the US, mostly as a way to protect them from expansionism.

The most likely immediate candidate are the Cherokee, as they occupied land not part of any state and in significant numbers. Assuming they can pull of statehood, with a few butterflies, you could see northern Florida becoming a Seminole state and someplace, probably Northern Alabama, becoming a Muskogee/Choctaw/Chickasaw state.
 
I am going to have to side with the folks talking about darn near impossible.

but lets have some fun.. Ok so lets just say for giggles sake that taht an area is carved out for them.. Now said place is given statehood. great its just another member of the united states.. its not above any other state or below.. whats the point.. Not like Michigan could wake up tomorrow and stop trading with the rest of the nation, or close its borders to Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. Its just another member of the union.

I would think the other states would be a tad aggravated if said state would have autonomy to make its own internal policies with out interference from the federal level.

on the other side though.. settlement would have to be different from the onset.. the Native American tribes would need to be on some kinda of somewhat equal footing or else you get what happened IOTL.

hey bob.. look we found gold! or we found this or that! or hey just give us this land now.. and we took it.. treaty or no treaty it didn't matter.. just rewrite the treaty cause the natives can do nothing about it and if they put up a fuss.. well march them to Arizona or Oklahoma or New Mexico, or put them in shanty town reservations.

So to sum it up.. first and for most.. The native groups need to be able to make themselves heard by force of arms or equal bargaining status the settlers will simply have their way with them.
 
So to sum it up.. first and for most.. The native groups need to be able to make themselves heard by force of arms or equal bargaining status the settlers will simply have their way with them.

Yeah. This does seem like a good path. Some form of annexation could be a win win situation if neither side is looking for a war. The US promises developmental assistance if the tribe joins the country. That country now gets ensured that they won't be booted from their land. It starts off as some sort of colony type relationship (I guess similar to Puerto Rico today) that later develops into statehood.

The big change this would require is the US seeing Native Americans as people that have full capability to develop, rather than as a bunch of savage Indians. I think a generally stronger Native population would help out a lot with that.
 
The big change this would require is the US seeing Native Americans as people that have full capability to develop, rather than as a bunch of savage Indians. I think a generally stronger Native population would help out a lot with that.
Perhaps greater contact between the settled Eastern populations and Indians might help? Like, if Indian delegations regularly made appearances in Philadelphia or Boston or Charleston to negotiate with colonial authorities over something-or-another, people in those cities (and thus the pamphleteers and newspapermen and so on) would become more familiar with them? Increasing exposure to reduce hostility, basically.
 
Only problem with that was that most didnt care what the native populations wanted as long as they stayed out of the way. thats the main problem we have here. None of the Europeans cared about what treaties they made cause they had the position of strength and could take what they wanted when they wanted. Native tribes were not held in any kind of regard because they were disunited and did not represent a united front.

even at that.. those that did were basically puppets of the interests of the Europeans and they still saw deal after deal after deal broken. those that tried to remain free .. well.. they were hunted down.

Your fighting human nature here, Its a sad fact, looking at human history that those with the strength and the power to enforce and take usually do, they are called governments and the military..
 
Only problem with that was that most didnt care what the native populations wanted as long as they stayed out of the way. thats the main problem we have here. None of the Europeans cared about what treaties they made cause they had the position of strength and could take what they wanted when they wanted. Native tribes were not held in any kind of regard because they were disunited and did not represent a united front.

Yeah. A bit more than regular contact is going to be needed here. In the 18th-19th century, white Americans are still going to see Amerindians as savages, even if there's close contact. A lot of their culture really was barbaric when compared to modern or even contemporary standards. A lot of their culture wasn't, of course, but then a good part of that is still against the contemporary ethical mindset (for example, they weren't Christians). You're going to need to either see tribes able to defend themselves (so it doesn't matter what they think) or Europeanize (so that Americans will be more approving). I'd think in the latter case it'd be difficult to call one of their states a "Native American state" since you're getting rid of any trace of native culture.
 
Top