WI: Arkansas keeps Oklahoma

As the tin says, what if Arkansas had kept the territory that in OTL would become the state of Oklahoma (minus the panhandle which I don't believe was part of the Arkansas territory)?

Arkansasterritory.PNG
 
Oklahoma was separated in order to "protect" the Native Americans from white people going who were going into Arkansas. I guess if the Trail of Tears didn't occur there wouldn't be a need for the Indian Territory. But the result of a bigger Arkansas is- less Native Americans. Either the Trail of Tears is even longer to get to some other place, or they are left "alone" in the East to be slowly assimilated or wiped out, and the Natives in OTL Oklahoma are like wise wiped out earlier with less reservations than we have today. Given the attempts by Congress to always have somewhat unform size of states when they could, Oklahoma will be separated at state hood for Arkansas anyways, so 1836 instead of 1824.
 
Could Kansas have become the Indian Territory instead of Oklahoma? Might have postponed some problems in the 1850s.
 
Could Kansas have become the Indian Territory instead of Oklahoma? Might have postponed some problems in the 1850s.
Kansas could have in the 1820s... longer Trail of Tears though. But once Americans start the Oregon, California, Mormon, and Santa Fe trails and using them to go west this will cause Americans to push for Kansas to be opened up and pacified so settlers are free to cross. Hard to have a migration trail through an Indian reservation.
 
So you don't think it's possible at all for the territory to stay united?
It is possible but causes butterflies to every state after Arkansas, probably a longer Kansas to be begin with, probably 1 or 2 degrees west, which means a "taller" Colorado. Nebraska and both Dakotas are longer or one not as long Dakota with a more easterly Montana that doesn't get a portion of Idaho, so a wider northern Idaho.
 
It is possible but causes butterflies to every state after Arkansas, probably a longer Kansas to be begin with, probably 1 or 2 degrees west, which means a "taller" Colorado. Nebraska and both Dakotas are longer or one not as long Dakota with a more easterly Montana that doesn't get a portion of Idaho, so a wider northern Idaho.

So maybe Texas gets the Oklahoma panhandle assuming it still proceeds on its path.... and then the Texas NM border continues northward as a Colorado Kansas border and Colorado has its northern border running along the CA NV northern border line? Guess that would make for a uniform Utah box too.
 
So maybe Texas gets the Oklahoma panhandle assuming it still proceeds on its path.... and then the Texas NM border continues northward as a Colorado Kansas border and Colorado has its northern border running along the CA NV northern border line? Guess that would make for a uniform Utah box too.
Missouri Compromise excludes Texas from having the Oklahoma panhandle, that's why it was separated from Texas in the first place. Which now that I think of it means in 1836 Arkansas as a state that includes Oklahoma will have to give up a similar strip north of Missouri's southern border. This means Kansas will end up with that strip. The Oklahoma strip will go on being the Cimarron Strip until the Missouri Compromise is over turned by the Kansas Nebraska Act, most likely Texas gets it at that point, maybe Colorado and Kansas depending on where Kansas' western border had been placed.
 
Top