Comment synopsis: first part is about the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears, concerning indigenous values of land. Second part is about Andrew Jackson and his land grabs, concerning white American policy in the early nineteenth century.

I can think of one example where this outcome could have been a possibility, but ultimately wasn't used. The removal of the Cherokee people from Georgia in the late 1830s came as a result of white Americans wanting their land for various reasons, including agriculture and gold mining.

There had been interest voiced among the Cherokee for assimilation with the white population, for the sole purpose of maintaining residence on their ancestral lands. This is often always misunderstood by colonial governments. The colonisers come from a European background where land is an asset, and can be bought, sold, and traded. That interpretation of land doesn't gel with that of indigenous peoples from outside that capitalist background. The Maori, the Native Americans, First Nations - all of these have connections with the land that are beyond value. The land is where their people have been born, have lived, and have died.

So when the Cherokee made an effort to keep their land, they were instead given land beyond the Mississippi. Now, this could have been a larger amount of land, and it may even have had resources that were more valuable in later periods. But it wasn't their land. They had no connection to it. In fact, there was most likely another nation that did have a spiritual link to it.

In this example, the answer is no: they never had that intention. But they could have done it with the Cherokee in Georgia, except that would have obstructed access to the natural resources of the area as the Cherokee would have only had a state in that region. And if the intention had been to move the Cherokee and then create new states over the Mississippi, then the same state of affairs could have occurred with another nation, or with new resources at a later date, or it just wouldn't have worked because it wasn't Cherokee land.

EDIT: Adding in some more information about land grabs which is coming direct from a text I have here and not just memory. Yay!

The worst perpetrator of the land grabs was most likely Andrew Jackson. While quelling American Indian rebellions in the early nineteenth century Jackson promised those who assisted him rewards of land. He also promised that "...if either party, cherokees, friendly creeks, or whites, takes property of the Red Sticks, the property belongs to those who take it." The Red Sticks were a faction of the Creek Nation who opposed assimilation with white American expansion, preferring to hold onto their land and culture. So we immediately see here an opposition to (a) leaving the land, and (b) abandoning native society and its practices.

But wait, I hear you say, what about the Cherokee and the friendly Creeks who were promised land? Surely that amounts to a promise of land that could eventually become a state for those indigenous Nations members who were loyal to America! Well, yes... in a way. Except for a few factors, including slaves, Jackson, treaties, Jackson, settlers, and Jackson.

Jackson was in charge of making a treaty after the war in 1814 against the Creek Nation, which was won by friendly Cherokee who fought for him. While making the treaty, he managed to come out the other side with "half the land of the Creek nation" for America. His response to protests made by Creeks who had fought with him? "The United States would have been justified by the Great Spirit had they taken all the lands of the nation [...] the great body of the Creek chiefs and warriors did not respect the power of the United States". This was given in response to Creek warriors who had helped Jackson in return for keeping their lands. It essentially set a standard of no promises could be kept.

Slavery was also still in play at this point, and when slaves escaped, they were often offered sanctuary in native villages and settlements. This was used as an excuse by Jackson(who commanded a sizable number of men), to raid into Florida(then a Spanish possession), as the Seminole were harbouring slaves. Jackson had continued making treaties with Indians, moving south as he did, and gradually coming up against Florida. Which he then took by the same methods.

In the words of Jackson, the treaties worked thus: "...we addressed ourselves feelingly to the predominant and governing passion of all Indian tribes, i.e., their avarice or fear." Jackson and those under him encouraged settlers to move onto Indian land, and then when the Indians raised protest, they were told nothing could be done. This led to Indians signing new treaties to cede that land, and moving further away to maintain their autonomy. Then the process repeated. The result was a crawling mass of settlers that gradually inched their way through indigenous nations lands, pushing them further west.

I realise this doesn't fully answer your question about the efforts to make a state, but it does show the mindset of the early white American settlers. Indians weren't respected: they were seen as people easily tricked. They were manipulated, and coerced, into moving. The best chance for Native Americans came early on, when Jefferson was Secretary of State. He said that "where Indians lived within state boundaries they should not be interfered with, and that the government should remove white settlers who tried to encroach on them." So what happened? The number of white settlers increased to a point where this wasn't viable anymore. Land was needed, and white settlers needs came before those of the indigenous peoples.

Idk the whole detail (ie later attempts and Seven Years War are murky) but I know this much about the thinking for an Indian state during the war of 1812: In the early 19th century the leader of the Shawnee, Tecumseh, formed a large confederation of nations to protect against the westward push of the US - and sought British help from neighbouring Canada. With this assistance they attempted to form a nation state, and he actively recruited tribes before and during the War of 1812, on the side of the British, with his friend and ally Isaac Brock. Tecumseh was an great warrior, good diplomat and embodied the noble savage and two held each other in very high regard. Tecumseh was seen as the only Indian who could ever unite the tribes under one banner but one the British could work with and allow them a buffer state against the ever expanding US. The two worked well together (see capture of Fort Detroit) and hopes in Canada of an Indian nation backed by Great Britain seemed not impossible, but likely, if British reinforcements from Europe could arrive soon enough. However, upon his death, and defeat of the joint AngloIndian alliance at the Thames, the confederacy fell through, most surrendering, and the confederacy ended soon after. Following the stalemate of the war of 1812 and the ensuing Treaty of Ghent, the British made no real effort to arm the Native Americans and, as the Great Lakes now were DMZs, the British did not want to antagonise their growing, and potentially a strong ally, neighbour. The Native Americans were, in effect, left to their demise and pushed again and again west by the US, until totally subdued.

This is just a short statement for more detailed research for uni that I did: any references/citations I'll dig them out

***edit: realised I didn't really answer the question. Some attempts by other Indian tribes to join the US, (ie Harrison when he was governor of Indiana) were discouraged by Tecumseh and such plans put on hold. Give me 12 hrs and another edit will go more in depth on this. Sorry OP, it's 01:30 where I live, should be in my bed :)

I wish I could give a better overview on this subject. You could take a law approach and to get a feel for this type of question and figure out which time periods in U.S. History this idea would actually be viable.

For example take the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution as a data point. At this point in history the framers of the constitution did view the Indians as a "Nation" in they wanted to give congress sole power to regulate trade, and treaties with these "Nations". Perhaps at this time U.S. didn't feel a need to abbreviate and limit Indian ownership of land, and viewed them as equals.

Certainly by the Marshal trilogy (1832?) (Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee V. Georgia, and Worcester V. Georgia), Indian Nation status was very limited (domestic dependent nations, or a Nation within a Nation, basically very limited nation status), Indian title to land was not recognized, and they were only allowed tenancy. I believe at this point in history any serious discussion about having Indians joining the United State and having the rights of other States would be muted.

Of course this type of discussion was held over Oklahoma Territory. That is the government wanted to put all Indians into that territory, and then eventually have an Indian state, but this was definitely on the U.S. Government terms and would have been a big conglomerate of various Indian tribes.

If you want an interesting data point where the Government gave special treatment to Indian land ownership and almost viewed Indians as equals you should look up the Osage Tribe. They were one the last tribes to be allotted ( this is the biggest Indian land grab in U.S. History e.g. Dawes Act ). It appears Congress has reservations allotting this tribe because they had indeed bought their land from the U.S. Government. Don't worry the government eventually relented and alloted this tribe, but their allotment act (Osage Allotment Act in 1906) is very different from any other allotment.

I guess I have to say this as well to tie up loose ends. I believe the nail in the coffin for Indian Nation status would be the Lone Wolf V. Hitchcock case in 1903. Basically this case decided that Indians were wards of the state, and could no longer make their own decisions, that is congress knew what is best for Indians and their interests.

As for reference, you can look up these Indian cases. You can refer to the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution, and you can refer to some basic of history of the State of Oklahoma. There is really nothing special about this stuff.

Around the area that's now Tallahassee, a man named William Augustus Bowles attempted to create a nation called "The State of Muscogee" which was going to be a pan-tribal political entity. Bowles had two wives; one was Muskogee Creek, the other, Cherokee.

Unfortunately, Bowles himself was a Loyalist in the Revolutionary War - his attempts to establish the state were based on his ongoing Firefly-style war against the Spanish... and the Americans. Since he'd served in the Royal Navy (and, subsequently, as a trader/entertainer in Bahamas... and a privateer for the Crown), he tried to get recognition from Britain, and styled himself as an ambassador as well as "director general" of the new nation. He got enough support to become a real headache to the Spanish for a while.

He even, according to Robert Owens' Red Dreams, White Nightmares: Pan-Indian Alliances in the Anglo-American Mind, 1763–1815 - and pertinent to OP's question - reached out to the United States for some kind of recognition (no doubt hoping for military aid against the Spanish). But they weren't inclined to kindness toward him. For one thing, he'd been welcoming runaway slaves.

Ultimately, he was captured by the Spanish and died in a Havana prison. He was actually captured twice - once in an incident that ended with him taking over the Spanish ship he was being transported on and sailing home in it, but then a second time due to his... well, personal obnoxiousness.

He'd ticked off a group of traders and Creek dignitaries at a meeting by claiming himself as the rightful king of all present. A couple of his longstanding rivals set a trap and handed him over to Spanish officials.

His sons reportedly went on to be noted as leaders "among the Creeks and Cherokees" during the Trail of Tears.

(Probably worth mentioning that those removal policies were instituted by Andrew Jackson who, during raids in Pensacola, had to at least have heard of Bowles, as well as, later on, being personally involved in annexing Florida for the United States... something Bowles' little pan-Native pirate nation would have obstructed, had it been allowed to survive.)