[deleted]
Your question is based on a frame of mind that we call "reading history sideways." When European societies began encountering other cultures on a never-before-seen scale, they struggled to situate those cultures and societies within their frame of reference. British thinkers developed an analytical framework where all of humanity was on a sliding scale of development. British society (of course) was on the "most developed" side of the scale, with all other societies falling in somewhere on the "less developed" side relative to them. The kicker is that, because they viewed progress as a scale with fixed processes and steps towards advancement, every "less developed" society was a reflection of Britain's past.
British thinkers conceptualized the tribal societies of Africa and the Americas as a reflection of what Britain must have looked like thousands of years ago. For them, examining those societies was like looking back in time. This frame of reference made sense to them because it allowed them to conceptualize themselves as inherently better than everyone else but it was theoritically permissible enough to concede that any society could be "uplifted" to British heights.
The problem with this frame of reference is that the other world societies were not reflections of Britain's past. Each and every world culture forms within their own specific circumstances and change over time relative to their specific circumstances. The similarities between the tribal societies Britain encountered were skin-deep, but those superficial similarities obscured the profound cultural, economic, and structural differences between societies developed to accommodate their local environment and regional political conditions.
It's also worth considering what we mean by "advanced." The Mayans were already far more advanced with regards to mathematics than the Europeans by 1200 AD. Their calendar was substantially more accurate than the European equivalent for this reasons. The Three Sisters farming method of the Iroquois produced more food with less investment of labor than European grain agriculture. Aztec metallurgy was significantly more refined than that of Europeans, though they primarily used it for jewelry. Polynesian sailing techniques were more advanced by 100 AD than any European equivalent would be for another 1,700 years. Musa I, king of Mali in the late 13th century, was far and away the richest man in the world in his time due to monopolizing the African gold trade.
In short, we should not consider whether or not Native Americans would have eventually created a society economically and structurally similar to what we consider "modern". Native Americans were in North America, the British were in Britain. We can't even say that Britain or any Western nation would resemble a modern nation if they had not spent 500 years pillaging the wealth of the world to fund their economic and political projects.
Sources: