If the 13 Colonies Never Unified, How Would Native Confederacies Fair?

Errnge

Errnge

So, if somehow the 13 colonies failed to unify after a successful American Revolutionary War (failed Constitutional Convention, whatever), how would the Native Americans do?

Consider that many of the tribes were defeated by Federal forces. Tecumseh's confederacy comes to mind, but also keep in mind that the 5 Civilized Tribes were removed by Federal forces. I'm of the opinion that the individual states would not have been able to make the advances into Native territory the way that they did without unity, especially if Native Tribes have British backing.

What say you? Discuss!
 

eliphas8

Depends on what failing to unify means in the long run, you will still likely get a few states forming a federation of their own which do work out (New England, Those Middle States, The Caronlina's and Greater Virginia) Course I think in this situation most of the Native Confederations would last (a few would be beaten though).
 

Malta

It kind of falls to the Mississippi. If the British manage to get it then they could set up any number of Native Confederations on either side of the river. Louisiana will most likely fall to Britain. I am not too sure any of the divided states would have the cash for it and I would think even if one bought it then the others would fight over it and someone is likely to call in Britain.
 

thekingsguard

King of Malta said:
It kind of falls to the Mississippi. If the British manage to get it then they could set up any number of Native Confederations on either side of the river. Louisiana will most likely fall to Britain. I am not too sure any of the divided states would have the cash for it and I would think even if one bought it then the others would fight over it and someone is likely to call in Britain.
Click to expand...

As far as the Missisissippi is concerned, I could see Virginia at least taking the area of OTL Missouri - if there is a federation that includes Virginia, they could take more than that. Not the whole river in either case, but they could be the only nation that would stradle both sides of the Missisippi.
 

jkay

I've got my doubts whether it's plausible for that to happen, because the Articles were seen to be unworksable; I'm too lazy to go through the laundry list of problems, but it was long. They would surely've held conventions until it worked. The closest plausible TL I've seen is DoD, which breaks up into regions.

And, most military might was held in the state militias, and had already, sadly, had a century of success at ethnic cleansing colonial militias, with only the occasional alliance between colonies having been needed.

IMHO, they were TOO good at ethnic cleasning, in the record, til the Great Plains, where horse nomads were to dominate unitl Colt.
 

Michael B

The biggest problem that any native confedency has is that white men talked with forked tongues. That will apply whether you had one US of A or thirteen seperate colonies. Every treaty, agreement, promise, pledge, etc is worthless to the Indians as it will eventually be violated by gun toting settlers with more firepower than the natives.

With thirteen seperate colonies it might take longer for the land grab of America to take place, but take place it will. The best bet for the native confedencies would be to snuff out every colony the moment the white men came ashore. That thpugh would be a different PoD :confused:
 

Socrates

thekingsguard said:
As far as the Missisissippi is concerned, I could see Virginia at least taking the area of OTL Missouri - if there is a federation that includes Virginia, they could take more than that. Not the whole river in either case, but they could be the only nation that would stradle both sides of the Missisippi.
Click to expand...

I struggle to see this happening. The Tuckahoe elite wouldn't want to lose their power, yet alt-Missourians wouldn't want to be controlled by those East coasters.
 

Socrates

Michael B said:
With thirteen seperate colonies it might take longer for the land grab of America to take place, but take place it will. The best bet for the native confedencies would be to snuff out every colony the moment the white men came ashore. That thpugh would be a different PoD :confused:
Click to expand...

However, they have the advantage that they can play different colonies off against each other, and get training and guns by doing so.
 

chornedsnorkack

jkay said:
I've got my doubts whether it's plausible for that to happen, because the Articles were seen to be unworksable; I'm too lazy to go through the laundry list of problems, but it was long. They would surely've held conventions until it worked. The closest plausible TL I've seen is DoD, which breaks up into regions.

And, most military might was held in the state militias, and had already, sadly, had a century of success at ethnic cleansing colonial militias, with only the occasional alliance between colonies having been needed.
Click to expand...

Gran Colombia existed for 9 years, fell apart and has not been reunited. United States of Central America had a turbulent history of 24 years and also has not been reunited since.

If United States of America become a footnote in history, how will the State expansion work?

Yes, the state militias have experience with ethnic cleansing - but the tribes remaining at that point have united into larger coalitions AND are backed by British.
 

Elfwine

If the thirteen "never united", doesn't that mean that they didn't even unite during the biref War of the American Rebellion?
 

Slacker

Well, I think the implication is they do for the Revolution and then fall apart again into partisan struggle.

You could very well see some successful native states, especially in the Southeast. The Carolinas and Georgia alone don't have the strength to take out the Five Civilized Tribes, especially with a hostile Spanish border to worry about. I think that whatever comes out of the Middle States and Virginia is going to take the Ohio Valley, but they're also not going to be able to push across the Mississippi all the way to the Pacific, either.

You might see a different end to the Iroquois as well.
 

Badshah

Slacker said:
Well, I think the implication is they do for the Revolution and then fall apart again into partisan struggle.

You could very well see some successful native states, especially in the Southeast. The Carolinas and Georgia alone don't have the strength to take out the Five Civilized Tribes, especially with a hostile Spanish border to worry about. I think that whatever comes out of the Middle States and Virginia is going to take the Ohio Valley, but they're also not going to be able to push across the Mississippi all the way to the Pacific, either.

You might see a different end to the Iroquois as well.
Click to expand...

IIRC a lot of Iroquois ideas were demonstrated in the Constitution.
 

Malta

What one needs to do is emphasize the different cultural and political
Background of the colonies. The Tidewater vs the New England Compact and etc. Maye if these divisions had been more emphasized. Imagine if Ogethorpe's No Slavery Georgia had emerged.
 

twovultures

Donor
The confederacies might last longer if they can play the different states/alliances against each-other and face a more militarily disorganized front. However, disuniting the states does not remove the pressures of disease and a massive white population. A disunited states might even become more efficient at fighting Native Americans, as the disparate armies try different tactics and learn from each-other how best to fight the Indian Wars.

Microstates at the remote border regions of land claimed by rival former British colonies are potentially possible, but in most cases the confederacies will not survive.
 

thekingsguard

Socrates said:
I struggle to see this happening. The Tuckahoe elite wouldn't want to lose their power, yet alt-Missourians wouldn't want to be controlled by those East coasters.
Click to expand...

The Tuckahoe elite were capable of being very pragmatic - there is a reason they worked so hard and so long to keep a hold of Kentucky. I could imagine them doing the same with OTL Missouri just to be the only nation on the continant outside of a possible Lousiana to have a stake over both sides of the Mississippi.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
I could see two, maybe less likely three confederations of 'United States' morso than an every state for itself future. Most-likely, a Northern and Southern 'United States'
 
Errnge

Errnge

chornedsnorkack said:
Gran Colombia existed for 9 years, fell apart and has not been reunited. United States of Central America had a turbulent history of 24 years and also has not been reunited since.

If United States of America become a footnote in history, how will the State expansion work?

Yes, the state militias have experience with ethnic cleansing - but the tribes remaining at that point have united into larger coalitions AND are backed by British.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point, I think.

And while state militias were the basis of the American Army at the time, it was militias that worked together. If these militias were not only refusing to work together, but also fighting against each other in some instances, I think that the larger, stronger tribal confederacies have a chance at making it.
 

Socrates

thekingsguard said:
The Tuckahoe elite were capable of being very pragmatic - there is a reason they worked so hard and so long to keep a hold of Kentucky. I could imagine them doing the same with OTL Missouri just to be the only nation on the continant outside of a possible Lousiana to have a stake over both sides of the Mississippi.
Click to expand...

I can't see the settlers on Missouri being very happy about remaining part of Virginia, and there would be plenty of 'foreign' backers happy to secure their independence desires.
 

Malta

Socrates said:
I can't see the settlers on Missouri being very happy about remaining part of Virginia, and there would be plenty of 'foreign' backers happy to secure their independence desires.
Click to expand...

Some Spanish officials did back a plan to settle American settlers in Illinois or Missouri at a 'New Madrid' in the 1780s, but the Governor of Louisiana shot it down because he didn't want to let in Non Catholics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top