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

[othyrsyde]

The Iroquois were already fucked. We were crumbling long before the ARW, and if the POD is they never unite after the war, then we still had our homeland burnt to the ground and forced to flee to the British for shelter to survive the winter.

I could see the British help further support the 6 tribes as a proxy army in allying with other tribes and such to keep the colonies penned in for a bit. Joseph Brant wouldn't play a large role, he was not looked kindly upon to put it mildly and had to have an entourage of bodyguards where ever he went after the ARW.

 

[Tripwire]

The main problem I see is that the demographic problem is just going to get worse and worse. Tecumsah's Confederation would have had about 30,000 people. I'd say on a high estimate there's about 500,000 Native Americans within present day US borders in the 1780s.

Eventually an independent Native Confederacy is simply not going to be able to field enough troops to fight off any hostile European/European-American power. Tecumsah commanded 5,000 warriors at his height. Even with a larger confederation and some more warriors, individual states could field militias much larger than that even back in the early 1800s. Unless the a native confederacy can pit two states or European powers against each other, it doesn't matter how well they fight, they're simply going to be swamped with white settlers backed by their militias.

 

[jkay]

chornedsnorkack wrote:

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.

But, neither of your examples wanted unity, doubly not the adventurer-created USCA, and the 13 Colonies DID largely want unity, and early made enough compromises, even in the Articles era.

Turf also was easier on our 13 Atlantic colonies than Gran Columbia, becauase there was plenty of connecting sea/river trade, making a bigger sense of nationality easier. And, again, only a handful of people wanted USCA, becuase it was just about the adventurers in charge.

But, in 1812, the armies that beat the Native Americans confederacy were mostly from nearby militias, so regional confederations'd be enough. And they had little British help - no people, just war material, and not even that much.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The main problem I see is that the demographic problem is just going to get worse and worse. Tecumsah's Confederation would have had about 30,000 people. I'd say on a high estimate there's about 500,000 Native Americans within present day US borders in the 1780s.

Eventually an independent Native Confederacy is simply not going to be able to field enough troops to fight off any hostile European/European-American power. Tecumsah commanded 5,000 warriors at his height. Even with a larger confederation and some more warriors, individual states could field militias much larger than that even back in the early 1800s. Unless the a native confederacy can pit two states or European powers against each other, it doesn't matter how well they fight, they're simply going to be swamped with white settlers backed by their militias.

Exactly. Except your numbers are, if anything, too high. I don't think that Tecumsah ever had more than about 2k warriors in any battle, and he was pulling people from as far away as the Mississippi river.

Not only demographics, but also tech. The Indians couldn't make their own muskets, for instance, and so would have to be continually supplied by a friendly foreign power who's willing to antagonize the colonies for the long run.

Could some natives get a better deal? probably. Would it be much better? probably not.

If they're not oppressed by the US, they're likely to be oppressed by e.g. Britain. A disunited '13 colonies' likely means a more powerful *Canada. And while we were much politer to our natives, they didn't really end up in better shape.

 

[zoomar]

Assuming the Treaty of Paris remains the same as in OTL, the United States (regardless of how it ended being constituted) received territory to the Mississippi River. I suspect that, even had the original "United" States as defined by the Continental Congress and later Articles of Confederation collpased, some sort of treaty arrangements (bilateral or broader) would be established by the 13 Anglo-American republics that would resolve western land claims and establish some sort of common defense against outside (British) and internal (Indian) military opposition.

I think for the Native confederacies to survive, it would have to be in the context of a more assertive Britain that was willing to risk war with the American Republics - and abrogate the Paris understandings - to support the independence (and British-leaning positions) of Native condeferacies.

This could lead to the survival of nominally independent native states forming a buffer to Anglo-American Expansion. I think for the natives the negative trade-off would be the gradual absorption of their nations into the British Empire - and eventual loss of political independence anyway. I would also expect that continuing European immigration to both the former US as well as well as Indian territories within the British Empire, would eventually lead to the cultural and liguistic Anglicization of the Native peoples anyway.

 

[Michael B]

I think for the Native confederacies to survive, it would have to be in the context of a more assertive Britain that was willing to risk war with the American Republics - and abrogate the Paris understandings - to support the independence (and British-leaning positions) of Native condeferacies.

Without someone prepared to throw illegal settlements out the Native confederacies have no chances as the Dakota found out when whites started moving into the Black Hills. Britain would make a very good protector in the first half of the nineteenth as she had already successfully the war of 1812. In the second half as the other confeds found out trading with the Yankees beat giving them a kicking

I think for the natives the negative trade-off would be the gradual absorption of their nations into the British Empire - and eventual loss of political independence anyway. I would also expect that continuing European immigration to both the former US as well as well as Indian territories within the British Empire, would eventually lead to the cultural and liguistic Anglicization of the Native peoples anyway.

As per the Indian kingdoms in the Old World, I would expect this to happen. In fact some of the Sioux moved to Canada after various wars in the late nineteenth century rather than remain under US rule.