Sucessful US Amerindian-African-American Alliance?

[Oba]

Hey all,

I was just thinking about a truly successful early 19th century "Second American Revolution" based on an alliance of various Amerindian nations (probably more than one) and African-Americans from slavery, wherein the colonists are expelled from the OTL Eastern USA or otherwise defeated in an enduring revolution.

It seems quite feasible, given the similarly horrendous treatment between both sets of peoples by a small, European-based, dominant elité who saw themselves as "white", the frankly far less likely success of the revolution in tiny Haïti and Símon Bolívar's contemporary success in liberating most of Latin America from Spanish colonialism - not to mention his abolition of slavery.

Furthermore, though Haïti basically remained independent (save for a brief "occupation" during the turn of the century), it was too small to truly succeed when pitted against European imperial powers; the USA, however, was not. Also, the USA in OTL of course was on the road to, and eventually had, a colossal Civil War, exemplifying not only just how doomed the plantation economy-based Old South and CSA were, but also how fragile the early USA was.

So, what exactly would it take to have a successful revolution in the early United States of America and a successful aftermath?

 

[Malta]

At most I see them carving out a small entity from the Louisiana Purchase but that would require Napoleonic Support.

 

[Elfwine]

Hey all,

I was just thinking about a truly successful early 19th century "Second American Revolution" based on an alliance of various Amerindian nations (probably more than one) and African-Americans from slavery, wherein the colonists are expelled from the OTL Eastern USA or otherwise defeated in an enduring revolution.

It seems quite feasible, given the similarly horrendous treatment between both sets of peoples by a small, European-based, dominant elité who saw themselves as "white" . . .

The vast majority of the American colonies are "white". Not merely a tiny elite - see this: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

Outnumbered worse than 4 to 1 is not favorable odds for the slaves. And complete Amerindian unity is going to happen shortly after Hell freezes over with all the tribal rivalries and diverging interests.

I don't know the situation in Haiti or Bolivar's work very well, but it would not be comparable to this.

 

[Lord Malikai]

In the first seven states to secede and form the CSA, nearly half of the total population (46.53%) were slaves. Throw in OTL Oklahoma and there's a solid black and native american population. If such a rump CSA were to exist it seems unbelievable there wouldn't eventually be a mass slave uprising considering the possible conditions. The question is how would you get a rump CSA like that to begin with?

Beyond that, as Elfwine said, the population simply isn't there for a successful revolt against the white population at any point in time.

 

[Finn]

Such an alliance is...unlikely. Especially when you consider that the Civilized Tribes, as they were called, did keep black slaves.

 

[Superman]

In the first seven states to secede and form the CSA, nearly half of the total population (46.53%) were slaves. Throw in OTL Oklahoma and there's a solid black and native american population. If such a rump CSA were to exist it seems unbelievable there wouldn't eventually be a mass slave uprising considering the possible conditions. The question is how would you get a rump CSA like that to begin with?

Beyond that, as Elfwine said, the population simply isn't there for a successful revolt against the white population at any point in time.

Maybe not Louisiana or Texas, but the first five states to secede could remain a rump CSA if the Confederacy goes broke right after independence and most states secede and most likely rejoin the Union. A slave revolt might be likely there. Of course, a slave-Indian alliance is unlikely.

 

[Jasen777]

Such alliances did happen on occasion. Perhaps most notably the Seminole Wars. But whites aren't getting expelled from the U.S. in the 19th century.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

STATE OF MUSKOGEE, BITCHES

 

[Oba]

Well, North American Amerindians (and in some cases alongside African-Americans), even from widely differing cultural areas, did unite for the common good, often against the Western imperialists, and in a few cases (most notably with the Haudenosaunee) before the Western Invasion even began:

http://www.yale.edu/glc/gullah/07.htm
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/ : The
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn#Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_seminoles#African-Seminole_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huron_Confederacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac's_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popé

So, the argument that "American Indian unity will happen when hell freezes over" does not really hold. That said, I would agree that an earlier POD, probably sometime in the 18th century, would make this much more feasible.

 

[Elfwine]

So, the argument that "American Indian unity will happen when hell freezes over" does not really hold. That said, I would agree that an earlier POD, probably sometime in the 18th century, would make this much more feasible.

"Some tribes uniting for a certain period of time" is not the same as a wide coalition of "American Indians" from the Old Southwest to the Old Northwest - let alone something even grander.

That's the kind of scale you'd need to even remotely threaten driving whites off the continent.

 

[mightfly]

Get the CSA to somehow pull off a victory after the march to the sea. Then get the African Americans to convince the tribes in Oklamhoma (Union suppoters and Confederate supporters) to agree to give up their black slaves in exchange for an alliance. That should do it.

When the Union troops start evacuating the South have the Black Union soldiers go AWOL to form their own state in Louisiana the many freed black slaves to flee there. There should be about 800,000 slaves on the run from the Confederate military, about 140,000 black Union soldiers to form their military, Louisiana was reopened to trade at the time by Union soldiers.

Get the likes of Harriet Tubman, WEB Du Bois to go join to form their leadership, likely bringing money and more Freeman from the North. Have them get in contact with the tribal leadership in Oklahoma to make the agreement of alliance to form their own states.

The south should be fairly devastated.

 

[mrmandias]

The vast majority of the American colonies are "white". Not merely a tiny elite - see this: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

Outnumbered worse than 4 to 1 is not favorable odds for the slaves. And complete Amerindian unity is going to happen shortly after Hell freezes over with all the tribal rivalries and diverging interests.

I don't know the situation in Haiti or Bolivar's work very well, but it would not be comparable to this.

Haiti's ratio was 10 to 1 in the other direction. So, uh, pretty much an insane comparison in the OP.

 

[zoomar]

Well, North American Amerindians (and in some cases alongside African-Americans), even from widely differing cultural areas, did unite for the common good, often against the Western imperialists, and in a few cases (most notably with the Haudenosaunee) before the Western Invasion even began:

http://www.yale.edu/glc/gullah/07.htm
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/ : The
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn#Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_seminoles#African-Seminole_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huron_Confederacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac's_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popé

So, the argument that "American Indian unity will happen when hell freezes over" does not really hold. That said, I would agree that an earlier POD, probably sometime in the 18th century, would make this much more feasible.

Do you know any American Indians? Tribal identity matters far more to the majority of Native Americans than any perceived common identity as "Amerindians". I speak from personal experience. Although different tribes did sometimes unite against Euro-American invaders in specific situations, it was far more common to see individual tribes and nations ally with the invaders against their traditional native enemies. Europeans were good at exploiting this. This happened in Mexico and it happened throughout North America. As noted by others, it would take an ASB alliance among every American Indian Nation in North America to muster the numbers and power to resist European expansion. Any POD to make this remotely feasible would have to occur, not in the 18th century, but well before European contact.

 

[Dom Pedro III]

Yeah, I don't see any way for this to happen.

At best, you could have a more successful Seminole nation being too tough a nut to crack. Resulting in an independent country existing in Florida. Even that seems rather unlikely.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

State of Muskogee what what

 

[Oba]

Do you know any American Indians? Tribal identity matters far more to the majority of Native Americans than any perceived common identity as "Amerindians". I speak from personal experience. Although different tribes did sometimes unite against Euro-American invaders in specific situations, it was far more common to see individual tribes and nations ally with the invaders against their traditional native enemies. Europeans were good at exploiting this. This happened in Mexico and it happened throughout North America. As noted by others, it would take an ASB alliance among every American Indian Nation in North America to muster the numbers and power to resist European expansion. Any POD to make this remotely feasible would have to occur, not in the 18th century, but well before European contact.

Yes, I do: I have a P'urhépecha friend and once knew a Maidu well enough.

While I would agree that an grand alliance of all Amerindians would be essentially impossible and completely ridiculous, more local alliances, blocs and confederations could easily arise if the Amerindians realized that, while they were indeed extremely diverse, they were all in the same boat when it came to the eyes of the Westerners, who just saw them all as "Indians". And the African-Americans could act as the catalyst necessary for this awakening of many (though of course not all) Amerindian nations into an alliance to crush the so-called "White" Western oppressors.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

No, it really isn't within the realm of possibility. I could imagine it happening in certain South American countries, and probably did, but frankly early on in European colonization, black slaves were pretty much viewed by indians and in practice part of the "Conquista" and by the time blacks were sufficiently numerous as slaves, most Indians - had at least superficially adopted classic European ideas about blacks that would preclude any sort of alliance, not to mention the infighting among Indians themselves. Even in the various Indian wars of the Old North West (French Indian to the War of 1812) Indians were known for killing the whites they captured (for they had no value) but selling the blacks they captured as slaves in the market.

 

[Anticlimacus]

Bolivar was part of the creole-spanish elite, he dismissed the amerindians that, in fact, fought for the royalist forces.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Bolivar was part of the creole-spanish elite, he dismissed the amerindians that, in fact, fought for the royalist forces.

Better the master that dwells several thousand miles away than the master that lives right next door.

 

[Admiral Brown]

No, it really isn't within the realm of possibility. I could imagine it happening in certain South American countries, and probably did...

It didn't, as far as I know, even if the ratio between whites and Amerindians/blacks was very different from the one that existed in North America. In Spanish America, blacks and Amerindians didn't see themselves as allies, something the Spanish and Creole were very happy about, cause such an alliance could pose a serious risk to the colony.

Of course, there might be exceptiomns, and in some isolated places blacks and amerindians might have had friendly relations. I think there was a place in Ecuador were former slaves meddle in with amerindian tribes and formed an hibrid society.

But there wasn't, as far as I know, a rebbelion of both whites and Indians, and certainly not a succesfull one. For example, when Tupac Amaru rebelled in the late XVIII century in the Andean highlands, there wasn't a simultaneos rebelion of blacks in Lima and in coastal plantations, which would have put Spanish control of Peru at a serious risk. One wonders though what would blacks have done if Tupac Amaru had consolidated himself in the highlands, taken Cuzco, and then marched towards Lima.