AHC: Make Relations Better Between Americans and the Native Americans

You might be able to reduce tensions somewhat by introducing strong alcohol to the America's somehow back around 500 AD or so. It takes about 1000 years or so for a culture to evolve functionality in the presence of "demon rum", and its a damned ugly process (even now, Mediterraneans handle it way better than Northern Europeans). Not sure how you'd get it though.
How about you get the Norse colonies in America about the 11th century to survive, introducing wine, at least, to the Natives.
 
How much of this was due to the lack of female settlers for them to marry, though?

It was part of it, and the French also were good at turning captured English Puritan children, particularly girls, into French Catholic adults.

This is something the French seem to have picked partly up by closer proximity to NAs. If the English colonists somehow picked up this knack this tactic might be the perfect tool for destroying NA culture and a good PoD.

Back to the topic, French intermarriage continued into the 1800s long after the need for Indian wives abated. Also in very early English colonies had some intermarriage, Pocahontas being the most famous, but it quickly became 'wrong'. If you can keep from becoming 'wrong' for 2-3 generations more by whatever means, it becomes tradition.

Basically racism is a learned cultural habit, and in the 1600s this wasn't as strong as it later became. Butterfly its pervasiveness and you could end up destroying NA culture more effectively.
 
Last edited:
I also don't see why the government would even care about having better relations with the Native Americans. What does it gain them if they pursue better relations? There are just not that many Native Americans and they are not growing at a significant rate so it seems like it would benefit the government more by pushing them out and opening the land to Americans who will have greater populations and create cities that could actually be taxed.

Maybe change the notion of Manifest Destiny a bit to include the idea of "Bringing those godless savages into the fold of Christian civilisation" or something like that. That would give the government an ideological motivation for trying to assimilate the natives rather than simply kicking them out.
 
How about you get the Norse colonies in America about the 11th century to survive, introducing wine, at least, to the Natives.
That might help a little, but history shows it takes nearly 1000 years for a society to adapt to it. It might tamp down the worst of the whole 'firewater' thing though, because it wouldn't be a totally alcohol-naive genetic population. 400-500 years is better than 0.
 
That might help a little, but history shows it takes nearly 1000 years for a society to adapt to it. It might tamp down the worst of the whole 'firewater' thing though, because it wouldn't be a totally alcohol-naive genetic population. 400-500 years is better than 0.
Wait a minute. What if the Polynesians somehow started trading with the Chinese/India, exposing them to alcohol, than the discovery of Easter Island and Hawaii led them to discover the Americas (with the expeditions leading to Polynesian landings in California and Central America, respectively). Now, the Polynesians only discovered Hawaii around 500 AD, so Polynesians in California would probably land around 550, introducing various Indian, Chinese, and Polynesian alcohols to the Natives. And there's your "alcohol in the Americas 1500 years ago"
 
Wait a minute. What if the Polynesians somehow started trading with the Chinese/India, exposing them to alcohol, than the discovery of Easter Island and Hawaii led them to discover the Americas (with the expeditions leading to Polynesian landings in California and Central America, respectively). Now, the Polynesians only discovered Hawaii around 500 AD, so Polynesians in California would probably land around 550, introducing various Indian, Chinese, and Polynesian alcohols to the Natives. And there's your "alcohol in the Americas 1500 years ago"

Yeah, liquor via the Polynesians would do the job. It'd cause hardcore social disruption from about 550 to about 1050, and massive disruption probably till around 1500 or so. Then I'd reckon they'd have problems associated with alcohol about on the level of present day Finns.
I've read some books and the like from some of my ancestors that lived in the Idaho/Oregon territory areas back in the time of early American settlement of said area. There's an overriding theme there of traders illegally selling the local tribes whiskey and all hell breaking loose. Its not the only driver of friction, but it's a massive aggravating factor. A lot of the readers probably remember with some trepidation their own earliest experiences with drinking. Take that and square it or cube it, and then take the most extreme 5% or so.
 
Yeah, liquor via the Polynesians would do the job. It'd cause hardcore social disruption from about 550 to about 1050, and massive disruption probably till around 1500 or so. Then I'd reckon they'd have problems associated with alcohol about on the level of present day Finns.
I've read some books and the like from some of my ancestors that lived in the Idaho/Oregon territory areas back in the time of early American settlement of said area. There's an overriding theme there of traders illegally selling the local tribes whiskey and all hell breaking loose. Its not the only driver of friction, but it's a massive aggravating factor. A lot of the readers probably remember with some trepidation their own earliest experiences with drinking. Take that and square it or cube it, and then take the most extreme 5% or so.
Only problem would be is we would have to rely on trade for alcohol to pass through the whole Native population, as the Polynesian would most likely stick to the California coast. Plus there's the little tiny teensy weensy problem that the Natives are exposed to Polynesian and Asian illnesses, probably most of them dying. In 1000 years I'm sure they would rebound, but it still won't be any different when the Europeans land, aside from we won't see firewater poisoning.
 
Only problem would be is we would have to rely on trade for alcohol to pass through the whole Native population, as the Polynesian would most likely stick to the California coast. Plus there's the little tiny teensy weensy problem that the Natives are exposed to Polynesian and Asian illnesses, probably most of them dying. In 1000 years I'm sure they would rebound, but it still won't be any different when the Europeans land, aside from we won't see firewater poisoning.

Well, they'd want to learn how to make wine and other liquors, not just trade for them. And exposure to Asian illnesses might well include some of the huge killers when the Europeans land, making it less of a green field epidemic.
 
Well, they'd want to learn how to make wine and other liquors, not just trade for them. And exposure to Asian illnesses might well include some of the huge killers when the Europeans land, making it less of a green field epidemic.
Very true, on both your points, but when I said "trading for alcohol", I simply meant it would become part of Native American culture. In fact, Natives might engineer alcohols with a low proof due to their low tolerance. I'm not sure how prominent Smallpox and Influenza were in medieval Asia, but since they were the main killers of Natives when the Europeans landed, tolerance to these diseases would later develop, and drastically help the Natives when it came to European colonial expansion. However, while the Polynesians might introduce Asian illnesses and alcohol to the Natives in the west, we might ALSO need Vinland to survive to spread those to the east. And the Norse were actually quite friendly to the Natives (probably being so outnumbered, but they were soon painted in a friendly light). So, around 1500, Columbus actually lands, and America is still majority Native, of course, especially the Caribbean, where he landed, which was about as far away from earlier influence, but other Natives would be influenced by the Norse in the Northeast and the Polynesians in California and South America. On a side note, this is quickly becoming less and less about strictly United States-Native American relations, but honestly it's taken an interesting turn.
 
Having the current territory of the US consist of smaller states might be of some help. Suppose you have a US that enda at the Appalachians, with two French-derived states further west (in the South and around the Great Lakes), and you'd have a situation where the states closest to the frontier have less demographic pressure.
 

jocay

Banned
After pushing out Britain, the independent 13 colonies don't coalesce into a single country and become multiple competing states who on occasion war over each other for western land. The Native American tribes could potentially play the states against each other and suffer relatively less displacement from their traditional homelands without the power of an unified US threatening them. Think less Manifest Destiny and more like Russia's expansion into Siberia.
 
I think this is probably squirrelling the question slightly because your question seems to imply an independent US but my first thoughts were that the best way to do this would be to have the Patriots lose the War of Independence (or butterfly it away in some other way). Although I think it can be exaggerated how good relations were between the British and the Native American tribes, the various colonial governments certainly demonstrated more of an ability to treat with tribal leaders as other nations than the independent federal and state governments did.

I wonder whether the following scenario might work:
  • Seven Years War and the 1763 Proclamation happens as in OTL.
  • Tensions between colonists and London rise as normal and break out in the 1770s.
  • Key Native American tribes remain loyal to the British.
  • The American rebellion is put down quickly (my first thought would be the Battle of Long Island ending with the capture of Washington and the rest of the Continental Army but I'm sure there are loads of others).
  • Maybe throw in Chatham living another 10 years and Frederick another 20 for a bit of spice.
Then I think you've got an interesting future for the rest of North America that might be a good jumping-off point for a TL. But I wonder whether this could plausibly result in a series of British protectorates being over the Native American tribes between the Appalachians and the Mississippi? I was thinking maybe some territorial division for the Iroquois and the 'Five Civilised Tribes.' Obviously you then have a delicate political settlement with restive American colonists to their right and the Spanish to their left so it remains to be seen how this develops down the line...
 

Marc

Donor
I think this is probably squirrelling the question slightly because your question seems to imply an independent US but my first thoughts were that the best way to do this would be to have the Patriots lose the War of Independence (or butterfly it away in some other way). Although I think it can be exaggerated how good relations were between the British and the Native American tribes, the various colonial governments certainly demonstrated more of an ability to treat with tribal leaders as other nations than the independent federal and state governments did.

I wonder whether the following scenario might work:
  • Seven Years War and the 1763 Proclamation happens as in OTL.
  • Tensions between colonists and London rise as normal and break out in the 1770s.
  • Key Native American tribes remain loyal to the British.
  • The American rebellion is put down quickly (my first thought would be the Battle of Long Island ending with the capture of Washington and the rest of the Continental Army but I'm sure there are loads of others).
  • Maybe throw in Chatham living another 10 years and Frederick another 20 for a bit of spice.
Then I think you've got an interesting future for the rest of North America that might be a good jumping-off point for a TL. But I wonder whether this could plausibly result in a series of British protectorates being over the Native American tribes between the Appalachians and the Mississippi? I was thinking maybe some territorial division for the Iroquois and the 'Five Civilised Tribes.' Obviously you then have a delicate political settlement with restive American colonists to their right and the Spanish to their left so it remains to be seen how this develops down the line...

I think under that set of scenarios the best that happens parallels to a considerable extent the the story of the First Nations and Canada. Destructive in many ways, but not the holocaust the United States inflicted.
 
I think under that set of scenarios the best that happens parallels to a considerable extent the the story of the First Nations and Canada. Destructive in many ways, but not the holocaust the United States inflicted.

Maybe. Depending on how strong and/or useful the tribes are I could easily see them being administered as separate crown colonies down the line and, even further down the line, as independent republics. I also think this is a world where Anglo dominion would be confined to east of the Mississippi, Rupert’s Land and Oregon/Columbia so you’d have less problems with people driving west across the Mississippi...
 
After pushing out Britain, the independent 13 colonies don't coalesce into a single country and become multiple competing states who on occasion war over each other for western land. The Native American tribes could potentially play the states against each other and suffer relatively less displacement from their traditional homelands without the power of an unified US threatening them. Think less Manifest Destiny and more like Russia's expansion into Siberia.

Except the Native Americans really don't have the power to resist for long. At the end of the revolution there were more Americans in the 13 Colonies than Native Americans in the entirety of what became the modern borders of the U.S. So unless the Natives have ASB levels of luck and good fortune I don't see how they can really hold back the colonists from expanding across the continent. The Natives will inflict some setbacks but none of these will ever stop the colonists from moving in and overwhelming them.

But wasn't one of the major lead up events to Seven Years War in North America the conflict between the French and British over control of the Ohio River Valley. If they just fought a war to obtain it and then kept control of the American colonies why wouldn't the British eventually open settlement up west of the Appalachians? Also how could they realistically enforce the proclamation line? Even if the Americans are still part of Britain they will have to eventually give some autonomy to the colonies especially as the population of the colonies continues to increase and part of that autonomy will probably be in dealing with western expansion.
 
But wasn't one of the major lead up events to Seven Years War in North America the conflict between the French and British over control of the Ohio River Valley. If they just fought a war to obtain it and then kept control of the American colonies why wouldn't the British eventually open settlement up west of the Appalachians? Also how could they realistically enforce the proclamation line? Even if the Americans are still part of Britain they will have to eventually give some autonomy to the colonies especially as the population of the colonies continues to increase and part of that autonomy will probably be in dealing with western expansion.

This is true I think, up to a point. You're definitely looking at giving the various tribes a two or three decade window to solidify their position as much as possible before a renewed threat from the white colonists. I think this putative TL's equivalent of the French Revolution would definitely pose a problem to the Native Americans and the British presence in North America... But, depending on the attitude of the British government, I think that could turn out any number of ways.

You're right about the causes of the Seven Year's War (at least partly, there was obviously a bunch of European dynastic stuff going on but that's not important for these purposes). But 'control over the Ohio River Valley' can mean a lot of things. With the French expelled from the continent east of the Mississippi control can equally well be achieved by having your nice friendly Native American tribe in charge. I mean, that's basically what happened in India. Obviously, things can change down the line but all sorts of butterflies are being set free by this point.
 
This is true I think, up to a point. You're definitely looking at giving the various tribes a two or three decade window to solidify their position as much as possible before a renewed threat from the white colonists. I think this putative TL's equivalent of the French Revolution would definitely pose a problem to the Native Americans and the British presence in North America... But, depending on the attitude of the British government, I think that could turn out any number of ways.

You're right about the causes of the Seven Year's War (at least partly, there was obviously a bunch of European dynastic stuff going on but that's not important for these purposes). But 'control over the Ohio River Valley' can mean a lot of things. With the French expelled from the continent east of the Mississippi control can equally well be achieved by having your nice friendly Native American tribe in charge. I mean, that's basically what happened in India. Obviously, things can change down the line but all sorts of butterflies are being set free by this point.

Correct but the rulers of India had vastly larger numbers and economies than any hypothetical Native American state. Even all of the Natives in what would become the U.S. and Canada combined together wouldn't equal the power of some of even the mid sized Indian princes let alone a princely state like Hyderabad. The situation is also completely different. In India it was entirely about making money from trade with limited settlement and numbers of British in contrast the American colonies were vast settlement projects with large numbers of people moving from Europe to these colonies. Having a Native American tribe in charge of the Ohio River Valley wouldn't really gain anything for the British in anything other than short term either. They can make money from the fur trade but as the population of the colonies increases settlers are going to push west proclamation line or no. The British are going to have a hard time stopping settlers just because of the incredibly large area needed to be covered and the expense of it. I just don't see it lasting for much longer because it seems to go against the best interest of the British government to limit settlement.
 
Correct but the rulers of India had vastly larger numbers and economies than any hypothetical Native American state. Even all of the Natives in what would become the U.S. and Canada combined together wouldn't equal the power of some of even the mid sized Indian princes let alone a princely state like Hyderabad. The situation is also completely different. In India it was entirely about making money from trade with limited settlement and numbers of British in contrast the American colonies were vast settlement projects with large numbers of people moving from Europe to these colonies. Having a Native American tribe in charge of the Ohio River Valley wouldn't really gain anything for the British in anything other than short term either. They can make money from the fur trade but as the population of the colonies increases settlers are going to push west proclamation line or no. The British are going to have a hard time stopping settlers just because of the incredibly large area needed to be covered and the expense of it. I just don't see it lasting for much longer because it seems to go against the best interest of the British government to limit settlement.

I think there are a couple of things to say to this. Firstly, obviously you’re right that there is a big difference between the Iroquois and Hyderabad. But as a general point to illustrate that the British Empire was happy to operate through allied non-white rulers I think it stands.

Secondly, I don’t agree that the British government regarded the 13 colonies primarily as “vast settlement projects.” Indeed, the whole proclamation line of 1763 kind of shows that they didn’t and wanted to restrict it (for a variety of reasons). (Of course, this is a description of the general view of London-based political elites: naturally there were others in Britain who thought differently (it’s probably fair to say that Chatham did, to an extent), never mind the expansionist attitudes of American elites, indeed that’s one of the reasons they rebelled.) When it was considered important for the British to control the Ohio River Valley it wasn’t so that it could be peopled with British yeoman (although that may have been considered a side effect) but to effectively corner the fur trade and lock the French out. And you can do that very easily with friendly Iroquois.
 
Top