AHC/WI: US attempts to outright exterminate natives

Yes, I KNOW the US attempted to destroy the society and culture of its natives OTL, often with a great deal of success. So let's get past that, which the last thread I started on this topic degenerated to, and answer this question: what would it have taken for the United States to wage an outright campaign of extermination against the Native Americans, complete with extermination camps and such, a sort of American Holocaust if you will? And what would have been its knock-on effects?
 

Asami

Banned
Yes, I KNOW the US attempted to destroy the society and culture of its natives OTL, often with a great deal of success. So let's get past that, which the last thread I started on this topic degenerated to, and answer this question: what would it have taken for the United States to wage an outright campaign of extermination against the Native Americans, complete with extermination camps and such, a sort of American Holocaust if you will? And what would have been its knock-on effects?

Realistically speaking, nobody would've particularly cared back then, since everyone was doing some sort of ethnic cleansing to some extent. Future backlash may be a bit stronger, but who can argue with you if they're dead?
 
In pre-21st century society wiping and exterminating entire peoples was very common they didn't need to worry about international law so long as the people your exterminating aren't part of a bigger and more powerful country the rest of the world won't care. Yeah human are just evil back then

Beside the viruses the Americans have do more work in this case anyways. Now of course when you get to modern times the backlash would be a lot.
 
In pre-21st century society wiping and exterminating entire peoples was very common.

Such as? I mean, I don't have that much exemples coming in mind and the ones I think of were uncommon and looked bad for the countries that exterminated (not chasing, not expelling, but properly exterminating and wiping out) entiere peoples, even in their own time.
 
Such as? I mean, I don't have that much exemples coming in mind and the ones I think of were uncommon and looked bad for the countries that exterminated (not chasing, not expelling, but properly exterminating and wiping out) entiere peoples, even in their own time.

Ok wrong wording what I meant by wiping was out expelling them and by exterminating there were a lot of examples such as the Mongols and Timurids, the Zulu in South Africa are just some that come to mind. But I guess your right it wasn't common but is wasnt unheard or new.
 
I don't know enough on SAfrica, but for Mongols conquests, I don't think you can say they targeted specific peoples (as, let's exterminate Persians) : the usual brutal conquest consequences on everyone.

The OP ask for a specific extermination of American natives, that is something even at this time, looking rather bad.
 
There was public outcry against the Trail of Tears in the early 1800's, people wouldn't like it if the US government literally tried killing each and every native they could. People had morals back then too, you know.
 
Pretty bad backlash. Sure you could wipe out large bands of warriors with no consequences, but wiping out an entire people?? No way would the public be ok with that. Genocide was not exactly seen as the moral or right thing. Ethnic cleansing and forced relocation, fine and dandy, but outright genocide? No voter would have had the stomach.
 
I don't know enough on SAfrica, but for Mongols conquests, I don't think you can say they targeted specific peoples (as, let's exterminate Persians) : the usual brutal conquest consequences on everyone.

The OP ask for a specific extermination of American natives, that is something even at this time, looking rather bad.

Good point. Also realistically speaking the viruses the European had was the most dangerous weapon that Americans would have but now that I think about it outright genocide would be a no go even for the racist of that time.
 
Late 19th century(early 20th?), there was supposedly some outcries about how that certain belgian king and his men treated Congo's peoples, so maybe by this time, some americans would have spoken too..

Maybe...
 
Late 19th century(early 20th?), there was supposedly some outcries about how that certain belgian king and his men treated Congo's peoples, so maybe by this time, some americans would have spoken too..

Maybe...

As an earlier poster said, people spoke out against the Trail of Tears, and that was a few thousand killed, mostly by the disease and poor conditions of their forced marches. Whites back then tolerated and were often gleeful about the destruction and driving off of Native Americans in response to attacks on settlers, but they usually liked some pretext for it. Systematic governmental slaughter would have drawn more opposition.
 
Ok wrong wording what I meant by wiping was out expelling them and by exterminating there were a lot of examples such as the Mongols and Timurids, the Zulu in South Africa are just some that come to mind. But I guess your right it wasn't common but is wasnt unheard or new.
Modern science has already put many of these theories to rest. There was no Mongol-led extermination. Take a look at the DNA haplogroup charts of the Central Asian peoples, such as the Turkmens, Uzbeks, Uyghurs, etc. They're predominantly descended from the ancient Iranian populations. And the Mongol genetic influence was not only small but maternal-derived, which made these theories of extermination look even more dumbfounded. Bear in mind that the Mongols enjoyed spreading a false, negative image of themselves. It was part of their psychological warfare tactics to scare populations into surrendering without resistance, and it worked. You have the Persians to thank for spreading the propaganda to the Muslim world, since many Persian nobility worked for the Mongol government and were given high positions and gold in return for taking advantage of the high literacy rates in the Muslim world, by spreading the propaganda through various chronicles and letters.

I'm clueless about the Zulus however.

Anyway, this whole extermination thing is unrealistic. Why is it even necessary? The populations of native Americans were so small compared to the European settlers. Assimilation and absorption is better and doable. Anyway, it seems the native Americans were hellbent on fighting the settlers, which in itself warranted a military retaliation by the US, which would eventually lead to the loss of life. It would make more sense for the Americans to see how the natives react first, instead of going after them like barbarians.

Point is, the original poster's scenario is unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
Top