Almost ASB- Treaties with Indians respected

[Derek Jackson]

The US Constitution makes treaties duly ratified part of the supreme law of the US, this explictly included treaties with Indians.

Somehow or other this did not quite seem to have happened in the years since 1789.

1) Is there any way that such treaties could be succesfully enforced?

2) Could the US exist in anything lke its current form if that happened?

3) Would the consequence be a more integrated Native American Community or numbers of effectively independent lands?

 

[Michael B]

For this to take place it is going to take a change in mind set from individuals such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson down to the average settler and buffalo hunter. Somehow, I can't see it having taken place.

 

[jkay]

There is ONE way

There is ONE way - arrange for Jefferson to decide against pushing for treaties atall in his thoughts on ethnic cleansing ;-).

Unfortunately, that's probably the only way....

 

[Big Tex]

You would have to at the very very very least butterfly away Andrew Jackson

 

[rcduggan]

Well, part of the reason for the American Revolution was the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade settlement over the Appalachians. So an independent America is almost certainly going to break that treaty.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

I'd say it's ASB. And as pointed out, if all that was accepted, the USA would be a retarded dwarf of what it is today, if it survived at all.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

It's not so much ASB, as would require a different precedent to be set. One good point would be the South Carolina Nullification Crisis, which happened at the same time as Georgia took native lands. While this is the time of Jackson's famous quote along the lines of "Mr. -SC Head Justice of time- has made his decision, now let him enforce it," political context of the time will remind that Jackson was simaltenously dealing the South Carolina's near Civil War, Texas threatening to invade and annex neighboring states, and other political crisis, all of which meant that antagonizing Georgia was politically impossible.

Not having a South Carolina crisis, however, could loosen up the situation where Jackson is free to enforce federal strength over Georgia, at which point the executive office would have upheld the Supreme Court's honoring of the treaty.

Now, while there would certainly still be abuses, the effects could (or could not be) profound. The Trail of Tears, if not butterflied away, would certainly be affected, and as Federal precidence builds on itself you would see a different set of events.

Not ASB, though certainly difficult. South Carolina would have to be put in its place much sooner, for example.

 

[Broz]

the treaties would of been more respected, if the native population put up a more eficient resistance
im not saing they didnt put up a fight, but seeing as an avrege indian warior was a skilled fighter, skilled rider, experienced in tracking and moving across dificult terain, theres even records that some populations were, as a result of entire lifetime exposion to the elements and teir specific way of life, more fisiologicaly adapted to the conditions of prolonged military camaings
archeological finds show the indian warbands were not so poorly armed compared to standard american troopers and calvary, and arguably a skilled experienced local guerila fighter, put against an of the boat italian/irish imigrant conscript in american uniform, has a good chance even with a bow and arow

no doubt a few pods regarding native tribal politicks and tactics used by native leaders, could of caused much more eficient resistance, possibly even more crucial wictories, diferent diplomatic relations with non USA states such as spain or mexico, even the capture of artilery and burning of towns and forts

this, given washington does not answer with a large scale counterofensive, could cause some of the agreements to be at least marginally respected
i dont know how much of this is asb as i dont know much of american native history

 

[panzerjay]

if the native populace was not nearly destroyed by disease.....

maybe foreign recognition of tribal areas as sovereign might help....

 

[Michael B]

the treaties would of been more respected, if the native population put up a more eficient resistance
im not saing they didnt put up a fight, but seeing as an avrege indian warior was a skilled fighter, skilled rider, experienced in tracking and moving across dificult terain, theres even records that some populations were, as a result of entire lifetime exposion to the elements and teir specific way of life, more fisiologicaly adapted to the conditions of prolonged military camaings
archeological finds show the indian warbands were not so poorly armed compared to standard american troopers and calvary, and arguably a skilled experienced local guerila fighter, put against an of the boat italian/irish imigrant conscript in american uniform, has a good chance even with a bow and arow

I doubt that the treaties would have been more respected if they have put up a better fight. More care by the Americans in how they started fights maybe, but that is about it. The Amerindians were seen as an inferior civilisation that was to be swept away by Progress with a capital P. In that, they were not alone. Native tribes in Africa, Australia and parts of Asia faced exactly the same threat from Western Civilisation as it was then.

What fighting is reputed to have done was preserved the tribe in that those who resisted less became extinct. (Unfortunately I can not quote the source for this.

The smartest thing that the Indian could have done was clean out the first settlers instead of helping them. No settlers, no trouble .

 

[danwild6]

The US Constitution makes treaties duly ratified part of the supreme law of the US, this explictly included treaties with Indians.

Yes

Somehow or other this did not quite seem to have happened in the years since 1789.

It has they've just been ignored

1) Is there any way that such treaties could be succesfully enforced?

After ignoring the Supreme Courts verdict on the Indian removal act, Congress(fearing a dictatorial President)impeaches Martin Van Buran.

2) Could the US exist in anything lke its current form if that happened?

Possibly depending on how far back the POD is.

3) Would the consequence be a more integrated Native American Community or numbers of effectively independent lands?

hmmmmmm

 

[Umbral]

I think the best way to have the treaties respected would have been more power. Pure and simple. If the indians could impose consequences if the treaties were broken, they would be more respected.

There are several ways to go...having the indians congeal more into republics and countries (what is the maximum Tecumsethwank that isn't ASB?), or a will to learn from the europeans from very early days.

Iroquis and Hurons both insist on sending students/apprentices over during the early alliances?

Or wars in europe spills over to North america more...indians become more valued allies, costal towns are burned, fewer immigrants arrive.

 

[bard32]

The US Constitution makes treaties duly ratified part of the supreme law of the US, this explictly included treaties with Indians.

Somehow or other this did not quite seem to have happened in the years since 1789.

1) Is there any way that such treaties could be succesfully enforced?

2) Could the US exist in anything lke its current form if that happened?

3) Would the consequence be a more integrated Native American Community or numbers of effectively independent lands?

Well, we could make the POD 1828, and have John Quincy Adams, the son of
John Adams, win re-election. Andrew Jackson was responsible for the Trail of Tears. He deliberately disobeyed a Supreme Court order. However, if Andrew Jackson is re-elected, we could make the POD sometime after 1830.
Have Andrew Jackson impeached, maybe?

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Have all the Indians ally with Britian during he ARW, (IIRC the Iroquois didn't). Then have the British recognize the Indian nations as sovereign and have them then become their catspaws in the Northwest until after the War of 1812. At this point the Indians unite into one nation, taking present day Indiana, part of Minnesota, the Dakotas etc and eventually seek entry into the United States as a sort of Autonomous Region, with the special relationship written into the Constitution.

Or have the Indians all side with the Americans in the ARW. They form the Autonomous Region in the Northwest as delegates at the Constitutional Convention, later adding large parts of the West after the Louisana Purchase and the Mexican American War.

 

[Kriegdämmerung]

Have all the Indians ally with Britian during he ARW, (IIRC the Iroquois didn't). Then have the British recognize the Indian nations as sovereign and have them then become their catspaws in the Northwest until after the War of 1812. At this point the Indians unite into one nation, taking present day Indiana, part of Minnesota, the Dakotas etc and eventually seek entry into the United States as a sort of Autonomous Region, with the special relationship written into the Constitution.

Or have the Indians all side with the Americans in the ARW. They form the Autonomous Region in the Northwest as delegates at the Constitutional Convention, later adding large parts of the West after the Louisana Purchase and the Mexican American War.

I'm pretty sure the Iroquois did ally with the British, and the Americans. That was the problem, the Confederacy couldn't come together to make a unified decision, which weakened this once strong political body...

Maybe if they make a unified decision, that changes something, but in the long run, not so much. Anyways, the Native Americans are perhaps one of the most overlooked groups in history. So even if the US fails to win the ARW, and the British create an Autonomous Iroqouis Confederacy, it'll last maybe a decade before the British/colonists get tired of it and simply push it out of existence...

 

[Broz]

how close was the five nations to becoming something like a recognised statal entity? did any side recognise them as soverine?

 

[Kriegdämmerung]

how close was the five nations to becoming something like a recognised statal entity? did any side recognise them as soverine?

They were at the Congress of Vienna, does that count?