Coul the US have survived true justice for natives?

Imagine somehow that Indian territory (with agreed US owned rail and other routes across them, and possibly some limited agreed white/ black cities) included the Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma and maybe Idaho...

Could the US have still deveped into a great power?

Oh and was say 1870 too late to do justice to the descendants of the first North Americans (who had not already died )?
 
Imagine somehow that Indian territory (with agreed US owned rail and other routes across them, and possibly some limited agreed white/ black cities) included the Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma and maybe Idaho...

Could the US have still deveped into a great power?

Oh and was say 1870 too late to do justice to the descendants of the first North Americans (who had not already died )?
Have fun defining 'true justice.'
 
Have you ever been there?

The states you mention are EMPTY. :)

I drove through it. I see no reason that the US shoudn't have stood about as tall as today without some of these states.

Also, I suggest that US corporations would still be able (you mentioned railroads) to harness the raw materials of this region - though having to share some of the profit with some sort of Native American government.

It might even be imaginable that a sooner "closing of the frontier" would lead the USA earlier to maritime expansion, thus we might have more American colonies pre-1914 and an earlier superpower.

However, "true justice" would be unaffordable. (Un-?)Fortunately, history is not about "true justice".
 
The states you mention are EMPTY. :)

I drove through it. I see no reason that the US shoudn't have stood about as tall as today without some of these states.

Also, I suggest that US corporations would still be able (you mentioned railroads) to harness the raw materials of this region - though having to share some of the profit with some sort of Native American government.

It might even be imaginable that a sooner "closing of the frontier" would lead the USA earlier to maritime expansion, thus we might have more American colonies pre-1914 and an earlier superpower.

However, "true justice" would be unaffordable. (Un-?)Fortunately, history is not about "true justice".
Well, the Dakotas are part of the world's breadbasket. They could be relatively empty, but nonetheless, they need to be settled by farmers for the US 'standing as tall as today'. The Sioux weren't farmers, AFAIK, and in any case, they weren't/aren't commercial farmers.
 
I said "about as tall"

Sure, wheat is yummy. But the lack of this region won't stop the US from becoming a superpower.:D
 
It would stop it from being as mighty a superpower for sure.

I didn't argue it would strengthen the US.

But I assume the USA would still be able to win WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. Maybe even the Spanish-American war.

Besides - what would be the relation between the Native territory and the USA?

Greetings,
Christian
 

mowque

Banned
I didn't argue it would strengthen the US.

But I assume the USA would still be able to win WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. Maybe even the Spanish-American war.

Besides - what would be the relation between the Native territory and the USA?

Greetings,
Christian

All these are butterflied away most likely.
 
All these are butterflied away most likely.

I disagree as long as the set-apart territory acts as a kind of "Grand Reservation" - neutral, militarily weak and still open to a certain degree of US economical influence.

I read the premise that way.

I see little mid-term influence on European affairs. Maybe the Zimmerman telegramm is sent somewhere North of Mexico. Probably the works of Karl May would change.

WW1, e.g., might be butterflied away. But - not necessarily so.

However, I assume that the USA could still win a war "like" WW1. :p
 
Kill off Andrew Jackson (or make him unelectable to Pres) and insure armed government protection of the Indian territories East of the Mississippi.
 
so, what do the natives do after you set aside this huge area for them? Traditional hunting and fishing nomadic things? Won't work for long... the buffalo are going to be gone sooner or later anyway; even if you get the whites to stop hunting them, the diseases from cattle that they got were wiping them out anyway (in OTL, these diseases did as much- if not more- to wipe out the huge herds as hunting did). The natives are going to have to take up ranching/farming if they don't want to starve. Another problem is that several of these states had deposits of gold/silver/copper (significant amounts), and that is going to lead to an immediate clash with the natives. Also, you'd have a tiny number of natives in this whole big territory, who couldn't begin to fill it all up and make use of it... which will lead to another clash with the whites. These states may be 'empty', but they aren't that empty... thousands of people did homestead in them. If you cut off this big region for white homesteading, the 'allowed' areas will fill up faster with settlement; once all the best areas are taken, later immigrants are going to be rather surly about not being able to settle in the better lands of the reservations. One last conflict will be with the cattlemen, who in OTL, made a lot of money by running cattle on the wide open ranges of the west, once the buffalo were gone.
If you really want a big region set aside as a native-only region, the best bet is for WY (which has never had a large population), and UT (if you can POD away the Mormon settlement of it)...
 
I didn't argue it would strengthen the US.

But I assume the USA would still be able to win WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. Maybe even the Spanish-American war.

Besides - what would be the relation between the Native territory and the USA?

Greetings,
Christian
All these are butterflied away most likely.

Certainly much of WW2 should go. Adolf would have had to get his idea of Lebensraum from somewhere else.
 

Stephen

Banned
All nations are built on the destruction of other nations. Those that lose the ability to crush other nations get crushed themselves.
 
Certainly much of WW2 should go. Adolf would have had to get his idea of Lebensraum from somewhere else.
But would he come into power in the first place?
Would he even be born with a PoD substantially before 1889?

More European wars are likely to happen but for the same reason and with the same result are debatable.

As to the OP I think turning a sizable part of the center of the country into a "mega-rez" would be as limiting as the Feds accept it to be. If they grant it a large amount of self-rule then the US can be very limited depending on how the natives administer it. If the Feds take the standard approach of "The rules exist until we disagree with them" then they are likely to be much less limited.
 
But would he come into power in the first place?

You are right. That is debatable. But I guess he would conjure up the "Lebensraum"-fixation anyways. It is not based solely on the development of the US. And.....the US still is a huge Lebensraum taken from the Natives, give or take a few states.

Would he even be born with a PoD substantially before 1889?

19 years is not that substantial when you take the distance between the US preries and rural Austria into account. It could be avoided, but it is less than certain.

More European wars are likely to happen but for the same reason and with the same result are debatable.

Hmmmm. Why more?

I still argue that this is a tremendous change in US internal development, but it will hardly touch:

a) the fact that the US is a huge industrial power from the end of the 19th century to the mid-20th century
b) European alliance system up to WW1 (which is probable to break out due to one of the manifold crises somewhen between 1905-1920) - misguided as they were, the European powers didn't pay the US the respect they deserved
c) Anglo-American relations; thus a path leading to the USA coming to Britain's aid (and decisively so) during 20th century conflicts is probable
d) the fact that the US are a two-ocean-power. Development of the Pacific states might even be emphasized due to the giveaway of the "Grand Reservation"
e) There will still be mass-immigration to the US
1. It can still take it.
2. Farmground is one, but not the only essential motivation to go to the US. There is still democracy, social upwards mobility, religious freedom and the possibility to make a better living with hard work than in Italy, Poland, Russia, even Germany...
 
Top