Development of the US military if Native Americans were not a threat?

For much of the 19th century not including the Civil War, the federal military was kept relatively small as its main focus was to aid in settler moving west and having to only deal with the Natives which didn't requite a large force.

If the Native Americans were actually even less of a threat, perhaps even increased impact from disease than OTL and settlers were mostly unimpeded to progress. Would the US have shifted its focus earlier to expanding across the oceans and trying to keep up with the Europeans militarily?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
No.

Did not want to spend the money. The 5-9 regiments of troops used to suppress the Indians did not really break the budget of a nation of 40 million. WW1 Germany was only about 75% larger, yet had 8 full armies consisting of around 80 divisions consisting of around 320 infantry regiments plus all the other stuff that goes into an army. It is simply a lack of need and lack of desire to spend money that kept the US army small.
 

mad orc

Banned
But at the same time it did not lose the ability to get such an army. That's why US is what its today.
I like this thread.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Ok let’s review a little of the American military history.
1) following the ARW the federal government was bankrupt and the states were not interested in allowing it have the $ to build an army that could attack them so US federal government finances limited it to only be able to support a few thousands troops most used to pacify the territories.
2) American navy gots its start of few frigates to protect American ships from Barbary pirate attacks. 1790s -1810. But was nowhere near the level of the European nations.
3) the war with the civilized southern tribes and against Florida was accomplished with state militia and volunteers not with federal troops.
4) war of 1812 was fought mostly by state militia not federal troops. The defeat of American forces in the war was a great impetus for reforms and enlargement of federal forces. But state militia was still in use especially since many people and states did not trust the Federal government.
5) ACW was fought using a combination of state militia and federal troops. The confederates suffered most with large part of its troops under the command of state generals and not under confederate control.

So how would the USA create and maintain an army required for foreign intervention along with strong navy to protect it. We not talking after ACW but from 1777-1850s?
 
I doubt it. The US was always quite isolationist, and also committed to having a small army - the Constitution's wording about raising armies with short-term funding and longer treatment of militias makes it clear that the US was never intended to have a large, standing, professional army like European states. I suspect that if there hadn't been Indians to slau - er, pacify, then the Army would have been even smaller.

And besides, expanding overseas was the job of the Navy and the Marines!

But the US had little enough interest in expanding overseas, with so much land near home waiting to be settled and exploited. During the post-Civil War period, most of what's today the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest, and all of the Great Plains, the Mountain West, and the Southwest (and even much of California) were effectively colonies, sparsely though increasingly settled, being exploited for what resources could be extracted in the meantime (especially when it comes to gold rushes...). The exception was guano islands, but only after British oligopolies restricted access and drove up prices to Peruvian guano and Chilean saltpeter.
 
Well, there will still be a confrontation with Spain or Mexico over their territory in my opinion.

grammar edit
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
Well, there will still be a confrontation with Spain or Mexico over there territory in my opinion.
Yes but those were based on raised army for a specific purpose and then disbanded.

Also if the natives had died off due to disease then Spanish control and if Mexico also be stronger. So not a walk in park
 
The second amendment would seem like an artifact. No need for armed citizenry to prevent the "return of a tyrannical government" and no need for frontier defense. That said, no one is going to ask for it to go away just because it seems out of place. I mean, no one really questioned the third amendment's existence once it outlived its purpose.
 
The second amendment would seem like an artifact. No need for armed citizenry to prevent the "return of a tyrannical government" and no need for frontier defense. That said, no one is going to ask for it to go away just because it seems out of place. I mean, no one really questioned the third amendment's existence once it outlived its purpose.

Why? The US military still exists, and a lot of the Second Amendment's purpose was for militias which were good for things other than killing American Indians.
 
So how would the USA create and maintain an army required for foreign intervention along with strong navy to protect it. We not talking after ACW but from 1777-1850s?

The most obvious way would be to have a more threatening European presence near to the USA -- a surviving Spanish Empire, perhaps, or worse relations with Britain leading to fears of war along the northern border, or something similar.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The most obvious way would be to have a more threatening European presence near to the USA -- a surviving Spanish Empire, perhaps, or worse relations with Britain leading to fears of war along the northern border, or something similar.
Yes but the issue in the first 25 years or so is whether the states felt they were the best at protecting themselves or if they trusted the federal government to do so. The Federal government was responsible for the protection of the seas therefore the American government created the American Navy and Marines. But for this initial period the states militia were the primary force defending the country and even invading neighboring nations and their colonies such as the war against the Spanish in Florida and war of 1812.

To have a national army because the Spanish and British were perceived as more hostile then that would affect more than just the political fight for the control of the direction the USA between the Federalist and those who advocated for state rights. For a hostile Great Britain and Spain would of also meant that Spanish defenses in Florida would of been more extensive but more importantly as discussed in other threads meant that investment and trade between the USA and GB would of been much lower and thus the American industrialization would of been slower (majority of investment for American industrialization came from Britain) Also since the British were the primary industrialized country from 1780-1810 that produced many of the goods that USA imported the reduced trade between the two would of resulted in the American government revenue from excise taxes on imports would of been less and its ability to pay for larger force limited unless additional taxes would of been required which many states were against.

Also would that USA look upon further European immigration with as much interest especially emigrants from the British Isles? Would that of meant that British North America becomes the default destination for the British emigrants who are no longer welcome in the USA and its growth is seen as an even greater threat to the Americans?
 
Yes but those were based on raised army for a specific purpose and then disbanded.

Also if the natives had died off due to disease then Spanish control and if Mexico also be stronger. So not a walk in park

Well, given how much the population growth in/economic development of New Spain had been on the native population (and admixture into it), Id say it's a best a wash for Hispanic influence on the continent if not a major hinderence. Less labor and less people means, even if the Plains and Desert tribes are gutted, there aren't enough Spainards to really have an incentive to push out of the fertile vallies of Centeral mexico and the coastland.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Well, given how much the population growth in/economic development of New Spain had been on the native population (and admixture into it), Id say it's a best a wash for Hispanic influence on the continent if not a major hinderence. Less labor and less people means, even if the Plains and Desert tribes are gutted, there aren't enough Spainards to really have an incentive to push out of the fertile vallies of Centeral mexico and the coastland.
There are two major POD here.

If there were no native Americans when Columbus arrived or lets say when Vikings arrived it would of changed the pace of settlement in the New world. For the Vikings it might of meant that they survive in Newfoundland and Europeans find a flourishing Viking country in the 15th -16th century. The French and English first settlers would of encountered thick forests changes are several animals that were in large part hunted to extinction by Native Americans. ability to settle be very much hindered since corn would not exist on American east coast. So therefore USA would not exists as we know it. Spanish New world would be small settlements similar to Portuguese in Brazil. No gold and silver to fill the Spanish coffers. There are so many differences it makes my mind spin

So lets take a different POD lets say that contact with Europeans is much worse and lets say 95% die off by 1750s. This will also change the settlement and politics. The loss of the Huron and Iroquois will impact French-English wars. A die off that drastic would mean that interaction, knowledge and even settlement would be changes. The Quebec Act to reserve the land west of Appalachian for Natives not exists. Also the die off would impacted wars between the French and English and mean that settlers not attacked even while the 13 colonies part of Britain.

So before we discuss how things will be after ARW we need to discuss how we got to ARW, heck we might not even have a ARW or the French might still control the Mississippi and St Lawrence areas.
 
Top