If the trail of Tears didn't happen how would have the Tribes develped?

Any precedent along that line is a good one, but as just mentioned making the switch to European style agricultural land tenure is a much bigger jump for most of the peoples on the Great Plains. California and the Pacific Northwest may turn out at least somewhat better though.

What about the Southwest?
 
Stay mobile and stay in hinterlands of the Appalachians. When the Civil War comes, make a deal with the Union for a dedicated homeland/state with special rights in exchange for cooperation and resupply. Maybe it gives them something though not sure how well it works out in the end.
 
Any precedent along that line is a good one, but as just mentioned making the switch to European style agricultural land tenure is a much bigger jump for most of the peoples on the Great Plains. California and the Pacific Northwest may turn out at least somewhat better though.

California had already had the lifestyles of many of its natives uprooted and ruined by Spanish settlement AFAIK, it’s probably too late for anything better than an avoidance of the later USA genocide.
 
You'd have several broad classes of disenfranchised and assimilated de-tribalized people as what happened OTL.

A slaveowner of one line of my ancestors was a prominent Upper Creek chief who fought against the United States in the War of 1812, before his battling the American government he was a slave owner in Southern Alabama. After the Upper Creeks lost the war his life was spared and he as well as many of his descendants were allowed to remain as slavers in Southern Alabama while most Upper Creek were expelled to Oklahoma.

_
OTL Lower Creek who allied with the United States were able to remain in towns and neighborhoods in Escambia County as de-tribalized indians who slowly assimilated into white cultural norm before reforming a tribal government in the early 20th century as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.

In lieu of maintained tribal/national treaty rights or reservations there could be sympathetic early leaders of statehood such as William C. C. Claiborne (first non-colonial governor of Louisiana noted for his relative empathy of Native Americans), David Holmes first governor of Mississippi (as a noted leader of peace brokering as well as non-removal), George J. F. Clarke (prominent advisor to Spanish governors and prolific businessmen who became the largest land owner in florida with some 33,000 acres that he left to his heirs; all the children of two black women one of whom he was openly married to) in East Florida, etc... a willingness to edify incoming East Coast American whites of a three caste system of White, Brown and Black.

In this ATL a treaty by newly minted governments of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and the Florida parishes takes on a similar tone to the Adams-Onis treaty insuring freeborn peoples of the land before signing as well as their descendants would have rights above that of incoming non-white people or later freed people and/or completely similar to white settlers depending on the person and town and time period.

As well as being turpentine tappers, trappers, fishers, miners, ranchers, scouts and skilled laborers as they were in OTL in this ATL I can see the "five civilized tribes" of the South remaining on the land, intermixing amongst themselves adopting modified Cherokee scripts and speaking Mobilian Jargon all while maintaining independent schools and churches that reinforce shared identity and a separate but equal lifestyle similar to that of other free people of color.

Greater access to provide needs for incoming white settlers (of whom no small quantity would without a doubt father future Natives) I can see in less than two generations a whole slew of Lawyers, doctors, mayors and prominent folk arising. Their place in society would be critical in maintaining a level of shared power in the face of a rising enslaved black African population.
_

I could also see in the areas around swamps, in mountains and generally inaccessible areas native traditionalist strongholds that make a living slave catching much like the maroons of Jamaica.
_

Its possible, really just look at the histories of the remaining federally recognized tribes of the South along with the historical reality of Florida Parish Creoles, New England Native Americans and de-tribalized mixed ethnic groups such as the Houma.
 
You'd have several broad classes of disenfranchised and assimilated de-tribalized people as what happened OTL.

A slaveowner of one line of my ancestors was a prominent Upper Creek chief who fought against the United States in the War of 1812, before his battling the American government he was a slave owner in Southern Alabama. After the Upper Creeks lost the war his life was spared and he as well as many of his descendants were allowed to remain as slavers in Southern Alabama while most Upper Creek were expelled to Oklahoma.

_
OTL Lower Creek who allied with the United States were able to remain in towns and neighborhoods in Escambia County as de-tribalized indians who slowly assimilated into white cultural norm before reforming a tribal government in the early 20th century as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.

In lieu of maintained tribal/national treaty rights or reservations there could be sympathetic early leaders of statehood such as William C. C. Claiborne (first non-colonial governor of Louisiana noted for his relative empathy of Native Americans), David Holmes first governor of Mississippi (as a noted leader of peace brokering as well as non-removal), George J. F. Clarke (prominent advisor to Spanish governors and prolific businessmen who became the largest land owner in florida with some 33,000 acres that he left to his heirs; all the children of two black women one of whom he was openly married to) in East Florida, etc... a willingness to edify incoming East Coast American whites of a three caste system of White, Brown and Black.

In this ATL a treaty by newly minted governments of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and the Florida parishes takes on a similar tone to the Adams-Onis treaty insuring freeborn peoples of the land before signing as well as their descendants would have rights above that of incoming non-white people or later freed people and/or completely similar to white settlers depending on the person and town and time period.

As well as being turpentine tappers, trappers, fishers, miners, ranchers, scouts and skilled laborers as they were in OTL in this ATL I can see the "five civilized tribes" of the South remaining on the land, intermixing amongst themselves adopting modified Cherokee scripts and speaking Mobilian Jargon all while maintaining independent schools and churches that reinforce shared identity and a separate but equal lifestyle similar to that of other free people of color.

Greater access to provide needs for incoming white settlers (of whom no small quantity would without a doubt father future Natives) I can see in less than two generations a whole slew of Lawyers, doctors, mayors and prominent folk arising. Their place in society would be critical in maintaining a level of shared power in the face of a rising enslaved black African population.
_

I could also see in the areas around swamps, in mountains and generally inaccessible areas native traditionalist strongholds that make a living slave catching much like the maroons of Jamaica.
_

Its possible, really just look at the histories of the remaining federally recognized tribes of the South along with the historical reality of Florida Parish Creoles, New England Native Americans and de-tribalized mixed ethnic groups such as the Houma.

thank you for the reply, knowledge, and leads.
 
It would be interesting if one of the consequences was an earlier successful movement for native autonomous governments. Ones that would be, sooner or later, respected even by the US government of the time. The OTL Trail of Tears helped garner some sympathy for the plight of the native people evem in its time, but it was largelly overshadowed by the "getting rid of" approach to deporting many eastern native nationalities, in the most cynical "out of sight, out of mind" way possible. That alone, along with the later Indian Wars, helped perpetuate an already grossly uncharitable attitude of the US to natives, and delayed the decisions to give them actual citizenship, treat them like human beings and allow them autonomous local government by many decades.

If you had enough divergences earlier in the 19th century, perhaps even an earlier condemnation and abolition of slavery in the South, you might hear voices proposing equal treatment of natives as citizens earlier than in OTL. Though the American settlers tended to tolerate natives if they assimilated into larger society (hence the whole "civilised tribe" moniker and stereotype of the 1800s), it took them a good long while to admit they should take the native population and their say in matters (even just political representation) seriously.

You can hardly make things worse by preventing the Trail of Tears, but even if you prevent it, it remains an open question whether attitudes towards Native American nationalities in the US would change for the better sooner than in OTL.

California had already had the lifestyles of many of its natives uprooted and ruined by Spanish settlement AFAIK, it’s probably too late for anything better than an avoidance of the later USA genocide.

Though the real loss of language diversity among the Californian nationalities and tribes was only "completed" in the 1900s. You still have a lot of surviving recordings from late native speakers of Californian dialects, some recorded as late as the 1950s and 1960s. Though, obviously, much of the lifestyle damage had already occured in the 1700s or 1800s, with the fast increasing Spanish and later Anglophone presence.
 
It would be interesting if one of the consequences was an earlier successful movement for native autonomous governments. Ones that would be, sooner or later, respected even by the US government of the time. The OTL Trail of Tears helped garner some sympathy for the plight of the native people evem in its time, but it was largelly overshadowed by the "getting rid of" approach to deporting many eastern native nationalities, in the most cynical "out of sight, out of mind" way possible. That alone, along with the later Indian Wars, helped perpetuate an already grossly uncharitable attitude of the US to natives, and delayed the decisions to give them actual citizenship, treat them like human beings and allow them autonomous local government by many decades.

If you had enough divergences earlier in the 19th century, perhaps even an earlier condemnation and abolition of slavery in the South, you might hear voices proposing equal treatment of natives as citizens earlier than in OTL. Though the American settlers tended to tolerate natives if they assimilated into larger society (hence the whole "civilised tribe" moniker and stereotype of the 1800s), it took them a good long while to admit they should take the native population and their say in matters (even just political representation) seriously.

You can hardly make things worse by preventing the Trail of Tears, but even if you prevent it, it remains an open question whether attitudes towards Native American nationalities in the US would change for the better sooner than in OTL.

You won't get autonomous governments within governments in the south I believe. Greenwood LeFlore Choctaw nationalist himself believed the Trail of Tears was inevitable but he had hoped article 14 in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit would be honored.

ART. XIV. Each Choctaw head of a family being desirous to remain and become a citizen of the States, shall be permitted to do so, by signifying his intention to the Agent within six months from the ratification of this Treaty, and he or she shall thereupon be entitled to a reservation of one section of six hundred and forty acres of land, to be bounded by sectional lines of survey; in like manner shall be entitled to one half that quantity for each unmarried child which is living with him over ten years of age; and a quarter section to such child as may be under 10 years of age, to adjoin the location of the parent. If they reside upon said lands intending to become citizens of the States for five years after the ratification of this Treaty, in that case a grant in fee simple shall issue; said reservation shall include the present improvement of the head of the family, or a portion of it. Persons who claim under this article shall not lose the privilege of a Choctaw citizen, but if they ever remove are not to be entitled to any portion of the Choctaw annuity

He and his children received 1000 acres of land but the Agent in charge of doling out land to others was a drunkard and racist who did not allow most eligible choctaw to receive plots in Mississippi. The lands would not be held in a tribal governmental body but rather by head of household.
_____________________________

If the foundations of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida were supported by the federal government headed by President James Madison and if OTL Georgia Governor Troup lost to someone handpicked by twice elected governor John Clark it could be possible for a White/Native society to develop between assimilated natives protected by federal soldiers and settlers.

“Experience has clearly demonstrated that, in their present state, it is impossible to incorporate them in such masses, in any form whatever, into our system,” he said. “Their degradation and extermination will be inevitable.” -James Madison
he said this because Troup was extremely pro-indian removal, but with a more flexible governor a middle ground could be made in favor of yeoman indians.

Slavery and aligning with slavery is the only way indigenous people have a chance to surviving in the South.

thank you for the reply, knowledge, and leads.
No problem, this is a topic I've thought a lot about given my families histories in Alabama and the South interacting in ways that doesn't align to what most textbooks talk about.
 
You won't get autonomous governments within governments in the south I believe. Greenwood LeFlore Choctaw nationalist himself believed the Trail of Tears was inevitable but he had hoped article 14 in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit would be honored.



He and his children received 1000 acres of land but the Agent in charge of doling out land to others was a drunkard and racist who did not allow most eligible choctaw to receive plots in Mississippi. The lands would not be held in a tribal governmental body but rather by head of household.
_____________________________

If the foundations of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida were supported by the federal government headed by President James Madison and if OTL Georgia Governor Troup lost to someone handpicked by twice elected governor John Clark it could be possible for a White/Native society to develop between assimilated natives protected by federal soldiers and settlers.


he said this because Troup was extremely pro-indian removal, but with a more flexible governor a middle ground could be made in favor of yeoman indians.

Slavery and aligning with slavery is the only way indigenous people have a chance to surviving in the South.


No problem, this is a topic I've thought a lot about given my families histories in Alabama and the South interacting in ways that doesn't align to what most textbooks talk about.

how do you think how the situation would play out when the civil war comes around and it's aftermath?
 
how do you think how the situation would play out when the civil war comes around and it's aftermath?
Cherokee_Confederates_Reunion.gif



depends. Like on one hand you have federal soldiers and federal government insuring that the smooth transition of tribal to detribalized peoples but on the other hand if they don't fight the Union they'll face the wrath of a white class that sees them as backstabbers. Id much rather see the vocal elite be staunch confederates and the everyday people fighting but quick to bow down to Union pressures.

that or they go the way of post-reconstruction blacks and get the noose

OTL 1912 state representative Pat Harrison stated in Congress
“Mr. Chairman, the Choctaw Indians always stood with the white men of the South.”
in an attempt to get money into choctaw community hands (and of course "pork" barrel spending) how they align with white southerners will heavily shape them for the rest of any ATL.
 
I believe they well would probably be assimilated and today the South would just have a larger population with some native heritage, Florida might actually have the Seminole people holding out long enough for a large reservation, but the other four lose their autonomy and distinctiveness.
 
Cherokee_Confederates_Reunion.gif



depends. Like on one hand you have federal soldiers and federal government insuring that the smooth transition of tribal to detribalized peoples but on the other hand if they don't fight the Union they'll face the wrath of a white class that sees them as backstabbers. Id much rather see the vocal elite be staunch confederates and the everyday people fighting but quick to bow down to Union pressures.

that or they go the way of post-reconstruction blacks and get the noose

OTL 1912 state representative Pat Harrison stated in Congress

in an attempt to get money into choctaw community hands (and of course "pork" barrel spending) how they align with white southerners will heavily shape them for the rest of any ATL.

as much as I expected but it's still depressing that no matter what happened that the Native Americans were screwed.
 
as much as I expected but it's still depressing that no matter what happened that the Native Americans were screwed.
everyone not white gets screwed in the Americas, you learn to accept that there is nothing any non-european group could have done to be equals realistically due to colonialism being well colonialism.
 
everyone not white gets screwed in the Americas, you learn to accept that there is nothing any non-european group could have done to be equals realistically due to colonialism being well colonialism.

yeah but I do think that the world would be a better place if the trail of tears didn't happen.
 
Would be interesting if the the native tribes due to close proximity to slave ownership/freedmen cohabitation develop into essentially a creole afro Indian culture much like the Garifuna.

Just from basic google searches I see he Garifuna are a much larger population than other carribean indigenous groups and That is probably due to their intermixing with escaped slaves. Would be interesting to see whether something like this is replicated and i beg someone with better knowledge than I writes this TL because the five civilised tribes are super interesting.
 
yeah but I do think that the world would be a better place if the trail of tears didn't happen.
Agreed but ASB given the cultural basis of Europeans

Would be interesting if the the native tribes due to close proximity to slave ownership/freedmen cohabitation develop into essentially a creole afro Indian culture much like the Garifuna.

Just from basic google searches I see he Garifuna are a much larger population than other carribean indigenous groups and That is probably due to their intermixing with escaped slaves. Would be interesting to see whether something like this is replicated and i beg someone with better knowledge than I writes this TL because the five civilised tribes are super interesting.

Garifuna are the result of African domination over indigenous populations. Just as we see historically with the Esmeraldes Zambos, the Maroons of Suriname and the Miskito Sambu of the Damien Gap it was the disease, technological and militaristic advantages of Africans that subsumed the numerically superior natives and brought European colonists a greater challenge to conquest.

The formation of Indio-Africans in North America was completely oppositional to that of the Latin America. They were rarely numerically superior and enslaved by Native Americans and those who owned extensive plantations were fully entrenched in European American cultural norms.

Some of my ancestors were enslaved by Creek and later became Creek Freedmen but the assimilating Creek never sought to align themselves with American blacks (its the reason why the creek nation of Oklahoma were so quick to disenfranchise their descendants and why the Poarch Creek band never even thought of including black Creeks)

They rightfully recognized who had the capabilities of perpetuating some semblance of indigenous community and it wasnt those who had been shackled no offense to you know my peoples.
 
Last edited:
Agreed but ASB given the cultural basis of Europeans



Garifuna are the result of African domination over indigenous populations. Just as we see historically with the Esmeraldes Zambos, the Maroons of Suriname and the Miskito Sambu of the Damien Gap it was the disease, technological and militaristic advantages of Africans that subsumed the numerically superior natives and brought European colonists a greater challenge to conquest.

The formation of Indio-Africans in North America was completely oppositional to that of the Latin America. They were rarely numerically superior and enslaved by Native Americans and those who owned extensive plantations were fully entrenched in European American cultural norms.

Some of my ancestors were enslaved by Creek and later became Creek Freedmen but the assimilating Creek never sought to align themselves with American blacks (its the reason why the creek nation of Oklahoma were so quick to disenfranchise their descendants and why the Poarch Creek band never even thought of including black Creeks)

They rightfully recognized who had the capabilities of perpetuating some semblance of indigenous community and it wasnt those who had been shackled no offense to you know my peoples.


Great points and obviously I don’t think the five civilised tribes would have been Africanised realistically, do you agree though that just due to sheer proximity to the largest African population centres in North America would lead to greater number of freedmen living among them?

Moving on from that I think once the 20th century Dawns the biggest cultural affects would be seen. Clearly to survive in the south the tribes would be forced to align with white supremacy and act as a sort of middle man colonial minority similar to the coloureds in South Africa. However i wonder how the 20th century civil rights movement affects them as there could be a land conflict over tribal historical lands that were taken in the 19th century.
 
Great points and obviously I don’t think the five civilised tribes would have been Africanised realistically, do you agree though that just due to sheer proximity to the largest African population centres in North America would lead to greater number of freedmen living among them?

Moving on from that I think once the 20th century Dawns the biggest cultural affects would be seen. Clearly to survive in the south the tribes would be forced to align with white supremacy and act as a sort of middle man colonial minority similar to the coloureds in South Africa. However i wonder how the 20th century civil rights movement affects them as there could be a land conflict over tribal historical lands that were taken in the 19th century.

Some my African descended family was in the territory from probably the 1700s if not earlier, most blacks had only been in Alabama post-War of 1812. Most were rather subservient as they were born in Virginia a state that's main economic export in the rural areas being enslaved people.

They didnt know war, they didnt necessarily have the plantation skills associated with many enslaved people further south.

African born enslaved people would be much more amendable but they had already aligned with the upper creek and Seminoles for the most part.

With the Treaty of Fort Jackson ending the War, Andrew Jackson went about the process of completely pushing out the Creek nation ignoring those that were his allies save for those in southernmost Alabama and defeated submissive war chiefs.

The conditions of the Natives had fallen greatly, in Mississippi enslaved black people reportedly even favored their own positions to that of the dispossessed Choctaw.

But you also have to remember the Creek and other tribes in an attempt to maintaining validation to European conquerors actively made laws barring Africans from leadership and later communities in Oklahoma and on southern communities/reservations.

As a result any civil rights movement in the South in an only slightly altered ATL would remain primarily black, with a paralleling civil rights movement against the Native communities by Black Indians.

Being a small middle position they like Alabama Creoles, Creek would be more invested in maintaining their limited privileges by staying silent.

In my idea of an grander ATL they would for the most part be silent with some individual radicals from traditionalist clans seeking to align with Blacks but again their impact would be minimal.
 
Top