Indian Removal in a TL with no Louisiana Purchase

In the 1830s, the U.S. government forcibly relocated the indigenous peoples of the southeast from their traditional homelands to what later became the state of Oklahoma. But what if U.S. territory didn't extend past the Mississippi River (setting aside why for a moment)? How do they deal with their Indian "problem"? I see four possibilities, but I was wondering if anybody else had other ideas:

1. Move them out west anyway. Just march them across the Mississippi River and hope that whoever owns Louisiana (France, Spain or Mexico) doesn't mind.

2. Move them somewhere else. In OTL, when the U.S. wanted their land, they moved them to a different area that was perceived as being less useful for white settlement. I'm not sure if there are any regions east of the Mississippi that fit that description. Maybe the swampy areas of south Florida? Or snowy Wisconsin?

3. Leave them where they are. Just deal with it and find a way to coexist. Maybe try to assimilate them more than OTL. This would obviously be the best scenario from a humanitarian perspective, but I'm not sure if the southerners would go for it.

4. Just straight up exterminate them. That seems a bit harsh, even for this era, but I suppose if they can't figure out anything else to do, tensions could rise to a violent boiling point.

Any other ideas?
 
I think it would be a combination of options 2, 3, and 4.
They would try to relocate them to place less white inhabitants. I can easily imagine Florida. Those that wouldn't move they would try to assimilate. And those who refused to move or assimilate would be exterminated.
 
Probably option number one.

Assuming that the US has little difference otherwise from OTL, with no Louisiana Purchase, the population of the US will continue to grow, and there will be a desire to expand. Not only will the US export the Natives per OTL, you will have a repeat of Texas with a filibuster in Louisiana. After all, most of the Great Plains were considered a desert, and hardly suitable land to settle except by those self-same natives.

Frankly, it also depends on all the other butterflies that occur. Does the US do better or worse in 1812? Mexico had problems with Texas and had barely settled California; how would they be able to hold Louisiana as well. Spain couldn't hold it without Mexico (and if the Napoleonic wars occur, they will have a very hard time keeping hold of them) Does Britain have it after seizing it during the Napoleonic wars? In that case, I don't see how they could settle it and Canada at the same time. There are no other major American looking powers that might be able to hold it, as far as I can tell.
 

Driftless

Donor
The Black Hawk War - 1832 - Illinois/Wisconsin

Sauk, Kickapoo, Meswakis, and others re-crossed the Mississippi from Iowa (once part of the Louisiana Purchase) back into Illinois, with the goal of re-occupying their land.

It did not go well for them....

The end was the Battle of the Bad Axe (river) in Southwestern Wisconsin. The indians, by that point largely the old, women, & children were driven to the banks of the Mississppi, and many were shot trying to escape back to Iowa

Not one of our country's finest hours....
 
Option 1, moving the Indians onto the territory of another power has the potential to backfire, since these Indians could be armed by that power to act against the United States. IOTL the Spanish in Florida used the Seminoles and escaped slaves as a buffer to the U.S. before finally being kicked out, and the Mexican government invited the Kickapoo to northern Mexico for the same reason (there are still Mexican Kickapoos today, IIRC). It's not impossible for the U.S. to take that option, but it's a decision that could backfire on them.
 
But, as I recently pointed out, Spain would've sold too, for it was only a loss to them, with no built up trading net. And they also had the ARW debts as well. So, why not?

Sorry,
 
What about Florida? it would be interesting if something as Horrible as the Indian Removal had a silver lining like Florida becoming a Native American state at some point.

Either as a multi-tribe area that would be America's version of Quebec in Canada or its own separate nation.

The butterflies here are enormous
 
Number 3 would have been perfect.
After all that time, the only intelligent american about that problem, has been
Bill Clinton and he fix it for ever.
Been down there lately? It's a beauty to see them show the world how well they integrated the capitalistic values.
Like in any other society they have their weeknesses but very well compatible with their neighbors. We learned a great deal from them and vice-versa.
I took time to seat with them very often and they are of good company.
The american continent lost a great deal by that genocide. Gerard.
 

Driftless

Donor
That's for sure. I've camped there a couple times. There's a small hamlet called Victory right near there. And Zebulon Pike camped there on his trip upriver. What about Michigan as a destination ? At least until the loggers set eyes on it...

I live about 50 miles north of Victory, above La Crosse. It's a beautiful area.

Northern Wisconsin & the UP of Michigan still have a number of bands of indians of various nations and tribal groups. As you noted, the lumber business swept through there too, along with copper & iron miners in the late 1800's, early 1900's. The growing season has some limits and some of the surface soils pose some limits for farming.

I don't know of a good real-world answer to the conflict between the indians and the white settlers. The worst aspects of human nature seemed to rise to a level of critical mass and disaster was the result for the indians.
 
Top