Indians hold out to 2100 ADp

The American March westward is storied as it is tragic. The Indians were swept off their lands and into either extinction/assimilation/or reservations.

Many groups fought the encroaching American settlement till the beginning of the 20th century and even a little after.

How can we have the Indians put up the best possible resistance for as long as possible.

Delaying the trek across the Appalachians and march to California and closing of the west until say 2100

POD: is 1500

Have the Amerindians in North America hold on to the beginning of the 22nd century.

Edit: 2100 AD the p is a typo.
 

Deleted member 97083

The British settle South America (Rio de la Plata) instead of North America, preventing the Thirteen Colonies from being established.

The Dutch and French battle each other over their underpopulated, trade-based empires in Eastern North America, leaving significant Native populations surviving in the east as the Dutch and French seek "Indian allies" against the respective kingdoms, and leaving the western half of the continent uninhabited by Europeans except for Spanish priests.

In the late 1800s the Russians colonize California just intensely enough to challenge Spain/Mexico's rule over the area, but not effectively enough to make it Russian. Most of the settlers are Christianized Alaska Natives. Ultimately it remains disputed.

Revolutions and independence wars happen.

A Navajo confederation forms an independent largely sedentary state in the Utah-Arizona-Colorado-New Mexico area, and even occupies parts of inland California.

The Navajo confederation plays off the Russians, Dutch, French, and Mexico against each other until the late 20th century, and the great power game slows down. But after over a century of stability, some WW2/WW3/WW4 happens in 2100 and they get occupied.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2100? Somehow I had a vision of stereotypical Indians from an old Western fighting space marines.

It would need a POD no later than the 17th century. But honestly, if any indigenous state survives until then, then why would anyone conquer them unless they're going for continental unification for something?

My guess for this state is a Cherokee or whoever ends up in Southern Appalachia (southwest Virginia and south) after the initial chaos from the plagues, de Soto, and other colonisers. If France (or Spain?) more intensely settles Louisiana, and Britain (or France?) still takes the East Coast, then if they keep getting seriously good luck involving leadership, relations with other natives, and relations with Europeans, they can be a borderland and sort of neutral zone between the two colonial empires, good for trade, etc. They have nice resources too.
 

Deleted member 97083

But honestly, if any indigenous state survives until then, then why would anyone conquer them unless they're going for continental unification for something?
Yeah it would need a reset of national relations, like some new political/economic ideology spreading across the continent, or a world war where old systems break down, for anyone to consider conquest at that point.
 
French win Seven Years War or Brits win American rebels. But even then situation of natives would be just slightly better than in OTL. It might be impossible to avoid assimilation of natives.
 

trajen777

Banned
You have to first have a major changes
1. Gov - the tribes were always at war -- example -- Minnesota -- first Blackfeet driven out by Sioux driven out by Chippewa etc etc. So you need some tribal confederations or a Genghis Khan type of figure.
2. You need to have a better resistance to disease. The 95% (in some est) left to few in place to put up a solid front
3. You need a better level of technology (i think if we need to have the Vikings have a minimal surviving group) ie metal craft, bows, methods of war. In addition the spread of disease would have wiped out xxx and you would have seen some recovery from 900 to xx.
4. The center of tis might be the Mississippian culture. IN this you had a very formalized structure (and they defeated the Spanish in battle and destruction of forts in North Carolina etc). They were in some major decline by 1500 and were devastated by disease that wiped out their social structure.
So maybe :
1. Have viking spread disease to recovery by 1400 / 1500.
2. Have the miss culture become more the city states
3. Have some of the vikings (long way from Newfoundland i know) transfer metal working (although like i said they defeated the Spanish many times)
4. Have a unified structure and attack the early settlements (which they did against the Spanish)
5. Allow some type of trade forts with very limited Europeans (think of how Japan did it with only Nagasaki as a trade port) to gain technology etc.

IN this way you have minimized the disease (although you would get other waves ie: measles - plague - small pox etc etc etc ), and have a social structure of villages (up to 24,000) that were war like with enough tactics to defeat Spanish. Not a massive amount of gold or silver (to have euro people driven for $$) to have conquerors driven by greed, and some tech flow (they have metal already from Vikings) to get them up to speed.
 

trajen777

Banned
A map of the "Mississippi
300px-Mississippian_cultures_HRoe_2010.jpg
culture"
 
In the war of 1812 did Britain not want to create an independent indigenous "buffer" nation? This era and continent is certainly not my area of knowledge so I may be wrong...?
 
An independent USA hemmed in by buffer states that Britain supplies/supports would work, though you would need a long-term rationale, which can be provided by Russia. If Russia is settling the West coast and allying with the US, then Britain supporting Shawnee, Sioux, Comanche etc as proxies would provide the blocking impetus
 
From the article; http://nationalpost.com/news/the-wa...sisting-american-invaders-was-the-only-option

“The British since Governor Simcoe had been selling the idea of an independent Indian Country,” said Alan Corbiere, native historian and Anishinaabemowin revitalization coordinator at Lakeview School, M’Chigeeng First Nation. They believed a buffer state between the United States and the Mississippi would slow American expansion and protect Canada. The ‘Indian Country’ would include vast areas already overrun by U.S. settlers.

In exchange for their support, the British promised native tribes “they would get their old boundaries back and their hunting grounds would be preserved and restored,” Corbiere said.

Why, then, would the natives risk siding with the British during the War of 1812? “I believe it was the only option for them,” said Corbiere. “The nations saw that the Americans were a greater threat and that they wanted the land at a more rapacious rate than the British.”

By 1814, Britain and the U.S. began peace talks in Belgium. British negotiators advocated for a native buffer state but only because its existence could block the invasion of Canada. “The Indians are but a secondary object,” wrote British negotiator Henry Goulburn. “As the Allies of Great Britain, she must include them in the peace … But when the boundary is once defined, it is immaterial whether Indians are upon it or not.”

But as negotiations continued, the British were concerned that prolonging the war might cause civil unrest at home. They dropped the demand for a buffer state and accepted a return to prewar borders as part of the 1814 Treaty of Ghent.
“By 1814, Great Britain had accepted the finality of American independence,” says York University Prof. William Wick. “As a result, natives became redundant.”



Hmm thought I had read this somewhere just did a quick Google search and this appeared...
 
An independent USA hemmed in by buffer states that Britain supplies/supports would work, though you would need a long-term rationale, which can be provided by Russia. If Russia is settling the West coast and allying with the US, then Britain supporting Shawnee, Sioux, Comanche etc as proxies would provide the blocking impetus

The British will eventually stop hating the Americans when the latter butt kisses. Then they'll decide it's good to be on the Yankees good side for some trade goods and the funding to the buffer state goes. With no funds, that state is doomed.

A better idea might be the British winning the American Revolution. They kept either 25% or 99% of their treaties with the Indians. It depends on if you count some clause like "and we'll keep those nosy colonists out of tribe A's land... whoops the colonists are not listening and squatting" a treaty violation on the British part or not. The Dutch kept their word with the natives the most, the British second most (or most if you don't count those incidents as violations), and the Americans the least. I read that of the over 600 treaties signed between America and the Indians, the number of treaties kept by the Americans could be counted on a single finger! Presumably any British-Indian treaty would include self preservation clauses. So I can imagine lots of Princely States popping up that might use the British pound as currency, but otherwise independent allies. On the other hand, some in the British government after the War of Austrian Succession were imagining not only taking the French lands in a future war, but to make the areas East of the Mississippi like England and the West like India. This implies they would have wanted to slowly assimilate or move some Indians, while the sphere of influence but otherwise independent states would be in the West.
 
Top