Justice for native Americans in a successful US

The nations once again?

The answer to that question is probably no. Divergence points that gave this outcome would be based on a totally different history i.e suppose the Crown had won in the American War of Independence/ white settlers revolt. The Mohawks and Cherokees were allies of the Crown and were not happy at Brtitain signing the peace treaty.

America loses the War of 1812. The Cree Shawnee and Lakota nations were allies of the crown Britain's mkistake was not to embrace Tecumsah fully as an ally. A buffer state in the West backed by Britain is a popssiblity although how long it would have lasted is a question.

Eric Flint has a scenario in his rivers of war series with an Indian state to the West of the Mississipi but it involves Indians being moved westwards and I don't thinki it has been developed beyond 1834 the Arkansas war. The Indians themselves could have stopped there own internation wars as they were vulnerable to divide and rule i.e Pawnee scouts served under Custer and within a few years Sioux scouts were fighting Pawnees. Tecumsah tried to unite the nations

The Buffalo destruction and not mentioned by Derek germ warfare i.e smallpox infected blankets. Could they have been avoided? Canada had a more tolerant approach to Indians, they were merely cheated and driven off their land rather than exterminated but it was Canada where Sitting Bull went after the Littlwe Big Horn to seek and gain asylum. The Mohawk nation was the most succesfull nation in coming to terms with the white man having adapted and playing a role in the construction industry. I suspect the Canadian scenario would have been the outcome of any British victories. The Crown didn't want to stop settlement West of the Appalachians merely to licence it.

Can we avoid the term "Native Americans" which smacks of political correctness and is rejected by some chiefs. The Canadian term First Nation Canadians" sounds a lot better
 
What's wrong with plain old "Indian"? "American Indian", if you need to distinguish them from Indian Indians? It's the oldest and best, and not considered offensive by the vast majority of Indians.
 
You are going to have the prior election not look so much like a sham, Adams has to have a clear victory without the House getting involved.

Jackson and his supporters gained alot of momentum from that election and won a landslide in 1828.
Even Andrew Jackson could have had a potential butterfly solution: Worcester vs. Georgia. The Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia couldn't impose its laws in Indian Territory. While Jackson didn't support the Court, with the famouse quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!", part of the reason he might have done so was the South Carolina Nullification Crisis at the time, and Georgia's threats to side with South Carolina should Jackson oppose them. Have the Court ruling come at a time when Jackson isn't facing a potential civil war, and have the President support it, and we could see Federal-guaranteed indian territory starting in the East. Potential butterflies from that would be Federally-regulated/controled Indian territories, or Indian territories under Federal law.
 

boredatwork

Banned
Not sure what you can do for the full on nomadic tribes (like on the plains). But with groups like the Irroquois or the Cherokee, a more influential ben franklin & or similar individuals plus a slight change in culture mores might lead to the more civilized tribes being accepted in as states.

Probably just the Irroquois/Mohawks and Cherokee at first, but potentially other similar groups (settled, recognizably civilized)

The butterflies vary between moderate & extreme, though.
 
Can we avoid the term "Native Americans" which smacks of political correctness and is rejected by some chiefs. The Canadian term First Nation Canadians" sounds a lot better

If the Canadians had annexed the Ohio Valley and Louisiana we just might be using the term 'First Nation Canadians'.
 
I could potentially see the Iroquois, or the 'civilized tribes' in the Old Southwest getting a fair deal. The nomads were just too incompatible with American social life to really be accepted, but I think a few forks in the road here or there could really result in a different end in that regard.
 
If the Canadians had annexed the Ohio Valley and Louisiana we just might be using the term 'First Nation Canadians'.
And if the Aztecs had annexed Europe, we might still be cutting out human hearts. Doesn't make it any less ASB. Ohio was settled by an American numbers and population mass that Canada couldn't match except in the most ludicrously ASB wanks, let alone Louisiana.
 
What's wrong with plain old "Indian"? "American Indian", if you need to distinguish them from Indian Indians? It's the oldest and best, and not considered offensive by the vast majority of Indians.

I use "Indians" in my TL rather then the PC "Native Americans" term of OTL. I did consider using "Amerindians" for the Native peoples of North America.
 
Top