Knox's Treaty

In 1790, American Secretary of War Henry Knox concluded a grand treaty with Alexander McGillvary, leader of the Creek Nation. The Creek leaders were welcomed in New York with all the pomp and dignity befitting leaders of a sovereign power. McGillvary secured a vast swathe of land for the Creeks, largely within the borders of the State of Georgia. This was the first major treaty between an Indian nation and the United States since the US had adopted its new Constitution. It seemed to set the tone for the new republic's dealings with its indiginous people.

But Knox soon found that he lacked the military strength to enforce his promises. Before the ink on the treaty was dry, pioneers - settlers - squatters - were pouring into Creek territory with the full blessing of the Georgian government. The U.S. military, underfunded and undermanned, could do nothing to stop them.

POD: Knox consulted with President Washington and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. The three leaders were all of federalist temperment and were aghast at Georgia's open flaunting of United States law. They decided to "enforce with the gavel where we cannot with the bayonnet:" the case was brought before the Supreme Court, the first case of its kind in U.S. history.

The court of Chief Justice John Jay, also dominated by federalists, ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the landmark case, United States v. Georgia (1792). For failing to abide by federal law, Georgia was fined $100,000 (is this a realistic amount?), a large sum that Georgia was reluctantly forced to pass on to the squatters in the form of fines. The case set key precedents: Federal law was demonstrated to trump state law, completely and unequivocally. Also, the case found that states could be fined for failing to respect the rights of Indian nations. The constantly cash-strapped U.S. government could turn to this new source of revenue in the years to come.

Is this a plausible action for the Feds to take? My main rationale would be that just about any action by the federal government at that stage would have been unprecidented, and George, Henry, et al may have decided to test the constitutional waters.

Ideas for the fallout:
  • Accelerates the states' rights controversy, with Indian Removal joining slavery as a cause for Southern animosity toward the federal government.
  • Three decades of legal precedent may hamper Andrew Jackson's bid to remove all Indians. The Indians, at least the "Civilized Tribes", have a stronger position, more territory, and more support from the U.S. government.
  • Likely that this policy would be carried across the Mississippi and lead to more permanent long-term arrangements with western tribes
  • An earlier civil war, perhaps, with the Indians being just as much a subject of controversy as the slaves. If so, will Jim Crow laws extend to Native Americans?
Ben
 

Hendryk

Banned
Interesting idea. I can't really provide any insightful comments, but I'd like to see where this leads to.

According to Barbara Kingsolver's novel Pigs in Heaven, the Cherokees had almost managed to get back on their feet by the turn of the 20th century, even after the deportation to Oklahoma. If they're allowed to stay in Georgia, it would be interesting to see what they manage to pull off.
 
sadly, i think it would be political suicide. everyone wanted indian lands, the southerners might of been a bit more crass and brutal but northerners just as hungry for land...but this has been one of my favorite AH ideas. america would be a better place i think had they been a lil less hypocritical back then.... tho its a bit cheesy i like the Rivers of war books....
 
sadly, i think it would be political suicide. everyone wanted indian lands, the southerners might of been a bit more crass and brutal but northerners just as hungry for land...

OK, so one immediate consequence was that many people suddenly realized they didn't like President Washington as much as they had thought. He was still re-elected in 1793 (he's Washington), maybe even unanimously (he's Washington). But even more trouble was brewing under the surface. As the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans drew their respective battle lines, the right of the federal government to enforce Indian treaties through litigation was one of the issues on the table.

In 1797, Thomas Jefferson was elected to be the second President of the United States. John Adams, the runner-up in the Electoral College, became the hapless and unwilling Vice President. Jefferson made it his policy to allow states to occupy Indian land - the American yeoman farmer is destined to cover the continent, after all.

However, OTL shows us that President Jefferson was much more pragmatic than Political Theorist Jefferson, much more willing to compromise in order to meet the needs as he faced them. As trouble increased with both Britain and France, and the need for defense money grew, fines for violating Indian territory began to look mighty tempting. In his second term (began 1801), Jefferson had his attorney general bring suit against ___?___ for violation of the United States' treaty with the ___?___ Nation (probably a northern state to avoid antagonizing TJ's political base). Precedent was now established and confirmed - but people were none too happy about it. By 1805, American settlers knew they could not encroach on Indian land... unless they bribed a state agent.

Jefferson declined to run again in 1805. Does this sound all right so far?
 
i dont know.. id think that the whiskey rebellion would be way bigger, maybe L neil smiths books would come true? and would the british expand their presence in the north west terr.?
 
i dont know.. id think that the whiskey rebellion would be way bigger, maybe L neil smiths books would come true? and would the british expand their presence in the north west terr.?

I'm not sure what you mean there - the whiskey rebellion would not have been changed by this lawsuit, would it?
 
in otl, whites were pouring down the ohio river, if they are blocked by the federal government youll have alot more pissed off people in the vicinity of pittsburgh. the people on that frontier are already resenting the new federal gov. for a tax on smalltime whiskey distillers, having the ohio valley denied to them would piss em off even more. and what would washington do with all his western land? he stood to gain alot of money with westward expansion.
 
Hm, good point. I don't think that the 1790s Ohio Valley would have been too different yet - the Treaty of Greenville (1793, was it?) would likely have been the same, ceding much/most of the Ohio valley to the USA. The new policy suggested by US v. Georgia would be one of enforcing existing treaties, not changing new ones. Still a land grab, but a moderated one.

OTL, the sale of western lands was a great potential source of money that was largely squandered for ideological reasons. The Federalist types wanted to sell western federal land slowly, letting populations rise in adjacent settled territory in order to drive the price of land up. The land would be sold in relatively small parcels, resulting in a denser, more slowly moving population. Instead, the US largely opted for the Republican policy of selling land as fast as possible in order to settle the West quickly. Enormous tracts were sold at low prices, resulting in a rapidly expanding, less dense population. The effects of this policy can still be seen in the vast, empty expanses of the Midwest.

I do not know whether this POD would affect the land policy. I don't know when the "sell fast" policy came to predominate. It may be that with resentment over the Indian treaties, combined with revenue from fining squatters, the federal government felt obliged to sell lands even faster to settlers.
 
The Consitution requires treaties be confirmed by the Senate, after which they become federal Law.

Of the Thousands of Treaties signed with the Indian Nations, Not one has ever been confirmed by the Senate, In Fact not One has ever even been submitted to Congress.

Perhaps your POD could be Knox submitting the treaty to the Senate and having it passed, to become Federal Law.
 
Actually, I don't think what you said is correct. The language of the treaty specified "by the consent of the Senate", and I found a number of sources that describe Knox's bringing the treaty before the Senate for confirmation. Google "Treaty of New York." Maybe the US later stopped bringing Indian treaties before the Senate, but in the 1790s this seems to have been the procedure.
 

JohnJacques

Banned
DQ, Indian Treaties have been brought before the Houses of Congress.

As I remember, the Sioux had a conflict because the treaty the Houses of Congress had ratified was not the treaty they had been told of.

Mind you, thats later, so I can't vouch for this era.
 
Top