Native Americans as landlords for white settlers

[Faeelin]

An idle thought, inspired by reading The Divided Ground, a history of the Iroquois people.

The Iroquois, recognizing that in the long run they would be samped by colonists, tried in the second half of the 18th century to lease their land out through a series of long-term leases, giving themselves absolute control of it and a continuous stream of income to be adjusted over time as development incresaed.

OTL this didn't quite work out, because being a simple folk with an outdated notion of property (namely, that they could have any), but is this preordained? ISTM that a British North America, for instance, could see the Mohawks and other Iroquois as landlords in Upstate New York.

 

[RGB]

OTL this didn't quite work out, because being a simple folk with an outdated notion of property (namely, that they could have any), but is this preordained? ISTM that a British North America, for instance, could see the Mohawks and other Iroquois as landlords in Upstate New York.

Not sure, but before Jackson did his little ethnic cleansing thing, weren't the Cherokee and the rest of the deported nations landowners and landlords to some degree?

Or am I mixing tings up?

 

[Horatius Cocles]

I think some Native American nations were regarded as landlords at some point of history, but, well, "rule of law" is a tricky concept if we talk about colonialism...

 

[Faeelin]

Not sure, but before Jackson did his little ethnic cleansing thing, weren't the Cherokee and the rest of the deported nations landowners and landlords to some degree?

Or am I mixing tings up?

Landowners, yes; some were plantation owners as well. Not sure if any were actually landlords to white farmers.

 

[Horatius Cocles]

Landowners, yes; some were plantation owners as well. Not sure if any were actually landlords to white farmers.

I'm not familiar with this part of the American history so I ask: What was the legal status of a white settler in the Indian Territory?

 

[Socrates]

I'm not familiar with this part of the American history so I ask: What was the legal status of a white settler in the Indian Territory?

Illegal until annexation as an organized territory or state, I believe.

 

[Faeelin]

Illegal until annexation as an organized territory or state, I believe.

Depends on what you mean as "Indian territory." There was a big debate in the early United States about whether Native Americans could sell land other than to the US Government.

 

[Socrates]

Depends on what you mean as "Indian territory." There was a big debate in the early United States about whether Native Americans could sell land other than to the US Government.

I assumed it meant the unorganized territory, owned by the US Government, but set aside for Natives.

 

[Vingilótë]

I think some Native American nations were regarded as landlords at some point of history, but, well, "rule of law" is a tricky concept if we talk about colonialism...

Pretty much this; sure, but if you want it to stick; you need the rights of Native Americans to be respected.

Which is unlikely, to be sure.

 

[zoomar]

Illegal until annexation as an organized territory or state, I believe.

Need to distinguish between illegal squatters and white settlers welcomed by the Indian nations or allowed in by the Government. Particularly with respect to "Indian Territory" itself (modern-day Oklahoma) thousands of whites settled legally in the territory as businessmen and tradesmen providing services to both the Indians and US government personnel.

 

[mrmandias]

There is lots of land and many tribes. So you need a reason for settlers to prefer long-term leases to outright ownership. Easier terms in the short run? Real protection from other tribes?

Really you probably need some reason why this benefits the colonial elite, who were massive land speculators OTL. Can't think of much there, other than outright bribery by the Indians. Which might work some. The likely result, however, isn't widespread tribal Indian retention. What you'll get is patches of land with unique legal status that are owned by wealthy interbed Indian/Anglo families.

 

[Lycaon pictus]

This is actually what I have planned for the Cherokees in Alabama in my own TL. Only the Cherokees, and only in Alabama. And even that much is pretty controversial, and is seen by the white settlers of the time as an example of what not to let happen.

 

[rudebadger]

The Native Americans need to have population densities similar to Europe's to able to push back against the European invasions that are coming. That gives them the fighters that they needed to protect their territory.

As soon as the Dutch, Brits, Spanish and French had sufficient numbers here they began to take what land they wanted. And the people that were already there? Keep moving Indian, keep moving.

Amusing that many of the land grants issued by the European monarchies for land that they didn't even control often contained the phrase "...the western boundary shall end at the western sea", referring to the Pacific Ocean.

 

[Roberto]

There is lots of land and many tribes. So you need a reason for settlers to prefer long-term leases to outright ownership. Easier terms in the short run? Real protection from other tribes?

Really you probably need some reason why this benefits the colonial elite, who were massive land speculators OTL. Can't think of much there, other than outright bribery by the Indians. Which might work some. The likely result, however, isn't widespread tribal Indian retention. What you'll get is patches of land with unique legal status that are owned by wealthy interbed Indian/Anglo families.

Yes, but have that happen often enough and it will create a legal precedent unheard of in OTL. Definitely social ramifications as far as the political impact of wealthy (albeit small) aristocratic Native class. All it takes is one eccentric heir to decide he wants to use his land and power to preserve a small tribe's territorial and cultural integrity and the impact on white-Indian relationships would be huge.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Maybe more possible for BLACK settlers... Or asians-chineses in the west coast?

 

[katchen]

Eric Flint plays a lot with this idea in his AH "1824: The Arkansas War" (sequel to 1812: The Rivers of War".

Actually I think Native American landolords are feasible if the Dutch hang on in New York (at least for the Iroquois) The Dutch "culture system" protected the rights of local native landlords and Native Americans would have been no exception.

 

[Just a Rube]

Actually I think Native American landolords are feasible if the Dutch hang on in New York (at least for the Iroquois) The Dutch "culture system" protected the rights of local native landlords and Native Americans would have been no exception.

But how long would that last once the Dutch (and assorted other Europeans; many of the inhabitants of "New Amsterdam" and environs were actually English) began to seriously outnumber the local inhabitants? It's not like other Dutch colonies don't have a history of racial conflict, discrimination and dispossession.