No Indian Removal Act? What would happen?

Just wondering, because this seems to be one part of history that is often overlooked on this site. It is in my opinion the USAs darkest hour in regard to right and wrong, standing up for liberty and justice, ect.

But suppose Congress and the Supreme Court had enough balls to challenge Andrew Jackson (who i would have liked so much more as a historical figure if not for this) and stand up for what was right by law. Or if Jackson recalled that much of his success as a military leader (see Battle of New Orleans and Invasion of Florida) was helped by the native americans, notably the Cherokee, Creek, and Choktaw.

What would happen, do you all think, if the Indian Removal Act never passed? How would the demographics of the South and the history of the United States as a nation? Thoughts?
 
Theri really is'nt a single answer, since it depends when it stopped (IE before it happens or at some point after its started) and how its stopped.


I actually used this as the initial PoD in a TL I'm working on, it lead to a somewhat different Civil War, continued reconstruction, a slightly larger America and eventually one that is more Progressive, racially mixed and to the Left of OTL America by the modern day.
 
Realistically, the settlers of Georgia take the "law in their own hands" and chase them out themselves. I don't like saying this but I think it is the most likely thing to happen.
 
Realistically, the settlers of Georgia take the "law in their own hands" and chase them out themselves. I don't like saying this but I think it is the most likely thing to happen.

When this came up in another thread (on a Clay Presidency), one idea brought up was that the government would then be faced with the choice of defying or supporting the Supreme Court's ruling, since sitting on the sidelines wouldn't really be tenable...
 
When this came up in another thread (on a Clay Presidency), one idea brought up was that the government would then be faced with the choice of defying or supporting the Supreme Court's ruling, since sitting on the sidelines wouldn't really be tenable...


Why not? The President is CinC of the armed forces, and if he does not choose to employ them on the Indians' behalf (the only thing that could have made any difference) no one has the power to compel him.
 
What I meant was that if the President does not use to government to actively implement Indian Removal, and Georgia's white population effectively declare war on the tribes, then not only do they get the worst of both worlds, with safety neither for the tribes nor the state citizens, but the Federal Government standing by does serious damage to its legitimacy by standing on the sidelines.

Once this situation becomes apparent (and, admittedly, assuming he recognizes it), the President is faced with two choices -- tell the Supreme Court to go to hell, and actively side with the white settlers (what Jackson did) -- or intervene to enforce the court's decision.
 
What I meant was that if the President does not use to government to actively implement Indian Removal, and Georgia's white population effectively declare war on the tribes, then not only do they get the worst of both worlds, with safety neither for the tribes nor the state citizens, but the Federal Government standing by does serious damage to its legitimacy by standing on the sidelines.

The Federal government never lifted a finger to stop the Mormons being expelled by brute force from Missouri and later Illinois.

Did its "legitimacy" siuffer as a result? Can't say I've noticed, and that's despite the fact that the Mormons were white. If a state could get away with treating a white community that way, doing it to "Injuns" would be no trouble at all.
 
How well did the Mormons fight back? Because the civilzed tribes definitely could.

That's how the question of legitimacy arises -- not from a state attacking the defenseless, but from a state getting into a brutal fight that puts even their "proper citizens" at risk.

When the Federal goverment would be the perfect thing to prevent a full scale crisis, but doesn't provide itself...
 
A Federal Government which does nothing can expect to have bloodshed on its hands, as the civlised tribes form up their own militias and start defending their own borders. They've got the technology, they've got the money and they've got the motivation.

If John Ross knew that Washington wouldn't protect whites illegally migrating to his nation, there can be no surer outcome than that he would start removing them. Cross border outrages would become the norm, and a state of war exist between Georgia and the Indians. Expect attrocities on both sides.

This may lead to an earlier secessionist movement as Georgia settlers rail against a useless Washington government which does nothing to protect them from the savages on their borders. The other Southern states would take note.

Alternatively, a Federal Government which intervenes decisively on the side of the Indians incurrs the wrath of the nation as a whole. The press - even in the comparatively liberal north - would have a field day decrying a government which props up the Indians in the face of white Americans. It's likely that this government would be voted out and replaced by one happy to change the laws.

I suppose, really, it depends how the exact circumstances transpire, and which side has the best PR. But there are going to be major ideological issues surrounding the defence of Indians against whites by the Federal Government. In an openly white-supremacist country, whose sole avenue of expansion is westward, it's highly unlikely.

That said, I could see a situation where John Q. Adams holds onto his presidency for a second term. He would personally be inclined to favour the Five Civilised Tribes, and had a history of sticking by the letter of the law even when it was contrary to his own interests. He *might* be inclined to deploy federal force to protect the Five Civilised Tribes.

This would set an incredible precedent, and define the relationship between Washington and the Indian tribes in much clearer, and more equal terms. 'Domestic, dependent nations' would be no mere legal fiction, but a de facto reality complete with recognised borders and legal protection for the Indian nations in question.

The question is whether or not this precedent would hold: after his second term, Adams would leave/be removed from office, and someone else will take over with much fewer qualms about removing Indians. You'd really need two men like JQ Adams in a row for the policy of protecting Indians to become anything like permanent.

Thinking ASBs, If it did, you can expect westward expansion to continue, but on much better terms for the Indians than those which they got in real life. There will still be unequal 'Beads for Manhattan' treaties, but there won't be squatters occupying unceded Indian land, backed by Federal forces. That alone is a disincentive to head west. The US will reach the Pacific, but settlement will be based on interconnected strings of towns and villages strung across recognised and protected Indian territories. Many less states will be formed, or smaller states, and the body of population will remain concentrated along the Eastern Seaboard. On the other hand, I would anticipate that such legislation won't have much effect in places with a minimal Federal presence (California springs to mind).

Regarding the Five Civilised Tribes: I doubt they'll have any incentive to petition for statehood if they're protected as a 'domestic, dependent nation'. When the Civil War comes, it's likely they'll outright declare for the Union in recognition of the protection they receive from the Federal Government. So the Confederacy will have a big cuckoo in its nest from the very get go, unless they can offer them genuine guarantees that Indian land is safe from white encrocachment under the same terms as it was under the Union.
 
A war between the Civilized tribes and the state of Georgia would be very ugly. Georgia would probably win, but it would be an enormous roadblock to the settlement of Southern Trans-Appalachia. Also, I doubt that without the Federal government's help the Seminole would be removed for a very very long time.
 
A Federal Government which does nothing can expect to have bloodshed on its hands, as the civlised tribes form up their own militias and start defending their own borders. They've got the technology, they've got the money and they've got the motivation.

If John Ross knew that Washington wouldn't protect whites illegally migrating to his nation, there can be no surer outcome than that he would start removing them. Cross border outrages would become the norm, and a state of war exist between Georgia and the Indians. Expect attrocities on both sides.

This may lead to an earlier secessionist movement as Georgia settlers rail against a useless Washington government which does nothing to protect them from the savages on their borders. The other Southern states would take note.

Alternatively, a Federal Government which intervenes decisively on the side of the Indians incurrs the wrath of the nation as a whole. The press - even in the comparatively liberal north - would have a field day decrying a government which props up the Indians in the face of white Americans. It's likely that this government would be voted out and replaced by one happy to change the laws.

I suppose, really, it depends how the exact circumstances transpire, and which side has the best PR. But there are going to be major ideological issues surrounding the defence of Indians against whites by the Federal Government. In an openly white-supremacist country, whose sole avenue of expansion is westward, it's highly unlikely.

That said, I could see a situation where John Q. Adams holds onto his presidency for a second term. He would personally be inclined to favour the Five Civilised Tribes, and had a history of sticking by the letter of the law even when it was contrary to his own interests. He *might* be inclined to deploy federal force to protect the Five Civilised Tribes.

This would set an incredible precedent, and define the relationship between Washington and the Indian tribes in much clearer, and more equal terms. 'Domestic, dependent nations' would be no mere legal fiction, but a de facto reality complete with recognised borders and legal protection for the Indian nations in question.

The question is whether or not this precedent would hold: after his second term, Adams would leave/be removed from office, and someone else will take over with much fewer qualms about removing Indians. You'd really need two men like JQ Adams in a row for the policy of protecting Indians to become anything like permanent.

Thinking ASBs, If it did, you can expect westward expansion to continue, but on much better terms for the Indians than those which they got in real life. There will still be unequal 'Beads for Manhattan' treaties, but there won't be squatters occupying unceded Indian land, backed by Federal forces. That alone is a disincentive to head west. The US will reach the Pacific, but settlement will be based on interconnected strings of towns and villages strung across recognised and protected Indian territories. Many less states will be formed, or smaller states, and the body of population will remain concentrated along the Eastern Seaboard. On the other hand, I would anticipate that such legislation won't have much effect in places with a minimal Federal presence (California springs to mind).

Regarding the Five Civilised Tribes: I doubt they'll have any incentive to petition for statehood if they're protected as a 'domestic, dependent nation'. When the Civil War comes, it's likely they'll outright declare for the Union in recognition of the protection they receive from the Federal Government. So the Confederacy will have a big cuckoo in its nest from the very get go, unless they can offer them genuine guarantees that Indian land is safe from white encrocachment under the same terms as it was under the Union.


What would then happen is that Congress would declare war on the tribes or Jackson would send in the troops saying the tribes started a war. The USSC would not declare a declaration of war against the tribes unconstitutional nor is it likely to try and protect them after the tribes attacked White settlers.
 
Top