Sucessful US Amerindian-African-American Alliance?

[Strategos' Risk]

I think one day if I ever write a timeline, I would do a compact one about a survive State of Muskogee. Maybe one sponsored by the British, and hosting some former Loyalists who follow Bowles there. Bolstered by British arms, advised by veterans who have experience fighting the Patriots, the Seminoles, freemen, and other tribes of Muskogee are able to hold off American encroachment.

So it would be a cross between the reverse of the For Want of a Nail's Wilderness Walk and the white savior complex. And that one Eric Flint series no one reads. I sort of prefer it to the Tecumseh's Confederacy surviving scenario because I find that situation would be more difficult to sustain, as Florida's swamps is probably better terrain for guerrilla warfare.

 

[Elfwine]

I think one day if I ever write a timeline, I would do a compact one about a survive State of Muskogee. Maybe one sponsored by the British, and hosting some former Loyalists who follow Bowles there. Bolstered by British arms, advised by veterans who have experience fighting the Patriots, the Seminoles, freemen, and other tribes of Muskogee are able to hold off American encroachment.

How much are the British really going to give to something like this?

I'm not saying its inevitably doomed no matter what - just that it seems that it lacks any reason to be worthwhile in the affairs of everyone else.

If Britain really wants to frustrate the young United States, not signing over the Ohio country would make more sense.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

At the beginning it would just be weirdoes like Bowles and embittered ex-Loyalists running around the Everglades, but later on British or other European nations get involved in whatever ahistorical equivalent to the War of 1812. Yes, this scenario sort of hinges on foreign support to the A-A-A Alliance, but so does any scenario. Including a Tecumseh's Confederacy survives scenario. This one I'm just wondering might have a slightly greater chance of succeeding because the British or whatever European patron (Spaniards?) are just like, "okay those guys are weird, but they're whites, and they're fighting against the Yankees so might as well help them out covertly."

 

[Oba]

State of Muskogee what what

Estajoca was certainly way ahead of his time, probably on a relative par with the latter Thaddeus Stevens.

As for the idea that Amerindians could not unify into a large enough force to expel the Invaders, perhaps this is true, even for the 18th century (though I am still not sure), but it certainly does not require a Precolumbian POD to work. That said, of course an earlier POD would make this much easier; given the vast amount of potential PODs in over a myriad years of Precolumbian history north of Mexico, I will save this for some later post.

Here are two potential scenarios with PODs after first contact with the West for the Americas north of Mexico:

• Popé's dream of a unified Puebloan state is successfully actualized and the Puebloan state Expands into the southern Great Basin. Somewhat as the Kiowa did with the Cheyenne (at the time too far to the northeast for much of any useful contact) in reality, the Puebloan State allies with the Wichita Confederacy. With their combined numbers highly imposing and with a Meiji-esque policy of copying, improvement and innovation, this great alliance is now a regional power and in a position to be a serious threat to Western Imperialism.
• De Soto's invading army is destroyed or taken captive by Natchez forces who, with their at least complex chiefdom level social complexity and aided by their new POWs and their crops, start a modernization plan under the guidance of the Great Sun. The Natchez expand and begin to threaten the Western Invaders. But what can the latter do? The now vast Natchez Empire can field far more troops than the Westerners can send over from Europe, and they are now both a fair match for each other on an individual basis.

I thought this was worth sharing to, for the record: http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/calusa/calusa1.htm .

 

[Oba]

Better the master that dwells several thousand miles away than the master that lives right next door.

Point taken. However, if one master will enslave you, send you to a concentration camp and/or rip your children from your arms in the name of "civilizing" you even when s/he denies your basic status as a human being, then another master that forces you to work together with your traditional enemies to fight off the former threat but is otherwise reasonable and recognizes that s/he and you share a common humanity, I cannot think of any sane person who would choose the tyrannical and genocidal master far away that the sometimes annoying, sometimes frustrating but nonetheless basically decent human being that is the master next door.

 

[Elfwine]

Oba: Copying and innovating a la Meiji is going to be incredibly be hard pressed to leap across the technological gap between the Amerindians and Europeans when it comes to these tools.

Can it be done at some point? Yes. But not nearly as quickly as OTL Japan.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

The more I look at the Eric Flint wiki (and this helpful review by Thande) the more it seems my State of Muskogee idea is quite similar to his Rivers of War duology. Which is fine; it's just interesting since Bowles doesn't seem to be the only pro-British great white chief. There was also Sam Houston's father-in-law:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=dpanther&id=I06629
http://dickdfox.tripod.com/index-rogers.html

If I was to do a Muskogee timeline, it'd be pretty much like Flint's series, since it incorporates both Native Americans and freemen, and sympathetic white adventurers. Except more swampy, I guess. Though does anyone concur with me that Muskogee is more realistic than Tecumseh's Confederation surviving? I feel that even though it's over the border from potentially-friendly British Canada, they're doomed ultimately. Muskogee I feel could survive by the terrain and potential covert support from the Europeans.

 

[Malta]

I would concur. It almost seems sometimes that America took Florida like an after thought though it would help propel Andy Jackson to Presidency.

What will be important is if Muskogee organizes as an state within a state at first at least. Preventing raids on US Soil and making the territory valuable enough that Britain and Spain want to prevent it from being sold to the uS.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Another possibility is a shift in attitudes by the federal government. Perhaps after some bloody and fruitless campaigns, the U.S. decides that trying to destroy Muskogee is more trouble than its worth, and use it as a dumping ground for Native American tribes. They end up sending Trail of Tears type forced relocations there, using Florida as one big reservation distinct from the United States. It also becomes a place for escaped slaves, which would anger the South but perhaps some Northerners would be happy with that, and so regional politics prevent Muskogee from being stomped out.

This is an unhappy relationship, but perhaps it's more realistic than scenarios where the American revolutionaries bring Iroquoia in as a state or something. That sort of coexistence and understanding is simply anachronistic, unfortunately.

 

[Jasen777]

Though does anyone concur with me that Muskogee is more realistic than Tecumseh's Confederation surviving? I feel that even though it's over the border from potentially-friendly British Canada, they're doomed ultimately. Muskogee I feel could survive by the terrain and potential covert support from the Europeans.

Better than Tecumseh's Confederation, but still tricky in the long run. They need a permanent agreement with Spain instead of temporary British support and often fighting Spain. But natives tended to have problems with maintaining their population numbers due to disease, and Georgia is quickly filling up from natural increase and emigration. And Spain may not be strong enough in the area to help long-term. But it might could happen if everything worked out perfectly. Perhaps it would help if the U.S. fell apart...

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Totally understandable. I feel, however, that Muskogee, much like the Arkansas Confederation in the Eric Flint series, may be saved by a steady influx of escaped slaves, and perhaps after the Civil War, freemen who decide to settle in a somewhat less racist country. It'd be interesting if Bowles and people like Captain John "Hell-Fire Jack" Rogers were able to convince some Loyalists to go there, as well.

 

[Elfwine]

At the beginning it would just be weirdoes like Bowles and embittered ex-Loyalists running around the Everglades, but later on British or other European nations get involved in whatever ahistorical equivalent to the War of 1812. Yes, this scenario sort of hinges on foreign support to the A-A-A Alliance, but so does any scenario. Including a Tecumseh's Confederacy survives scenario. This one I'm just wondering might have a slightly greater chance of succeeding because the British or whatever European patron (Spaniards?) are just like, "okay those guys are weird, but they're whites, and they're fighting against the Yankees so might as well help them out covertly."

But why do they want to help them? "Fighting against the Yankees" isn't a particularly good reason for Britain or Spain or whoever (for discussion's sake I'm going to pick Britain as the power, but I'm not saying its the only possibility) to give them substantial back them up.

The Yankees not taking over this area is simply not worth that much to Britain.

Unsure on this vs. Tecumseh's Confederation - I tend to your position here, but neither looks very promising.

There are just too many Americans with too much interest in taking anything like viable land (the fact Florida being "viable land" is much more questionable is definitely a point in Muskogee's favor, though - it'd be relatively easy to write it off as worthless swamp if things come up where other options exist).

 

[Tripwire]

Yes, I do: I have a P'urhépecha friend and once knew a Maidu well enough.

While I would agree that an grand alliance of all Amerindians would be essentially impossible and completely ridiculous, more local alliances, blocs and confederations could easily arise if the Amerindians realized that, while they were indeed extremely diverse, they were all in the same boat when it came to the eyes of the Westerners, who just saw them all as "Indians". And the African-Americans could act as the catalyst necessary for this awakening of many (though of course not all) Amerindian nations into an alliance to crush the so-called "White" Western oppressors.

Is there a reason you keep putting "white" into quotation marks? Do you not believe that the majority of the US population was of European origin, or do you just not like the color-based racial terms? Personally I dislike "Caucasian" because the people of the Caucasus are historically and genetically unique and quite a bit different than Europeans.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I haven't written an actual timeline before, and lack the inclination to spend the time and effort to do so. However, this is a sketch of what I'd do in order to create a State of Muskogee timeline.

Basically, there are certain patterns in how the United States' government has generally behaved over its history. Native Americans were generally pushed out of desirable land, either through outright extermination or relegation to reservations. Even friendly tribes that never made war against the gov't, such as the Pawnee, found their way to reservations. So the U.S. isn't about to let in a self-governing state into the Union- sorry, Iroquois fans. (For the same reason, I'm similarly skeptical of the notion of Quebec joining the Thirteen Colonies, and the resulting U.S. becoming anything resembling the country we know.)

On the other hand, we do have the case of the Indian Territory, which was a case where the U.S. federal government allotted land for Amerindians to call their own and have some limited autonomy. So, without changing American attitudes towards Native Americans or African Americans too much- but still changing them in a few notable ways in the latter, I propose a "Muskogee lives" scenario based on turning most of Florida into an Indian Territory-type zone.

Okay, this is only the preface. I'll keep writing out my sketch later if this idea actually gets any responses or suggestions.

 

[Elfwine]

I can see that as at least theoretically possible - I'm not sold on it, but I'd like to see you build on it.

 

[Jasen777]

Okay, this is only the preface. I'll keep writing out my sketch later if this idea actually gets any responses or suggestions.

Obviously the tricky part is what happens when white settlers decided they want Florida.

 

[Simreeve]

On the other hand, we do have the case of the Indian Territory, which was a case where the U.S. federal government allotted land for Amerindians to call their own and have some limited autonomy

until the U.S. federal government changed its mind...

 

[ingemann]

The problem with a Amerindian-"African American" alliance, are that there lack common interest. Yes they had a common enemy, but it's too large extent something which exist in modern pop culture not something which existed on the soil at the day. Let say that you're a Amerindian anno 1700 in Virginia, unless we focus on race solidarity, it's fundamental better for you and your descendants to just intermarry with the local Whites and integrate into local White culture, than to try to make any alliance with African slaves, who when they were escaped was as likely to raid your settlements for women, slaves and goods.

At the same time it made a lot more sense for the African slaves at the same time to earn some money and buy their freedom, and intermarry with the local Whites (which was quite possible for a very long time), than to ally with the local Amerindian who was just as likely to enslave you.

The problem is that people think that some common People of Colour identity exist, when it's just a modern political ideas which last only until a moment after different interest shows up (see the African American willingness to throw Hispanic Zimmerman under the train).

There are only a short period where this kind alliance would make sense and it would be in the early 19th century, but at that point the White group is too strong for a anti-White alliance being anything other than failure.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

It seems quite feasible, given the similarly horrendous treatment between both sets of peoples by a small, European-based, dominant elité who saw themselves as "white"...

When the Cherokee Indians were moved from Georgia to Oklahoma on the "Trail of Tears", they took their black slaves with them.

The idea of anti-white solidarity is a modern left-wing fever dream.

Even the idea of "Indian solidarity" is fantastic. The Indian tribes were bitter rivals, whose wars with one another sometimes approached genocide. The nearest that ever came to happening was Tecumseh's league around 1812, and that was far short of uniting all the Indians that could have joined it.

 

[Oba]

Is there a reason you keep putting "white" into quotation marks? Do you not believe that the majority of the US population was of European origin, or do you just not like the color-based racial terms?

The latter answer is my reason, FYI.