So for my TL (see sig.) I am working on tinkeriing with Indian Policy a bit. I am looking for a plausible way to integrate the 5 Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Creek Etc) into the US. I was thinking making the Mississippi Territory a state for them, plausible? IF so why? What's it take to make this possible? What would it be called? Keep in mind this 1798-1802. thanks
The 5 Civilized Tribes
- Thread starter GreatScottMarty
- Start date
The issue seems to be that whatever the government wants, the actual rank and file citizenry wants the land are willing to kill the Indians to get it and laws be damned. This puts the US gov. in the position of actively fighting their own people on behalf of the Indians and the optics of that are probably too ugly for era, also it's problematic how much force the US actually can bring to bear at this point.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I do not think it would be possible to peacefully incorporate the natives into the United States without first changing the mindset of white Americans.
you'd have to get rid of Andrew Jackson. The 5 tribes were integrated (as well as they could in the 1820's) and it was working, they owned a lot of land and many were slave holders and plantation owners.
Jackson hated Indians with a passion. His bigotry and outright defiance of the Supreme Court is what changed US policy towards the Indian's. The US had a treaty with all the Indians, George Washington wanted the US to adopt a integration stance and started it in when he was President
Jackson hated Indians with a passion. His bigotry and outright defiance of the Supreme Court is what changed US policy towards the Indian's. The US had a treaty with all the Indians, George Washington wanted the US to adopt a integration stance and started it in when he was President
If you're willing to go earlier, there's a potential treaty that would make things easier down the line. In 1778, White Eyes of the Delaware tribe in Ohio was a US ally who proposed a treaty to the Revolutionary government for a state for his tribe. Unfortunately, he was murdered by a US soldier(singular racism would be my guess at it), but the incident is pretty muddled and confused so changing the situation that led to it wouldn't be too hard. Eventually Ohio will get overrun by white settlers, but even a few years with Indian leaders as political equals, let alone senators and brothers-in-arms in the founding of the new nation, could do wonders for future relations.
Of course, it's still a long shot.
Of course, it's still a long shot.
Thanks for the responses guys. Here is the basic situation in my TL.... The Federalists have been in power since Washington was elected. John Jay was elected as POTUS in 96 with Jefferson as Edit: VPOTUS (as a D-R). The Federalist Congress passes a Compensated Manumission Bill and the States of North and South Carolina and Georgia rebel in 1799 with the aid of Spain. Jackson is a protege of a South Carolina Federalist named John Laurens, Jackson studied Law under John Rutledge and just moved to Tennessee. He has not fought any Indians yet.
With that scenario any chance of a native state? Greater more influential federalism would make integration more likely particularly with an earlier acquisition of Louisiana (sorry giveaway) and better northern routes to the west. Doesn't this make the Mississippi territory a bunch of swamp?
With that scenario any chance of a native state? Greater more influential federalism would make integration more likely particularly with an earlier acquisition of Louisiana (sorry giveaway) and better northern routes to the west. Doesn't this make the Mississippi territory a bunch of swamp?
what is Britain doing in the Northwest Territories at this time? in OTL they were playing both sides against the other (US settlers and Indians) by supply weapons to the Indians and taunting the Settlers with taking/pulling out of the Forts in the region. This was one of the major causes of friction between the US and Britain prior to the War of 1812, along with a lot of back and forth over France while they were going through their Revolution.
I haven't gotten around to reading through your Laurens Lives posts lately, so i'm not up to speed on where it's going
You'll need to prevent a US Civil War, which I think really screws the Indians. One of the ways that Jackson was able to justify moving the Indians was because many of them supported the Confederacy. If the 5 Civilized Tribes support the South, they get screwed by the Union afterwards; if they don't support the South, instead remaining neutral or supporting the North, they get screwed by the South during the war.
um...what? I think you're confusing Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson. They were 30 years apart. Part of the reason why some of the 5 civilized tribes backed the Confederacy was due to the Trail of Tears. But some tribes backed the Union as well.
Did I just confused Jackson and Johnson, and get my chronology out of order?
I apologize.I did understand, however, that most of the tribes, the wealthy of which had adopted the same slave-holding plantation paradigm as any other rich Southerner, backed the South. I mean, they lived there. I made sense.
Minchandre you did mix them up no problem though happens to all of us. The plantation paradigm is a non-factor. As the natives are siding with a wanked Federalist party which supported among other things a pro-integration Indian policy hence the proposed state. Really read the TL and it would make sense
Marl- The NW was pacified per OTL but the Ohio war was shorter and more decisive. The British have moved out of the forts they are obligated to because the Legion of the United States is better at projecting force than the old Army is. Not to mention Wayne is still around.
Marl- The NW was pacified per OTL but the Ohio war was shorter and more decisive. The British have moved out of the forts they are obligated to because the Legion of the United States is better at projecting force than the old Army is. Not to mention Wayne is still around.
Did I just confused Jackson and Johnson, and get my chronology out of order?
I did understand, however, that most of the tribes, the wealthy of which had adopted the same slave-holding plantation paradigm as any other rich Southerner, backed the South. I mean, they lived there. I made sense.
LOL, it's all good. I've gotten stuff mixed up too, don't worry about it.
Yeah, a lot of them supported the South due to their history and the Confederacy supporting the Indian's. But a number of them also supported the Union for various reasons. Most of them by 1860 where in "Indian Territory" aka Oklahoma, the fighting west of Tennessee/Kentucky was very sporadic and very fluid, there was fighting...just not like in the east.
Sweet. George Washington very much supported and advocated integrating/converting Indian tribes into the US, believing it to be the easiest and best way to keep relationships with them from continuing as they had from the time of Jamestown to the Revolution.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Would a majority-native state as part of the United States be a precedent to incorporate other native American tribes to join the United States as their own states within the union?
Your major problem is Alex MacGillivray, and your PoD is too late to get around him
Little Alex was the Creek chieftain who negotiated a treaty with Washington and Knox that basically made the Creek a state (with poorly defined borders, but basically modern day Alabama). Unfortunately, Alex was a Tory - his father fought for the British during the Revolution, he was intriguing with the Spanish before the ink was dry, and he never referred to the American government as anything but "the rebels". He seemed to believe that the British, Spanish, Heaven itself or some combination of the above would crush the Americans any day now. Unfortunately, Alex's example entrenched the idea in the War department that honest negotiations with the 5 tribes were - not in the cards.
I can imagine some sort of larger, fairer reservation scheme than OTL being implemented early, but the key problem is that the US government doesn't trust the 5 tribes to nominate their own leaders and spokesmen - because they tried that, and it didn't work out well for America.
Little Alex was the Creek chieftain who negotiated a treaty with Washington and Knox that basically made the Creek a state (with poorly defined borders, but basically modern day Alabama). Unfortunately, Alex was a Tory - his father fought for the British during the Revolution, he was intriguing with the Spanish before the ink was dry, and he never referred to the American government as anything but "the rebels". He seemed to believe that the British, Spanish, Heaven itself or some combination of the above would crush the Americans any day now. Unfortunately, Alex's example entrenched the idea in the War department that honest negotiations with the 5 tribes were - not in the cards.
I can imagine some sort of larger, fairer reservation scheme than OTL being implemented early, but the key problem is that the US government doesn't trust the 5 tribes to nominate their own leaders and spokesmen - because they tried that, and it didn't work out well for America.
Your major problem is Alex MacGillivray, and your PoD is too late to get around him
Little Alex was the Creek chieftain who negotiated a treaty with Washington and Knox that basically made the Creek a state (with poorly defined borders, but basically modern day Alabama). Unfortunately, Alex was a Tory - his father fought for the British during the Revolution, he was intriguing with the Spanish before the ink was dry, and he never referred to the American government as anything but "the rebels". He seemed to believe that the British, Spanish, Heaven itself or some combination of the above would crush the Americans any day now. Unfortunately, Alex's example entrenched the idea in the War department that honest negotiations with the 5 tribes were - not in the cards.
I can imagine some sort of larger, fairer reservation scheme than OTL being implemented early, but the key problem is that the US government doesn't trust the 5 tribes to nominate their own leaders and spokesmen - because they tried that, and it didn't work out well for America.
All very true. I was under the impression that McGillivray's Tory politics were more in line with old Native tradition of bouncing from one colonial power to another. In this case he sided with Spain and England because they were not the US. I wasn't aware it was ideological or for that matter Gospel according to him. Btw McGillivray does die in 1795 OTL and we are 1798 so I could just leave him dead. Thoughts?
Yes Sa'id that is the point behind the thread.
The theoretical framework is there in the Constitution but the precedent never existed and didn't thanks to McGillivray. Hence the questions. Thanks for the input. Keep it coming.I suppose the problem is how recent it all is. I mean, yes Alex's successor will be better, and completely sane people would realize Creek != Cherokee etc, but it's only a few years ago. Why give them another chance so quickly?
In this case the US needs their support against a combined Spanish-Free stater force. So they guarantee them acceptance and territory in exchange for territorial integrity.
Look at the TL situation. The Spanish are cultivating a rebellion in the south and so the Indians wouldn't be a necessary counter-weight would they? they have Butler, Wilkinson et al to do that right? So even Alex M would see the writing and play the American card for a while. If not than the other tribes would go for it and leave Alex and his backers in the cold counting on the Spaniards. I think he would swallow it and take his state but I don't know.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
And a requirement to educate the natives in the English language so at least they could communicate their grievances to the national government while preserving some degree of autonomy as states.
