The Iroquois League joins the Thirteen Colonies in the ARW

Racism didn't stop the French and British in the same period from recruiting Native Americans and respecting their sovereignty when it suited them.

They were (a) pragmatic, and (b) going to be at war with each other at some point. May as well gather some local allies whilst they were there.
 
Racism didn't stop the French and British in the same period from recruiting Native Americans and respecting their sovereignty when it suited them.

... and when the British who were actually dealing with those tribes in any close proximity (IE; Hint; they weren't the folks back in London) no longer felt the Amerindians living so close to them no longer suited them they took active efforts to drive them out. Also, its virtually costless to England to let a tribe live on the edge of a colony that's across the ocean from the Mother Country and a small sliver of the Empire; for New York, its giving up basically a third of its state at minimum.
 
Long story short: not going to happen. Aside from having no strategic reason to join the Revolution, we have genuine examples from history of how the situation would go.

The Lenape tribe split, with one of its leaders, White Eyes, signing the treaty of Fort Pitt, which guaranteed land and mutual alliance between the Lenape and the fledgling US in exchange for material and intelligence support in the Great Lakes. You want to know how that turned out?

Militiamen whose families lived near the land promised to the Lenape murdered White Eyes during a scouting mission and pretended the British did it. Immediately, backpedaling started on the treaty and more of the Lenape understandably ended up defecting to the British-allied portion of the tribe, which was later seized on as another excuse to take the land.

Alternatively, look at the expansion of settlement in western Georgia and the deep south. When the federal government forbid expansion, settlers moved in anyway, created "independent" republics and then petitioned Georgia to annex them as "protection", coincidentally in territories claimed by Georgia that treaties had reserved for neutral and friendly tribes.

The Iroquois joining would most likely just be one more datapoint in the trend, sadly.
 

althisfan

Banned
Long story short: not going to happen. Aside from having no strategic reason to join the Revolution, we have genuine examples from history of how the situation would go.

The Lenape tribe split, with one of its leaders, White Eyes, signing the treaty of Fort Pitt, which guaranteed land and mutual alliance between the Lenape and the fledgling US in exchange for material and intelligence support in the Great Lakes. You want to know how that turned out?

Militiamen whose families lived near the land promised to the Lenape murdered White Eyes during a scouting mission and pretended the British did it. Immediately, backpedaling started on the treaty and more of the Lenape understandably ended up defecting to the British-allied portion of the tribe, which was later seized on as another excuse to take the land.

Alternatively, look at the expansion of settlement in western Georgia and the deep south. When the federal government forbid expansion, settlers moved in anyway, created "independent" republics and then petitioned Georgia to annex them as "protection", coincidentally in territories claimed by Georgia that treaties had reserved for neutral and friendly tribes.

The Iroquois joining would most likely just be one more datapoint in the trend, sadly.
That's not quite true, though the governor initially ignored Federal demands that Georgia put down the Trans-Oconee Republic, Georgia did put down the new "republic" and did not defend the white settlers. In fact the republic was put down militarily by Georgia militia and US Federal troops.
 
If "Iroquoia" becomes a state several possibilities.
1. You can't stop other folks from moving in, free movement is part of the USA principals.
2. The Iroquois, at least, are US citizens - and at least for state and local elections the laws of their state determine voting age and whether or not women vote (given Iroquois society expect they will).
3. Proper land titles will be arranged. Some land will not be held privately but some state and some federal property. The state will set rules for the former, the federal government for the latter. OTL because of the cultural practices of most Native Americans, private ownership of land or even communal ownership in the sense that English law recognized was not there - if you have "proper" land ownership, private communal, state or federal settlers are restricted as to where they can homestead. Just like someone moving to New York could not homestead on land legally owned by somebody else, only on "unowned" land or land made available for homesteading by the government.

This is the best case, for the rest the natives can expect to be screwed.
 
If there's an "Iriquoia" state, question-given that states have a lot of leeway on land law, would Iriquoia have leeway to pass its own land laws that specify how landholding works-for example, that all land is technically owned by the state and only usufruct rights are alienable? Or that for example land may only be held by specific entities and that usufruct rights are subject to close regulation? I could see that being quite the legal tricky point.
 

althisfan

Banned
If there's an "Iriquoia" state, question-given that states have a lot of leeway on land law, would Iriquoia have leeway to pass its own land laws that specify how landholding works-for example, that all land is technically owned by the state and only usufruct rights are alienable? Or that for example land may only be held by specific entities and that usufruct rights are subject to close regulation? I could see that being quite the legal tricky point.
I doubt the Haudenosaunee would pick "Iriquoia" as a name, to be honest. Rotinonsionni is the more likely native name, Iroqouis Confederacy being the English translation of what the French referred to the Iroquois, whereas the British and American colonists knew them simply as the Five Nations (Six Nations after the Tuscarora migrated north from North Carolina and joined).
 
If we're talking the 1780-1810 time frame, could the Iroquois gain leverage by threatening to ally with the Shawnee, Sauk and Fox, and other tribes to their west against the US if their rights to a semi-autonomous Iroquois-majority state are denied? Not to mention appealing to the British in some way.
 

Philip

Donor
would Iriquoia have leeway to pass its own land laws that specify how landholding works-for example, that all land is technically owned by the state and only usufruct rights are alienable?

They probably could until enough whites move in and vote to change the law.

If we're talking the 1780-1810 time frame, could the Iroquois gain leverage by threatening to ally with the Shawnee, Sauk and Fox, and other tribes to their west against the US if their rights to a semi-autonomous Iroquois-majority state are denied? Not to mention appealing to the British in some way.

Based on Tecumseh's OTL experience, they could for a little while. Ultimately, the state is not likely to survive by force.
 
Last edited:

althisfan

Banned
If we're talking the 1780-1810 time frame, could the Iroquois gain leverage by threatening to ally with the Shawnee, Sauk and Fox, and other tribes to their west against the US if their rights to a semi-autonomous Iroquois-majority state are denied? Not to mention appealing to the British in some way.
In OTL in 1779 Sullivan Expedition wiped out the Iroquois ability to... be anything; but let's say being on the American side butterflies away Washington sending Sullivan to kill every Iroquois he can find. The Shawnee?! You realize out of all those tribes you mentioned, the Shawnee hate the Iroquois the most, as they lost the Beaver Wars. The Iroquois depopulated the entire area north of the Tennessee River and east of the Illinois River. They whooped other Indians and forced them south and west, the Shawnee moved to Kansas and Missouri less because of the Americans and more because of the Iroquois.
 
[QUOTE="althisfan, post: 17177667, member: 114697"

This map shows the lands the Iroquois had after the Beaver Wars and before the Treaty of Stanwix which ended the Iroqouis portion of the ARW against the US.View attachment 393271[/QUOTE]

Had a laugh when I saw that map. A lot of the people in that region we're or would have surprised to learn they were part of the Iriquoi claim.
 

althisfan

Banned
Had a laugh when I saw that map. A lot of the people in that region we're or would have surprised to learn they were part of the Iriquoi claim.
No, because they lost the Beaver Wars, the Iroquois literally almost depopulated that entire area. The Natives that lived there after the 1730s are ones that moved in after the Beaver Wars. The Shawnee for instance moved west because of the Iroquois. If that very legitimate map made you laugh then I suggest you read up more on the Beaver Wars.
 
Alternatively, look at the expansion of settlement in western Georgia and the deep south. When the federal government forbid expansion, settlers moved in anyway, created "independent" republics and then petitioned Georgia to annex them as "protection", coincidentally in territories claimed by Georgia that treaties had reserved for neutral and friendly tribes.
Do you have any information on those republics?
 
That's not quite true, though the governor initially ignored Federal demands that Georgia put down the Trans-Oconee Republic, Georgia did put down the new "republic" and did not defend the white settlers. In fact the republic was put down militarily by Georgia militia and US Federal troops.
It seems I did slightly misremember that part, but you're a little off as well based on what I found in my old notes.

While Georgia did eventually turn around to crush the Republic, it was only after public opinion turned against Clarke for taking land that would be valuable to Georgia, not anything to do with the Creek who by treaty were the legal owners. More importantly, I don't think I would say that they were put down militarily: they were surrounded by said troops and then negotiated to abandon their settlement in exchange for no prosecution. No real punishment or loss of life took place. They left and the original settlement was burned down, but the land was still seized by Georgia's state government and not returned to the Creek.
 
I doubt the Haudenosaunee would pick "Iriquoia" as a name, to be honest. Rotinonsionni is the more likely native name, Iroqouis Confederacy being the English translation of what the French referred to the Iroquois, whereas the British and American colonists knew them simply as the Five Nations (Six Nations after the Tuscarora migrated north from North Carolina and joined).
What does that word mean?

I still doubt that the Quebec, much less natives, will be given a chance to have their own state.

Why not? Each of the colonies breaking from Britain endured in the United States.
 
Top