The Iroquois League joins the Thirteen Colonies in the ARW

It is the Mohawk word for the Five Nations confederacy. The Mohawk were the ones with the most exposure to the Dutch/English/American largest settlements near Iroquois lands.
And they are the ones with the reservation on the New York/Quebec border today, right?
 
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.

The map fits the Iroquois narrative. Other accounts differ. Most historians place the end of the Beaver Wars at the end of the 18th Century, with the Treaty of Montreal formally signifying it in 1701. After that their ability to influence much west of modern Pennsylvania declined. They did not prevent the return of the Shawnee & others eastwards to modern Ohio. Or retain any great control of any of them. None with some. That was formally recognized in the 1760s when the Iroquois sold their putative claims to the region between the Ohio River and Great Lakes to the British. Before that I'm not seeing much interest or effort on their part in supporting the Shawnee & others in resisting the settlers in Kentucky, or western Pennsylvania.
 
The map fits the Iroquois narrative. Other accounts differ. Most historians place the end of the Beaver Wars at the end of the 18th Century, with the Treaty of Montreal formally signifying it in 1701. After that their ability to influence much west of modern Pennsylvania declined. They did not prevent the return of the Shawnee & others eastwards to modern Ohio. Or retain any great control of any of them. None with some. That was formally recognized in the 1760s when the Iroquois sold their putative claims to the region between the Ohio River and Great Lakes to the British. Before that I'm not seeing much interest or effort on their part in supporting the Shawnee & others in resisting the settlers in Kentucky, or western Pennsylvania.
I don't doubt that at one point, the Iroquois did exert control over that region. The further away from NY one gets, the more tenuous the control. By the time of the revolution, the shaded area was mostly handy for making treaties, not any real hegemony on the part of the I. As you said, the inhabitants were reclaiming, or moving into, a vacuum left by
lack of I control/presence. At the time of the French and Indian War, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and the western half of Kentucky were by no means under the thumb of the Iroquois.
 
It's sort of ironic that Native history is full of examples of territory gained by right of conquest, but when white tribes do it, somehow that makes the whites evil ne'er do wells.
 
Conquest is never a good time for the defeated. Not always fun the for the conquerors either. Main benefactors seem to be the duplicitous old men who are the 'leaders'.
 

Maoistic

Banned
It's sort of ironic that Native history is full of examples of territory gained by right of conquest, but when white tribes do it, somehow that makes the whites evil ne'er do wells.
No one is saying Native Americans didn't do evil, and European colonial conquests and inter-European wars in the Americas were far bloodier and destructive, which is a fact. No Native American war between the 16th and 19th century killed as much as European wars in the Americas.
 
It's sort of ironic that Native history is full of examples of territory gained by right of conquest, but when white tribes do it, somehow that makes the whites evil ne'er do wells.

There's a big difference between treating people badly because they're a conquered people and doing so because they're a conquered race.
 
Inspired by the Native American nations thread. What happens to the Iroquois and the Thirteen Colonies if both join forces against the British alongside the French and Spanish?

In other words, what if the three little pigs team up with the wolf to fight the shepherd ?

Quite the same answer as for the French Canadians living under British rule.

If not suicidal or incredibly short-sighted (not to say stupid), they just will not. In the contrary, they will finish like the pigs alone with the wolf.
 
Racism didn't stop the French and British in the same period from recruiting Native Americans and respecting their sovereignty when it suited them.

But it doesn’t suit them. That’s the whole point of what he said, so their overall racial attitudes are irrelevant. New York wanted the land and the rest of the states had no reason to stop them
 

althisfan

Banned
But it doesn’t suit them. That’s the whole point of what he said, so their overall racial attitudes are irrelevant. New York wanted the land and the rest of the states had no reason to stop them
Actually it's Massachusetts that got the land, as in the right to buy the title to the land from the Native Americans in order to sell it. NY got the political control, but not the ability to buy it from the natives and then sell it to settlers. It's funny how in this thread several are talking about killing and war and pushing the Natives away and taking there land- except that's not what the Americans did. For almost all the land- they paid for it, they didn't conquer and take. The Iroquois however- they didn't pay the Shawnee, or the various Algonquin and Souian tribes, they exterminated or drove them out; they're the ones who genocided the Old Northwest before any Americans made it there (that and the diseases, but other than the rare occasions of germ warfare we can't blame the Europeans directly, they seriously didn't know at first; and Malaria and Smallpox were introduced by Blacks, though of course not by their choice). The Iroquois kicked the Cheyenne out of the Northwest, the Cheyenne kicked out previous peoples of the Plains, the Souix then Kicked the Cheyenne out of the Black Hills area. The Black Hills didn't become "holy" to the Souix until after Europeans had been on North America for many generations. It still stands- we need to understand that people are people. All people groups are capable of, and have done, horrible things to other peoples groups, and no matter how much it's a cute story and political pressure says otherwise- ethnogenesis is a complex process and the genetics of the "original inhabitants" are more often than not swamped by people who migrated to that area after already having had an ethnogenesis as a different group some place else. Even the Balts are not the first human group to have lived in their current area and don't have the genetics of the earliest peoples of that region in large amounts in their genome, and it's most likely a Finn-Urgric people lived there before them, and some other unknown before them. So, in conclusion- please stop the crap that the Europeans/Americans did it on a larger scale, that it was racially motivated (it wasn't, and native wars were just as "racially" or more accurately ethnically motivated, the Iroquois and Algonquin hated each other in what we would call in a mutually ethnic cleansing scale, similar to Serbian and Croatian though these two groups are the same ethno-linguistic people and only are different in a religious, with mutually intelligible dialects, and different written script; meaning Serbians and Croatians technically can't ethnically cleanse the other). People are people.
 
Actually it's Massachusetts that got the land, as in the right to buy the title to the land from the Native Americans in order to sell it. NY got the political control, but not the ability to buy it from the natives and then sell it to settlers. It's funny how in this thread several are talking about killing and war and pushing the Natives away and taking there land- except that's not what the Americans did. For almost all the land- they paid for it, they didn't conquer and take. The Iroquois however- they didn't pay the Shawnee, or the various Algonquin and Souian tribes, they exterminated or drove them out; they're the ones who genocided the Old Northwest before any Americans made it there (that and the diseases, but other than the rare occasions of germ warfare we can't blame the Europeans directly, they seriously didn't know at first; and Malaria and Smallpox were introduced by Blacks, though of course not by their choice). The Iroquois kicked the Cheyenne out of the Northwest, the Cheyenne kicked out previous peoples of the Plains, the Souix then Kicked the Cheyenne out of the Black Hills area. The Black Hills didn't become "holy" to the Souix until after Europeans had been on North America for many generations. It still stands- we need to understand that people are people. All people groups are capable of, and have done, horrible things to other peoples groups, and no matter how much it's a cute story and political pressure says otherwise- ethnogenesis is a complex process and the genetics of the "original inhabitants" are more often than not swamped by people who migrated to that area after already having had an ethnogenesis as a different group some place else. Even the Balts are not the first human group to have lived in their current area and don't have the genetics of the earliest peoples of that region in large amounts in their genome, and it's most likely a Finn-Urgric people lived there before them, and some other unknown before them. So, in conclusion- please stop the crap that the Europeans/Americans did it on a larger scale, that it was racially motivated (it wasn't, and native wars were just as "racially" or more accurately ethnically motivated, the Iroquois and Algonquin hated each other in what we would call in a mutually ethnic cleansing scale, similar to Serbian and Croatian though these two groups are the same ethno-linguistic people and only are different in a religious, with mutually intelligible dialects, and different written script; meaning Serbians and Croatians technically can't ethnically cleanse the other). People are people.

Not sure why you chose me to respond with this tirade. I specifically said racial attitudes *weren't* relevant with respect to New York's claims on Iroquois land, so everything you said has nothing to do with anything that I said.

Also, just because Native Americans were also violent doesn't justify and/or reduce the severity of any violence committed against them. A murderer on trial for his crime can't point to the man across the street from him and say, "But he murdered people too," and get a reduced sentence, that would be absurd. Atrocities committed by Native Americans against other Native Americans are irrelevant to a discussion about atrocities committed by Europeans against Native Americans because the two issues have completely distinct parties involved and different contributing factors. The idea that all actions share a moral equivalence is a blatant appeal to hypocrisy. But that's not even what this thread is about, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
 
If you want a surviving Native American state in this time period then it requires a British victory, or at least a peace deal that restricts the Thirteen Colonies to the southern bank of the Ohio River and/or some version of the Proclamation Line of 1763. One of the Patriot casus belli was British restrictions on settlement into the Western Territories taken from France; any victorious USA will be looking to annex those lands, native allies be damned.
 
Last edited:

althisfan

Banned
Not sure why you chose me to respond with this tirade. I specifically said racial attitudes *weren't* relevant with respect to New York's claims on Iroquois land, so everything you said has nothing to do with anything that I said.

Also, just because Native Americans were also violent doesn't justify and/or reduce the severity of any violence committed against them. A murderer on trial for his crime can't point to the man across the street from him and say, "But he murdered people too," and get a reduced sentence, that would be absurd. Atrocities committed by Native Americans against other Native Americans are irrelevant to a discussion about atrocities committed by Europeans against Native Americans because the two issues have completely distinct parties involved and different contributing factors. The idea that all actions share a moral equivalence is a blatant appeal to hypocrisy. But that's not even what this thread is about, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
I responded to you because NY didn't have claims on the Indian land, they had claims on the jurisdiction. There's a difference.
 
Top