WI: Better US-Native Relations?

I was thinking of a timeline where America, for whatever reason, never really goes through with the Indian removal act, and relations between the US and the Native American tribes is generally much better in this timeline. There wouldn't necessarily be no conflict, but drastically less.


I'm trying to think of what might cause this-Jackson dying in office? Or maybe an event which shifts American culture just enough to have a noticeable impact on their relationships?
 
You could also prevent the Jackson presidency altogether; or rather his OTL presidency, if, for example, we prevent the 1825 Corrupt Bargain and have him defeated in 1828. However it's done, if say Henry Clay is president when Cherokee Nation v. Georgia is handed down...
 
Keep off the Great Plains by having Panama become the preferred route to the west coast. Too early for a canal, but the railroad could probable be improved on.

Another Plains idea, some attempted to 'civilize' the tribes by turning them into farmers. Meet cultures halfway and try getting them to become herders instead.
 
I think you need a POD before 1700 (arbitrarily chosen). If the four civilized tribes aren't forced out of the south I think there will be a continual bloody conflict in that region.

I think the genocide of the Iroquois in the ARW could be avoided/delayed with better political management of that situation.

As long as the US expands beyond the Mississippi before the 1900s the Western Native Americans are out of luck.
 
the entire problem for the native americans is that their way of life doesn't mesh with the European lifestyle, and the Europeans advanced enough to have the manpower and the gunpower to do away with them. As long as there's conflict, which is a basic result of difference of lifestyle/power, the NA are going to end up on the shitty end of the stick. So, if the US never hears of Andrew Jackson, the NA are still going to be abused. Not as badly as in the world of AJ, but eventually it's going to work out the same. we didn't have to be such dickheads to them, but as long as they practice their heritage/way of life, they are doomed to the ultimate fate.

The best bet for them is for them to assimilate, but that means loss of heritage, and they cease being native americans. Pretty much every culture that came to this country eventually lost its culture. I might say I'm a German-American, but outside of enjoying a good Bock beer, I'm no more german than my cat. Even assimilation is going to be tough, because americans were a pretty racist bunch. we were founded on the notion of all men created equal, as long as you're the right men.

So, you have two choices: assimilate, or allow them to have their own nation states, which means giving up choice pieces of land (which is why they were moved out of the Southeast, and pretty much anywhere we displaced them from). edit: OTL, we did give them all nation states, but OTL version of it was to give them the crappiest piece of land possible. that's disaster for their heritage, because they can't practice the same way of life on a postage stamp sized piece of useless land. and it's disaster for when they finally do decide to assimilate while staying on the reservation, because the land isn't good enough to accomplish economic viability. and then we get mad when they figure out how to use us with casinos.
 
Last edited:
the entire problem for the native americans is that their way of life doesn't mesh with the European lifestyle, and the Europeans advanced enough to have the manpower and the gunpower to do away with them.

and that America is temperate in climate, and well suited for European agriculture/lifestyles. Unlike most of Africa and India, when the whites came, they wanted the land and they wanted to stay, not just make a colonial fortune from somewhere far away. But more than anything, it was the massive die off of the natives right off the bat that did them in... they were not only sitting on prime land and technologically outmatched, they were horribly reduced in numbers...
 
and that America is temperate in climate, and well suited for European agriculture/lifestyles. Unlike most of Africa and India, when the whites came, they wanted the land and they wanted to stay, not just make a colonial fortune from somewhere far away. But more than anything, it was the massive die off of the natives right off the bat that did them in... they were not only sitting on prime land and technologically outmatched, they were horribly reduced in numbers...

Recent scholarship is actually disputing the idea that they died in massice numbers right off the bat - see Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America.
 
I'm reminded of these words: "White people will never share this land's infinite abundance with coloreds." Thaddeus Stevens. I think.:eek: True, too. He meant African-Americans, of course. But it was still the same for our Natives.

What would have happened, after all, to the Australian Aborigines IF:

a) the Australian landmass had the relative abundance of North America rather than being 70% desert?

b) being independent almost from its founding rather than being responsible to the higher authority of the British Empire?

c) had enjoyed a flood of White immigration proportional to the size of the landmass of the USA's rather than one restricted by distance and the scarcer amounts of arable soil?

d) the Aborigines had a greater population density, i.e. closer to that of the Native Americans, rather than one shrunken by the hard circumstances to be found trying to survive in the harsh conditions of the Outback with the most primitive of toolmaking skills?

Not a good combination by any measure, and a formula that would insure history repeating itself in the Land Down Under. And before our friend in Oz start screaming, please re-read the details of this post, because other than the word "Australia", this ASB ATL continent bears no real likeness to THIS world's Oz. I merely demonstrated what distance and isolation could do. (1)

And wasn't South America's history for Native relations just as bad? The only country I'm aware of that has a half-way decent record is Canada, and AIUI even the White Canucks weren't totally perfect.:(

1) OTOH, while writing this I just remembered what happened to the Tasmanian Aborigines.:eek::eek::eek::eek: Never mind:(:(:(
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Kind of depends on the definition of "better"...

I was thinking of a timeline where America, for whatever reason, never really goes through with the Indian removal act, and relations between the US and the Native American tribes is generally much better in this timeline. There wouldn't necessarily be no conflict, but drastically less. I'm trying to think of what might cause this-Jackson dying in office? Or maybe an event which shifts American culture just enough to have a noticeable impact on their relationships?

Kind of depends on the definition of "better"... the US was never going to be a mestizo society like some of the Latin American republics or the Metis, but something on the spectrum between "collapse due to pandemics" and "Maori-type model minority" is certainly possible.

The question really would be how does the US deal with the tribal societies on the Old Northwest and Old Southwest in the 1780s-1810; some sort of accomodationist policy - with more sustainable reservations/preserves/etc in both regions - might be possible in that era, but the 1812-15 war and the split among the "settled" tribes between the US and the British pretty much prevented anything after that point.

As far as the trans-Mississppi and points west, the removal/reservation policy was pretty much going to be the default after the Indian Removal Act, which was an outgrowth of the 1812-15 war.

Best,
 
one thing that might help is if either France or Britain is cut out of colonizing North America... one of the things that really kickstarted the anti-native mindset was that both sides used native allies to attack settlements of the other side. Granted, that wasn't the whole problem, but it certainly contributed to it....
 
I'll welcome that conclusion. But I do tend to think disease is so significant that everything else is a mere footnote by comparison.

And even if it were 'just' 20%, think how disruptive that is, besides the obvious harm to that 20% and their family.
 
Here's an article from Nature that some of this may be in the future for small, isolated populations in the Amazon, except we now know how to be smart about these matters:

Mortality from contact-related epidemics among indigenous populations in Greater Amazonia

--> Sept. 10, 2015

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep14032

In the Amazon Basin such contacts continue to occur with more than 50 isolated indigenous societies likely to make further contacts with the outside world in the near future.

The prospects for better survivorship during future contacts are good provided modern health care procedures are implemented immediately.
 
the entire problem for the native americans is that their way of life doesn't mesh with the European lifestyle, and the Europeans advanced enough to have the manpower and the gunpower to do away with them. As long as there's conflict, which is a basic result of difference of lifestyle/power, the NA are going to end up on the shitty end of the stick. So, if the US never hears of Andrew Jackson, the NA are still going to be abused. Not as badly as in the world of AJ, but eventually it's going to work out the same. we didn't have to be such dickheads to them, but as long as they practice their heritage/way of life, they are doomed to the ultimate fate.

The best bet for them is for them to assimilate, but that means loss of heritage, and they cease being native americans. Pretty much every culture that came to this country eventually lost its culture. I might say I'm a German-American, but outside of enjoying a good Bock beer, I'm no more german than my cat. Even assimilation is going to be tough, because americans were a pretty racist bunch. we were founded on the notion of all men created equal, as long as you're the right men.

So, you have two choices: assimilate, or allow them to have their own nation states, which means giving up choice pieces of land (which is why they were moved out of the Southeast, and pretty much anywhere we displaced them from). edit: OTL, we did give them all nation states, but OTL version of it was to give them the crappiest piece of land possible. that's disaster for their heritage, because they can't practice the same way of life on a postage stamp sized piece of useless land. and it's disaster for when they finally do decide to assimilate while staying on the reservation, because the land isn't good enough to accomplish economic viability. and then we get mad when they figure out how to use us with casinos.

and that America is temperate in climate, and well suited for European agriculture/lifestyles. Unlike most of Africa and India, when the whites came, they wanted the land and they wanted to stay, not just make a colonial fortune from somewhere far away. But more than anything, it was the massive die off of the natives right off the bat that did them in... they were not only sitting on prime land and technologically outmatched, they were horribly reduced in numbers...

The question really would be how does the US deal with the tribal societies on the Old Northwest and Old Southwest in the 1780s-1810; some sort of accomodationist policy - with more sustainable reservations/preserves/etc in both regions - might be possible in that era, but the 1812-15 war and the split among the "settled" tribes between the US and the British pretty much prevented anything after that point.

As far as the trans-Mississppi and points west, the removal/reservation policy was pretty much going to be the default after the Indian Removal Act, which was an outgrowth of the 1812-15 war.

All of this ^. The entire mindset of the English* colonists in America, from Plymouth at least, was "this is a place to make a fresh start". As in, this virgin continent is ours to mold and make in our own image - and not just acquired by force, but bestowed as a gift from God. Such a mindset was fundamentally incompatible with the idea of letting pre-existing populations continue to inhabit the land while still getting to keep their own cultures, political autonomy, and languages. At best, these populations needed to be converted to English civilization - Christian (of the right variety), settled, English-speaking. At worst, their racial difference proved a taint that could never be cleansed, no matter how "English" they became; at which point the only 'logical' thing to do was to expel them to the west, out of the way, or to annihilate them. It's no surprise that violent conflict between the settlers and the Natives was already underway by the 1630's, less than a generation after Plymouth. And that fundamental incompatibility was carried on to its logical conclusion over the next three centuries.

As much as I hate to admit it - I work with the Native American community on language revitalization - I'm pessimistic of any TL where the Natives get to keep their culture and political independence with the English still being here. It's like trying to push together two same-pole magnets - it simply can't be done for any appreciable length of time. Your best POD is to prevent English colonization of North America. France seemed to have a much lighter touch in its colonies here, being much more interested in trade and resource extraction, but I imagine even their policy would change in a New France experiencing the Industrial Revolution and immigration from Europe. Maybe Spanish North America could have done it, or maybe that would just look like OTL's Chile and Argentina.

The POD that's always made the most sense to me to achieve the OP's outcome is a longer-surviving and more prosperous Vinland that lets Eurasian domesticates and technologies trickle slowly into North America to allow for a gradual catch-up between the two hemispheres.

*English, and of course later British, Anglo-American, and Anglo-Canadian.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Undoubtedly true, but presumably that takes the US off the table...

The POD that's always made the most sense to me to achieve the OP's outcome is a longer-surviving and more prosperous Vinland that lets Eurasian domesticates and technologies trickle slowly into North America to allow for a gradual catch-up between the two hemispheres.

Undoubtedly true, but presumably that takes the US off the table...

I think there was a window between independence and the 1812-15 war where there was a chance the tribal cultures that adopted "American" standards - the "Five Civilized Tribes" type of practices, for example - that could have led to a more syncretic culture in some parts of the US, and if it was couple with outright, full-bodied support for the US in the 1812-15 war, could have led to something other than the historical result. There's a reason the Tuscarora and Oneida, more or less, did better than the rest of the Six Nations; they backed the right horse.

That's not a guarantee, of course, but when the only non-debateable answer to the question "Who lost the war of 1812" is "The Indians," making the right call - British over the French, Americans over the British (or Spanish and French in the Old Southwest) was pretty much the only shot for the cultures west of the Appalachians and east of the Mississippi.

Not a particularly pleasant reality, but when it comes to a demographically vulnerable population living in between two larger powers, there's really no other option.

Keokuk vis a vis Black Hawk is another one, although of course Keokuk's people only survived by agreeing to go west of the Mississippi; at least they did so with the protection of the US, unlike Black Hawk's, who got pushed west and were promptly overwhelmed by the Dakota Sioux.

I think the best case, at least from 1775 onwards, is to side with the Americans and, essentially, be as willing to fight the British as the Americans were, and hire the best white attorneys whatever money the tribal peoples had; anything else pretty much hands the US an excuse for the IR Act and its equivalents.

Best,
 
Top