WI: North American Native Nations
- Thread starter Daedalus
- Start date
I have read that Georgia's militia was unable to defeat the Cherokee, hence the use of the US Army.
What if the Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) became an independent sovereign state? It was already being used as a dumping ground for various native tribes displaced by the white settlers' ethnic cleansing. What if it became somewhat analogous to Liberia, an African nation that was created with the intention of sending away black freedmen.
I think the best bet might be the Comanche, they were pretty powerful back in the day and basically dominated a sizable chunk of the southwest in what could be considered some kind of a tribal empire.
Picture a Comanche state forming in the early 19th century, maybe during Mexico's war for independence, and joining forces with newly-independent Texas in the 1830s/40s over a shared distrust of Mexico. I think finding good allies would be crucial to helping any Amerindian state survive.
Of course, this scenario, with a Comanche-Texas alliance, is really only viable if the US doesn't annex Texas (and probably Comancheria along with it) and the two are able to maintain independence through the turbulence of the 19th century.
Maybe they could play the US and Mexico off each other, keeping them too occupied with each other to bother the Comache or Texans, possibly even have them provoke a Mexican-American war should one of those two powers start eyeing them up.
Picture a Comanche state forming in the early 19th century, maybe during Mexico's war for independence, and joining forces with newly-independent Texas in the 1830s/40s over a shared distrust of Mexico. I think finding good allies would be crucial to helping any Amerindian state survive.
Of course, this scenario, with a Comanche-Texas alliance, is really only viable if the US doesn't annex Texas (and probably Comancheria along with it) and the two are able to maintain independence through the turbulence of the 19th century.
Maybe they could play the US and Mexico off each other, keeping them too occupied with each other to bother the Comache or Texans, possibly even have them provoke a Mexican-American war should one of those two powers start eyeing them up.
Didn't Texas pretty much ask for annexation almost immediately after independence due to being pretty much completely broke. Also the Comanche had at most 30 to 40 thousand people at their height compare that to the state of Texas which in 1850 had a population of around 200,000. In 1860 Texas had a population of around 600,000 even if all of the Comanche are counted in the population numbers they are vastly outnumbered. As the population of European settlers increases they will push out onto the plains and eventually just due to sheer attrition if nothing else push the Comanche back. I don't see anyway of the Comanche having real power with such a minority.
althisfan
Banned
If population determined who won wars- India wouldn't be the nation of the 2nd most English speaking people in the world (yes, that's true), Hong Kong wouldn't exist, and we'd all be speaking Chinese.
Fighting the Comanche was historically very expensive, and most of their land was considered useful only for ranching (it's the Great American Desert after all) and of course as a place to cross to get to better places. It could be reasonably that if Texas/Mexico is still around, that the region might make a good "no man's land" where an actual Comanche state could emerge, maybe led by people like Quanah Parker who would have contact/links to Europeans. Even if they eventually get swamped by non-indigenous people, TTL's Comanche (and other Indians who will likely be there like the Kiowa) will have it far better than OTL.
The Rio Grande Pueblo were too weak after plague, the release of Horses etc and after the experiment with independence between 1680-1694 I think they knew it. Had they remained independent they would have probably been curbstomped by the Plains Indians or the Navajo and we'd be looking at the ruins of Taos and Acoma much like we do Mesa Verde and Chaco and Bandiler.
Hopi and maybe Zuni would survive but they are too small to be viable nations except perhaps as lesser partners with the Navajo.
What if Alaska is never sold to USA by Russia, then it gains independance during the Russian Revolution. Alaska was historically sparesly settled by non-Amerindian migrants. Thus this Alaska would be a majority Amerindian nationstate in the North America north of the Rio Madre.
I think it would change from native dominated to European dominated under the Russians at about the same time it changed for America when the gold is discovered. The territory is quickly swamped with Europeans and Asians which quickly outnumber the natives.
Even then i think that the Amerindian component of the population would be bigger than if Alaska was American or Canadian. Also it would not be unlikely for Amerindians to become a slight majority, a change from being a overwhelming majority instead of becoming a numerical minority.
Why? It isn't like the Russians are known for their particularly positive treatment of indigenous people in Siberia, so why would it be any different in Alaska?
His land will still get swamped by Anglo settlers in the long-term.
Russia was quite late to populate Siberia, this makes migration from Russia more expensive which will lead to lower levels of immigration.
But it will get populated eventually if Russia owns it, and there's only about 120,000 Alaska Natives IOTL, and I think you can get 120,000 non-natives to live in Alaska. The climate is more pleasant than the Kolyma or other northern parts of Siberia, so it would be easier to extract resources from Alaska, plus it would be easier to feed than some of the more remote mines in Siberia as agriculture is viable in parts of Alaska and more importantly, it's right by the sea. In the long-term, that would draw away resources and migration from the more remote parts of Siberia to Alaska instead.
And if the USSR still exists, then Alaska will be even more populated, either as a White Russian remnant or as a portion of the USSR where the Soviets would obviously want to send a lot of people to (see the large Soviet-era populations in remote parts of Siberia).
I looked at the the most 3 most Northeast counties of Arizona, and SanJuan and McKinley counties of New Mexico you have around 500,000 people of which about 60% are Native American.
I'm sure you could find similar situations in Canada and the US in the West and North.
Since my Alaska idea has gotten some criticism, i have re-considered the likelihood of Alaska being a Amerindian majority nation. A more realistic proposal for a Amerindian majority nation north of the Rio Grande, would be Greenland. Greenland is today only 12% Danish and other Europeans, while Amerindians(+mixed people with Amerindian descent) make up 88% of the population. There are also people with other origins but they were not represented in the wiki article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
Planet of Hats
Donor
You could probably swing something with Coast First Nations in the Columbia District/Oregon Country if you end up with a United States that remains constrained to the east. Certainly you could get a Coast First Nations-flavoured country out there, at least - the French and British fur traders and early settlers in the area were much more receptive to Indian culture and language than later American settlers, and many British officials in the area spoke chinuk wawa fluently - in fact many white settlers spoke it at home in preference to English, and it was widely used in court testimony, newspapers and everyday conversation. By 1875, more than 100,000 people spoke it. But there was a huge influx of English-speaking settlers after a certain point (the railroad was a big factor), which moved the wawa-speaking group north into British Columbia and effectively led to the sunset of the wawa as the trade language, along with factors like residential schools. (Elements of it still survive today, mind, like the terms "potlatch" and "muckity-muck.")
Have an east-coast-oriented America and give it some time for the existing group of settlers to intermarry more heavily with the locals, and you'd end up with a smaller country with a dialect of English heavily laced with terms from the wawa and probably a large population of Métis-type people who speak it.
This is one of those ideas I'd love to do as a TL but don't have the gumption to pull the trigger on, incidentally.
Have an east-coast-oriented America and give it some time for the existing group of settlers to intermarry more heavily with the locals, and you'd end up with a smaller country with a dialect of English heavily laced with terms from the wawa and probably a large population of Métis-type people who speak it.
This is one of those ideas I'd love to do as a TL but don't have the gumption to pull the trigger on, incidentally.