AHC: Native-Colonist Alliance In Americas?

[Meshakhad]

One of the unpleasant truths of American history I learned fairly early on is that when American colonists, Native Americans, and the British clashed, the British usually sided with the Natives. indeed, one of the motivations for the American Revolution was the British trying to stop settlers from taking more Native land.

My question is, could that have gone differently? Could we create a scenario where the colonists (whoever they are) and the Natives would see each other as natural allies against (one or more of) the European powers?

There are two mechanisms I can see that might assist in this. One would be creating a large population of mixed European and Native ancestry that is generally accepted by both societies, and can serve as a bridge. The other is for the ruling European power to be a hostile one. The best way to do that is to have it not be the nation of origin for the colonists. At that point, the Natives you've been trading with (and frequently marrying) for decades start to look a lot more palatable. Another option would be for an ethnic minority to be deported en masse to the colonies, with persecution continuing there, and as such they ally with the Natives in a bid for freedom, although I find that option less likely.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

The settlers and natives are always going to be vying for the same thing. Land. And there is no way to share and there will never, ever be enough for the settlers.

 

[FleetMac]

One of the unpleasant truths of American history I learned fairly early on is that when American colonists, Native Americans, and the British clashed, the British usually sided with the Natives. indeed, one of the motivations for the American Revolution was the British trying to stop settlers from taking more Native land.

My question is, could that have gone differently? Could we create a scenario where the colonists (whoever they are) and the Natives would see each other as natural allies against (one or more of) the European powers?

There are two mechanisms I can see that might assist in this. 1) One would be creating a large population of mixed European and Native ancestry that is generally accepted by both societies, and can serve as a bridge. 2) The other is for the ruling European power to be a hostile one. The best way to do that is to have it not be the nation of origin for the colonists. At that point, the Natives you've been trading with (and frequently marrying) for decades start to look a lot more palatable. 3) Another option would be for an ethnic minority to be deported en masse to the colonies, with persecution continuing there, and as such they ally with the Natives in a bid for freedom, although I find that option less likely.

My answers to each mechanism:

1) The key here is "what's the POD". If we're talking an earlier and/or less community-shipment model of settlement in English North America, this could work, as the initial settlers seemed to have taken less umbrage with intermarriage with Natives than post-1660. Furthermore, avoiding/butterflying the Pilgrims' arrival would stunt the development of wholesale movement to the Americas, before then the practice was more common with that of France, Portugal, etc. The issue is as time goes on there's less chance that pattern could coexist once events like King Phillip's War happen (which was a watershed moment in terms of how settlers interacted with the Native Americans negatively).

2) This could also lead to earlier/greater violence against Natives if they're seen as harboring/sheltering/allying with that settlement group, perhaps prompting an early and violent response. Alternatively it could bring about peace between the colonizing country and Native Americans if the latter end up throwing that settler group under the bus, but that's not a guarantee either.

3) If the deportees can run far enough away from the initial settlement points, then you could have a North American "Great Trek" situation. It's worth noting that this could work for or against the OP, as the Boers would ally with certain tribes as necessary but also conquer/displace them depending on which is more convenient. The question is who would this group be? The Irish, sent by Britain? The Huguenots, by France?

 

[Neoteros]

The settlers and natives are always going to be vying for the same thing. Land. And there is no way to share and there will never, ever be enough for the settlers.

You could have a very specific subset of settlers side with the natives against the rest of the settlers, if they feel like they're being discriminated against by the majority; in the case of Great Britain, you could get Catholic-Native alliances, for example.

Or, you could go the New France route, and have the first colonists be traders first and settlers second, but even then, once you get a critical mass of palefaces showing up, shit's gonna hit the fan.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

One of the unpleasant truths of American history I learned fairly early on is that when American colonists, Native Americans, and the British clashed, the British usually sided with the Natives. indeed, one of the motivations for the American Revolution was the British trying to stop settlers from taking more Native land.

I feel like this is at least partially a bunch of pop-history simplifications. The Native Americans weren't a monolithic bloc and the American colonists were Brits and weren't a monolithic bloc either. More on point, a majority of native tribes never sided with the British. During the American Revolution there were more tribes on the American side than the Brits', mostly those who had fought the British in the French and Indian War continued to fight the British in the ARW, with a few exceptions. The main British ally was consistently the Iroquois Confederacy, but even they were split over which side to support during the American Revolution.

As for the matter over Native land, I feel like people have a bad habit of ascribing the British more benevolent motives behind that than they deserve as they were less interested in siding with native tribes over their own citizens than they were in maintaining a grip over their citizens and preventing another war like the French and Indian War from breaking out as that one was started on the initiative of a colonial governor and not the crown or parliament.

But it's also not that immediately relevant, more relevant was what the British did with a huge chunk of that "Indian Reserve" land in 1774, when they gave it to the Province of Quebec during the Quebec Act. That was one of the Intolerable Acts that really pissed off the British settlers because they were already settling that land (much of which was promised to veterans of the war) and that they'd then have to live at least partially under French laws, and they also just didn't like the idea of granting so many concessions to an enemy they had recently defeated and were still on poor terms with.

 

[JesterBL]

This was the early pattern almost everywhere in North America. It lasted essentially until the white colonists no longer needed their native allies.

 

[Raferty]

There were many examples of the two joining up to fight other Natives or European powers

The Red Stick Creek War was a great example of this. Same with the Mexican War of Independence

 

[Crazy Boris]

IOTL the Crow were pretty friendly with the Americans because they were valuable allies against the Crow's traditional enemies, the Sioux, Blackfoot, and Cheyenne

 

[Skraea]

There were several tribes friendly to the colonists and pioneers. Pawnee for instance was more crowded out by the expansionist Sioux as were the Crow. The Osage and Cherokee were at war for decades to the point where Cherokee allied with local whites





The Pawnee, and Crow allied themselves with white settlers and US Cavalry because they felt more threatened by the Sioux who were themselves newcomers to the Great Plains. Battle of Claremore Mound was the end result of a bloody conflict between Osage and Western Cherokee plus allies which included white settlers. Time and time again, several tribes allied with colonists only to be betrayed in the long run. You would have to butterfly the concept of Manifest Destiny.

 

[Kerney]

How about colonists siding with Native Americans against a recent conqueror. For example, the English took Quebec in 1629 and held it until 1632. The French settlers, a tiny number, had good relations with the natives saw an opportunity or were dealing with an English overreaching, they might band together. Similarly, if the English behave badly in New Netherland, the Dutch settlers could find common cause with the Iroquois.

Also, there were several times, Kings Phillips War, the Iroquois against the French in Quebec, and one time where it actually happened (Pueblo Revolt 1680, New Mexico) where a European Community was in danger of being expelled. Have it happen mostly. But have a European remnant be cut off and dependant on alliance with a different group of Native Americans for a few years until they are assimilated or reconnected with the mother country.

 

[Meshakhad]

How about colonists siding with Native Americans against a recent conqueror. For example, the English took Quebec in 1629 and held it until 1632. The French settlers, a tiny number, had good relations with the natives saw an opportunity or were dealing with an English overreaching, they might band together. Similarly, if the English behave badly in New Netherland, the Dutch settlers could find common cause with the Iroquois.

Also, there were several times, Kings Phillips War, the Iroquois against the French in Quebec, and one time where it actually happened (Pueblo Revolt 1680, New Mexico) where a European Community was in danger of being expelled. Have it happen mostly. But have a European remnant be cut off and dependant on alliance with a different group of Native Americans for a few years until they are assimilated or reconnected with the mother country.

I was thinking something along those lines. One idea would be New Netherlands lasting long enough for the Dutch to establish a solid presence in the Hudson Valley, but then the English showing up later, conquering the place, and being absolute dicks about it.

Now, here's the real challenge: have this Native-Colonist alliance turn into a functional nation. I think the Haudenosaunee would be an ideal candidate - they could accept the colonists as a new "tribe" within the Confederation.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

The Abenaki Confederacy in Maine allied with the colonists in otl.