AHC: Peaceful U.S. westward expansion

[Laqueesha]

It's been a while since I started a thread here, so here goes.

I was wondering if it was possible for the USA to come to its present-day borders while still maintaining cordial and amicable relations with Indians. So, with a POD of 1780, have the USA come to its 2013 OTL borders with as little conflict between the U.S. government (and civilians) and Indians as possible. That means no Indian removals, no Trail of Tears, an early end of the Indian Wars, no massacres of Indians, etc.

Regards, Laq'.

 

[Wolpertinger]

Oh criminey, that one's certainly a challenge. Is such a thing even possible? I ask not out of derision towards either the United States government nor the Native American peoples, but simply out of recognition of the forces of history.

Can one people ever willingly accept the fact that another people are forcing their government, culture, and general way of life upon the land that they live?

Conversely, can a people expanding their territory ever effectively integrate the people who lived there without violence or conflict?

It would take some magic diplomacy from either or even both sides to make such a thing happen, but I'm certainly open to hearing what other people have to say.

 

[iori]

It's not possible, no, while many viewed the Native Americans in a more positive light than say blacks, ultimately if they wanted the land they did'nt care what the Amerindians thought or wanted, and the Native population is'nt just going to hand over the land.

Additionally a large chunk of the United States was gained via a War of Aggression against Mexico, so basically it's not possible for the U.S. to have its present broders without there being wars.

 

[Laqueesha]

Oh criminey, that one's certainly a challenge. Is such a thing even possible? I ask not out of derision towards either the United States government nor the Native American peoples, but simply out of recognition of the forces of history. Can one people ever willingly accept the fact that another people are forcing their government, culture, and general way of life upon the land that they live? Conversely, can a people expanding their territory ever effectively integrate the people who lived there without violence or conflict?It would take some magic diplomacy from either or even both sides to make such a thing happen, but I'm certainly open to hearing what other people have to say.

It depends. From what I've read on the subject, Indians were for the most part willing to accept those outsiders into their societies who were willing to adopt their customs and ways.

Additionally a large chunk of the United States was gained via a War of Aggression against Mexico, so basically it's not possible for the U.S. to have its present broders without there being wars.

The title's a bit misleading, my bad. I meant to say "peaceful" as in primarily between the USA and the Indians. The Mexican-American War can still happen.

Best regards. Laq'.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

While it's possible for the US to expand west without interstate warfare (Louisiana Purchase, Adams-Onis, a hypothetical California Purchase from Mexico), it's pretty much impossible to expand without fighting the natives. The natives believed the land was theirs, the Americans disagreed. There is no room for compromise in that situation.

 

[Anaxagoras]

The natives believed the land was theirs, the Americans disagreed. There is no room for compromise in that situation.

Pretty much this. American expansion without conflicts with the Native Americans would require the Native Americans to not care about having their land taken away, which is obviously not going to happen.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Even if the US is less prone to treaty-breaking and abuses toward the Indians, it's not like many of the Indian tribes were sweetness and light themselves.

The Comanche, for example, would wage war against the settlers just like they waged war against other Indian tribes they held in subjugation or the Mexicans--only Comancheria is not going to force the US into submission.

War with the Comanche could be a pretext for the US to expand even with less aggression/a-holery--defeat the Comanche, take most of their land, let subjugated tribes have some (i.e. larger reservations), and we'll still have more or less OTL borders, at least in that area.

Another issue to take into account is disease. The Comanche population imploded as a result of epidemics. Even if the U.S. is less willing to actively steal land from the Indians, the Indian population is going to fall to the point they can't occupy the full extent of their territory. The territory held by the Indians might well contract due to population decline, even if the process is significantly more peaceful.

IIRC after the Civil War the Indian population west of the Mississippi was around 300,000 and around 150,000 submitted to the political authority of the US. That's 300,000 in a truly massive amount of territory. I don't think they're capable of holding that even without the Great White Father going out of his way to be a prick.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If you're looking for a POD, maybe no Indian Removal? The Five Civilized Tribes are integrated into wider US society somehow (or left alone as Lesotho-esque islands of territory) and this sets the precedent for treatment of the Indians further west.

There are Indians in Virginia who live in territories reserved for them under treaties before the US was founded, so it's not completely unheard of.

 

[Emperor Joker]

There were plenty of times where a group of Indians would give up a parcel of land in exchange for supplies, although that system could never last forever.

 

[MerryPrankster]

There were plenty of times where a group of Indians would give up a parcel of land in exchange for supplies, although that system could never last forever.

That might something that would happen if the US is more willing to restrain the settlers (who were the instigators of trouble much of the time) and less willing to wage unprovoked war against the Indian tribes but if epidemic diseases still ravage them.

 

[606jae]

I DO NOT ADVACATE THIS AT ALL. While this is not what you are looking for, it would prevent conflict with the natives on American westward expansion. Make the European diseases much more lethal to the native Americans. Instead of a 90%mortality rate somehow turn it into a 100% mortality. With them all killed off by disease before the founding of the United States, there would be of course no conflicts with natives during westward expansion.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

I DO NOT ADVACATE THIS AT ALL. While this is not what you are looking for, it would prevent conflict with the natives on American westward expansion. Make the European diseases much more lethal to the native Americans. Instead of a 90%mortality rate somehow turn it into a 100% mortality. With them all killed off by disease before the founding of the United States, there would be of course no conflicts with natives during westward expansion.

I dont recall of a disease having 100% mortality rate. It tends to undermine the ability of the virus to successfully reproduce at a later date. If I am wrong, I would love to learn of an example where this was the case.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

There were plenty of times where a group of Indians would give up a parcel of land in exchange for supplies, although that system could never last forever.

I seem to recall that these trades were done under differing views regarding the nature of property rights. Namely, the native americans did not have a concept of owning land in the western sense. A system designed to take advantage of a different view of property rights probably has limited lifespan.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

I am kind of surprised that someone hasnt done an ATL of the indian nations uniting to fight off the American settlers. Not any more ASB than fuzzy sea creatures landing at Dover. That said, Skippy would be flying high and proud on this ATL.

 

[ManintheField]

I seem to recall that these trades were done under differing views regarding the nature of property rights. Namely, the native americans did not have a concept of owning land in the western sense. A system designed to take advantage of a different view of property rights probably has limited lifespan.

This was true early on but, as time passed, Native Tribes got a very clear understanding of what settlers meant by land ownership.

 

[Emperor Joker]

I am kind of surprised that someone hasnt done an ATL of the indian nations uniting to fight off the American settlers. Not any more ASB than fuzzy sea creatures landing at Dover. That said, Skippy would be flying high and proud on this ATL.

I'm pretty sure someone has done it once, and I can safely assume it would have made any self-respecting Native American historian weep.

 

[Rstone4]

If you read the stuff put out by everyone from John Smith and the Puritans through the 1950s you find that the Westerners and Indians really came from two different worlds. Christian vs animist/shamanistic/polytheist/non-christian monotheist. Combine this with pre-agrarian and non industrial world view with that of the Europeans. The europeans saw the Indians as lazy for making their women farm while the men went out and hunted, a pastime of the landed elite.

the POD here would have to involve the Indians changing their ways, frankly all of them. They would have to be like the Cherokee, only more successful. They would have to Civilize, Christianize, and seeing how racism developed, some how become white, or accepted as white enough.

On the other hand, you can have the European Enlightenment stick around and become stronger. Jefferson wrote about how cool the Indians are and how they are advancing. By Jackson that view clearly was out of vogue.

So, I think the enlightenment POD seems more reasonable. So figure out some way of reducing the 2nd great awakening and spreading respect for man kind OVER desire to have land. Perhaps do something with cotton so that it doesn't spread over the deep south which was the cause of a great deal of conflict with Indians south of the Ohio. But North of the Ohio where Tippecanoe was fought there would have to be some kind of acceptance and respect for native land. Some kind of cultural shift would have to come over the white population to encourage them to respect the natives.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

If you read the stuff put out by everyone from John Smith and the Puritans through the 1950s you find that the Westerners and Indians really came from two different worlds. Christian vs animist/shamanistic/polytheist/non-christian monotheist. Combine this with pre-agrarian and non industrial world view with that of the Europeans. The europeans saw the Indians as lazy for making their women farm while the men went out and hunted, a pastime of the landed elite.

the POD here would have to involve the Indians changing their ways, frankly all of them. They would have to be like the Cherokee, only more successful. They would have to Civilize, Christianize, and seeing how racism developed, some how become white, or accepted as white enough.

On the other hand, you can have the European Enlightenment stick around and become stronger. Jefferson wrote about how cool the Indians are and how they are advancing. By Jackson that view clearly was out of vogue.

So, I think the enlightenment POD seems more reasonable. So figure out some way of reducing the 2nd great awakening and spreading respect for man kind OVER desire to have land. Perhaps do something with cotton so that it doesn't spread over the deep south which was the cause of a great deal of conflict with Indians south of the Ohio. But North of the Ohio where Tippecanoe was fought there would have to be some kind of acceptance and respect for native land. Some kind of cultural shift would have to come over the white population to encourage them to respect the natives.

Not realistic. It doesn't really matter if the Indians become completely European in outlook and culture or if the US acts more enlightened. Sooner or latter the American people are gonna want to expand, which will inevitability lead to conflict with the natives. And really manifest destiny, was like the Greek Megali Idea. It was ingrained in the national psyche to be right, supported by the people and not opposed by the government.

And also, I feel I gotta throw in the fact that the Native Americans sided against the colonies/US in like every war. They sided with the French in the seven years war and the British in both the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812. So really there would be no reason to allow them to keep their land from a political or military POV.

 

[Rstone4]

The french and Indian war, the Iroquois supported the UK and Half King joined Washington in the battle that started the war.

in the war of 1812, Andrew Jackson had many Native allies. That was part of the problem they had when he supported, passively, the trail of tears and other removal acts.

The thing is that when the european americans want land, what land will they take? If, by some strange event, the indians civilize, they will use alot less land. But that would require a POD back in the 1600s i think, and from what I know of ancient history, switching to agriculture generally follows population growth rather than massive die off.

one time line I encountered proposed Afro-Eurasian diseases reaching the Americas centuries before 1500s which allowed some immunity and population rebounding, however that doesn't account for germ mutations which would introduce new strains.

without some kind of massive culture shift among european americans, the indians are going to get reamed in any time line.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I'm pretty sure someone has done it once, and I can safely assume it would have made any self-respecting Native American historian weep.

There was a book with a cover showing a tomahawk embedded in the Liberty Bell. I think the gist of it was that the horse tribes were united by some kind of Genghis Khan-esque figure.

And given the logistics and population numbers and such, that's not going to happen even IF some Indian Temujin could get the Comanche, Apache, Lakota, etc. to work together.