Benefits of continuing the Articles of Confederation for Native Americans?
- Thread starter Sirius
- Start date
Jasen777
Donor
Well it's different if the AoC wobbles on or there's a complete breakup (and of course how they break up). Native tribes may hold their territory for longer, but barring significant, permanent help from an European power(s) (the type unlikely to be given), the long term prospects are not good. A slower process of ethic cleansing is likely an even uglier one.
Isn't this functionally the same as
Balkanized America's Impact on Native Americans
IchBinDieKaiser
Which is currently on the first page?
Balkanized America's Impact on Native Americans
IchBinDieKaiser
Which is currently on the first page?
It strikes me that if the states are dealing with the Native Americans alone things could be much worse for them. There won't be any removals of tribes so if the governments want their land things will get nasty.
Nope this is still assuming there is a U.S, although how a craptacular system like the articles of confederation, could survive does raise a point.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I'm not sure a slower pace of colonial expansion is likely to be worse for the natives.
For starters, their populations have more time to build back up following losses to disease.
For starters, their populations have more time to build back up following losses to disease.
Last edited:
But will it be slower alot of the move west was driven by indiviual settlers moving to the land because it was underpopulated and avaliable for farming and so they moved. It was supported by the government but only so much as to say you can move there and have land not we will build settlements and make people move their. I really dont see even articles America not defending their citizens and not attacking the natives.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Sadly, I think it often does play out this way.
I remember watching the Star Trek movie Insurrection and thinking, at first they try to relocate a people in a "nice" way or at least a straightforward way. The people resist, and then the more powerful side takes the view, we'll kill as many as necessary. How many times as thus played out in human history? Probably a bunch, but not every time. It's not a hundred percent deal.
Maybe if the colonists had focused more on fishing (which is a more stable food source anyway!) Well, this is both good and bad in that the colonists' population is likely to increase more rapidly, but they might hug the Eastern seaboard. And you might get the demographic factor in play that urban families tend to be smaller.
Maybe if getting a high school education became a big social norm for both boys and girls. Then you might get the demographic factors of delayed families snd smaller families.
I remember watching the Star Trek movie Insurrection and thinking, at first they try to relocate a people in a "nice" way or at least a straightforward way. The people resist, and then the more powerful side takes the view, we'll kill as many as necessary. How many times as thus played out in human history? Probably a bunch, but not every time. It's not a hundred percent deal.
Maybe if the colonists had focused more on fishing (which is a more stable food source anyway!) Well, this is both good and bad in that the colonists' population is likely to increase more rapidly, but they might hug the Eastern seaboard. And you might get the demographic factor in play that urban families tend to be smaller.
Maybe if getting a high school education became a big social norm for both boys and girls. Then you might get the demographic factors of delayed families snd smaller families.
Unfortunately, even without an united central government or strong armies backing them there will be homesteaders of various sorts wandering inland. The question becomes how many Native American groups will be able and willing to co-opt/assimilate them (the Cherokees managed to a degree)
jahenders
Banned
True, but if those settlers aren't (semi) backed by an army that can rescue/avenge them, the Native Americans can evict, capture, or kill them. The "Indian Wars" were generally cases where troops were sent for reprisal for attacks on settlers or other "agreement" violations. If settlers from Virginia encroached on Native American lands, Virginia might be able/willing to send militia, but that's very limited in size/scope/equipment and it would be harder to try to get a weak central government to organize/fund are army to send.