Would they have further integrated culturally and start owning more slaves how would they react to the US civil war and how would Oklahoma develop would still be the same with other tribes be moved there ot would the ruling in Cherokee Nation vs Georgia change how the federal government deals with the tribes?
If the trail of Tears didn't happen how would have the Tribes develped?
- Thread starter VaultJumper
- Start date
Georgian settlers would have massacred them, instead.
Not to defend the Trail of Tears or anything, but the Cherokee were in a bad spot at the time.
'What if something happened to keep the Five Civilized Tribes developing along a "Natural" course after the 1830s' is a valid question, but is going to depend on what happens to save them from all the forces trying to destroy them at the time.
Not to defend the Trail of Tears or anything, but the Cherokee were in a bad spot at the time.
'What if something happened to keep the Five Civilized Tribes developing along a "Natural" course after the 1830s' is a valid question, but is going to depend on what happens to save them from all the forces trying to destroy them at the time.
I'm afraid only a political secession of majority-"native" (i put that in quotes as that's a fickle and complex identity issue) areas would be enough to preserve the culture and livelihood of the Five Civilized Tribes, imo. As long as they're under US control, the white-dominated government will treat them as objects or a dehumanized problem. The possibility of sovereignty died, however, with the failure of the Muskogee Republic in OTL West Florida and southern Alabama and Britain's inability to properly project power into nominal US territory during the War of 1812.
I think at least the Cherokee and maybe some of the other tribes would have continued to assimilate into “American” culture. But I don’t know if they will fully survive.
I can see certain changes in public opinion stopping the passage of the Indian Removal Act (I mean Davy Crockett was against it) or make Congressional pressure in enforcing Worcester v. Georgia stronger to force Jackson’s hand. This probably means federal troops fighting Georgia milita, which means a possible earlier civil war but it changes history to possibly give a chance to the tribes.
I can see certain changes in public opinion stopping the passage of the Indian Removal Act (I mean Davy Crockett was against it) or make Congressional pressure in enforcing Worcester v. Georgia stronger to force Jackson’s hand. This probably means federal troops fighting Georgia milita, which means a possible earlier civil war but it changes history to possibly give a chance to the tribes.
Post 1800 POD? Like it or not, the demographics are against them remaining independent polities en situ. Too many whites, too few Cherokee/Choctaw/Muscogee/Chickasaw/Semonole, no practical way to seal the latter's land off even if there was political will in DC or London.
Best case scenario? States within the US where the respective chiefly families (and those who marry into same) are the Big Men in state/local politics, the tribes in general have the first pick of the lands for farms/plantations/etc, and their traditions/languages are not exuberantly stomped flat by official policy. Assimilation? Functionally even if a lot of the (mostly) white people wandering in come to identify with them. But a major step up from expulsion/extermination.
Best case scenario? States within the US where the respective chiefly families (and those who marry into same) are the Big Men in state/local politics, the tribes in general have the first pick of the lands for farms/plantations/etc, and their traditions/languages are not exuberantly stomped flat by official policy. Assimilation? Functionally even if a lot of the (mostly) white people wandering in come to identify with them. But a major step up from expulsion/extermination.
Why should they give these concessions the tribes are not even close to a position where they can meaningfully resist? This would alienate the voting population for no appreciable gain. So why?
I said 'best', not Most Likely.
Less headaches/costs than fighting or expelling them, especially as the deal would also explicitly keep the Tribes/States from barring White Settlement.
Except those headaches and costs didn't really materialize there wasn't that much push-back except from the Seminoles. And that was really only possible because of the general inhospitable quality of Florida at the time and disease, which is what killed a majority of the soldiers sent there.
How much time/trouble/expense (along with bad press in multiple circles) was involved in forcibly evicting tens of thousands halfway across the continent?
And again, how much of the voting population would raise that many objections to a deal that opened the places to settlement anyway?
Because if they went with the plan you outlined above they wouldn't get access to the best lands which you stated that the Tribes would get to pick. Also not restricting the free movement of people is a basic tenant of the laws of the US at the time and today. The people back then could move in any of the territory of the US. They can't restrict access of white settlers to the land of the tribes. So that isn't even something that tribes have any say over. If they are in the US they have to allow free movement of people within its borders.
In the sense that they would not get chucked out? Yes. Note how many there are and (because I probably should have made it explicit) how much land not under European-style cultivation or something close to it can be thus reserved (minimal-to-nonexistent).
Most of the alternatives presented to the Trail of Tears people like to discuss involve Keep The White Man Out. I think we both agree _that_ idea cannot work and I am talking in terms of Least Damaging Assimilation Scenario That Can Be Even Theoretically Managed.
I guess that I agree I just still don't see that much advantage to be gained by not going will the OTL plan.
I don't have the numbers, but a portion were not removed. What happened to them might have a few clues to the fate if all had remained.
I don't know about other areas but the remaining in Indiana fell into two groups. The first and documented group were those assimilating faster. These had acquired title to land, either through the early territorial treaties, purchase, or a homestead claim. This group usually had a working grasp of English language, or were fluent, were often literate in English, or French (or several languages), had a grasp of US and state law, and usually had adopted settler style agriculture or acquired a trade. Many were at least modestly successful businessmen. This group evaded or were not required to be Removed. They continued to assimilate into mainstream rural and small town Indiana culture. Tho many retained knowledge of the ancestors and some continued the tribal/religious rites.
The other group were small family size groups who were able to evade the removal unnoticed. They usually lived in isolated marginal areas, less desirable for settlement. They continued in a impoverished subsistence farming living supplemented with hunting, were often illiterate, and assimilated with other impoverished subsistence farming families. Their knowledge of their ancestory was hazy or forgotten.
I don't know about other areas but the remaining in Indiana fell into two groups. The first and documented group were those assimilating faster. These had acquired title to land, either through the early territorial treaties, purchase, or a homestead claim. This group usually had a working grasp of English language, or were fluent, were often literate in English, or French (or several languages), had a grasp of US and state law, and usually had adopted settler style agriculture or acquired a trade. Many were at least modestly successful businessmen. This group evaded or were not required to be Removed. They continued to assimilate into mainstream rural and small town Indiana culture. Tho many retained knowledge of the ancestors and some continued the tribal/religious rites.
The other group were small family size groups who were able to evade the removal unnoticed. They usually lived in isolated marginal areas, less desirable for settlement. They continued in a impoverished subsistence farming living supplemented with hunting, were often illiterate, and assimilated with other impoverished subsistence farming families. Their knowledge of their ancestory was hazy or forgotten.
so basically if the trail of tears didn't happen this just happen on a larger scale?
Yes, tho we should also look at what was developing with the Cherokee & settlers in Georgia/S Carolina. The Mormon settlements east of the Mississippi might be another model.
I did not mention the assimilation of the original French settlements that were encountered in the territories east of the Mississippi. Their Catholicism and affiliation with local native bands were a problem for some of their new neighbors.
As the Mormon history indicates the white settlers did not along with each other either. In Indiana Harrisons group had a vision of a new Virginia plantation culture developing 'their' new state. That was overrun by a mass of barefoot unwashed & illiterate towheaded savages homesteading the land before Harrisons Virginians could get control. Oh the horror. Feuds and violent battles over county elections and stray cattle were a ongoing problem on the early frontier. Efforts to 'clean up the neighborhood' were common when the frontier lay between Appalachia & the Mississippi.
And of course, you had the various range wars later on.
Speaking of, let's assume that the Five Civilized Tribes managed to keep at least some of their territory. Would this precedent have an impact on settlement out west?
would some of the western tribes be able to keep their land and would they have a sympathetic in the 5 civilized tribes or the 5 pull the ladder up.
One of the differences between the five civilized tribes and the Great Plains tribes was in the east the native nations were well along the conversion from substance hunting to European style farming and trades. West of the Mississippi this was much less the case. The famous Plains tribes were throughly fixed in the Buffalo oriented hunting culture. This made a ability to settle & build a solid presence on the reservations, or anywhere else extremely difficult.
Any precedent along that line is a good one, but as just mentioned making the switch to European style agricultural land tenure is a much bigger jump for most of the peoples on the Great Plains. California and the Pacific Northwest may turn out at least somewhat better though.