What if the USA lost the Black Hawk war?

[Wr1t3r]

PoD 1: During the Trail of tears, the other 4 civilized (the ones other than the seminole, also I know there were far more than those 5 that were civilized) tribes decide to fight tooth and nail to keep their land like the Seminole, dragging on the conflict making it known to the 700 or so Natives who sided with the USA against Black hawk and most (if not all of them) side with him instead (since they know about the war against the 5 civilized tribes and realize they will also be victimized by the whites even if they keep on siding with them, adopt their culture etc.) the combination of more men on Black hawk's side and more US soldiers fighting the ''5 civilized tribes'' makes it a much harder win for the US. but PoD2 should make it a win for black hawk.

PoD2: Before the war, Black hawk Conducts regular military drills and simulated battles, that would have allowed his forces to practice coordination, movement, and communication & realize that given the nature of the conflict and the disparity in resources, Black Hawk would have had 2 focus on guerrilla warfare tactics. Training in hit-and-run tactics, ambushes, and unconventional warfare might (and in combination with PoD 1, would) have countered the superior firepower of the U.S. forces.

 

[ennobee]

Wait? This isn't about "Black Hawk Down" ?

 

[Wr1t3r]

Wait? This isn't about "Black Hawk Down" ?

you're right. It isn't, it's about this

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Fascinating fact. Black Hawk was actually Black Sparrowhawk/Kestrel, not Black Something-bigger.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I don't think hit and run can directly beat the US Army if it goes scorched earth. More likely than winning outright is inflicting a few humiliating losses that makes Congress wonder "OK, is this really worth the $$$?"

 

[Wr1t3r]

More likely than winning outright is inflicting a few humiliating losses that makes Congress wonder "OK, is this really worth the $$$?"

OK, what if they do that?

 

[Legofan4]

OK, what if they do that?

More settlers move in later and another war starts later and repeat until the Natives lose. The land is too valuable for this not to eventually happen. The natives can't hold the settlers off forever.

 

[Wr1t3r]

More settlers move in later and another war starts later and repeat until the Natives lose. The land is too valuable for this not to eventually happen. The natives can't hold the settlers off forever.

This didn't happen to the Seminole.
Also, are you talking about Black Hawk's tribe & It's allies or the 5 civilized tribes?

 

[Legofan4]

This didn't happen to the Seminole.
Also, are you talking about Black Hawk's tribe & It's allies or the 5 civilized tribes?

Yes it did not immediately but eventually the Seminoles were forced to move to Indian Territory. The Black Hawk War also took place in western Illinois which is very fertile farmland which is obviously highly desired by settlers. I was talking about the Black Hawks.

 

[Wr1t3r]

eventually the Seminoles were forced to move to Indian Territory.

Many weren't, and in TTL I think those who weren't, would be in the majority. Also, with the US more tied down with the 5 civilized tribes, and facing a more unified set of natives in the mid-west, I think they (the Sauk & allied tribes) would have a similar experience to the seminole in OTL.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

The land is too valuable for this not to eventually happen. The natives can't hold the settlers off forever.

I don't think the Indians can militarily win by the 1830s, but they might be able to get the USA to only take "some of the best" land. Not all the land is equally valuable and I think Congress might at some point letting the Indians keep the least fertile 1/2 or even 3/4 might be worth saving the cost. Remember full scorched earth is going to make it difficult to move anything with wheels (like wagons) in the area for some time to come. After 3 years it might just decide enough is enough. But they can't hold on all their land. What happened to the 5 Civilized Tribes is a great example to them that even those that adopt the "White" way of living won't be spare their land. Interestingly, some White Americans actually were of the opinion that the 5 Civilized Tribes should be left alone for that very reason, but for some reason this wasn't too popular among the settlers.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Many weren't, and in TTL I think those who weren't, would be in the majority. Also, with the US more tied down with the 5 civilized tribes, and facing a more unified set of natives in the mid-west, I think they (the Sauk & allied tribes) would have a similar experience to the seminole in OTL.

There is not a single example of Native tribes holding onto their territory/autonomy in the face of white settlers.

Not through outright war, not through diplomacy, not through integration. They simply don't have the numbers.

The Seminoles were no exception. They fought well, bravely and were fairly united. They still, over time, lost pretty much all of their land except for some (a few hundred out of thousands) who retreated into the Everglades where white settlers could not (and did not want to) follow. This is (perhaps overly) a simplification but true as far as it goes.

 

[Legofan4]

Many weren't, and in TTL I think those who weren't, would be in the majority. Also, with the US more tied down with the 5 civilized tribes, and facing a more unified set of natives in the mid-west, I think they (the Sauk & allied tribes) would have a similar experience to the seminole in OTL.

A few hundred is not "many". And the only part of Florida that they stayed in is the Everglades which is not exactly good land. I don't see how the U.S. would be more tied down by the 5 civilized tribes forever. The population of white Americans is only going to increase and even at the time of the Revolution the Native population is smaller than the White American population and that disparity is only going to increase over time. As like The Tai-Pan said the natives were eventually pushed off the land white settlers wanted no matter what happened or what the tribes did. Especially as the western portion of Illinois is good farmland which is what basically every settler wanted so the demand from American citizens will be to expel the natives and seize that land.

 

[Wr1t3r]

They fought well, bravely and were fairly united. They still, over time, lost pretty much all of their land except for some (a few hundred out of thousands) who retreated into the Everglades where white settlers could not (and did not want to) follow. This is (perhaps overly) a simplification but true as far as it goes.

the only part of Florida that they stayed in is the Everglades

Though the Everglades did become a significant refuge for some Seminole groups, the resistance and ability to maintain a presence in Florida was not entirely confined to the Everglades.

 

[CHKeeley]

Given that the vast majority of combatants (90% +) on the American side of the Black Hawk War were frontier militias mustered in the State of Illinois, I’m not sure a violent resistance to the Indian Removal Act would really have much effect on tying up Federal troops. Even aside from the independent brigades, the reorganized Army of the Frontier consisted mostly of mounted volunteers rather than regular soldiers. Indeed, the lopsided US victory at Wisconsin Heights was achieved entirely with militiamen before Winfield Scott’s regulars could be put in the field. No doubt a war in the Old Southwest would similarly be composed of mostly local recruits with a smattering of Federal troops. And honestly, two powerful native revolts going on simultaneously might draw *more* federal resources to the fight rather than less. Andrew Jackson only sent a proper army after the attempt to let the militia handle it was proving unsatisfactory in the first couple months of fighting. If things get serious, that trigger could be pulled sooner and it isn’t like the United States lacked the capacity to fight both of these wars at once.

I’m also a bit confused on your second PoD. The British Band did practice traditional frontier tactics of hit-and-run raids and avoiding head-on battles. Their biggest victory, Stillman’s Run, was a classic lure-and-ambush. Their general strategy of widespread raids to disperse American manpower and force a rolling back of the frontier was pretty much in line with guerrilla strategy in that terrain and environment. They didn’t lose because they didn’t do guerrilla warfare, they lost because the sheer ratio of men and materiel never seriously favored Black Hawk. Without the British support and widespread native alliances that he expected when he revolted, his war was necessarily going to be confined to roaming the borderland inflicting damage while dodging pursuers and hoping somehow to tire out American resources.

The Seminole aren’t much of a good example since their ability to resist was very much tied to their environment which was extremely well suited to evading pursuit. That just isn’t the same on the Wisconsin-Iowa-Illinois frontier. You can stay mobile and avoid blundering into an overwhelming enemy, but you don’t have a home base in the same way the Seminole did in the Florida swamps and jungles. That sort of war can only be conducted so long before you are cornered and destroyed, as countless war bands found out throughout Westward Expansion.

I think to get a long term victory (resettlement of the tribes in western Illinois, treaty recognizing their land claims and a new border demarcation, eviction of squatters and American forts?) you would need British involvement. Black Hawk and his band clearly desired this, as exemplified by their flying of a British flag at times, but you would need a more wide-ranging PoD to have the British still actively intervening on the American frontier at this point.

 

[Wr1t3r]

The British Band did practice traditional frontier tactics of hit-and-run raids and avoiding head-on battles

The PoD is that they do it even more

 

[CHKeeley]

The PoD is that they do it even more

What does that mean? You’re gonna have to elaborate more than just “they do guerrilla war harder”. Like I said in my comment, this is still ultimately a losing move and doesn’t actually change the balance of forces at play here.

 

[Wr1t3r]

What does that mean? You’re gonna have to elaborate more than just “they do guerrilla war harder”. Like I said in my comment, this is still ultimately a losing move and doesn’t actually change the balance of forces at play here.

I mean they prepare more, they rehearse, drill, & practice more

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I think the American army at this point was a third the size of the old Continental Army of the 18th century. This suggests to me that either the perception was that the Indians would be pushovers and fold easily or the Americans wanted to take their land, but didn't want it so badly that they would pay for a bigger army. It just isn't as existenital issue as independence or a rebellion is I guess.

 

[Legofan4]

I think the American army at this point was a third the size of the old Continental Army of the 18th century. This suggests to me that either the perception was that the Indians would be pushovers and fold easily or the Americans wanted to take their land, but didn't want it so badly that they would pay for a bigger army. It just isn't as existenital issue as independence or a rebellion is I guess.

It was mostly due to the reliance on militias for security and defense on the frontier. Which is much cheaper to the government which is why this was chosen. Militia performance was all over the place but the natives never really managed to long term take back any lands lost. So overall I would say that it was a effective strategy for the U.S. government.