More racial alt-history musings . . . .

Lis has been reading Race: a history beyond black and white by Marc Aronson. It's a book, written at a high-middle-school through high school level, discussing the history of the concept of "race", and ideas of racism, through Western history to today. And it's very well-written, thought provoking, and we're learning a lot from it. I mean, we were aware of most of the facts that he's talking about, but he puts them into a more coherent context and historical narrative.

Anyway, in a section discussing how America defined "whiteness" with respect to American Indians, he brings up the Cherokee Nation, which was deliberately assuming all the external markers of "whiteness" in America -- a Western-style court system, agriculture and business, Christianity -- and, when the US and the Cherokee came into conflict, the Cherokee turned to the courts for redress, and won the Court battle. Nonetheless, Jackson defied the Supreme Court, and used Federal troops to remove the Cherokee, in order to give their land to "white" settlers.

He finishes the chapter as follows:

Yet had Jackson stood by the Court ruling, it would surely have sparked a Civil War, with federal troops fighting Southern whites over the rights of Indians. As appealing as it is to imagine that alternate history, it could never have happened. Not enough "white" Americans, least of all Jackson, would have been willing to die for that cause.

.

Well, he's right. It IS appealing. And Jackson never would have let it happen.

So, if we're doing alt-history, let's make a different divergence point.

In 1828, Jackson defeated the incumbent John Quincy Adams in order to become President. That John Quincy Adams who would, in 1841, defend the rights of the black people captured and put on the schooner Amistad, arguing that they were full-fledged humans born with, and holding all, human rights and freedoms.

It's not much of a stretch to speculate that a J Q Adams who could, in 1841, claim that blacks were humans with human rights and court protection, might have, in 1830, believed the same thing about Cherokees. Okay, figuring out a way for Adams to win the election is a bit of a challenge -- but, let's set that aside for the moment, and look at the possibilities of President Adams following the will of the Supreme Court and protecting the Cherokee against "white" encroachment.

Is Aronson right that it'd be hard to get white federal troops to fight for this? Maybe. What other options would the United States have? Hire mercenaries? Maybe, but the US was pretty cash-poor. Any other options? Could the United States find any people who might be willing to be hired to fight for something other than cash?

In the time period, the Western status quo divided humanity into five groups -- white, black, brown, yellow, and red. So it would be natural for them to conclude that, if whites shouldn't have to fight for the red man, why not hire the red man to do it?

What if the United States hired Sioux and Iroquois mercenaries? Would any of them go for it? Could they be paid in land, training, an official position in the United States military? Could we end up with the Great Plains settled by Plains Indians loyal to the United States, using Western-style agriculture? Is that even possible?

What happens to the Civil War? Do the abolitionists get any strength out of the weakening of a "White Man Uber Alles" mindset? Does the slavery issue NOT come to a head, without the question of "expansion of slavery into the new territories" made out of the Cherokee lands?

Any thoughts? We're well out of the area of American history that I know a lot about -- I know NOTHING about American Indian politics in the period, either among or within tribes. I have no idea what different tribes would go for or not.