Amateur alternate history speculation on the Battle of New Orleans

I have a little familiarity with US history but am no expert.

While pondering the Choctaw chief who became Brigadier General Pushumataha, I envisioned a slightly different scenario than what the history books offer.

The official account suggests the Army commissioned him a Brigadier General because he could sometimes muster a few hundred Choctaw warriors.




Suppose the early settlers to the Southern British colonies were a little too independent. Perhaps Britain tried to appoint them military advisors or commanders who would drill them into shape to help fight the French and Indian Wars but they may have preferred independence and lesser involvement in the French and Indian wars and run them off.

Suppose that without strong central leadership, they would have had to compromise with the local tribes. Some areas populated by settlers in the South may have effectively been under control of a native tribe. Note I said some areas. The plantations, Savannah, New Orleans, etc obviously were under the control of the British and later the USA.

Suppose that during the War of 1812, the top brass in the area noticed some militias always had someone like Pushumataha along on some pretext or other, but they noticed he was effectively in charge although not openly when in front of the top brass.

I can almost hear someone bitingly saying, "when you won't fight, the indians make ya fight!" I don't know if it's a vision or a vivid impression or just my imagination.

Then, two things happened.

Recognizing their deficiency in strong leadership, the South decided to always send their finest to the miltary academy at West Point, which was established in 1802.

Then, a whole bunch more people moved to the South in the first half of the 19th century.

This accounts why my amateur speculation is not impossible in light of the South's strong showing in the Civil War.

a reply to: Solvedit

Amateur alternate history speculation

That seems like an overly long way of saying "made up"

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Solvedit

Amateur alternate history speculation

That seems like an overly long way of saying "made up"

You're on the wrong forum.

"The Gray Area is a discussion forum that provides a dedicated area for members to post their confessions, disclosures, and related extraordinary personal experiences. Like the highly speculative Skunk Works forum, The Gray Area will tolerate topics that may be unusually hypothetical or unproven for the purpose of vetting the stories of thread-starters by the ATS membership at large."

They were a pretty prosperous bunch and were living a nice free life. You can't tax freedom.That had to end.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Solvedit

Amateur alternate history speculation

That seems like an overly long way of saying "made up"

I know right? Just accept what the history books say and never try to use your head to figure things out. Trust the science.

I will say that... I'm not really sure what he is saying. They needed Indians who knew about the land and various tribes. Their authority on that and experience in battling these tribes made them a de facto leader at times. I guess I'm just not sure what the controversy or disagreement with regular history is. Its a me problem, I'm sure of that much.

originally posted by: 3n19m470I will say that... I'm not really sure what he is saying.

Speculating that in some areas of the country, the natives may have been in charge of the settlers.

They needed Indians who knew about the land and various tribes.

Yes, the top brass needed scouts but do you make someone a Brigadier General if they can bring you a few hundred warriors? They're called Brigadier General because they should be in charge of a brigade, i.e. 3,000 or so men.

The US troops at the battle were drawn from all over the South. Suppose there were areas where the natives had dominated the settlers. They would have tried to meet their military obligation by sending the militia when requested, but having a tribal leader along to keep an eye on them under some false pretext. Suppose the army top brass saw through the game and appointed one of them a general to embarrass them.

maybe the OP is postulating that if strong and well organized Native American nations existed, incoming Europeans might have become part of their system, instead of establishing their own.

(maybe like Japan, adopting Western technology while maintaining their own culture and system.)

very sad how Native American culture was so overrun. imagine if maybe the Red Clay settlement would have been allowed to co-exist with the USA instead of Andrew Jackson packing them all off to Oklahoma. or some of the Pacific Northwest groups had maintained some independence.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
maybe the OP is postulating that if strong and well organized Native American nations existed, incoming Europeans might have become part of their system, instead of establishing their own.

(maybe like Japan, adopting Western technology while maintaining their own culture and system.)

very sad how Native American culture was so overrun. imagine if maybe the Red Clay settlement would have been allowed to co-exist with the USA instead of Andrew Jackson packing them all off to Oklahoma. or some of the Pacific Northwest groups had maintained some independence.

Sad, but it occurs to me their side could have been issuing the provocations and acts of war that made them hard to live with.

The natives of the East seemed to be less Bering Land Bridge descendants than from the Mediterranean basin. Like the Canary Islanders, it's possible people cast away in the Eastern North American continent from North Africa. In fact, Tecumseh looks a little bit like Tegueste, the last native chief of Tenerife. And the tribe which inhabited what is now Miami was called the Tequesta, which sounds a lot like Tegueste.

But there's also a chance pirates came here and mixed with existing tribes or started their own tribes and corrupted them with their ethic in pre-Columbian times. A few years ago, a man in his 70s rowed across the Atlantic alone, proving it's not so impossible without a big ship. Pirates were not beholden to responsible ship owners and some of them perhaps did not even know what they were doing when they took a ship. Perhaps they would take over a ship and get lost and die for not knowing how to manage or navigate, but say 1% of such takeovers resulted in the ship winding up in America because they could make it go somewhat, just not competently enough to get back to where they wanted to be.

General Pushumatahawa may have been himself descended from Lithuanian captives. His name, Pushumatawaha Mushulatubee, sounds to my admittedly inexpert ears a bit like he might actually have taken his name from a captive with a knowledge of Lithuanian.

"Pušiu” (poo-SHOO) means “of or pertaining to pine trees.” Perhaps it was made into a portmanteau with a Choctaw word to obtain "Pushumatawaha."

Mushulatubee sounds like “Mušiu Lietuvis” which means Lithuanian of fights.

Gauging from paintings, he looked a lot like King Vladyslav Spindleshanks of nearby Poland.

a reply to: Solvedit
Actually it's probably "mūsų Lietuvis" which just means "our Lithuanian."