Remember that there were several reasons why the European settlers managed to conquer North America. One was obviously technological superiority. Another was population pressure. A third was the fact that American Natives simply had no immunity to a lot of introduced diseases. Then there was the difference in economic development and industrial capacity. And probably the most important was socio-political sophistication.
Ah yes, but the single biggest reason was "divide and conquer", enough of the natives were temporarily or longterm induced to alliances with europeans or infighting among themselves.
If records of the once future is spread during the mid/early 17th century, before europeans become truly established in North America, aside from a few areas that were truly settled early, most of the continent is going to be a very dangerous place for settlers.
And don´t forget that much of North America could only be settled with the acceptance or even active help from natives, dozens, possibly hundreds of early settlements would literally have starved to death without the natives taking pity on them.
Socio-political sophistication? That´s a matter of opinion.
The biggest difference was that the natives were used to deals being deals. And calling the ability to not care about keeping your word to be sophisticated, well i´d rather be hopelessly lacking in sophistication then.
Also, the ridiculous "noble savage" myth is exactly that, a big ugly myth to excuse nastiness. The natives were definitely not "unsophisticated".
While you are not wrong in the background, i believe you underestimate extremly
just how fragile
the european holds in north america was in the 17th century.
There was absolutely no way that the indigenous people of North America could keep the flood of European immigrants at bay, even had their societies been organized and sophisticated enough to make such an attempt.
Even if the natives do nothing but NOT assisting the newcomers, the effects would be MASSIVE.
Early settlements almost invariably survived
, only thanks to trade and even outright charity from the natives.
European superiority? Yeah right, then why did they fail so utterly in the basic task of growing food, or hunting it or fishing for it?
You are effectively somewhat mixing up conditions of the 17th and 19th century, when the truly largescale immigration happened.
With non-friendly or partially hostile (or even just less friendly/more suspicious) natives in the 17th century, hundreds of settlements will fail to survive and provide the "beachhead" for further expansion.
At that point, European powers either have to start actively supporting colonisation rather than just allow individual "adventures".
Or colonisation will be delayed by hundreds of years.
Because what you fail to account for, is that all that power Europe had at it´s disposal, almost none of it was "free to use" elsewhere, or they would risk loosing back home instead. Serious, powerful and statesponsored colonisation with actual military ability of any noticeable force, it was the exception.
And it should be noted that even those expeditions, IF they ran afoul of the local natives, the colonies usually DIED, commonly they died QUICKLY.
A decent example is the attempted colonisation of Tobago my own nation tried.
Essentially wiped out by natives, and that was in 1733!
The history of St Lucia also shows how tenous the hold of even strong expiditions can be, Thomas Warners attempt at securing the island in 1664, he brought over a thousand troops, and despite no real fights with the natives, 2 years later he only had 89 left.
The colony had before that been more or less obliterated by natives twice already.
Even if the indigenous societies of North America had been inclined to change themselves into states that would be better organized and better prepared to resist European encroachment, they simply would not have had enough time to do so. They simply did not have enough time to make the necessary adjustment on the emotional and intellectual level to enable them to make a successful cultural, social, political and economic transition to the kind of organized states that would have made long-term resistance and survival possible.
A highly questionable assertion. Like i noted above, early colonisation was exceptionally fragile, if the natives simply do nothing but avoid helping any settlers, over 90% of the colonisation will simply die out by itself within the first 10 years.
This means the next generation of settlements will again be initial beachheads again, which once more means even nonaggressive resistance will kill off 50-90%.
And if you then get facts across well enough that a majority of natives act resolutely to oppose new settlements, the vast majority of the coastlines will be far too dangerous for anything that doesn´t include large formations of actual troops.
Which means most independent and private colonisation will never happen, because it´s literally suicidal.
Which means a European nation will have to attempt largescale settlements with troops, troops needed in Europe already.
The natives may very well not "win", but if the number of Europeans settled in North America is less than 100k by, lets say 1800?
By then, largescale native nations will be a fact.
Unfortunately, the same factors are present in the other timeline. There is just no chance whatsoever for Native American societies to make that sort of transition, on all levels, before the tidal wave of European immigration overwhelm them the same way it happened in our timeline.
Idealism is always good, but it simply cannot ignore the facts of reality.
I believe you should recheck your knowledge about N.A. natives however, there were some degree of largescale nationbuilding well before Europeans arrived.
There is also for example no reason what so ever that other entities like:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_Confederacy
couldn´t happen. Especially with some motivation added.