That would require the Columbian Exchange of diseases to have been a non-event. That massive population loss opened up the continent.
Also, American Indian tribes are not a monolith so the contrast would be interesting. Given the migration of some tribes, I would expect a lot more tribal wars.
Do you know why disease seemed to almost eradicate indigenous populations in North America vs leave a large portion the indigenous population intact in central and South America? Asking because there is an obvious, massive difference in degree of indigenous genetic representation in, for example, the US vs. Mexico.
Disease was pretty indiscriminate and wiped out the vast majority of the population throughout the Americas. Before European arrival there were a massive number of people living throughout Central America, the Amazon rainforest, etc. Populations didn’t recover until several centuries later (and in some places, still haven’t).
The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settlers just mass-slaughtered most of those who remained post-disease so they could steal their land, whereas further south they were instead pressed into forced labor in service of a relatively small group of white colonial overseers.
It’s kind of like the difference between bison and cows. The former are economically extraneous so mostly got wiped out, whereas the latter are economically important domesticated slaves and therefore survive. (If this metaphor seems racist, note that throughout the Americas the ideology of ruling whites held that indigenous people were subhuman and undeserving of basic rights.)
> The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settlers just mass-slaughtered most of those who remained post-disease so they could steal their land, whereas further south they were instead pressed into forced labor in service of a relatively small group of white colonial overseers.
This seems to be at odds with the fact that the US colonies (some of them, at least) imported African slaves. In theory, if they needed slave labor, why not make slaves out of the indigenous? Which leads me to believe that there's another distinction at play. I like umanwizard's explanation that the North America was settled by families whereas Central and South America were settled by single men. This would seem to jive with the genetic evidence from Central and South America that there is a high degree of admixture between Europeans and indigenous people, but that it is heavily skewed toward European males mating with indigenous females.
EDIT: Though now that I think about it, perhaps disease resistance in African slaves was an important factor in why they were preferred over indigenous.
> In theory, if they needed slave labor, why not make slaves out of the indigenous?
It's a lot harder for an imported slave to run off than a local one. Local slave knows the land, knows where to run to, has a decent expectation that if they run there things will be better... An imported slave who runs doesn't really have that.
And where systems could be put in place to keep slaves from running, like the islands of the Caribbean? Well, those natives were worked to death, and then African slaves were imported to replace them. (And then more replacements came, because they were serious about that "working to death" thing)
One reason is that Mesoamerica was much more densely populated.
Tenochtitlan alone was one of the biggest cities in the world at the time of the conquest (several hundred thousand people). There wasn't anything remotely similar in present-day US and Canada.
Another reason is that most Spanish colonists were single men whereas most English colonists of North America were families.
North America got a lot more colonists than Mexico and also got them a lot sooner after the first significant contact was made. Mexico City was conquered in 1521 and New Spain received 1-1.5 million colonists (including slaves) before independence in 1810. In North America the first colony was Roanoke in 1584 (only including English colonies and this failed one for simplicity) and had 2.4 million settlers by 1788. So in Mexico the population had more time to bounce back and less of a European influx to contend with.
South America also had a lot less colonists (Portugal only had 2 million people and tried to restrict emigration) they also received a lot more slaves (North America got <10% of the slave trade) which mixed with with the native population.
There seems to be a dogmatic insistence on the potency of the the widespread epidemic that happened after the first contact. The assertion seems to be:
1. There was a drastic fall in the population density of the natives
2. There is a critical density of population below which the indegenous people's claim on land in relinquished
3. A density of population below this was seen in North America before mass immigration of Europeans.
4. If it were not so the Settlers would have been culpable of genocide of the Natives
I don't see anyone insisting on 2 or 4 here, just you.
If a particular group with a narrow territorial claim is wiped out by disease (that is, population density drops to 0), it seems like 2 should apply to that narrow territory.
It's not like each the native of the Americas asserted a territorial claim on all territories of the Americas. There were different groups with different, sometimes competing, claims, and each enforced those claims with military power or lost them. This was true both before and after European arrival.
I think everyone here agrees that genocides did occur, especially in North America and the Carribean, but is pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the native population decline was due to diseases that few people understood and none could effectively control.
I think the argument is that when all the Taino are dead from disease, it's not clear that any of, say, the Algonquins have a better claim to any of the lesser Antilles than the Spanish crown does.
Also, American Indian tribes are not a monolith so the contrast would be interesting. Given the migration of some tribes, I would expect a lot more tribal wars.