For instance, the U. S. government, holding a prominent and powerful place in society, should have exercised authority responsibly by surveying and gathering information regarding the concerns and demands of the tribes. There should have been in depth discussions regarding the peace-keeping process of local tribes, as well as its relation to their culture. When we talk about culture in the global context, we are talking about variety and difference. What I mean is that, there is and will never be one right culture. Cultural relativism, and the likes, proves such assertion.
To apply this concept in the situation, what the U. S. government believes as a process of long term peace, may not be true to the beliefs and traditions of the tribes. Tribal conflicts have been a part of their existence, and long before the intervention of the Europeans and the Americans, they have managed to coexist despite conflicts, which they settle within their own means of setting up a common ground and bringing back social order. Therefore, the U. S. government should not have made assumptions about the practices of the tribes. Moreover, every person has the right to believe in things they want to believe in.
So if tribes believe that the Americans are oppressive and chose to side with the English, then that is their own right to look after their best interests in order to survive. They should not have been punished due to their beliefs and their prevailing instincts to survive and live in more desirable conditions. After the war ended, and the English were defeated, the U. S. government should have sat down with tribal leaders and talked about what things should be done in order to calm and satisfy the tribes. The just and lawful wars, as claimed by the U. S. government were tactless and unreasonable.