Settler violence: ~30,000–50,000 direct killings over ~300 years (per government/historical tallies).
Inter-tribal violence: Proportionally far higher lethality rates pre-contact; absolute numbers over longer periods likely comparable or greater, though undocumented aggregates prevent exact totals.
Overall Native decline (~90%+) was overwhelmingly from introduced diseases, not violence (Thornton). Direct comparisons are challenging due to better records for settler conflicts vs. pre-contact inter-tribal ones.

Sources include Thornton (disease dominance), Michno (specific war casualties), and Keeley (pre-contact warfare patterns). These reflect scholarly consensus balancing archaeological evidence with historical records.

The takeaway is that even if the settlers had been 100% non violent just showing up would have had the same effect.

Actually we have that with Obama care. Its the people in the middle now that can't afford it.

They did a bunch of news interviews with a bunch of the victims and witnesses and they all said they never saw Trump do anything.

No. Most Republicans are against wars unless a warhawk convinces them its to defend the country. The entire Iraq war went likely that.

Yeah, that's true in a lot of cases, but it's not because they need the money. It's because of leftover biological imperatives, that they can't reconcile with their independence and ability to make money themselves.