Comment: Most of the actual conflict

(See in situ)

Most of the actual conflict

Most of the actual conflict was not clear cut aggression one way or the other. Both sides felt they were defending themselves. There were no legal borders or property rights that strictly excluded the settlement and westward expansion.

You also seem to have mis-understood the classical liberal or the libertarian definition of private property. A paper document is not necessary to own property. Laws don't have to be written or legal (as understood by modern court/justice system). Most cultures followed a natural law based on customs and traditions. Convincing yourself that since there was no constitution in native America means that there were no laws is bullshit. The definition of private property goes like -
Private Property: Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in John Locke's phrase, 'mixing one's labor' with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary – contractual – transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.

The native-Americans were clearly the owners of the land. The colonists not only aggressed upon their land but also confiscated their abundant gold. The colonists were clearly violent aggressors and not peaceful immigrants, confused about property rights, as you claim them to be.