I believe it really depends on the tribe-in-point, for example it is generally accepted that the Comanche - some would say the quintessential horse borne Native - developed in the direction they did due to the abandonment of horse herds after the Pueblo rebellion; these were subsequently gathered by the Pueblo and traded extensively with the Shoshone/Comanche.

This overall allowed the Comanche vast advantages over their brethren who still farmed, such as the various Apache tribal groupings (many of which were capable horsemen themselves, but never matched their plain-dwelling enemies), as well as easier access to the buffalo herds and swathes of southern plainsland.

If we compare this to the so-called 'Woods Indians', such as the Cherokee, Mohawk and so on, then it is quite easy to see why they retained farming in the east - there simply wasn't the same environment, nor the same contact between the French/ British as their had been between the Spanish and the tribes of Texas, Mexico and so forth.

Then we've got history, culture and traditional methods of living - one case being the Cherokee, who didn't adapt amazingly well to being pushed from their former eastern homes and out into 'Indian Territory', because their people just had not developed in the same way as the branches of the Sioux, Cheyenne or Crow for example.

I know a lot of this is pretty general, as far as answers go, but if you'd like I can recommend the book 'Comanche Empire' and go into more detail...I'm currently typing this on a phone is all, makes it rather difficult.

The horse was arguably the turning factor on the southern plains, allowing the Comanche - a formerly stone age offshoot of the Shoshone - to drive the various bands of the Apache, particularly those such as the Lipan Apache, into the sparse terrain we commonly see them portrayed in in media.

As to what they farmed, the Apache evolved into a somewhat hunter-gatherer society (especially the 'Plains Apache') yet continued to keep farming sites where corn was grown in a more traditional agrarian manner while also gathering nuts, berries etc, and hunting what animals they could find; they lived a settled life unlike the nomadic Comanche, and subsequently suffered for it further down the line.

A better example, one I should have probably used in the first place, are the Pueblo - farmers of squash, corn, beans and much more!

They took the horses from the Spanish, and traded in them extensively, but never adapted from the agrarian habits built into their way of life, the Comanche doing the opposite and in essence dominating most of the inhabitants of the southern areas for quite some time due in no small part to a higher militant streak.

As to the Cherokee, they were originally a Woodland people with a fully developed government of their own at one point, but after the Trail of Years and their movement to Oklahoma they had to change from the society they had known, one which the Sioux (who had also adapted due to contact with horses!) were already familiar with.

One last thing, unless you ask me anything else, and that is that one cannot really compare the Mesoamerican civilisations to those of the northern native peoples, the situations and cultures, as well as their geographic locations and cultures of monarchs etc, are just too different - on some cases a larger population may have have even been a disadvantage.

Ok. I'll shut up now.

That’s why I originally had the question. It’s super interesting to think about why some tribes would decide against certain practices such as agriculture when they saw the success of their neighbors.