Could Tecumseh be succesfull

[Berserker]

basicly what it says: could his campaign be a succes??

(sorry iff this question is overdone)

[Kevin in Indy]

I do not think they would succeed in the long term. I could see them winning at Tippecanoe, but I don't think they win the next campaign.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

What kevin said.

Short answer. No.
Long answer. The natives simply didnt have the numbers to fend off white settlement. Nor did britain, the only realistic backer, have any reason to go to the wall for a bunch of ,,savages,,. Sure, if they were at war anyway, supporting tecumseh and company is a great way to damage the us on the frontier. But in the peace settlement, whats more important, empty land or a great market for your goods.

Britain has to have reason to WANT to hold that land, and the have the population to hold it.

Search this forum for 1812 tls. Personally, i think mines the most realistic enhanced position that tecumsehs likely to get. But there are others out there who are more optimistic.

[Sucrose]

Actually, Britain was fairly happy with the US expanding in the early 19th century, so long as it didn't threaten Canada, because the US was a huge market for their consumer goods, and they thought that the worst thing that could happen would be if the US started industrializing and producing domestic goods to compete with British manufacturers. It was thought that as long as the US remained mostly undeveloped the country would stay agricultural and would have no need to industrialize.

[Dupplin Muir]

I'm not very happy with the use of the word 'rebellion' in the original post. It seems to imply that Indian land already belonged to the US and somehow the Indians were trying to deny them access to it...

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Long answer. The natives simply didn't have the numbers to fend off white settlement. Nor did Britain, the only realistic backer, have any reason to go to the wall for a bunch of savages. Sure, if they were at war anyway, supporting Tecumseh and company is a great way to damage the US on the frontier. But in the peace settlement, whats more important, empty land or a great market for your goods.

Well they did apparently make a demand for an Indian state in the mid-west at the peace conference but considering the conditions on the ground that was pretty much a non-starter. Now it could of been a negotiating tactic to start high as a way of having something to concede that they weren't really fussed about, but I'm a bit sceptical of that since if you start making demands that the other side can simply rebuff that's hardly a way to give yourself a strong position.

[DaleCoz]

If the British did manage to get an Indian state in part of what became the US midwest, they would probably end up regretting it because it would almost certainly end up as an ongoing irritant between the two countries and the British were better off not having an ongoing rivalry with the US over North America.

I'm also not at all sure that whatever mini-state got carved out for Tecumseh and company would remain an Indian state. Britain wasn't immune to the political pressures inherent in having a lot of land-hungry would-be settlers on one side of a line and a population partial vacuum on the other.

[Berserker]

Originally Posted by Dupplin Muir

I'm not very happy with the use of the word 'rebellion' in the original post. It seems to imply that Indian land already belonged to the US and somehow the Indians were trying to deny them access to it...

Altered
not trying to bug people with my political incorrectness

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Dupplin Muir

I'm not very happy with the use of the word 'rebellion' in the original post. It seems to imply that Indian land already belonged to the US and somehow the Indians were trying to deny them access to it...

regardless of modern sensibilities on the matter, the US thought exactly that. They bought the LA Territory from France and regarded the natives on it as people under their jurisdiction. In fact, the status of natives was one of the points in the war; the US wanted them treated as dependents, and the Brits (for a while) wanted them treated as sovereign peoples. The war settled that in favor of the US's position, which was grim for the natives after that...

[False Dmitri]

For Tecumseh to be successful, you need either: a far different culture on the US frontier, an unambiguous British victory in 1812, or the breakup of the the USA. The first one's not really possible without a POD before 1700 at the very latest. The other two are definitely possible given the right events. If the US broke up, or was massively defeated by Britain (or both), than Tecumseh has a very plausible chance of success.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by DaleCoz

If the British did manage to get an Indian state in part of what became the US midwest, they would probably end up regretting it because it would almost certainly end up as an ongoing irritant between the two countries and the British were better off not having an ongoing rivalry with the US over North America.

I'm also not at all sure that whatever mini-state got carved out for Tecumseh and company would remain an Indian state. Britain wasn't immune to the political pressures inherent in having a lot of land-hungry would-be settlers on one side of a line and a population partial vacuum on the other.

Exactly. Plus the need for strong frontier defenses against the us is likely to bring in british/canadian troops, some of whom are likely to marry locals and try to raise their kids as british.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Exactly. Plus the need for strong frontier defenses against the us is likely to bring in british/canadian troops, some of whom are likely to marry locals and try to raise their kids as british.

Canadians, maybe, but not the Brits. Weirdly enough, the Brits suffered badly from desertion to the US in this time period, because the USA was going through a labor shortage, and wages were high there. One book I have on the War of 1812 has a lot of amusing stories on this, one of which was that British POWs were allowed to seek work on their own, without guards (!), and had to be driven back to Canada practically at gunpoint when the war was over. IIRC, one of the reasons the Brits were so eager for a peace was the desire to get their redcoats away from that seductive siren call of high American wages...

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

Canadians, maybe, but not the Brits. Weirdly enough, the Brits suffered badly from desertion to the US in this time period, because the USA was going through a labor shortage, and wages were high there. One book I have on the War of 1812 has a lot of amusing stories on this, one of which was that British POWs were allowed to seek work on their own, without guards (!), and had to be driven back to Canada practically at gunpoint when the war was over. IIRC, one of the reasons the Brits were so eager for a peace was the desire to get their redcoats away from that seductive siren call of high American wages...

Ok, but theyre not going to want to raise them as indian, which was my point. But your point is yet another reason why its going be hard to keep indian territory ,,indian,,.

[Simon]

Okay supposing that the War of 1812 does go better for the British and the Indians, what's the largest sized Indian state they could reasonably get? What became the the upper peninsula of Michigan and Wisconsin looks like a pretty decent compromise to me.

[Fearless Leader]

One idea that I've toyed with is having Procter conduct the British/Native American retreat from the American Northwest in the aftermath of the Battle of Lake Erie better. By keeping Tecumseh and the Natives "in the loop" as it were and being less secretive, Procter is able to retreat from the American northwest a lot faster and keep most of his force/logistical train intact. Having retreated into Canada, Procter/Tecumseh choose a battlefield that allows them to maximize their advantages and engage the Americans somewhere around Moraviantown resulting in a decisive victory.

Though this victory does not allow the British to retake the offensive in the region (due to American naval superiority on the Great Lakes) it does keep Tecumseh's Confederacy relatively intact as well as keep Tecumseh in the picture. It might also make the Americans more desperate leading to a different set of battles towards the end of TTL's War of 1812. Though the general nature of the peace in TTL won't change it is much harder for the British to conveniently "forget" the Natives. Eventually, Tecumseh and his Confederates are given a grant of Land in the west, North of the existing Selkirk settlement in Manitoba...

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Simon

Okay supposing that the War of 1812 does go better for the British and the Indians, what's the largest sized Indian state they could reasonably get? What became the the upper peninsula of Michigan and Wisconsin looks like a pretty decent compromise to me.

What is India doing mucking about in Michigan?

[Tom_B]

I once worked a TL where Britain did considerably better in the War of 1812 and there was an Indian protectorate on the west bank of the Mississippi led by Tecumseh with Black Hawk as his lieutenant.

Tecumseh becomes something of a liability to the British after a while and they tell Black Hawk it is time to relieve him of command.

With extreme prejudice