"Indian Barrier State" on the Great Lakes: plausible size?

oshron

oshron

hey, all. i learned a while ago that, after the War of 1812, the British had wanted to establish a buffer state in the Northwest Territories (what is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and northeast Minnesota), but negotiations that concluded the war prevented this from ever coming to be because the Americans refused to accept it

now, let's suppose that such a state were created. first and foremost, what does everyone think would be the consequences of its existence. secondly, what does everyone think would be the actual territory of this if the Americans concede to the buffer state's existence? namely, where were American settlers already well-established that the US government would prefer to keep that would form the actual borders of the new native state with the US?
 

mrmandias

oshron said:
hey, all. i learned a while ago that, after the War of 1812, the British had wanted to establish a buffer state in the Northwest Territories (what is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and northeast Minnesota), but negotiations that concluded the war prevented this from ever coming to be because the Americans refused to accept it

now, let's suppose that such a state were created. first and foremost, what does everyone think would be the consequences of its existence. secondly, what does everyone think would be the actual territory of this if the Americans concede to the buffer state's existence? namely, where were American settlers already well-established that the US government would prefer to keep that would form the actual borders of the new native state with the US?
Click to expand...

If you want this entity to survive for any length of time, it probably has to be city-state size and benefit Americans because of smuggling or something. Or else its a de facto British colony.
 
Umbric Man

Umbric Man

I always meant to ask what size this British Amerindian buffer state/Tecumseh's 'Indian Confederation' was meant to be when placed on a map, so I am bumping this.
 
oshron

oshron

Umbric Man said:
I always meant to ask what size this British Amerindian buffer state/Tecumseh's 'Indian Confederation' was meant to be when placed on a map, so I am bumping this.
Click to expand...
it's my understanding that it would have been in the Northwest Territories (as i mentioned in the first post) but the catch is that i'm wondering exactly how much of that region had been colonized by Europeans
 
MadMc

MadMc

I have worked on a TL with that exact POD. I gave the entire Northwest territories, minus Ohio which was already a state. For a better border along Ohio, I pushed the border to the Wabash River in the northeast part of the state as a natural boundary. The Indiana Territory had a population of 24,000 at the start of the, but most had arrived within the last 10 years or so. this was centered around southern Indiana and Vincennes, the capitol.
 

sloreck

No matter what the size, and it really can't be too large, such a state would not survive too long unless it had heavy British support - well beyond just providing arms. In any case the territory proposed for this state was already part of the USA, so the USA would have to be forced to cede it meaning some sort of victory by the UK in the War of 1812. If the British force cession, they have to be willing to get involved militarily when American settlers slowly flood the state and overwhelm the local population demographically. I doubt the British would want to set up such a client state that they would be guarantors of - more likely if they had a victory that allowed to force the cession they would annex the area but set up some sort of autonomy under the British crown.
 

Lord Grattan

sloreck said:
No matter what the size, and it really can't be too large, such a state would not survive too long unless it had heavy British support - well beyond just providing arms. In any case the territory proposed for this state was already part of the USA, so the USA would have to be forced to cede it meaning some sort of victory by the UK in the War of 1812. If the British force cession, they have to be willing to get involved militarily when American settlers slowly flood the state and overwhelm the local population demographically. I doubt the British would want to set up such a client state that they would be guarantors of - more likely if they had a victory that allowed to force the cession they would annex the area but set up some sort of autonomy under the British crown.
Click to expand...


Well stared. IMO, Manitoulin Island + the surrounding islands seems like something the Crown would offer. Perhaps the city of Greater Sudbury, the Killarney municipality and the Bruce Peninsula of OTL might be included (and maybe Drummond Island and the right coast of the St. Mary's River if the Crown and Tecumseh are able to press for more). More than this is not realistically going to happen.

Manitoulin_Island_in_Lake_Huron.png
 
iori

iori

As an actual large, buffer state it'd most likely contain Wisconsin, Illinois, the Upper Peninsula, the portion of what would become Minnesota and part of Indiana, with the border itself probably roughly splitting Indiana in half, the British may also take bordering portions of the Louisiana purchase as well, but nothing huge.
 

Lord Grattan

Iori said:
As an actual large, buffer state it'd most likely contain Wisconsin, Illinois, the Upper Peninsula, the portion of what would become Minnesota and part of Indiana, with the border itself probably roughly splitting Indiana in half, the British may also take bordering portions of the Louisiana purchase as well, but nothing huge.
Click to expand...

And the precedent for Great Britain doing this sort of thing is found where?
 

Brady Kj

I think that if there's a large Indian buffer state, then at some point, Britain and America would rather have each other as neighbors than Indians, so the buffer will shrink and be destroyed. But the long-term effects on history would be fascinating.
 
Umbric Man

Umbric Man

Iori said:
Not unless the U.S. government is sending troops in they wont, and even then, prior to 1830 the U.S. did'nt exactly have the greatest record at winning in wars with the native Amerindians.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?

The Sullivan Expedition, Northwest Indian War, and Tecumseh's War would like to have a word with you.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Lord Grattan said:
I also see no reason why there would not be a Canadian westward expansion as well. I doubt that the Crown would side with the Indians over its own subjects.
Click to expand...


The makers of the Proclamation line of 1763 would like a word with you... Or are you saying the British would treat the Canadian colonies better than colonies they had for a century longer in most cases?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top