Native Americans after ARW Fails

Thought it would be a good thread on how various native american nations would do in a failed ARW TL (Saratoga PoD) in the short and medium term (up to 1825, say).

JTBC -- I don't want any generalizations like "They would do better", but how individual tribes and nations would fare. Some examples:

The Mohak Nation -- supported the rebels; I can imagine bad things for them short term

Iroquois Confederacy -- will be stronger than OTL around this time

Seminoles and Creeks -- I'm actually of the opinion that slavery would be as strong (if not stronger) in TTL, so this nation's penchant for adopting runaway slaves will likely still raise conflict

Cherokee -- that said, other nations that adopt the institution more wholesale* could use this to their advantage, gaining more land and influence in the region

*AIUI, the Cherokee embracing slavery more; if I'm wrong, I'm open to correction

Another example:

The Shawnee -- given there's still going to be some settler issues here, I can see them forging an alliance with Spain; their fate is then tied to Spanish Louisiana's

In broad terms, the Native Americans (at least in the north) are screwed-eventually. The British no longer have security vs. the French as an incentive to support/tolerate the Iroqois etc. Although it'll take a while for the reality of the new situation to sink in, British America will expand and expropriate just as the US did. If Louisiana is absorbed into the Empire, the situation will be the same all along the frontier (IIRC Florida is British at the time).

Would there be any possibility of an "American Gurkhas" situation? Say major British allies like the Iroqouis or Chickasaws as royal protectorates in exchange for a yearly levee of "Royal Scouts"?

Geekhis Khan said:

Would there be any possibility of an "American Gurkhas" situation? Say major British allies like the Iroqouis or Chickasaws as royal protectorates in exchange for a yearly levee of "Royal Scouts"?

Click to expand...

Maybe; I would see the "civilized" tribes playing the role more, though; the Cherokee seem to be big contenders...

Also remember, the Iroquois are a Confederacy, not a tribe; speaking of which...

Mr Qwerty said:

In broad terms, the Native Americans (at least in the north) are screwed-eventually. The British no longer have security vs. the French as an incentive to support/tolerate the Iroqois etc. Although it'll take a while for the reality of the new situation to sink in, British America will expand and expropriate just as the US did. If Louisiana is absorbed into the Empire, the situation will be the same all along the frontier (IIRC Florida is British at the time).

Click to expand...

You recollection on Florida is correct; I think your overall point on future conflict makes some sense.

However, I don't think it's inevitable that British North America will expand westward; my idea on the Shawnee could be a new reality in the west, as their nation may well mark the northwest border for the British colonists.

But we're getting into generalizations here; does anyone have ideas for how the fist 50 years following the failed revolution will play for individual tribes and nations, or any thoughts on my previous posts?

I think the Native Americans are completely screwed in the long run. A failed ARW might buy them a generation at most, but their value to Britain is largely tied to the fortunes of the fur trade. When the trapping grounds are exhausted, and the profits dry up, there is little incentive to keep settlers away.

This is especially true given the wealth of land and natural resources contained in the American West. Even if Britain punitively forces economic dependency on the colonies, the wealth of land and timber contained therein will be difficult to pass up.

To answer this question, I think we mostly have to think about how grateful the English would be to nations like the Shawnee and Iroquois who supported them. Had the Saratoga campaign suceeded, and the leaders of the Revolutionary War been forced to sue for peace, I would not be surprised if the British concluded that their victory was entirely due to their own national military, not their Indian allies. That would make them considerably less likely to really look out for the Indian's interests after the peace. After all, the British alliance with the Indians had, if anything hardened colonial opinion against the British. In addition, senior British policymakers hardly considered the Indian nations to be legitimate, or even worthy of respect, though there were some honorable exceptions.

Furthermore, I think it is likely that the British would be more sensitive to American public opinion after the war regarding at least some issues. Westward expansion would be an easy concession for the British to make to the colonists. Many of the British royal governors had been ardent expansionists before the war (see Lord Dunmore's War) Unlike political concessions, these would not be costly to the British either financially, nor would it weaken their authority. The Shawnee and the Iroquois would be the most immediate losers from any such compromise, as the Old Northwest was the most accessible region for settlers.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Maybe; I would see the "civilized" tribes playing the role more, though; the Cherokee seem to be big contenders...

Also remember, the Iroquois are a Confederacy, not a tribe; speaking of which...

Click to expand...

Actually, the Chickasaw were one of the "Civilized" tribes...had plantations and slaves just like good white men rolleyes. They also had a long history as British allies and may have been instrumental in British vicoty in the scramble for the Southeast. Cherokee were a good contender too, and could be "given" the *TN/NC highlands as their protectorate.

Well aware that the Iroqouis were a Confederacy...does that necessarily change how the Crown views them from across an ocean? Unless there's a plan to break the confederacy in order to weaken the position I still see the British addressing the Iroquouis as a "tribe".

Geekhis Khan said:

Well aware that the Iroquois were a Confederacy...does that necessarily change how the Crown views them from across an ocean? Unless there's a plan to break the confederacy in order to weaken the position I still see the British addressing the Iroquois as a "tribe".

Click to expand...

Meaning they will treat the Mohawks as part of the Iroquois.

OK, so reimagining some options --

The Shawnee ally with Spain after the British try to double-cross them and settle the Northwest; a war follows, which I imagine the Brits do at least well enough to push the nation west of the Mississipi

The Mohak and the Iroquois will have worse coming as they have nowhere to run -- some equivalent of "Indian Removal" may still happen

That said, "civilized" (read "slave owning") and "loyalist" nations like the Cherokee and the Chicksaw may do much better than OTL, possibly to be utilized by the Empire

Thoughts?

EDIT: Now I'm rethinking the Iroquois, again...

Antipater said:

To answer this question, I think we mostly have to think about how grateful the English would be to nations like the Shawnee and Iroquois who supported them. Had the Saratoga campaign suceeded, and the leaders of the Revolutionary War been forced to sue for peace, I would not be surprised if the British concluded that their victory was entirely due to their own national military, not their Indian allies. That would make them considerably less likely to really look out for the Indian's interests after the peace. After all, the British alliance with the Indians had, if anything hardened colonial opinion against the British. In addition, senior British policymakers hardly considered the Indian nations to be legitimate, or even worthy of respect, though there were some honorable exceptions.

Furthermore, I think it is likely that the British would be more sensitive to American public opinion after the war regarding at least some issues. Westward expansion would be an easy concession for the British to make to the colonists. Many of the British royal governors had been ardent expansionists before the war (see Lord Dunmore's War) Unlike political concessions, these would not be costly to the British either financially, nor would it weaken their authority. The Shawnee and the Iroquois would be the most immediate losers from any such compromise, as the Old Northwest was the most accessible region for settlers.

Click to expand...

Allways remember that the East India Company experienced wars with Indians as allies against Europeans (French and Russian) even if only by proxy. Then those Indian "allies" were asimilated! The same would happen in the Americas, and eventually they would secombe to the Empire - If not from the Eastern sea board, very possibly from Oregon and the Western seaboard (eventually!)

There would probably be a middle ground between full support and genocide.
The British would likely set up reserves on the tribes existing lands, larger than settlers would want, but smaller than the Natives claim.
As long as the Natives don't fight the British or settlers, they'd be allowed to keep their heartland relatively intact. The outlying areas would be up for grabs though. Although the British would probably pay some money for it.
This would mostly be for the friendly Civilized tribes.
The smaller less organized tribes and ones that didn't want to abide by British rule would be broken up and forced into small, useless reserves, and if they tried to fight would be broken.
So in the modern day some Natives would be relatively intact and while a big minority would have some influence and a better hold of their culture. Other tribes would be much like today living on small poverty stricken reserves as second class citizens.

Maybe I'm misinformed, but wouldn't diseases still have decimated the Indian population? I read about a tribe that lost all but two individuals to small pox after trading with a passing vessel in California. Could the people develop immunities if they hadn't been under pressure from American expansionism?

PipBoy2999 said:

Maybe I'm misinformed, but wouldn't diseases still have decimated the Indian population? I read about a tribe that lost all but two individuals to small pox after trading with a passing vessel in California. Could the people develop immunities if they hadn't been under pressure from American expansionism?

Click to expand...

I think this would be more of a factor for the more isolated Western tribes than the "civilized" tribes/confederations near the East Coast. While they hadn't built up complete immunity to Western diseases, they were already survivors of many virulent epidemics that had, in effect selected the remaining Indians for resistance to those diseases.

So to some extent the eastern civilized tribes had overcome one of Jared Diamond's trifecta (Guns, Germs and Steel), but the other two are very much in play. The Indians never developed chemistry or metallurgy to manufacture their own steel or gunpowder. Another forty years or so of independent development are not going to change that. Maybe they would be capable of manufacturing their own muskets, but certainly not artillery.

PipBoy2999 said:

Maybe I'm misinformed, but wouldn't diseases still have decimated the Indian population? I read about a tribe that lost all but two individuals to small pox after trading with a passing vessel in California. Could the people develop immunities if they hadn't been under pressure from American expansionism?

Click to expand...

Maybe in a vacuum, but the decimated tribes will have to deal with competition from the unaffiliated. Many a ravaged tribe was damaged beyond genetic viability, and those severely scarred by diseases are unlikely to find willing partners. I'm also somewhat doubtful about how long European expansionism can be contained after all the America's possess alot of open land with a myriad of undiscovered riches underneath.

Epidemics aren't going to be a huge issue for the more civilized tribes east of the Misisip because they have plenty of close contact with Europeans.

Of course the Natives aren't going to be able to produce artiliery, and its doubtful they'd produce their own small arms, I don't see anyone claiming that they would with independent development. Britain's style of colonization shown in India and in the Americas even during the ARW show that the British are going to allow the more civilized tribes more leeway (especially when it comes to property) then America did, and so Domoviye's assessment is probably the most likely outcome: Groups Loyal to the Crown like the Cherokee and Iroquois will probably be used similarly to sepoys and will have a small amount of minimal autonomy.

Queen Charlotte's Own Apache Yeomanry?

Just reiterating, a lot hinges on whether Spain keeps Louisiana; at the least, I don't see any simple mass land purchases.

What do you see as the fate of those nations in Spanish territory?

Antipater said:

The Shawnee and the Iroquois would be the most immediate losers from any such compromise, as the Old Northwest was the most accessible region for settlers.

Click to expand...

General Greene said:

Domoviye's assessment is probably the most likely outcome: Groups Loyal to the Crown like the Cherokee and Iroquois will probably be used similarly to sepoys and will have a small amount of minimal autonomy.

Click to expand...

I'm honestly torn on the Iroquois at this point...

Wongo93 said:

Queen Charlotte's Own Apache Yeomanry?

Click to expand...

Her Majesty's First Chickasaw Rifles acher service, Mum!

John Fredrick Parker said:

Just reiterating, a lot hinges on whether Spain keeps Louisiana; at the least, I don't see any simple mass land purchases.

Click to expand...

I completely agree on both points, if Spain keeps the area, or if another power takes it, the British are going have to appease the Natives to make sure they don't side with the Spanish and to gain allies and soldiers to protect their holdings. If Britain wants the territory, (which I think it will eventually), it will have to take it. It could make a deal with Spain though, something like "give us Louisiana and we will prevent any aid to the rebels in Mexico and South America, if you don't you'll have to live with the consequences. Don't worry, will grease your palms if you do give it to us."

John Fredrick Parker said:

I'm honestly torn on the Iroquois at this point...

Click to expand...

Most of the Iroquois did side with the Brits for the most part, the Mohawk Nation was part of the Confederacy, and didn't support the rebels, they fought for the British. The Oneidas were the only tribe in the confederacy that sided with the rebels, so they'll be hurting, but I think their membership in the Confederacy will shield them a little. Although they might be devastated during the war If it goes on to long. The shorter the ARW the better of the Iroquois are no matter what side they were on as there is less destruction of their lands in the conflict.



@Geekhis Khan: *At a British war conference outside of New Orleans* "Her Majesty's First Chickasaw Rifles and the Her Majesty's Second Georgia Provincial Regiment will storm the Spainards left flank and rear to cover the 33rd's advance under the bombardment."