British victory in war of 1812, creation of Indian state

The British had the long-standing goal of creating a large "neutral" Indian state that would cover much of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. They made the demand as late as the fall of 1814 at the peace conference, but lost control of western Ontario in 1813 at key battles on and around Lake Erie. These battles destroyed the Indian confederacy which had been the main ally of the British and cut off communication with the proposed neutral zone, which remained largely under British and Indian control. At American insistence the British dropped the demands
How long do you think this country would have lasted? What if the British concluded a mutual defense treaty, to deter the US from launching a war?
 
How long do you think this country would have lasted? What if the British concluded a mutual defense treaty, to deter the US from launching a war?

It may last a long long time. The British may institute something similar to the Princely States in India. A series of Native American protectorate states partly funded and modernized with assistance from London. In order to keep their interests safe, and rivals (The USA potentially a stronger Mexico) in check.
 
It may last a long long time. The British may institute something similar to the Princely States in India. A series of Native American protectorate states partly funded and modernized with assistance from London. In order to keep their interests safe, and rivals (The USA potentially a stronger Mexico) in check.

But wouldn't these so call Princely states be very difficult to keep supplied and fortified? I mean the only ports that the British could use to reach them would be Canadian, so they'd have to cross snowy areas. Not to mention much of that region had little infrastructure, ie roads, so it seams very difficult to me.
 
The British never created such a state in Canada where the Natives were ill-treated and subjected to discrimination. So I don't know why they would act in a different way after a victory in 1812...
 
The British never created such a state in Canada where the Natives were ill-treated and subjected to discrimination. So I don't know why they would act in a different way after a victory in 1812...

...then what about after a defeat or stalemate? would they act differently then?
 
The British never created such a state in Canada where the Natives were ill-treated and subjected to discrimination. So I don't know why they would act in a different way after a victory in 1812...

Because they lost IOTL?
 
The British never created such a state in Canada where the Natives were ill-treated and subjected to discrimination. So I don't know why they would act in a different way after a victory in 1812...

Apparently they wanted to create one to help stop American expansionism, in an effort to generally curb the growth of American influence/power, so it wasn't really for social reasons.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, because the British treated the native cultures in Canada

Apparently they wanted to create one to help stop American expansionism, in an effort to generally curb the growth of American influence/power, so it wasn't really for social reasons.

Yes, because the British treated the native cultures in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa SO much better than the Americans, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentines, Chileans, etc. treated those in their territories.

Newsflash - none of the "settler societies" (i.e. "Little Europes") tolerated "native" political entities.

With umpteen million Europeans lining up at varius ports of embarkation and ready to work, politically and economically there was no reason to do so.

Best,
 
Yes, because the British treated the native cultures in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa SO much better than the Americans, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentines, Chileans, etc. treated those in their territories.

Newsflash - none of the "settler societies" (i.e. "Little Europes") tolerated "native" political entities.

With umpteen million Europeans lining up at varius ports of embarkation and ready to work, politically and economically there was no reason to do so.

Best,

I'm not saying they treated them better or were motivated by social justice. Britain's goal in the creation of such a state was to geopolitically curb American growth, to help prevent the rise of another great power, not because they wanted to give social justice to the natives.

It's pretty well document that this was in FACT a British goal, so I'm not quite sure what the point of your post is because we're not in conflict.
 
How long do you think this country would have lasted? What if the British concluded a mutual defense treaty, to deter the US from launching a war?

We had a thread on this just a couple weeks ago: An Indian State for the War of 1812

Here's a bit of insight from that thread...
Any Indian state would, at best, be a protectorate, or else it will be swallowed by the US fast. There simply arent enough natives to hold the land against inflowing Americans.

Besides, trade with the US is far more important to Britain than her native allies/subjects, so unless the war can be prolonged to the point where Britain totally and decisively wins (which isnt too hard, iotl the US was teetering on the brink of financial ruin) any native polity will be fairly token.

Even WITH a decisive British win, theyre going to need lots of soldiers settled on the new frontier, and the 'native state' is going to have to accommodate that.


Honestly, my TL has the best plausible outcome for Tecumseh et al., imo. They just arent going to get a fair deal.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Also my point; "native allies" fell by the wayside when

Also my point; "native allies" fell by the wayside when Western emigrants wanted land, as any number of peoples learned in the Americas, the Pacific, and southern Africa.

Demographically, the indigenous peoples were pretty much out of luck from the 1500s onwards, as long as Europeans were free to head west (or south and east, as the case may be).

The only places this didn't really happen were in the tropics, where the natural "defenses" were such as to prevent significant European settlement, and those parts of Africa and Europe where the locals were technologically - roughly - peers of the Europeans.

Where the locals were essentially still in the neolithic, they lost - heavily.

Best,
 
One way to make it more likely for the creation of an Indian state to occur would have been if chief Tecumseh and Isaac Brock had lived.

Tecumseh had the foresight to realize that the native populations were gradually getting picked off as European or American settlers expanded westward because they were divided and they lacked recognition of their territories by the US and the European powers. His main reason for siding with the British was to get the formal recognition of an Indian state. It was convenient for the British that an Indian state in the region also served a geo-political goal for them in curbing American Expansionism and helping to protect their North American colonies.

It is somewhat debatable if the British would have truly kept this promise and how much they would have respected it in the long term. However had Tecumseh lived though he would have been fairly insistent upon the point and it would have been harder for the British to refuse. His leadership may have also kept the native coalition that sided with the British together, making it a more powerful force and more valuable ally to the British.

Isaac Brock and Tecumseh also had a high degree of respect for each other and a pretty good working relationship, so there is a decent chance he might have also pushed for the Indian state at Tecumseh's request if he were still alive and playing a part of the negotiations.

Long term the British may have had a harder time 'intruding' on the Indian state when it had stronger recognition and actual political backing. The British North American colonists could also feasibly adopt a more positive attitude towards this specific group of natives (depends on how they would be portrayed).
 
Last edited:
Top