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.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.
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...
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...
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.
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,,.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...![]()
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.