How would the British treat the Native Americans if they won the ARW or it never occurred?

As title says, if hypothetically the British won (or the ARW never occurred) would the British treat the Native Americans similar to the First Nations, or a different fashion?
 
Last edited:

ben0628

Banned
Sooner or later the 1763 treaty is going to be broken and the Iroquois,Cherokee, Creek, and other Native American tribes east of the Mississippi are gonna get screwed. When it happens though, I don't know, probably some time before 1800 though.
 
Assuming a victory in the ARW, I'm assuming that there is an increase in the regulation and freedom of settlers, so that colonial expansion is more tightly controlled.

If the Princely states or the First Nations are anything to go buy, they may essentially make them vassals. It would be easier to rule them through their own rules. What will likely happen is an attempt to negotiate boundaries for the settled tribes that undoubtedly encroaches on their lands.

Works for the British as there is minimal war, and war costs money - and then allows trade. Plus, ensuring there are fixed boundaries means that settlement can begin without conflict.
 
Assuming a victory in the ARW, I'm assuming that there is an increase in the regulation and freedom of settlers, so that colonial expansion is more tightly controlled.

If the Princely states or the First Nations are anything to go buy, they may essentially make them vassals. It would be easier to rule them through their own rules. What will likely happen is an attempt to negotiate boundaries for the settled tribes that undoubtedly encroaches on their lands.

Works for the British as there is minimal war, and war costs money - and then allows trade. Plus, ensuring there are fixed boundaries means that settlement can begin without conflict.

Except the Princely states outnumbered the British by thousands to one and in this case the situation is reversed as time goes on the pressure from settlers to move into almost empty lands will mount. And these areas are not out of the way like the First Nations the land that the natives are on is prime valuable land so is something the British will want to exploit. I see it going more the way of Australia or OTL America and not much will change except for when it happens.
 
Well, one of the reasons that the ARW happened was because the colonists weren't able to expand, so if they do ,it will be against Britain's will, which would probably lead to attempts for independence, which destroys the point of this thread a bit. Now, if the British won the war, I imagine the British will still prevent them from expanding and will let the territory go to the natives who fought on the British side and then they'll probably form their own state(s) that will be allies to the British. If I recall one of the reasons for why the Maori still have a not so terrible position in New Zealand is because the British really didn't want to support the colonists in fighting them, so they were forced to get along.
 
Except the Princely states outnumbered the British by thousands to one and in this case the situation is reversed as time goes on the pressure from settlers to move into almost empty lands will mount. And these areas are not out of the way like the First Nations the land that the natives are on is prime valuable land so is something the British will want to exploit. I see it going more the way of Australia or OTL America and not much will change except for when it happens.
Given some time, the land won't be always "almost empty" , the population will have some time to recover as long as they don't suffer constant conflict like settlers encroaching on their land and fighting them for it, which will be curbed in a British victory in the ARW, no doubt.
 
Given some time, the land won't be always "almost empty" , the population will have some time to recover as long as they don't suffer constant conflict like settlers encroaching on their land and fighting them for it, which will be curbed in a British victory in the ARW, no doubt.

Yes but the population difference between the settlers and the natives is still massively in favor of the settlers and will only grow as more people immigrate from Europe and the settlers already there continue to have families and want more land to settle for themselves.
 
Yes but the population difference between the settlers and the natives is still massively in favor of the settlers and will only grow as more people immigrate from Europe and the settlers already there continue to have families and want more land to settle for themselves.
Exactly, and I have a hard time seeing the colonists who tried to leave the British Empire simply going, "okay, now we won't violate treaties and British laws."

The settlers are going to keep pushing to expand westward, and ultimately Britain is going to have to decide whether to let them, thus screwing over the natives, or trying to stop them and having attempt at independence on their hands, this time perhaps while Britain is busy fighting someone else.

Either way, I don't see it ending well for the natives.
 
Yes but the population difference between the settlers and the natives is still massively in favor of the settlers and will only grow as more people immigrate from Europe and the settlers already there continue to have families and want more land to settle for themselves.
Wouldn't the British curb in immigration after they win the ARW? Also in a British victory in the ARW, they aren't going to give the losers what they wanted in the beginning, if anything the colonies will become like European countries with high density and a really large population proportional to the size of the nation(s). In the long run, it could end up heavily urbanized, with cities having massive populations similar to Tokyo.
 
Wouldn't the British curb in immigration after they win the ARW? Also in a British victory in the ARW, they aren't going to give the losers what they wanted in the beginning, if anything the colonies will become like European countries with high density and a really large population proportional to the size of the nation(s). In the long run, it could end up heavily urbanized, with cities having massive populations similar to Tokyo.

That's the real question isn't it? Will Britain lay the groundwork for another rebellion in 20 years, or will they decide fighting another (more difficult) war in the colonies and holding them down is futile and grant part of the colonists demands so that the Americas will actually make money for the crown.
 
Wouldn't the British curb in immigration after they win the ARW? Also in a British victory in the ARW, they aren't going to give the losers what they wanted in the beginning, if anything the colonies will become like European countries with high density and a really large population proportional to the size of the nation(s). In the long run, it could end up heavily urbanized, with cities having massive populations similar to Tokyo.

Why would the settlers obey the proclamation line when even before the ARW the settlers had already pushed past it. Also in OTL the settling of the west wasn't really even state sponsored the people themselves decided to move west and formed militias and pushed the natives back without meaningful input from the government. And why wouldn't they push west into easily reached lands.
 
Exactly, and I have a hard time seeing the colonists who tried to leave the British Empire simply going, "okay, now we won't violate treaties and British laws."

The settlers are going to keep pushing to expand westward, and ultimately Britain is going to have to decide whether to let them, thus screwing over the natives, or trying to stop them and having attempt at independence on their hands, this time perhaps while Britain is busy fighting someone else.

Either way, I don't see it ending well for the natives.
I could see another attempt at independence succeeding, when the first one failed as the British would probably just give up on trying to restrain them. Although, I would think that a British victory in the ARW would lead to an occupation similar to Reconstruction or another occupation, that will have very tight measures in controlling the people and their movement.
 
Why would the settlers obey the proclamation line when even before the ARW the settlers had already pushed past it. Also in OTL the settling of the west wasn't really even state sponsored the people themselves decided to move west and formed militias and pushed the natives back without meaningful input from the government. And why wouldn't they push west into easily reached lands.
Perhaps because a British army would be stationed on the frontier to prevent them from doing so, not to mention that in a British victory, I could see the colonists being barred from producing and carrying firearms.
 
I could see another attempt at independence succeeding, when the first one failed as the British would probably just give up on trying to restrain them. Although, I would think that a British victory in the ARW would lead to an occupation similar to Reconstruction or another occupation, that will have very tight measures in controlling the people and their movement.
The thing is, if we go by Britain's rule of the America's pre-Revolution, they weren't particularly good at controlling the colonists or their governments. Such measures would probably simply ensure that the next time rather than rough parity in colonists who want independence vs. those who want to stay will be changed to favoring independence by a landslide.

Perhaps because a British army would be stationed on the frontier to prevent them from doing so, not to mention that in a British victory, I could see the colonists being barred from producing and carrying firearms.

Where would this army be stationed, and how is it being paid for? Britain is already losing money on the colonies hand over fist. If they have to patrol a thousand miles (slight hyperbole, but you get the point) of additional territory eventually Parliament is going to get fed up paying it. Especially when those soldiers could be used so much more productively...literally anywhere else.
 
The thing is, if we go by Britain's rule of the America's pre-Revolution, they weren't particularly good at controlling the colonists or their governments. Such measures would probably simply ensure that the next time rather than rough parity in colonists who want independence vs. those who want to stay will be changed to favoring independence by a landslide.
That was pre-revolution. This is after a failed attempt, which will definitely cause the British to change policies in the colonies. Salutary neglect is over.
 
What if, instead of actively enforcing the Proclamation Line, the British government essentially just says "Fine, we won't stop you crossing the Line, but when the Indians get pissed at you and send a war party to wipe you out don't expect us to step in and save you"? How would that affect the frontier dynamic?
 
What if, instead of actively enforcing the Proclamation Line, the British government essentially just says "Fine, we won't stop you crossing the Line, but when the Indians get pissed at you and send a war party to wipe you out don't expect us to step in and save you"? How would that affect the frontier dynamic?
Probably goes as OTL, but it gives the Americans less reason to be loyal to Britain, and more of a reason to abandon it.
 
Where would this army be stationed, and how is it being paid for? Britain is already losing money on the colonies hand over fist. If they have to patrol a thousand miles (slight hyperbole, but you get the point) of additional territory eventually Parliament is going to get fed up paying it. Especially when those soldiers could be used so much more productively...literally anywhere else.
I'm just wondering how Parliament is going to react to the proposal that they maintain the expense of keeping a British army on the American frontier to prevent British citizens from claiming more land.
That was pre-revolution. This is after a failed attempt, which will definitely cause the British to change policies in the colonies. Salutary neglect is over.
A British victory in America requires more Americans being willingly loyal to the crown, their defeat in the ARW owed a lot to loyalists being a minority and not providing a ton of support. If Parliament continues to be obstinate and start treating its own citizens as a conquered subject people the rebellion just starts off again but with even more rebels. And taking guns away is almost certainly impossible. How are colonists to defend themselves from Indian attacks should some raid the colonies? What if rebels start ransacking their towns? Or what if they just want or need to go hunting? Hell, what if they were a loyalist during the ARW? I can't imagine anyone sane supporting such a measure, and I can't imagine it ever being enforceable should it be passed.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
The colonists are going to settle the west, it's inevitable. The British never intended to stop that process completely. The Proclamation Line of 1763 was never going to be permanent. Indeed the natives ceded land to the west of the line (what would become West Virginia, SW PA and Eastern KY) under the Treaty of Fort Stanwix only 5 years later. A project to settle those lands, the proposed Vandalia colony, was already in the works at the time of the American Revolution. So the natives would get a better deal from the British only in so much as the British wanted to limit and control the settlement of the interior such that it was always under state (crown) control and guidance. They wanted to make sure Royal authority extended along with the zone of settlement and they wanted to avoid conflicts with the natives.

So I assume some kind of large Iroquois reserve is maintained in central and western NY, say from OTL Utica or Syracuse to Buffalo. Without the Sullivan Expedition and the Iroquois Civil War they'd be a stronger polity and might be able to hold this zone long enough to fully westernize and form a loyal tributary state. Maybe also some kind of similar Cherokee reserve in the south in parts of TN and northern GA. Colonial settlement is then shunted between the two, overland through VA and PA into the Ohio valley where officially sanctioned or chartered royal colonies are set up under the strict supervision of the crown, maybe with garrison posts at key places like Pittsburgh to keep them under control and demarcate the boundary with the Indian Reserves.

The British might also consider placing the Ohio colonies under the overarching control of British Canada/Quebec rather than the potentially disloyal Atlantic colonies. With the Iroquois controlling the OTL land of the Erie Canal trade may flow from the Great Lakes down the St Lawrence instead.
 
Top