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:
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.
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.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.
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."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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Probably goes as OTL, but it gives the Americans less reason to be loyal to Britain, and more of a reason to abandon it.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?
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.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.
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.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.