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

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.

That's what's taught but in reality variances were already being granted with additional treaties, allowing the settlement of WV and Kentucky among others. Further adjustments would be made later if no ARW.

I agree with most of my colleagues. Basically OTL.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
That's what's taught but in reality variances were already being granted with additional treaties, allowing the settlement of WV and Kentucky among others. Further adjustments would be made later if no ARW.

I agree with most of my colleagues. Basically OTL.

I definitely remember it being presented to me that way. Growing up in Western NY where we spent a lot of time in school learning about the Iroquois, colonial America and the Revolutionary war it was always presented as if the British threw down this immutable barrier in 1763 to stop colonization and that's one of the reasons why we rebelled. Obviously grade school history is going to have to simplify things somewhat but still.
 
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.
And their big attempt to enforce their rule on the colonies of OTL resulted in the total loss of the 13 colonies. What it comes down to, which will Parliament care more about? Natives or keeping their colonists from revolting again. IMO it won't even be a contest. They won't immediately turn a blind eye, but as time goes on and more and more settlers start violating the Proclamation Line they will ultimately have to choose, and IMO they won't choose the natives.
 
Probably better in the short term, but I doubt anything winds up any better for them in the long run, see Canada. Having said that, the Cherokee and the Creek might be given a much better deal than the wholesale removal they got OTL.
 
Top