Native American nations if Brittain won the War of 1812

So I had read a old thread on an alternative timeline where the US had lost the War of 1812.

I had not noticed exactly how old it was, so posted. My apologies.

Anyway, I'm curious what folks think the Native Americans will be doing during all of this and, more importantly, what will happen to them after. People in the thread seemed to be concentrating on the US, Canada, England, and Spain as if there were no other people living on the North American continent who might have a vested interest in what happens or who might want lands.

Wolfhound, in that thread, had mentioned the possibility of Tecumseh (should he somehow stay alive in this timeline) possibly heading a Native American state or, possibly, a coalition. An article here even states the importance that a win would have meant and, perhaps more importantly, what either the survival of Tecumseh would have meant or, at least, someone equally capable taking up his role would be.

So, what might have happened with Native Americans had the British won? There were many different tribes with different values, but I'm pretty sure all of them would have liked some form of sovereignty in their areas or, at least, the right to hold and use the land as they saw fit.
 
First, I just feel there are inherent problems with any long-lasting state with a rather idiotic leader like Tenskwatawa the Prophet, or more generally a state led, even in part, by people who sincerely subscribe to millenarianist ideas that in the next few decades Europeans will either turn into Amerindians or disappear. Not that states haven't overcome millenarianist beginnings, but any Tecumseh-state is already on shaky grounds.

Another extremely important thing to note is that no tribe entirely followed Tecumseh's movement. The majority of even the Shawnees followed Catecahassa, a more peace-inclined chief.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
As always, define "win"...

So I had read a old thread on an alternative timeline where the US had lost the War of 1812.

I had not noticed exactly how old it was, so posted. My apologies.

Anyway, I'm curious what folks think the Native Americans will be doing during all of this and, more importantly, what will happen to them after. People in the thread seemed to be concentrating on the US, Canada, England, and Spain as if there were no other people living on the North American continent who might have a vested interest in what happens or who might want lands.

Wolfhound, in that thread, had mentioned the possibility of Tecumseh (should he somehow stay alive in this timeline) possibly heading a Native American state or, possibly, a coalition. An article here even states the importance that a win would have meant and, perhaps more importantly, what either the survival of Tecumseh would have meant or, at least, someone equally capable taking up his role would be.

So, what might have happened with Native Americans had the British won? There were many different tribes with different values, but I'm pretty sure all of them would have liked some form of sovereignty in their areas or, at least, the right to hold and use the land as they saw fit.

As always, define "win"...

The war broke out in 1812; Tecumseh was killed in 1813, same year the Americans gained control of Lake Erie; the British were defeated at Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain and Baltimore in 1814; the treaty of Ghent was signed in 1814 and ratified in 1815; and the British lost at New Orleans and Napoleon left Elba the same year.

And, it is worth noting, the British had no ability to sustain their Native allies within US territory, whether in the Old Northwest (Tecumseh was killed at the Battle of the Thames, in BNA) or the Old Southwest (as witness the fates of the Creek et al.)

Best,
 
Last edited:
Canadian and British histories say that Royalists won the war of 1812-1814 because we prevented American invasion or changes to borders.
The Mohawk Confederacy may have been forced to move north after the war, but they remained fiercely independent. To this day, Mohawks occupy reservations straddling the New York State/Ontario/Quebec border. They routinely defy Canadian police intrusion onto their lands (e.g. Okay Crisis circa 1990). Note that French-language press referred to them as "les warriors" the remind readers about Mohawk loyalty to the British Crown and their recent arrival in Canada .... er ...... more recent than "pure laine" habitants.

Many Iroquois make their living transporting sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, or anything else that will turn a profit in and out of reservations. If the Quebec Provincial Police get upset, that is Quebec City's problem.
If the New York State Highway Patrol get upset, that is Albany's problem.
 
I think that British victory might buy the Native Americans a few decades at most. The British would be extremely reluctant to support an independent/semi-independent state because it would almost assuredly involve with conflict with Americans at some point. I think that it might end up buying them some time but their authority would constantly be undermined by the locals of Upper Canada and the areas they're controlling probably end up becoming Upper Canada 2 after Upper Canada is more-or-less settled.
 
Okay, let's ask the most important question about this TL: what does a British victory mean? Canada treats the war as a victory because it burned down the White House and repelled US invasion; the US treats it as a draw because no territory changed hands; my understanding is that Britain, which suffered defeats the Canadians had not, treats it as a draw as well. Does a British victory entail some territory changing hands from American to British? If so, are we talking minor changes, for example giving Britain full control of Grand Portage, or a significant giveaway of Louisiana Purchase territory to Britain?
 
Okay, let's ask the most important question about this TL: what does a British victory mean? Canada treats the war as a victory because it burned down the White House and repelled US invasion; the US treats it as a draw because no territory changed hands; my understanding is that Britain, which suffered defeats the Canadians had not, treats it as a draw as well. Does a British victory entail some territory changing hands from American to British? If so, are we talking minor changes, for example giving Britain full control of Grand Portage, or a significant giveaway of Louisiana Purchase territory to Britain?

If there's an Indian protectorate at the very least Michigan changes hands and maybe some portion of the old Northwest. If any territory changes hands in the East the territory is so settled that the Indian state is probably a moot point.
 
I interpret the OP as asking how the natives would fare under British rule.

It's conventional wisdom to take the British at their word when they espoused a native indian nation. you can point to the proclamation line of 63 and the British idea of establishing an indian country in the northwest, but these were points of expediency. the Brits realized that the natives were a potent force. As soon as the time was right, they'd screw the natives just as the americans did. the americans got their morals from someplace, and that place was mother Britain. Canada was no friend to the native. the colonies were no friend to the natives - that whole eastern seaboard used to be populated by the natives, and they were forced out.

Ultimately, the fate is going to be the same, with a different route for getting there. the two cultures don't mix. for a while, maybe. As the whites grow in populace, the natives are going to have to join them (as second rate citizens because the Europeans are racists) or be subjugated.
 
The problem is the there just aren't enough natives to populate their state densely enough to be able to protect themselves from US aggression. Said aggression may well be informal - settlers coming in, squatting on land in 'Indian Territory', and then, when run off, complaining to the US government which retaliates...

Britain is NOT going to keep a large standing army in place to protect them, it's too expensive. And Britain, in general, is going to be at least as nice to the US (which is a massive trading partner) as to a white colony like Canada, let alone a native protectorate.

The best realistic scenario I can come up with is that the natives end up with a province of Canada where they form a sizable minority and where they have constitutional rights.
 
Okay, let's ask the most important question about this TL: what does a British victory mean?

Simple: Britain achieves its key strategic objectives. In this case they are:

a) prevent the US interfering in the Napoleonic War.
b) prevent the US nicking bits of British North America.
c) do not concede ground on belligerent rights (in practice, orders in council and impressment).

The results:
a) Success. Napoleon was defeated despite the US joining in.
b) Success. No territory changed hands.
c) Success. The orders in council in question were modified in US favour before the war started, and impressment ended when the Napoleonic War did.

Establishing a native state as a buffer to US westward expansion would certainly have been nice to have, but it was never a vital strategic interest, otherwise it would have been imposed on the US at Ghent. The US economy was collapsing as a direct result of the Royal Navy's blockade, the outcome of a few inconsequential skirmishes notwithstanding. It was therefore incapable of continuing the war, whereas the UK was, had it deemed vital national interests to be at stake.
 
The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederation) had already been crushed before the War of 1812 (by orders of George Washington in retaliation for Cherry Valley massacre). They won't be coming back or doing anything if the British win. In fact most of the area south of the Great Lakes and north of the Ohio River was not very well populated. Even a political win for the natives and British protection can't keep Americans from settling "virgin" lands, since those tribes living there had only moved in after the Haudenosaunee had been weakened enough to allow them to move in. The Haudenosaunee had pretty much depopulated the entire area west of the Appalachians, north of the Ohio, south of the Great Lakes, and east of the Illinois River during the early-mid 1600s in order to keep that huge area a giant hunting preserve.
 
Far too far west - the eastern border of this hypothetical state would probably be in western Ohio and Kentucky.

Kentucky became a US state in 1792 (and relatively heavily settled), Ohio a state in 1803. Do we really think that no matter how the British won that the US is giving up land that is a part of a state? Especially Kentucky would lead to threats seccession and nullification resolutions. The Federal govt would be found to be weak and the US Constitution a failure. We can talk all we want about what a peace treaty would look like with a British victory in War of 1812 but the real scary butterflies are internal politics in the US and the quite real probability of a dissolution of the US as we know it.
 
At the start of the war, the US was in possesion of Ohio and some of Indiana. However, the british hadn't vacated much of the northwest territory, as they were supposed to pet terms the conclusion of american revolution.
If things went swimmingly for the brits (better military performance), it's quite easy to see them keeping that region and potentially turning it into an indian preserve. Sooner or later though, the americans are going to encroach. The advantage the indians have now is that the setlers will have no protection. US gov't can't send in militia to enforce peace because it's not their territory. It would be an invasion of britain.
 
Top