Native American state created in War of 1812?

von Adler

As part of a timeline I am working on, the US loses the War of 1812 and has to cede territory to a Native American state that is a de facto British protectorate.

How would such a state look? What would its survival chances be? Economical development?

Suppose the US gets Destroit and the southern shore of Lake Eire as well as the 1795 treaty line and some other territory, while Tecumse's Confederacy (or whatever the name of the country will be - perhaps "The American Confederacy" or something similar).

bJN1fUS.jpg


Something akin to this.

One idea I have is that instead of sending the five civilized tribes on the trail of tears, they'll be forced into the Indian country, perhaps with the argument "So the redcoats want indians? Let's give them indians"

I can also see some of the plains tribes, such as the Sioux and Cheyenne being forced into the Indian state as well - the US using it instead of reservation on its own territory.

Such forced immigration would surely cause social upheaval, conflict and problems in the Indian state. Could it survive it?
 

DaleCoz

I'm guessing that if they won the British would keep Detroit. I'm also guessing that a British win in 1812 wouldn't be the last war the two countries fought.
 

Ravenflight

I'd find it hard to see a possible outcome where Britain WIN. I mean, they didn't lose, and in many ways inflicted more on the US than they received, but I just can't see a victory. The British were far more concerned with Europe, so perhaps a POD where Napoleon is killed by a stray bullet at Leipzig... perhaps? I'm really not sure.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Maybe when the English allowed a native Celtic state

Maybe when the English allowed a native Celtic state....

There's a reason the English/British fought multiple wars with the French over North America. It was not to create nation states for the native peoples.

Numbers were all on Europe's side when it came to dominance over the Western Hemisphere, most especially in temperate climates.

Not going to happen.

Best,
 

Lord Grattan

There's no way the British Crown will surrender so much land to the Indians. Perhaps certain islands or areas in the Great Lakes region (OTL Ontario, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, & New York), but nothing so expansive or contiguous.
 

The Gunslinger

You'd need a devastating British victory... which is difficult. The British were willing to sell the Indians down the river at the first sign of peace for any marginal change in hands of territory so you'd need the British to win on the lakes, in Indiana/Ohio, Plattsburg and probably Baltimore to boot... and even if they DID win all that and the Americans were bankrupt and begging for peace I'm not sure the British would set up an Indian client state. I think the most they'd go for would be parts of Maine, a readjustment of New York state (Sackett's Harbour and Niagara), Michigan and the area around Lake Michigan that would be Wisconsin and Northern Illinois/Indiana. The creation of an Indian state would be such a slap in the face to America it almost certainly creates a situation that will become round two.
 

Widukind

If the United States were seen as more of a threat by Britain, and then soundly defeated, Britain might be inclined to prop up a buffer state. But it would be far smaller than what's depicted on the OP's map.
 

David T

British peace terms in August 1814:

"Within a week, Lord Castlereagh sent precise instructions which confirmed the worst fears of the Americans. The Indian boundary line was to follow the line of the Treaty of Greenville and beyond it neither nation was to acquire land. The United States was asked, in short, to set apart for the Indians in perpetuity an area which comprised the present States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois, four-fifths of Indiana, and a third of Ohio. But, remonstrated Gallatin, this area included States and Territories settled by more than a hundred thousand American citizens. What was to be done with them? 'They must look after themselves,' was the blunt answer."
http://books.google.com/books?id=swYOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA249

See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/greenvil.asp for the text of the Treaty of Greenville and http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/treaty_greenville/media/treatygreenvillemap.gif for a map of the Greenville line.

To insist on this 1795 line in 1814 seems amazingly unrealistic in retrospect, but remember that in 1814 "Britain and Indians still held Michilimackinac, Prarie du Chien on the upper Mississippi, and most of Michigan and Wisconsin. With Wellington's veterans preparing to embark from French ports and the United States on the verge of bankruptcy, fighting its most unpopular war, Britain and the Indians became optimistic about making territorial adjustments." J. Leitch Wright, Jr., *Britain and the American Frontier 1783-1815* (Athens: University of Georgia Press 1975), p. 167.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And yet after Baltimore, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans

And yet after Baltimore, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans, they did not.

And no one less than Wellington told Liverpool:

"I confess that I think you have no right from the state of the war to demand any concession of territory from America. . .you have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory of the enemy on the point of attack…You can get no territory; indeed the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any..."

Best,
 
Simon

Simon

I thought the US already did lose the War of 1812? But that's probably a debate for another time. ;)

That aside you'll never get the amount of territory that you're proposing. Ohio was already a state, Indiana became a state only 4 years later, Michigan was set to become a state in 23 years which suggests that at least the southern parts were fairly heavily settled, Illinois became a state only 2 years later, with Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota becoming states in 32, 34 and 44 years respectively. As David T points out there were 100,000 US citizens already in states and territories you've suggested which is just going to make it unworkable. Even with a decisive British victory the very best I think you could get would be the Upper Michigan peninsula, Wisconsin, Minnesota and perhaps a small corner of Iowa. Gives you a solid compact nation for the Indians, turns Lake Superior into an effectively British lake whilst still allowing the US the use of the other four for transport.
 

edgeworthy

DAv

Actually had such a state be created in my British Imperialism TL. It's lands were formed by those granted to the Shawnee Tribes in a Treaty some years past and it became a staunch British ally in the region.
 

Sawaiki

I'm not 100% sure of the regions or exact times, but Britain did this with regions smaller than what you have there repeatedly - just not usually within land that had already been settled. This is effectively what Tecumseh's confederacy became, at certain points..
 

Redhand

Banned
Also consider how an Indian state would fall apart quickly. Languages were by no means common among eastern tribes and regional rivalries would lead to internal conflict. Having a King Tecumseh simply means that the Shawnee hold a dictatorship over the other tribes.

The US govt was unable to stop its own citizens from going west anyways. Massive immigration pushed people west and undoubtedly the US and the natives are going to have to fight. Eventually the US is going to win that fight unless a catastrophic 1812 defeat leaves it fractured and partly British.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

1) crown and tomahawk
2) British Imperialism in the 18th c. (As already mentioned)
3) my TL, see my sig (yes, guvnor I'll get back to it eventually)

Basically, if the British control the Great Lakes, which the could have with a bit of luck even with a starting point at the beginning of the war, they, with native allies could win hugely in the west. They could take most of Illinois, Indiana and everything west of the Mississippi.

BUT the US is still there and will have a lot of Revanchist feeling. The natives are very thin on the ground, and, by themselves, would be easy prey for any US aggression, formal or informal.

Informal: If there is not a well guarded border, American settlers looking for new land WILL slip across and squat on the land. Either the native state does little, in which case they soon become a minority and the American settlers petition/coup/revolt, and the territory becomes part of the US. If the native 'police/border guard/whatever' DO take action, they're going have to use violence and some US citizens will be killed. Which leads to the next bit.

Formal: the US declares 'this is our land' or 'responds to atrocities' and sends troops in sometime after the British troops go home.

So.... The British cant just say 'these people and lands are under our protection', and expect it to work. It didnt after 1776, after all.

Thus any possible Indian State has to be formally under British protection, with British soldiers manning the borders, and being part of the forces evicting squatters.

The British know this, and wont do it unless theres a good reason. Especially

In my TL I had a bigger Canada with stronger francophone anti-republicanism, and the 'Indian Protectorate' was formally joined to Canada, with multiple border forts manned, in part, by whites. Also many Napoleonic War vets were mustered out in the new lands. Especially on or near the border.

Together with the near economic collapse of the US government and finances (a very close run thing even in OTL), the US had to swallow fairly draconian territory losses.

Even so, there was a rematch in the 1840s, and only the early industrial strength of the Empire (rail, steamships, telegraph, adequate gunpowder, cap and ball guns by the ten thousand and percussion caps by the million) allowed them to win.

At which point 'Indiania' becomes a slightly special case province of a Greater Canada.

Oh. And what was in it for the British? Control of New Orleans and access to the entire length of the Mississippi.

All this, by the way was only possible by having the Shawnee, etc, settle down and adopt European agriculture and industry, so their numbers can grow and they have a hope of defending themselves. (Which, in turn, require the Prophet to disappear).

With all due respect to the other two TLs mentioned, the probabilty of any purely native state surviving against the demographic and economic flood without incorpoation into Britain, and white British settlement (Canadiens y inclus), is very, very, very low.
 

BWeber

Brock's Petite Guerre

Chapter 7 of Neither Victor Nor Vanquished, America in the War of 1812 sketches out two scenarios where the British win, and create such a territory for their Native American Allies. Brock's Petite Guerre is closest to what you've sketched out here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top