Between the American Revolution and the end of the War of 1812, the Brittish supported the creation of a Native American buffer state in the Northwest Terriorty (Modern day Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota). So lets say the War of 1812 goes better for the Brittish and Tecumseh's Confederacy and the two are able to maintain control over the majority of this terriority and beat back American attempts to retake it. So with Tecumseh's Confederacy as the backbone, a Barrier state is formed. But what would the politics of this state look like. I could sort of see the Confederacy evolving into something similar to Iroqious Confederacy, and the threat of an American invasion and settlement could keep the tribes united. Though it's hard to predict what it would look like further into the future, especially after Tecumseh and his brother die. A third British-American War seems kind of inevitable at some point in this scenario as well.
Politics of a Native American Barrier State
- Thread starter Agra
- Start date
So the Indian Confederation existed in Decades of Darkness, but basically they were doomed in the long run.
Well, first and foremost, it is going to be a British Protectorate, as a matter of course as well as of neccesity. This probably means that there will be British forts dotting the land, especially in the beginning, until *Indiana (for lack of a better name) developes its own standing army. The first few decades of this nation are actually going to be fascinating as it struggles to form it's own identity and institutions. One of the biggest factors at play is going to be integrating the different tribes together: remember that a Pan-Native identity didn't really exist at this time, and that not all of the peoples included in the borders you established, supported Techumsah and his movement.
I suspect that it will begin very much as a Confederation in spirit. There will be a central government (I imagine Prophetstown will be the capitol) but there will also be a lot of local autonomy which the member tribes able to conduct internal affairs as they are used to, but with the national government overseeing foreign affairs, trade and the like. This isn't too different from over Native Confederations over the years, actually - the Anishinaabe operated very similarly. However, this central government will have more powers than such councils had in previoud Confederations. Once again, this will be partially as a result of a strong personality like Techumsah being it's Founding Father, but also by neccessity - the US is still going to be breathing down the new nation's neck, and Britain is going to want a stronger central government that it can deal with. Most likely there is a central Council, and each member tribe appoints a certain number of representatives to sit on it. This will, in time, probably evolve along the model of the British Parliament.
Also, the internal dynamics caused by the different tribal groups is going to be interesting. Are they assigned territorial boundaries, ala States or Provinces, or are they viewed more as cultural and ethnic groups (an Ojibwe would follow Ojibwe customs and laws, and vote in Ojibwe elections, whether he lived in *Duluth or moved to *Detroit). Also, what mechanisms and powers would the central government have to mediate disagreements between its individual members.
Britain is certainly going to appoint an ambassador, but just how tightly Indiana is tied to Britain is going to determine whether they have a Governor-General or not.
I also wonder what the rights and status of whites will be in the Confederation. There will be no practical way to ban them entirely, though some way want to - during the first years, the Fur Trade will continue to be an important source of income for many of the member tribes, after all, and those British soldiers are too important for defensively and economically. Furthermore, Britain would not turn a blind eye to such a thing. And so they are going to have to find a way deal with them, while also not being so inviting that the native population gets swamped by settlers surging into the land.
Honestly, this is one of those great topics that don't get explored on the Boards nearly as much as it should. These are jsut some of my random stream of conciousness thoughts, and I'd be really interested in hearing what others have to say
I suspect that it will begin very much as a Confederation in spirit. There will be a central government (I imagine Prophetstown will be the capitol) but there will also be a lot of local autonomy which the member tribes able to conduct internal affairs as they are used to, but with the national government overseeing foreign affairs, trade and the like. This isn't too different from over Native Confederations over the years, actually - the Anishinaabe operated very similarly. However, this central government will have more powers than such councils had in previoud Confederations. Once again, this will be partially as a result of a strong personality like Techumsah being it's Founding Father, but also by neccessity - the US is still going to be breathing down the new nation's neck, and Britain is going to want a stronger central government that it can deal with. Most likely there is a central Council, and each member tribe appoints a certain number of representatives to sit on it. This will, in time, probably evolve along the model of the British Parliament.
Also, the internal dynamics caused by the different tribal groups is going to be interesting. Are they assigned territorial boundaries, ala States or Provinces, or are they viewed more as cultural and ethnic groups (an Ojibwe would follow Ojibwe customs and laws, and vote in Ojibwe elections, whether he lived in *Duluth or moved to *Detroit). Also, what mechanisms and powers would the central government have to mediate disagreements between its individual members.
Britain is certainly going to appoint an ambassador, but just how tightly Indiana is tied to Britain is going to determine whether they have a Governor-General or not.
I also wonder what the rights and status of whites will be in the Confederation. There will be no practical way to ban them entirely, though some way want to - during the first years, the Fur Trade will continue to be an important source of income for many of the member tribes, after all, and those British soldiers are too important for defensively and economically. Furthermore, Britain would not turn a blind eye to such a thing. And so they are going to have to find a way deal with them, while also not being so inviting that the native population gets swamped by settlers surging into the land.
Honestly, this is one of those great topics that don't get explored on the Boards nearly as much as it should. These are jsut some of my random stream of conciousness thoughts, and I'd be really interested in hearing what others have to say
I would imagine that European educated or descended individuals would take a leading role at some point in the early decades, men similar to Joseph Brant, Alexander McGillivray, or John Ross. They would serve as vital links between the native and settler spheres. They would be able to serve as negotiators between the tribes and the Anglos, and be able to help negotiate a cultural transition towards European habits. I believe this latter point to be paramount, for if the tribes are to survive as independent entities, they must incorporate some amount of European technology and culture, much like the Five Tribes in the south did. It's sure to be a slow and painful process, and will likely foster no small amount of resentment and bitterness from those who would rather prefer that traditional lifestyles be maintained. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up sparking violence, much like a northern analogue to the Red Stick War. But if they can weather those tricky first decades, then things might actually look good for them.
Last edited:
These are my two concerns about the longevity of Tecumseh's Confederacy. Depending on the level of British interest, it may be incorporated into British Canada. On the subject of white immigration, I think Texas maybe be a good example of what could happen if London loses interest in the Native Confederacy or they become alienated. Basically, Americans immigrate in, set down roots but retain their American affiliation, and if/when the Natives look weak or appear to trample on their rights, they declare independence. If successful, they'll try to join the US, which in this TL would probably be way less averse to annexations like that.
Tecumseh's Confederacy also has to deal with the eventual death of Tecumseh, which OTL broke the Confederacy. With a win against the US I think some level of Pan-Native feeling would manifest but it's up to Tecumseh's successor to try and keep the tribes together.
Glad you mentioned 5 Tribes actually brings up an interesting question of how they would respond. Would they attempt to gain European backing for something similar in the South and assuming Indian Removal still happens, probably even earlier as options for settlers are now more limited, I could see individuals trying to flee towards the Barrier State (which side note probably needs a name other than Barrier State or Tecumseh's Confederacy).
It will never be as big as what OP is suggesting, and probably dies within 2-3 decades. Upper Canada is going to be eyeing the land and wanting it, and since Detroit was the biggest community west of Kingston it's going to have its own agenda on how it wants to grow in power.
A Texas situation really isn't a major concern in this setting. Remember that the Texans were specificaly invited in initially to help settle and underpopulated borderland. That certainly won't be what happens here - if any Americans filter in, they will be squatters and will likely be escorted back across the border when found. There will be absolutely no chance for Americans to gain enough of a presence in *Indiana to forment a revolution. If the new nation is going to be reincorporated back into the United States, it will be done through invasion, but internal rebellion. And in that latter case, Indiana is going to have Britain backing her up (just on a purely practical level, Indiana is going to provide an important barrier between the US and British America, and if it falls, the US is going to be able to strike at Ontario).
It's important to not fall into the trap of accepting American Exceptionalism without question. Yes, the United States is going to have a demographic advantage, but that doesn't mean that its an unstoppable force that cannot be turned aside. Even in OTL, the Texan Revolution was a close thing, and its conceivable to imagine versions of a conflict between Mexico and the United States where the results were much more even or even a victory for Mexico. And, remember, a timeline where an Indiana of the size described by the OP is created, is one where the United States was pretty decisively defeated - it's likely it lost more territory than just the Old North West and its also likely that as a result, it's much more politically unstable in the aftermath of the War of 1812 than in OTL.
Now, as for your second point: This is true, but it's not terribly different than many other new nations either. It will depend on whether a stable political class is able to be created in the decades following independence. Luckily, its in almost everyone's best interests for Indiana to hold together. As I said, the United States is likely much reduced in this ATL and has more political instability, but it's still going to remain a real enough threat to Indiana to (hopefully) create some sense of cohesion.
i think people are underestimating just how much britain wanted a native barrier state otl in 1812 by bringing up that britain would simply annex it into canada later on.
Liverpool otl basically told the administration and cabinet to get ready to expel the white americans from ohio to america or to make them immigrate to upper canada and to relocate every native in the BNA to this barrier state. A governor-general would be a supervisor in the name of the british monarchy and the cabinet was already drafting plans to create a proper confederal system with a parliament and everything. It was only the subsequent battles of baltimore and Plattsburg that forced the british to give the idea up. I recommend reading The Iroquois in the War of 1812 by Carl Benn for this.
Liverpool otl basically told the administration and cabinet to get ready to expel the white americans from ohio to america or to make them immigrate to upper canada and to relocate every native in the BNA to this barrier state. A governor-general would be a supervisor in the name of the british monarchy and the cabinet was already drafting plans to create a proper confederal system with a parliament and everything. It was only the subsequent battles of baltimore and Plattsburg that forced the british to give the idea up. I recommend reading The Iroquois in the War of 1812 by Carl Benn for this.
As Canadians move west, do other Natives get moved there like America did with Indian Territory (aka Oklahoma)?
Re: No alt-Texas. True enough. Texas was at least partially a project (from the American POV) to grab land for Southern plantation agriculture, and that situation was pretty unique to the time and place.
And about post-Tecumseh, I think that would (or should) be the meat of any timeline focused on this PoD. The Confederacy shattered with Tecumseh's death, but that was at war. Perhaps a peaceful death or retirement would help keep Indiana together past the lifetime of it's founder.
Britain wouldn't have the capacity to do it. It's too far beyond their power projection. A Wampum Denied: Procter's War of 1812 (Sandy Antal) goes into great detail about British troubles in going past the Maumee River. How many soldiers would it take to guard the frontier? Because you're going to need armed force to expel the massive number of Americans that exist in the treaty area. And given how quick Britain was to normalize relations with the USA I'd be hard pressed to believe they'd have gone through with it given their actions in Florida in 1820.
the book also mentions in chapter 6 that the indians could raise 15,000 men in peacetime in the area. Combined with the fact that britain held all of canada during the 1800s barring 1812 with only 30,000 men and britain intended to train the natives up to british regular standards and building a proper line of military command and industries. Again unless a second war with the americans happen, the state is viable in of itself. Power Projection issues into the heart of the confederacy would eventually be nullified with the advent of the railway much like how power projection issues in Rupert's land disappeared with the advent of the railway.
Britain otl largely sought to appease america after 1812 due to the rising tensions with the congress of vienna regarding the rhineland and saxon debates as it seemed that a new war between Prussia+Russia vs Austria+Sweden+Britain would break out. It didn't however tensions remained until the 1820s. Nonetheless otl Britain did freeze american assets after the invasion of florida and only released them after the Adams-Onis Treaty showing that they would not appease America too much and would be willing to force their demands. The freezing of assets directly contributed to the American Panic of 1819.
Also Madison and Clay agreed that border regulations would be made alongside Britain and a confederacy during the secret negotiations of 1813 and early 1814. The infamous texan example falls flat when people realize that the mexican government allowed american settlers in texas and california whilst britain did not and had this lengthy immigration border system before and after 1812 which made american immigration moderate and balanced. The British intended to make the confederacy an 'all-native' state with only the higherups involved being whites. I do agree though that *all* of the old west was not possible, which was why Liverpool otl agreed to a compromise consisting of michigan, indiana, northern illinois, wisconsin and the eastern portions of Ohio until Port Clinton. This revised version of the confederacy unlike its predecessor was very much sustainable as well.
EDIT: Liverpool's revised confederacy looked something like this it seems
Thank you - I was going to point out that the Confederation of Indiana (or whatever it's name ends up being. Though I find this pretty likely - at least in English) would have British soldiers stationed there, but that it would also have its own armed forces as well to police its borders and to evict squatters. It would be unrealistic from everyone's perspective to saddle Britain with the needs of defending the entire country (Britain doesn't want to to do it, and I highly doubt that the citizens of the new nation would want that either).
Actually, this brings up an interesting point. Others have stated that one of the biggest political divides is going to be that between the Traditionals and the *Reformers. I'm guessing that the officer corp of the new military is going to be heavily trained by British officers. If so, i wonder if one of the major pillars of the Reformer coalition will involve the military. This could potentially be dangerous or a source of stability for the new nation, depending on how the cards fall.
The border you propose is much more in line with which Procter suggests during his campaign in his writings to London. The Great Black Swamp was simply too difficult an obstacle to overcome, especially given logistical constraints during the war.
But a long term state simply isn't viable in the long run. Starvation was rampant during the war, and bouts of even prior to that, and you've just moved many Indians north of their most productive lands from southern/middle Indiana and Illinois. The old fur trading settlements and military forts along the Great Lakes and Mississippi will form the nucleus of white settlement for the region and the Upper Canadian establishment (and even Lower Canada through fur trade ties) is going to want that area, especially in the 1830s once the Canadas are more "full."
Britain might have had ideas about integrating the region militarily, but that never once happened in all of Canadian history anywhere else in the country. And if it does happen, there's going to bouts of disease that further cripple the native establishment.
But a long term state simply isn't viable in the long run. Starvation was rampant during the war, and bouts of even prior to that, and you've just moved many Indians north of their most productive lands from southern/middle Indiana and Illinois. The old fur trading settlements and military forts along the Great Lakes and Mississippi will form the nucleus of white settlement for the region and the Upper Canadian establishment (and even Lower Canada through fur trade ties) is going to want that area, especially in the 1830s once the Canadas are more "full."
Britain might have had ideas about integrating the region militarily, but that never once happened in all of Canadian history anywhere else in the country. And if it does happen, there's going to bouts of disease that further cripple the native establishment.