An Indian State for the War of 1812

[The Gunslinger]

This isn’t a scenario that will see an independent Louisiana/New England nor a behemoth Canada. The goal is to ask what the Treaty of Ghent would look like for a victorious Britain and her Indian allies. There are two PODs for this scenario

1) Proctor & Tecumseh lure Clay outside Fort Meigs and win a battle, ensuring the Fort’s later surrender (Fort Stephenson may also fall later as well). July 5/6 1813
2) Barclay catches Perry crossing the sand bar and smashes the Erie fleet August 3/4 1813

Proctor and Tecumseh wouldn’t be completely out of the woods having to deal with Harrison at Fort Sandusky, but maybe they fight an inconclusive engagement and both sides retire.

The Battle of Lake Erie changes the whole campaigns of 1813 though, Erie is a British Lake, Britain still holds Michigan so the whole Upper Canada campaign doesn’t happen. Instead, the action is set for the environs of Lake Ontario. Sackets Harbor sees a lot more fighting (think of the Niagra campaign reversed) and falls, and is liberated shortly thereafter. With Prevost busy in Lake Ontario the Plattsburgh campaign goes ahead under somebody else (Drummond?) it is successful but the Anglo/Canadian forces are beaten and can’t advance to Albany.
The Penobscot expedition goes as OTL, as does Baltimore, Prairie du chien and New Orleans.

So at the peace tables in Ghent, Canada controls much more territory than OTL and she hasn’t been as ravaged by the war, instead the USA has borne the brunt of the fighting, lost much of the west and has an active Tecumseh to rally the natives around. At the OTL peace treaty the negotiators were working off of the Treaty of Greenville, a treaty likely to be untenable due to the fact that there over 100,000 Americans living in the proposed area. BUT, in OTL the British were perfectly willing to sell the Indians down the river in exchange for “Canadian security” (aka- territory).

So my question is this, in an alternate war, what do the British ask for, and what are they likely to get? Have they beat on America enough to ask for an Indian State, or do they let it slide?

Lastly, does the answer change if Tecumseh is alive or not?

 

[TFSmith121]

"Canada" doesn't control anything, given that BNA

So at the peace tables in Ghent, Canada controls much more territory than OTL and...the British were perfectly willing to sell the Indians down the river in exchange for “Canadian security” (aka- territory).

"Canada" doesn't control anything, given that all of BNA are colonies still governed from London in 1815.

So the question is does Britain - and the British parliament - and the taxpayer - want to face a militarized frontier and hostile United States in North America for the forseable future? Especially after the expenditures of the previous 25 years of war with France?

Probably not.

And, as given the realities of British imperial policy in the Nineteenth Century, putting the interests of any native people - even ones that have functioned as military auxiliaries for a half-century - over those of European descent, is pretty unlikely.

There's a reason the British did not raise "native" regiments for use against the Boers, in the 1880-81 or 1898-1901 wars; granted, that's six decades away, but the realities of the color bar were well understood, even in 1815, and from Detroit to Delhi.

Just ask James Skinner.

Best,

 

[The Gunslinger]

"Canada" doesn't control anything, given that all of BNA are colonies still governed from London in 1815.

So the question is does Britain - and the British parliament - and the taxpayer - want to face a militarized frontier and hostile United States in North America for the forseable future? Especially after the expenditures of the previous 25 years of war with France?

Probably not.

And, as given the realities of British imperial policy in the Nineteenth Century, putting the interests of any native people - even ones that have functioned as military auxiliaries for a half-century - over those of European descent, is pretty unlikely.

There's a reason the British did not raise "native" regiments for use against the Boers, in the 1880-81 or 1898-1901 wars; granted, that's six decades away, but the realities of the color bar were well understood, even in 1815, and from Detroit to Delhi.

Just ask James Skinner.

Best,

While I agree... the British did propose it OTL.

When negotiation opened there were four topics at hand

1)Impressment (a non-issue since Napoleon's defeat)
2)"The absolute necessity of pacifying the Indians by drawing a boundary line for their territory" (Berton)
3) Revised USA-Canada border
4) Fishing stuff

The negotiators aren't negotiating from a draw like OTL, this is an America that is clearly losing. Britain seemed to want territory in OTL when they didn't occupy any, in this situation I think they'll push the issue a lot harder.

 

[TFSmith121]

Understood; I just don't know how serious

Understood; I just don't know how serious any of it was...they asked for uti possidentis October 21, and the news of Baltimore and Plattsburgh arrived, and the American delegation said "no" Oct. 24.

Don't see how that's going to not change things; as was said, it cost "a thousand guineas to ship a single cannon from Portsmouth to Lake Ontario" which was a lot less than what it cost to ship the same cannon from Frankford or West Point or wherever.

Truthfully, what did Canada provide the City (of London) in 1815?

Timber, furs, and...what, again?

Codfish?

Hardly seems worth the effort, to be brutal about it, when the West Indies and India itself presumably provided a much better return on the pound sterling.

The British lost their last chance to dominate North America in 1774...

Best,

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Any Indian state would, at best, be a protectorate, or else it will be swallowed by the US fast. There simply arent enough natives to hold the land against inflowing Americans.

Besides, trade with the US is far more important to Britain than her native allies/subjects, so unless the war can be prolonged to the point where Britain totally and decisively wins (which isnt too hard, iotl the US was teetering on the brink of financial ruin) any native polity will be fairly token.

Even WITH a decisive British win, theyre going to need lots of soldiers settled on the new frontier, and the 'native state' is going to have to accommodate that.


Honestly, my TL has the best plausible outcome for Tecumseh et al., imo. They just arent going to get a fair deal.

 

[BWeber]

I noted in another thread on the War of 1812 that a British victory stemming from a early termination of hostilities in Europe could have led to the occupation of New Orleans and control of the Mississippi valley, which would bolster an Indian homeland in the Old Northwest.

"One of the alternative outcomes in my book, Neither Victor Nor Vanquished, is Brock's Petite Guerre. In this timeline, Brock wins the Battle of Queenston Heights and successfully prosecutes a campaign that secures the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys setting the stage for an amphibious attack on New Orleans. This British victory is predicated on Napoleon accepting a truce in 1813 --a scenario discussed in Jonathan North's The Napoleon Options, pp 147ff. This allows London to transfer substantial forces to North America much earlier in the War of 1812."

 

[Lord Grattan]

Any Indian state would, at best, be a protectorate, or else it will be swallowed by the US fast. There simply arent enough natives to hold the land against inflowing Americans.

Besides, trade with the US is far more important to Britain than her native allies/subjects, so unless the war can be prolonged to the point where Britain totally and decisively wins (which isnt too hard, iotl the US was teetering on the brink of financial ruin) any native polity will be fairly token.

Even WITH a decisive British win, theyre going to need lots of soldiers settled on the new frontier, and the 'native state' is going to have to accommodate that.


Honestly, my TL has the best plausible outcome for Tecumseh et al., imo. They just arent going to get a fair deal.

Agreed; your TL was indeed a best case + plausible scenario. It's likely that any Native Protectorate would have been no larger than say, Manitoulin Island or the Bruce Peninsula or the thumb of Michigan.