A British Wild West

[The Saint]

As was seen, the British were pretty good at cutting deals with the Indians when they needed their help against the French.

If the British had won in 1776 or 1812, how would the conquest of the West have proceeded?

Would there have been little conflict between the Redcoats and the Indian tribes, with British diplomacy and honouring of pacts winning out, they being less brazen and antagonistic than the US settlers in OTL?

Or would the British have been even more ruthless?

Would there even have been a Wild West, with British bobbies and peelers around , instead of sheriffs?

Would the British have controlled immigration to the UDA differently than the USA eg less or even no Irish, Jews and Russians being let in?

Would the British have changed their uniforms and cavalry to something more practical for the West?

As we saw, the British were still wearing their impractical and highly visible stiff Red high collar uniforms and white helmets into the 1900s Boer War.

Could we have seen a British Square at the Little Big Horn?

 

[Max Sinister]

I think this Wild West would have something like the Canadian mounties, upholding law & order.

 

[Tyr]

Immigration could go either way. We did have better values of all men are equal and all that then the US did though on the other hand we may also want to keep it British. Depends which way the country goes.

In the west- we'd have been far less ruthless. I'd imagine there would still be a lot of cowboys in the movie sense going around shooting natives but the government would be on the side of the natives with Britain involved.
In my no AR TL the native Americans gradually civilize with British aid, they get their own 'nation' in the middle of America and play a large part in many of the others.


Your talk of uniforms- bright highly visible uniforms were a good thing in 19th century and earlier warfare. Its only in the Boer war that it was learned by the world that the rules of war had changed.

 

[Hendryk]

I suppose that, apart from Canada, one may also look at Australia and South Africa for examples of how the British handled frontiers in OTL. I'm no expert, but from my limited knowledge, it seems the British behaved comparatively more decently in Canada.

 

[Wozza]

British troops were wearing khaki by the Boer war. The change was made a few years previously.

 

[Smuz]

There would still be plagues and the depredation of buffalo herds, but it's highly unlikely that Britain would engage in the same level of genocide.

As to immigration, that's quite a tough question. I doubt a British not-US would attract the same level of immigration, so would there be the manpower to push west?

 

[SteveW]

There would still have been plenty of Irish as Irish migrants were one of the biggest settler groups across the empire.

Though maybe we would be watching Stanley Baker and Michael Caine in "Sioux", an epic war film where a small group of redcoats led by General Sir George Custer hold out against the massed forces of Sitting Bull, all to the tune of "Men of Harlech"...

 

[JimmyJimJam]

but it's highly unlikely that Britain would engage in the same level of genocide.

Whys that?

 

[Tyr]

British troops were wearing khaki by the Boer war. The change was made a few years previously.

Are you sure?
The second one definatly but in the first I think we may have still had the regular red in some places at least.

 

[Wozza]

Are you sure?
The second one definatly but in the first I think we may have still had the regular red in some places at least.

Oh yes I was thinking of the second one
I always forget the first one.

 

[Sir Isaac Brock]

I suppose that, apart from Canada, one may also look at Australia and South Africa for examples of how the British handled frontiers in OTL. I'm no expert, but from my limited knowledge, it seems the British behaved comparatively more decently in Canada.

Good Timing, I had a lecture on the Canadian West and Indian policy last night

Important to realise that the British (or the UK at least) never colonised the Canadian plains. It was sold to Canada in 1870, and settlement didn't become substantial until the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed in 1885. Clearly the UK was involved indirectly, and the Canadians were still culturally very British, but local variation is important to take into account.

Here's what I know:

- wherever white settlers were introduced there was a massive die-off natives due to disease (from an estimated 100 000 in 1800 to 30 000 in 1870 on the plains)
- in BC no treaties were ever signed with any band or nation and land was simply taken by private white (mostly American) goldminers by force
- on the plains every nation was eventually brought into the treaty system, thanks to a “submit or starve” policy that withheld food aid to non-treaty tribes
- the plains tribes often begged for help from the gov’t and initiated several of the treaties, as the disappearance of the buffalo left them starving to death
- on the plains, competition for dwindling bison herds, and the importation of poisonous fire-water by American traders led to vicious warfare between the tribes (made more deadly due to the introduction of repeating rifles)
- the Canadians created the Mounties to go out and protect the Indians from the whiskey traders, each other, and the white settlers
-at this time the Indian Wars in the US were costing $20milion per year, the entire federal budget of Canada was only $19million, so negotiation was preferred

The Official Policy, as set out by the Indian Act of 1876 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act ) was:
Protection - based on a moral obligation to the rapidly dwindling tribes and Christian charity, a certain amount of paternalism
Civilisation - to introduce agriculture, capitalism, and Christianity to the natives
Assimilation - the end goal was that Indian be integrated into white society

Actual practise worked against assimilation by isolating Indians on tiny reserves (typically much smaller than US “reservations”) and putting them on the poorest lands available.

The act also gave the government sweeping power over all aspects of the lives of Indians
it defined who was an Indian (by what percentage of blood, and based on marriage and decent from someone already registered as an Indian)
where they could go (they needed a pass from a government Indian Agent to leave the reserve)
what they could sell
defined where they could go to school (mostly now-infamous church-run residential schools off-reserve where their traditional dress, language and religion were banned, and sexual and physical abuse of students was widespread) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_school )

all Indians were official “wards of the state”, couldn’t hold private property or vote

 

[Dave Howery]

I'd think the Brits would treat the native Americans rather like the native Africans... they'd want them settled down into nice orderly farming tax-paying communities. They'd succeed with some and clash with others (the Sioux and Apaches would likely still be quarrelsome)...

 

[David S Poepoe]

As in OTL what will decide policy towards the Plains Indians will be the history and interaction between colonists and the eastern tribes, particularly those between the Appalachians and the Mississippi. For the most part Canadian policies towards the Indians closely parallels that of the US. The integration of the Cherokee and the Iroquis, just to name the most important two, will be profound.

 

[robertp6165]

Though maybe we would be watching Stanley Baker and Michael Caine in "Sioux", an epic war film where a small group of redcoats led by General Sir George Custer hold out against the massed forces of Sitting Bull, all to the tune of "Men of Harlech"...

ROFLMAO. You ought to submit that one on the "Best Movies Never Made" thread. I'd like to see that one.

That reminds me of a funny story. When my nephew was a lad of four or five years, I was watching "Zulu" with him. When the Zulus swarmed over the wall at one point, excitement overcame him, and he yelled "Oh no! The Indians are gonna kill 'em all!" Apparently, to his young mind, anyone wearing feathers and carrying a spear had to be an Indian.

 

[Sir Isaac Brock]

For the most part Canadian policies towards the Indians closely parallels that of the US.

To a point, yes. But the US send out the cavalry to war with Indians, Canada send out the Mounties to protect them. (Not saying Canadians were angles, but there were some differences.)