Native Americans

[MadMc]

I have a few Ideas about possible Native American Nations in North America. i'm looking for some input on theese ideas

1. Pontiac's Rebellion succedes in taking Fort Detroit, allowing him to gain more support. More troops allows him to decisively defeat the British forces at Fort Pitt and Fort Niagara. British stop allowing settlers into the Great lakes area, leaving the land to the Amerindians.

2. French and Indian victory on the Plains of Abraham, French officer's horse was not stolen, so he was able to patrol the cliffs, spotting the British landing and allowing the French forces to quickly defeat the Landing force before it got larger. this would allow the French to keep supplying their forts in the wilderness, If they kept their lands in North America, I believe they would've given land to their Native allies eventually creating a Nation under french support

3. my last idea has no basis in history, just an interesting thought that might've worked. Natives stop settlement by cutting the passes in the Appalachian mountains or the Mississippi fords, with european support either from British (against Americans) or the French or Spanish (against British colonies)

those are my Ideas, any thoughts?

 

[Philip]

1. Pontiac's Rebellion succedes in taking Fort Detroit, allowing him to gain more support. More troops allows him to decisively defeat the British forces at Fort Pitt and Fort Niagara. British stop allowing settlers into the Great lakes area, leaving the land to the Amerindians.

As the population of the colonies increases, the British will not be able to prevent colonists from moving west.

2. French and Indian victory on the Plains of Abraham, French officer's horse was not stolen, so he was able to patrol the cliffs, spotting the British landing and allowing the French forces to quickly defeat the Landing force before it got larger. this would allow the French to keep supplying their forts in the wilderness,

The French may still have been forced to give up this land to maintain their more profitable colonies in the Caribbean.

If they kept their lands in North America, I believe they would've given land to their Native allies eventually creating a Nation under french support

Is there a basis for this belief? Is there any reason to believe that the French colonists would honor such an agreement?

3. my last idea has no basis in history, just an interesting thought that might've worked. Natives stop settlement by cutting the passes in the Appalachian mountains or the Mississippi fords, with european support either from British (against Americans) or the French or Spanish (against British colonies)

I don't see any reason to believe that this could be accomplished.

 

[MadMc]

1 was just the great lakes reigon, so i think if the Nations were strong enough, the settlers may just head towards the south west

2a. Well my thought was if they won, so they wouldn't need to choose
2b. The French always had good relations with the Native Americans in their territories, my thought was if it was kept, they would give independence alot later like many colonies in Africa

3. I don't think it could happen really unless they were very organized against the settlers

 

[mowque]

1 was just the great lakes reigon, so i think if the Nations were strong enough, the settlers may just head towards the south west

But the land was much better in that region then in the South.

2a. Well my thought was if they won, so they wouldn't need to choose
2b. The French always had good relations with the Native Americans in their territories, my thought was if it was kept, they would give independence alot later like many colonies in Africa

Those colonies didn't get that till the 50's, and Algeria didn't exactly get handed freedom.

 

[DAv]

My British Imperialism TL does see a surviving Native American state with a coalition of Sioux, Shawnee and various Creek Tribes after a much more successful War of 1812 for the British.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

A lot would depend on Brtitain. Britain was trying to control settlements west of the Appalachians just befoere the American War of Independence. If Britain had crushed the rebellion the expansion West would have been slower.

Failing this maybe the Cherokees could have been given a seat in the peace negotiations that ended the war and there was an alloacted Cherokee land.

More feasible would have been Isaac Brock surviving and Andrew Jackson not surviving in the War of 1812 and valuing Tecumsah as an ally resulting in a mid west buffer state belonging to the Cree and Shawnee nations.

 

[Philip]

2a. Well my thought was if they won, so they wouldn't need to choose

This would require the French to win the Seven Years' War, not just the American theater of that war.

 

[MadMc]

A lot would depend on Brtitain. Britain was trying to control settlements west of the Appalachians just befoere the American War of Independence. If Britain had crushed the rebellion the expansion West would have been slower.

Failing this maybe the Cherokees could have been given a seat in the peace negotiations that ended the war and there was an alloacted Cherokee land.

That's Interesting I've actually been wonderin recently if Pontiac had succeeded, what side he would've chosen in successive wars, the revolutionary war I believe would depend on how much help the French gave during the rebellion, If they joun the colonies, would they be trustworthy enough to stay off the Native land, If they choose the British, what would make them bury the hatred that sparked the rebellions, but if britian won, they would have the power to stop colonial expansion onto an "allys" territory

More feasible would have been Isaac Brock surviving and Andrew Jackson not surviving in the War of 1812 and valuing Tecumsah as an ally resulting in a mid west buffer state belonging to the Cree and Shawnee nations.

This one I really like! that would be an interesting chain of events

 

[Moltke]

Those colonies didn't get that till the 50's, and Algeria didn't exactly get handed freedom.

Well ... Siam might be a better example. Algeria was essentially thought of as 'part' of France proper in a lot of peoples eyes. Much like Corsica or something. But back on topic, i agree ... little chance the French were going to give anything even resembling real power to such a state.

 

[foresterab]

I have a few Ideas about possible Native American Nations in North America. i'm looking for some input on theese ideas

1. Pontiac's Rebellion succedes in taking Fort Detroit, allowing him to gain more support. More troops allows him to decisively defeat the British forces at Fort Pitt and Fort Niagara. British stop allowing settlers into the Great lakes area, leaving the land to the Amerindians.

2. French and Indian victory on the Plains of Abraham, French officer's horse was not stolen, so he was able to patrol the cliffs, spotting the British landing and allowing the French forces to quickly defeat the Landing force before it got larger. this would allow the French to keep supplying their forts in the wilderness, If they kept their lands in North America, I believe they would've given land to their Native allies eventually creating a Nation under french support

3. my last idea has no basis in history, just an interesting thought that might've worked. Natives stop settlement by cutting the passes in the Appalachian mountains or the Mississippi fords, with european support either from British (against Americans) or the French or Spanish (against British colonies)

those are my Ideas, any thoughts?

1. The Great Lakes will still be a center for conflict and will not be ambandoned to the natives by any European country due to lack of access through Northern Ontario. The water routes to the interior make this incredibly stratigic access points with the southern shore more valuable than the north due to the lower amounts of bedrock/Canadian Shield. More dynamite was used crossing the Canadian shield in Northern ontario than in BC crossing the mountains for comparision sake when the CPR was first built. I can see an Ojibiway nation on the north shore however as a buffer.

2. Although the French recognized the different tribal groups and treated/traded with them amalgamation was the primary goal. Although distinct cultures developed with time such as the Metis rights were conferred as an inhabitant of Quebec not based upon race. Religious converts who settled in towns, women who married french men etc. are incorperated as french descendents not as mixedbloods.

Also given the area of influence the French had in the Canada's (Upper and Lower or Ontario/Quebec) even if the Haudenause Confederation was allowed to stay independent in the area you still have the problem with the British and the Hudson's Bay Company slowly moving westward into new lands and completly bypassing the St.Lawrence/Great Lakes area. Alot of options to create a second western/Prairie based confederation could lead to a East vs West Tribal Clash with the small scattered northern tribes (Chipewyan and Cree) posbbily a third and the BC coastal groups as a 4th...

3. Although the idea is interesting the biggest thing facing the Haudenause Confederation is sheer manpowershortage. To have forts or settlements on each pass and travel route over the Appalacians you need to increase the numbers of native people available to not only identify American settlers pushing west but also mobilize in large enough numbers to defeat them. And do this while dealing with hostile tribes to the North (Ojibiaway/Huron/Cree), west (Siouxian peoples) and south (Creek etc.). I've probably butchered spelling of trbal names but it gives you some idea.