The Indian Barrier State of 1812
The continental United States stretches from sea to shining sea, from the Rio Grande to the Great Lakes. These boundaries were forged in war and resolved in peace treaties. For most battles, to the victor go the spoils — or in Latin, uti possidetis — while in other battles the territory reverts to its original boundaries — status quo ante bellum. But over the course of several American wars, a recurring compromise appeared a middle ground that would have changed the face of the continental United States in a way that would have been visible from space.
A Barrier between the British and French
In the early-1700s, the North American continent and its Native inhabitants suffered colonial expansion from the European powers: Great Britain, Spain, and France. During the French and Indian War, in 1755, the British first offered the idea of an Indian Barrier State. In approximate terms, the proposed territory extended north of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to the Great Lakes. Today, that’s all of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and half of Minnesota. The state would have been the sovereign territory of Native Americans; controlling of their own government, separating the French and British territories, while maintaining the fur trade and safe travel along the Great Lakes. This proposal faded as Great Britain gained control of the entire territory prior to the American Revolutionary War.
While Americans think the Revolutionary War pitted the Colonists against Great Britain, participation from Spain, France, and many Native American tribes made it a global conflict on the continent. Following that war, the French proposed new territorial boundaries (see figure, below) with Indian Territory south of the Ohio River. Unlike the French proposal, the British still favored a northern buffer zone with the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers forming the southern boundary of the Indian Barrier State, the midline of the Great Lakes forming the northern boundary. The Americans pushed for bilateral negotiations with the British resulting in the Treaty of Paris. Both parties violated or ignored most of the terms of the 1783 treaty and, while the Jay Treaty¹ of 1795 attempted to resolve those issues, peace only lasted for 10 years.
A Barrier between the Americans and the British
As fighting continued through the War of 1812, the Indian Barrier State proposal reappeared. The War of 1812 involved a confusing set of combatants, grievances, and overlapping time-spans. In peace negotiations, the British favored the Indian Barrier State as a buffer keeping the Americans from invading Canada, to continue influencing the lucrative fur trade, and preserving safe travel throughout the Great Lakes.
Toward the end of the war, the British and Native allies held most of the territory west of Detroit, whereas the Americans held most of the territory east along the north shore of Lake Erie and south in what is now Ohio, Indiana, and southern Illinois. Despite having gained about half of the proposed territory in battle, the Americans vehemently rejected the revised Indian Barrier State during the negotiations in Ghent. Had this purely been a battle of the Canadian border, the proposal might have been viable but British negotiators relented and the Treaty of Ghent resulted in status quo ante bellum.
Again, the Americans insisted on bilateral negotiations with the British; they refused to include any Native Americans in the treaty negotiations. It’s not that Native Nations lacked sophisticated governmental structure or command of the language. As early as the 1720s, our founding fathers appreciated the Great Law of Peace² (the constitution of the Iroquois confederacy, estimated to have begun in 1451 AD) for its concepts of representative democracy, individual liberty, separation of powers, and local decision-making. While the British were attempting a multilateral solution, the Americans imposed an agreement without Native representation.
Article IX was the compromise. It stated that the United States would put an end to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians, and restore all the possessions, rights, and privileges that existed prior to the war. Great Britain (in Canada) would do the same. Prior to the war, only Ohio had achieved statehood; the rest of the Indian Barrier State lands would either be considered British territory or aboriginal land³. In hindsight, there was no intention by either party to honor this article.
“Till I came here, I had no idea of the fixed determination which there is in the heart of every American to extirpate the Indians and appropriate their territory.” — Henry Goulburn, one of the British negotiators at Ghent
Manifest Destiny
Quickly following the War of 1812 and the dismissal of the Indian Barrier State, most of those states entered the Union. Along with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the Monroe Doctrine reframed American policy as Manifest Destiny⁴. In the contemporary analysis, many view this as an ideology used to justify genocide against Native Americans.
Visualizing the boundaries of the proposed state comes easily because of the Great Lakes and the big rivers. Imagining any other aspect of a sovereign nation in the middle of the continent is much more difficult. Countless treaties with Native Americans defined and redefined the growing United States as it spread across the continent. As with European treaties, these were simply broken — at times following the discovery of gold or to provide ‘free’ land for white citizens. Despite the temptation to imagine an alternate history where the proposal was accepted, any ‘what if?’ discussion of an Indian Barrier State only reinforces how we fail the better angels of our nature.
Fun Footnotes
- The Jay Treaty established that Native Americans born on either side of the US-Canadian border are free to cross. This article survived the Jay Treaty and became part of the US Immigration and Nationality Act.
“Certain Canadian born Indians who establish ‘one-half American Indian blood’ are considered LAPR [legally admitted for permanent residence] and may freely cross borders and live and work in the U.S. without DHS documentation.” - Per Wikipedia, no Iroquois treaty was binding unless it was ratified by 75% of the male voters and 75% of the mothers of the nation. In revising Council laws and customs, a consent of two-thirds of the mothers was required. The need for a double super-majority to make major changes made the Confederacy a de facto consensus government. The women traditionally held real power, particularly the power to veto treaties or declarations of war. The members of the Grand Council of Sachems were chosen by the mothers of each clan. If any leader failed to comply with the wishes of the women of his tribe and the Great Law of Peace, the mother of his clan could demote him.
- Per Wikipedia, the United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title (also known as “original Indian title” or “Indian right of occupancy”). Native American tribes and nations established aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a “long time.” Under this doctrine, aboriginal title may not be alienated — it is unalienable (or inalienable), except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” …and aboriginal title. - Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, “American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity … Whigs saw America’s moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest.” Historian Frederick Merk likewise concluded: “From the outset Manifest Destiny — vast in program, in its sense of continentalism — was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence.”
