Did Gen. Isaac Brock actually have the authority to grant the Michigan Territory to the natives during The War of 1812?

by Krinks1

I was watching a documentary about The War of 1812 and they said that part of the reason that Tecumseh allied with the British was Brock's assertion that they would be granted the Michigan Territory after the Americans had been driven out.

Did Brock actually have the authority to do this? Was he acting on his own, or using it to dangle a carrot in front of the natives, or did he have authorization from the British government?

enygma9753

Isaac Brock was Lieutenant-Governor of the colony of Upper Canada at the time, so he was essentially viceroy of the colony -- with all the political, administrative and military authority this entailed. (Only the Governor-General in Quebec was more senior.)

The British pledge to safeguard a native territory west of Appalachians stems from the end of the Seven Years War and the conquest of New France. The 1763 Treaty of Paris (which ended the Seven Years War) established the Proclamation Line that was supposed to be the limit of New England settlement, with the territory to the west reserved for the indigenous allies who sided with Britain against France. After the American Revolution, the British also wanted a native homeland to be a buffer zone between its Canadian possessions and America.

By 1812, Britain was locked in a titanic struggle with Napoleon over the fate of Europe. It could ill-afford to be distracted by war in America. The mother country had few resources to spare and British forces in Canada were under strength. Britain's objective in North America was to defend its Canadian colonies. To do this, they needed to seek alliances with the natives, who had hoped the Crown would fulfill its old promises to grant them territory west into the Ohio Valley.

New England and, later, American settlers didn't recognize the Crown's 1763 pledge and continued expansion westward, causing conflict in the region. It was frontier war in the years preceding 1812, with both settlers and natives committing atrocities. The British regarded its assistance to the natives via supplies, etc. as part of its promises to them -- and as a means to ensure their support in any future conflict with the US. And for awhile, there was much respect between Brock and the natives' Tecumseh: Brock was bold and Tecumseh was eager to fight to secure a native homeland. Brock's aggressive capture of Detroit convinced them that the British intended to fight.

As the war wore on, the natives would become disenchanted with their British allies. The death of Brock likely robbed them of their best advocate with the British, as subsequent commanders appeared to them as too timid and less interested in native concerns. To be fair, British authorities in Canada were bereft of supply and reinforcements for much of the war and couldn't risk bold gambits, but the initiative Brock had exhibited early in the war would not be seen again. Only after the abdication of Napoleon in 1814 would Britain be able to send more troops and supplies overseas, and initiate bolder strategies like the Maine, Chesapeake Bay and New Orleans campaigns.

The peace treaty at Ghent rang the death knell for native hopes for a homeland, as the British ignored their grievances during negotiations and the US had no interest in addressing them. The War of 1812 was the last time the native peoples were seen as partners and comrades-in-arms in a conflict. Westward expansion continued, at great cost to their culture and self-determination.

If any side truly lost the War of 1812, it was the native peoples.