1887 Imperial Conference

[Atomicwalrus]

What are the odds of the republican stirrings in Australia (over increased taxes to support the royal navy in the pacific) after the 1887 Imperial conference resulting in an independent republic Australia. Admittedly i read about this on Wikipedia so I don't no how true this is.

[David S Poepoe]

How will they pay for their defence? What would keep them from being set upon by a great power?

[Last of the Stuarts]

Australia's population was about 3 million at the time, or about 1 per square mile!

They would have lost large chunks of land to other empires and countries if they were not shielded by the Brits.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Atomicwalrus

What are the odds of the republican stirrings in Australia (over increased taxes to support the royal navy in the pacific) after the 1887 Imperial conference resulting in an independent republic Australia. Admittedly i read about this on Wikipedia so I don't no how true this is.

Realistically? Nil.

[SunilTanna]

Originally Posted by Last of the Stuarts

Australia's population was about 3 million at the time, or about 1 per square mile!

They would have lost large chunks of land to other empires and countries if they were not shielded by the Brits.

I'm pretty sure in 1887, Australians (apart from Aborigines) were for the most part, Brits.

[037771]

In 1887 you don't really have any large-scale desire for independence in Australia.

That isn't to say there weren't republicans in Australia, but it was just that they werent influential at all. The best challenge they could muster was at the Eureka Stockade, and that didnt end up very well for them.

That and thanks to the mere fact of distance, Australia had always been governed in a near autonomous fashion anyway. Don't get me wrong, it wasnt as if Australia was a dominion from the start, but in Australia the governors and then the successive colonial legislatures adopted (fairly) liberal policies closely endorsed by Westminster. In effect, since Westminster- thanks to the ARW- couldnt ever directly tax colonists, the Governors priority was to expand the local economy so as to increase trade, thus pleasing both Westminster and the colonists. The Australians proved throughout the century that they were perfectly able to govern themselves, but simultaneously showed no desire to break away.

Why? Immigration partly. Arrivals started coming over with Transportation, but once that was abolished the majority coming after were mainly those forced out (often by local authorities in the UK) by poverty. During the 1850s alone, the settler population jumped from just over 400,000 to 1.145 million. Now, while by the end of the century 3/4s of the population were actually born in Australia, that doesnt mean to say that automatically an Australian identity emerges. Most of those people listed had relatives who had migrated from the UK, and so saw themselves as essentially British.

Another reason was 'the other.' The white Australian, unlike say the English-Canadian who had always sought accommodation with the French, Metis and American, saw themselves (to generalise) as the better Briton. To many at the end of the 19th Century the Aborigine population was condemned to die out thanks to natural selection and what have you; perceived threats thus emerged from Asia, mainly in the form of Chinese migrants. The white Australian thus started to see himself (again, generalising) as not only a better Briton, but as part of a much wider, inherently superior community: the British Empire. And with no big legacy of friction with the UK, its no wonder that the Australian identity remained fixed to the 'English-speaking peoples' for so long.

Some of the latter to which I speak belongs to the time of federation, and all the deliberations at Corrowa, but suffice to say it explains a little of why Australia never really wanted conventional independence. a) it had a large measure of it anyway thanks to how far away it was from the metropole, b) it was used to government by and large acting in its own interests, which had a history of working absolutely fine under the British, c) most of the population by 1887 considered themselves British anyway, and d) emergent colonial nationalism meant that it would be a long time to come before Australians would actually latch onto the fact that they were...Australian.

[Julius Vogel]

Good last post. That last paragraph largely applies for NZ at the same time period as well.

Why rebel against an order where you get protection, yet also practical independence?

[Atomicwalrus]

So I take it republican agitation in 1887 is another example of Wikipedia’s famed accuracy. So if 1887’s is an impossible time for an Australian republic when is, not necessarily one which controls the entire continent? While many point out the Eureka stockade I’m still not convinced it was large enough.

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Realistically? Nil.

Ditto.
We still identified too closely with the motherland at that time. We still called ourselves British. Sure, we had the ANA (Australian Natives Association) and other union/political parties being formed but i doubt Republicanism was a heavily weighed opinion at that time.