The Free and Independent Republic of Australia

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

As per title, with what sort of PoD's can you reasonably use to get an independent Australian republic sometime in the 1800's? I'm not gonna be too strict here, but bonus points if you can somehow involve the Eureka rebellion and/or Ned Kelly for extra Aussieness. And what would be the likely consequences of this occurring (please don't get too caught up in the how like all my other threads end up)? One of my ideas ran somewhere along the lines of having even more migrants to Australia, including convicts, Irish, Americans, whatever, to have that many more possible dissidents and more diggers. So perhaps a consequence would be a stronger Eureka movement, that either fends off British attack and inspires a wave of "Australian" nationalism (never mind that most of the diggers are foreign) or is more brutally put down, inspiring a wave of Australian nationalism that likewise spreads across the continent. As a result, there are more and more uprisings that evolve into outright rebel movements pushing for freedom from the British Empire. And somehow they succeed and manage to unite all the Australian colonies. Is this plausible at all? If not, what would work better and how would things reasonably end up?

[SenatorChickpea]

A much simpler POD would be for an earlier federation that adopts a Republican model. There was a vocal movement amongst federationists for a Republic, and I believe Alfred Deakin was in favour of one.

If they can convince their opponents that a Republican Australia would still be a loyal ally of their "brothers" in the empire, it's quite doable.

You'd also need to discredit the model of governors-general- anyone know any potential scandals that might give the colonial governors a bad name?

[Atomicwalrus]

You might be able to discredit the model of governor general if instead of getting Macquarie as Governor General New South Wales get a second and maybe eventually a third one like Bligh. thereby butterflying away Macquaries reforms that broke the influence and power Army officers had

[Arachnid]

Well part of the problem is that I think it took until the 1860's for most people residing in Australia to be born in Australia. Up until then the majority of the population had been born overseas. Now obviously the large minority born in Ireland included a great many people* who didn't feel that much loyalty to the Crown and there were a small number of English Republican Chartists.
I actually think the way to do it is to have much less free settlement in Australia. If you can keep the convict/emancipist population as the clear majority and keep the exclusives in charge and nasty then you might well get a popular rebellion. But by Eureka you simply have far too many non-diggers born in Britain and regarding themselves as British who happen to be living somewhere else.



* Though born in Ireland=/=Fenian. Southern Unionists, Ulstermen and Anglo-Irish emigrated as well.

[wolf_brother]

- Larger Eureka, stronger Chartist influence both back in Britain & in Australia.

- Continued digger bushranger guerrila warfare fighting from desert holdouts for several decades. Many IOTL who became criminals (Ned Kelly & co.) become revolutionary leaders ITTL - many become radical martyrs.

- Princeland is granted a colony, further splitting up royalist holdouts on the Australian continent.

- Australian colonies never granted responsible government by London due to ongoing digger raids.

- Butterflies, butterflies..

- Federation of Australia falls apart.

- Australian labor uprisings of 1890, '91, and '92 finally spill over into full-scale uprising and revolution.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

bump...

So going by that idea at least, what do you think results from Australian independence. Surely some things would be different? What would Australia's international relationships look like? Would they align themselves closely with the USA for example? And do other colonies take after their example and start protesting British rule more?

[MarshalBraginsky]

I've got an Australian section on one of my current TLs with regards to the Eureka Rebellion, but I had to make Peter Lalor alive for a bit longer until he could establish an Australian emigre community in the United States. I might also plan on making Ned Kelly in my TL as some sort of Aussie version of Lenin but with a radical streak in him. On the other hand, I'm sure if the Eureka Revolt was suppressed far more brutally, I think there may be some more guerrilla warfare down the road. The key to a republican Australia that could sever ties with Great Britain would be to open its lands to people coming from Ireland, the USA, possibly Central and Eastern Europe (maybe the Baltics).

[Young Lochinvar]

I fully reject any consequences of the Eureka Stockade leading to an Australian Republic.

Firstly while Ballarat was a major mining town in Australia it not even the State Capital of Victoria. Much is touted about introducing suffrage from this event but there was far to much British reverence especially for the Monarch in the rest of Australia to warrant any changes to that institution.

Secondly the revolt was of miners. The primary issue of the revolt was over miner's licences. Mining was a large section of Ballarat and even Victorian society but it wasn't enough to carry all the way to republicanism.

It would require a far large revolt that curried national support to get closer to wider effects.

[Darth_Kiryan]

I live in Ballarat and fully support the above man's answer about Eureka. Impossible for it to even become close to a Republic-like revolt. Same with Ned Kelly, really, though you can apparently play with Kelly moreso than with Eureka.

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by SenatorChickpea

A much simpler POD would be for an earlier federation that adopts a Republican model. There was a vocal movement amongst federationists for a Republic, and I believe Alfred Deakin was in favour of one.

If they can convince their opponents that a Republican Australia would still be a loyal ally of their "brothers" in the empire, it's quite doable.

You'd also need to discredit the model of governors-general- anyone know any potential scandals that might give the colonial governors a bad name?

I'd certainly be more willing to go this route, if anything, make much more sense. Look to see if you can work with Sir Henry Parkes, he is generally considered to be the father of Australian self-government, and the main leader, if anything.

[MarshalBraginsky]

There is still the question of how to discredit the governor general's role in Australia though.

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

There is still the question of how to discredit the governor general's role in Australia though.

Well, there were a lot of people who held republican ideals who did suggest that all governors and titles should be abolished. Perhaps if the situation becomes violent with repeated calls of Republicanism the reigning governor-general could be seen as incompetant and unable to perform his duties properly and be replaced.
The only bad thing which will come from this is that it may really become more violent after this depending on his successor. But the main thing that needs to be realised is that the distance between Britain and Australia is greater than that of Britain and America.....

[MarshalBraginsky]

So technically the Eureka Revolt would not work, and the Ned Kelly saga wouldn't become more political. What would the fate of New Zealand and some other Pacific colonies be if Australia became a Republic? They'd pose a huge challenge to British logistics if New Zealand stayed loyal.

[Darth_Kiryan]

The problem with Eureka is its size. Yes, there were supposedly people with Republican ideals involved, but they were just miners looking to have their license payments revoked. There was no underlying republican virtue of trying to remove the government of anything like that. Sure, Peter Lalor did try and add reforms later after Eureka, but it still is a minor nitpick if anything.
You could probably turn Ned Kelly into a die-hard Republican terrorist. I mean, i think there was a movement at the time of having the north-west of Victoria as a Free Republican state (i think - it was discussed in another thread, have to dig it up).

There were fears, actually, of a Fenian uprising in Australia. And with the way the Fenian-Republican model worked in the Americas the British made sure to populate the are with British troops. Today the Labor party is often accused of being very Fenian because of its republican values. Added to that, Australia was largely made up of Irish catholics

in the 188s the British did try and tax the Australia for protection via the British navy, and they responded with "No taxation without representation" - echoing the American Revolution The Australian Republican Association was founded in the 1890s...here, this should help a bit.
Republicanism in Australia

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

So technically the Eureka Revolt would not work, and the Ned Kelly saga wouldn't become more political. What would the fate of New Zealand and some other Pacific colonies be if Australia became a Republic? They'd pose a huge challenge to British logistics if New Zealand stayed loyal.

Also, the thing about Eureka is its flag. It has, since Eureka, been used in republican movements as a sign of radicalism. Ideally, you could have Eureka stay the same way, you just have to have minor revolts and discontent spread in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

New Zealand was also asked to join the Australian Federation originally before they pulled out. If Australia is lost, the British may well try and keep the other dominions secure, or NZ may well follow Australia.

Whatever happens to New Zealand really always depends on Australia.

[MarshalBraginsky]

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

Also, the thing about Eureka is its flag. It has, since Eureka, been used in republican movements as a sign of radicalism. Ideally, you could have Eureka stay the same way, you just have to have minor revolts and discontent spread in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

New Zealand was also asked to join the Australian Federation originally before they pulled out. If Australia is lost, the British may well try and keep the other dominions secure, or NZ may well follow Australia.

Whatever happens to New Zealand really always depends on Australia.

Minor, sporadic revolts that are more political in nature and far more violent than the Ned Kelly episode. I'm gonna need a lot of help with the Australia portion for my current TL since I wanted to make an episode on an independent Australia that includes New Zealand, the whole island of Papua and probably a couple of Pacific islands.

[SPJ]

bump

I'm currently reading a novle titled Kelly Country in which the train of British police heading to Glenrown at Kelly's OTL last stand is not flagged to stop and derails. After that there is a shootout between the police and Kelly's men. This leads to the British returning to massacre the towns inhabitants for rebellion and this causes a larger revolt lead by kelly. Eventually the continent becomes free but I haven't read that far in the book to find out how yet. Also things don't turn out too good in the long run since Ned marries a Duchess from Germany with Marxist ties and claims himself king of Australia which lead to the country becoming a dictatorship.

[MarshalBraginsky]

They'd probably need saboteurs to bomb the rails carrying the British policemen and soldiers if the revolt was going to succeed.

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by SPJ

I'm currently reading a novle titled Kelly Country in which the train of British police heading to Glenrown at Kelly's OTL last stand is not flagged to stop and derails. After that there is a shootout between the police and Kelly's men. This leads to the British returning to massacre the towns inhabitants for rebellion and this causes a larger revolt lead by kelly. Eventually the continent becomes free but I haven't read that far in the book to find out how yet. Also things don't turn out too good in the long run since Ned marries a Duchess from Germany with Marxist ties and claims himself king of Australia which lead to the country becoming a dictatorship.

Okay there is literally so much wrong with that paragraph that I have to headdesk. I sincerely hope that wasn't written by an Australian. For starters the police weren't any more or less "British" than the general population, in that while most of them had been born in Britain and regarded themselves as British so did most of the population. Secondly "the British" return to massacre the townspeople for rebellion? Once again headdesk. Look up British policy in Australia and Canada, massacres were much rarer than other frontier societies and never happened to white people.

[Darth_Kiryan]

I'm trying to figure out how exactly Ned marries a wealthy duchess and becomes a dictator?