What if Daniel Mannix had remained in Ireland instead of being appointed coadjutor to the elderly Archbishop Thomas Carr of Melbourne in 1913? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Mannix What would be the political consequences in both Australia and Ireland?
To look at Australian politics first:
(1) Would either of the World War I conscription plebiscites have passed? For the results of the plebiscites, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_plebiscite,_1916 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_plebiscite,_1917 which indicate that in both years conscription was defeated narrowly. I'm not sure just how many votes Mannix changed, though; Irish Catholics and trade unionists in Australia would have reason enough to vote against conscription without him. And as for middle-class Protestants, his characterization of the War as a "sordid trade war" (as he was reported to have said--actually, he called it an "ordinary trade war" https://books.google.com/books?id=dTWIBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181 but that wouldn't have been much of an improvement to the "patriots" who viewed it as a glorious crusade ) may simply have helped reinforce their belief that the anti-conscriptionists were a bunch of traitors...
(2) What would be the effect on the political career of B. A. Santamaria and the organizations he helped to found? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._A._Santamaria The Catholic Social Studies Movement and the Industrial Groups might have been supported by some other prelate, but when things reached the point of an actual split in the ALP, most of the leading Catholic clergymen in Australia did not agree with Mannix's support for the DLP. In particular, Mannix and the DLP were opposed by Cardinal Gilroy of Sydney (who was a strong ally of Joseph Cahill, ALP Premier of New South Wales), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas_Gilroy which was one reason why the DLP never really got off the ground in New South Wales. (Though Jack Kane did finally get elected to the Senate for one term on his fifth try in 1970...) What if Melbourne had an Archbishop with politics similar to Gilroy's rather than Mannix's?
(3) What would be the effect on the 1951 referendum on banning the Communist Party--when Mannix surprised many people by opposing the proposed ban (going against Santamaria on this issue [1]), which was narrowly defeated?
The next question is what the effect of Mannix staying in Ireland (where he would probably have become a Cardinal) would be on Irish politics. http://members.optusnet.com.au/spainter/Catholics.html (which states that "in the 1920s. Mannix was the only Irish Catholic bishop in the world who belligerently supported the republican side against the free staters in the Civil War") quotes Colm Kiernan, *Daniel Mannix and Ireland* to the effect that Mannix would not have become so radical an Irish Nationalist if he had remained in Ireland:
"The 1916 Irish rebellion was an episode in Mannix's progressive radicalisation, not its cause. In Ireland Mannix would not have supported the rebellion or the subsequent achievement by force of Irish independence. He would have backed the Irish hierarchy as he always had before; and it supported the forces of the law and order, not those of rebellion and revolution in Ireland. Unlike Mannix, the hierarchy in Ireland did not see the rebellion as Catholic emancipation: they saw it as a resort to force by a minority group.
"Alienated from the Irish hierarchy in distant Melbourne and not involved with the horrors of the rebellion, Mannix was ready and willing to see things differently..."
Any thoughts from those more familiar with Australian and/or Irish politics than I am?
[1] Actually, Santamaria had his own doubts about the wisdom of banning the Communists--he had previously advised then-Minister for Labour and National Service Harold Holt against it. However, in 1951 "Santamaria supported the 'Yes' campaign. He recalled that, although he favoured adhering to his earlier advice to the Menzies government not to ban the Communist Party but to concentrate on reforming the trade union movement, he feared that he would be unable to make the 'clear logical justification' for maintaining the distinction' comprehensible to his foot soldiers." Ross Fitzgerald, *The Pope's Battalions: Santamaria, Catholicism and the Labor Split* (St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press 2003), p. 105.
To look at Australian politics first:
(1) Would either of the World War I conscription plebiscites have passed? For the results of the plebiscites, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_plebiscite,_1916 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_plebiscite,_1917 which indicate that in both years conscription was defeated narrowly. I'm not sure just how many votes Mannix changed, though; Irish Catholics and trade unionists in Australia would have reason enough to vote against conscription without him. And as for middle-class Protestants, his characterization of the War as a "sordid trade war" (as he was reported to have said--actually, he called it an "ordinary trade war" https://books.google.com/books?id=dTWIBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181 but that wouldn't have been much of an improvement to the "patriots" who viewed it as a glorious crusade ) may simply have helped reinforce their belief that the anti-conscriptionists were a bunch of traitors...
(2) What would be the effect on the political career of B. A. Santamaria and the organizations he helped to found? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._A._Santamaria The Catholic Social Studies Movement and the Industrial Groups might have been supported by some other prelate, but when things reached the point of an actual split in the ALP, most of the leading Catholic clergymen in Australia did not agree with Mannix's support for the DLP. In particular, Mannix and the DLP were opposed by Cardinal Gilroy of Sydney (who was a strong ally of Joseph Cahill, ALP Premier of New South Wales), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas_Gilroy which was one reason why the DLP never really got off the ground in New South Wales. (Though Jack Kane did finally get elected to the Senate for one term on his fifth try in 1970...) What if Melbourne had an Archbishop with politics similar to Gilroy's rather than Mannix's?
(3) What would be the effect on the 1951 referendum on banning the Communist Party--when Mannix surprised many people by opposing the proposed ban (going against Santamaria on this issue [1]), which was narrowly defeated?
The next question is what the effect of Mannix staying in Ireland (where he would probably have become a Cardinal) would be on Irish politics. http://members.optusnet.com.au/spainter/Catholics.html (which states that "in the 1920s. Mannix was the only Irish Catholic bishop in the world who belligerently supported the republican side against the free staters in the Civil War") quotes Colm Kiernan, *Daniel Mannix and Ireland* to the effect that Mannix would not have become so radical an Irish Nationalist if he had remained in Ireland:
"The 1916 Irish rebellion was an episode in Mannix's progressive radicalisation, not its cause. In Ireland Mannix would not have supported the rebellion or the subsequent achievement by force of Irish independence. He would have backed the Irish hierarchy as he always had before; and it supported the forces of the law and order, not those of rebellion and revolution in Ireland. Unlike Mannix, the hierarchy in Ireland did not see the rebellion as Catholic emancipation: they saw it as a resort to force by a minority group.
"Alienated from the Irish hierarchy in distant Melbourne and not involved with the horrors of the rebellion, Mannix was ready and willing to see things differently..."
Any thoughts from those more familiar with Australian and/or Irish politics than I am?
[1] Actually, Santamaria had his own doubts about the wisdom of banning the Communists--he had previously advised then-Minister for Labour and National Service Harold Holt against it. However, in 1951 "Santamaria supported the 'Yes' campaign. He recalled that, although he favoured adhering to his earlier advice to the Menzies government not to ban the Communist Party but to concentrate on reforming the trade union movement, he feared that he would be unable to make the 'clear logical justification' for maintaining the distinction' comprehensible to his foot soldiers." Ross Fitzgerald, *The Pope's Battalions: Santamaria, Catholicism and the Labor Split* (St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press 2003), p. 105.