The American Wild Bush (Open Discussion)

First thread, folks. Be gentle!

Instead of actually starting with an ill-fated TL I thought it might be stimulating to begin my forum career with a discussion based on an idea I had that absolutely fascinated me: An Australia in the American West.

With a possible POD of BNA joining the American Revolution, Britain feels it needs to strengthen its quickly diminishing hold in North America elsewhere as well as the Pacific and buys (possibly both halves of) California from Spain. In its reluctance to sell, the Spanish government retains some of its Viceroyality over the region by demanding that Spanish and Mexican settlers and subjects still be allowed loyalty to her Crown and the Spanish will continue to be allowed to establish missions.

Australia remains mostly Dutch (and French) and colonization there is slow. Therefore England establishes it's penal colonies in a seemingly useless California Purchase. Surrounded by lengths of unexplored desert, the presumably unescapable Prison Colonies of California also provide a buffer to American expansion and a staging ground for defense or attack in further American wars.

Thousands of English, Irish, and Scottish convicts were transported to California before its admission as a state in the First Mexican Empire in 1821. While much loyalty to the British Crown persists in the penal colonies, many English settlers and prisoners as well as American filibusters and settlers accept and in some cases support the Californian Mexican's admission into the Mexican Empire.

However, with England's failed attempts at recapturing its former colony and the intervention of America and to a lesser degree, Mexico and Spain, much of the Crown loyalty is beginning to dissolve... as is loyalty to Mexico who did too little to support and defend its state. At the end of the brief conflict, California accepted re-entry into the British Empire as a responsible self-governing dominion.

California continues to operate as a British prison while also continuing to open its borders to Spanish, American, and Mexican immigrants. With expansion inevitable and indecisive opinions on which government to remain loyal to, John C. Fremont arrives in California in 1846 to stir up trouble for Mexico and the Bear Flag Revolt establishes the short lived Republic of California. The convicts are freed and England rather atypically does not attack California too devoutly.

California is accepted into the United States of America and within two years thereafter, (much to England's chagrin) gold is discovered there...

...but I'm going on aren't I?

Long story short, let's discuss a world where the west is also populated by what would have been Australians OTL, a world in which the Golden Gate Bridge casts a shadow on the Sydney Opera House every day and the Old West was crawling with Bushrangers.

Political changes? Different wars? Sports? Art? Film? Anything goes...

Also plausibility arguments, comments, compliments, questions, and criticism would be nice and perhaps lead to a legitimate TL (in which everyone is invited to participate.)

Thanks!
 
Post Script:

Also, if anyone wanted to make it REALLY interesting we could establish a Californian trading relationship with the Dutch which results in Aborigine slaves being shipped to California and an exchange of Flora and Fauna, effectively making the American West as Australian as possible while still combining it with the "Wild West" we traditionally know OTL.

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

EDIT: Yeah, you're right it's a little lame... but the first post deserves a comment or two, yeah?
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
Immediately rule out slavey, the British were already starting to abolish it by the time the American Revolution took place.

The Dutch claim to Australia was pretty tenuous and didn’t involve any settlements, they didn’t consider it to have anything of trade value.

The Australian colony wasn’t settled because Sydney area was hostile, just the opposite.

Travel time from England to Australia was eight months, go from England to California, via Cape Town would be nearly a year! Conditions on a convict ship were nearly as harrowing as the slave ships but the voyage was longer; read David Hill’s “1788: The Brutal Truth of the First Fleet.”

Sydney was settled because the British wanted a naval replenishment base in that strategic location, not sure what would motivate them to go to California.

I have a convict ancestor by the way, but that isn’t overly surprising given we’ve been here five generations.

Oh, and the Sydney Opera House was designed by a Dane by the name of Jan Utzon.
:)
 
Also it's pretty rare for someone to actually sell colonies. Usually it was a war-exchange or a diplomatic agreement to accept influence elsewhere (as in the various German-engineered Crises before WW1).
 
Immediately rule out slavey, the British were already starting to abolish it by the time the American Revolution took place.

From everything I've read, abolition was detestable only in England proper and slavery continued in her less Anglisized colonies for quite some time.

The Dutch claim to Australia was pretty tenuous and didn’t involve any settlements, they didn’t consider it to have anything of trade value.

Still, the French and Dutch did pretty much own the island continent up until James Cook's 1768 expedition. Perhaps if they discovered the gold there much earlier it could have remained Dutch.

Travel time from England to Australia was eight months, go from England to California, via Cape Town would be nearly a year! Conditions on a convict ship were nearly as harrowing as the slave ships but the voyage was longer; read David Hill’s “1788: The Brutal Truth of the First Fleet.”

I'm not sure how to counter this one, except by improving the conditions on board for the longer journey. Maybe some form of non-ASB clockpunk here might be an interesting fix too. A vaguely DaVinci inspired clockwork propelled amphibious hybrid airship invented in the mid 18th century would probably be relatively faulty, expensive, and inefficient for mass production until an improved version came along, but it could definitely speed travel times when used to supplement the design of previously existing ships.

Sydney was settled because the British wanted a naval replenishment base in that strategic location, not sure what would motivate them to go to California.

New Zealand and an earlier claimed Sandwich Islands would suffice just as well for this purpose and were both also discovered around this same time by James Cook.

And I think I gave a pretty good explaination for the English desire to have not only a penal colony (in leiu of Dutch Australisch) but also a strong base of operations in a North America where the colonial efforts of the Empire have been weakened and pushed westward.

I have a convict ancestor by the way, but that isn’t overly surprising given we’ve been here five generations.

That's fascinating. As an American of Irish descent I have always respected and admired your people. That could be part of the reason I want to attempt an Aussiewank disguised as an Ameriwank and bring all you guys over here! :)

Oh, and the Sydney Opera House was designed by a Dane by the name of Jan Utzon.

I was aware of this (and really appreciate his work) but I'm pretty sure the people who commissioned were Aussies, right? If so, we would now simply call them Californians and there's no reason to believe Mr. Utzon wouldn't design it for them is there?

Also it's pretty rare for someone to actually sell colonies. Usually it was a war-exchange or a diplomatic agreement to accept influence elsewhere (as in the various German-engineered Crises before WW1).

War exhange it is. The Seven Years War works especially since Florida and Cuba were traded in a similar fashion. If England does even better in the SYW it would inevitably annex even more of North America (and could possibly have gotten cocky enough to decide against the Quebec Act which would help with turning the "Canadiens" to the side of the Thirteen Colonies later on which was the original POD anyway) as well as perhaps deciding to keep both Florida and Cuba.

Sorry it took so long to get back to this, but I feel like we really have a discussion going now. If anybody is interested in helping out with what is fast becoming a "steampunk" North American Aussie-wank then let's get some ideas out there.
 
TheInfiniteApe

From everything I've read, abolition was detestable only in England proper and slavery continued in her less Anglisized colonies for quite some time.

To a large degree true. Slavery continued in the Carribean until its abolition in the 1830's. Also often forms of chattel and debt labour were employed in parts of Africa, India and other places.


I'm not sure how to counter this one, except by improving the conditions on board for the longer journey. Maybe some form of non-ASB clockpunk here might be an interesting fix too. A vaguely DaVinci inspired clockwork propelled amphibious hybrid airship invented in the mid 18th century would probably be relatively faulty, expensive, and inefficient for mass production until an improved version came along, but it could definitely speed travel times when used to supplement the design of previously existing ships.

I don't think its practical as the distances are so long. If Britain wanted to continue exporting undersirables it would make more sense to find a place in southern Africa say, or possibly resume deportations to the Carribean, a lot of the early labour force in the plantations there being convicts or indented white workers. [Frankly I think the desire for a naval supply base in the region is the only reason Britain choosed something as distant as Australia.


New Zealand and an earlier claimed Sandwich Islands would suffice just as well for this purpose and were both also discovered around this same time by James Cook.

And I think I gave a pretty good explaination for the English desire to have not only a penal colony (in leiu of Dutch Australisch) but also a strong base of operations in a North America where the colonial efforts of the Empire have been weakened and pushed westward.

If Britain lost all of its existing N American colonies then it would be far more likely to cut its losses and give up on bases on the mainland. California is so far away from either the east coast or Europe that it would be pretty irrelevant. If Britain kept the Hudson's Bay fur interests in western Canada I could see them expanding into the northern Pacific coast as they did OTL but again that would be primarily for fur trading and they would probably discourage settlement.

Don't forget that while the convict settlements gained a lot of publicity they actually formed a fairly small proportion of the British settlement. Given the breeding of numerous generations since that time a lot of settlers might be able to find some convict ancestry but far more free settlers.

Steve

 
To a large degree true. Slavery continued in the Carribean until its abolition in the 1830's. Also often forms of chattel and debt labour were employed in parts of Africa, India and other places.

Exactly. Besides, the Dutch liked the slave trade. You can't have that many boats and that many captured Africans without having such an intense desire to sell those Africans on those boats and the Dutch definitely were no exception. Hell, around the time of "England's Abolition" their own slave trade was over 5% of their economy which is significant in an Empire that didn't really import slaves to the mainland hardly at all. Chattel and indentured servitude also works really well for getting the indigenous peoples of Australia over to the American West.


I don't think its practical as the distances are so long. If Britain wanted to continue exporting undersirables it would make more sense to find a place in southern Africa say, or possibly resume deportations to the Carribean, a lot of the early labour force in the plantations there being convicts or indented white workers. [Frankly I think the desire for a naval supply base in the region is the only reason Britain choosed something as distant as Australia.

I agree with the last part of that quote definitely, and without Australia it makes sense that they would find other more perfect spots for these naval resupply bases... only they would all inevitably be northeast of Australia... which would make them closer to California! England was clearly very interested in the Pacific at this time and losing its North American colonies would make it more so. Especially once it discovers the valuable and poorly guarded resources out west (N America). Not only that, but being remote and difficult to escape through traversing to the east would make for a perfect penal colony and allow for future British intervention in the former colonies.

As for the first part of your quote I tried to introduce a different element to make it more practical (if slightly less feasible) to transport convicts as far as California.

Like I said, New Zealand and the Sandwich Islands suffice for naval replenishment and probably are better in the long run than Australisch. Plus a new colony (of free settlers and convicts) in North America is a good way for England to try again in running the continent while establishing some dominance in the Pacific.

As far as alternate penal colonies goes, Africa doesn't work as well because the English have too much trouble controlling it (more trouble than they would have had in Australia and California at least) and the Caribbean would be largely off limits because these penal colonies need to be far away from detracting anti-loyalist movements (like the United States) becuase prison breaks by revolutionaries trying to recruit transported prisoners would be something I'm sure the crown would have considered. California is too far away from the U.S. to allow for this eventuality but close enough for a future British invasion if the need arises.

If Britain lost all of its existing N American colonies then it would be far more likely to cut its losses and give up on bases on the mainland. California is so far away from either the east coast or Europe that it would be pretty irrelevant. If Britain kept the Hudson's Bay fur interests in western Canada I could see them expanding into the northern Pacific coast as they did OTL but again that would be primarily for fur trading and they would probably discourage settlement.

Britain has never been very good at cutting or even really very keen to cut its losses. California is not irrelevant as it both gives them run of the Pacific and lets them keep an eye on the U.S. (or gives them a base for attempting to retake those colonies from the west... in 1812 perhaps?) And yes, in this scenario Britain keeps the North Pacific Coast for the Hudson Bay Company's fur interests but discouraging of settlement in a previously Spaniard coast that is used as the base for Pacific Naval domination as well as a transportation colony is absurd.


Don't forget that while the convict settlements gained a lot of publicity they actually formed a fairly small proportion of the British settlement. Given the breeding of numerous generations since that time a lot of settlers might be able to find some convict ancestry but far more free settlers.

True, but free settlement occured relatively sparsely there until the Australian Gold Rush... where else was there a significant Gold Rush that greatly encouraged settlement?

Hmm... if only there were some place in the American West where people could find gold like they did in Australia and then rush out there to search for it, eventually settling there and increasing the population.

Oh well...;)

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Do they have to go the long way? I can see the British establishing a penal colony at Mosquitia (probably spelled that wrong), and the Mexicans or Spanish forcibly moving them to California when they become inconvenient. I'm not sure why exactly Australia is no longer an option for them, but something could be fleshed out.

People who have been transported on penal ships seem to have rejected slavery pretty viscerally. They tasted something too much like it themselves. So I can see Austrifornia banning slavery even before the British Empire does. Would they regard the Mexican peonage system as an acceptable alternative though?
 
Top