I thought I'd try another historical debate; this one is mostly for the British and Australians.

Why did Britian decide to establish a colony in Australia in 1788?

Here are some theories:

After the American war of Independence, the British could no longer transport their convicts to America and needed another place to 'dump' their criminals due to over-crowded prisons which led to violence, disease et cetera - Transported only for this reason (most commonly accepted reason).

For financial and economic reasons - such as natural resources, built further ties with the east, trade with the east (not as commonly accepted)

Which one of these is the main reason for the transportation?

I'll express my views later.

Economical reasons of course.

Remember we still had capital punishment, so they could easy frame something happening and kill the bloke to clear the prisons.

Sorry if this seems vague but I'm feeling tired while posting. I'll counter everyones arguments later

Kill them?

Most of the convicts which were transported were due to mistermeaners, mostly theft.

Ironically, the British also viewed themselves as 'Humanitarians'.

Not that hard to stage killings though.

Theory? I was always under the impression we did use Australia for nothing more than her majesty's prisoners.

Not true. In high school that's the way they teach Australian/British history.

However, there is an on-going debate among historians for what the real reasons were.

If anyone is familiar with Historian Geoffrey Blainey, he has sufficient evidence and a solid argument to outline that Britains main concerns were financial and economic.

I'm not entirely on Blainey's side, but he has some good theories backed with reliable sources to show otherwise.

Could have been eugenics.

We're dealing with the 19th century here, it's impossible to rule it out. If someone found out that THEY AIN'T ALL WHITE well, frankly, not everyone was racist, but still...it was more popular then than it is now, at least the in the States.

It was the 18th century...

Same difference, really.

Maybe, even more so than the 19th century. But, you're correct. I need to pay more attention to what I'm reading these days...

Not really the two centuries were different .

I'm not too sharp on this but for what I think it's probably the "good of the colony" thingy. More fingers in more pies.

Also the fact for the British Empire to grow and establish in southern hemisphere. I presume they did it in Australia due to the fact the Aboriginal people were fighting with sticks and not guns and other weaponry, crude to say I know but it's probably a fact the British summed up.

The more I research and contemplate the two possibilities, I more I lean toward the latter; for economic and financial reasons.

Simply because, why else would they choose Australia? There are many other places where they could have shipped the convicts off within the Commonwealth, which was a lot closer to Britain and would be easier and cheaper to ship the convicts off to, yet they chose Australia.

The financial benefits to colonising parts of Australia must have made it seem all the more appealing to the British, and it also took care of the overcrowding prisons problem. Moreover like Whitey says, I'm sure that they weren't worried about having to fight the Aborigines for land.

At first, at least, there were very few reasons to recommend the Australian continent to the British government economically. There were some arguments put forth by individuals that claimed Australia would be a useful trading site with the Far East, but very few government officials accepted this notion - it wasn't really that close, and the Great Barrier Reef made the long journey even longer. If there was one reason Australia wasn't founded, it would be trading purposes.

If anyone wants a huge, in-depth analysis of the British motives for settling Australia, read The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes. Australia was a last-resort convict settlement choice. There were no appropriately isolated places known in Africa to keep convicts, although one was tried out, with disastrous results. The Americas were either under the dominion of colonial powers or the fledgling British-American government. Asia was already too civilized to settle easily. Australia was the only really viable location, which the British government at last turned to only in desperation. The only voyage to Australia that had suggested remotely tolerable conditions there was that of Captain James Cook, and his findings about New South Wales, while encouraging, weren't especially so. And plus it was just SO DARN ISOLATED.

Probably because it was so far away, really. It was large, not densely inhabited, and far away.

About as good a place to put violent felons as any.

probably chose australia because it was a bloody big island. It was more than just a prison island though, As far as I'm aware we used it for a few military ports and trade ports aswell.

For the British empire.
Trading post with the east, enough space to chuck petty theives, better weather.

weren't many deported for minor offenses, like trespassing?

This is true.

I read a primary source the other day, it was written by Sir Joseph Banks and one thing he commented on during his visit was the "non-threatening" appearance of the locals; they knew that colonising would not be a problem due to the lack of technology and development the Aboriginals had.


Africa was far enough away too, why not there? It certainly would have been cheaper to ship them to africa.

Because Africa wasn't as remote. There was still land

Even convicts said to have been minor thieves sent out to the other side of the world are British, they have family here, friends...therefore they would still be loyal, by not sending sociopaths they could colonise this whacking great lump of land at the bottom of the world and control the southern seas.

And that is what was really wanted, everyone focuses on the penal side of things but it was a great strategic coup back in the day, the British navy was second to none in the north and by having a powerful colony in the south they could really tie up the spice trade and have a handy stop off point...when transporting goods it makes little sense to simply have one ship going all the way to the eastern lands and all the ay back, far better to have many ships doing many journeys...

But I digress...

By having minor criminals sent to the bottom of the world, given a small tithe of land (I dont know if this is true or not, but it is how I would do things) and the promise of a new life you do get a rapidly expanding colony...isn't it great to have an abundance of criminals on your hands, be able to ship them off to a new land and make sure no one can get there through sheer force of numbers who, if not loyal to England anymore will at least still fight off any invaders of their land

I am repeating myself, it is one of my flaws lol

It was a win win situation, they get fewer criminals to worry about, they have this continent that they need to control