Were the diggers of the Eureka Stockade Rebels or Revolutionaries? Essay Draft
The diggers have been perceived as revolutionaries during the Eureka Stockade, however it is fair to believe that they were simply rebels with revolutionary ideals, tired of the injustices they faced and finally forced their voices to be heard.
A rebel is a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or leader. The diggers fit this description rather well, more so than "revolutionary," especially if the behaviours and actions are compared to the definitions. Tension had always been present between the diggers and the political authority that ruled over them, however the murder of a Scottish digger was enough to have it…show more content… Like many other revolutions of our time, for example the French Revolution, the struggle was always between a perceived inferior group and a higher class group, the latter being one who did not hesitate to trample those less fortunate just for themselves or their ideals. For the French, it was the nobility's refusal to pay taxes and leaving the poor to do so when they possibly couldn't afford it, and for the Australians it was the diggers injustices and struggle for work whilst their political leaders remained ignorant of their situations. In both examples, the minor group were left infuriated, their rage boiling and bubbling dangerously up. The diggers had been enraged with the government's injustice, especially after James Scobie's, the murdered Scottish digger, case went without punishment. The diggers saw this as clear evidence of corruption within the police and judiciary and were beyond livid about this. However, the main difference between the two "revolutions" was the sparks flying for the French. The French "political system" had no hope for a better change, there simply was too much dysfunctionality, whereas the Australians still had a chance. The ideas of Chartism, Socialism and Egalitarianism were very dominate within the Victorian society, (especially for the diggers, whom had three Chartist leaders: Henry Holyoake, George Black and JB Humffray) meaning that…show more content… Their so called "revolution" had completely failed, as the diggers were outnumbered and promptly taken down, thus unsuccessfully being able to overthrow the "unjust" government- or what they perceived to be an "unjust government." Admittedly, Governor Hotham had done a rather lousy job when it came to making decisions to benefit the public, with his decisions progressively making him unfavourable. However, he had been shown to be rather involved with the diggers, and did have good intentions, he just carried them out rather poorly. Numerous citings depict him "courting" the diggers on the fields, having developed several friendly relationships with them. He had even shown willingness to listen to feedback, as on 16 November 1854, he appointed a "Royal Commission on goldfields problems and grievances." This essentially was a person to listen to the woes of the diggers and reiterate that back to the governor so they can determine whether changes need to be made or not. According to historian Geoffrey Blainey "It was perhaps the most generous concession offered by a governor to a major opponent in the history of Australia up to that time. The members of the commission were appointed before Eureka...they were men who were likely to be sympathetic to the diggers." After the rebellion, some of
