While there are many articles discussing the Australian Aborigines' de facto legalized slavery, or essentially free labor, the fact seems to be that they were never de jure slaves, as Africans were.

Why didn't England press the Australian indigenous Aborigine population into actual slavery?

  • 11
    Your question suggest if England would press enslavement of free population in Africa or England would have a common practice to enslave the whole population in colonies. However slaves were not the main work force neither in England or even in many of the colonies. Actually to the time Australia colonization started in higher scale, slavery was illegal in the UK (1772) as well as slave trading (1807) all over the empire. – Greg May 18 '15 at 1:50
  • 6
    It should be recognized that the African slave trade was something that had existed for centuries before the Europeans or their western hemisphere colonies got involved. It's much more economic to purchase slaves through an existing market system, than to set up the entire process oneself. – jamesqf May 18 '15 at 19:11
  • 1
    I have removed my edits. My original question was what I meant to ask. If, in that form, it is unacceptable, then so be it. – CGCampbell May 19 '15 at 15:15
  • 5
    The tone of this questions seems to suggest that "slavery" was some kind of national initiative (of whom? the crown? parliament?). First of all, in the old days, governments were a lot less all-encompassing than they are now. Slavery practices arose more out of the indifference of the crown, than positive efforts. Its not like George III was running around screaming, "Who can we enslave next??? Let's send an expedition to Tahiti to enslave them !!!" – Tyler Durden May 19 '15 at 17:58
  • This edit seems to have moved the goalposts a bit "Many articles on de-facto legalised slavery" - well there are many articles on the Illuminati & lizard communist people - but their veracity can be disputed. Why didn't the English press more Indigenous Australians into slavery? Well you'd need to ask them that. 'De-facto legalised slavery' seems to be moving the goalposts. This could include half the labour force of the developed world. – Anaryl May 20 '15 at 13:16

Simply put, because they didn't. Often I find that people tend to equate 'Colonial Australia' with colonial Sydney.

Whilst there were incidents of conflict with Indigenous Australians, there were also a lot of incidents of cooperation. In most cases though, the settler just tended put push the original inhabitants further from their areas.

The problem with this question is that it doesn't take into account the cultural topography of colonial Australia. Australia wasn't a single nation state during colonisation but actually a number of separately administered colonies. Whilst Sydney may have used a lot of convict labour, this wasn't necessarily the case in Melbourne, Adelaide, or Perth which was if memory serves, almost entirely free settlers.

The Indigenous people didn't have fixed settlements but were nomadic hunter-gatherers who moved around the country according to the seasons. You couldn't just go capture yourselves some "Aborigines". It's not like North America or Africa where you had visible fixed settlements. If you've ever seen the terrain of the Australian Bush it's not something that lends itself to finding people, even those who want to be found.

In short, as mentioned slavery was illegal, it was too difficult to manage as an institutionalised practise and the settlers had enough trouble finding enough for themselves to eat, let alone support a meaningful population of slaves. This was not a problem the Indigenous Australians had.

You would find later that the Indigenous Australians did live in and work in slave-like conditions. But they were still paid, and often given (bare) subsistence. So it is a matter of semantics.

If you are interested in early Australian colonial life I highly recommend "The Colony"

  • 2
    +1 for the settlers having enough trouble feeding themselves, let alone slaves. – jamesqf May 19 '15 at 19:47

Moral issues aside, it isn't that easy to just impress an indigenous people on a land you've just run into into slavery. They tend to stay out of your way. The British, Colonial, and US population never managed to do so to the Amerindians. They had to import Negro slaves from Africa for their labor shortfall.

What made the situation in Africa different is that tribes would collect the slaves and sell them to the Europeans. Similarly, Muslim slave buyers met with Viking slave sellers in Russia and the Atlantic to procure slaves. They didn't have to collect them in their own land at great trouble.

Also, in the case of Australia England had a better source for labor closer to hand - forced and unforced immigration from their own population. Convict labor replaced slave labor until natural increase and technology solved the labor issue.


Because it was illegal. Britain made slavery illegal in most of its dominions, including Australia, in 1833.

  • It does not disagree with me. The 1772 date refers only to the "United Kingdom" meaning Scotland and Britain. – Tyler Durden May 18 '15 at 14:27
  • 1
    Well, before those times, there were very few Europeans in Australia, which is far more remote than Africa. Why would you go all the way to Australia to get slaves when the coast of Africa was dotted with barracoons selling them? – Tyler Durden May 18 '15 at 18:33
  • 1
    @CGCampbell No, the dates agree. There is a difference between forbid trade and explicitly free slaves. On the other point: slaves were not used for exploration. Just because there were a small group of white people around, and they had a war with the aborigine, it doesn't mean they needed slaves. You miss the whole point, and you think as slaves were some central part of any exploration or colonization. No, they were not. – Greg May 21 '15 at 9:12

Putting aside the fact that Britain outlawed slavery in 1833, the conditions for "slavery" were not nearly as favorable in Australia as in the American south.

Slavery made sense in the American South because slave labor could be turned into cash crops such as cotton, and to a lesser extent, sugar, rice or indigo. These in turn depended on trade routes to markets in Europe. The distance from Europe to Australia is a multiple (maybe twice) that of Europe to North America, meaning that this cash crop trade, and hence slavery, would not be nearly as profitable.

Also, the Australian aborgines would not have made as good slaves as Africans, if for no other reason that it would have been easier for them to escape to their homeland (the "rest" of Australia), whereas the Africans were separated from their homeland by the Atlantic Ocean. Instances of enslaved Africans trying to return to Africa on e.g. the Amistad, were so rare as to be the stuff of legend.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.