New Shun 1730

Every family has its own problems. Every country has its own contradictions. Dashun has more problems internally, and similar problems will soon appear.

But fortunately, in this war against Europe, the beneficiaries paid the money. Those who supported the war were actually similar to the Whigs in Britain - a combination of emerging aristocrats, military aristocrats and emerging bourgeoisie. They can appropriately give up some land rent income because they have assets with higher returns.

The difference is that in Britain's industry and commerce compared to agriculture, the Whigs suppressed the Tories and could only do things on the edge of the empire. The interior of the empire is still the private land of gentry landlords.

Fortunately, Dashun is large enough, and the tax efficiency is not so high. There is no foreign debt of hundreds of millions and almost 15 million taels of silver in national debt interest a year.

These problems are pressed on Britain, which has reached the tax limit, and many accumulated contradictions are all exploded.

The contradiction between the gentry class and the emerging bourgeoisie under the banner of defending tradition.

The contradiction between Britain and the North American colonies.

The conflict between the West India Chamber of Commerce and the East India Company.

The conflict between the King's Party and the Prince's Party.

Whether to continue to strengthen ties with Prussia, that is, the conflict between Hanover and the colonies.

The conflict between land tax, consumption tax, industrial and commercial tax, salt tax, tea tax and sugar tax - this tax issue, looking at the French Physiocrats, is actually easier to understand than price: for example, if a foot of cloth costs one dollar more, agricultural workers also have to wear trousers, then the price increase of trousers can be considered as the landowner's expenditure to a certain extent, and according to the Physiocrats' theory, it will eventually be passed on to the landowner.

William Pitt's situation is quite special. He was a Prince's Party in the early days, and he clearly stated that he was the opposition in Britain, because he believed that the influence of the House of Commons came either from the support of the king or from anti-government activities.

In the small circle politics of the Whig oligarchs, William Pitt's choice was right, because he could not enter the decision-making circle in normal politics, and it was based on seniority.

But it is very easy to get enough prestige by organizing anti-government activities and being a prince party.

Therefore, in the early years, William Pitt was a banner of "anti-Whig, anti-king, anti-German interests are greater than Britain, and anti-land tax".

George II ridiculed him as a "patriotic doll" because Pitt always criticized George II for protecting Germany instead of Britain.

And their circle called themselves "little patriots", "real patriots", "make Britain great again", and "Patriot Party".

Before her death, the wife of the Duke of Churchill appointed William Pitt as the spokesperson of orthodox British politicians, and took out part of the money and a large estate from the Duke of Churchill's inheritance and gave it to William Pitt.

The money was not much, an annual pension of 30,000 taels of silver, but it was a banner, a banner of recognition of him by the old dukes.

After the widow of the Duke of Churchill appointed William Pitt, more nobles of the "British orthodox patriots" began to support him.

However, support is limited.

It is still the evaluation of Lao Ma:

[Trying to maintain its own hereditary oligarchy is the only characteristic of Whigism. ]

[As for the interests and principles that the Whig Party sometimes defends, they are not its own, but imposed on it by the development of the industrial and commercial class, that is, the development of the bourgeoisie. Just like the alliance between the Whig Party and the financial giants who had great power at the time after 1688... It was the most reliable means to drive the Tories out of government positions. The Whig Party came to power and took the part of the fruits of victory related to the regime for itself]

[... But... (whenever it develops to the point where only the bourgeoisie benefits), they rush to pull the movement to prevent the movement from continuing to develop and restore their own position at the same time]

This is the reason why the "orthodox British faction", or the "enlightened" and "truly patriotic" land rent aristocrats headed by the aristocratic faction, supported William Pitt's global colonial strategy; but now they are opposed after encountering setbacks.

William Pitt was an enthusiastic global colonial empire conceiver. Historically, he once suggested that Spain should be declared war together. Before Spain joined the war, the army should be assembled to seize the Spanish treasure ship. If the war did not start, he would resign.

His strategy was also very clear:

Eliminate France as a great power; cut off France's overseas territories, especially those islands in the Caribbean that are rich in sugar; drive France out of India; replace it in Canada.

The reason is that he believes that Britain's prosperity should be based on trade. Trade brings wealth, and wealth strengthens the army and navy. Monopolizing the ocean trade, rather than relying on land taxes, is the future of Britain.

If you want to do it, kill both France and Spain...

However, the conservative politicians in Britain do not think so.

Fight, yes.

Weaken France, of course.

However, including the peace with France after the Seven Years' War in history, Britain, as a victorious country, actually offered France quite loose conditions, and even returned the sugar-producing islands in the Caribbean.

Don't look at Canada at that time with the eyes of later generations. The French themselves didn't think it was valuable. Voltaire also said it was just a few acres of snow. Before the mink fur and ginseng trade with Dashun, five Canadas were not as good as one Guadeloupe.

Therefore, the Paris Peace Treaty of the Seven Years' War, in the eyes of some fanatical self-proclaimed patriotic British, was actually "lost without losing", and the conditions given to France were too generous.

And the reason why France was given such a generous price... is not because the British conservatives have a problem with their brains.

Rather, it is because the British conservatives know very well how strong France's foundation is.

Once the cuts are too severe and the pressure is too severe, the French will definitely choose to retaliate wildly, pull up the Western-French anti-British alliance, and fight to build warships for revenge.

And once revanchism rises in France, the memory left by the Hundred Years' War to the British tells them that once France, which has a strong foundation, goes crazy and starts revenge, it will abandon the continental strategy and want to revenge and kill Britain, then Britain will be miserable.

Because, the conservative political circles in London know that France is not Britain. France's cultivated land area, population, self-sufficient and developed handicrafts, internal taxation and bursting patriotic enthusiasm can still pull out an army of more than 100,000 and a fleet of more than 100 warships even if trade is cut off and the Caribbean and North America are lost.

Even if they win, they hope to stop while they are ahead and not push too far, and really force Europe to form an anti-British alliance.

The traditional nobles uphold the British geopolitical tradition and act as a troublemaker, rather than trying to monopolize the ocean as a European hegemon, because they are sure that they can't hold it.

In fact, the goal had been basically achieved before Dashun joined the war. It was better to stop while they were ahead and negotiate with France directly.

Pushing France too hard, it is impossible to completely eat France, so what's the point? To raise a France that is holding its breath and preparing to fight another Seven Years' War to avenge Britain's revenge?

Moreover, this alliance itself is a brain problem. If Hanover had not been threatened by Prussia, and had not had to lick Prussia to protect Hanover, it could have clearly pulled out a tripartite alliance between Russia, Austria and Britain.

Now, because Hanover was dragged into the water by Prussia, the anti-British alliance has been formed.

What's more terrifying is that the Asian empire has also come over. The Asian empire does not need to worry about the threat of "the French landing in Scotland and taking London directly". They have a stronger foundation, more land, and more population. How can they fight?

In the previous battle of Menorca, the Duke of Newcastle had to take the blame, and you, William Pitt, took this opportunity to get him down.

Now, India is lost, Gibraltar is besieged, the Sino-French joint fleet may land in Scotland, France has clearly refused peace talks, and Spain has joined the war... Who will take the blame?

The problem is that no one is willing to take the blame now.

Because no one can bear it.

No one wants to bear it.

The siege of Gibraltar is more of a symbolic meaning for Britain.

This symbolizes that after the Menorca incident, the British army, which had finally gained control of the sea and strategic initiative, once again handed over the strategic initiative to the Sino-French coalition.

It also means that from now on, it is no longer the British who choose to fight in North America, the Caribbean, and West Africa.

Instead, China and France can fight in Scotland, North America, and the Caribbean.

Gibraltar itself is not crucial, because even if Gibraltar is lost, it will not really threaten the foundation of Britain.

But the siege of Gibraltar is crucial, because whether the Sino-French coalition captures Gibraltar or not, it means that they have mastered the strategic initiative.

In this case, once Gibraltar is captured, there are two possibilities.

The first is that the Mediterranean Fleet of the Sino-French coalition, the reinforcements from the Cape of Good Hope along the West African coast, the Spanish Navy, and the French Brest Fleet may choose to land directly in Britain.

The second is that the navy of Dashun will use William Pitt's strategy to help and cooperate with France and Spain to launch attacks in America and the Caribbean West Indies, capture sugar-producing islands such as Barbados, help France recapture Louisbourg, and attack the British Thirteen Colonies to the south.

In the first case, there is nothing to say.

Defend.

In this regard, the British aristocracy can still fight for their motherland. Because they have permanent property, they live on the land, and of course they have to defend their motherland and state religion.

The key is the second case.

In this case, should the North American colonies do more for Britain? Should they give the North American colonies more rights in exchange for them to stay there and delay the French army, so that France cannot counterattack in North America, and thus strive for a decent peace?

This involves some intricate relationships between the North American colonies and Britain.

From a class perspective, the North American War of Independence is actually very complicated and far from being that simple.

This involves the South and the North, the oligarchic Whig Party and the opposition Country Party, financial capital and real industry.

It involves the plantation economy in the South that is tied to British financial capital, the primogeniture system that is tied to British feudal traditions, the backlash of industry and commerce in the North that developed because of the Navigation Act, and the smuggling of northern merchants.

It also involves the struggles between the oligarchic Whig Party and the Prince Party, the Bolingbroke Party and the Parliamentary Sovereign Party.

The complex situation here can be explained by an example that can be regarded as a single leaf to see the autumn.

At this time, among the celebrities in the North American colonies in London, there was a person who was later printed on the $100 bill.

Benjamin Franklin.

As a representative of the North American colonies, he came to Britain after the outbreak of the British-French Indian War.

Simply put, Benjamin Franklin's thoughts can be regarded as "Prince Party".

In the North American War of Independence, Franklin "opposed the British Parliament, not the British King".

The question here is "Does the sovereignty of Britain belong to the British King? Or to the Parliament?"

If the sovereignty of Britain belongs to the British King, then in Franklin's view, this is in line with the traditional British spirit of "freedom".

That is, Britain and the United States are co-lords, Britain has the British Parliament, and the colonies have the colonial parliaments.

Including, on the famous issue of the Stamp Act, Franklin also stood on the side of "abstract Britain".

However, just like Viscount Bolingbroke, in order to oppose the Whig oligarchy, he expected a real king who could override the Parliament.

The people who controlled the parliament, that is, the Whig oligarchs, believed that "sovereignty lies in parliament" - this is of course more advanced in theory than sovereignty in the hands of the king or the emperor.

But it should be noted that the parliament was actually firmly controlled by the Whig oligarchs. That is, the small circle of their ruling group ruled Britain.

This is a problem.

If the sovereignty lies with the British king, then the relationship between Britain and the thirteen states of North America is two sons of one father.

If the sovereignty lies in parliament, and the parliament is controlled by the Whig oligarchs, then... the thirteen states of North America do not have seats in this parliament.

In other words, the relationship between Britain and the thirteen states of North America is that the British Parliament rules the thirteen states of North America, which is a father-son relationship, a relationship between the mother country and the colonies.

To be more specific, it may even be a bit awkward - from Franklin's perspective, the later North American War was not against the British king, but precisely to restore the sovereignty of the British king.

A similar reason can be compared to the Joseon Kingdom and Dashun.

The sovereignty of Korea is in the hands of the Emperor of Dashun, but not in the hands of the six governments of Dashun.

If the Celestial Empire is attacked by invaders, then if Korea wants to establish a country, trade, cede land, lease, etc., it must be approved by the Emperor. The King of Korea has no right to establish a country or grant concessions to colonists - according to the Western system, this is the case, which is why the first article of the Treaty of Shimonoseki is the independence of Korea, not anything else.

On the other hand, if the sovereignty of Korea is in the hands of the Dashun government, but the scholars of Korea are not qualified to take the imperial examination and become officials, then will the scholars of Korea rebel?

According to Franklin's logic of the sovereignty issue, it is roughly like this.

This also involves the issue of Franklin's origin.

He was born in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has no governor.

Pennsylvania was originally owned by the Dutch. After being seized by the British, it was the territory of the Duke of York. Later, the Duke of York inherited the throne and incorporated it into the royal territory. Later, when Charles II was restored, he borrowed about 50,000 taels of silver from Admiral William Penn, and then gave this land to William Penn as a debt repayment.

In other words, it means "a large piece of woodland of the Penn family."

Therefore, there is no governor in Pennsylvania, because it is nominally a private territory.

And Franklin came to Britain this time, in addition to being the North American representative who contributed the most in the Anglo-French-Indian War, there is another important purpose.

That is, to request "the sovereignty of Pennsylvania to be returned to the king."

To put it bluntly, it is a question of ownership.

That is, to change Pennsylvania from a "Proprietary Colony" to a "Royal colony."

To turn private land into state-owned land - private, state-owned, and owned by all people, the difference here is self-evident.

Because the sovereignty lies with the king, after it becomes state-owned land, the nature of this land is "Royal colony", royal colony, royal sovereign land.

Because the sovereignty lies with the monarch, the royal colony, when the sovereignty of the country lies with the monarch, is state-owned land.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen States absolutely did not mention private property rights.

Therefore, Franklin, who was already the "Postmaster General of North America" ​​at this time, must have expressed his position in London on the siege of Gibraltar, William Pitt's policy, the Thirteen States of North America, the succession of the old and new kings, and the struggle between the traditional forces and the emerging bourgeois forces in Britain.

In other words, as a representative figure who made outstanding contributions to Britain in North America, he must have expressed his opinions and views on the issue of the Sino-French coalition forces possibly invading North America after conquering Gibraltar.

Because...

It is obvious that a Chinese Empire that strictly prohibits Catholicism is unlikely to be so idle that it must land in Britain to support Catholic conversion.

This does not mean that we can conclude that Dashun will definitely not land in Britain together with France and Spain.

Because the French theory that Hanover is a jerk also applies to Britain: if they can land in Britain, wouldn't that be a more direct way to strangle the jerk? Then we can negotiate the terms, right?

Rather, because the smuggling business that Dashun has been engaged in in recent years has been a bit large, and in order to fight with France, the British side has actually loosened its control over North America, which has led to another problem that the British side must be careful of.

Is Dashun eyeing the fat piece of meat in the North American market?

Will it cooperate with the local factions and northern merchants in North America to encourage them to trade freely?

To defend the British mainland, the people of the Thirteen States in North America cannot be relied on.

However, if the mainland is defended, the Thirteen States and the Caribbean are lost, Britain will also be seriously injured, which is something that the conservatives do not want to see. They still want to count on the wool trade to increase rent.

In this case, as a representative of the pro-British faction in North America, Franklin needs to make a statement and make some suggestions on a series of issues caused by the siege of Gibraltar.

That is, if the purpose of Dashun is to expand smuggling and control trade, incite colonies to engage in free trade, etc., when the main force of the navy has to defend the strait, should the Thirteen States in North America contribute more money, food, soldiers... and military obligations to Britain?

To counter the pressure that the Chinese and French coalition forces will inevitably increase in North America after they capture Gibraltar?

As for Gibraltar... there is no need to consider it anymore, and there is no need to save it at all.