New Shun 1730

Franklin was speechless. In the end, Massachusetts, out of its last "patriotic enthusiasm", offered a compromise plan: You go to London and talk to London to cancel the "Currency Control Act" and allow us to continue to issue banknotes on our own. London merchants must not refuse to accept North American banknotes to repay debts, and guarantee that the monopoly of ginseng trade will be handed over to us after the war. Then we can consider continuing to do it again.

And we asked that the East India Company should not interfere. We dug ginseng here and went directly to Songjiang for trading, and allowed us to buy cotton cloth, porcelain and tea from Songsu. Otherwise, don't mention anything. We will never donate money and materials to fight again.

Massachusetts made such a condition, and it was to directly lift the "Currency Control Act" and allow the condition of issuing banknotes on its own.

The other states naturally put forward many conditions.

The attitudes of the states were quite inconsistent.

Pro-British.

Anti-British.

Neutral.

Watching the show.

Smuggling.

They wished that they could fight for 20 or 30 years so that they could sell their own goods, such as sugar from French colonies and cattle from Spanish colonies...

And so on.

The economic base determines the superstructure.

The fundamental reason for the attitude here is still an economic problem.

And it is also a very complicated economic problem after Dashun, a terrible producer with extremely low labor costs and extremely high handicraft production efficiency, which Hume had no solution to, "If there were no ocean blocking us, everything we use would be made in China", took the initiative to participate in global trade.

People of different classes and professions in different states, or even in a state, have different attitudes towards Britain, mercantilism, and free trade.

To put it simply, saying that the Navigation Act and "mercantilism" led to the uprising of the thirteen states in North America and was a cruel oppression of the colonies is a very imprecise way of shaping the correct understanding.

Historically, the thirteen states had a trade surplus with the British mainland, at least before 1750.

And there is no mention of the fact that mercantilism protected the start of domestic industry.

To some extent, the Navigation Acts and mercantilism did protect the development of industry and commerce in the thirteen states of North America and helped them pass the embryonic stage.

A simple analogy: when you are about to die of fullness after eating the tenth steamed bun, do you say that eating steamed buns is useless?

Whether it is the development of handicrafts or the embryonic stage of industry, it did not fall out of thin air.

There must be workers.

There must be resources.

There must be a market.

What was America like in the early days? If there were no mercantilism and the strict navigation regulations of Britain, it would have been dumped by France and the Netherlands and industry and commerce would not have developed at all.

Even backward countries like Sweden and Russia could have dumped in North America if there were no protection from the Navigation Acts and mercantilism.

At least, it was in the early days. Now that it has passed the novice protection period and developed, that's another story.

Let's take a simple example, the booming iron smelting industry in North America.

If there were no mercantilism and the Navigation Acts, Russia would have relied on the serf service system and would have been the largest pig iron producer in Europe at that time; Sweden's iron rods were also backed by high-quality iron ore.

Without tariff protection, would North America have developed an iron industry?

In the initial stage, it was overwhelmed by Sweden and Russia.

Not to mention the large mines in Sweden, Russia has implemented a system of serfs serving in factories regularly since Peter, which has made Britain need to import pig iron from Russia for a long time.

But history is always like this.

Because of mercantilism and the Navigation Acts, North America was protected from developing industry and commerce from a wasteland, and was not overwhelmed by Dutch cashmere, French wine, Nordic iron, and Russian leather in the initial stage.

However, because of the development, they are no longer satisfied with the narrow British market. Capital has been accumulated, industry has been developed, and a larger and broader market is needed. Therefore, mercantilism and the Navigation Acts are stuck at a subtle threshold.

So far, this threshold has a clear north-south dividing line.

The northern states, at this time alone, can be clearly said to be the beneficiaries of the Navigation Acts and mercantilism.

The southern states, at this time alone, can be clearly said to be the victims of the Navigation Acts and mercantilism.

The industry and commerce of the northern states would die without the early tariff protection.

Why is 1750 generally used as the threshold for gain or loss?

From the macro environment, in the 1750s, Britain officially eliminated self-employed farmers, and industry began to develop rapidly. London's industry began to need markets and raw materials, and tried to occupy the high-end market.

Its symbol is the Iron and Steel Act of 1750, which requires that North America should not develop metal cutting industry, but encourages North America to develop iron smelting industry.

British laws are full of loopholes.

For example, the Manchester Act, which was carefully studied by the Dashun smuggling group, prohibits the production of pure cotton cloth, but if you add hemp or wool to it, even if you add one strand, it is not pure cotton cloth in theory.

Similarly, are cast iron, pot making, iron kettles, etc., steel cutting industries? Obviously not. The iron cutting industry is the upstream technology, high-profit and high-value-added industry at this time. It does not mean that iron smelting and steelmaking are not allowed.

For example, the "North American Steel Company" was invested in Pennsylvania by London's financial capital after the bill was introduced, and 2.3 million taels of silver were invested at one time.

It is legitimate and reasonable for the thirteen states in North America not to be at the low end of the industrial chain, not to be the source of raw materials, and to want to engage in high value-added industries.

From a progressive perspective, Liu Yu even opposed Dashun's own Western and Eastern Trading Companies. If it were not for the purpose of forcing them to train sailors and force them to build long-distance ships to enhance their war potential, he would definitely have criticized this model.

However, the current reality of the northern states is that Dashun's goods are continuously sent to North America under the name of "Nordic industrial products".

The states with developed industries in the north, or the industrial capital groups in the north, are greatly threatened by "Nordic" industrial products.

Cheap Manchester-style cloth mixed with wool that is indistinguishable from the real thing.

Cotton cloth.

Porcelain.

Silk.

Ironware.

Brass.

Woodware.

Lacquerware...

It was almost an impact on the entire industry, even including muskets.

In this case, the northern states, which were originally at the threshold, were about to transform to the high-end and high-value-added industries of the industrial chain, were no longer satisfied with the small market of Britain, and mercantilism had in turn damaged the progress of productivity, naturally had ideas.

Should they embrace free trade and be killed by Eastern... uh, "Nordic" industrial products?

Or embrace mercantilism and engage in intra-empire trade circulation?

The northern states, which were originally the most anti-British in history, were extremely reactionary under the impact of Dashun, or the hardworking working people of Dashun, but supported Britain's mercantilism and navigation regulations in an extremely reactionary way - except Massachusetts.

The southern states, that is, the states where the pro-British and anti-British factions in history could each pull out militias to fight, were even more chaotic.

This was determined by the economic foundation.

The southern states were plantation economies, growing tobacco, indigo, rice, cotton, etc., which were grown by black slaves and white indentured servants. They were all in short supply in the market and were raw materials urgently needed by the booming handicraft industry in Europe. However, due to the Navigation Act, they could only be shipped back to Britain for sale and could not be sold privately to other European countries. They did not have high tariffs under mercantilism, and they lived well, and in fact, they were definitely better off than now.

The financial capital groups in London also preferred to control the southern states, and used the Navigation Act and the mercantilism policy that a single sail could not go to sea to trade privately with other countries, and obtained the actual control of the plantation industry by financial capital.

The thirteen states in North America owed a total of 15 million taels of silver to London financial capitalists, of which 13 million taels were owed by southern plantation owners.

The most basic routine: buy at a high price and provide loans to the manor owners. You see the price is so high, hurry up and buy more slaves and open more land to expand your business. If you need money, I will lend you... Then, lower the price.

In this way, they could get interest and cheap raw materials at a low price, and sell them after returning to London, making a living from one field.

Moreover, there were real estate and slaves as collateral, so they were not afraid of not paying back the money in the future.

However, these plantation economies were politically conservative and feudal, and their moral system was also inclined towards the feudal ethics of monarchs and ministers.

For example, the feudal primogeniture system - this was an important feudal law abolished by the French Revolution, and a symbol of the anti-feudal cultural revolution and the shaping of the bourgeois culture.

For the manor owners, would they support "all sons can inherit" or "primogeniture"?

A 10,000-acre plantation, divided into 20 acres of land and a cow for each child of the next generation?

Or would they support primogeniture, gather capital, and continue to expand the industry?

This is a problem of their political inclination, which is very simple, an economic problem, and economic problems shape culture, morality, political inclinations, etc.

As for Britain itself, they are not very opposed to it. The proportion of pro-British and loyal to the emperor is relatively large. This also involves the subsidies provided by the British government to plantations. For example, some industries, such as indigo, which is monopolized by Dashun and France, have agricultural subsidies in Britain.

However, most people in the southern states oppose Britain's mercantilist policies.

The demand for tobacco in Europe has increased sharply. Even the fucking Spanish can make money by growing tobacco. However, these southern plantation owners cannot sell tobacco themselves. They can only sell tobacco to Britain and ship it back to London. They think that if free trade is liberalized, they can earn 30% more.

Moreover, the financial capital and feudal administrative monopoly caused by the Navigation Act have joined forces to suppress prices, and the plantation owners really can't stand it.

Then, they want to grow olives, cotton, etc. and sell them to southern Europe and France, but Britain won't let them.

Then, Britain is definitely finished in West Africa this time, and the slave trade will definitely change hands. Following Britain, not only will you suffer losses in farming, but buying slaves in the future may become a problem.

The economic base determines the superstructure.

As for the southern plantation industry, how good is it that I have the whole of Europe as a market? Why can I only sell to Britain? Tobacco, cotton, olives, cattle and horses, indigo grass... Who doesn't want these things? Dashun's specialty is selling handicrafts, and they can't impact these raw materials. I can sell at a high price and buy cheaper cotton, porcelain, silk and luxury goods, so why don't I embrace free trade?

The industrial bourgeoisie in the north, in view of the rampant smuggling in Dashun in recent years and the great impact, have increasingly realized that navigation regulations and mercantilism are to protect them - there are gains and losses, compared to the British. The meat eats the bones by itself, so it was natural to be dissatisfied when there was no smuggling in Dashun. But now that Dashun and the others can sell cotton cloth at this price, it makes them unable to even chew the bones.

In addition to the typical economic base caused by these typical industries, which are pro-British, anti-British, pro-free trade, and anti-mercantilism.

There is another group of people who are a kind of... How should I put it? They can be regarded as typical representatives of the "commercial bourgeoisie without a country."

Such as smugglers.

Its typical characters include a famous philanthropist, a bloody slave trader, a great businessman, a shameless smuggler, a well-known victim persecuted by France's religious policy, a free trader who provided fish and supplies to the enemy's navy, and a free trader without borders. Peter Faneuil, benefactor of Faneuil Hall in Boston, builder of the Cradle of Liberty, and more.

The attitude of these big businessmen is actually quite ambiguous.

How should I put it? Smugglers, especially those with strong connections, like high tariffs and mercantilism.

What free trade or tariff reduction hurts is precisely the smugglers - the Boston Tea Party occurred because tea taxes were reduced and regular customs tea became cheaper than smuggled tea, so the tea party took place.

So, do smugglers support free trade?

Apparently, they don't actually support it.

They say they support free trade.

For example, when Peter Faneuil was caught by a British anti-smuggling ship, he was providing drinking water, wine and fish to French warships at war with the North American colonies.

In the face of punishment, he spoke righteously: Trade should be borderless. This kind of government with an anti-smuggling department is a manifestation of tyranny, so I was right.

but……

But in fact, he does not support free trade, because he made his fortune mainly in the smuggling business, which makes a lot of money. If there is free trade, will smuggling still make a lot of money?

Why is smuggling so easy these years?

Because Britain, France and Spain were fighting all day long, Britain had no energy to take care of these smugglers.

Also because the competition between Britain and France and Spain requires the support of the colonies, they can only turn a blind eye and dare not really care.

This matter is very famous in the history of the Seven Years' War: the supplies in the areas blocked by the British in France were all shipped by North American smugglers.

The passes that North American smugglers could obtain to cross the blockade were bought from British officials.

The price is clearly marked, so no one can be deceived.

For another example, in these days, there were no steam engines in the Caribbean, and the sugar cane-growing islands in France were in urgent need of cattle and horses.

Cows and horses are needed to press sugar cane, otherwise the sugar cane cannot turn into sugar juice by itself. Tropical islands are definitely not as easy to raise as the North American continent, and smuggling is very profitable.

The more severe the blockade, the higher the selling price and the more you can make.

For another example, selling supplies to warships of warring countries is a cash and silver transaction, and the profit is at least 150%.

Therefore, at least during the war, before the price that Dashun really wants to negotiate is revealed, or before the picture is revealed.

The attitude of these smugglers in the Thirteen States who have made a fortune because of war, blockade, mercantilism, and navigation regulations is naturally very clear: fight! Hit it hard! It would be better to beat him for ten or twenty years! Why not fight?

Fighting means that the anti-smuggling force is weak and full of loopholes.

Beating, because the British were lenient and did not dare to punish them severely if caught, otherwise they were afraid that the North American colonies would be revolted by the unfair treatment of these "great philanthropists".

If we admit that the world is material.

If we admit that the economic base determines the superstructure.

If we admit that the problems in North America are not simply patriotic, unpatriotic, national, or non-national, but economic problems, industrial problems, market problems after the development of productivity, problems of upgrading the industrial chain, and problems impacted by "Nordic" industrial products. Questions and more...

So, Benjamin Franklin, the most loyal North American Englishman recognized by the British government at this time, even with his love for his motherland and nation, what he wanted to do was destined to be in vain.

Even though he once loved his country so much that he wanted to drive away all German "hillbillies" from North America.

Even though he burst into tears when the British defeated the French army and occupied Louisburg, he believed that "the great motherland has a great and stable future in North America."

Even if he sincerely hopes that the traditional British constitution can make Britain truly great when the king has sovereignty and local autonomy.

but……

The world is material.

It does not depend on human will.

Many of the ideas he conceived relied on the so-called "British tradition", "tears for the glory of this nation", "good kings" and so on.

Obviously, these things, or these spiritual atomic bombs, cannot solve the practical problems at this time.

The conflict between the London Financial Capital Group and the farmers in the southern states cannot be resolved.

It cannot solve the problem of who to sell the goods produced by North America's growing productivity after Britain will definitely lose control of the sea.

It cannot solve the problem of smuggling groups transporting smuggled tea, silk, porcelain, etc. that harm the interests of their "motherland" into North America in order to make higher profits; and transporting cattle, horses, and timber that France urgently needs to the Caribbean.

It cannot solve the ultimate contradiction between Dashun industrial capital and British industrial capital, which is essentially a confrontation between them.

It cannot solve the unsolvable problem proposed by Hume, that is, China's extremely high labor efficiency and its small silver reserves lead to the extreme competitiveness of silver as a commodity under the world currency.

It cannot solve the problem that the plantation industry in the southern states must rely on the vast world industry for development, and Britain cannot consume so much by itself.

It cannot solve the problem that the industry developed in the northern states under the "Navigation Act", mercantilism and industrial support began to bite back the industry of the mother country.

It cannot solve the contradiction that Britain wants to monopolize high value-added industries, let low value-added industries such as iron smelting develop in North America, and let metal cutting industry be monopolized in Britain; but North American industrial capital does not want to only engage in low value-added industries.

Under the tide of the times, personal power is so small, and personal feelings are so powerless.

In fact, when Dashun's cargo ship first arrived in Europe, everything could not be changed.

Because the price revolution caused the silver purchasing power of half of the European price.

Because of the super cheap labor force in the extreme state of involution of small farmers, the labor price is so cheap that the monthly salary of a new student is the same as the monthly salary of a fifty-year-old weaver in Lancashire. The cotton cloth trade, Europe cannot win. Liu Yu's loom reform in Songsu is essentially the Irish famine model: let small farmers own their own small piece of land, so that they can bear the lower remuneration of cotton cloth labor, even if they can only exchange five kilograms of rice for a day's labor, they can accept it because they still have their own small piece of land. This is the same as the Irish serfs' potato and grain farm model, where serfs have small pieces of land and farmers squeeze them to facilitate export.

Because at this time, the productivity level of the textile industry is the highest in the world, and the Europeans who can even sell cotton cloth in India dare not think about it.

Because after completing the Songsu reform, the bourgeoisie's fanatical pursuit of the market in the state of the domestic unified market was stuck. The fanaticism was forced by the policy of the feudal emperors of Dashun to stabilize small farmers, and they dared not to do it internally but had to do it externally.

As well as the collapse of the old world system in Europe and the reality of the existence of many countries...

These material, economic and national foundations are destined to be a fight to the death.

The rampant smuggling of Dashun and the reality that the Industrial Revolution has already begun also destined that the thirteen states of North America had already been internally divided and disintegrated on the economic basis before they united together.

This cannot be solved by a few tearful calls.

Moreover, soon, just before Dashun's trap in Gibraltar was officially triggered, the hopeful Franklin was firmly frustrated in London.

The issue of the "Currency Act" was directly rejected.

Regarding the change of land ownership in Pennsylvania, the president of the Privy Council, Earl Granville, came forward to talk carefully with Franklin and told him that if this matter was to be moved, it would have to wait until after the war. Because this involves the inviolability of private property. From a legal point of view, this was not state-owned assets at the beginning, but the private property of the Duke of York. After the Duke of York entered London, it was still private property, and this private property was given to the Penn family as a "debt repayment". Whether they pay taxes should not be decided by the state legislatures in North America.

And those who own private property do not care that North America is in danger now, and the Sino-French coalition may land in North America after the Battle of Gibraltar.

Instead, they took this opportunity to spread rumors in London that the North American states "disdained the king and the law, trampled on the inviolability of private property, and forcibly levied taxes" - whether Pennsylvania is a "Proprietary Colony" or a "Royal colony" is related to whether it needs to pay taxes to the state legislature. If it is private property, it does not need to pay taxes, but if it is state-owned land, it must pay taxes.

The taxes here refer to state and local taxes, not the national taxes of the United Kingdom. It was the Pennsylvania State Legislature that asked the Penn family to pay taxes, and the Penn family did not pay taxes, saying that collecting taxes was illegal.

It can be said that Franklin was enthusiastic at first and thought this was an opportunity for change.

But now, facing the endless arguments about "Proprietary", private property and state-owned land, and who owns sovereignty, he has become a little discouraged.

As for the Parliament in London, it has not been doing any serious work these days. It has started a long argument over how William Pitt should be blamed for the current war, the king's pro-Germany, whether the new king has the right to directly appoint the prime minister, and so on.

In short, apart from the policy of "gathering the fleet and defending the strait", nothing else has been done.

At the same time, the trap set by Dashun for the defenders in Gibraltar was finally triggered.