Xinshun 1730

Chapter 1283 Death and Revenge ([-])

This seemingly absurd and even absurd charge is not only in line with British political traditions, but is actually related to some theories of the Little Patriots Party.

One of the strategic ideas is the "prevention of revenge theory".

Before Dashun entered the war, when Britain had already gained an advantage, William Pitt put forward a condition in the face of France's hidden provocation for a summation.

He would not accept French surrender unless France agreed to this condition.

That is: France completely gave up fishing rights in Newfoundland and the North Sea; France ceded important islands in the Caribbean Islands; France completely gave up support and protection for its own fishing boats.

The basis of this theory comes from sailors, and it didn't come out in a day.And Colbert's sailor registration system provided enough seafarers for France.

However, these registered sailors do not usually serve in the army, but make a living by fishing and the like.Especially for the large fishing boats in the Newfoundland fishing grounds, the sailors on them can be recruited as sailor crews during wartime, which can quickly expand the fleet.

Colbert's policy is the basis for the subsequent "administrativeization of the French Navy".

On the one hand, France maintains excellent shipbuilding capabilities, and Dashun finally chose the French 74-gun standard battleship instead of the British system as the capital ship of the fleet.

On the other hand, France can spend a lot of military expenses on the army, and at the same time, through the administration of the navy, it can ensure that civilians control the fleet.

The registered sailor system, the encouragement of fishing and merchant ships, and the controlled overseas trade can ensure that France can quickly build ships and recruit enough sailors when necessary.

The French fleet could not beat the British Navy, which was determined by France's geography.If France, like the United Kingdom, banned the standing army and only maintained an army of about 3 people in the country, then France would be finished.

However, if you can't fight, you can't fight, that's because military spending cannot be infinitely tilted towards the navy.This does not mean that the French navy is useless and actually still capable of revenge.

William Pitt's "anti-revenge theory" is actually the potential to completely eliminate the French navy.

By prohibiting trade and fishing, France actually lost its reserve sailors.In this way, even if the French military academy can still train naval officers; France still has shipbuilding and ship design capabilities; but it cannot quickly form a fleet.

When victorious, William Pitt's "anti-revenge theory" overwhelmed all opposing voices, so that those who were worried about the future no longer worried about the future battle of revenge.

And with the advantage of controlling the sea, trade continues, which also makes the middle class of the UK full of confidence in buying national debt, believing that it will be able to pay back in the future.

Since war is profitable, capitalists and the financial community support it.

Now that there is a theory of anti-revenge, some conservative politicians also supported it before.

As long as I completely dismember the enemy who may revenge, then we don't need to worry about revenge, and all fear of revenge will turn into support for expanding the war.

If you want the empire, you will get everything from the empire and pay whatever price the empire has to bear.

William Pitt promised a future in which Britain would become a world empire without paying too much.

This will be the end of history, the end of war.

As long as this battle is won, the threat of France can be completely removed, and Britain will completely put an end to the hegemony that has been entangled for centuries.

In this promised bright future, France will lose the ability to revenge, because France will lose its fishing boats and merchant ships, and it will also lose registered sailors who can be recruited at any time, and the French navy will cease to exist.

And the subtext of this beautiful promise is:

Land tax question?After solving France, why do we have to collect so much land tax?

National debt problem?France has been resolved, and France is unable to take revenge. These national debts mortgaged by cotton cloth, tea and trade tariffs will not pay you back your principal and interest every minute?
The industrial and commercial tax and consumption tax issues have been solved in France, and there will be no more large-scale wars in the future, and there is no need to worry about France's revenge, so why maintain a huge standing navy and standing army?
The problem of the mandatory service of the Latino in the Navy?After solving France, without the pressure of revenge, how can the navy continue to bring strong men on board?
Sailor treatment?If France is resolved and there is no pressure for revenge, then the problem of extremely poor treatment of sailors is at least easier to solve than when there is a threat from France and the threat of a French revenge war is considered, right?

At the beginning of the outbreak of the war, this imperialist war for colonies and monopoly trade rights was not unopposed.

Including the United Kingdom, there are also many people who oppose it.

But the objection is not that this war is dog-eat-dog among nations.

It is because the land aristocracy is worried that the war will continue, and the land tax issue has not been resolved; the financial street is worried that the unlimited expansion of the war may lead to a decline in their income; 600 of the qualified 43 people are worried about whether the national debt can really protect the principal and interest in the future; conservative politicians are worried about whether this enlarged war will lead to the birth of the European anti-British alliance.

Many times, people don't know how to think, but prefer others to give a conclusion, so as to dispel their doubts.

If you think about it carefully, you will find that William Pitt's strategy, especially the strategy of preventing revenge, is actually not tenable.

Can this prevent France from building another navy?
Can this suddenly push France into a trough and never turn back?
Here we will not talk about the wrong use of British empiricism, the empiricism of seeking a sword, using British experience to think about the situation of continental European countries, and whether European countries that lack fishing boats will definitely decline.

It is only said that the fulcrum of William Pitt's strategy is North America and the Caribbean, but history has proved that North America and the Caribbean are not the foundation for the United Kingdom to truly become the basis for their never-setting sun.

Here we are not talking about the Industrial Revolution, which William Pitt himself did not and could not understand.

Just talk about the Indian issue in history, which is a model of unintentional willows and willows, because at this time India is not the jewel in the crown, but the Caribbean is.

William Pitt's strategy is successful in the eyes of later generations, but in fact he cannot justify himself, it is more like a blind cat meeting a dead mouse.

If India still maintains the value at this time, and because of the high national debt and mercantilist policies that lead to problems such as North American independence, sugar crisis, and small market, can his policy be considered a success?
To evaluate whether a person's subjective strategy is correct or not depends on the objective reality at that time, not on the situation of later generations that he himself did not expect.

Looking at it from the perspective of future generations, India has solved the market for the Industrial Revolution, raw materials, and labor shortages in the raw material industry for Britain, so that India has become the brightest jewel in the imperial crown.

However, in William Pitt's strategy at this time, did he foresee the huge value of India in advance?
To put it bluntly, many of these things are just sacred myths of later generations.At this time, his "prevention strategy" is full of loopholes.

It's just that he described a wonderful future, and many people don't think about the loopholes in it, but subconsciously feel that someone can dispel their inner doubts by saying something.

At least, before Dashun entered the war, the future he promised was so wonderful that it overwhelmed all voices of doubt.

However, all this changed after Dashun entered the war.

According to this "anti-revenge theory", anyone who supports William Pitt's strategy must "destroy China, France, and Spain, the three countries, and simultaneously destroy any of their naval recovery capabilities."

Can it be done?

Spain doesn't mention it, France doesn't mention it, and only talks about Dashun. How can we destroy Dashun's revenge after the defeat?
In fact, it's not that there is no clue at all.

As long as you can conquer the Dashun Fortress at the Cape of Good Hope; capture India; slaughter the Chinese in Ceylon; occupy Nanyang and burn the teak in the entire Southeast Asia; occupy Taiwan and make Dashun lose its cypress; send troops to occupy the north of Shanhaiguan and North Korea, making Dashun lose its oak ; Massacre all the people within the tens of thousands of miles of coastline from Guangdong to Vladivostok; control the sea in the entire coastal area of ​​China; destroy the naval bases and shipyards in Tianjin, Weihai, and Lushun... that's all.

If all of these cannot be done, then in fact this "anti-revenge theory" is not valid.

But let’s not say that the United Kingdom can prevent revenge against China at this time, even if it is France, he can’t do it.

When the frenzy of war begins to dissipate.

When 30 households bought national debt mortgaged by "tea tax, cotton luxury tax", etc., they began to question whether they could get back the principal.

When the Financial Street and the Chamber of Commerce in the West India found that the losses were getting bigger and bigger if they continued to fight.

John Mordaunt's "questioning the theory of revenge prevention" of "treating others in the same way" was the fatal blow to William Pitt.

John Mordaunt would have chosen to commit suicide, and the suicide would have inspired sympathy.

Far from reflecting on British expansion, John Mordaunt was a staunch supporter of British expansion, and he could even pretend to support William Pitt's anti-revenge theory.

Under this reverse rhythm, he is not questioning that Britain is going to war for its own interests; rather, he is questioning why the army and navy led by William Pitt cannot destroy China's shipbuilding capabilities to prevent them from revenge?Why couldn't the army and navy led by William Pitt annihilate Dashun's naval fleet?

This way of thinking is also in line with the political thinking of the Enlightenment in Europe at this time.

At this time, the elites in Europe as a whole hated partisanship. Enlightenment was not only an enlightenment for individuals, but also a reflection on the political structure and the future of the country.

In fact, at this time in Britain, there was no political party in the modern sense, neither the Whig Party nor the Tory Party.

Rather than a party, it is more like an organization like the Donglin Party: one that shares certain similar values, but is not actually an entity.

It was not until 1778 that the upper elite of the Whig Party organized the "Brooks Club" that Britain had a real political party.The role of this club is that before the parliament, the upper echelons of the club should reach a consensus first, and divide the benefits in advance, so that they don't talk about each other at that time.

Therefore, at this time, the elites in Europe hated partisanship.

Therefore, many self-proclaimed elites, the government they conceived, or the parliament, should be like this: before the decision is made, I can oppose it, and use any legal means to oppose it; but once the decision is made, I will Let go of my sectarian and partisan affiliation, and do my best to do this well.

This is not a characteristic of Europe, but many people in the east also yearn for and idealize the court, and it can be regarded as a dream since ancient times.

Thus, from the standpoint of John Mordaunt, the self-proclaimed staunch, genuine, traditional, Whig, defending some imaginary future rule of court struggle, he could only use This is the way to get revenge.

Its logic is this:

Now that William Pitt has been appointed as Secretary of State, he is in charge of the army and navy.Well, even if I oppose your policy, I still need to implement it.

The Secretary of State is not wrong in the policy of the army and the navy.It can only be wrong if he can't do it in terms of the policies he formulated.

For example, when you are off stage, you can spray whatever you want.

Now that you have come to power, you have legal principles. Even if your policy when you came to power was to abolish the king, since you have publicly stated and been pushed to the top, there is no need to consider whether it is right to abolish the king.

But when you get to the stage, if you don't abolish the king, then it's your fault.

Switch to the current situation, according to the "no party struggle, anti-sectarian" theory of the European elite at this time.

William Pitt's policy itself, there is no right or wrong anymore, you can't attack the authorized Secretary of State for wrong policy, or let him go out because you oppose his policy-this kind, at most, is distrust Case, step down.

However, if the logic is "he didn't carry out his policy well, so he committed a crime".

Then, the nature of this matter is not distrust and the downfall of the cabinet.

It’s similar to what happened to John Bean: you, John Bean, are the commander of the fleet, and your task is to defeat the French army. If you haven’t completed it, then you are dereliction of duty and should be shot.

The same: you, William Pitt, are in charge of state affairs, and your task is to complete and guarantee the completion of the policies formulated by the government—although you have formulated them, but in legal terms they are formulated by the government.Then, if you failed to complete the task of expanding the war in an all-round way and destroying the possibility of enemy revenge, or even had no plan for Dashun's participation in the war, and did not destroy Dashun's naval power in advance, then this is dereliction of duty.

The court-martial will not execute generals because they are defeated in battle, at most they will be dismissed.

This is the basic principle of any country with history. At least on the bright side, most of the generals executed were not because of defeat in battle, but for various extended responsibilities—for example, Xiong Tingbi of the previous dynasty, who was defeated in battle and The loss of the frontier seems to be the same thing, but when it comes to execution, losing the battle and losing the frontier are two different concepts in law.

Similarly, the cabinet will not be shot for making policies, at most it will be disbanded and reorganized.

However, if the defeat is turned into dereliction of duty, then it is execution.

Similarly, it is also dereliction of duty to turn a cabinet policy mistake into a minister of state who implements the policy weakly or even does not implement it at all.

Mordaunt made it very clear.

He didn't want the Cabinet to fall, just to get William Pitt out of office as simple as that.

He wanted William Pitt dead.

Completely disintegrate the "Patriot Party" that was separated from the Whig split caused by the "Excise Tax Act" crisis, and destroy the de facto representatives of the core political families of the "Patriot Party", namely the Pitt family and the Temple family.

From a class perspective, it was a counterattack against the urban industrial and commercial class and the emerging political families representing the interests of the large landowner aristocracy represented by the Tory Party and the Conservative Whig Party.

(End of this chapter)