New Shun 1730

This seemingly absurd or even ridiculous charge is in line with the British political tradition and is actually related to some theories of the Little Patriot Party.

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

Before the Dashun War, when Britain had already gained an advantage, William Pitt put forward a condition in the face of France's secret request for peace.

Unless France agrees to this condition, he will not accept France's surrender.

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

The basis of this theory comes from the sailor thing, which did not pop up in one day. And Colbert's sailor registration system provides France with enough crew members.

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

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

On the one hand, France maintained excellent shipbuilding capabilities. The fleet flagship that Dashun finally chose after careful selection was the French 74-gun standard battleship, not the British system.

On the other hand, France could spend a lot of military funds on the army, and at the same time, through the administrativeization of the navy, it could ensure that civilians controlled the fleet.

The registered sailor system, the encouragement of fishing boats and merchant ships, and the controlled overseas trade could ensure that France could 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 abolished the standing army like Britain and only maintained an army of about 30,000 people in the country, France would be finished.

However, it was impossible to beat it because military expenditure could not be infinitely tilted to the navy. This does not mean that the French navy is useless, and it still has the ability to retaliate.

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

By prohibiting trade and fishing, France actually lost its reserve sailors. In this way, even though the French military academy can still train naval officers and France still has the ability to build and design ships, it cannot quickly form a fleet.

When the victory was won, William Pitt's "anti-revenge theory" overwhelmed all opposition voices, so that those who were worried about the future no longer worried about the future revenge war.

With the advantage of controlling the sea power, trade continued, and the middle class of Britain was full of confidence in buying national debt, believing that they would be able to pay it back in the future.

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

Since there is an anti-revenge theory, some conservative politicians also supported it before.

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

If you want an empire, you will get everything in the empire and pay all the prices that the empire has to bear.

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

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

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

In this promised beautiful future, France will lose the ability to retaliate, because France has lost its fishing boats and merchant ships, and has also lost registered sailors that can be recruited at any time, and the French navy will no longer exist.

And the subtext of this beautiful promise is:

Land tax issue? Why do we still need to collect so much land tax after solving the problem of France?

National debt issue? After solving the problem of France, and France is unable to retaliate again, these national debts mortgaged with cotton cloth, tea and trade tariffs will not be repaid to you in a minute?

The problem of industrial and commercial taxes and consumption taxes, after solving the problem of France, there will be no large-scale wars in the future, and there is no need to worry about France's revenge, so why do we still need to maintain a large standing navy and standing army?

The problem of conscripting men for compulsory service in the navy? After solving the problem of France, there is no pressure for revenge, so why do we still need the navy to continue to conscript men on board?

The problem of sailor treatment? After solving the French problem and eliminating the pressure of revenge, the problem of poor treatment of sailors will be easier to solve than when there is a threat from France and the threat of a war of revenge against France, right?

At the beginning of the war, this war of imperialism for colonies and monopoly of trade rights was not without opposition.

Including many people in Britain.

But the reason for opposition is not because this war is a dog-eat-dog war between countries.

Rather, it is because the land aristocracy is worried that if the war continues, the land tax problem will never be solved; the financial street is worried that the unlimited expansion of the war may lead to a decline in their income; the middle class who buys national debt, that is, 300,000 of the 430,000 people who are theoretically qualified for human property in the 6 million population, are worried about whether the national debt can really guarantee the principal and interest in the future; conservative politicians are worried about whether this expanded war will lead to the birth of an anti-British alliance in Europe.

Many times, people do not think, but prefer others to give a conclusion to dispel their doubts.

If you think about it carefully, you will find that William Pitt's strategy, especially the strategy to prevent revenge, is actually not valid.

Can this prevent France from building a navy again?

Can this push France into a trough and never recover?

Here we will not talk about the wrong use of British empiricism, the empiricism of looking for a sword on a boat, thinking about the situation of European continental countries based on British experience, and whether European countries lacking fishing boats will definitely decline.

Let's just say that the support points of William Pitt's strategy are North America and the Caribbean, but history has proved that North America and the Caribbean are not the basis for Britain to become the sun never sets.

Here we will not talk about the industrial revolution that William Pitt himself did not understand and could not understand.

Let's just say that the Indian issue in history is a model of unintentional planting of willows and willow shades, because at this time India was not the pearl in the crown, but the Caribbean was.

William Pitt's strategy was successful in the eyes of later generations, but in fact he could not justify himself, more like a blind cat encountering a dead mouse.

If India still maintains its value at this time, and the high national debt and mercantilist policies lead to the independence of North America, the sugar crisis, and the small market, then can his policy be considered successful?

To evaluate whether a person's subjective strategy is correct, we must look at the objective reality at the time, rather than looking at the situation in the future that he himself did not expect.

From the perspective of future generations, India solved the market for the industrial revolution, solved the raw materials, solved the shortage of labor in the raw materials industry, and so on for Britain, so that India became the most dazzling jewel in the crown of the empire.

However, did William Pitt's strategy at this time foresee the huge value of India in advance?

To put it bluntly, many of these things are just sacred myths of later generations. And at this time, his "anti-revenge strategy" is full of loopholes.

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

At least, before Dashun joined the war, the future he promised was so wonderful that it overwhelmed all doubts.

However, all this was reversed after Dashun joined the war.

According to this "anti-revenge theory", anyone who supports William Pitt's strategy must "destroy any naval resurgence capabilities of China, France, and Spain at the same time."

Can it be done?

Spain and France are not mentioned, only Dashun is mentioned. How can Dashun's revenge after defeat be destroyed?

In fact, it is not to say that there is no clue at all.

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

If all of these cannot be done, then this "anti-revenge theory" is actually invalid.

But let's not talk about Britain's anti-revenge against China at this time, even France can't do it.

When the frenzy of war began to dissipate

When 300,000 households who bought national debts secured by "tea tax, cotton luxury tax" and other means began to question whether they could get their principal back.

When the Financial Street and the West Indian Chamber of Commerce found that the losses would increase if they continued to fight.

John Mordaunt's "questioning the theory of anti-revenge" of "treating others in their own way" was a fatal blow to William Pitt.

John Mordaunt would choose to commit suicide, and people who commit suicide would arouse people's sympathy.

John Mordaunt would never reflect on Britain's expansion, but would firmly support Britain's expansion, and he could even pretend to support William Pitt's theory of anti-revenge.

In this reverse rhythm, he was not questioning Britain's war for interests; instead, he was questioning why the army and navy led by William Pitt could not destroy China's shipbuilding capabilities to prevent them from taking revenge? Why couldn't the army and navy led by William Pitt annihilate the Dashun naval fleet?

This idea is also in line with the Enlightenment political thinking in Europe at that time.

At this time, the European elites as a whole hated party struggles. Enlightenment was not only about enlightening individuals, but also about thinking about political structures and future countries.

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

Rather than being a party, it is more like an organization like the Donglin Party: they agree with certain similar values, but they are not actually an entity.

It was not until 1778 that the upper elites of the Whig Party organized the "Brookes Club" that Britain had a real political party. The role of this club is to reach a unity before the parliament, divide the interests in advance, and don't say different things at that time.

Therefore, at this time, the European elites hated party struggles.

So many upper classes who claim to be elites envisioned a government or parliament like this: before the decision is made, I can oppose it and use any legal means to oppose it; however, once the decision is made, I will put aside my sectarian and party struggles and do my best to do it well.

This is not a European feature, but many people in the East also yearn for and idealize the court, which can be regarded as a dream since ancient times.

Therefore, from the perspective of John Mordaunt, who claims to be a firm, true, traditional, Whig, the rules of the future court struggle that he defends make him only retaliate in this way.

The logic is this:

Since William Pitt has been appointed Secretary of State, in charge of the army and navy. So, even if I oppose your policy, I still need to implement it.

The Secretary of State is not wrong in the army and navy policy. It is only wrong that he cannot do the policy he formulated.

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

Since you have come to power, you have legal principles. Even if your policy when you came to power is to abolish the king, since you have publicly stated and been pushed to the stage, then you don’t need to consider whether the abolition of the king is right or wrong.

But after you came to the stage, you did not abolish the king, so this is your fault.

In the current situation, according to the "non-party and anti-sectarian" theory of the European elites at that time.

William Pitt's policy itself is no longer right or wrong. You cannot attack the authorized Secretary of State for having wrong policies, or ask him to leave because of opposing his policies - this kind of thing is at most a no-confidence motion and he will step down.

However, if the logic is "he did not implement his policies well, so he committed a crime."

Then, the nature of this matter is not no-confidence and the fall of the cabinet.

It is similar to John Bean's matter: you, John Bean, are the commander of the fleet, and your mission is to defeat the French army. Since you did not complete it, you are dereliction of duty and should be shot.

Similarly: you, William Pitt, are in charge of state affairs, and your mission is to complete and ensure the completion of the policies formulated by the government - although you formulated them, they are legally formulated by the government. Then, you did not complete the task of comprehensively expanding the war and destroying the enemy's possible revenge, and even had no plan for Dashun's participation in the war and did not destroy Dashun's naval forces in advance, so this is dereliction of duty.

Military courts will not execute generals for losing a war, at most they will be dismissed.

This is a basic principle of any country with a history. At least on the surface, most of the generals who were executed were not because of losing the war, but because of various extended responsibilities. For example, Xiong Tingbi of the previous dynasty seemed to be the same thing for losing a war and losing the frontier, but when it came to execution, losing a war and losing the frontier were two different concepts in law.

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

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

Similarly, turning the cabinet's policy mistakes into the Secretary of State's poor or even non-implementation of policies is also dereliction of duty.

Mordaunt made a clear distinction.

He did not want the cabinet to fall and William Pitt to step down.

He wanted William Pitt to die.

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

From the perspective of class, this is a counterattack by the Tory Party and the Conservative Whig Party, the big landowners and aristocrats represented by the Tory Party and the Conservative Whig Party, against the urban industrial and commercial class and the emerging political families representing their interests.