New Shun 1730

Whether it is compromise or resistance, the Freemasons in North America cannot come up with a clear program, and their inherent weakness and compromise, as well as the strong religious remnants, have caused the sharpness of the struggle in North America to decrease sharply as the Dashun participated in the war and smuggling increased.

To "debate", you need to come up with a whole set of things, not just a few words.

The simplest one, for example, is anti-feudalism.

Anti-feudalism is not simply about not being ruled by the king, but it is related to everyone's food, clothing, housing and transportation.

For example, the inheritance law in North America. I was born later than my brother, so I am lower than my brother? When dividing the inheritance, my brother, as the eldest son, can take all, or not take all but three or four times my amount? Why? Is the second son not a person? Behind this simple inheritance law, the hierarchical relationship of the feudal era is derived, which requires a whole set of scriptures to dialectically prove the legitimacy of the eldest son inheritance system.

For example, the issue of "tithe" in the church in North America, this thing is not called tithe or there is no tithe. I am not a member of the Congregational Church, so I have to pay 10 shillings of pagan tax, or pay church tax to become a "half-way believer", why?

For example, the tariff issue between states, is this an extension of the feudal guild city protection system? Does it seriously hinder the development of North American capitalism?

Another example is the slave issue; another example is the priority of military landlords to enclose land.

For these, relying on the so-called eternal justice, the glory of God, and the supreme truth, can we come up with a complete theoretical system to at least achieve justice and progress?

Without talking about slaves, or even a wider range of people, just talking about the feudal inheritance law, the elder brother and the younger brother are directly unequal in the inheritance law, which is not worthy of anti-feudalism.

The petty bourgeois theory derived from the petty bourgeois Puritanism, abstract human nature, abstract justice, abstract freedom, and the theory that talks about the material world and emphasizes specific classes, specific interests, and specific contradictions, there are many differences in the issue of the anti-British struggle in North America.

For example, the landmark event of "fighting for freedom" and "resisting the king's tyranny" is the issue of the "Royal Western Law" that Washington and other land speculators and big landowners opposed to the British.

In this matter, if we talk about abstract humanity, abstract freedom, and abstract justice, it is a group of free and unrestrained people who resisted the unreasonable laws of the monarch.

Because the unreasonable laws of the monarch damaged everyone's freedom to cultivate and the freedom of people to obtain their own land, etc.

From the perspective of specific classes and specific interests, this matter is a lot of vulgar.

Let's not talk about the fact that Britain had no money and didn't want to provoke Indians; let's not talk about the reasons for the government's decision such as the British tough policy and the rebellion of Chief Pontiac, which cost Britain hundreds of thousands of taels of silver.

Let's only talk about the class interests of the Western Border Order.

Fur traders didn't want the Indians to die because they could take things to exchange for furs with the Indians. If they continued to cultivate westward, the contradiction between the Indians and the whites would increase. By then, the Indians will be slaughtered over and over again. They will not care whether you are a fur trader or a land speculator. They will not be able to tell the difference and will be killed together.

Moreover, people cultivating the land will destroy the forest. If the forest is destroyed and the animals run away, where will the fur come from?

Without fur, how can fur traders make money?

The most classic fur ginseng route from North America to Guangdong in history had a net profit rate of 525% during the period of great development of luxury trade after the end of the White Lotus Rebellion. It cost money to suppress the uprising, but the silver did not evaporate into a black hole, but flowed to or concentrated in the hands of the middle and upper classes. This is one of the reasons why the market for luxury goods such as fur ginseng ushered in the "Golden Decade of Luxury Goods in 1804".

This high-profit trade naturally conflicts with the interests of land speculators and large landowners who try to sell arable land to later immigrants.

For cultivators and land speculators, what is needed is not animal fur or forests, but land and the elimination of Indians.

Only when the Indians are dead and no longer a threat, can the price of this piece of land be sold.

They are all 100 acres of land, both are river valley farmland. This one is threatened by Indians and comes to take revenge every now and then; the other one is not threatened by Indians and can be cultivated happily... Which piece of land is more valuable?

If the behavior of the big capitalists and oligarchs, who coerce the petty bourgeoisie to eliminate others and obtain private means of production, is defined as correct, great, rebellious, humane, and free... then what is the difference between this and Hitler's stuff?

Dead Indians are good Indians; dead Slavs are good Slavs; land is obtained with muskets; land is obtained with tanks... What is the difference?

It is obviously a contradiction between big land speculators, financial speculative capital; and commercial capital in the fur industry, and industrial capital that produces goods needed by Indians in exchange for fur.

Where is the progressiveness reflected?

Land speculators, fighting fur sellers.

Small landlords, fighting small merchants carrying small boats to collect furs.

Financial speculative capitalists, fighting commercial transportation and trade capitalists.

Land securities dealers, manufacturers of consumer goods.

Dead Indians are good Indians, Indian trade markets are created for consumer goods.

Is this justice? Progress?

From a progressive perspective, smugglers like Hancock are somewhat progressive. The navigation regulations imposed by anti-colonialism forced mercantilist trade because behind them stood the booming development of the brewing, timber, and animal husbandry industries in New England.

The difference between this kind of smuggling and the Opium War was clearly stated by Lao Ma: the Opium War was a monopoly trade under the guise of free trade because the Qing Dynasty banned opium. The inflow of opium and the outflow of silver led to insufficient consumption of other industrial products. Even from the perspective of the world market and free trade, the Opium War was extremely reactionary.

From the objective perspective of developing capitalism, prohibiting the crossing of the Appalachian Mountains, allowing the population to grow to the point where industry can be developed, and allowing the labor and land of the thirteen states to be separated and work in factories as soon as possible would be conducive to the development of capitalism, and to the early resolution of the contradiction between the two types of private ownership and the chronic disease of the anti-capitalist tendency of the petty bourgeoisie in the colonies.

From the perspective of pure human form, morality, good and evil, Dashun's support for France's occupation of the Ohio region and other actions were also just, moral, and humane.

Because France's fertile land made France not very interested in crossing the ocean to farm.

The fur and ginseng trade between China and France had a huge trade volume, and it became an important reason why France no longer regarded North America as "a few acres of snow".

The larger the trade volume of fur and ginseng trade, the more likely the Indians would survive. For these trade volumes, France would also support Indians to have their own reservations to exchange fur instead of slaughtering them.

Therefore, on the issue of the fate of the thirteen states in North America, many issues became complicated and thorough because of Dashun's intervention.

Economically:

If the trade and tariff issues were resolved, the unity between the merchants, factory owners, and even some small producers on the East Coast, as well as the plantation industry in the South, and the land speculators in the West would inevitably collapse.

As long as part of the British Navigation Act could be killed, the currency problem in North America could also be solved. North America does not produce gold and silver, but southern Europe and the Caribbean do.

As long as the currency problem does not go wrong, the small producers' opposition to Britain and the Anglo-American common market will not be so intense.

Although the power of land speculators is not weak, they cannot win in the face of the joint stranglehold of merchants, factory owners, the British government, the French government, and the Dashun, as well as the glorious resistance of the Indians.

In terms of nation:

The formation of the American nation is more dependent on this religious return and religious debate, or it can be regarded as the religious reform in North America.

According to the doctrine of Puritan Calvinism: All social inequalities such as inequality between the rich and the poor are predetermined by God. The abandoned people can never be redeemed. Only monks can communicate directly with God. They are the conveyors of the Lord's will and the incarnation of the Lord.

This is the "visible saint" mentioned in the first edition of the early City on the Hill.

This doctrine... was not a big problem at the beginning.

Because of the characteristics of the reclamation colonies, the development of capitalism was not so rapid, and workers could obtain their own means of production through labor.

In this state where the land is full of corn, corn grows freely, and the good dry meadows are connected in pieces, if you can still survive to the point of starvation, then it can really be said that you are poor because of laziness. Moreover, whoever is diligent, pious, and works hard can indeed live a rich life.

So although the doctrine is so ridiculous, the material foundation is here, and there is no big problem.

However, with more than a hundred years of immigration, reclamation, first-come-first-served landlords, the influx of European gold and silver capital, the development of industry and commerce, the reduction of land suitable for reclamation, and the enclosure of land speculators.

In recent years, the polarization of the rich and the poor, and very severe polarization of the rich and the poor, has appeared. The lower class has appeared in the city, and tenant farmers have appeared in the countryside. The life of indentured servants is not as good as that of self-employed farmers who could become self-employed farmers after working for a few years.

At this time, if you continue to preach the doctrine that the inequality between the rich and the poor is predetermined by God, and that you are poor because God did not choose you, etc., then...

It can only be said that life in North America is not bad, there are not so many poor people at the bottom, and the development of capitalism has not yet deepened. Otherwise, a group of people would have shouted that merchants and landlords are not as good as they seem.

This set of things can no longer be spread.

At this time, the religious return and moral revival require a major change in doctrine, preaching to the common people, so that the common people can regain their faith and piety to God.

Because, if the doctrine is not changed, the common people at the bottom will think: According to this saying that the rich and the poor are predetermined by God, I am an abandoned person, and I don’t believe your mother’s belief?

And because of the characteristics of the colonies of the thirteen states in North America... let alone a unified domestic market, the tariff wars and mutual vigilance between the states, church disputes and conflicts, made it impossible for the American nation to be created.

It still needed this religious revival and moral reflux, those missionaries wandered around, the Thirteen States were everywhere, and the communication between the states was deepened, which was considered to be the conditions for creating the American nation.

But... it was also because the doctrine needed to be greatly changed, and the previous uprisings and struggles.

Massachusetts had to make concessions and allow Baptists, Friends, Quakers, Presbyterians, Moravians, etc. to no longer pay the "pagan tax". If they collect it again, people will revolt.

The problem is how to support religion without money? If you don't collect the "pagan tax", you have to ask the grassroots to collect it. If you lose it in the east, you make up for it in the west. It has always been like this.

Nowadays, with the return of religion, missionaries running around the thirteen states, and the completely outdated doctrine of Calvinism.

In addition, the contradictions caused by collecting religious taxes from the lower classes...

The creation of a unified American nation has not yet been created, but there are already idealistic pastors who take the lower class route, leading the lower class people to resist religious taxes, demand public land distribution, reduce rent and interest to reduce usury debts, and oppose paying taxes to the church. In North America, the North American Protestant version of the "throw out the window" incident has already occurred.

This matter, after Dashun got involved, it became even more disgusting.

If Dashun had not intervened, Britain would have had to choose the tolerant "Quebec Act" because of the Catholic issue when it took Canada, and directly united the sectarian disputes in the thirteen states that were about to turn into mutual burning.

Because, in sectarian disputes, everyone is Protestant.

This Catholicism is absolutely intolerable.

Britain's religious tolerance contributed to the formation of the American nation, because Britain created a new and perfect common enemy for the Protestant sects that were about to beat each other's brains out.

Among the "12 major hatreds and 28 major sins" of the North American uprising, the Catholic tolerance policy of the "Quebec Act" was at the forefront of the 12 major hatreds and 28 major sins.

This time it's good.

With the Dashun army and the lure of the ginseng and sable fur trade, Quebec and Britain have nothing to do with each other. Britain doesn't need to introduce the Catholic Tolerance Act.

Congregationalists, new Congregationalists, old Congregationalists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the upper class, and the lower class, let's beat each other's brains out this time.

Forget about shaping the American nation. Without the pressure relief of the western land, the beginning of the polarization between the rich and the poor, without the common enemy to temporarily put aside the dispute and unite, the capital power began to erode, and the economic foundation changed... It is estimated that it will not take long before we really have to dream back to the era of the Geneva barbecue in 1553.

Protestants burn people much more fiercely than Catholics. Protestantism's fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism are far superior to Catholicism.

However, people in later generations only remember Bruno, after all, Catholicism was destroyed and Protestantism became the king of Semitic religion.

Old En commented: [Protestants persecuted natural science research more than Catholics. When Servetus wanted to discover the blood circulation process, Calvin burned him to death and roasted him alive for two hours]

Therefore, even if the legendary Freemasonry is really like in fantasy stories, it is a mysterious organization with great magical powers.

At this time, there is nothing to do.

Because, talking about nation, they can't talk about it.

Talking about class, they don't recognize it.

Talking about religion, let alone various sects, even the Congregational Church itself has now been divided into upper and lower factions, reformers and original sects.

This can't be used, and that can't be used. In the end, we can only talk about the supreme truth and eternal justice, and these things lack a real carrier that can accommodate these nonsense and empty talk, so as to put them into practice and organize people.

That being the case, the group of people in the Massachusetts Freemasons tend to compromise, which is inevitable to a certain extent.

…………

At the same time, after the meeting in the Bahamas, the news that Dashun intended to call on North American "celebrities" and "people with social influence" to go to Philadelphia to join in the great cause has spread throughout the thirteen states.

Similar to or different from the situation of the Massachusetts Freemasons, North American "social elites" with different interests and different mentalities have begun to move towards Philadelphia.

Merchants are concerned about tariffs and free trade.

Land speculators are concerned about the war with France and the Indian war.

The church is concerned about the issue of neo-pagans.

Plantation owners are concerned about national debt and export control issues, as well as Dashun's attitude towards the West African slave trade.

Factory owners are concerned about import tariffs.

Lawyers, doctors, craftsmen, etc. are all for improving social status and self-reputation.

Only the self-employed farmers who make up the absolute majority of the population are not cared about by anyone. They are not even as good as Indians and black slaves. At least in the interests or moral issues considered by people who are considering going to Philadelphia, they have little sense of existence.