New Shun 1730

This transition may be chaotic, or even cruel.

Because before the Second Continental Congress was held, a large number of artisans, poor citizens, etc. had organized to demand changes in inheritance laws, the right to cultivate public land, and the right to discuss matters only when the amount of wealth reached a certain level.

Later, Britain prevented the westward expansion. In addition to the opposition of land speculators, there were indeed a large number of poor self-cultivating farmers who "cultivated the land well and became a self-cultivating farmer, and became a landlord in the future after a few years".

There were already many class contradictions.

Historically, the anti-British faction won. Even so, there were subsequent tariff turmoil, veterans' uprisings, and peasant uprisings.

The victory of the anti-British faction actually meant that although this transition period was chaotic, it was not so chaotic that it could not be resolved.

Because a large number of pro-British and anti-secession factions fled and ran back to Europe.

Indeed, valuables, gold and silver, antiques, calligraphy and paintings, ship bonds... these things can be taken away.

But can the land be taken away? Can the house be taken away? Can the manor be taken away?

A large number of properties and houses of these pro-British factions who fled back to Europe were confiscated and distributed in the subsequent process.

Although it is true that most speculators and big businessmen obtained most of the distributed wealth.

However, the lower classes also got some benefits and recovered. At least the land reform in Pennsylvania gave some benefits to the poor. All the properties of the Pennsylvania family were returned to the public, half of which were bought by speculators and half were distributed.

This is the situation where the anti-British faction won.

What if the pro-British faction won?

If the anti-British faction won, the pro-British faction could take its valuables back to Europe, but it could not take its houses and land, but at least it could take its life back to Europe.

If the pro-British faction won, where would the anti-British faction go?

Then they could only die.

If they did not want to die, they could only accept capitalism and abandon the fantasy of the petty bourgeoisie.

Being pro-British or anti-British is not an abstract question of "slavery" or "freedom", but more of an economic issue.

For example, I am a self-employed farmer, with hundreds of acres of land at home, four or five children, and I live a happy life.

The eldest son was asked to work for a few years, or to learn to be a bricklayer; the second son was asked to learn to be a blacksmith...

When he was about to die, he told his children: You should give in to your younger brother, and all the land in the family will be given to him. I have saved some money here, and you have learned a craft, so go to the west. The wasteland there is cheap, and the eldest, second, and third sons all go to the west, buy some land, and live a good life like me. There is plenty of land in the west.

The plan was well made, and the family was very harmonious, but suddenly, the British issued a decree: no westward expansion!

Then why not fight against the British?

If you don't fight against the British, if you want to keep the family prosperous, you have to let one person inherit, and the rest go to work. Then forget about family harmony, and the children will fight each other.

If you don't fight against the British and treat your children equally, you have to divide the land smaller and smaller, and finally life will be difficult, and you can only borrow money from merchants. If you can't pay it back, you have to use the land to pay off the debt, and you will have nothing. Life has to go on. At this time, they say that there are factories in the city, so go and work in the factories.

A group of children have to think about what kind of life their fathers live? A hundred acres of land and a group of cows, basking in the sun during the slack season. What kind of life do they live? A skilled worker in a factory is worth less than a cow.

Don't tell me that "land is not infinite, and the New World also has boundaries", I won't listen.

Don't tell me about public ownership. The lower class of the United States, which was born out of the petty-bourgeois revolution, only opposes capitalism, not private ownership.

Don't tell me that "capitalist development is necessary", I don't understand. I just know that my father and my grandfather are illiterate and have no culture, but they still live in a big house and drink a little wine.

Even in later generations, it is still the same: my grandfather and my father may not even finish high school or go to college, but we still live in a big house and live a happy life. Don't tell me the truth, I just want to know why it was possible in my grandfather's time, but not now? ,

The same logic has been deeply rooted in North America since the beginning of anti-British sentiment.

After anti-British sentiment, anti-big businessmen and anti-banks emerged; after anti-banks, railroads and steam engines had not yet appeared, and the "Know-Nothing Party" had already begun to rise, believing that it was the Irish, Chinese, and Germans who caused their lives to be worse than their ancestors...

In fact, from the moment Dashun began to intervene in the European war, the industry in North America that had not yet been born was dead.

Because Dashun wanted to promote free trade.

The start of North America's manufacturing industry originated from the "Embargo Act of 1807". The extremely strict import and export restrictions and the almost crazy cutting off of foreign trade made North America's textile industry, glass manufacturing industry, hat making industry, mining industry, and metal processing industry develop rapidly in the Northeast.

That was the time when North American manufacturing industry rose.

Because of his hatred for Britain, Jefferson, who signed the "Embargo Act" with his own hands, burst into tears afterwards when he saw the manufacturing industry that had sprung up like mushrooms after rain.

Because he valued agriculture, despised commerce, and suppressed industry, he believed that self-cultivating farmers were the foundation of the republic, and the development of industry would inevitably destroy the foundation of the republic.

Jefferson believed that [manufacturing, which is accustomed to putting people in a state of labor, makes the aristocratic political principle dominant in a republic... The development of industry concentrates wealth in the hands of a few people, causing the republic to tend towards an aristocratic system...]

Therefore, the best way to face this fear is not to develop manufacturing and let every farmer have his own small piece of land... emphasis on agriculture, light on business, and anti-industry. Business is a "necessary evil" that must exist, but cannot be taken seriously.

He divided the land.

He bought Louisiana.

He introduced the "Land Sales Law", which changed the previous minimum limit of 500 acres for land purchase and reduced it to a quarter of the original limit. He hoped that "every homesteader can own his own piece of land and no more speculators will buy it." Then break it up into large pieces and sell them to earn the difference.”

He is anti-bank.

Against the financial industry.

Anti-manufacturing.

Anti-industrialization.

When Hamilton came up with the "Report on Manufacturing", he used his eloquence and high prestige to kill the manufacturing development plan at the beginning of the founding of the country.

It can be said that throughout his life, he fought against capitalism and industrialization, and practiced his dream of "a republic of the petty bourgeoisie" and "harmony between peasants and rural residents."

Obviously, he is not an emperor or a king.

These ideas of his can be supported because many people support her.

And this is what Lao Ma said [the chronic disease of colonization is anti-capitalism].

It cannot be said that Thomas Jefferson was a country bumpkin who had never seen the world.

Jefferson had been ambassador to Europe. Where had he not been to various European countries?

It is precisely because he has been to Europe and is so familiar with European practices that he is so firmly opposed to industrialization and the development of manufacturing.

He witnessed with his own eyes the cruelty of primitive accumulation, the horror of sweatshops, the large number of urban proletarians created by the development of manufacturing in France, and how terrifying the transformation of industrialization was.

He witnessed with his own eyes the lack of land in Europe to meet the growing population. People without land to farm went to work in big cities to make a living. The large amount of idle labor drove the development of the manufacturing industry. At the same time, it also led to the polarization of rich and poor society and the luxury of the rich. In stark contrast to the poverty of the poor.

Social unrest.

revolution.

Counterrevolution.

uprising.

repression.

Resist.

massacre.

Fight.

oppression.

The gap between rich and poor.

Moral corruption.

The world is in decline.

People's hearts are not ancient...

Again and again, again and again.

Precisely because Jefferson was not a country bumpkin or inexperienced in the world, he opposed industrialization and capitalism throughout his life.

[I would rather see half of the world's population extinct than this (anti-industrialization, return to petty bourgeois ownership, yeoman farmers, rural volunteer society, rural cooperative village community) failure! 】

Of course, at that time, North America was also qualified to ridicule European industrialization.

Not just ridicule, but contempt.

After the reform of the Land Sales Act, each family can get 160 acres of land, which is 960 acres.

In European countries that are industrializing, ask workers in rapidly industrializing cities, let alone 960 acres, does your home have 960 square meters?

This anti-industrialization and anti-capitalist idea of ​​petty bourgeois private ownership has confidence and foundation.

Those who oppose industrialization are not necessarily bad people; it is even possible that many people are good people.

But, he is a reactionary good person.

Any country that has reached the stage of private ownership and free land buying and selling will, sooner or later, develop the idea of ​​​​valuing agriculture over commerce and opposing industrialization.

This is a common problem in almost all countries based on "private ownership and free sale and purchase of land". If they cannot take this step, this crucial step of "industrialization at all costs"... the cycle will turn around.

And with the productivity level of cattle farming, ridge farming, blast furnace iron, and an output of 120 kilograms per mu, coupled with the private ownership of land and the sale of land, what will it look like in the future...

China has proven this to the Enlightenmentists and petty-bourgeois utopians in Europe and America in the 18th century over two thousand years of history, but no one believed it at the time.

The material basis of Jefferson's reactionary utopia was the vast land and sparse population of North America. These realistic foundations gave him the illusion that this fantasy could be realized.

But it is an illusion after all.

With the "Embargo Act" harming commercial compradors and stimulating local manufacturing, the rapid development of the textile industry and other manufacturing industries during the "Embargo Act" period cannot be reversed. In addition to crying bitterly, he thought that the second edition of "The Top of the Mountain" The city was also destroyed but it was irreversible, and there was no other way.

He said that he feared that the manufacturing, banking, and financial industries would gradually disintegrate the acquaintance society based on rural cooperatives that he imagined.

Indeed, his fantasy has the support of many North Americans.

However, similarly, while his "Embargo Act" laid the industrial foundation of North America, he himself was also labeled a "tyrant" by those who benefited from the original trading system.

Because of the "pain" of the embargo law, North America's original foreign trade was destroyed: the trading system of selling raw materials and importing industrial products.

As a result, the original commercial capital and the merchants who had completed capital accumulation through trade had to invest their capital in the textile industry and glass manufacturing industry that had not yet developed in the United States, completing the replacement of British textiles.

As a result, some states with developed commercial shipping, grain exporting states, and raw material exporting states did not hesitate to shout slogans about withdrawing from the federation. Because this "labor pain" is indeed too painful. This is a major reshuffle of the original national economic system. Thousands of people have lost their jobs, industrial product prices have surged, and smuggling has become rampant.

It is difficult to say whether it is right or wrong.

Things that happened after these may never happen again, and Dashun certainly couldn’t know all of this.

But it’s not important.

What’s important is that Dashun, who roughly understand that the economic base determines the superstructure, can make up a set of appropriate deceptions around the economic base of North America at this time to completely open up the North American market, gain enough support, and carry forward this theory that crushed the development of colonial industry and turn it into a prominent school of thought.

Select the people they want to win over, identify the people they must oppose, support one group of people, and kill another group.