Emperor Yongzheng used a once dedicated Ming-loyalist and Chinese citizen, Zeng Jing, as a tool of propaganda to prove the greatness of the new emperor’s rule over China during the years 1728-1735.Emperor Yongzheng became heavily involved with his image as a noble ruler. He invested a lot of time and resources into a single man that he let greatly influence his image as Emperor of China.
The succession of Emperor Yongzheng was the result of a military coup. The previous emperor, Emperor Kangxi, had fifty-six children. Emperor Kangxi did name a successor to the throne; however, he then deemed the original heir apparent brutal, debauched, and unfit to rule. Prior to the death of Kangxi during 1722, several of his sons divided into various factions and conspired against each other for the succession to the throne. The fourth son, who became Emperor Yongzheng, seized the throne in a military coup.There was doubt whether Emperor Yongzheng was the rightful heir to the throne. Once he became emperor, he censored the record of his succession and silenced other writings that he deemed harmful to his regime or to the plight of the Manchus. Emperor Yongzheng made it a part of his mission to squelch negative rumors about his succession, and he continued to look for examples to prove his heavenly mandate to rule.
During October 1728, a Ming loyalist, Zeng Jing, conspired and had a treasonous message delivered to Emperor Yongzheng. The letter detailed the reasons why a barbaric Manchu should not rule over the people of China. Zeng believed Manchus were foreign barbarians and it was scholars, such as himself, “who best know how to be emperor.”
American President, Thomas Jefferson, admired the small farmer’s humble ability to live an independent life toiling on farm land in an effort to produce a simple abundance of crops to support the family. Such a simplistic approach to life led to the noble development of the yeoman’s heroic reputation in America. However, the yeoman farmer was indeed a commercial farmer and not independent of the market, as indicated by theorist that perpetuated the agrarian myth. When the opportunity to sell crops was made available the small farmer did not limit crop production to the needs of the family, as the agrarian myth implies. The virtuous image of the yeoman farmer is more applicable to a type of status designation of a myth-based character than to the reality of life of the 18th century small American farmer.
The word yeoman was not readily used during the 18th century.According to American bibliographer Charles Evans’s work entitled American Bibliography, the word yeoman is not located in the more than thirty thousand literary works published in the United States between the years 1760-1800. Thomas Jefferson’s most infamous work titled The Notes on the State of Virginia does not include the word yeoman, but words such as husbandmen, poor, farmer and laborer are used. The word yeomanry was used, more so, to describe the common or ordinary people of the 18th century. The ordinary farmer lived independently and toiled on farm land in an attempt to produce a decent crop; however, such independence was typically a result from a lack of transportation to sell their goods abroad, from a lack of money to increase their farm production, or from the lack of an accessible market to sell more crops to the public. Once the farmer had such access or ability to sell crops, then an opportunity to make money was not disregarded. Although the small farmer is respected for living off the land, the poor farmer attempted commercialism when opportunity was available in an effort to increase financial profit for the family.
America’s open-door policy emerged from the interplay between the private and public sectors. The reciprocal relationship between the American businessman and the American politician has roots traced back to a great debate between Theodore Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, and a coalition of American businessmen during 1899-1901. The debate developed the strategy for America’s economic strength to “dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world.” The partnership between the public and private sector endured throughout the decades due to the strong understanding that the American businessmen must have an overseas market for their product to ensure America’s domestic prosperity. The open door policy helped shape American foreign policy from 1900-1958.
The depression and social unrest that occurred during the 1890’s prompted American manufacturers, American farmers, American merchants and American entrepreneurial groups to blame a lack of available markets to sell their products as the reason for the poor economic climate of the country. As a result, American leaders concluded that overseas expansion would provide an outlet to end such tensions. The open door policy provided the proper tactics for the United States to embark on world expansion of its financial market, as well as the strategy required to open such markets for the sale of American products in underdeveloped countries.
The “Review of the World’s Commerce,” a report prepared by the State Department’s Bureau of Foreign Commerce on April 25, 1898, noted that American artisans and operatives must have access to sell their goods in foreign markets if such livelihoods are expected to keep their employment throughout the entire year. Government officials invested their time on behalf of the private companies, and on behalf of such company interests to expand the private sector overseas. The State Department’s Bureau of Foreign Commerce vowed to become a staunch competitor in “the world-wide struggle for trade.”