Late Qing

The first Opium War and its aftermath

In February 1840 the British government decided to launch a military expedition, and Elliot and his cousin, George Elliot, were appointed joint plenipotentiaries to China (though the latter, in poor health, resigned in November). In June, 16 British warships arrived in Hong Kong and sailed northward to the mouth of the Bei River to press China with their demands. Charles Elliot entered into negotiations with the Chinese, and, although an agreement was reached in January 1841, it was not acceptable to either government. In May 1841 the British attacked the walled city of Guangzhou (Canton) and received a ransom of $6 million, which provoked a counterattack on the part of the Cantonese. This was the beginning of a continuing conflict between the British and the Cantonese.

The Qing had no effective tactics against the powerful British navy. They retaliated merely by setting burning rafts on the enemy’s fleet and encouraging people to take the heads of the enemies, for which they offered a prize. The imperial banner troops, although they sometimes fought fiercely, were ill-equipped and lacked training for warfare against the more-modern British forces. The Green Standard battalions were similarly in decay and without much motivation or good leadership. To make up the weakness, local militias were urgently recruited, but they were useless. The British proclaimed that their aim was to fight the government officials and soldiers who abused the people, not to make war against the Chinese population. And indeed there was a deep rift between the government and the people that the British could easily exploit, a weakness in Qing society that became apparent during the crisis of the war.

Elliot’s successor, Henry Pottinger, arrived at Macau in August and campaigned northward, seizing Xiamen (Amoy), Dinghai, and Ningbo. Reinforced from India, he resumed action in May 1842 and took Wusong, Shanghai, and Zhenjiang. Nanjing yielded in August, and peace was restored with the Treaty of Nanjing. According to the main provisions of the treaty, China ceded Hong Kong to Britain, opened five ports to British trade, abolished the cohong system of trade, agreed to equal official recognition, and paid an indemnity of $21 million. This was the result of the first clash between China, which had regarded foreign trade as a favor given by the heavenly empire to the impoverished foreign powers, and the British, to whom trade and commerce had become “the true herald of civilization.”

The Treaty of Nanjing was followed by two supplementary arrangements with the British in 1843. In addition, in July 1844 China signed the Treaty of Wanghia (Wangxia) with the United States and in October the Treaty of Whampoa (Huangpu) with France. These arrangements made up a complex of foreign privileges by virtue of the most-favored-nation clauses (guaranteeing trading equality) conceded to every signatory. All in all, they provided a basis for later inroads such as the loss of tariff autonomy, extraterritoriality (exemption from the application or jurisdiction of local law or tribunals), and the free movement of missionaries.

With the signing of the treaties—which began the so-called treaty-port system—the imperial commissioner Qiying, newly stationed at Guangzhou, was put in charge of foreign affairs. Following a policy of appeasement, his dealings with foreigners started fairly smoothly. But, contrary to the British expectation, the amount of trade dropped after 1846, and, to British dissatisfaction, the question of opium remained unsettled in the postwar arrangements. The core of the Sino-Western tension, however, rested in an anti-foreign movement in Guangdong.

The anti-foreign movement and the second Opium War (Arrow War)

At the signing of the Treaty of Nanjing, China and Britain disagreed as to whether foreigners were allowed to enter the walled city of Guangzhou. Though Guangzhou was declared open in July 1843, the British faced Cantonese opposition. After 1847 trouble rapidly grew, and, as a result of an incident at nearby Foshan, a promise was given the British that they would be allowed to enter the city in 1849. Yet troubles continued. As a result of his inability to control the situation, Qiying was recalled in 1848 and replaced with the less-compliant Xu Guangjin. As the promised date neared, the Cantonese demonstrated against British entry. Finally, the British yielded, and the anti-foreigners won a victory despite the fact that the Beijing court conceded a “temporary entrance” into the city.

After the Cantonese resistance in 1841, the gentry in Guangdong began to build a more-organized anti-foreign movement, promoting the militarization of village society. The city of Guangzhou was also a center of diffusion of xenophobia, because the scholars at the city’s great academies were proclaiming the Confucian theory that uncultured foreign powers should be excluded. The inspired anti-foreign mood also contained a strong anti-government sentiment and perhaps a tendency toward provincialism; the Cantonese rose up against the foreign powers to protect their own homeland, without recourse to the government authorities.

In the strained atmosphere in Guangzhou, where the xenophobic governor-general, Ye Mingchen, was inciting the Cantonese to annihilate the British, the Arrow incident occurred in October 1856. Guangzhou police seized the Arrow, a Chinese-owned but British-registered ship flying a British flag, and charged its Chinese crew with piracy and smuggling. The British consul Harry Parkes sent a fleet to fight its way up to Guangzhou. French forces joined the venture on the plea that a French missionary had been officially executed in Guangxi. The British government sent an expedition under Lord Elgin as plenipotentiary. The Russians and the Americans abstained but sent their representatives for diplomatic maneuvering. At the end of 1857 an Anglo-French force occupied Guangzhou, and in May 1858 they took the Dagu forts and marched to Tianjin.

The Qing representatives had no choice but to comply with the demands of the British and French; the Russian and U.S. diplomats also gained the privileges their militant colleagues secured by force. During June four Tianjin treaties were concluded that provided for, among other measures, the residence of foreign diplomats in Beijing and the freedom of Christian missionaries to evangelize their faith.

In 1859, when the signatories arrived off the Dagu forts on their way to ratify the treaties in Beijing, they were told that they could not pass and to take a different route to Beijing. The British-led forces accompanying the signatories, however, decided to push forward past Dagu. They were repulsed, with heavy damage inflicted by the gunfire from the forts. In 1860 an allied force invaded Beijing, driving the Xianfeng emperor (reigned 1850–61) out of the capital to the summer palace at Chengde. A younger brother of the emperor, Gong Qinwang (Prince Gong), was appointed imperial commissioner in charge of negotiation. The famous summer palace was destroyed by the British in October. Following the advice of the Russian negotiator, Prince Gong exchanged ratification of the 1858 treaties; in addition, he signed new conventions with the British and the French. The U.S. and Russian negotiators had already exchanged the ratification in 1859, but the latter’s diplomatic performance in 1860 was remarkable.

Russian interests in the East had been activated in competition with the British effort to open China. A Russian spearhead, directed to Kuldja (Yining) by way of the Irtysh River, resulted in the Sino-Russian Treaty of Kuldja in 1851, which opened Kuldja and Chuguchak (Tacheng) to Russian trade. Another drive was directed to the Amur watershed under the initiative of Nikolay Muravyov, who had been appointed governor-general of eastern Siberia in 1847. By 1857 Muravyov had sponsored four expeditions down the Amur; during the third one, in 1856, the left bank and lower reaches of the river had actually been occupied by the Russians. In May 1858 Muravyov pressed the Qing general Yishan to sign a treaty at Aigun (Aihui), by which the territory on the northern bank of the Amur was ceded to Russia and the land between the Ussuri River and the sea was placed in joint possession by the two countries, pending further disposition. But Beijing refused to ratify the treaty. When the Anglo-French allies attacked northern China in 1860, the Russian negotiator Nikolay Ignatyev acted as China’s friend and mediator in securing the evacuation of the invaders from Beijing. Soon after the allies had left Beijing, Ignatyev secured, as a reward for his mediatory effort, the Sino-Russian Treaty of Beijing, which confirmed the Treaty of Aigun and ceded to Russia the territory between the Ussuri and the sea.

The 1858–60 treaties extended the foreign privileges granted after the first Opium War and confirmed or legalized the developments in the treaty-port system. The worst effects for the Qing authorities were not the utilitarian rights, such as trade, commerce, and tariff, but the privileges that affected the moral and cultural values of China. The right to propagate Christianity threatened Confucian values, the backbone of the imperial system. The permanent residence of foreign representatives in Beijing signified an end to the long-established tributary relationship between China and other countries. The partial collapse of the tribute system meant a loss of the emperor’s virtue, a serious blow to dynastic rule in China.

During the turbulent years 1858–60, the Qing bureaucracy was divided between the war and peace parties. It was the peace party’s leaders—Prince Gong, Gui Liang, and Wen Xiang—who took charge of negotiating with the foreigners, though they did so not as a matter of principle but because the imminent crisis forced them to.

In 1861, in response to the settlement of the foreign representatives in the capital, the Zongli Yamen (office for General Management) was opened to deal with foreign affairs, its main staff filled by the peace party leaders. The Qing officials themselves, however, deemed this as still keeping a faint silhouette of the tribute system.

The delay and difficulty in the Qing adjustment to the Western presence may possibly be ascribed to both external and internal factors. The Chinese must have seen the Westerners who had appeared in China as purveyors of poisonous drugs and as “barbarians” in the full sense of the word, from whom they could learn nothing. But the Chinese staunchly held to their tradition, which also had two aspects—ideological and institutional. The core of the ideological aspect was the Confucian distinction between China and foreign countries. The institutional aspect had recently been much studied, however, and precedents in Chinese history had been found, for example, of treaty ports with foreign settlements, consular jurisdiction, and employment of Westerners as imperial personnel; thus, the Chinese regarded the Western impact as an extension of their tradition rather than a totally new situation that necessitated a new adjustment. And at least until 1860 the Qing leaders remained withdrawn in the shell of tradition, making no effort to cope with the new environment by breaking the yoke of the past.

The Taiping Rebellion

In the first half of the 19th century, the provinces of Guangdong and Guangxi, the homeland of the Taiping people, had been beset with accelerating social unrest. After the first Opium War, government prestige declined, and officials lost their capacity to reconcile communal feudings. The greatest among such conflicts was that between the native settlers and the so-called guest settlers, or Hakka, who had migrated to Guangxi and western Guangdong, mainly from eastern Guangdong. The Baishangdi Hui (“God Worshippers’ Society”) was founded by Hong Xiuquan, a fanatic who believed himself a son of God, and his protégé, Feng Yunshan, an able organizer. Their followers included miners, charcoal workers, and poor farmers and laborers in central Guangxi, most of whom were Hakka. In January 1851 a new state named Taiping Tianguo (“Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace”) was declared in the district of Guiping in Guangxi, with Hong Xiuquan assuming the title tianwang (“heavenly king”). That September the Taiping shifted their base to the city of Yong’an (present-day Mengshan, Guangxi), where they were besieged by the imperial army until April 1852. At that point they broke the siege and rushed into Hunan. Absorbing some secret-society members and outlaws, they dashed to Wuhan, the capital of Hubei, and proceeded along the Yangtze to Nanjing, which they captured in March 1853, renamed Tianjing (“Heavenly Capital”), and made their capital.

The core of the Taiping religion was a monotheism tinged with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, but it was mixed with a hatred of the Manchu and an intolerance of the Chinese cultural tradition. In the early years of the rebellion, this politico-religious faith sustained the fighting spirit of the Taiping. In the ideal Taiping vision the population was to give all of its belongings to a “general treasury,” which would be shared by all alike. While this extreme egalitarianism was rarely implemented outside the original Hakka core from Guangxi, it probably at times attracted the distressed and lured them to the Taiping cause. The origin of many Taiping religious ideas, morals, and institutions can be traced to China’s Confucian tradition, but the Taiping’s all-out anti-regime struggle, motivated by strong religious beliefs and a common sharing, also had precedents in earlier religious rebellions.

After the Taiping settled in Tianjing (Nanjing), village officials were appointed, and redistribution of farmland was planned in accordance with an idea of primitive communism. But in fact the land reform was impracticable. The village officials’ posts were filled mainly by the former landlords or the clerks of the local governments, and the old order in the countryside was not replaced by a new one that the oppressed people could dominate.

In May 1853 the Taiping sent an expedition to northern China, which reached the neighborhood of Tianjin but finally collapsed during the spring of 1855. After that the Yangtze valley provinces were the main theater of struggle. Of the government armies in those years, the Green Standards were too ill-disciplined, and not much could be expected of the bannermen. The Qing government had no choice but to rely on the local militia forces, such as the “Hunan Braves” (later called the Hunan Army), organized by Zeng Guofan in 1852, and the “Huai Braves” (later called the Huai Army), organized by Li Hongzhang in 1862. These armies were composed of the village farmers, inspired with a strong sense of mission for protecting the Confucian orthodoxy, and were used for wider operations than merely protecting their own villages. The necessary funds for maintaining them were provided initially by local gentry.

The Taiping were gradually beaten down; with the capture of Anqing, the capital of Anhui, in October 1861 by the Hunan Army, the revolutionary cause was doomed. But the fall of Nanjing was accelerated by the cooperation of Chinese mercenaries equipped with Western arms, commanded by an American, Frederick Townsend Ward; a Briton, Charles George Gordon; and others. Nanjing’s fall in July 1864 marked the end of one of the greatest civil wars in world history. The main cause of the Taiping failure was internal strife among the top leaders in Nanjing. Not only did they give themselves over to luxury, but also their energy was exhausted and their leadership lost by an internecine conflict that erupted in 1856. In addition, religious fanaticism, though it inspired the fighters, became a stumbling block that interfered with the rational and elastic attitude necessary to handle delicate military and administrative affairs. The intolerance toward traditional culture alienated the gentry and the people alike. Presumably, the failure of the land-redistribution policy also estranged the landless paupers from the Taiping cause.

The Nian Rebellion

Often in the first half of the 19th century, plundering gangs called nian ravaged northern Anhui, southern Shandong, and southern Henan. In mid-century, however, their activities were suddenly intensified, partly by the addition to their numbers of a great many starving people who had lost their livelihood from repeated floods of the Huang He in the early 1850s and partly because they had become emboldened by the Taiping advance north of the Yangtze. From 1856 to 1859 the Nian leaders consolidated their bases north of the Huai River by winning over the masters of the earth-wall communities, consolidated villages that had been fortified for self-defense against the Taiping. The Nian strategy was to use their powerful cavalry to plunder the outlying areas and carry the loot to their home bases.

Many influential clans, with all their members, joined the Nian cause, and the clan chiefs played an important role among the Nian leaders. Gentry of lower strata also joined the Nian. The greater part of the Nian force consisted of poor farmers and laborers, although deserters from the government-recruited militias and salt smugglers were important as military experts. The real cause of their strength was supposed to be the people’s support and sympathy for their leaders, but creating a power center proved to be difficult because the Nian’s basic social unit was the earth-wall community, where a powerful master exercised autonomy. In 1856 Zhang Luoxing received the title “lord of the alliance” of the Nian, but he was far too weak to form a center. Imperial pacification was launched by General Senggelinqin, who led a powerful cavalry into the affected area in 1862, but his pursuit was ineffective, and the general himself was killed in Shandong in May 1865. Thus, the last imperial crack unit disappeared. Zeng Guofan succeeded Senggelinqin as general and enforced a policy of detaching the earth-wall masters from their men and of employing the latter as his troops. Finally, Li Hongzhang succeeded Zeng in 1866 and set up encirclement lines along the Huang He and the Grand Canal, using that strategy to destroy the revolts in 1868.

Muslim rebellions

Muslim rebellions in Yunnan and in Shaanxi and Gansu originated from clashes between the Chinese and Muslims in those provinces. Religious antipathy must be taken into account, but more important were social and political factors. In the frontier provinces the late-dynastic confusions were felt as keenly as elsewhere, which aggravated the problems between the Chinese and the Muslims. Yunnan had been haunted by Muslim-Chinese rivalries since 1821, but in Shaanxi small disturbances had been seen as early as the Qianlong reign. Government officials supported the Chinese, and the Muslims were obliged to rise up against both the Chinese and the authorities.

Rivalry between the Chinese and Muslim miners in central Yunnan triggered a severe clash in 1855, which developed into the slaughter of a great many Muslims in and around the provincial capital, Kunming, the following April. This triggered a general uprising of Yunnan Muslims, which lasted until 1873. Lack of a unified policy weakened the Muslims, and the rebellion was brought to an end partly through the pacifiers’ policy of playing the rebel leaders off against one another.

Another Muslim uprising, in Shaanxi in 1862, promptly spread to Gansu and Xinjiang and lasted for 15 years. The general cause of the trouble was the same as in Yunnan, but the Taiping advance to Shaanxi encouraged the Muslims to rebel. The first stage of the uprising developed in the Wei River valley in Shaanxi; in the next stage the rebels, defeated by the imperial army, fled to Gansu, which became the main theater of fighting. Encouraged by the Nian invading Shaanxi at the end of 1866, the core of the rebel troops returned to Shaanxi, and sporadic clashes continued in the two provinces. In the last phase, Zuo Zongtang, a former protégé of Zeng Guofan, appeared in Shaanxi with part of the Huai Army and succeeded in pacifying the area in 1873.

There were many independent Muslim leaders in Shaanxi and Gansu at that time, but they had neither a common headquarters nor a unified policy, nor were there any all-out revolutionaries. Pacification was delayed because the imperial camp was preoccupied with the Taiping and the Nian and could not afford the expenditure needed for an expedition to the remote border provinces.

Effects of the rebellions

The Qing authorities had to rely on local armies, financed by the provincial and local gentry class, to combat the large popular uprisings. To meet this need, a special tax on goods in transit—called the likin (lijin)—was started in 1853, the proceeds of which remained largely outside the control of the central government. The provincial governors-general and governors came to enlarge their military and financial autonomy, bringing about a trend of decentralization. Moreover, the locus of power shifted from the Manchu to those Chinese who had played the main part in putting down the rebellions. The Hunan Army was gradually disbanded after Nanjing had been retaken from the Taiping, but the Huai Army, after its success against the Muslims, served as a strong basis for the political maneuvers of its leader, Li Hongzhang, until its defeat and collapse in the Sino-Japanese War in 1894–95.

The rebellions brought immeasurable damage and devastation to China. Both the Taiping and the pacifiers were guilty of brutality and destruction. A contemporary estimate of 20 million to 30 million victims is certainly far less than the real number. In the course of the Taiping Rebellion, the lower Yangtze provinces lost much of their surplus population, but thereafter the region was resettled by immigrants from less-damaged areas. Its ruined industry and agriculture had not fully recovered even by the beginning of the 20th century. The area of the Muslim rebellions too suffered catastrophic devastation and depopulation.

During the first half of the 19th century, a number of natural disasters left large hordes of starving victims who had no choice but to join the Taiping and other rebel groups. The worst calamity, however, was a drought that attacked the northern provinces of Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Henan in 1877–78 and caused hardship for perhaps as many as 13 million people. These disasters were a serious setback to China, which had just begun to promote industrialization to meet the Western challenge.

Foreign relations in the 1860s

The Zongli Yamen had two offices attached to it: the Inspectorate General of Customs and Tongwen Guan. The former was the center for the Maritime Custom Service, administered by Western personnel appointed by the Qing. The latter was the language school opened to train the children of bannermen in foreign languages, and later some Western sciences were added to its curriculum; the quality of candidates for the school was not high. Similar schools were opened in Shanghai and Guangzhou.

A superintendent of trade for the three northern ports (later known as high commissioner for beiyang, or “northern ocean”) was established in 1861 at Tianjin, parallel to a similar, existing post at Shanghai (later known as high commissioner for nanyang, or “southern ocean”). The creation of the new post was presumably aimed at weakening the foreign representatives in Beijing by concentrating foreign affairs in the hands of the Tianjin officials.

In 1865–66 the British strongly urged the Qing authorities to make domestic reforms and to become Westernized. Prince Gong asked the high provincial officials to submit their opinions about the proposed reforms. The consensus advocated diplomatic missions abroad and the opening of mines but firmly argued against telegraph and railway construction. Against that background, a roving mission was sent to the United States in 1868, which then proceeded to London and Berlin. This first mission abroad was a success for China, but its very success had an adverse effect on China’s modernization by encouraging the conservatives, who learned to regard the Westerners as easy to manipulate.

The treaties signed in 1858 at Tianjin by the Chinese, British, and French included provisions for them to be revised in the year 1868, at which time the Qing were able to negotiate with due preparations and in an atmosphere of peace for the first time since the Opium Wars. The result was the Alcock Convention of 1869, which limited the unilateral most-favored-nation clause of the original treaty, a sign of gradual improvement in China’s foreign relations. However, under pressure from British merchants in China, the London government refused to ratify it. The resentment engendered by the refusal, together with an anti-Christian riot at Tianjin in 1870, brought an end to the climate of Sino-foreign cooperation that had prevailed in the 1860s.

The treaty arrangements made just after the Opium Wars forced China to remove the ban on Christianity, but the Beijing court tried to keep that fact secret and encouraged provincial officials to continue prohibiting the religion. The pseudo-Christian Taiping movement furthered the anti-Christian move on the part of royalists. Under such circumstances, anti-Christian riots spread throughout the country, culminating in the Tianjin Massacre in 1870, in which a French consul and 2 officials, 10 nuns, and 2 priests died and in which 3 Russian traders were killed by mistake. At the negotiating table, the French sternly demanded the lives of three responsible Chinese officials as a preventive against further such occurrences, but the Qing negotiators, Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang, were successful at least in refusing the demanded execution of the three (though several others were put to death). After the incident, however, Zeng was denounced for his infirm stand, and Prince Gong’s political influence began to wane in the growing anti-foreign climate.

Various interpretations have been given regarding the nature of the anti-Christian movement: some emphasize the anti-foreign Confucian orthodoxy, while others stress the patriotic and nationalistic reaction against the missionaries’ attempt to Westernize the Chinese. Still others point to the Christian support of the oppressed in their struggle against the official and gentry class. What is clear, however, is that Christianity sowed dissension and friction in the already disintegrating late Qing society and undermined the prestige of the Qing dynasty and the Confucian orthodoxy.

Industrialization for “self-strengthening”

Stimulated by the military training and techniques exhibited during the Westerners’ cooperation against the Taiping and supported by Prince Gong in Beijing, the Self-Strengthening Movement was launched by the anti-Taiping generals Zeng Guofan, Li Hongzhang, and Zuo Zongtang, who sought to consolidate the Qing power by introducing Western technology. The ideological champion of the movement was Feng Guifen, who urged China to “use the barbarians’ superior techniques to control the barbarians” and proposed to give the gentry stronger leadership than before in local administration.

In the first period of modern industrial development (1861–72), effort was focused on manufacturing firearms and machines, the most important enterprises being the Kiangnan (Jiangnan) Arsenal in Shanghai, the Tianjin Machine Factory, and the Fuzhou Navy Yard; there were many other smaller ones. However, the output was disappointing—the shipyard at Fuzhou, for example, built 15 vessels during the half decade after 1869 as scheduled, but thereafter it declined and was destroyed in 1884 during the Sino-French War—and the weapons industry was significant not so much for its direct military purpose as for the introduction of Western knowledge and techniques through the many educational facilities that were attached to each installation.

In the second period (1872–94), weight shifted from the weapons industry to a wider field of manufacture, and the operation shifted from direct government management to a government-supervised and merchant-managed method. Leading among the several enterprises of the second period were the China Merchants’ Steam Navigation Company and the Kaiping coal mines. These enterprises were sponsored by high provincial officials—the central figure was Li Hongzhang—but their management was left to joint operation by shareholders’ representatives and the lower officials appointed by the sponsors.

Management, however, was beset with bureaucratic malpractices. The seat of decision making and responsibility was obscure, business was spoiled by nepotism and corruption, and the sponsors tended to use the enterprises as a basis for their regional power. The central government not only was unable to supply capital but also looked for every opportunity to exploit these enterprises as it had exploited the monopolistic salt business on which those companies were modeled. Under such circumstances, the enterprises inevitably slid into depression after some initial years of apparent success.

Compounding the problems were the compradors (Chinese agents employed by foreign firms in China) who, acting as a link between Chinese commerce and the foreign firms in the treaty ports, accumulated vast wealth from the new enterprises. Though active in supplying capital and managerial personnel to the enterprises, the compradors themselves lacked technical training and knowledge and often indulged in speculation and embezzlement. Each comprador belonged to an exclusive community by strong family or regional ties that focused his concerns on his community rather than on national interests.

These shortcomings were deeply rooted in the late Qing social conditions and more than offset efforts to construct and maintain the new enterprises. Thus, Chinese society as a whole did not change structurally before 1911.

East Turkistan

To the west of Kashgaria in East Turkistan (now in western Xinjiang), a khanate of Khokand emerged after 1760 in the Fergana region and became a powerful caravan trade center. In 1762 the Qing government countered this by establishing a presence in the Ili (Yili) River region. When Muslim rebellion spread rapidly from Shaanxi and Gansu to East Turkistan, a Tajik adventurer from Khokand, Yakub Beg, seized the opportunity to invade Kashgaria and established power there in 1865; he soon showed signs of advancing to the Ili region in support of the British in India. In Ili, rebel Muslims had set up an independent power at Kuldja (Yining) in 1864, which terrorized the Russian borders in defiance of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Kuldja in 1851. The Russians, therefore, occupied Kuldja in 1871 and remained there for 10 years.

Having subdued the Gansu Muslim rebellion in 1873, Zuo Zongtang captured Urumchi (Ürümqi) in August 1876 and restored the whole region northward to the Tien Shan range, except for the Kuldja area, and painstakingly recovered Kashgaria at the end of 1877.

Li Hongzhang hoped to regain Ili through negotiation; however, a treaty for the restitution of Ili, signed in October 1879, was extremely disadvantageous to China. Upon returning home amid a storm of condemnation, the Chinese negotiator Chonghou was sentenced to death; the Russians considered this to be inhuman, and they stiffened their attitude. But the minister to Britain and France, Zeng Jize, son of Zeng Guofan, succeeded in concluding a treaty at St. Petersburg in February 1881 that was more favorable yet still conceded the Russians many privileges in East Turkistan.

Though at a cost of nearly 58 million taels in expedition and indemnity, the northwest was finally restored to China, and in 1884 a new province, Xinjiang, was established over the area, which had never before been integrated into China.

Tibet and Nepal

Qing control of Tibet reached its height in 1792, but thereafter China became unable to protect that region from foreign invasion. When an army from northern India invaded western Tibet in 1841, China could not afford to reinforce the Tibetans, who expelled the enemy on their own. China was a mere bystander during a coup d’état in Lhasa in 1844 and could not protect Tibet when it was invaded by Gurkhas in 1855. Tibet thus tended to free itself from Qing control.

The border dispute between Nepal and British India, which sharpened after 1801, had caused the Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814–16 and brought the Gurkhas under British influence. During the war the Gurkhas sent several missions to China in vain expectation of assistance. When political unrest flared up in Nepal after 1832, an anti-British clique seized power and sought assistance from China to form an anti-British common front with the Qing, then fighting the first Opium War. But this too was rejected. Jung Bahadur, who had become premier of Nepal in 1846, decided on a pro-British policy; his invasion of Tibet in 1855—which took advantage of the Taiping uprising in China—gained Nepal many privileges there. Though Nepal sent quinquennial missions to China until 1906, the Gurkhas did not recognize Chinese suzerainty.

Myanmar (Burma)

In 1867 the British gained the right to station a commercial agent at Bhamo in Myanmar, from which they could explore the Irrawaddy River up to the Yunnan border. A British interpreter accompanying a British exploratory mission to Yunnan was killed by members of a local tribe on the Yunnan-Myanmar border in February 1875. The British minister in China, Sir Thomas Francis Wade, seized the opportunity to negotiate the Chefoo Convention with China. Negotiated and signed at the northern Shandong city of Yantai (Chefoo) in 1876, the treaty further extended the British rights by opening more Chinese ports to foreign trade and agreeing to a mission to delineate the Yunnan-Myanmar border, though the London government put off its ratification until 1885. Guo Songtao, appointed chief of a mission of apology to Britain, arrived in London in 1877. He was the first Chinese resident minister abroad, and within two years China opened embassies in five major foreign capitals.

When the last king of Myanmar, Thibaw, tried to join with France and Italy to stave off British pressure, Britain sent an ultimatum in October 1885, seized the capital of Mandalay, and annexed the country in January 1886 under the name Burma. During the final bargaining with the British, Thibaw ignored his tributary relations with the Qing, yet China proposed that the Myanmar royal court be preserved even nominally so that it could send a decennial mission to China. Britain refused, but, in a convention signed in July 1886, it agreed that the new Burmese government should send to China a decennial envoy. This outdated practice, however, was abandoned in 1900.

Vietnam

In 1802 a new dynasty was founded in Vietnam (Dai Viet) by Nguyen Anh, a member of the royal family of Nguyen at Hue who had expelled the short-lived Tay Son regime and had unified the country, taking the dynastic name Gia Long. The Qing, under the Jiaqing emperor, recognized the new dynasty as a fait accompli, but a controversy arose as to a name for the new country. Gia Long demanded the name Nam Viet, but the Qing recommended Vietnam, reversing the two syllables. Finally an agreement was reached, and Gia Long became ruler of Vietnam.

Minh Mang, the second Nguyen emperor (reigned 1820–41), vigorously persecuted Christians in Vietnam. France resorted to arms after 1843 and, by the treaty of 1862 signed at Saigon (present-day Ho Chi Minh City), received three eastern provinces of Cochinchina, besides other privileges concerning trade and religion. In time, French attentions were focused on the Tonkin delta region into which the Red River flows, providing easy access to Yunnan. But the region was beset with many disorderly gangs escaped from China, including the Black Flags, who were under the command of Liu Yung-fu, a confederate of the Taiping. After a small French force had occupied some key points in Tongkin in 1873, a treaty was signed at Saigon in March 1874 that stipulated the sovereignty and independence of Vietnam. Though this clause implied that China could not intervene in Vietnamese affairs, the Zongli Yamen failed to file a strong protest. In 1880, however, the Qing claimed a right to protect Vietnam as its vassal state. Against the French occupation of Tongkin in 1882–83 and France’s proclamation of protectorate status for Vietnam (under the name of Annam) in the Treaty of Hue of August 1883, the Qing deployed its army in the northern frontier of Tongkin. Efforts for a peaceful settlement ended in failure, and both countries prepared for war.

In August 1884 French warships attacked Fuzhou and destroyed the Chinese fleet and dockyard there. Thereafter, however, the French navy and army were stalemated, and an armistice was reached in the spring of 1885. By the subsequent definitive treaty, the French protectorate of Vietnam was recognized, terminating the historical tributary relationship between China and Vietnam.

During the crisis the attitude of the Qing headquarters fluctuated between advocating militancy and seeking appeasement. Meanwhile, Li Hongzhang and Zeng Guoquan were reluctant to mobilize their respective northern and southern naval fleets in accordance with orders from Beijing.

Japan and the Ryukyu Islands

Three years after the Meiji Restoration of 1868—which inaugurated a period of modernization and political change in Japan—a commercial treaty was signed between China and Japan, and it was ratified in 1873. Understandably it was reciprocal, because both signatories had a similar unequal status vis-à-vis the Western countries. The establishment of the new Sino-Japanese relations was supported by Li Hongzhang and Zeng Guofan, who advocated positive diplomacy toward Japan.

In 1872 the Meiji government conferred on the last king of the Ryukyu Islands, Shō Tai, the title of vassal king and in the following year took over the island’s foreign affairs. In reprisal for the massacre of shipwrecked Ryukyuans by a Taiwanese tribe in 1871, the Tokyo government sent a punitive expedition to Taiwan. Meanwhile, the Japanese sent an envoy to Beijing to discuss the matter, and the Qing agreed to indemnify Japan. In 1877, however, the Ryukyu king asked for Qing intervention to revive his former tributary relations with China; Sino-Japanese negotiations were opened at Tianjin in regard to Ryukyu’s position, and an agreement was reached in 1882. However, the Qing refused to ratify it, and the matter was dropped.

Korea and the Sino-Japanese War

In Korea a boy was enthroned as the Chosŏn king Kojong in 1864 under the regency of his father, Yi Ha-ŭng (called the Taewŏn’gun [“Prince of the Great Court”]), a vigorous exclusionist. In 1866 the Koreans began a nationwide persecution of Christians and repulsed the French and Americans there. The Qing, although uneasy, did not intervene.

After the Meiji Restoration, Japan made many efforts to open new and direct intercourse with Korea, but the Taewŏn’gun, citing diplomatic slights, managed to rebuff these overtures. The Chosŏn government became more approachable after he stepped down in 1873, and a Japanese envoy began talks at Pusan in 1875. However, the parley was protracted, and Japan impatiently sent warships to Korea; these sailed northward to Kanghwa Bay, where gunfire was exchanged between the Japanese vessels and a Korean island fort. The Treaty of Kanghwa, signed in 1876, defined Korea as an independent state on an equal footing with Japan. Japan sent an envoy, Mori Arinori, to China to report on recent Korean affairs. China insisted that, although Korea was independent, China could come to the support of its vassal state (Korea) in a crisis, an interpretation that Mori saw as contrary to the idea of independence in international law.

From that time on, the Qing strove to increase their influence in Korea; they helped open Korea to the United States and supported the efforts of pro-Chinese Koreans for modernization. However, strong feelings of conservatism and xenophobia provided the basis for the Taewŏn’gun to return to power. In July 1882 he expelled Kojong’s consort, Queen Min, and her clique and burned down the Japanese legation. The Qing dispatched an army to Korea, arrested the Taewŏn’gun, and urged the king to sign a treaty with Japan. Thus, the Qing claim for suzerainty was substantiated.

In December 1884 a group of pro-Japanese reformists attempted a coup, but it failed because of the Qing military presence in Korea. From these two incidents, Qing political influence and commercial privileges emerged much stronger, though Japan’s trade in Korea far surpassed that of China in the late 1880s.

In 1860 a Korean scholar, Ch’oe Che-u, had founded a popular religion called Tonghak (“Eastern Learning”). By 1893 it had turned into a political movement that attracted a vast number of rural farmers and laborers under the banner of anti-foreignism and anti-corruption. They occupied the southwestern city of Chŏnju in late May 1894. Both China and Japan sent expeditions to Korea, but the two interventionists arrived to find the rebels at Chŏnju already dispersed. To justify its military presence, Japan proposed to China a policy of joint support of Korean reform. When China refused on the ground that this was counter to Korean independence, a clash seemed inevitable. On July 25 the Japanese navy defeated a Chinese fleet in Kanghwa Bay, and on August 1 the two sides declared war on each other. Japan gained victories in every quarter on both land and sea.

During the crisis the Qing power center again divided. The northern (beiyang) navy was less powerful than it appeared, lacking discipline, unified command, and the necessary equipment of a modern navy. In February 1895 Li Hongzhang was appointed envoy to Japan; he signed a peace treaty at Shimonoseki on April 17, whose main items were recognition of Korean independence, indemnity of 200 million taels, and the cession of Taiwan, the Pescadores Islands, and the Liaodong Peninsula. Six days later, however, Russia, Germany, and France forced Japan to restore the peninsula; Japan formally relinquished it on May 5, for which China agreed to pay 30 million taels. Gaining China’s favor by this intervention, the three powers began to press China with demands, which gave rise to a veritable scramble for concessions.

The Hundred Days of Reform of 1898

The advocates of the Self-Strengthening Movement had regarded any institutional or ideological change as needless. But after 1885 some lower officials and comprador intellectuals began to emphasize institutional reforms and the opening of a parliament and to stress economic rather than military affairs for self-strengthening purposes. For the Beijing court and high officials in general, the necessity of reform had to be proved on the basis of the Chinese Classics. Some scholars tried to meet their criteria. The outstanding reform leader and ideologist Kang Youwei used what he considered authentic Confucianism and Buddhist canons to show that change was inevitable in history and, accordingly, that reform was necessary. Another important reformist thinker, Tan Sitong, relied more heavily on Buddhism than Kang did and emphasized the people’s rights and independence. Liang Qichao was an earnest disciple of Kang but later turned toward people’s rights and nationalism under the influence of Western philosophy.

In April 1895, when Japanese victory appeared inevitable, Kang began to advocate institutional reform. In August Kang, Liang, and other reformists founded a political group called the Society for the Study of National Strengthening. Though this association was soon closed down, many study societies were created in Hunan, Guangdong, Fujian, Sichuan, and other provinces. In April 1898 the National Protection Society was established in Beijing under the premise of protecting state, nation, and national religion. Against this background, the Guangxu emperor (reigned 1874/75–1908) was himself increasingly affected by the ideas of reform that were broadly in the air and perhaps was also directly influenced by Kang Youwei’s proposals. On June 11, 1898, the emperor began to issue a stream of radical and probably hastily prepared reform decrees that lasted for about 100 days, until September 20. The reform movement produced no practical results, however. Finally, the conservatives were provoked to a sharp reaction when they learned of a reformist plot to remove the archconservative empress dowager Cixi. On September 21 the emperor was detained and the empress dowager took over the administration, putting an end to the reform movement.

The immediate cause of the failure lay in the power struggle between the emperor and Cixi. But from the beginning, prospects for reform were dim because most high officials were cool toward or opposed to the movement. In addition, the reformist-conservative confrontation overlapped with the rivalry between the Chinese and the Manchu, who considered the Chinese-sponsored reform as disadvantageous to them. As for the reformists themselves, their leaders were few in number and inexperienced in politics, and their plan was too radical.

Among the local movements for reform, that in Hunan was the most active. After 1896, journals and schools were begun there for popular enlightenment, but Kang’s radical reformism aroused strong opposition, and the Hunan movement shattered at the end of May 1898.

Though it failed, the reform movement had a few important repercussions: it produced some degree of freedom of speech and association, furthered the dissemination of Western thought, and stimulated the growth of private enterprises. It also provided much of the substance for the “conservative” imperial reform efforts that the Manchu court undertook after the Boxer episode.

The Boxer Rebellion

The crisis of 1896–98 stirred a furious anti-foreign uprising in Shandong, aroused by the German advances and encouraged by the provincial governor. It was staged by a band of people called the Yihequan (“Righteous and Harmonious Fists”), who believed that a mysterious boxing art rendered them invulnerable to harm. The group’s origin is generally supposed to have been in the White Lotus sect, though it may have begun as a self-defense organization during the Taiping Rebellion. At first the Boxers (as they were called in the West) directed their wrath against Christian converts, whom they vilified for having abandoned traditional Chinese customs in favor of an alien religion. Bands of Boxers roamed the countryside killing Chinese Christians and foreign missionaries. Developing from this anti-Christian hysteria, the Boxer Rebellion grew into a naive but furious attempt to destroy all things foreign—including churches, railways, and mines—which the people blamed for their misery and for the loss of a sacred way of life.

Some Boxer recruits were disbanded imperial soldiers and local militiamen; others were Grand Canal boatmen deprived of a livelihood by the Western-built railways. Most recruits, though, came from the rural class, which had suffered terribly from recent natural calamities in northern China. After 1895 the Huang He flooded almost annually, and in 1899–1900 a serious drought struck the north. Vast numbers of starving people turned to begging and banditry and were easy converts to the Boxers’ cause.

Many local authorities refused to stop the violence. Some supported the Boxers by incorporating them into local militias. The Manchu court, meanwhile, was alarmed by the uncontrollable popular uprising but took great satisfaction at seeing revenge taken for its humiliation by the foreign powers. As a result, it assumed at first a neutral policy. On the part of the Boxers, there emerged sometime in the autumn of 1899 a move to gain access to the court under the slogan “Support for the Qing and extermination of foreigners.” By May 1900 the Qing government had changed its policy and was secretly supporting the Boxers. Cixi inclined toward open war when she became convinced of the dependability of the Boxers’ art. Finally, incensed over a false report that the foreign powers had demanded that she return administration to the emperor, she called on all Chinese to attack foreigners. Within days, on June 20, the Boxers’ eight-week siege of the foreign legations in Beijing began; a day later Cixi declared war by ordering provincial governors to take part in the hostilities.

An international reinforcement of some 2,000 soldiers had left Tianjin for Beijing before the siege, but on the way it was resisted by the Boxers and forced back to Tianjin. The foreign powers then sent an expedition of some 19,000 troops, which marched to Beijing and seized the city on August 14. Cixi and the emperor fled to Xi’an.

The two governors-general in the southeastern provinces, Liu Kunyi and Zhang Zhidong, who together with Li Hongzhang at Guangzhou had already disobeyed Beijing’s anti-foreign decrees, concluded an informal pact with foreign consuls at Shanghai on June 26, to the effect that the governors-general would take charge of the safety of the foreigners under their jurisdiction. At first the pact covered the five provinces in the Yangtze River region, but later it was extended to three coastal provinces. Thus, the foreign operations were restricted to Zhili (present-day Hebei) province, along the northern coast.

The United States, which had announced its commercial Open Door policy in 1899, made a second declaration of the policy in July 1900—this time insisting on the preservation of the territorial and administrative entity of China. With its newly acquired territory in the western Pacific, the United States was determined to preserve its own commercial interests in China by protecting Chinese territorial integrity from the other major powers. This provided a basis for the Anglo-German agreement (October 1900) for preventing further territorial partition, to which Japan and Russia consented. Thus, partition of China was avoided by mutual restraint among the powers.

The final settlement of the disturbance was signed in September 1901. The indemnity amounted to 450 million taels to be paid over 39 years. Moreover, the settlement demanded the establishment of permanent guards and the dismantling of forts between Beijing and the sea, a humiliation that made an independent China a mere fiction. In addition, the southern provinces were actually independent during the crisis. These occurrences meant the collapse of the Qing prestige.

After the uprising, Cixi had to declare that she had been misled into war by the conservatives and that the court, neither anti-foreign nor anti-reformist, would promote reforms, a seemingly incredible statement in view of the court’s suppression of the 1898 reform movement. But the Qing court’s anti-foreign, conservative nationalism and the reforms undertaken after 1901 were in fact among several competing responses to the shared sense of crisis in early 20th-century China.

Sun Yat-sen and the United League

Sun’s leadership in the league was far from undisputed. His understanding that the support of foreign powers was indispensable for Chinese revolution militated against the anti-imperialist trend of the young intellectuals. Only half-heartedly accepted was the principle of people’s livelihood, or socialism, one of his Three Principles. Though his socialism has been evaluated in various ways, it seems certain that it did not reflect the hopes and needs of the commoners.

Ideologically, the league soon fell into disharmony: Zhang Binglin (Chang Ping-lin), an influential theorist in the Chinese Classics, came to renounce the Three Principles; others deserted to anarchism, leaving anti-Manchuism as the only common denominator in the league. Organizationally too, the league became divided: the Progressive Society (Gongjinhui), a parallel to the league, was born in Tokyo in 1907; a branch of this new society was soon opened at Wuhan with the ambiguous slogan “Equalization of human right.” The next year, Zhang Binglin tried to revive the Restoration Society.

Constitutional movements after 1905

Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) aroused a cry for constitutionalism in China. Unable to resist the intensifying demand, the Qing court decided in September 1906 to adopt a constitution, and in November it reorganized the traditional six boards into 11 ministries in an attempt to modernize the central government. It promised to open consultative provincial assemblies in October 1907 and proclaimed in August 1908 the outline of a constitution and a nine-year period of tutelage before its full implementation.

Three months later the strangely coinciding deaths of Cixi and the emperor were announced, and a boy who ruled as the Xuantong emperor (1908–1911/12) was enthroned under the regency of his father, the second Prince Chun. These deaths, followed by that of Zhang Zhidong in 1909, almost emptied the Qing court of prestigious members. The consultative provincial assemblies were convened in October 1910 and became the main base of the furious movement for immediate opening of a consultative national assembly, with which the court could not comply.

The gentry and wealthy merchants were the sponsors of constitutionalism; they had been striving to gain the rights held by foreigners. Started first in Hunan, the so-called rights recovery movement spread rapidly and gained noticeable success, reinforced by local officials, students returned from Japan, and the Beijing government. But finally the recovery of the railroad rights ended in a clash between the court and the provincial interests.

The retrieval of the Hankou-Guangzhou line from the American China Development Company in 1905 tapped a nationwide fever for railway recovery and development. However, difficulty in raising capital delayed railway construction by the Chinese year after year. The Beijing court therefore decided to nationalize some important railways in order to accelerate their construction by means of foreign loans, hoping that the expected railway profits would somehow alleviate the court’s inveterate financial plight. In May 1911 the court nationalized the Hankou-Guangzhou and Sichuan-Hankou lines and signed a loan contract with the four-power banking consortium. This incensed the Sichuan gentry, merchants, and landlords who had invested in the latter line, and their anti-Beijing remonstrance grew into a province-wide uprising. The court moved some troops into Sichuan from Hubei; some other troops in Hubei mutinied and suddenly occupied the capital city, Wuchang, on October 10. That date became the memorial day of the Chinese Revolution.

The commoners’ standard of living, which had not continued to grow in the 19th century and may have begun to deteriorate, was further dislocated by the mid-century civil wars and foreign commercial and military penetration. Paying for the wars and their indemnities certainly increased the tax burden of the commoners, but how serious a problem this was has remained an open question among scholars. The Manchu reforms and preparations for constitutionalism added a further fiscal exaction for the populace, which hardly benefited from these urban-oriented developments. Rural distress, resulting from these policies and from natural disasters, was among the causes of local rural uprisings in the Yangtze River region in 1910 and 1911 and of a major rice riot at Changsha, the capital of Hunan, in 1910. However, popular discontent was limited and not a major factor contributing to the revolution that ended the Qing dynasty and inaugurated the republican era in China.

The Chinese Revolution (1911–12)

The Chinese Revolution was triggered not by the United League itself but by the army troops in Hubei who were urged on by the local revolutionary bodies not incorporated in the league. The accidental exposure of a mutinous plot forced a number of junior officers to choose between arrest or revolt in Wuhan. The revolt was initially successful because of the determination of lower-level officers and revolutionary troops and the cowardice of the responsible Manchu and Chinese officials. Within a day the rebels had seized the arsenal and the governor-general’s offices and had gained possession of Wuchang. With no nationally known revolutionary leaders on hand, the rebels coerced a colonel, Li Yuanhong, to assume military command, although only as a figurehead. They persuaded the Hubei provincial assembly to proclaim the establishment of the Chinese republic; Tang Hualong, the assembly’s chairman, was elected head of the civil government.

After this initial victory, a number of historical tendencies converged to bring about the downfall of the Qing dynasty. A decade of revolutionary organization and propaganda paid off in a sequence of supportive uprisings in important centers of central and southern China; these occurred in recently formed military academies and in newly created divisions and brigades, in which many cadets and junior officers were revolutionary sympathizers. Secret-society units also were quickly mobilized for local revolts. The anti-revolutionary constitutionalist movement also made an important contribution: its leaders had become disillusioned with the imperial government’s unwillingness to speed the process of constitutional government, and a number of them led their respective provincial assemblies to declare their provinces independent of Beijing or to actually join the new republic. Tang Hualong was the first among them. A significant product of the newly emerging nationalism was widespread hostility among Chinese toward the dynasty. Many had absorbed the revolutionary propaganda that blamed a weak and vacillating court for the humiliations China had suffered from foreign powers since 1895. Therefore, broad sentiment favored the end of Manchu rule. Also, as an outcome of two decades of journalizing discussion of “people’s rights,” there was substantial support among the urban educated for a republican form of government. Probably the most-decisive development was the recall of Yuan Shikai (Yüan Shih-k’ai), the architect of the elite Beiyang Army, to government service to suppress the rebellion when its seriousness became apparent.

After the collapse of the Huai Army in the Sino-Japanese War, the Qing government had endeavored to build up a new Western-style army, among which the elite corps trained by Yuan Shikai, former governor-general of Zhili, had survived the Boxer uprising and emerged as the strongest force in China. But it was in a sense Yuan’s private army and did not easily submit to the Manchu court. Yuan had been retired from officialdom at odds with the regent Prince Chun, but, on the outbreak of the revolution in 1911, the court had no choice but to recall him from retirement to take command of his new army. Instead of using force, however, he played a double game: on the one hand, he deprived the floundering court of all its power; on the other, he started to negotiate with the revolutionaries. At the peace talks that opened at the end of the year, Yuan’s emissaries and the revolutionary representatives agreed that the abdication of the Qing and the appointment of Yuan to the presidency of the new republic were to be formally decided by a National Assembly that would be formed. However, this was renounced by Yuan, probably because he hoped to be appointed by the retiring Manchu monarch to organize a new government rather than nominated as chief of state by the National Assembly. (This is a formula of the Chinese dynastic revolution called chanrang, which means the peaceful shift in rule from a decadent dynasty to a more-virtuous one.) But events turned against him, and the presidency was given to Sun Yat-sen, who had been appointed provisional president of the republic by the National Assembly. In February 1912 Sun voluntarily resigned his position, and the Qing court proclaimed the decree of abdication, which included a passage—fabricated and inserted by Yuan into this last imperial document—purporting that Yuan was to organize a republican government to negotiate with the revolutionists on unification of northern and southern China. Thus ended the 268-year rule of the Qing dynasty.