Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:08:26.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Canton Rising of 1902—1903: Reformers, Revolutionaries, and the Second Taiping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

L. Eve Armentrout
L. Eve Armentrout
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has frequently been asserted that the Chinese revolutionaries and the 1898 reformers, after making several unsuccessful attempts at cooperation, divided into enemy camps after the failure of their respective risings in 1900. This would suggest that by 1901, the lines between reform and revolution were clearly drawn. It has further been assumed that the decision not to cooperate was a result of the reformers' permanent rejection of the principle of seizing power in China through means of an armed uprising, and that all vestiges of sympathy for republicanism had by 1900 or soon afterwards been replaced by a decisive commitment to constitutional monarchy on the part of even the most radical reformers. Furthermore, although some evidence to the contrary has been pointed out, it has often been said that the reformers, both before and after 1900, looked down on Sun Yat-sen's well-known contacts with Christians, and his close association with secret societies. This implies that the reformers, themselves, were not interested in actively soliciting the support of Chinese Christians, and that apart from T'ang Ts'ai-ch'ang's 1900 involvement with the Ko-lao Hui, of which K'ang and Liang presumably either disapproved at the time, or came to oppose immediately after T'ang's failure, the reformers kept themselves free of secret society entanglements and operated on a higher plane. Finally, it has frequently been assumed that the secret societies themselves were practically devoid of any true, revolutionary spirit, and while at times anti-Manchu, were still ‘primitive rebels.’

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 83 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Hao, Yen-p'ing, ‘The Abortive Cooperation between Reformers and Revolutionaries’, in Papers on China, Vol. 15 (12, 1961), pp. 91–114Google Scholar; Schiffrin, Harold Z, Sun Yat-sen and the Origins of the Chinese Revolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968), pp. 187, 196Google Scholar. On the whole history of cooperation, or attempted cooperation, between Sun, and K'ang and Liang, and their followers from 1895 to 1900 (at which date Schiffrin assumes these attempts to cooperate came to an end), see pp. 148–67, 183–96.

2 Wright, Mary Clabaugh, ‘Introduction’ in Wright, Mary Clabaugh (ed.), China in Revolution, the First Phase, 1900–1913 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 47Google Scholar.

3 Other reformers or reform sympathizers who hoped to work out some kind of alliance with the revolutionaries included Ch'ü-chia, Ou, a disciple of Yu-wei, K'ang and close associate of Liang's, and Yung, Wing and the American, Homer LeaGoogle Scholar.

4 Schiffrin, , Sun Yat-sen, deals with this in one chapter of the book, Ch. 7, pp. 179–213. An indication that Liang Ch'i-ch'ao also knew something of these negotiations and in fact was actively soliciting Li's support can be found in Chung Sai Yat Po (Chung-hsi Jih-pao ), editorial, 15 June 1900, p. 1Google Scholar.

5 For details on the reformers' rising, see Smythe, Joan E., ‘The Tzu-li Hui: Some Chinese and their Rebellion’, in Papers on China, Vol. 12 (12, 1958), pp. 51–68Google Scholar; Hao, , ‘The Abortive Cooperation’, pp. 91–114Google Scholar; Hsien-tzu, Wu, Chung-kuo Min-chu Hsien-cheng-tang Tang-shih (A History of China's Democratic-Constitutional Party) (San Francisco: Shih-chieh Shu-chu, no date), pp. 32–7Google Scholar; Shou-k'ung, Li, ‘T'ang Ts'ai-ch'ang yü Tzu-li Chun (T'ang Ts'ai-ch'ang and his Independence Army)' in Wu Hsiang-hsiang (ed.), Chung-kuo Hsien-tai shih ts'ung-k'an (Periodical of Contemporary Chinese History), No. 6 (1964), pp. 41–160Google Scholar.

6 Hsien-tzu, Wu, Democratic-Constitutional Party, pp. 34–5; Hao, ‘Abortive Cooperation,’ pp. 91–114Google Scholar.

7 Schiffrin, , Sun Yat-sen, Ch. 8, pp. 214–55, p. 252Google Scholar; Chung Sai Yat Po, editorial (reprint from Kang Pao , 4 December 1901, pp. 1–2, and 4 December 1900, p. 4Google Scholar.

8 Schiffrin, , Sun Yat-sen, pp. 257–60Google Scholar; and Chung Sai Yat Po, 5 December 1901, pp. 1–2; 10 December 1901, p. 1; and 14 January 1902, p. 1Google Scholar.

9 Chung Sai Yat Po, editorials, 20 February 1902, p. 1 (of Wei-hsin chung jen ), 10 and 14 March 1902, p. 1; 14 June 1902, pp. 1–2; 18 and 19 August (of Liang Pao-chüan ) 1902, pp. 1–2;15 September (reprint Shen Pao ) 1902, p. 1; 18 November 1902, p. 1; and 20 January 1903, p. 1Google Scholar.

10 Min-kuo, Chung-huaWu-shih-nien, K'ai-kuoWei-yüan-hui, Wen-hsien Pien-tsuan (ed.), Chung-hua Min-kuo K'ai-kuo Wu-shihnien Wen-hsien (Papers for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Founding of the Republic), Series I, Vol. 9, Ko-ming chih Ch'ang-tao yü Fa-chan (Hsingchung Hui) (The Origins and Development of the Revolution (Hsing-chung Hui phase), Taipei: Cheng-chung Shu-chü, 1964), pp. 647–50,Google Scholar and Chung Sai Yat Po, 1 December 1900, p. 2. Late in 1900, when Ch'i-ch'ao, Liang went to Australia, he founded a branch of the Pao-huang Hui there that was dedicated to cooperation between reformers and revolutionaries, cooperation that was to lead to a more successful uprising than T'ang Ts'ai-ch'ang's had proven to be.Google Scholar

Hung's original name was Hung Ch'un-k'uei (), his ‘tzu’, Mei-sheng (). He in fact didn't change his name to Hung Ch'üan-fu () until after he decided to cooperate with Hsieh. The significance of Ch'üan-fu was to link the rising firmly with that of Hung Hsiu-Ch'üan () and the Taipings. Hung Ch'üan-fu was also called Hung Ho (); during the Taiping, he had been Ying Wang () and Tso T'ien-chiang (). As for the confusion as to whether he was a nephew or brother of Hung Hsiu-Ch'üan it is possible he was both, in the sense of being a younger brother by adoption. It is known that several of Hung Hsiu-Ch'üan's nephews joined the Taipings at a very early date; Hung Ch'üan-fu is also supposed to have joined them early, and might very well be one of these nephews. However, it is also possible that Hung Hsiu-Ch'üan had a younger brother who was too young to have been mentioned prominently in the official records on the Taiping. See Yu-wen, Jen (Chien Yu-wen), The Taiping Revolutionary Movement (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973), p. 55Google Scholar. I have not been able to find any specific reference to an ‘Ying, Wang’ or ‘Tso T'ien-chiang’ in accounts of the Taiping, although after 1856, the number of wangs seems to have greatly increased, and not all their titles are recordedGoogle Scholar.

11 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), pp. 648–9Google Scholar.

12 Ibid.; Shao-ling, Li(ed.), Ou Ch'ü-chia Hsien-sheng Ch'uan (Biography and Collected Writings of Ou Ch'ü-chia) (Taipei: Li Shao-ling, Inc., 1950), pp. 13–31Google Scholar; Public Record Office of Great Britain, Foreign Office, 17, 1718, 850, ‘China. Chinese Revolutionaries in British Dominions: Sun Yat-sen, Kang-yu-wei etc. “Report submitted by Lo Shang (Captain of left wing of Kwantung army) on Hung Ch'un-fuk's uprising,”’, p. 556Google Scholar.

13 Shao-ling, Li, Ou Ch'ü-chia, pp. 13–31Google Scholar. On Liang and Ou in Hunan, see Lewis, Charlton M., ‘The Reform Movement in Hunan (1896–1898),’ in Papers on China, Vol. 15 (December, 1961), pp. 62–90Google Scholar.

14 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), pp. 648, 658–9Google Scholar; Wing, Yung, My Life in China and America (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1909), pp. 96–112Google Scholar; Worthy, Edmund H. Jr., ‘Yung Wing in America’, in Pacific Historical Review, 34 (08, 1965), pp. 265–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Yung was most closely associated with the Kan Wang (), Hung Jen-kan (), a very important figure in the latter part of the Taiping Rebellion, a reformer trusted by Hung Hsiu-Ch'üan. He was a Christian preacher, affiliated with the London Missionary Society and James Legge. His home was in the Hong Kong area; he offered Yung high rank (fourth from the top level) in the Taiping Kingdom.

15 Jung-pang, Lo, ‘The China Reform Association, 1899–1906’ (unpublished paper presented to the American Historical Association, Pacific Coast Branch, 1963), pp. 7–8Google Scholar. Corroboration that Liang was, indeed, involved in this revolutionary movement is of two kinds: proof that he was pro-revolutionary in 1902 and early 1903, and proof that this revolutionary ardor found its outlet in this specific, Kwangtung, movement. That he was pro-revolutionary can be seen in his letters (see Wenchiang, Ting, Liang Jen-kung Hsien-sheng Nien-p'u Ch'ang-p'ien Ch'u-kao (Preliminary Draft of the Chronological Biography of Liang Ch'i-ch'ao), Vol. I (Taipei: Shih-chieh Shu-chü, 1958), pp. 157–9, 163–5Google Scholar; Hsien-tzu, Wu, Democratic- Constitutional Party, pp. 38–40Google Scholar; and Chung Sai Yat Po, editorial, 18 July 1904, pp. 1–2Google Scholar. To corroborate Dr Lo's statement that Liang's revolutionary leanings in 1902 and 1903 were directed towards the Kwangtung revolutionary movement, his correspondence with Yung Wing (and offering to pay Yung's boat fare to the United States) and relationship with Ou Ch'ü-chia provide at least circumstantial evidence. Also, Dr Lo's own accuracy, as well as Liang's position as director of a school in Amoy between 1900 and 1903, a school most probably associated with the Canton rising, should strengthen the argument. Other teachers and directors of this school, the Ch'u-ts'ai Szu-shu () included Yung Wing, Ou Ch'ü-chia, Hsü Ch'in (who probably helped Ou write Hsin Kwangtung). See Shao-ling, Li, Ou Ch'ü-chia, pp. 13–31Google Scholar; Lo, Jung-pang, K'ang Yu-wei, a Biography and a Symposium (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1967), p. 191Google Scholar.

16 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), pp. 648–9, 656–7, 662–3, 681 (this includes accounts by Feng Tzu-yu , Tsou Lu , Ch'en Ch'un-sheng and Li Chi'tangGoogle Scholar).

17 Ibid., pp. 648–9, 663, 668.

18 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), pp. 648–9; British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang,’ pp. 556–60; Yung Wing, ‘Diary for the year 1902’ (unpublished diary, Connecticut State Library, Archives)Google Scholar.

19 Wen-chiang, Ting, Liang Chi'i-ch'ao, p. 102Google Scholar.

20 The term ‘Chan (or Chun) Kwai Shek’ might be Ch'un-k'uei She (), as Hung Ch'üan-fu in the same report is called Hung Chun Kwai. If this were the case, it would refer to Hung's (or the Kwangtung revolutionaries') supporters in Japan. However, it might also refer to a specific individual, as Yung Wing corresponded with a ‘Chen Kai Shuk’ during the year 1902. See Yung, ‘Diary,’ 5 September 1902Google Scholar.

21 British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang,’ pp. 556–60; Wen-chiang, Ting, Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, pp. 151–6Google Scholar.

22 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), pp. 648–9, 670; British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang,’ pp. 559–60Google Scholar, gives a list of some of the Chinese in the Hong Kong area that supported the revolution. The school in Amoy with which Ou was associated was the Ch'u-ts'ai Szu-shu () mentioned in footnote 15, whose directors and teachers included Ou, Yung Wing, Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, and Hsü Ch'in. The students included Ou's younger brother, Ou Hua-ch'ing () and various brothers and cousins of Liang Ch'i-ch'ao (Liang Ch'i-yeh ; Liang Ch'i-hsün ; and Liang Ch'i-t'ien). It may have been this school that Ou told San Francisco Chinese was an organ of the revolutionary movement. The military men with whom Ou met were the above-mentioned Chiu Feng-chia, a Taiwanese patriot and chin-shih who led an army against the Japanese in 1895 when they took over that island. Yang Yün-ch'ang (), a wu-chin-shih () of the Hui-yang academy (), and finally Ch'en T'ing-feng (), a chü-jen of Hsiao-ling (). It was to these three that Ou entrusted the care of his younger brother, Hua-ch'ing, when he left for the United States. Li Shao-ling, Ou Ch'ü-chia, pp. 13–31.

23 Wen-chiang, Ting, Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, pp. 162–3; interview with Jung-pang Lo, 19 September 1972; and Yung Wing, ‘Diary.’Google Scholar

24 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Ming-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), p. 649; British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang’ pp. 556–60Google Scholar. Information concerning the Taiping's rules against rape and pillage and their effect on the populace can be found in Yu-wen, Jen, Taiping, pp. 48, 70Google Scholar.

25 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua-Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), pp. 648–9, 654–5Google Scholar. It is quite possible that the ‘European internmediary’ was the American, Homer Lea. See Singleton to Lea, no date, in Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace, Archives, Powers collection. Singleton was the head of the New York branch of the Pao-huang Hui.

For the Chinese characters and corresponding names in English of the stores started by the revolutionaries, see the following chart:

Hsin-i Yang-huo-tien

Chi-yeh Kung-szu

Ho-chi Kung-szu

Chi-yeh Kung-szu (fertilizer)

Ho-chi Chan

26 British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang,’ pp. 556–8Google Scholar; Wei-yüanhui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), pp. 656–7Google Scholar.

27 British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang,’ pp. 559–60Google Scholar; Wei-yüanhui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), pp. 647–9, 659–60, 671Google Scholar.

28 Another reason may have been because some of the conspirators, including Yung Wing who was dealing with people based in Shanghai, as well as Hong Kong, Canton, and other places (see Wing, Yung, ‘Diary,’ 1 January and 3 March 1902), intended the rising in Kwangtung to be the beginning of a campaign that would unify China under the new, republican government. Therefore, they would logically want agents and forces in the Shanghai area ready to join with them on their projected northern MarchGoogle Scholar.

29 Deposition of Tex O'Reilly in Chapin, Frederick R., ‘Homer Lea’ (unpublished manuscript, Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace, Archives), pp. 40–1Google Scholar.

30 British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang,’ pp. 557–8; Chapin, , ‘Homer Lea,’ pp. 40–6Google Scholar; Glick, Carl, Double Ten: Captain O'Banion's Story of the Chinese Revolution (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1945), pp. 23–7Google Scholar.

31 Wing, Yung, ‘Diary,’ 27 May 1902. Liang Ch'-ch'ao had talked to several United States army officers in 1900 about their interest in providing some troops from the Philippines for the reformers' (T'ang Ts'ai-ch'ang's) rising of that yearGoogle Scholar. Ting, Wen-chiang, Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, pp. 104–30Google Scholar.

32 Wing, Yung, ‘Diary,’ 28 May, 2 June, 6 June and 10 July 1902. In 1900, while Liang Ch'i-ch'ao was in Hawaii, an American businessman there whose name transliterated into Chinese is (Hutchins? Hopkins?) wanted to help raise funds from New York based capitalists for T'ang Ts'ai-ch'ang's rising. Liang sent him to New York to negotiate, planning to join him later, but nothing seems to have come of itGoogle Scholar. Ting Wen-chiang, , Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, pp. 104–30Google Scholar.

33 Yung, , ‘Diary,’ 2 September, 1902 (quote); 12 and 18 August 1902Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., 21 November 1902.

35 Ibid., 5 November 1902.

36 Ibid., 9 July; 11, 18, 20, 22 and 23 August; 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19, 26, and 27 September; 5, 7, and 10, November 1902. One other person with whom Yung corresponded extemsovely during this period was a Mr Trevette Brown who lived near Springfield, Massachusetts. Investigations into weaponry made by Yung at this time included a visit to the Whitney Manufacturing Company, which manufactured Colts, inquiries concerning a new Prussian field gun and attendance at military parades. From the time of helping organize the Kiangnan Arsenal, Yung had been something of an arms expert.

37 Yung, , ‘Diary,’ 27 May; 6 June; 1, 9, 12, 24, and 30 July; 26 September and 20 October 1902; Li Shao-ling, Ou Ch'ü-chia, pp. 1–100Google Scholar.

38 Shao-ling, Li, Ou Ch'ü-chia, pp. 13–31Google Scholar; Chung Sai Yat Po, editorial, 10 June 1904, p. 1; 14 July 1904, p. 1; 18 July 1904, pp. 1–2, and 20 July 1904, p. 1; British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang,’ pp. 559–60Google Scholar.

39 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), p. 648; British Foreign Office, ‘Lo Shang,’ pp. 559–60Google Scholar.

40 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), p. 665Google Scholar.

41 Ibid., pp. 650–1; Chung Sai Yat Po, editorial (of Hsieh Tsuan-t'ai), 17 December 1902; Yung, ‘Diary,’ appendixGoogle Scholar.

42 It might be well to note that the reformers and revolutionaries who played the most active roles in this 1902–1903 attempt were not the top leaders of their respective groups.

43 Probably, in the period 1902–1903, actual ‘landed’ peasants and their families did not belong to the secret societies. See Davis, Feiling, ‘Modes de recrutement et composition sociale des Triades avant 1911,’ in Chesneaux, Jean, Davis, Feiling, and Ho, Nguyen Nguyet (eds), Mouvements Populaires et Sociétés Secrètes en Chine aux XIXe et XXe Siècles (Paris: Librarie François Maspero, 1970), pp. 234–48Google Scholar.

44 Chesneaux, Jean, Les Sociétés Secrètes en Chine (France: René Julliard, 1965) (see, for example, pp. 201–21)Google Scholar; Chesneaux, Jean, Peasant Revolts in China, 1840–1949 (London; Thames and Hudson, Ltd, 1973), pp. 59–63Google Scholar.

45 Borokh, Lilia, ‘Les débuts du mouvement républicain de Sun Yat-sen et les sociétés secrétes,’ in Chesneaux, et al. , Mouvements Populaires, p. 353Google Scholar; Rankin, Mary Backus, ‘The Revolutionary Movement in Chekiang: a Study in the Tenacity of Tradition’ in Wright, Mary Clabaugh (ed.), China in Revolution, pp. 318–61Google Scholar; Armentrout, L. Eve, ‘The Canton Coup of 1903: Ideology, or, A Solution to all Problems’(unpublished paper presented to the Western Conference of the Association of Asian Studies,December 1974)Google Scholar.

46 Wei-yüan-hui, Chung-hua Min-kuo, Origins and Development (Hsing-chung Hui), p. 650Google Scholar.