No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Szechwan Riots of 1895 and American “Missionary Diplomacy”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Extract
China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95 not only revealed to the world the weakness of the Celestial Empire, but also raised a number of critical problems for the Imperial government, none more complicated than that of protecting foreign missionaries. The missionary problem had already become a diplomatic headache in the latter part of the nineteenth century, after the Treaty Powers had forced the Chinese government to recognize the right of Christian missionaries to establish missions far in the interior of China where they were exposed to attacks by hostile Chinese. As greater numbers of missionaries penetrated the interior, antimissionary outrages occurred with disturbing and increasing frequency, bringing forth bitter complaints from the foreign community in China about the inability of the Powers to force the Imperial government to provide protection. The customary demand of the Powers when outrages occurred had been for protection of their nationals, reparations for lives lost and property destroyed, and punishment of provincial officials who had been unable or unwilling to prevent outrages. Frequently there had been a resort to “gunboat diplomacy,” when the Powers rushed naval vessels to cities where riots threatened or occurred to protect foreigners and overawe local officials.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1969
References
1 For a history of the war: Volpicelli, Zenone (Vladimir), The China-Japan War (London, 1896)Google Scholar. The treaties may be found in: Mayers, William F., Treaties Between the Empire of China and the Foreign Powers (Shanghai, 1902)Google Scholar. The General Index to the Published Volumes of the Diplomatic Correspondence and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1861–1899 (Washington, 1902), pp. 136–43Google Scholar, lists only the published despatches dealing with riots in China. The literature on the missionary problem is extensive; for background on the question: Cohen, Paul A., China and Christianity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, Paul A., “The Anti-Christian Tradition in China,” Journal of Asian Studies, XX (1960–61), 169–80Google Scholar; Varg, Paul A., Missionaries, Chinese, and Diplomats (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), pp. 38–39Google Scholar; Varg, Paul A., “Missionaries and Relations Between the United States and China in the Late Nineteenth Century,” World Affairs Quarterly (July 1956), pp. 115–58Google Scholar; Latourette, Kenneth S., A History of Christian Missions in China (London, 1929), pp. 466–68Google Scholar; Fairbank, J. K., “Patterns Behind The Tientsin Massacre,” Harvard Journal of Asian Studies, XX (Dec., 1957), 481Google Scholar; Norman, Henry, The Peoples and Politics of the Far East (London: T. F. Unwin, 1899), pp. 304–05Google Scholar; Steiger, George N., China and the Occident (New York: Russell and Russell, 1966), pp. 33–35Google Scholar; Dennett, Tyler, Americans in Eastern Asia (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1941), p. 574Google Scholar; Wehrle, Edmund S., Britain, China, and the Antimissionary Riots, 1891–1900 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1966), p. 12Google Scholar; Morse, Hosea B. and MacNair, Harley F., Far Eastern International Relations (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1931), pp. 273–86Google Scholar.
2 Latourette, A History of Christian Missions in China, pp. 474–75; Norman, The Peoples and Politics of the Far East, pp. 300–02; Steiger, China and the Occident, pp. 49–50.
3 Seward to S. W. Williams, November 20, 1866, Foreign Relations, 1866, pp. 564–65; Fish to F. F. Low, December 3, 1869, and November 29, 1870, Foreign Relations, 1870, pp. 303, 398.
4 Dictionary of American Biography, V, 233–34; The National Cyclopaedia, VIII, 276; New York Times, May 30, June 2 and 10, 1885, and January 14, 1904; Denby to Bayard, October 10 and 15, 1887, and April 13, 1888; Denby to Blaine, November 19, 1889; Denby to Gresham, March 22 and April 8, 1895, Despatches from United States Ministers to China, 1843–1906, National Archives, 1946; hereafter China Despatches. Bayard to Denby, September 25, 1886, Diplomatic Instructions of the Department of State, 1801–1906, China, National Archives, 1946; hereafter: China Instructions. Cassey, John W., “The Mission of Charles Denby and International Rivalries in the Far East, 1885–1898,” Dissertation, University of Southern California (1959), pp. 145–50Google Scholar; Steiger, China and the Occident, pp. 49–50.
5 Denby to Gresham, May 28, 1895, China Despatches. Denby's views reflected those in an article from the North China Daily News of May 20, 1895, which he enclosed. The Shimonoseki Peace Treaty, which ended the war, was ratified early in May. Cunningham, Alfred, A History of the Szechwan Riots, May-June, 1895 (Shanghai, 1895)Google Scholar; Jernigan to Uhl, July 20 and 27, 1895, Despatches From United States Consuls in Shanghai, 1847–1906, National Archives; hereafter: Shanghai Despatches; Hosea B. Morse, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire (reprint), III, 54; the Peking and Tientsin Times, June 22, 1895, pp. 271–72, and July 6, 1895, p. 278. For a brief description of Chengtu and the missions, see: “Chen-tu, or the Forest City of the West,” The Chinese Recorder, XXIV (January 1893), 24–25Google Scholar.
6 Jernigan to Uhl, June 6, 12, and 28, 1895, Shanghai Despatches; the Peking and Tientsin Times, June 22, 1895, p. 272; Cordier, Henri, Histoire des Relations de la Chine avec Les Puissances Occidentales, 1860–1902 (Paris, 1902), III, 323Google Scholar. The British and French also sent gunboats up the Yangtze.
7 Denby to Uhl, June 4, 13, and 15, 1895, China Despatches; the Peking and Tientsin Times, June 22, 1895, p. 272; the North China Daily News, June 13, 1895; Denby, Charles, China and Her People (Boston: L. C. Page and Co., 1906), II, 71Google Scholar. Viceroy Liu had already been superseded when the riots occurred.
8 North China Daily News, June 12, 1895, Enclosure, Denby to Uhl, June 21, 1895, China Despatches; The Peking and Tientsin Times, June 15 and 22, 1895, pp. 267, 271.
9 The Chinese Recorder, XXVI (1895), 341–43, 391–99.
10 Jernigan to Uhl, June 6 and 28, 1895, Shanghai Despatches.
11 Denby to Gresham, June 20 and 21, 1895, and North China Daily News, June 12, 1895, Enclosure, China Despatches.
12 Denby to Uhl, June 24, and Denby to Olney, July 5, 1895, China Despatches; the Peking and Tientsin Times, June 22, 1895, p. 272; Cordier, Histoire des Relations de la Chine, III, 323; Gerard, A., Ma Mission en Chine (Paris, 1918), pp. 86–87Google Scholar. The references in Cordier and Gerard are very brief.
13 Denby to the Tsungli Yamen, July 1, 1895, Enclosure, Denby to Olney, July 1, 1895, China Despatches.
14 Tsungli Yamen to Denby, July 6, 1895, Enclosure, Denby to Olney, July 8, 1895; Denby to Olney, July 12, 1895, China Despatches; Adee to Denby, August 24, 1895, China Instructions.
15 Jernigan to Uhl, July 12 and 20, 1895, enclosing clippings from the Shanghai Mercury and the North China Daily News without dates; Shanghai Committee Report, The Szechwan Outrages, Enclosure, Jernigan to Uhl, July 29, 1895, Shanghai Despatches; North China Daily News, July 18, 1895, and Denby to Olney, July 26, 1895, China Despatches. The right to reside in the interior had been granted to the French and came to Americans through the most-favored-nation clause of the American treaty with China.
16 Denby to Olney, July 26, 1895, China Despatches; Edmund S. Wehrle, Britain, China, and the Antimissionary Riots, 1891–1900, p. 95, note 52.
17 Cordier, Histoire des Relations de la Chine, III, 323–24. The Sino-French Commission completed its report by the middle of August.
18 The Peking and Tientsin Times, July 6 and 27, 1895, pp. 278, 291.
19 Denby to the Tsungli Yamen, August 3, 1895, Enclosure, Denby to Olney, August 3, 1895; Denby to Olney, Cablegram, August 5, 1895, China Despatches; Adee to Denby, Cablegram, August 3, 1895, China Instructions; the Peking and Tientsin Times, August 10, 1895, p. 298; Wehrle, Britain, China, and the Antimissionary Riots, 1891–1900, pp. 86–87. The “Vegetarians,” nominally Buddhists, were members of a secret society whose aim was the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty. Foreigners believed that they provoked anti-foreign outrages to embarrass the Imperial government.
20 The Peking and Tientsin Times, August 10 and 17, 1895, pp. 298, 302–04; Rev.Pitcher, P. W., “The Hwa-sang Massacre,” The Chinese Recorder, XXVI, 436–38, 446–48Google Scholar. The missionaries were murdered in their summer homes at Hwa-sang. Denby was so upset by the massacre that he called the Fukien officials “imbeciles.”
21 Adee to Denby, July 17 and August 10, 1895, China Instructions. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham died on May 28, 1895, and was succeeded by Secretary Richard Olney on June 10. Olney was at his summer home in Massachusetts in August and early September.
22 Adee to Denby, Cablegrams, August 3 and 12, 1895, China Instructions.
23 Memorandum, Adee to Rockhill, September 6, 1895, filed with Denby to Olney, July 26, 1895, China Despatches; Adee to Denby, Cablegrams, August 13 and 20, 1895, and Instruction, August 24, 1895, China Instructions.
24 Denby to Olney, Cablegrams, August 13 and 14, 1895, and Despatches, August 15 and 19, 1895, China Despatches; the Peking and Tientsin Times, August 24 and 31, 1895, pp. 307, 311. The Reverend R. H. Graves defended Denby as an efficient minister who was friendly to missionaries; see “Missionaries and Reprisals,” The Chinese Recorder, XXVI, 524Google Scholar; The Nation was critical of press attacks on China and the foreign diplomats; see “The Point of View,” The Nation, LXI (Aug. 1895), 128Google Scholar.
25 Denby to Olney, Cablegram, August 28, 1895, and Despatches, August 29, and September 3 and 5, 1895; the Peking and Tientsin Times, August 31, 1895, pp. 310–11.
26 Wehrle, Britain, China, and the Antimissionary Riots, 1891–1900, pp. 84–86.
27 Ibid., 86–89.
28 Adee to Denby, Cablegram, September 4, 1895, and Instruction, September 6, 1895, China Instructions.
29 Denby to Olney, Cablegram, September 8, 1895, and Despatch, September 9, 1895, China Despatches.
30 New York Times, August 8, 1895, 5:1; the Tsungli Yamen to Yang Yü, Cablegram, August 12, 1895, Notes From the Chinese Legation in the United States to the Department of State, 1868–1906, National Archives, 1946; hereafter: Notes/Chinese Legation. James, Henry, Richard Olney and His Public Service (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1923)Google Scholar, and Schuyler, Montgomery, “Richard Olney,” in Bemis, Samuel F. (ed.), The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy (New York: Pageant Book Co., 1958)Google Scholar, do not discuss Olney's diplomacy with China.
31 Memorandums of Interviews, August 19 and 29, 1895, and Tsungli Yamen to Yang Yü, Cablegram, August 27, 1895, Notes/Chinese Legation.
32 The Tsungli Yamen to Yang Yü, Cablegram, September 7, 1895, and Memorandum of Interview, September 9, 1895, Notes/Chinese Legation; Memorandum, Rockhill to Adee, September 10, 1895, filed with Denby to Olney, July 26, 1895, China Despatches.
33 Memorandum of Interview, September 11, 1895, Notes/Chinese Legation; I have not been able to find a copy of the telegram. I am indebted to David C. Mearns, Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, for a search in the Olney Papers and to Mark G. Eckhoff of the Diplomatic Branch of the National Archives for a search in the records of the Department of State. Wehrle, Britain, China, and the Antimissionary Riots, 1891–1900, p. 89, note 34. By coincidence, this interview took place on September 11, the day that Lord Salisbury instructed the Admiralty to carry out O'Conor's proposal for a naval demonstration at Wuchang.
34 Adee to Denby, Cablegram, September 11, and Olney to Denby, Cablegrams, September 17, 18, 20, and 24, 1895, and Instructions, September 13 and 19, 1895, China Instructions; Denby to Olney, Cablegrams, September 18, 20, and 24, 1895, and Despatches, September 16, 19, and 21, 1895, China Despatches; Yang Yü to Olney, September 26, 1895, Notes/Chinese Legation.
35 Denby to Olney, Cablegrams, September 28, 29, and 30, 1895, and Despatches, September 26, 27 and 30, 1895, China Despatches; New York Times, September 30, 5:2, and October 1, 1895, 5:1.
36 Denby to Olney, September 30 and October 7, 1895, China Despatches; Cordier, Histoire des Relations de la Chine, III, 325, claims that Gerard had already reached an agreement with the Yamen for the punishment of Liu; Gerard, Ma Mission en Chine, pp. 86–87.
37 The Peking and Tientsin Times, October 5 and 12, 1895, pp. 330–31, 334, had great praise for O'Conor and the Foreign Office. New York, Times, October 1, 4:2 and 5:1, October 3, 5:1, October 6, 1:2 and 17:6, October 13, 17:3, October 17, 1895, 4:3. Wehrle, Britain, China, and the Antimissionary Riots, 1891–1900, p. 90. The Nation was critical of those missionaries who thought that American diplomacy and gunboats existed for their special benefit; see “Missions-New Style,” The Nation, LXI (Oct. 1895), 235Google Scholar.
38 Denby to Olney, October 15, 16, and 31, 1895, China Despatches; Olney to Denby, November 21, 1895, China Instructions; Read to Uhl, September 7 and 20, 1895, Despatches from United States Consuls in Tientsin, 1868–1906, National Archives, 1947; hereafter: Tientsin Despatches. Rockhill insisted on the overland route in order to impress the people in the interior provinces. The Chinese Recorder, XXVI, 495, thought the commission was on a “fool's errand.”
39 Denby to Olney, October 26, November 19, December 31, 1895, and March 24, 1896, China Despatches; Jernigan to Uhl, January 16, February 2 and 3, and March 12, 1896, Shanghai Despatches; Ash to Uhl, October 29, 1895, Tientsin Despatches, has press comment on the commission; the typewritten report of the commission was filed on March 3, 1896, in Tientsin Despatches; New York Times, December 30, 1895, 3:7; the Peking and Tientsin Times, October 19 and 26, November 9, 16, and 23, 1895, and January 11 and 18, 1896, pp. 339, 342, 352, 354, 359, 387, 391.
40 Cohen, China and Christianity, pp. 103, 170–73, 184, has shown that the efforts of officials to accommodate the missionaries undermined their authority, because the people resented their failure to defend Confucian orthodoxy. For subsequent anti-foreign disturbances, sec: Morse, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire, III, 150–51; Morse and MacNair, Far Eastern International Relations, pp. 453–61; General Index to the Published Volumes of the Diplomatic Correspondence and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1861–1899, pp. 142–43. Twenty Kutien rioters were executed but the Chinese government refused to punish important officials; see Foreign Relations, 1897, pp. 60–69.
41 Denby, , China and Her People, II, 70–72Google Scholar, 88–90. Denby, made the same reference to “making life as safe as it was in Indiana” in an earlier article: “Chinese Exclusion,” The Forum, XXXIV (July 1902), 136–37Google Scholar. He considered foreign ministers to be an integral part of the Chinese government. Four years after retiring as minister, he described the Imperial government as utterly inefficient and worthless but could not suggest what action should be taken to protect foreigners. See: “The Duties of A Minister To China,” The Forum, XXXIII (March 1902), 31–32Google Scholar.