Chapter 34 2. Those who come are unkind and useless

As a nation that started with iron cavalry and bows and arrows, war was nothing to the Qing people who were good at conquest.However, the "foreign invasion" this time is completely different from the past—it is different from the Mongols going south and the Manchus entering the pass, and it is also different from the "invasion of the Central Plains" by the Huns, Turks, Tubo, and Huihe.What the Qing Empire faced was not "barbarians", but "foreigners" with relatively advanced science, technology and political system. These are some "barbarians" that we have never really dealt with, and these are also some wars that have not been clarified at that time.No one thought that the main purpose of those guys' wars was not to plunder money and women (most of these crimes are easy to steal), let alone to subvert the regime, but to trade and spread culture (such as missionary).In fact, the war in 1840 was called the "Commercial War" by the British, not the "Opium War".The latter statement was used by the "anti-war faction" in the debates in the British Parliament to satirize the government's war case.This motion finally passed with a narrow majority of 271 votes to 262 votes (please refer to Fan Meiping's "The Collapse of the Celestial Empire and the Persistence of Consciousness"), which shows that the war is not very popular in Britain, let alone launched for the purpose of smuggling opium or destroying China It's war.To put it bluntly, the British brazenly launched a war against the disgrace of the world, but they just wanted to do business with us.

This point can be proved from the "Nanjing Treaty" signed by the two governments at that time. "Nanjing Treaty" is also called "Jiangning Treaty" and "White Gate Treaty". . The main content of the "Nanjing Treaty", except for the routine "end the war", related to five-port trade, war indemnity, cession of Hong Kong, establishment of tariffs, and free trade, were almost all economic requirements.Even if Hong Kong was ceded, it was mainly for business and trade, not for coveting power (otherwise the Qing emperor would definitely not agree).As for the follow-up treaty of the Treaty of Nanking, namely the Treaty of Humen in 1843, there were of course many political and economic clauses that forfeited power and humiliated the country, such as giving up the autonomy of tariffs, giving the UK one-sided most-favored-nation treatment, extraterritorial rights, and the right to berth in treaty ports for British ships, etc. .But whether these clauses were extorted by the British side, or offered by the Qing side, there are still two things to say (please refer to Mao Haijian's "The Collapse of the Celestial Dynasty"), it should be said to be a combination of both!Even so, it is difficult for us to see the meaning of "death to China".

The same is true of other treaties.They are often described as "unequal treaties" that humiliate the country, but they are not all unequal.For example, "the emperor of the Qing Dynasty and the monarch of the Great Britain will live in peace forever, and the Chinese and British people who belong to them are friendly to each other, and those who live in other countries will be protected by that country." This cannot be said to be unequal. "The great emperor allowed the British people to take their families with them to live in five ports along the coast of the Qing Dynasty, including Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Xiamen, Ningbo, and Shanghai." meaning.What's more, the word "En Zhun" also gave the Qing Dynasty enough face.As for the exchange of documents between officials of the two countries, they should be called "notes." Instead, it should be said that they demand equality.Because the Qing court stipulated that the documents sent by British officials to our magistrates should be called "reports".Who is this who treats people unfairly?Even the "Xin Chou Treaty", which "has the largest amount of reparations, the most serious loss of sovereignty, and the deepest spiritual humiliation in modern Chinese history", there are many requirements for equality, such as the requirement to change "the Prime Minister's Office of State Affairs" to "Ministry of Foreign Affairs "that is.The reason is simple: the so-called "yamen" is a "herdsman" unit sent by the imperial court.The great powers were not vassal states of the Qing Dynasty, and their diplomats were not the subjects of the Chinese emperor. How could they be managed by "yamen"?Correction is of course required.

But here, there is also a message that the big powers launched wars not only to gain benefits and privileges, but also to require the Chinese authorities to change the political system, integrate with the international community, and handle affairs in accordance with the "international conventions" established by the Western society.This point is almost the consensus of the great powers.As Mr. Fairbank pointed out: "Britain represents the aspirations of Western countries in terms of diplomatic equality and commercial opportunities. If it is not Britain, then other countries will do the same. As for the focus of British trade in China is opium rather than Tea or whatever, it's just a coincidence of history." ("China: Tradition and Change").In fact, changing the "Prime Minister's Office of State Affairs" to the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" is actually asking for the change of the imperial court and the Yamen into the government; , regard "barbarians" as "vassal states" and regard themselves as members of the international community.This is undoubtedly a fundamental subversion of the imperial system that has lasted for 2,000 years and the concept of the Celestial Dynasty that has lasted for 5,000 years, so they are "bad comers."

Obviously, the "conquest" of China by the big powers was not so much about "destruction" of China as about "transformation" of China (in fact, they only asked for some concessions and privileges, and did not "occupy" China).Even if "the desire to perish myself will not die", it is not so much to "destroy our country" (such as the Yuan Dynasty destroying the Song Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty perishing the Ming Dynasty), but rather to "destroy our system" (this can be seen from their views on Emperor Guangxu and the Reform Movement of 1898 seen in the ambiguous supportive attitude).That is to say, behind their direct economic motives are long-term economic goals; and behind the economic goals are longer-term political and cultural goals.Of course, this cannot be settled simply by changing the dynasty.Perhaps because of this, the Qing Dynasty lasted another fifty or sixty years.

However, the resulting shock is subversive.Every thoughtful Chinese has to think about a question: why a "great country" with a history of 5,000 years of civilization and 2,000 years of imperial history can't beat a "Miner Island Barbarian" who came thousands of miles across the ocean (U.K)?If during the first Opium War, we could still deceive ourselves and say that it was just an "occasional mistake", or comfort ourselves by saying that the opponent's "boats were strong and powerful"; then, after the Sino-Japanese War, we were completely unable to justify ourselves.Because this time our ship is also strong and powerful, and the opponent is the even more insignificant "Mijimai" (Japan), who has always bowed his head and worshiped in front of my majestic China.What made the Chinese even more indignant and unbearable was that when the "Treaty of Shimonoseki" was signed in 1895, the amount of compensation claimed by the "Japanese pirates" was thirteen times the amount demanded by the "British and Barbarians" when the "Treaty of Nanjing" was signed!

The conclusion can only be one, that is, the technology is advanced and the system is more advanced.Moreover, the technology is advanced because the system is advanced.Otherwise, how could "Min Er Dao Yi" Japan come from behind, not only defeating my "celestial power", but also defeating Russia, which is also a "great power"?Just because they carried out the Meiji Restoration and implemented constitutionalism! In fact, as mentioned above, the Qing Dynasty’s nationalities and people’s livelihood were not a problem, at least not a big problem.The real problem is civil rights.We know that not talking about civil rights is the foundation of the imperial system, and it is also the general rule of the imperial system.The defeat of dynasties in all dynasties did not lie in civil rights, but in ethnicity (such as Yuan) or people's livelihood (such as Qin, Han, Sui, and Tang), or in military affairs (such as Song) or politics (such as Jin).Qing's situation is different.To borrow Liu Zongyuan's words, the fall of the Qing Dynasty was like the fall of the Zhou Dynasty. Its loss lay in the system (system), not in politics (politics, policy, administration).In other words, the defeat of the Qing Dynasty was not the defeat of a dynasty (one dynasty defeated another dynasty), but the defeat of a system (one system defeated another system), and it was also the defeat of a trend.As Mr. Sun Yat-sen said: "The trend of the world flows from divine power to monarchy, and from monarchy to people's rights; now when it comes to people's rights, there is no way to resist." Lost to a civil rights state, although it was parrying in suppressing domestic rebels such as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.

This blow was too great for the Qing Dynasty.Not only does it have no power to fight back, but it also has no way to save itself.Because the Qing Dynasty lived and died with the imperial system, and they were basically one.The imperial system is its interior, and the Qing Dynasty is its exterior.If the imperial system should not perish, the Qing Dynasty will not perish.With the fall of the Qing Dynasty, the imperial system must also die. Since the defeat of the Qing Dynasty lies in the system, the only way to save the nation is to reform the system, that is, to change the dictatorship into a constitutional government.In this regard, no matter the "constitutional faction" represented by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, or the "revolutionary faction" represented by Sun Yat-sen and Song Jiaoren, they all have the same views and no differences.The only difference lies in whether the so-called "restructuring" should be achieved through reform or revolution; whether the country after the reform should implement a constitutional monarchy (constitutional monarchy) or move towards a republic (overthrowing the monarchy).Kang and Liang advocated a constitutional monarchy, and this even has some similarities with the more enlightened or wise people in power in the court, but the latter tended to be more inclined to "a real monarchy republic" rather than the "virtual monarchy" advocated by Kang and Liang. Republic".So there was the Reform Movement of 1898 and the Hundred Days Reform in 1898, the "preliminary constitution" in 1906 and the "promise to establish a constitution" in 1908.Moreover, from June 11 to September 21, 1898, in just 103 days, the imperial court frequently issued more than 30 edicts to comprehensively implement reforms in the political, economic, military, and cultural fields.

However, although reform is the general trend and saving the nation is the consensus among the people of the country, there are different understandings of what to save.What patriots want to save is the death of the country and the nation, but what the Qing court wants to save is the death of the regime and the royal family.Thus, when reforms endangered their own interests, those in power did not hesitate for a moment to change themselves from reformers to bigots. The reform failed, the six gentlemen spilled blood on the streets, and the constitutionalists scattered like birds and beasts.This is not surprising at all.Because although centralization does not mean autocracy, and autocracy does not mean autocracy, the imperial system developed into an autocratic system in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, and these two dynasties were also autocratic regimes.For autocratic systems and regimes, the implementation of constitutionalism is tantamount to suicide, and the efforts of Kang and Liang are doomed to be in vain.Although under the stimulus of the "Gengzi Change", the old story of reform and reform was brought up again, but the scenery is no longer there, and the opportunity is no longer there.The reneging of the Reform Movement of 1888 and the loss of power and humiliation of the country in the Xin Chou Treaty have completely wiped out the prestige of the Qing court.People no longer have hope for this dynasty, and various forces trying to replace it are secretly gathering and eager to try.Gangs, associations, business circles, and associations all have their own opinions and do their part; the big officials in the frontiers who do not lose their minds have ulterior motives and act according to the wind, "borrowing the people's backing to resist the central government."They even stood on the side of the people to fight against the imperial court (for example, the petition that broke out in 1909 demanding the opening of the National Assembly was tacitly approved and supported by the local governor).Even many of the publicly funded students sent by the empire have become gravediggers of the empire, actively participating in revolutionary organizations and propagating revolutionary ideas.The imperial government's reluctant reform gesture obviously cannot satisfy the public opinion.

The successive deaths of Emperor Guangxu and Empress Dowager Cixi also made the reform and reform cause even worse.Guangxu is a reformer, and Cixi is a strong woman; the former has an enlightened image (charismatic), and the latter has rich experience (deterrent), so it can still be maintained, and even people can count on it.The two people who took over were completely different—Longyu was a typical woman, cowardly and incompetent, and had no opinion; popular "royal cabinet").What's even more ridiculous is that, in the face of irresistible historical trends, they have adopted a rogue policy of procrastination, thinking that as long as they procrastinate and deny it, they can get away with it.It was delayed until 1908, and in the face of the constitutional movement in full swing, it reluctantly promised to formally establish the constitution in 1917, but it still wanted to delay it for another nine years.They don't know that history actually has a limit.When the time comes, there is no chance. On October 10, 1911, before the Qing court could fulfill its constitutional promises, the revolution broke out.The Aixinjueluo family lost their last chance to save the country and themselves—if the "Junxian" succeeds, they can at least keep the title of the Qing Empire and the title of emperor in vain.

Speaking of this period of history, people often lament at the bookish spirit of the reformers, the weakness of Emperor Guangxu, and resentment at the stubbornness of conservative forces and the arbitrariness of Empress Dowager Cixi.In fact, the fundamental reason is that the system of centralization, autocracy, and dictatorship on which the Qing Dynasty relied was incompatible with republican, democratic, and constitutional government.Its transformation is really helpless, and it is impossible to find any experience that can be used for reference from the tradition of Chinese political culture.We know that any change can only be carried out under historical tradition and existing conditions.Transplantation that breaks away from tradition and reality is bound to be unacceptable and difficult to survive. This was the case in the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republic of China.It can be said that it was the lack of this tradition and the incompatibility of the two systems, cultures, and traditions that not only made the reform aborted, but also caused the republican process to be full of twists and turns, repeated mistakes again and again.