TUAN (wargame rules)

Download

The Boxers had attempted to enter the Belgian Legation. . . . The Belgian Minister, when asked whether, being so far from the other Legations, he was afraid, wittily replied: “Oh, no; you see, we are a neutral country.” He forgot that he too was nevertheless a “foreign devil.” 1 A. Henry Savage-Landor

by

ALAN C. LOWE

China by 1900 was in disarray. While Western societies flourished with political and technological developments starting in the eighteenth century, Chinese society as a whole remained stagnant.² Political, economic, and military decay was pandemic and had been ongoing for years. Politically, a weak and corrupt governmental system developed under the ruling Manchu dynasty and during the reign of the Dowager Empress Tsu Hsi, at the time of the Boxer Rebellion it had become even more so.³ Economically, China was an agrarian society, the vast majority of the country’s population was farmers and their families. Although China possessed a merchant class, craftsmen, and limited industry, the economy was anything but solvent.⁴ Compounding the economic situation was a government fiscal crisis in 1897, brought on by the financial burden of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 and provincial corruption, which encumbered the already heavily taxed farmer.⁵ Lastly, the resounding defeat of China by Japan in the Sino-Japanese War revealed to the world the weakness of her military. In response to this defeat, China attempted military reforms in 1897-98, and for the most part these efforts failed to reclaim any semblance of military prowess.⁶ By 1898, these political, economic, and military deficiencies contributed to the international view that China was not only weak, but also incompetent.⁷ In past decades, China had been exploited economically by the European powers, but now in the last years of the nineteenth century, these systemic deficiencies provided the West with seemingly easier opportunities for greater gains.

Historically, the power struggles in Europe were for dominance, maintenance of continental balance, or continuation as a great power. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the competition among European nations assumed global proportions through the new imperialism. Nations fueled by this new imperialism desired increases in territory, revenue, influence, and control. Thus, colonies became the tangible mark of empire. The contest for colonial possessions and markets centered on the remaining unclaimed parts of the world. China became one of the playing fields in this contest. European powers with economic interests in Asia looked for ways to gain an advantage over other nations in China.⁸

Simultaneously with the appetite for greater economic and territorial expansion came the zeal that characterized the missionary movement of the nineteenth century. Resurgence of “religious fervor swept Great Britain and the United States,” and other Western nations. In crusader-like fashion missionaries set out to “conquer” the world.⁹ The world needed to be civilized, and the first step in the civilizing process was to be Christianized. If economic claims to China fulfilled the needs of earthly empires then spiritual claims on Chinese souls fulfilled a greater need, that of the heavenly kingdom.¹⁰

Additionally, one other factor prevalent during this period in history deserves mention, that of social Darwinism. Once a Western nation engaged in imperialistic endeavors, social Darwinism played a role in rationalizing incentives for colonizing and civilizing less fortunate people. Although not a driving force in and of itself for expansion, social Darwinism ran as an undercurrent to commercial and religious efforts, and solidified the belief inherently in Western minds that these endeavors were benevolent. Western nations could further justify empire building as an altruistic attempt to provide underdeveloped societies the survival skills necessary to progress up the cultural ladder.¹¹ Three factors, one secular, one spiritual, the other scientific, became strong motives for Western countries to take advantage of the opportunities a weak China presented.

The first Western country to make significant progress in exploiting China was Great Britain. Great Britain struggled for about one hundred years, starting in the early eighteenth century, to make trading with China profitable. A trade imbalance existed between China and Britain because of China’s refusal to buy English goods in exchange for Chinese tea. This imbalance started to reverse itself near the end of the eighteenth century when the British found a cash crop in Indian-grown opium.¹² By the early nineteenth century, the Imperial Chinese Court was determined to curb the importation of opium because of the destructive effects it had on Chinese society. This stance by the Chinese government led to war with England in 1839 and resulted in a humiliating setback for the Chinese military. With the resulting peace treaty of 1842, the British successfully gained concessions to have selected Chinese coastal cities open to Western trade. This was the beginning of British commercial dominance and most-favored nation trade status over the other Western powers in China, and “changed the course of Asian history.” From that point on, foreign presence began to increase in China, and ultimately spread to the interior as the Chinese lost the ability to limit commercial activities to just the treaty ports.¹³

Although encroachment by other Western powers gradually increased, no serious threat existed to the commercial dominance of England in China until the aftermath of the Sino-Japanese War. The first repercussion resulting from the defeat of China in 1895 was the threat of other powers partitioning China into “spheres of influence.” This threat became a reality in 1897 when Germany, afraid that dismemberment of China would leave them without a share, occupied Kiaochow. This act initiated the scramble for concessions by the other powers into 1898. Each country in a frantic rush for spoils and positional advantage vis-à-vis the other powers, reserved provincial territories for exploitation as China stood powerless to counter. As William J. Duiker observed, “European commercial and political involvement in China thus developed a momentum of its own.”¹⁴

Two significant events resulted from this “battle of the concessions.” First, domestically within China, it hastened a desperate attempt at modernization known as “The Hundred Days of Reform.” Because of indignation over this modernization attempt the Empress Dowager imprisoned the Emperor, reasserted her authority to run the government, and ended the reform movement. The other significant event precipitated by the threatened partitioning of China was the declaration of the Open Door policy by the United States. England, her position of dominance in China now threatened by imperialistic latecomers, could not afford another colonial competitor, “but sorely needed a partner,” endorsed the American initiative.¹⁵

By the time of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, Great Britain already involved in the Boer War, with control of South Africa at stake, was initially reluctant to promote international action in China. England could not afford to jeopardize her position in China, nor did she want to get involved in another unpopular conflict as international opinion turned against the British in the Boer War. England feared that the outbreak of the “rebellion” suggested that the final disintegration of China was about to occur and an international military response to the crisis would portend a final partition.¹⁶

As the crisis of the Boxer Rebellion intensified the motives of the other European nations became more obvious. The other Western powers had much to gain from weakening Britain’s most-favored-nation trade position. Most nations involved in China viewed the rebellion as an opportunity to gain greater economic and territorial advantages at England’s expense. Activities on the part of economic rivals overshadowed the activities of the Chinese.¹⁷

France was yet another of the many Western nations seeking a greater positional advantage in the Far East. France’s primary rival in Asia was Great Britain. While traditional animosities between the two countries had lessened by 1900, suspicions between the two nations remained. Competition between France and Britain for the China market, starting around the midnineteenth century was fierce. In fact, France viewed her holdings in Indochina as means to gain access to China’s interior via entry into the southern Chinese provinces. Later, France attempted to carve out a sphere of influence in the provinces along the southern Chinese border. This was primarily in response to British advances in the central and lower Yangtse Valley regions. France saw the advance as an attempt by Great Britain to further divide China and establish British dominance in the central Yangtse provinces, thus denying further French access to Chinese markets. As the crisis of 1900 developed, both Britain and France believed that dismemberment of the Chinese empire would be counterproductive to their individual interests. Although suspicions remained, both nations during the course of the Boxer Rebellion worked together diplomatically to maintain China’s territorial integrity.¹⁸

Although France was a commercial rival in Asia, England’s real threat in China was Russia. The Russians began their quest for territory throughout all of northeast China after acquiring several thousand square miles of Chinese territory in 1860. The land granted to Russia was in compensation for mediating a settlement to the Lorcha Arrow Wars (1858-1860). The holdings stimulated Russian desires for more influence and possessions in the East, and in the following decades gradually advanced to other areas in China justifying these advances as part of Russian “manifest destiny.” Within a generation, Russia made significant political and economic in-roads in China, and penetrated into Manchuria.¹⁹

The last five years of the nineteenth century were significant years for Russian policy in East Asia. She saw opportunities to become the dominant power in China. Starting in 1895, Russia had been able to consolidate much of her position in Manchuria and north China. In 1896, she received permission to build a trans-Manchurian railroad reaching her outpost in Vladivostock. Following the Chinese-Eastern Railway construction Russia would gain greater territorial, economic, and political concessions in China. Additional Russian expansion began to spill over into the area coveted by Japan, Korea. Russia could now act from a position of relative strength in her relations with China and the other powers.²⁰

From this perceived position of strength, Russia exerted herself diplomatically in the aftermath of the Sino-Japanese War, playing a key role in the post-treaty negotiations. Russian participation in this event was driven by several motives. First, Russian desire to stop a Japanese presence on the Asian mainland was the dominant factor, but she also wanted to avoid dismemberment of China by maintaining the status quo. Additionally, Russia wished to improve her position with the Chinese government, and hopefully, by extension, weaken her chief rival, England.²¹ The Russian position became stronger because of her diplomatic efforts, but was weakened by 1898 with the ensuing scramble for concessions. This event caused a violent shock to the existing balance of power in China, and it intensified Anglo-Russian rivalry for spheres of influence.²²

One diplomatic measure undertaken by the Russians were attempts to convince the Chinese government that Russia was “the true protector of the Chinese against the rapacity of the other imperialist powers.” Since they successfully mediated settlements for China in 1860 and 1895, and signed a “secret treaty” of friendship with China in 1896, they believed they had a special relationship with the Chinese. This became strengthened because of the geographical closeness of the two countries. The Russians continued to develop this theme during the escalating crisis of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. As the Boxer crisis developed, Russia sought to ingratiate herself to the Chinese throne by expressing a desire to help Peking in problems with the other powers. At the same time Russia saw an opportunity to profit from Chinese troubles by solidifying its influence in northeast China (Manchuria).²³

In addition to Russia, Germany was another rival to British attempts at protecting the worldwide distribution of power. In the 1890s, Germany threatened the British commercial position in China. The primary German threat to England was economic, however, as Germany sought to protect her overseas holdings the German navy began to increase in size. The start of an Anglo-German naval rivalry began to emerge as well. As a latecomer in the race for worldwide possessions, Germany sought coaling stations and colonial territories wherever obtainable. Increased German activities in China could upset the balance of power that Britain had fought so hard to maintain.²⁴

After the Japanese victory over China in 1895, Germany joined Russia and France in a diplomatic effort to stop Japan’s seizure of Chinese territory. This act, known as the Triple Intervention, served several German aims. It provided a way for Germany to keep Russia focused and occupied in Asia, reducing Russian “pressure” on Germany in Europe. Furthermore, with the accession of Nicholas II as czar, Germany looked for ways to improve goodwill with the Russians. This diplomatic effort appeared to be one way for this to be accomplished. Finally, the German government sought to avoid any serious modifications to the status quo in China. Any change could affect Germany’s growing commercial ambitions, force her into an alliance with Britain, or leave her empty handed in China.²⁵

Germany, as a reward for her diplomatic efforts, petitioned the court in Peking for a concession to establish a naval base in China. Germany believed justified in the request, and cited the fact that all the major powers had naval bases in East Asia. The Chinese government denied the request. Then, in 1897, after the murder of two German missionaries in Shantung, Germany seized the opportunity to act and took Kiaochow. Germany achieved by force what diplomats denied. The race to dismember China began.²⁶

On the pretext of protecting China from the Germans, the Russians seized two ports, Port Arthur and Dairen. The battle for concessions now began in earnest. Britain, France, and Japan acquired territorial concessions that could be developed into national spheres of influence. Only Italy failed to gain any concessions as the Chinese government showed rare resolve and rejected the request. Besides Italy, the only other country not to gain territorial concessions in China was the United States. The United States, preoccupied by events in Cuba and the Philippines, did not seek concessions.²⁷

Like the United States, Japan also recently emerged on the international scene as a fledgling world power. The Sino-Japanese War made Japan a regional power.²⁸ Unlike China, Japan modernized her society, and this modernization process accelerated after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. As a result, Japan become militarily, politically, and economically strong. This modernization effort provided Japan with the ability to defeat the Chinese in 1894-95, and the capability to do it quickly.²⁹

For years, Japan’s main strategic concern was Korea, which heightened with increased Russian interests on the peninsula. Korea, due to its geographic position, provided a corridor of attack to Japan by either Russia or China. Conversely, Korea also provided the Japanese with the same corridor for any potential attack they wished to pursue against Russia or China. The Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) brought Korea under de facto Japanese control, and temporarily halted Russian advances in the area. Although, the Japanese achieved much in the aftermath of the Sino-Japanese War, they did not assume that their mission was completed.³⁰

After her victory over China, Japan gained a potential ally in Britain. Both Japan and Great Britain wished to forestall future Russian advances in southern Manchuria as well as in Korea. Mutual cooperation in their opposition to Russia served both nations; cooperation that would continue during the events of the Boxer Rebellion. In fact, during the Boxer Rebellion, “Japan’s policy would be influenced more by Britain than by any other government.”³¹

As the crisis in 1900 escalated and the need to use force became apparent, two issues concerned Japanese diplomacy. The first was the scope of the Japanese military response. Britain wanted Japan to send a sizeable force early on in the crisis. Britain viewed this option as both economical, and because of geographic proximity, Japan could respond faster to developments as they occurred in China. The option of sending a Japanese force quickly to China also undercut unilateral Russian intervention and subsequent gains. Although Japan perceived the logic of the request, and did not want to see Russian armies arrive in north China and Manchuria, there were reservations. The Chinese government urged the Japanese not to intervene, and as Boxer hostilities were anti-western and anti-Christian, they were not anti-Japanese. Furthermore, Japan did not want to be perceived as being overly aggressive in China and potentially causing a multinational response. Regardless of Japanese concerns, the Russians predictably opposed the British proposal. Russia did not oppose Japan sending troops as part of a contingent from all powers, but denied a mandate for any unilateral Japanese action.³²

The second issue concerned the appointment of the allied commander-in-chief for centralized control of the military operations to rescue the Legations. The Japanese had both the senior ranking commander present and provided the largest force for the multinational expedition. By right, the allied commander should have been Japanese. That the Russians nominated a German for appointment to the position was an insult to the Japanese.³³

If the Sino-Japanese War thrust Japan on the world scene, the Spanish-American War catapulted America into world power status. By the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the United States last foreign war was fifty years prior in Mexico. Now, in the course of defeating Spain in Cuba and the Philippines, the United States “acquired strategic commitments thousands of miles from home and altered the whole distribution of power in the world.” The United States now became involved in the “toil of leviathans.”³⁴

England saw opportunity in this new balance of power. Faced with a decline in naval superiority, the entry of Germany as an economic and military rival, and increasing Russian aggressiveness, she welcomed the chance to garner American support.³⁵ Likewise, the United States was a newcomer to colonial expansion and sought a policy of maintaining status quo arrangements regarding China. By not possessing a sphere of influence, America benefited from trade and diplomatic agreements negotiated by the other powers and the potential dismemberment of China would jeopardize those existing arrangements. Therefore, with a status quo policy stance, America avoided getting involved in entangling foreign alliances. Consequently, Anglo-American relations began to move in a more favorable direction for both nations.³⁶

If England was the primary beneficiary of an American entry in world events, Germany became the main loser. Like the United States, Germany entered in the race for possessions belatedly. If England could be relatively unconcerned with any U.S. territorial gains, Germany could not. Any territorial acquisitions for America meant one less opportunity for the Reich. Thus, as Anglo-American relations improved, German-American relations took a turn for the worst, and Germany now began to supplant England as America’s primary commercial and potential military threat.³⁷

Historically, America held an interest in the China trade. Of all the countries in the Far East, China was the one that Americans found most seductive. China held the promise of huge profits for traders. The United States did not have the advantage of territorial concessions in China, but possessed the advantage of proximity over the European powers. It was far easier to trade with Asia from the West Coast of the United States, than it was to sail from Western Europe. By acquiring the Philippines, trade with China became more alluring. It seemed that the next logical step for the United States would be to participate in the “carving up” of China. Yet, the United States did not rush to do this. Instead, by 1900, America pursued a strategy of informal empire. American moralistic ideals, continuing problems in the Philippines, and the fact that the United States was economically sound without colonies contributed to a distinctly American brand of imperialism. Thus, the principles of free trade and a level playing field for all became the hallmark of America’s China policy.³⁸

The principles of free trade and equal access for all were articulated in the Open Door Notes of 1899 and 1900. The Notes promulgated by Secretary of State John Hay in close collaboration with the British were an attempt to stabilize the situation in China by restricting further exploitation by the great powers to their existing spheres of influence.³⁹ The intent of the Notes were to maintain the status quo, and halt further dismemberment of China by the other powers, thus guaranteeing continued U.S. access. The other European powers, except for Great Britain, viewed the Open Door policy as hypocritical and self-serving on the part of the Americans.⁴⁰ The other powers might have agreed in principle to the Notes, but rejected United States policy on how best to pursue their own goals in China. This being the case, the United States, with no way to enforce the policy, had nothing to lose in the attempt, and hoped for cooperation and compliance to the Notes.⁴¹

Yet, whether or not the other powers complied with the Notes, the Open Door policy did have some value. It forestalled partition of China, and enhanced American prestige in world affairs. Additionally, it became the model for establishing future economic and diplomatic relations in Asia.⁴²

However, by the time the second Open Door Note was released, the Boxer Rebellion was under way. President McKinley, faced with an election, disliked the idea of becoming involved in an international incident. Furthermore, the administration feared that the United States would become forced into an anti-Chinese coalition. Regardless of these concerns, the administration, agreed to join the other powers in providing a force to rescue the beleaguered citizens trapped in the Legation compound in Peking.⁴³

While the powers jockeyed for advantages over one another, domestic turbulence in China increased at an alarming rate during the closing years of the nineteenth century, finding release in many ways. One was through acts of violence directed at foreigners, and in particular Christian missionaries. Antiforeign xenophobia existed since the beginning of foreign penetration in China, and periodically resulted in violence, but now these acts occurred more frequently. By 1900, these acts were no longer mostly antimissionary, but included all things foreign.⁴⁴

When foreign economic power first penetrated China in 1842, several things resulted. Domestic industries of China could not compete in production with the importation of foreign goods. This caused a gradual increase in unemployment, which exacerbated other growing domestic problems. The proliferation of Western commerce had a significant disrupting affect on the Chinese social and economic systems. Another consequence of foreign economic penetration of China was the arrival of large numbers of missionaries.⁴⁵

If Western commerce exerted pressures on China’s social and economic order, then the influence of missionaries did as well. Additionally, the missionary presence disrupted the cultural, religious, and to some degree, legal fabric of Chinese society. Missionary activities posed a direct threat to the traditional social status quo in many ways. To the ruling class, the missionary undermined the gentry’s “traditional monopoly on social leadership.” The missionary established schools that taught dangerous “truths.” These truths had the ring of political and social subversiveness. The missionary provided famine relief, a responsibility of the gentry class. The missionaries continually exploited privileged legal status thus challenging the prestige and authority of local officials. Because of these types of direct threats to the established authority that missionary activities posed, the gentry class had the most to lose from Christian influences. For the common people the missionary influence heightened cultural anxieties and superstitious fears. The missionary practiced bizarre rituals–sacraments, and administered strange healing potions–medicines. They preached rejection of ancestor worship–the core value of Chinese culture. They fostered social disharmony and friction in the community by converting others to the Christian religion. Chinese Christians under missionary authority became exempt from having to bear their share of the costs for local religious celebrations thus increasing the burden on non-Christians. Within this wide chasm of cultural differences that existed between the Chinese and missionaries “it was inevitable that Christianity would be misunderstood and that the most diabolical motives would be attributable to its propagation.”⁴⁶

Similarly, missionaries did not go out of their way to endear themselves to the Chinese. Their attitude was perceived as arrogant, and in most cases, this was a correct perception. They disdained Chinese social and cultural beliefs and attempted to supplant them with their own cultural mores. Because of their arrogant behavior and cultural ignorance, missionaries refused to believe that the Chinese people would actively dislike them. All of the above factors contributed to making the missionary’s presence the most resented in China.⁴⁷ The only cure it seemed was to drive the missionaries out.

Although the upswing in antiforeign sentiment can be attributed in large measure, to the missionary influence, initially it was the deteriorating social conditions in China that provided the catalyst for future events. Unemployment, banditry, and general economic strife were endemic in many Chinese provinces. Compounding the overall situation were a series of natural disasters, floods and droughts, that caused many areas to become famine-stricken. Crop failures caused a mounting refugee problem. Due to corruption and inefficiency, governmental administrators could not effectively cope with the seemingly insurmountable problems affecting local populations and in many cases chose not to. Lawlessness reigned in these areas. Hunger, poverty, and dissatisfaction were a way of life. Frustrations ran high in many communities, and conditions were ripe for a rebellion.⁴⁸

The surge in domestic problems ultimately contributed to the rapid spread of the of the Boxer movement in 1899 through 1900. The word “Boxer” was the English name given to the Chinese secret society Yi Ho Tuan, or the “Righteous and Harmonious Fists” so named because of the boxing style of calisthenics practiced by its members. Like most Chinese secret societies, the direct origins of the movement are shrouded in legend, and are still open to some dispute among China scholars.⁴⁹ Regardless, two points about the society are without dispute. First, the Boxers became an antiforeign and anti-Christian movement. Second, the movement reemerged in the late 1890s in northern China in the Guan County of Shandong province. As Joseph W. Esherick stated, “Guan County can justly be characterized as geographically isolated, politically weak, militarily ill-defended, and with a population increasingly restive.”⁵⁰ These conditions provided an ideal climate for growth of the Boxer movement.

The Boxers drew little attention outside of Guan, and were a local phenomenon as long as their activities were restricted to northwestern Shandong. All this changed with the appointment of a new provincial governor in Shandong in March 1899. The new governor, Yu Hsien, was “notoriously hostile to foreigners, particularly missionaries.” The movement was now officially condoned by the ruling authority, and their activities rapidly became more violent and widespread. The focus of the activities became mostly foreign facilities. Railway stations and missionary compounds were looted and burned, as well as areas where Chinese Christian converts resided.⁵¹

Starting in the spring of 1899, the movement gained a significant following and began a rapid expansion to other areas in China. This can be attributed to a number of factors. The spiritual rituals practiced by the Boxers, and the beliefs in invincibility against foreign “devils” they preached provided a sense of empowerment to those on the lower end of the social scale. Another factor was the drought that plagued north China in 1899. It resulted in a considerable number of unemployed, young, male farmers possessing a high level of frustration with nothing to do. Additionally, because of the drought, hunger became a reality for most of the population. The Boxers often had food to provide to their followers, usually obtained by way of contributions or taken from the Christian population. Joining the Boxers became one way to avoid starvation. Then there were the anti-Christian and anti-foreign aspects that made the movement attractive. Latent anti-foreign sentiment began to rise to the surface as helplessness over local conditions worsened. Thus, to be an adherent to the cause became an attractive proposition, and once the movement started to spread in size, activities, and geographical area it took on a momentum all its own.⁵²

For the remainder of 1899, the Boxers operated with relative impunity because of Yu Hsien’s patronage and a policy of complacency by the Chinese government. Boxer violence increased with attacks aimed at Chinese Christians. Then, at the end of December, the murder of a British missionary increased foreign interest and alarm in the Boxer movement to a new level.

Boxer attacks continued in the first few months of 1900, still against Chinese Christians. However, with growing anxieties on the part of the foreign population, and the Chinese government’s unwillingness to crush the Boxers and stop the violent outbreaks, some nations called for warships as a protective measure. The ships arrived near Taku in April. By late May, open violence directed against foreigners began with the attack on two British clergymen, and the burning of the railroad station at Fengtai.

¹A. Henry Savage-Landor, China and the Allies, vol. 2 (London: William Heinemann Publisher, 1901), 43.

²Victor Purcell, The Boxer Uprising, A Background Study (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 3.

³Henry Keown-Boyd, The Fists of Righteous Harmony, A History of the Boxer Uprising in China in the Year 1900 (London: Leo Cooper, 1991), 4.

⁴Purcell, 39-40.

⁵Joseph W. Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 170-173.

⁶For additional information on Chinese military reforms during the period see: Ralph L. Powell’s The Rise of Chinese Military Power, 1895-1912 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), Chapter 2. Regarding the preparedness of the Chinese army Henry Keown-Boyd in his book, The Fists of Righteous Harmony, states, “despite the reforms of 1898 . . . the Chinese army was still one of the least effective in the world. . . . Generally speaking, the troops were badly paid, badly feed, badly housed, badly armed and badly trained. Above all they had bad officers.” Henry Keown-Bowd, The Fists of Righteous Harmony (London: Leo Cooper, 1991), 32-33.

⁷See Chester C. Tan’s The Boxer Catastrophe (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 11; and Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager’s The Growth of the American Republic, 1865-1942, vol. 2 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1942), 350.

⁸William J. Duiker states, “By the last decade of the nineteenth century China had become an area where the great powers were confronting each other. . . . China’s gradual political and social disintegration seemed to invite foreign intervention, and the race for spheres of influence in China climaxed as the century drew to a close.” William J. Duiker, Cultures in Collision (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1978), 18.

⁹Ibid., 5.

¹⁰Numerous accounts of the missionary movement’s impact on Chinese society are available. Most of the sources in the selected bibliography on China during the period either mention or devote whole chapters to the subject. For a concise overview on the subject the reader is referred to the following three sources: Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbanks, eds., The Cambridge History of China, Late Ch’ ing, 1800-1911, vol. 10, part 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 563-573; Joseph W. Esherick’s The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 74-95; and William J. Duiker’s Cultures in Collision (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1978), 11-15.

¹¹Duiker, 6; Social Darwinism was the “theory that people and societies, like animals and plants compete for survival and by extension, success in life. Formulated in the late nineteenth century, social Darwinism built on the theory of natural selection as described by British scientist Charles Darwin . . . social Darwinism was employed by some as the philosophical underpinning for imperialism, racism, and unbridled capitalism.” Influential proponents of social Darwinism included the British social philosopher, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who “coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’to describe the competition among human individuals and groups,” and American social scientist and economist,William G. Sumner (1840-1910). Source: Encarta 98 Desk Encyclopedia, 1996-97, Microsoft Corporation.

¹²By the midnineteenth century British imperial power and prosperity rested on money obtained from opium, cotto, and tea. For further explication on the British opium trade see J. Y. Yong, Deadly Dreams: Opium, Imperialism and the Arrow War (1856-1860) in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

¹³Duiker, 4-5. As a side note Duiker further states that, “Great Britain, since the Opium War, had more citizens in China than all the other European powers combined, and had staked out a zone of commercial domination in the lower Yangtse Valley,” 19.

¹⁴Duiker, 19

¹⁵See The Boxer Catastrophe by Chester C. Tan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 11-32; Robert Endicott Osgood, Ideals and Self Interest in America’s Foreign Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 58-59; Denis Twitchett, John K. Fairbanks, and Kwang-Ching Liu, eds., The Cambridge History of China, Late Ch’ing, 1800-1911, vol. 2, part 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 113; William J. Duiker, Cultures in Collision (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1978), 20; and Victor Purcell, The Boxer Uprising, A Background Study (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 84-101.

¹⁶David Gillard, The Struggle for Asia, 1828-1914 (London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1977), 169.

¹⁷Duiker, 50.

¹⁸Ibid., 50-51.

¹⁹Ibid., 19, 51-53.

²⁰Ralph Edward Glatfelter, “Russia in China, The Russian Reaction to the Boxer Rebellion” (Ph.D. diss., University of Indiana, 1975), 42; and Duiker, 19.

²¹Denis Twitchett, John K. Fairbanks, and Kwang-Ching Liu, eds., The Cambridge History of China, Late Ch’ing, 1800-1911, vol. 2, part 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 109.

²²Glatfelter, 37-39, 42. Regarding the intensity of the Anglo-Russian rivalry going into 1900, Sumner states that Nicholas II and his ministers had “an undisguised desire to utilize the opportunity of the Boer War for the strengthening of Russia’s position against England. . . . It was reluctantly agreed that not much could be immediately undertaken (in this regard), but the alliance with France was revived and directed now in express terms against England.” B. H. Sumner, Tsardom and Imperialism in the Far East, 1880-1914 (Archon Books, Oxford University Press; reprinted 1968), 8.

²³Duiker, 52-53.

²⁴Robert Endicott Osgood, Ideals and Self Interest in America’s Foreign Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 59.

²⁵Twitchett, Fairbanks, and Kwang-Ching Liu, eds., vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 109-111; George Nye Steiger, China and the Occident, The Origin and Development of the Boxer Movement (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927), 48, 54-55.

²⁶The Cambridge History of China, Late Ch’ing 1800-1911, vol. 2, part 2, Denis Twitchett, John K. Fairbanks, and Kwang-Ching Liu, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 112; and Duiker, 20-21.

²⁷The Cambridge History of China, Late Ch’ing 1800-1911, vol. 2., part 2, Denis Twitchett, John K. Fairbanks, and Kwang-Ching Liu, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 113. In an interesting side note regarding the German occupation of Shantung, Richard O’Conner in The Spirit Soldiers states, “Shantung was rapidly converted into a sort of Oriental Prussia, with verboten signs all over the plac. . . .Within a few years Tsing-tao was converted into a Far Eastern Dusseldorf, the most orderly, the neatest, cleanest and least Chinese, the best fortified city in China, and again, “Kaiser Wilhelm, who had a gift for the vivid but unfortunate phrase-making, sent his brother Prince Heinrich to the China Station with a number of warships and the admonition ‘If anyone at all should try encroaching on our rights, go at him with a mailed fist’.” Richard O’Connor, The Spirit Soldiers, A Historical Narrative of the Boxer Rebellion (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1973), 9.

²⁸William P. Bundy, Two Hundred years of American Foreign Policy (New York: New York University Press, 1977), 100.

²⁹Glatfelter, 9; Bundy, 99-100; and Keown-Bowd, 15-16.

³⁰Bundy, 99-100; and Keown-Bowd, 16.

³¹Bundy, 100; Duiker, 52; and Ian Nish, The Anglo-Japanese Alliance: The Diplomacy of Two Island Empires, 1894-1907 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1976), 91.

³²Nish, 81-85.

³³Nish, 88-89. Regarding the appointment of a Japanese Commander-in-Chief, Nish also goes on to say that it would be “unlikely that any European power would have placed its armies under the command of a Japanese general.”

³⁴Osgood, 58.

³⁵Ibid., 58-59.

³⁶Army Historical Series, American Military History (Washington, D.C.: United States Army Center of Military History, 1989), 339-340. Regarding the American use of existing foreign treaties in China, Bundy lists several: America “benefited from the trading concessions exacted by the British from the Chinese in the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. Then, through most-favored nation privileges American missionaries benefited from a French-Chinese treaty providing for toleration of Christianity.” Bundy, 93-94.

³⁷Richard W. Leopold, The Growth of American Foreign Policy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), 208.

³⁸Robert D. Schulzinger, American Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 21. Regarding trade in the far East, despite the lure of potential profits, “American trade with China hovered around one percent and with Japan two percent of total American foreign commerce.” Bundy, 98.

³⁹“The first Open Door note set forth the doctrine of most-favored-nation treatment in the spheres of influence and the leased areas of China. It was sent in the fall of 1899 in the form of identical notes to Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan. In March, 1900, Hay announced that he received ‘final and definitive’ acceptances, although all the replies were actually ambiguous. The second circular note, sent in July, 1900, called for the preservation of Chinese territorial and administrative integrity as well as equal trade opportunities. No formal replies were requested.” Osgood, 61.

⁴⁰Regarding interpretations of U.S. motives behind the Open Door notes, a later communist Chinese historian, Hu Sheng wrote after 1949, “Firstly, the Open Door policy, as suggested by the United States, did not mean that the United States was opposed to aggression in China. It only meant that the United States demanded a share of the loot. That is why the United States raised no protest against the ‘spheres of influence’ established by the European powers, but only put forward the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ for all. This meant: ‘I also want to share the privileges you enjoy in China. You get your share, and I get mine. Let’s all get our shares. Let’s continue to recognize the present Chinese Government and enjoy in common all the privileges in China.’ Such was the gist of the Open Door policy.” Purcell, 99-100.

⁴¹Schulzinger, 22-23; Osgood, 61; and Cambridge History of China, part 2, 115.

⁴²Morison and Commager, 353. Author’s comment: It is interesting to further note, that despite all the rhetoric about greater economic benefits resulting from trade opportunities with China at the time, China essentially was economically irrelevant for the United States, but it became the diplomatic main effort.

⁴³Duiker, 61-62; CMH: American Military History, 340.

⁴⁴Numerous accounts have been written about the rise of antiforeign sentiment during this period in China. The selected bibliography lists many sources where this information can be found. I refer two sources in particular: Paul A. Cohen’s, History in Three Keys (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997); and Joseph W. Esherick’s The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).

⁴⁵Purcell, 17; and Duiker, 11; Regarding the number of missionaries in China Thomson states that “before the Treaty of Tientsin, in 1858, there were only a handful of Protestants, and not a great many Roman Catholics,” but by 1900 this number had increased to about 4,000 with half being Protestant and the other half Catholic. H. C. Thomson, China and the Powers (London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1902), 243.

⁴⁶Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbanks, eds., The Cambridge History of China, Late Ch’ ing, 1800-1911, vol. 10, part 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 563-571.

⁴⁷Ibid.

⁴⁸Regarding conditions in China: “Towards the close of the year 1898 there was serious trouble in the northern part of the province of Kiangsu. . . . For two seasons there had been partial failure of the harvest, at time due to lack of rain and at others to floods. Official corruption greatly aggravated the evils experienced, and when famine threatened, the whole country began to be infested . . . with bands of thieves and robbers.” Arthur H. Smith, China in Convulsion, vol.1 (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1901), 155. Purcell states, “Moreover, especially in the northern proinces, for more than twenty years after 1875, no single year was free from natural catastrophe such as great floods and droughts, with which the administrative resources of the Manchu government were inadequate to cope” (p.17). Tan writes, “In January, 1898, it was reported that 48 counties and districts in Shantung were suffering from famine. . . . What made the situation more unbearable was the corruption and inefficiency with which local authorities handled the relief” (p.34). Esherick says, “By 1898-99, southeastern Shandong began to be affected. Its refugees joined . . . in the annual trek south along the Grand Canal–a route which had become a ‘highway of death and misery’” (pp. 174-175). Paul Cohen writes, “A huge refugee problem, created mainly by the flood of 1898 but also by repeated lesser floods going back to 1892, aggravated an already desperate situation” (p. 31).

⁴⁹According to Steiger, the movement existed prior to 1808 when it was suppressed by imperial decree (p.128). Another source puts Boxer origins as far back as the early 1700s. Lynn E. Bodin and Chris Warner, The Boxer Rebellion: Men at Arms Series (London: Elite, 1982), 3. Regarding the formation of the organization in the late nineteenth century, Steiger claims that the Boxers were a lawful defensive militia organization (pp.128-146). Most other China scholars disagree with Steiger on this point. See: Tan. (pp.36-43); Esherick. (p.60); and Duiker. (p.39).

⁵⁰Esherick, 137.

⁵¹Cohen, 23, 42; Purcell, 121; and Duiker, 41.

⁵²Cohen, 34-36. Regarding the number of Boxer followers, Savage-Landor, puts the number at 70,000 adherents by the spring of 1900, “with thousands joining daily.” A. Henry Savage-Landor, China and the Allies, vol. 1 (London: William Heinemann Publisher, 1901), 5.

⁵³O’Connor,17-18; and Cohen, 44-48. Cohen states that “a number of historians have pointed to the decisive importance of the summoning of the legation guards in late May” as the reason that China and the powers were pushed toward war (p. 48).

LINK