INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1 .T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will a find good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.
University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 77-27,443
PKDDEN, George Blackburn, Jr., 1939- ISSACHAR JACOX ROBERTS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN CHINA DURING THE TAIPING REBELLION.
The American University, Ph.D., 1977 History, modem
Xerox University Microfilms,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
© 1977
George Blackburn Pruden, Jr.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ISSACHAR JACOX ROBERTS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN CHINA DURING THE TAIPING REBELLION
by
George Blackburn Pruden, Jr.
Submitted to the
Faculty of the School of International Service
of The American University
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy m
International Studies
Signatures of Committee: ^
Chairman: L ' f K f A ’V
t E T School ‘ , , / Uvn/^a.,-----
1977
The American University Washington, DC
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SHZ2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREFACE
Issacnar Roberts appealed to the present writer as a
subject fo~ research as soon as he discovered that Roberts
was a Baptist. An uncle of the writer is a Baptist clergy
man who served as a missionary to China during the 1930’s
and who is primarily responsible foi his interest in Chinese
history and culture. Research for a seminar paper on
Roberts revealed aspects of his life and career which, if
investigated more thoroughly, could shed light on the
formative period of United States relations with China.
The writer was reared in the Baptist faith and
brings to this study a personal acquaintance with the evan
gelical emphasis and independence fostered by some churches
in that denomination. In his treatment of Roberts--a man
with an abrasive personality and an intolerant sense of
mission--he will try to assess the effects of his character,
viewed in the light of Roberts' milieu at home and in China,
on his perception and conduct of his mission. Obviously,
that assessment will be influenced by the writer's own back
ground and understanding of traditional Baptist evangelical
conviction.
Of greater influence in the completion of this study
have been the unswerving support and encouragement of the
writer's family--his wife and mother most of all. Not to be
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii
denied, however, has been the effect of his three-year-old
daughter's ritualistic questions each evening after dinner:
"Where are you going, Daddy? To the office? Again?"
The members of the writer's dissertation committee
have earned his sincere gratitude not only for inspiring and
challenging courses, but for their unusual patience and
helpful suggestions throughout an extended period of prepa
ration. Any shortcomings, however, remain his responsibility.
The archivists at the Baptist foreign mission
agencies at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and Richmond,
Virginia, are remembered with gratitude for their help in
facilitating portions of the research.
The writer must also express his deep appreciation
for the encouragement and tangible assistance received from
members of the faculty and administration of Presbyterian
College in Clinton, South Carolina. Despite his status as
an occasional visiting assistant professor, a private office
has been at his disposal, and full faculty privileges in the
use of all facilities of the James H. Thomason Library have
been generously and unstintingly granted.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ...... ii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION: THE AMERICAN AND CHINESE RELIGIOUS SETTINGS ...... 1
THE STUDY: ITS IMPORTANCE AND METHODOLOGY ...... 3
THE RELIGIOUS SETTING IN THE AMERICAN SOUTH ...... 9
THE CHINESE RELIGIOUS SETTING ...... 20
R e f e r e n c e s ...... 25
2. ROBERTS’ EARLY LIFE AND FIRST DECADE IN CHINA ...... 29
ROBERTS' EARLY L I F E ...... 30
ROBERTS AT MACAO AND HONG KONG, 1837-1844 36
ROBERTS AT CANTON, 1844-1847 ...... 46
R e f e r e n c e s ...... 60
3. AMERICA AND CHINA: TRADE, DIPLOMACY, AND ROBERTS' CLAIM ...... 69
WESTERN AND EASTERN ATTITUDES TOWARD TRADE ...... 71
EARLY AMERICAN TRADE IN C H I N A ...... 74
OPIUM AND THE OPIUM W A R ...... 81
THE TREATY OF WANGHSIA ...... 93
ROBERTS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY: 1847 C L A I M ...... - ...... 103
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V
Chapter Page
R e f e r e n c e s ...... 122
4. ROBERTS, HUNG HSIU-CH’UAN, AND TAIPING BEGINNINGS ...... 138
CAUSES OF THE TAIPING REBELLION ...... 139
HUNG HSIU-CH’U A N ...... 150
ROBERTS AND HUNG, 1847 ...... 156
ROBERTS AND HIS B O A R D ...... 161
RELIGION BECOMES REBELLION ...... 169
R e f e r e n c e s ...... 180
5. ROBERTS, AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND THE ARROW WAR ...... 192
ROBERTS' DISMISSAL ...... 193
HUN G ’S INVITATION TO ROBERTS, 1853 ...... 200
AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND THE ARROW WAR .... 218
R e f e r e n c e s ...... 258
6 . ROBERTS, AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND THE DEFEAT OF THE TAIPINGS ...... 27 5
ROBERTS AT NANKING ...... 286
AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND THE DEFEAT OF THE TAIPINGS ...... 295
CONCLUSION ...... 304
R e f e r e n c e s ...... 310
APPENDIXES ...... 320
A. Glossary of Chinese Characters ...... 320
B. American Presidents, Secretaries of State and Ministers to China, 1841-1865 323
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 325
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION: THE AMERICAN AND CHINESE RELIGIOUS SETTINGS
The Taiping [T' ai-p’ ing 1 Rebellion (1850-
1864), the Opium War (1839-1842), and the Arrow War (1856-
1860) are three major events which mark the beginning of
China's modern era.1 Both wars, fought unsuccessfully
against European powers, proved that traditional Chinese
institutions and attitudes were incapable of resisting the
pressures exerted by industrializing Western nations bent
on forcing China to treat them as equals.
The Taiping Rebellion was different from earlier
attempts to overthrow an existing dynasty. Its special
character was due partly to Western influence. Some of its
ideological content was derived from what the leaders under
stood of the Christian Bible. Its leader also claimed to
have a special relationship to and a command from the Judeo-
Christian God. The presence of foreigners and their victory
in the Opium War contributed to the conditions which
impelled many Chinese to rebel against the Ch'ing [-^]
Dynasty, established two centuries earlier by Manchu [Man-
chou ;«&/*)+!] invaders. The Taiping Rebellion, one of the
most devastating revolts in Chinese history, lasted for
almost fifteen years, and produced twenty-to-forty million
casualties.
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although the Taiping Rebellion was finally sup
pressed, it contributed to the ultimate collapse of the
imperial system half a century later.^ The leader of that
rebellion, Hung Hsiu-ch’uan [jft £ ] , studied Christianity
with the American Baptist missionary, Issachar Jacox Roberts,
for several months in 1847. Hung left Roberts and two years
later began the rebellion.
Issachar Roberts went to China in 1837 and spent
most of the next thirty years there. H u n g ’s only Christian
teacher, Roberts ardently supported the rebel cause. From
1852, when he first learned that the rebellion was being
led by one of his former pupils, until 1860, when he finally
succeeded in reaching the Taiping capital at Nanking [Nan-
ching pft Y - ], Roberts tirelessly wrote and spoke in China
and in the United States in favor of the insurgents. He was
convinced that a Taiping victory would fully open China
to the spread of Christianity. His first fifteen years in
China had been frustrating. Hampered initially by imperial
restrictions on Christian proselytizing and later by the
treaties which confined foreigners to only five ports in
China, Roberts believed that many Chinese would accept
Christianity if only they were given a chance to learn about
it.
When the rebels took Nanking and made it their
capital in 1853, Hung wrote to Roberts and invited him to
come and help teach Christianity to his followers. The
missionary was excited by the prospect of reaching millions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of Chinese. He would have gone to Nanking at once had not
the American Commissioner, Humphrey Marshall, refused to
allow it on the grounds that the United States was neutral
and that American citizens were prohibited from taking part
in any insurgency against the Chinese Government.
By 1860 the relationship between China and the
Western powers had changed. As a consequence of its defeat
by Great Britain and France in the Arrow War, China signed
treaties that granted rights and privileges to Western
nations far more extensive than those contained in the
earlier treaties. Access to the interior of China was
granted to foreigners for the first time, and Roberts was
finally able to go to Nanking. What he found there was
unexpected. Hung had begun to see himself as an equal of
God whom all mortals should worship. He expected Roberts
to become his apostle and preach this new doctrine to
Westerners. Roberts was appalled at this heresy.
Threatened by Hung's cousin, Roberts fled to Shanghai
[Shang-hai Jl /‘f ] . His earlier enthusiasm for the Taipings
was gone and he began to denounce them.
THE STUDY: ITS IMPORTANCE AND METHODOLOGY
The importance of this study lies in the light
thrown on early United States relations with China by the
documentary sources pertaining to Roberts' career in China.
In an ancillary way, these documents also illuminate the
conditions and general course of events in China at the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
time. The basic facts concerning Roberts' relationship with
Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and his involvement with the Taiping
Rebellion are known. They are treated in the standard works
dealing with the history of China in the nineteenth century
and are the subject of a published article.
What has not been examined carefully before is
Roberts' motivation for his support of the Taipings during
the seven years between 1853 and 1860. His efforts to reach
Nanking and in championing the cause of the rebels have been
attributed to his earlier teacher-pupil relationship with
Hung and his desire as a missionary to pursue the course he
believed would result in a greater number of Chinese con
verts to Christianity. These motivations were present.
Indeed, Roberts' writing during these years are repetitious
on these two points. It has not been shown, however, that
he had a stronger personal reason for his actions. He had
been dismissed by the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board
and needed some means by which he could vindicate his twenty
years of missionary labor in China and reestablish his
standing among the foreign community in China. This
analysis of his motivations derives not only from a study
of Roberts' activities in China, but from a parallel exam
ination of his relationship with his colleagues and with
his mission boards. The published studies that cover
American diplomacy in China during this period do not
examine the connection between Roberts' dismissal by the
Southern Baptist Board and his support for the Taipings.^
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Roberts’ relationship with Hung and the Taiping
Rebellion was not the only cause for him to become involved
with American policy in China. Roberts' chapel and resi
dence in Canton were twice looted and burned by Chinese.
When local officials refused to take responsibility and
repay Roberts for the damage, he entered a claim against the
Chinese government. His first claim, for losses incurred
in 1847, was among the earliest ones pressed by American
diplomats in China, and it was the one most vigorously
pursued by a succession of commissioners. An examination
of the circumstances of the claim and the principles and
tactics employed by these commissioners in seeking indem
nification for Roberts' losses illuminate a little-known
aspect of early American relations with Chinese officials.
Moreover, a careful investigation of this episode serves to
clarify some of the interests of the United States govern
ment in China at a time when no clear policy had been
enunciated.
Chinese-American relations did not begin with the
signing of the Treaty of Wanghsia [Wang-hsia ^ ] on
July 3, 1844. Merchants and missionaries preceded diplomats
to China. The informal relations they established with
Chinese influenced the formal relationships that followed
the promulgation of this treaty. The second American Bap
tist missionary to be sent to China, Roberts played a part
in the early culture contacts between China and the United
States. He came from the American frontier and the way he
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6
conducted his work in China bore the stamp of that experi
ence. An examination of his background and religious
beliefs makes understandable the means he chose to advance
the kingdom of God.
Roberts did not enjoy harmonious working relation
ships with his fellow Baptists and missionaries of other
denominations or even with the boards that sustained him.
He preferred to work independently, believing that he was
God's chosen instrument to bring the message of salvation
to the Chinese. Fidelity to his mission, he thought,
required that he not compromise his ideals to be more
cooperative. Because he was so independent, Roberts' atti
tudes and modes of operation cannot be generalized into a
characterization of Protestant missionaries in China at
that time. Indeed, Roberts' relations with some of his
colleagues make it clear that most of these early
missionaries were strong-minded if not stubborn. They were
aware of the importance of their efforts in bringing the
message of salvation to the Chinese people, and their
disagreements are indicative of the strong personal and
religious attitudes they held.
This study also sheds light on the relationship
between the early American Baptist missionaries and their
supporting board. China was a new field of endeavor for all
Protestant denominations. Initially, experience in mission
work in other lands provided precedents for organizing and
administering activities in China. Elsewhere, however,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7
missionaries had not encountered official resistance to
their efforts to the same degree or for the same reasons as
in China. Communications moved no faster than the slow
ships of the time. Roberts arrived in China in 1837 after a
voyage of about six months from the east coast of the United
States. When he left, thirty years later, the time had been
reduced to about two months, but the round-trip time
required for a query to be sent and an answer received was
still considerable. The Baptist Board had to rely a great
deal upon the discretion of its missionaries. Roberts did
not always exercise careful judgment, and his intransigence
involved him in constant disputes with both his colleagues
and board.
The Baptist Board of Missions was not the only
agency that had problems with its representatives in China.
The United States Department of State was equally dependent
upon the discretion of the commissioners and consuls it sent
to China. The similarity of the difficulties experienced by
the Baptist Board and the Department of State with their
agents in China suggest that the problems of both were at
least in part the result of the objective circumstances of
time and distance as well as of the character of the men
they sent.
In their dealings with Roberts, American diplomatic
agents revealed their attitudes not only toward him but
toward missionaries in general. Their dispatches also
provide insights into the attitudes they held of the Chinese
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8
people and government which influenced the policies they
recommended or followed.
Relations between the United States and China began
with the informal contacts established by the merchants who
went to China in the late eighteenth century. The growth of
American trade in China eventually made it necessary for
the United States government to establish a policy toward
China. Commercial influence upon that policy and upon the
means used to carry it out was decisive from the beginning.
It was in China that most of the events discussed
in this study took place. No clear understanding of the
interplay of attitudes, events, and personalities can be
gained without an appreciation of traditional Chinese
institutions and the way in which foreigners historically
had been treated there.
The major sources of this study are the letters,
journals, and records of Roberts and the records of the
United States Department of State. The investigation is
basically a historical one. It includes the major events in
Roberts' life, a chronicle of Chinese-American relations for
almost a century, and several explanatory sections that
reach back into Chinese history. The approach most suited
to this type of inquiry is what Charles A. McClelland calls
the "wisdom approach." He lists several requisites which
apply to this study: a grounding in the histories of the
countries involved, knowledge of the appropriate languages,
and a restricted area of inquiry.^
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9
The methodology employed in this study accords with
the approach taken. Primary as well as secondary sources
which supplement the investigation have been studied to
provide an accurate and comprehensive examination of the
subject. During most of the time Roberts was in China he
wrote frequent letters to the corresponding secretary of
his board and kept a journal, which the board's regulations
required that he submit monthly. Quite a few of his letters
were published in denominational periodicals. The American
ministers and commissioners in China communicated at length
with the Department of State on a wide variety of subjects,
and the diplomatic instructions sent to them are also
available for study.^
THE RELIGIOUS SETTING IN THE AMERICAN SOUTH
The watershed for Protestantism in the American
South in the early 19th century was the Great (Protestant) 7 Revival that began in the late 18th century. Although
its origin is complex, it "captured the popular mind. . .
[and] offered the hope, the feeling, the finality desired
by the common people."®
The Great Revival was particularly strong in the
frontier area: the Appalachian Mountains and the territory
immediately west. Population density there in 1800 was less
than six persons per square mile. This was the seedbed of
"rugged individualism," where survival depended on one’s
own efforts. The constitutions of Kentucky and Tennessee
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
(admitted to the Union in 1792 and 1796, respectively)
reflected this, allowing more democracy than was permitted q in the original states.
Basing all faith on the Bible, which was believed
to be the divinely inspired literal truth for all men for
all time, the Great Revival offered certainty and assurances
that were lacking in this hard environment. "God controlled
minutely the ordering of all earthly events. . . . Every
thing had meaning, . . . and God ultimately turned all
things to his purpose."10
Most of the frontier congregations lacked buildings
in which to hold their services. They generally worshipped
in suitable outdoor areas and called their services "brush-
arbor meetings." They began by singing hymns which
heightened the emotional pitch of the worshippers and
prepared them for the preaching which followed. The Scrip
tures were expounded, and whole sermons could be based on
the meaning of a single verse. With nothing less than
eternal salvation at stake, the dire consequences of
rejecting Biblical truth figured prominently in these
exhortations. The climax of these long services was the
emotional invitation which the preacher, accompanied by
suitable hymns, issued to those not yet saved from damna
tion. Anyone responding to the invitation went forward and
made a public profession of his faith. He declared that he
had been a sinner, but he was accepting the salvation pro
vided by Christ’s death of atonement upon the Cross.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
Fervor and a sense of urgency were intensified by
millennialism. This belief hinged on the prophecy found in
The Book of Revelation, Chapter 20, concerning the end of
the world. Satan was to be confined for a thousand years
during which time Christ and his followers would rule the
world. At the end of the millennium Satan would be released
and gather the remaining apostates for a final battle
(called Armageddon in The Book of Revelation 16:16) to gain
control of the world. The triumph of God would spell the
eternal damnation of Satan and his adherents. The millen
nium could not begin until most of the world had come to
believe in Christ, whose "Great Commission" (Matthew 28:
IS-20) enjoined the faithful to "Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them. . . [and] teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. . ."
Whereas in the beginning of the Great Revival the evangel
ical thrust was local, the impetus for wider ranging
missionary activity followed--at first among American
Indians and later in "heathen" lands.^
In this atmosphere, "an evangelistic pietism came
to characterize southern religion. . ."12 Not only did
these ideas bring a sense of optimism, counteracting the
uncertainties of frontier existence, but believers found
Biblical assurances that their efforts would, under divine
guidance and assistance, ultimately prevail. Indeed, the
whole of American experience to that time was interpreted
as a vital part of God's plan. Richard Furman, a leader
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
among South Carolina Baptists, preached a sermon in 1802
(the year of Roberts' birth) in which he cited America's
settlement "as [an] asylum for religion and liberty."
Furthermore, he asserted, America would
participate, largely, in the fulfillment of those sacred prophecies which have foretold the glory of Messiah's kingdom. . . . Hence God has prepared this land for a great mission, to lead the world into the millennium.13
Taking this mission seriously required clergymen who
were well schooled in the faith. Throughout the South in
the early nineteenth century, denominational colleges were
established to train them.14 One of these opened its doors
in January, 1827 in Edgefield, South Carolina. It was named
for Richard Furman, who, until his death in 1825, had
strongly urged that a Baptist college be established in his
state. As one of the first Baptist schools in the South,
it was the one attended by Issachar Roberts in 18 27.15
The fervor of this early period has by no means
disappeared. In 1974, the International Congress on World
Evangelization at Lausanne, Switzerland, was attended by
2,400 Protestant evangelical leaders from 150 countries,
including the United States. The Lausanne Convenant,
issued at the conclusion of the Congress, reiterated the
basic tenet of evangelicals:
We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
On missions it was equally traditional:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
We recognize that all men have some knowledge of God through His general revelation in nature, but we deny that this can save. Jesus Christ. . . is the only mediator between God and Man .... Those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from G o d . 16
It would, of course, be simplistic to credit the
rise of Protestant missions in the 19th century solely to
the Great Revival. The Great Revival itself had its roots
in the Protestant Reformation with its emphasis on justi
fication by faith and personal salvation.17 A major
contributing factor to foreign missions was the Industrial
Revolution, the effect of which was to bring into contact
the industrializing and nonindustrial parts of the world.1 ®
Traders, merchants, and seamen spread stories about far-off
lands, and writers exploited exotic settings in travel books
and adventure stories. Periodicals, including those
published by Protestant denominations, began to feature
accounts of life among the ’’natives" and the experiences of
English and Scots missionaries. In stimulating popular
curiosity for the unknown, they also reinforced the concept
of the Christian's duty to spread his faith in accordance
with the Great Commission. There were, moreover, some
direct contacts with British missionaries. Robert Morrison,
for one, went to China by way of the United States in 1807.
After a speaking tour, he secured from James Madison,
Secretary of State, a letter of recommendation to the
American consul at Canton, who was directed to render all
assistance within the interests of the United States.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
Once the commitment to foreign missions was made,
the justification for it was elaborated for purposes of
continuing support by local congregations and to increase
missionary recruitment. The motives for foreign missions,
as discussed by a stalwart supporter, were these:
(1) philanthropic ("pity for the suffering heathen"], (2)
eschatological ("pity for the perishing heathen"), (3)
theological ("pity for the deluded heathen"), (4) loyal
("obedience to the Lord's command"), (5) fraternal ("concern
for the church's welfare"), and (6) filial ("conformity to
the will of G o d " ) . 20
Organized Protestant foreign missions were virtually
nonexistent at the beginning of the nineteenth century. A
few local societies in Europe supported Englishmen and
Germans working mainly in Asia, which seemed to offer the
greatest challenge as well as the greatest promise as a
mission field. The London Missionary Society, founded in
1795, sent out Robert Morrison, a Presbyterian, in 1807. He
was the first Protestant missionary to C h i n a . 21 The first
two major foreign mission organizations established after
1800 were the British and Foreign Bible Society, in 1804,
and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions, in 1810.22 The latter was organized "as a
mechanism for assisting a number of churches" in, as its Act
of Incorporation stated, "propagating the gospel in heathen
lands, by supporting missionaries and diffusing a knowledge
of the holy Scriptures." For a number of years it was the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
foreign mission agency for Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed,
German Reformed, and Presbyterian churches located primarily
in the New England states. ^
Baptists generally, but especially in the United
States, were disunited. Believing that the term "church"
as used in the New Tescament referred only to a local
congregation, there were no national or state organizations
of Baptists. Independence and local autonomy were such
strongly held doctrines among Baptists, that few other
considerations had the force to modify them.24 Response to
the urgings of missionary duty, however, was one of these,
and in 1802 (again, the year of Roberts' birth) the
Massachusetts Baptist Missionary Society was founded in
order to support preachers who were willing to go to frontier
areas. Circular letters from British Baptists in Burma were
published in the Massachusetts Baptist Magazine and stimu
lated further the desire to help bring the gospel to the
unsaved. Local "mite societies" were formed by local
congregations to provide funds, but still no general
organization of Baptists resulted.^5
The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions had been organized in 1810 to support several
young Congregationalist seminarians who volunteered for
missionary service overseas. Two of these, Luther Rice and
Adoniram Judson, were sent to India in 1812, along with a
few others, including Ann Hasseltine Judson, Adoniram1s
wife. By the time they arrived, Rice and the Judsons had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
become convinced that the Baptist practice of baptizing only-
adult, professing believers was scripturally correct. They
requested and received baptism (immersion) from a British
Baptist missionary, the Rev. William Ward. The Judsons
remained overseas, but Rice returned to the United States
and was informed by the American Board of Commissioners that
their support would be terminated.26
Rice traveled to Baptist churches throughout the
country and appeared before local Baptist missionary
societies. His message, simple and direct, was that two
American Baptists were serving in India without funds and
without a Baptist missionary organization to support them.
Largely through his efforts, over thirty Baptists from
eleven states and the district of Columbia, representing
local churches and some state mission societies met in
Philadelphia in May, 1814. Encouraged by the prospect
of entering the foreign mission field with missionaries
already on station, these delegates agreed to organize the
General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination
in the United States of America for Foreign Missions.
After adopting a constitution that in no way impaired the
principle of local church autonomy, they formally appointed
the Rev. and Mrs. Judson and the Rev. Luther Rice as
missionaries.^7 Mr. Rice remained in America and devoted
himself to appealing to Baptist congregations for mission
support. He also pursued his interest in educating
clergymen. He was instrumental in establishing Columbian
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
College in Washington, D. C. and served as its first
president. This college later became The George Washington
University.28
Owing perhaps to the loose nature of their organi
zation and to some lack of enthusiasm for foreign missions
among frontier Baptists, stemming in part from anti-northern
feelings, ^ Baptist supporters of missions were unable to
move rapidly. Almost two decades passed before serious
consideration was given to sending missionaries to China.
In this initial period, India and Indochina were the major
areas for Baptist mission work. Also during this time the
Baptist missionary organization had grown from its modest
inception at Philadelphia. With its headquarters moved to
Boston, general conventions were held every three years, and
the unwieldly original name was replaced by the functional
and simpler title, Triennial Convention.^0
When one of its missionaries, John T. Jones, was
transferred to Siam from Burma in 1832, he noticed that
there were many Chinese in Singapore. He wrote to the
Convention that they had no Christian preacher or teacher.
The Convention responded with interest, asking the Rev.
Jones about the possibilities of sending missionaries to
China itself. He replied that China proper was closed to
foreigners, but he urged the Convention to send missionaries
to work among the large numbers of Chinese in Southeast
Asia--an estimated 250,000 lived in Bangkok alone. His
appeal was given circulation in a denominational
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 31 periodical. The Baptist Board of Missions(the executive
body of the Triennial Convention) passed a resolution in
1833 that committed it M . . . to commence a mission to
China, so soon as God’s Providence shall put the facilities
for doing it within our r e a c h . "^2
The means were soon at hand. In 1834, William Dean
and his wife were sent to Siam specifically to work among
Chinese there, the first American Baptist missionaries to
Chinese people.^3 The response to Dean's work among them
was encouraging; in fact, Chinese in Bangkok proved to be
more open to the Christian message than were Siamese. This
circumstance may have raised expectations for the future
success of missions in China itself, but realistically
Dean's welcome must be attributed mainly to the fact that
these Chinese were in Siam at least partly because they were
less resistant to change than those who stayed at home and
were removed from the conservative pressure of their culture
and f a m i l i e s . ^4 However, one of Dean's measures did reach
beyond Siam into China. The Siamese government discouraged
large gatherings of Chinese, so Dean gave tracts and
scriptural excerpts, translated into Chinese, to Chinese
boatmen aboard junks that called at Bangkok.^ Dr. J. C.
Marshman, of the London Missionary Society, had completed a
translation of the entire Bible into Chinese by 1823.^6
The missionaries could not immediately follow the
printed word to China. Early Jesuit religious accomodation
to Chinese cultural patterns came under attack within the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
Catholic Church in the early seventeenth century. The so-
called rites controversy ended a hundred years later with
papal rejection of the Jesuit policy, and the dispute, which
brought the Church into conflict with the Chinese emperor
himself, led to a series of anti-Christian edicts and perse
cutions. On his accession in 1820, the Tao Kuang [ jfc]
Emperor reaffirmed all previous edicts proscribing Christi
anity throughout China.37 Unable to preach openly, European
missionaries lived in the foreign compounds at Macao [Ao-men
and Canton [Kuang-c h o u * » ’|] or, in the case of
Catholic missionaries, worked covertly in the interior.
Among the Protestants, some, like Robert Morrison, worked as
T Q translators and interpreters for merchant houses. °
Foreigners were permitted to live in the trading factories
outside Canton only during the six-month trading season and
at Macao all year, but China claimed something like residual
sovereignty over Macao.39 Those who defied the Chinese
ban had to be careful that their activities not come to
the attention of the Chinese authorities. There was general
toleration for Protestant missionary work in Macao, but on
several occasions during the 1830's their printing
operation and £ome Chinese converts were harassed by the
Portuguese.40
Under these circumstances it is not surprising
that American Baptist missionary effort was initially
restricted to emigrant Chinese in I n d o c h i n a . 41 Also it was
felt that, aside from the intrinsic worth of the enterprise
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
there, the missionaries were gaining valuable experience
that would enhance their chances for success once they got
to China itself. It was to China that they ultimately
looked. "It is," one missionary wrote, "indisputably the
greatest field in tine world, and the place where, sooner or
later, Christianity is destined to achieve her noblest
t r i u m p h s . "42 Another expressed a similar conviction:
And we know he will, in his own time, and in his own way, bring the Chinese to acknowledge his supremacy .... I cannot for one moment entertain the idea that China is to be closed like Japan, and for cen turies, or even tens of years, exclude the light of God's glorious g o s p e l . 43
THE RELIGIOUS SETTING IN CHINA
. . . It is obvious that any religion arriving for the first time in China would have no easy time in becoming established. It would find already in the field highly organized faiths with elaborate philosophies entrenched in the traditions and the institutions of the people. If it could meet a real need and if it could tolerate the presence of existing religions, ideas, and institutions, it might find a welcome. It would run the danger, however, of being absorbed and of losing its distinctive characteristics and even its identity. If, on the other hand, the new religion proved intolerant of native faiths and if its acceptance would involve any revolutionary changes in thought or in social, political, and economic institutions, its path would not be smooth. It would have to attack some of the outstanding features of the nation's life and thought and effect their destruction or transformation.44
This assessment by a scholar and long-time
missionary to China comes to grips with the difficulties
of introducing Christianity or any foreign faith in that
country. Those difficulties were rooted in traditional
Chinese society and culture and in the Chinese approach
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
to religion.
Whether the beliefs of Chinese constitute "religion"
has been debated, and the central issue involves the defi
nition of the term. For purposes of this study, "religion"
will be used to encompass all those actions and beliefs by
which man attempts to explain or relate to those forces,
beings, or events that cannot adequately be understood
solely by reference to human existence and experience.
Religion, so defined, may or may not contain explicit belief
in supernatural beings, as in the case of philosophical
Taoism and Confucianism, as distinguished from popular
Taoism and state Confucianism. Belief in the supernatural
was universal and multi-faceted in Chinese folk religion,
however, and popular belief and formal philosophy were
everywhere interpenetrated.45 The dogmatic certainties and
mutually exclusive affirmations of Christian denominational
belief did not prepare Western missionaries for the very
different Chinese outlook.
Of the "faiths with elaborate philosophies en
trenched in the traditions and institutions of the people"
noted by Latourette, the three major formal ones in China
were Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Confucianism was
humanistic, rationalistic, and provided the basic philo
sophical content of China’s political, social, and economic
systems. Developed by the sage known in the West as
Confucius [K'ung Fu-tzu ft ^r] to bring order out of the
chaotic conditions of his time--500 B.C.--it had, through
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
modifications and accretions, become the dominant system
of thought and behavior in China. Confucius derived his
ideas from the accounts of the early Chinese sage-kings.
That he looked to historical precedents for his philosophy
of politics and social order reflected and reinforced a
Chinese tendency to apply established methods in dealing
with new conditions. Buddhism, introduced from India,
was resisted initially, but gradually gained acceptance
as it incorporated some traditional Chinese ideas. It
appealed to large numbers of Chinese because it balanced
Confucian humanism with metaphysical considerations eschewed
by Confucius. Taoism, originating in a synthesis of
Chinese shamanism and doctrine from the Indian Upanishads,
is at once a naturalistic monist philosophy and a highly
eclectic folk religion. These three major dispensations--
the first both religion and ethical philosphy--coexisted
with and interpenetrated each other in the outlook and
values of the Chinese people. In addition, there was the
whole locally varied body of folk religion with its multi
tude of cults and animistic, magical, and supernatural
beliefs and practices. All these sets of belief had
adherents and practitioners among those who also followed
one or more of the three chief formal religions. Obviously,
this eclecticism was fundamentally incompatible with
Christian exclusiveness.
Another area of incompatibility was the Chinese
collective orientation which subordinated the individual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
to the group. This stress, sanctioned by Confucianism
and reflecting the realities of Chinese social relation
ships, was at variance with the Protestant belief in an
individual's accountability to God and his salvation by
a personal belief in and acceptance of Christ's death of
atonement. Surely any Chinese of the time would have had
serious reservations about accepting the truth of Matthew
10:35-36: "For I have come to set a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother. . . A man's enemies will be
those of his own household."
It has been asserted that traditional China was
tolerant in respect to religion. It was, indeed, tolerant
of those religions which over the centuries had come to be
regarded as part of the natural and proper order of things.
Confucianism was, of course, the official secular ideology
of the state. In its religious aspect, it was institution
alized in the state cult, the observances of which were
conducted by officials of the empire from the emperor down.
In a related but different manifestation, it reached into
every Chinese family in the rites and beliefs pertaining to
ancestors. Popular Taoism, indiginous and ancient, and
Buddhism, exotic but long naturalized in the Chinese setting,
were recognized and controlled by incorporating them into
the apparatus of the state under the supervision of the
Ministry of Rites.46 Foreign doctrines, by definition
heterodox and suspect as subversive, invited government
repression and popular persecution. Christianity
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
encountered formidable barriers in this old and durable
system.
On the cultural level, there would inevitably be the
clash over prestige and authority. The Chinese were con
vinced that their civilization was the supreme manifestation
of universal truth. Historical contact with less civilized
peoples had reinforced this belief. Protestant missionaries
were no less ethnocentric in their conviction of the
superiority of their own culture and their certainty that
they were called to correct Chinese error in the light of
the Holy Bible, which they considered their ultimate author
ity.^^ This authority, one missionary apologist asserted,
gave them "the right to impose beliefs or to command
obedience. "^8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES
Current practice among scholars is to use "Taiping" instead of "T1ai-p*ing," which would be the proper rendering according to the Wade-Giles system of Romanizing Chinese characters. That system, however, will be used for all Chinese personal names, unfamiliar place names, and terms, but unnecessary diacritical marks will be omitted. Well- known Chinese place names will be given in the form by which they are generally recognized, following the usage estab lished by the Chinese Post Office. The Wade-Giles form will be given at first appearance and in the Glossary, Appendix A. The Chinese characters for all names and terms will be given both at first appearance and in the Glossary. 2 Franz H. Michael and George E. Taylor, The Far East in the Modern World (Rev. ed.; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), pp. 183-190, 215.
^Yuan Chung Teng, "Reverend Issachar Jacox Roberts and the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies3 23.1: 55-67, November, 1963.
^Tyler Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia (reprint; New York: Barnes 8 Noble, Inc., 19'63), covers United States policies toward China, Japan, and Korea up to 1900; the scope of his work prevents a detailed analysis of the Tai ping Rebellion period. Te-kong Tong, United States Diplo macy in China3 1844-60 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964), includes most of the period of the Taiping Rebellion, but not the final four years. Ssu-yu Teng, The Taiping Rebellion and the Western Powers London: Oxford University Press, 1971), explores the subject mainly from the Taiping side.
^Charles A. McClelland, "International Relations: Wisdom or Science?" International Polities and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory, ed. James A. Rosenau (rev. ed.; New York: The Free Press, 1969), p. 3.
^The microfilm copies of these records, prepared by the National Archives and Records Service were used. 7 John B. Boles, The Great Revival3 1787-1805: The Origins of the Southern Evangelical Mind (n.p.: The Univer sity Press of Kentucky, 1972), p. 183. 8 Boles, pp. x, 188. 9 John D. Hicks, The Federal Union: A History of the United States to 1865 (2nd ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952), pp. 206, 210. 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26
lOBoles, P- X.
•^Boles, pp. 101 -106.
•^Boles, P- 183.
13Boles, pp. 106 -107.
■^Boles, P- 191.
15h . A. Tupp er, The F Baptist Convention (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publi cation Society; and Richmond, Va.: Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1880), p. 83. See also the letter from the Rev. Jeremiah Burns to the Rev. Dr. Lucius Bolles, La Grange, West Tennessee, January 15, 1836, in Roberts' file, American Baptist Foreign Mission Societies, hereinafter cited as ABFMS.
^ T i m e 3 August 4, 1974, p. 48.
■^Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christian Missions in China (reprint; Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1970), p. 205.
■^Latourette, p. 201.
■^Oliver Wendell Elsbree, The Rise of the Missionary Spirit in Ameriea3 1790-1815 (Williamsport, Pa.: The Williamsport Printing and Binding Co., 1928), pp. 102-107. 20 Mary L. B. Carus-Wilson, The Expansion of Chris tendom: A Study in Religious History (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), pp. 7-34. 21 Eugene Stock, "Review of the Century," Ecumenical Missionary Conference: Hew York,1900 (2 vols.; New York: American Tract Society, 1900), I, 402-403; see also Latourette, pp. 211-212.
^Stock, p. 402; Latourette, pp. 206-207. 23 Edward V. Gulick, Peter Parker and the Opening of China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 8-9. For a detailed history of this organization, see Clifton Jackson Phillips, Protestant America and the Pagan World: The First Half Century of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions3 1810-1860 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969).
^Even today Baptist congregations are only volun tary members of denominational organizations, and no elected executive may speak for Baptists as a whole.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 25 William Gammell, A Hustory of American Baptist Missions in Asia3 Africa3 Europe and North America (Boston: Gould, Kendall and Lincoln, 1849), pp. 2-3. The origin of the mite societies derives from Jesus’ parable (in Mark 12: 41-44 and Luke 21:1-4) of the poor widow who put only two small coins, each called a "mite” in the King James Bible, in the collection box. She was praised because she gave a much larger proportion of her wealth than did the rich men who gave larger sums. 2 g Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (2 vols.; Nash ville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1958) I, 713. 27 Elsbree, pp. 113-117; see also Gammell, pp. 17-22, 28 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists3 II, 1164-1165. 29 T. Scott Miyakawa, Protestants and Pioneers: Individualism and Conformity on the American Frontier (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 144-158.
• ^ R o b e r t g. Torbet, A History of the Baptists (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1950), p. 268. 31 Kenneth Gray Hobart, Early American Baptist Missions to the Chinese (Shanghai: n.n., 1939), p. 94. 32 Hobart, p. 10, citing Minutes of the Executive Committee, August 5, 1833.
7 7 JHobart, p. 10. Robert Morrison, a British Presbyterian, had gone to China in 1807; and the American Board of Commissioners sent two men out to China in 1830. See Latourette, pp. 211-217.
34Hobart, pp. 18-19.
33Hobart, pp. 13-14.
*7 f. Latourette, pp. 210-211.
^Latourette, pp. 156-178. 38 Latourette, pp. 212, 216-217. 39 Latourette, p. 208. The ownership of Macao has been a matter of controversy for over three centuries. The Portuguese government did, however, sign a convention with the Chinese government on November 9, 1749, by which it agreed to forbid Christian proselytizing among the Chinese. See Sir Andrew Ljungstedt, An Historical Sketch of the Portuguese Settlements in China; and of the Roman Catholic Church and Mission in China (Boston: James Munroe 8 Co., 1836), pp. 10-13, 283.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 40 Latourette, pp. 222-223.
4^Hobart, p. 2. 42 Baptist Missionary Magazine, 20.1:19, January, 1840; emphasis in the original. 43 Baptist Missionary Magazine3 21.2:52, February, 1841. 44 Latourette, pp. 23-24.
4^See C. K. Yang, Religion in Chinese Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 1-27.
4^Charl esO. Hucker, The Traditional Chinese State in Ming Times (1368-1644) (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1961), pp. 27-29.
4^Eugene P. Boardman, Christian Influence upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion3 1861-1864 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952), pp. 52-53. 4 8 Augustus Strong, ’’Authority and Purpose of Foreign Missions,” Ecumenical Missionary Conference3 I, 67. Sources for the discussion of Chinese religion are: Wm. T. deBary (comp.), Sources of Chinese Tradition (2 vols.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1964); Lin Yutang, My Country and My People (n.p.: n.d.); Max Weber, The Religion of China3 trans. and ed. Hans H. Gerth (New York: The Free Press, 1968); S. Wells Williams, The Middle Kingdom (2 vols. rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883); and C. K. Yang, Religion in Chinese Society.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 2
ROBERTS’ EARLY LIFE AND FIRST DECADE IN CHINA
Into this ethnocentric culture of China came a man
who acted for the most part out of his experiences on the
American frontier. Issachar Jacox Roberts' early life in
the partly civilized frontier and the Protestant fundamen
talism he adopted there made him cherish independence and
convinced him that God had chosen him to advance the cause
of the millennium by working for the spread of the gospel in
China.
Chinese ethnocentrism was not the only source of
resistance to his efforts there. The Baptist Board of
Foreign Missions in Boston under which he worked at first
did not entirely share his fundamentalism, and it certainly
did not appreciate the independence with which he sought to
spread the gospel. In addition, Roberts antagonized most
of his missionary colleagues by his frontier directness
and self-righteousness. During his first decade in China,
from 1837 to 1847, he witnessed the changes wrought by the
British victory in the Opium War, and he used the opening
of the treaty ports to escape from a deteriorating rela
tionship with his Baptist colleagues on Hong Kong by going
to Canton. Also during this decade it became necessary for
him to change the source of his financial support twice.
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30
Throughout this period there were few tangible results of
his missionary labors. Though he preached several times
each week and distributed hundreds if not thousands of
copies of religious tracts, some of which he had written
himself in Chinese, he baptized only a few converts.
ROBERTS’ EARLY LIFE
Issachar Jacox Roberts was born on a farm in Sumner
County, Tennessee, on February 17, 1802.^ He was the
youngest of several children of George and Rachel Roberts.
His mother was a devout Baptist, though his father, who
died about the time Issachar was born, was not a professing
Christian.2
Formal education was rarely available to young men
of his circumstances. He attended country schools as the
opportunities of frontier life permitted. When he was nine
teen he made a profession of faith and was baptized by
immersion into the membership of the Baptist Church of
Shelbyville, Tennessee. Finding it difficult to write of
his conversion experience, he studied English grammer
informally to improve his ability to write.3
It was not long before Roberts decided to devote
his life to the gospel ministry. One of his older brothers,
Levi C. Roberts, was a preacher, and he may have encouraged
Issachar to become one. Their mother was in favor of it
too. Issachar was licensed to preach by the Shelbyville
church, a status that gave him practice but no pay nor any
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
right to perforin weddings or baptisms.^ For several years
he worked as a schoolmaster and saddler, then, in 18 27 he
went to Edgefield, South Carolina, where he attended one
term of the Furman A c a d e m y . ^ After this short exposure to
a course in preparation for the ministry, he was ordained.^
Roberts married Barsha Blanchard on January 4, 1830,
near Augusta, Georgia. She died the following year.? He
traveled for about a year as an agent of the Colonization
Society and Sunday School Union, then went to Mississippi^
where he accumulated some property that was valued at about
$30,000.00.9
It was during his years in Mississippi that he first
considered offering himself as a foreign missionary. He
wrote to the Corresponding Secretary of the Baptist Board
for Foreign Missions in Boston: "I have for some time been
thinking seriously about spending the remnant of my days in
Liberia. . ." His interest in this land of freed American
slaves stemmed at least in part from a candid assesment of
his qualifications. "I have an english education only," he
admitted.10
Shortly before Roberts inquired about service in
Africa, an article in the leading American Baptist journal
surveyed the possibilities for missionary work in China.
Noting that the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions had passed
a resolution to begin such work "so soon as God’s providence
shall put the facilities for so doing within their reach,"
the article called China, with its size and large
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32
non-Christian population, the greatest challenge for
evangelism. "Nowhere has Satan a seat on the earth, to be
compared in extent with that he holds in. . . the so-called
'celestial empire'." There were opportunities, however, for
meeting this challenge. The increased trade between China
and America could provide means of transportation. The
difficulties of the Chinese language had been partly over
come by the pioneering missionary work and Bible translations
already undertaken by Robert Morrison. William Milne and Dr.
J. Marshman. And the calls for more missionaries by Karl
A. Gutzlaff, a Prussian missionary in China, assured those
who came to China that they would be able to accomplish
much useful work. The article concluded with a call to
Protestant pride and Christian duty:
Shall Protestants shrink from entering a field where the emmissaries of Rome do not fear to adventure? Is there nothing in the cross, nothing in the command of Him who bled on it for our redemption, nothing in His promises of protection, support, and everlasting reward, nothing in China and her future destinies for this world and the next, to fill and inflame the soul of him who burns to preach Christ among the heathen. . .
It is not unlikely that Roberts read this article,
or that he had read some of the accounts and appeals from
Gutzlaff that had been printed in the journals of various
denominations in the United States.12 Roberts had been
greatly impressed with the impact made upon him by a
religious tract he had read in 1831. When he learned from
some source that the Chinese were "a reading people," he
became convinced that useful missionary work could be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
accomplished by the distribution of tracts among the Chinese.
By early 1835, Roberts had made up his mind to become a
missionary to C h i n a . 13 After this decision he traveled
over two thousand miles through five western states and
territories asking for financial support. Though his
expenses of this trip exceeded donations, he was suffi
ciently encouraged to write the Baptist Board of his
intentions.14
The board, presented with perhaps its first volun
teer for mission work in China, wrote to the four men that
Roberts had named as references in his letter. Their
replies were not enthusiastic about his qualifications.
One writer assessed Roberts' preaching ability as "not
above mediocrity," and suggested that Roberts was "under
mistaken impressions" if he considered himself suitable
as a foreign missionary. Nothing that "the purposes of
God are past finding out," he concluded his recommendation:
"I think should the Board appoint him he would indeavor
[sic] to do all he could to fill the measure of his
appointment."15 The other three references were not as
optimistic. One of them, a former president of the Baptist
Triennial Convention, wrote that he would oppose Roberts1
appointment if he were a member of the board when it came
up for consideration.16 Roberts' application came before
the board for consideration on March 7, 1836 and, not
surprisingly in view of these letters, it was disapproved.1?
A product of the frontier where surmounting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
obstacles was necessary for survival, Roberts forged ahead
undaunted. He decided to get his financial support from his
property in Mississippi and from contributions donated by
those Baptists in the West who had shown an interest in his
desire to serve as a missionary to China. He established
the Roberts1 Fund and China Mission Society of the Missis
sippi Valley with headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky. It
was capitalized by the income from his property in Missis
sippi and by contributions from individuals and organizations
that joined it. 18 With an organization and demonstrated
support for his plans, Roberts again approached the Baptist
Board, this time to ask merely that it underwrite his work
as an independent Baptist missionary. Uncertain of the
value of Roberts' property and concerned because he would
have unconditional control of all funds, the board refused
even this limited role.
Roberts still did not give up his goal. He was
determined to leave for China anyway. He finally worked
out an arrangement by which the board would receive funds
for his support from the China Mission Society and transmit
them to the board's business agents in the Far East for
transfer to Roberts. With this arrangement Roberts felt he
could safely go ahead. He sailed from Boston in October
1836 and after a voyage of three-and-a-half months reached
Batavia, Java. He was forced to wait there for a favorable
wind to Macao, and he passed some of his time there by
beginning his study of the Chinese l a n g u a g e . His
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
anticipation for way lay ahead, as uncertain as that might
be, was due in large measure to his trust in divine provi
dence. He believed the Bible to be literally true, so he
could take comfort from Romans 8:28: "And we know that all
things work together for good to them that love God. . ."
Three things were working in Roberts' favor at this
time. One, he knew about--the loyal support of his contri
butors in the western states. The other two he was not
aware of while he was in Batavia. The first was that Karl
Gutzlaff would welcome him to Macao with open arms. Before
he left America, Roberts asked the Rev. William Buck,
President of the China Mission Society, to invite Gutzlaff
to join, which he did with an enthusiastic reply from Macao
in March 1837. Gutzlaff wrote of his long-standing desire
for a mission society devoted solely to China, and was
delighted to learn of the Roberts' Fund and China Mission
Society. Moreover, he was eagerly awaiting Roberts'
arrival, for when he read of Roberts' decision to devote
his life to China missions he had been "moved to tears."21
The other thing that was working in Roberts' favor
but was unknown to him at the time was the relocation of
another American Baptist to Macao. Jehu Lewis Shuck, ten
years Roberts' junior, had been a student in Richmond,
Virginia when he committed his life to foreign missions.
He had been raised in western Virginia, also a frontier
area, but Shuck was able to smooth his rough frontier edges
by formal schooling and by association with more refined
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
society. His application to the Baptist Board of Foreign
Missions was unhesitatingly accepted about the same time
that Roberts' first application was rejected. Shuck
married a well-bred young lady from a prominent Baptist
family, Henrietta Hall, and they sailed from Boston in
September 1835, just two days after their wedding. It was
the board's intention that this eager young couple would
join the Baptist mission in Bangkok and work with William
Dean among the overseas Chinese there until the situation
in China permitted missionaries to work in the count ry.22
The Shucks disembarked at Singapore, but while waiting for
another ship to take them to Bangkok, Shuck decided to go
to Macao. It was, he felt, much closer to what God wanted
him to do than work in Bangkok. He wrote the board of his
decision from Singapore, but did not wait for a reply before
he left. Only after he reached Macao in September 1836
and had been working there for several months did he and
his wife learn that the board did not sanction his action
and only reluctantly acquiesced in it. The Shucks were
welcomed warmly by Karl Gutzlaff, with whom he studied
Chinese and engaged in some missionary activities.23
ROBERTS AT MACAO AND HONG KONG, 1837-1844
Roberts arrived at Macao in May, 1837, and was sur
prised at being welcomed by Gutzlaff and the Shucks. He did
not expect to find Shuck there, and he did not know that
Gutzlaff was eagerly awaiting his arrival. He lived for a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37
while with Mr. and Mrs, Shuck, and the acrimony of their
later relations may have had its beginning during this
time.24 After a few months, Roberts left the Shucks to
board with Gutzlaff and his English wife, who were most
hospitable to another independent missionary. Roberts
worked more closely with Gutzlaff than with Shuck, who had
developed reservations about Roberts' abilities to carry on
useful missionary work. For his part, Roberts did not hide
his preference for independent work--preaching and distri
buting tracts--over cooperating with Shuck in order to
establish a firm base for their denomination’s activities in
China.25
Roberts and Shuck had been preceded to Macao by
several English missionaries, most notably Robert Morrison
and Walter H. Medhurst, and by the Prussian, Karl Gutzlaff.
The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
sent the first missionaries from the United States to China.
Elijah C. Bridgman arrived in 1830. He was joined by
S. Wells Williams in 1833 and by Dr. Peter Parker, a medical
missionary, in 1834.26
The enthusiasm and energy Roberts and Shuck brought
to China, based on their intense belief in divine guidance
and protection and nourished by their experiences with
hardships on the frontier, were almost the only positive
aspects of their initial efforts. Their tenuous toehold
on the edge of China at Macao, the antipathy of Chinese
and Portuguese Catholic officials, and the rivalry that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38
developed with other American Protestant missionaries who
shared this small outpost were negative aspects they had
to contend with. These obstacles might have overwhelmed
men less used to struggling in an inhospitable environment.
The hostility to Protestant missionaries in Macao
was but one of the hindrances Roberts and Shuck had to
contend with in their efforts to reach Chinese with the
gospel message. Forbidden to preach openly, Roberts was
nevertheless able to carry out one of his goals. He
distributed religious tracts and translations of scripture,
often in a nearby leper colony.2? To supplement his support
from his China Mission Society, he relied on one of his
earlier means of livelihood by engaging in saddlery.28
Although outside employment was forbidden by Baptist
missionary regulations, Roberts was not a regular missionary
of the Baptist Board and justified his use of this skill:
"I would, by no means, sell my knowledge of the trade of
? Q making saddles; for it makes in independent. . 3
This desire to be independent in order to answer
the call of God wherever it might lead him was character
istic of Roberts. Life on the edge of the American
wilderness, relatively free of formal institutions, had
not prepared him to accept willingly the control of a
distant organization. He found in China what to him
appeared to be a spiritual wilderness, so he called upon
the techniques, skills, and strengths that he had developed
early in life and applied them to his missionary
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39
endeavors.30 And his experiences with the Baptist Board
of Foreign Missions reinforced his preference for inde
pendence.
Once at Macao, Roberts had reason to appreciate his
independent missionary status. He was under no direct
supervision by the board and met both opportunities and
obstacles in his own way. His close association with the
only other independent missionary there, Karl Gutzlaff, has
led one scholar to call Roberts his assistant.31 Roberts,
in his own mind and in fact, was no one's assistant. He saw
himself as a direct agent of God, doing his will in China to
convert its millions of people to Christianity in order to
usher in the millennium.
Roberts' goal coincided in general not only with
that of Shuck and Gutzlaff, but also with that of Elijah
C. Bridgman, S. Wells Williams, and Dr. Peter Parker, of
7 O the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.
All of these missionaries lived at least part of each year
at Macao, which they were required to do by the conditions
the Chinese attached to trade carried on by foreign merchants
at Canton.33
Similarity in goal, however, did not extend to the
means the missionaries used to achieve it. Bridgman,
Williams, and Parker were well-educated Congregationalists
from New England where the emotional fervor of revivalism
had passed out of fashion. In their approach to the Chinese
situation they followed the precedents set in an earlier
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
century by Matteo Ricci and other Jesuits who used caution
and subtlety to win gradual acceptance by educated Chinese.^4
Roberts' and Shuck's efforts to "win souls" by direct
proselytizing embarrassed these Congregationalists. Dr.
Parker criticized Shuck and Roberts because he felt that
their independent actions and lack of concern for the
sensibilities of the others jeopardized the effectiveness
and future of all of them in China. "The authorities
here. . . know no distinction of denomination," he explained.
Parker had even stronger reservations about Roberts as an
effective missionary. "An illiterate man, unaccustomed
to studious habits," he charged, "an indiscreet man:
unsuspecting as a child 5 unacquainted with human nature
§ the world, as he is ignorant of the peculiarities of
the Chinese mission."35
Roberts' letters to the board through 1841 ignore
any of the deeper problems of establishing Christian
missions in China. He was concerned principally with
practical matters: requests for funds to print and
distribute religious tracts and biblical excerpts that he
had helped to write or translate, financial arrangements
between the board and his China Mission Society, and
requests for copies of denominational periodicals and good
writing paper.^ Absent from his correspondence during
this period was any assessment of his success or failure
in his efforts.
Roberts, for all his vaunted independence of action
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
and spirit, was forced by economic circumstances to give up
part of it for financial security. About the time he left
for China financial depression had swept the United States.3?
By 1841 the income from his Mississippi property could no
longer support him, and the contributions from his sup
porters had been but a meager supplement to his main source
of income. He first tried to have the China Mission
Society incorporated so that he could sell stock. His
trustees and the State of Mississippi did not accept this
arrangement, so Roberts agreed to become a regular, sup
ported missionary of the Baptist Board in Boston.38 With
no other course open to him, he readily agreed to abide by
the board's regulations: "I am much gratified with the
arrangement. . . . The requitions [i.e., the board's
regulations] are only considered right and reasonable and
consequently unheasitatingly agreed to."39
The Opium War had begun in 1839, and the future of
the Chinese imperial restrictions on Christian proselytizing
was to Roberts the main question to be decided by the
conflict. When Hong Kong [Hsiang-kang was ceded to
Great Britain as part of the Ch'uan-pi ] Convention
in January 1841,40 Roberts was delighted:
Hong Kong is a British possession here now, thank God, on which as a fulcrum may be fixed the gospel lever to move and raise the Chinese nation. . . Canton, Macao, and Hong Kong are now accessible; and other places may be before the present crisis is past--these are certain! A new era now commences in China; and the circumstances of the case most urgently call upon us to improve this favorable change for the renewal of our zeal 3 labors in behalf of the perishing nation!41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42
The prospect of escaping the restrictions placed on
Protestant missionary activities by Chinese and Portuguese
authorities at Macao overcame, at least temporarily, the
problems Roberts and Shuck had in working together. The
board’s agreement to accept Roberts as a regular missionary
may also have had the effect of encouraging them to
cooperate with each other. They had little difficulty in
agreeing to leave Macao for Hong Kong. In late January,
1842, the two Baptists circulated a petition which noted
the rapid increase in the Chinese and foreign populations
on Hong Kong during the year since it had become a British
possession. Missionaries, however, had not contributed to
that increase, despite the encouragement to relocate there
given to Shuck--and presumably others--by Sir Henry
Pottinger, Superintendent of British Trade. The petition
solicited contributions from the foreigners at Macao so
that Roberts and Shuck could establish a mission on Hong
Kong, and by the middle of February $1,200 had been donated
or pledged. They were encouraged by this response and
decided to go at once.42
They moved before the end of February and leased
land from the British government on which they intended to
erect a chapel. Unlike Macao, Hong Kong had been recently
and indisputably part of China, so that the two Baptists
were among the first American Protestants to move onto
Chinese soil.43 jn the subsequent efforts of the Chinese
to recover Hong Kong ,44 the presence of mission stations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
as well as merchant houses provided the British justifi
cation for their resistance. The significance for the
opening of China of the Treaty of Nanking, which in 1842
ceded Hong Kong permanently to Great Britain and opened
five ports to foreign trade and residence was not lost on
the Baptist Board. A China Mission was established at
Hong Kong, separate from the Siam Mission for the first
time, and the Rev. William Dean moved from Bangkok to Hong
Kong to join Roberts and Shuck.45
Roberts was persuaded to go live and work in a
small fishing village, Chekchu [Chih-chu ^ ] on the south
side of the i s l a n d . ^6 At first Roberts took up his
responsibilities enthusiastically. He was working inde
pendently, away from Shuck and the others who had criticized
his manners and frontier directness. He preached regularly
to a nearby garrison of four hundred British soldiers. ^
He had gone to China and to Chekchu to take the message
of Christian salvation to the Chinese, and it was toward
them that most of his missionary efforts were directed.
He walked through the village daily and into the countryside,
inviting those whom he met to attend the services he
conducted at his residence several times a week. In May,
1842, his efforts were rewarded when a middle-aged man
named Chun [Ch'enl^L] asked to be baptized. Roberts was
elated over having his first convert after five years of
missionary toil, but he did not want to baptize Chun until
he was sure that the Chinese understood fully the meaning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
of Christian salvation. Roberts questioned Chun about his
faith for eleven days. At last the missionary was satisfied
and baptized him on June 12, 1842. He then hired Chun to
assist him in preaching to the Chinese and to help him
continue his study of the Cantonese dialec t. ^8
Chun was the only Chinese who responded to Roberts'
evangelism, and the missionary's health began to suffer in
the tropical climate. After he had been there a few months
he expressed his desire to relocate.49 Shuck and Dean,
however, preferred him in an out-of-the-way place to
minimize any adverse effects his abruptness and unpolished
manners might have on the Baptist effort. 5C>
During the next few months Roberts wrote repeatedly
to the board of his desire to reach more Chinese. Besides
the unhealthful climate, one of his main arguments was that
he had come to China to distribute religious tracts and to
preach, and the opportunities for doing so were too limited
where he was. Even before the signing of the Treaty of
Nanking, he proposed that he be allowed to open a mission
station at Canton.51 His persistent criticism of Chekchu
as an unsuitable location did result in his return to the
Hong Kong Mission in early 1843, and a house was built
for him on the mission lot.52
Back in Victoria, Roberts participated in the 1843
conference on translating the Bible into C h i n e s e . 53 He
joined his fellow Baptist missionaries in an appeal to the
Baptist churches in six American cities to sponsor one
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
missionary family each to be located at Hong Kong and in
the five treaty p o r t s . ^4 He also took an active part in
raising funds from among the Westerners on Hong Kong to
build more chapels.55 For all this useful activity, Roberts
grew restless again. He had come to China to preach and to
distribute tracts to the millions who had not heard the
gospel message. Shuck and Dean had established themselves
as the leaders of the Hong Kong mission and were critical
of Roberts' manners and abilities. He was relegated to
traveling to nearby small villages and islands to preach,
getting only infrequent changes to preach to sizeable
Chinese and foreign congregations. Though he carried out
his duties with dedication, he soon let the Baptist Board
know of his dissatisfaction. He informed the board that
other denominations had taken advantage of the open treaty
ports and had posted missionaries in Ningpo [Ning-po
and Shanghai, and Amoy [Hsia-men ] . He questioned
the wisdom of keeping three experienced missionaries on
one small island that had few Chinese inhabitants and an
unhealthful climate.56
Gutzlaff returned to Hong Kong from one of his
trips in late 1843 and accepted Roberts' invitation to stay
with him. In the next several months these two men traveled
together, preaching and giving out tracts in the villages.
Roberts had ample opportunity to give Gutzlaff his side of
the controversy with his Baptist colleagues. On Roberts'
behalf, Gutzlaff wrote the Baptist Board: "Of all the men
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
in the field, whom I have known these 17 years, he is the
most devoted to his Saviour and active in the work of
evangelizing the Chinese.
Whether out of compassion for Roberts' health prob
lems which would have been exacerbated in the sultry Hong
Kong summer, or in order to eliminate an irritant, Dean
approved Roberts' proposal to go to Canton for six months.
Shuck objected, but was overruled by the other two. Roberts
left Victoria on May 14, 1844 with two native assistants and
arrived at Canton the following day. He lost little time in
renting a house about a mile from the foreign factories.
Roberts, like all foreigners, was still denied entrance to
the city itself, but as his house was not in the factory
area, it has been called the first Protestant mission on
mainland Chinese soil .59
ROBERTS AT CANTON, 1844-1847
Roberts' move to Canton, however little enthusiasm
there may have been for it on the part of his fellow
Baptist missionaries, was a liberation for him. From
1837 to 1842, he was restricted to Macao. For the two
subsequent years he was on Hong Kong, he had been first
at the unpromising Chekchu and then under the critical
gaze of Shuck and Dean at Victoria. Now at last Roberts
was able to fulfill what he saw as his duty and destiny:
to be an independently operating missionary able to reach
large numbers of China’s population on the outskirts of one
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
of its greatest cities. God surely worked in mysterious
ways. If it was his will that Roberts be in Canton, then
the controversy with Shuck and Dean was part of the divine
plan that brought about his relocation. As if to confirm
the propriety of his course of action, Roberts did not
suffer that summer in Canton from his "usual summer
sickness,. . . . chronic complaints both in my head and
breast" that he had endured for two summers on Hong Kong.^®
In that same letter he noted more positive aspects
of his relocation. "My prospects are as flattering here for
usefulness as I could reasonably expect any place in
China." A mandarin came to his house for lunch and stayed
for prayer, kneeling with the rest. Roberts baptized one
convevt and found several who were interested in Christian
conversion. He held a daily Bible class and distributed
tracts in shops without any interference. He concluded
the letter with this optimiatic assessment:
I begin to think that the good Lord intends great and good things for Canton. You recollect the mission gave me leave of absence this summer, and it seems that the good Lord who guides by his eye and makes all things work together for good to those who are called according to his purpose, is about to turn this little circumstance to his own glory!
Shuck wrote to the board’s Corresponding Secretary
the same day from Victoria, but his view was decidedly less
sanguine: "To our deep regret Mr. Roberts continues in
Canton." He left Chekchu, Shuck complained, "just about
the time some little fruit was beginning to show itself."
Some Jesuits had appeared in Chekchu and converted several
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48
who had first heard the gospel from Roberts, "This is just
what we feared long ago." Roberts, Shuck continued
acts almost entirely under the advice and influence of Mr. Gutzlaff. Mr. G. has offered to support him and would it not be well for him to do so and allow the Board to support, with the funds he now uses, a proper Missionary and one who will act with this M i s s i o n ? 6 l
Shuck may have exaggerated Gutzlaff*s influence over
Roberts, but not their close relationship. As an independent
missionary, Gutzlaff enjoyed the freedom of action that
Roberts greatly desired. Gutzlaff also sent money to Roberts
at Canton to help support the latter*s Chinese assistants,
as most of Roberts' funds were needed to pay the rent on his
lodgings. In return, Roberts wrote over forty long letters (j2*. * - £ to "Gaehan," [Ai-han’O^ Gutzlaff* s Chinese name, and
entitled them "The Doings of Chun." Chun was Roberts'
first convert and one of the assistants whom Gutzlaff
supported.^2 Shuck was not concerned only with punishing
Roberts in asking the board to end its financial support to
him and redirect the money to the Hong Kong Mission. Much
of Shuck's correspondence to the board was concerned with
the need for more money to carry on his work and for a
larger personal allowance, which was $900.00 a year for a
married missionary.^3
Toward the end of September, Roberts returned to
Victoria and was present when the Mission voted formerly to
permit him to stay at Canton until December 1. He was
eager, however, to gain his colleagues' approval for his
permanent relocation there. "Indeed Canton is a most
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49
important station," he wrote the Baptist Board, "and from
the uncommon success I have had there, it seems that provi
dence points it out as one of our stations." And, he was
happy to point out, he had received a favorable response
from the Chinese among whom he moved freely and s a f e l y .^4
Roberts’ optimism was short-lived. Earlier, Shuck
and Dean had tried to rid themselves of Roberts after he
returned to Victoria from Chekchu by proposing to the board
that Roberts be sent to another small village on the island,
Wongnichung. In October 1844 the board's approval of this
suggestion caught Roberts by surprise. He informed the
mission, now including a medical missionary, Dr. MacGowan,
who was en route to Ningpo, that it was "altogether im
practicable to remove to Wongnichung on any account. . . .
and therefore I beg leave to stay where I aml^S He also
informed his Baptist colleagues that he inteded to stay in
Canton "permanently, if the Lord will, the residue of my
days." A native merchant had promised to rent him land
on which to build a chapel, and Roberts had collected
enough money to build one. Under these circumstances,
should the Hong Kong Mission refuse to approve his permanent
relocation at Canton, he would offer his "conditional
resignation to the Board."66
Before waiting for an answer to that letter,
Roberts submitted a resolution to the Hong Kong Mission that
would, if approved, adopt Canton as a station of the Hong
Kong Mission, appoint Roberts to occupy it, and constitute
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
a Baptist Church at Canton with Roberts as its pastor. ^
Instead of acting on this motion, the Mission adopted on
November 30 a resolution addressed to the Baptist Board in
Boston urging it to adopt "some final measures whereby this
mission will be relieved from future action in the matter."
Further, the resolution asked permission for the mission
treasurer to pay only those bills from Roberts that the
mission as a whole had approved and that even these payments
would be made under protest due to "the irregularity
attendant upon the incurring of the same." Roberts agreed
with this resolution only to the extent that he wanted the
board to decide the matter of his status once and for all
along the lines he was advocating. In addition to his
permanent assignment to Canton, he wanted the new station
placed "under the patronage of the Board.” Should the
board decide otherwise, Roberts wrote,
I beg the Board kindly to release me, and leave me as found--unshackled to act according to the dictates of my own conscience and best judgment in the exicution [sic] of the ministry which I trust has been received from the Lord Jesus!!
Roberts added that he did not "esteem a separation desir
able," but should it occur he would add it
among the sacrifices which have been borne in order to carry out the command of Jesus. . . . And tho’ you should deem it expedient to separate officially, . . . it is hoped that we shall continue to share in each others [’] prayers, Christian fellowship § love, as belonging to the same great denominational fraternity, and as heirs together of the same promises.
Roberts was content to await the board’s determina
tion, as it would take at least a year for the correspondence
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
to be received and acted upon by the board and its answer
returned. He was fairly confident that his ultimatum
would constrain the board to rule in his favor. Meanwhile,
he continued his work at Canton, preaching with his
assistants who could translate his sermons and prayers
for those Chinese who spoke dialects other than Cantonese.
Roberts did not have the satisfaction of a year's
undisturbed work at Canton. In February, 1845, Shuck
visited Canton and informed Roberts that he wanted to
relocate the entire Hong Kong Mission there. This news
was upsetting to Roberts and he lost no time in informing
the board both of Shuck's decision and of his own dis
pleasure at the prospect of having to work with Shuck again:
I have discovered that from the peculiar tempera ment of his mind § mine that I love him the most when I see him the lest [sic], and therefore I do most earnestly desire that he may never come to Canton to live under any circumstances!69
Roberts lost some initiative in the matter when the
board approved Canton as a station of the Hong Kong Mission
in September 1844 and requested Roberts to return to the
United States probably as a prelude to his dismissal as its
missionary. This was before the board knew of his recal
citrance in remaining at Canton over the objections of the
other Baptist missionaries at Hong Kong. Still unabashed
and independent, Roberts refused to return. He had, he
wrote, a "duty to obey the Saviour's command and preach the
gospel to the Chinese," Should he be dismissed in absentia,
he wanted his China Mission Society of Kentucky informed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52
and a satisfactory settlement made of the accounts and funds
which he had received through the b o a r d . ^0
Dr. Thomas T. Devan, a physician, had recently been
added to the Hong Kong Mission as a medical missionary, and
he sided with Shuck in the controversy with Roberts. After
Canton had been approved by the board as a station of the
Chinese Mission, Shuck and Devan decided that they would be
more effective than Roberts as Baptist missionaries there.
Canton, they believed, was too great an opportunity for
Christian gains to be left in the hands of one who alienated
rather than attracted those who knew him. Roberts, Devan
wrote confidentially to the board in January, 1845,
should cease operation there or have his resignation accepted. There must--there should not be any alter native, if you intend to do much in China and derive the means for doing so from the kindly feelings of those who now are not estranged from u s . 71
Shuck and Devan did not wait for the board's answer
to Devan's suggestion that they should replace Roberts at
Canton. In early March they decided to move to Canton.
Devan, in his letter notifying the board of their decision,
cited reasons that were mainly financial: the British
government had recently increased the ground rent on all
mission property in Hong Kong, and the $500 a year they
would have to pay for rent would take a sizable portion of
their modest budget; they could realize a more effective
return on money spent for mission work in Canton; and he
implied that American merchants would be more generous in
supporting the two of them than Roberts. In his earlier
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
letter, Devan had given mission efficiency as another
reason: "Oh it is a mistake to dilute exertions by
attempting to cover a large surface. In this field I
see the importance of concentrating." Dr. Parker, Devan
also noted, had become unpopular among the foreigners at
Canton and might leave, depriving them of the only mission
ary who preached to foreigners there. Devan concluded:
"Bro. Shuck 5 myself have after very serious § prayerful
consideration been compelled to the decision that it is
our duty to go to Canton and operate ther e."72
Shuck and Devan left Hong Kong with nine assistants
on April 1, 184 5, arrived two days later at Canton and
immediately organized the First Baptist Church of Canton
City with 24 members. This was the second Baptist church
in Canton, as Shuck did not want to join the church that
Roberts had already organized. When he reported these
events to the board and mentioned the favorable reception
they had received among the Chinese there, Shuck added:
The efficiency of your Mission to China, § specially the Canton Mission, will be greatly promoted by all official connexion between the Board and Mr. Roberts ceasing as soon as possible.73
Shuck’s suggestion, had matters followed a normal
course, might have been the final stone in the wall that
had grown up between Roberts and the board. He had been
unable to work harmoniously with the other Baptist
missionaries in China. He had defied the board and inter
preted its regulations to suit his own personal desires.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
Roberts had convinced the board of the need for a mission
there and had maneuvered to get himself there first, but he
was no longer the only Baptist Missionary at Canton. In
April 1845, he was not only unnecessary to the board’s
effort at Canton, he had antagonized his colleagues and had
caused some of the Baptists in the western states to reduce
their contributions to the general Baptist missionary fund.
To underscore Roberts' precarious position with the board,
its corresponding secretary wrote him a strong letter on
November 27, 1844. In it the Rev. Mr. Peck listed the
board's grievances against Roberts. The tone of the letter,
which reached Roberts in early May 1845, was accusatory and
indicated the waning patience of the board. "Why talk to
me so much like a child or a novice without experince or
judgment?" Roberts wrote in reply. He then sought to
justify his conduct and advice to the board by listing
those actions and recommendations that the board later
approved or adopted.
Roberts was adamant about his right to send letters
giving his side of the controversy to supporters in the
western states. It was the publication of these letters
in Baptist periodicals which had led to criticism of the
board in its dealings with Roberts and had led some of
Roberts’ contributors to curtail their contributions for
Baptist missionary work in general, a loss the board keenly
felt. In his defense Roberts found a telling quotation
from one of the board’s own members. Dr. Wayland, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
Southerner, had replied to those critics who felt he should
not discuss his abolitionist views openly, and Roberts
used Dr. Wayland's words to justify writing to his sup
porters and giving them his side of the case:
There is no subject whatever which I have not a perfect right to discuss in the freest fullest manner, in public and in private, provided I act with an honest intention to set before men what I consider important truth, and address myself to their under standing and conscience. I claim this right as a citizen of the United States, or rather I claim it by a far higher title, as an intelligent creature of God .... I consider the threat of abridging it as an insult to the nature which has been given me by my creator.75
Roberts continued to keep the board informed of his
work in Canton by means of his monthly reports, but they
were much shorter than before and were written more out of
a sense of duty until the question of his status was
r e s o l v e d . 76 His status was decided, but in a manner neither
side in the controversy foresaw. Baptists in the South
and West had been pressured by those abolitionists among
their northern brethren to end slavery. Reflecting the
sectional differences that were even then causing domestic
problems in the United States, Baptists in the Southern
and border states separated themselves and formed the
Southern Baptist Convention in May 1845. When he learned
that such a separation might take place, Robert notified
the board: "I beg leave hereby to notify the Board that
should there be a southern division, I shall feel it my
duty under existing circumstances to join it!"77 when the
separation came, it was also decided that Baptist
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
missionaries in the field, having come from all parts of
the United States, should be given the choice of which
convention they wanted to be affiliated with. Roberts and
Shuck, both Southerners, chose to join the new Southern
Baptist Convention.?8
As satisfactory to both Roberts and the Boston
Board as this fortuitous development turned out to be--a
formal dismissal hearing with charges to be proved or
denied was obviated--there was a lingering resentment among
some Baptists about the way Roberts had been treated by the
board. Roberts remained officially under the Boston Board
until January 1, 1846, but rumors circulated that he was
not paid his salary for the latter half of 1845. Roberts
had at first refused to accept it, which had given rise to
the rumors, but he later did so.79 The Boston Board later
felt constrained to set the record straight publicly in
order to soften the criticism it was receiving in the
matter.80 Under the circumstances, it is not hard to
imagine Roberts was not unhappy with the board’s
embarrassment.
His affiliation with the Foreign Mission Board of
the Southern Baptist Convention was a new beginning for
Roberts. This board adopted China as its first mission
field, a move he heartily approved. "See what God has
wrought," he wrote, "in his providence for us--even
exceeding our most sanguine expectations, as to openings
for the reception of the gospel. Who knows whether the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
Southern Baptist Board has not been constituted for such
a time as this."81 To add to his anticipation for great
achievements, Shuck had left China for the United States
in October 1845 for personal reasons,82 leaving Roberts,
as Devan also had left, the only Baptist missionary in
Canton.
Despite this initial optimism, Roberts1 reputation
was under a cloud that continued to shadow even these bright
beginnings. His China Mission Society, which still provided
some of his funds, agreed to his transfer to the Southern
Baptist Board. That connection and the likelihood that
Shuck had informed the new board of Roberts' strained
relationships with his former board and colleagues prompted
his new board to inform Roberts that he would be supported
separately from its other missionaries, and he would be
"permitted to labor without sustaining any official
connexion with them." "Have you not, my brethren," Roberts
objected, "had enough of separation in your late proceedings
with the North?" But the Southern Board agreed only to
this partial affiliation.83
When the Southern Board sent its first two regular
missionaries, Samuel Clopton and George Pearcy, to Canton in
June 1846, Roberts initially cooperated with them. For all
his vaunted independence, he felt the loneliness of his
position. As other Protestant missionaries relocated to
Canton, he joined them in monthly prayer meetings and
social occasions. Before long, however, the abrasive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
Roberts had alienated these new colleagues "through his
presumptuous insistence that he knew best and his unwill
ingness to compromise."84- Another Baptist missionary,
Francis Johnson, well educated and a gifted linguist who
was the son of the first president of the Southern Baptist
Convention, was sent to the Canton Mission in the summer
of 1847, about the time that Samuel Clopton died. Only a
few months after his arrival, Johnson complained to the
board that Roberts was acting too independently for the
good of the mission. Before his affiliation with the
Southern Board had been established, Roberts organized the
Canton Baptist Missionary Society. He was its general
agent, and five American and British merchants served as
its trustees. Under its auspices Roberts collected money
from the foreign merchant community at Canton to build a
chapel. Roberts continued his activities with this agency
after he affiliated with the Southern Board and the other
Baptist missionaries arrived. Johnson found the connection
disturbing, and that was not the only cause of his
dissatisfaction with Roberts. "His views of the Gospel
totally, so totally differ from our views that we cannot
cooperate," Johnson wrote. And he added
"Roberts’ answers" are a proverb in Canton for evasions 8 noncommittals. I conclude by respectfully requesting the board (8 in this the Rev. Mr. Pearcy concurs with me) to take instant steps to the dissolution of the nominal connection now subsisting between Mr. I. J. Roberts 8 ourselves.85
The Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist
Convention could not, however inclined it might have been,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
adopt Johnson’s recommendation. Missionary volunteers
were few, and the mortality rate among those it had was
high. Roberts, for all his eccentricities, did persevere
where his colleagues did not, and he bore the discomforts
of climate and survived the diseases to which numbers of
them succumbed.86 There may have been those who attributed
Roberts’ survival as well as his problems to his general
lack of sensitivity. Whatever his defects, he was there
in Canton in 1847 when an educated Chinese, Hung Hsiu-ch’uan,
wanted to learn about Christianity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES
Henri Cordier, Ristoire des Relations de la Chine aveo les Puissances Occidentals, 1860-1900 (3 vols.; Paris: Felix Alcan, 1901-1902), II, 169, n. 2; Winifred G. Hervey, The Story of Baptist Missions in Foreign Lands (St. Louis: C. R. Barnes Publishing Co., 1892), p. 522; and H. A. Tupper, The Foreign Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publishing Society, and Richmond, Va.: Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1880), p. 83. 2 Margaret M. Coughlin, "Strangers in the House: J. Lewis Shuck and Issachar Roberts, First American Baptist Missionaries to China" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Virginia, 1972), pp. 37-38. It is not known if Rachel Roberts became a Christian at one of the open-air revivals, but the area where she and her family lived was near the center of one of the two areas of the South where camp meetings exerted a strong religious influence. See John B. Boles, The Great Revival, 1785-1805 (n.p.: The University Press of Kentucky, 1972), maps facing front endpaper. 3 Coughlin, p. 38. Tupper, p. 83, and Hervey, p. 522, add that he studied in Tennessee and Kentucky. 4 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (2 vols.; Nash ville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1958), II, 1056-1057.
^Coughlin, p. 38. Furman Academy and Theological Institution was opened in early 1827 to educate candidates for the ministry. It was named for Richard Furman who had, before his death in 1825, strongly advocated religious education in South Carolina. See Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, I, 520-521.
^Coughlin puts his ordination in Shelbyville, Tenn. in 1827, p. 38. Tupper, however, puts it in Edgefield, South Carolina on April 22, 1828, p. 83. 7 Tupper, p. 83. g Coughlin, p. 38. In Mississippi he worked as a saddler as well as being a preacher and farmer. Many frontier Baptists mistrusted preachers who were educated and who got paid just for preaching. Their ideal was a man from among their own number who felt inspired by the Holy Spirit to preach. See Boles, p. 119; T. Scott Miyakawa, Protestants and Pioneers (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 33-35, 88-89, 103-104, 145, 148-149, 153,
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61
155-156; and William W. Sweet, Religion in the Development of American Culture3 1765-1840 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952), pp. 110-114. g Tupper, p. 83. The original source for the value of Roberts’ property was not located. It is not known, therefore, either the nature or exact value of the property.
-^Roberts to the Rev. Lucius Bolles, Mount Asylum, Mississippi, July 5, 1834, American Baptist Foreign Mission Societies Archives (hereafter cited as ABFMS).
■^’’Mission to China,” Baptist Missionary Magazine, 14.3:94-96, March, 1834. 12 Coughlin, p. 39; Eugene P. Boardman, Christian Influence upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion, 1851- 1864 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952), pp. 43-44, 49. Karl Friedrich August Gutzlaff was one of the most colorful personalities among the group of pio neering froeigners in China in the early nineteenth century. He frequently worked as a translator and interpreter for British merchants, and preferred to be known as Charles Gutzlaff--without the umlaut. A short biographical sketch of his life and career in China is in Arthur Waley, The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968), pp. 222-244.
-i 3 Roberts to the Rev. Solomon Peck, Corresponding Secretary of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, Chekchu, July 15, 1842, ABFMS. 14 Roberts to [the Baptist] Committee on Foreign Missions, Cincinnati, February 1835, quoted in George H. Danton, The Culture Contacts of the United States and China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931), pp. 84-85.
■^Jeremiah Burns to Bolles, LaGrange, West Tennessee, January 15, 1836, ABFMS.
■^William B. Johnson to Bolles, Edgefield, South Carolina, December 23, 1835, ABFMS; see also Coughlin, pp. 39-40. 1 7 Coughlin, p. 41. 18 Coughlin, p. 41. The Constitution of the Society appears as Appendix I to her study, pp. 242-243. See also Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists3 II, 866.
1 q Coughlin, p. 41. 20 Roberts to Bolles, Batavia, Java, January 25, 1837, ABFMS.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 21 Coughlin, p. 42, citing the Ba-ptist Banner, 3.38:2-3, July 18, 1837. 22 See Chapter 1. 23 Coughlin, pp. 19-32; see also Kenneth Gray Hobart, Early American Baptist Missions to the Chinese (Shanghai: n.n., 1939), pp. 15, 34. 24 Roberts to Bolles, Canton, May 22, 1837; and Shuck to Bolles, [Macao], May 3, 1837, ABFMS. 25 Coughlin, pp. 43, 141; see also D. MacGillivray (ed.), A Century of Protestant Missions in China (1807-1907) (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Press, 1907), p. 313. 2 6 Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christian Missions in China (reprint; Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 211-219, passim.
^Tupper, pp. 83-84. 28 Hervey, p. 523. 29 Quoted in Tupper, p. 86.
30Coughlin, pp. 140-141, 281-282. 31 Boardman, p. 44. T 2 Edward V. Gulick, Peter Parker and the Opening of China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 32-33, 36. 33 Coughlin, p. 46. For the regulations regarding foreign trade at Canton, see H. B. Morse, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire (3 vols.; reprint; Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1971), I, 69-71. 34 Coughlin, pp. 50-54; see also Latourette, pp. 185-186.
3^Quoted in Coughlin, p. 47. This denominational dispute does not appear in Gulick1s work on Parker. 3 6 See Boardman, pp. 46, 50 n. 20, 144-145 for Roberts' output in religious tracts. In one of his monthly journals (Macao, December 4, 1840, ABFMS) Roberts included the entire English text of one of his tracts. Roberts' letters and journals were infrequently written. Owing to his independent funding, he chose to ignore the fourth and fifth regulations of the Baptist Board that required, respectively, that independently supported missionaries
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
were subject to all the regulations of the board and that missionaries "however supported" must submit regular letters or journals to the board detailing their activities. The entire list of these regulations is appended to Roberts’ letter to Peck, Macao, April 19, 1841, ABFMS.
■^John D. Hicks, The Federal Union (2nd ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952), pp. 405-408. 38 In a Circular Letter to members of his Society's board about his financial situation, he expressed his willingness to affiliate with the Baptist Board if a state charter could not be obtained, the former being "much preferable to the idea of being isolated all my life, 5 having no successors to carry out the work of the mission, which is most unpleasant 8 undesirable." Roberts to the Board of the China Mission Society, Macao, February 18, 1841, ABFMS. In October, 1842, the name of his society was changed to the China Mission Society of Kentucky to reflect Roberts' status as a regular missionary of the Baptist Board. See Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, II, 866.
•^Roberts to Peck, Macao, April 19, 1841, ABFMS. The requisitions Roberts agreed to were that he accept the change in his status to a regular, supported missionary of the board and that he would "submit to the same terms and regulations as those by which all other missionaries of the Board in similar circumstances are governed." (Quoted by Roberts in this letter.) The regulations also pro hibited missionaries from engaging in secular employment. Roberts had technically been subject to these regulations even as an independently supported missionary, but he ignored them when he engaged in saddlery and did not write regular reports. Roberts thereafter complied more fully by writing reports at least monthly and numerous letters. The change in Roberts' status was noted in the Baptist Missionary Magazine, 22.7:203, July, 1842, and 23.1:20, January, 1843, 40 John K. Fairbank, Trade and diplomacy on the China Coast (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1964), p. 81; Peter Ward Fay, The Opium Uars 1840-1842 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975), pp. 275-277. 41 Roberts to the Board of the Roberts' Fund and China Mission Society, Macao, February 18, 1841, ABFMS; emphasis in the original. In a postscript dated March 31, 1841, he added: "Since the above was written there have been additional advances made by the English, 8 the prospect still brightens as to a greater enlargement for usefulness.”
4‘‘Annual Letter of Shuck and Roberts, Macao, February 17, 1842 (Roberts' fortieth birthday), printed in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
the Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer3 9.34:6, August 25, 1842, quoted in full in Coughlin, Appendix III, pp. 296-303. References to the petition and to the decision to move to Hong Kong occur on pp. 302-303.
^ R o b e r t s to Peck, Hong Kong, April 23, 1842, ABFMS. The property was in Shuck's name, and he paid annual rent to the Britist government. Shuck to Chas. St. George Cleverly, Esq.. Hong Kong, February 13, 1845, ABFMS. On the subject of the significance of Roberts' and Shuck's reloca tion to Chinese territory, see Sophie Bronson Titterington, A Century of Baptist Foreign Missions (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1891), p. 148. Other missionaries also took advantage of British conquests and moved to small islands near the five treaty ports. See Latourette, pp. 244-245.
“^Fairbank, p. 94.
^Roberts' Journal, Hong Kong, March 21, 1843, ABFMS; Baptist Missionary Magazine3 23.6:156-157, June, 1843; Latourette, pp. 245, 251. 46 Roberts to Peck, Hong Kong, April 23, 1842, ABFMS; Baptist Missionary Magazine3 23.1:20, January, 1843. Chekchu was later renamed Stanley by the British. See Fay, p. 328. 47 Baptist Missionary Magazine3 23.6:157, June, 1843. 48 Roberts' Journal, July, 1842, ABFMS; Baptist Missionary Magazine, 23.11:281, November, 1843; and Roberts' letter, Chekchu, December 2, 1842, to the Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer3 10.21:1, May 25, 1843, quoted in Coughlin, pp. 305-310. Roberts had studied the Fukien [Fu-chien%% ] dialect as well as the Chinese written language while in Macao. See Roberts' letter, Macao, June 5, 1837, to the Baptist Banners 4.19:2, March 20, 1838, cited in Coughlin, p. 150. Coughlin adds, pp. 150-151, that Roberts also learned some of the Macao dialect while there, and he later studied the Cantonese dialect. He did not employ a language teacher except occasionally before he hired Chun, although Gutzlaff must have been of some assistance in Roberts' language study. Even after five years in China, Roberts reported only "feeble" progress in acquiring Chinese. See Roberts to Peck, Hong Kong, April 23, 1842, ABFMS. Francis Johnson reported in 1847 that Chinese understood less than half of what Roberts said in Chinese. See Johnson to Dr. J. B. Taylor, Corresponding Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Conven tion, Canton, November 25, 1847, Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board Archives (hereafter SBFMB).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 4Q "I cannot live at Chekchu without endangering my health." Roberts to Peck, Chekchu, October 25, 1842, ABFMS.
50Roberts has been characterized as "an extremely aggressive, and somewhat uncouth southerner" by Tyler Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia (New York: Barnes 8 Noble, 1941), p. 208. Shuck had criticized Roberts in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Peck: "He understands the principles of no language, not even the English. . . . His egotism and forwardness would never permit of his working with another. . ." Shuck to Peck, January 1, 1841, Macao, ABFMS; emphasis in the original. Shuck’s letter to Roberts (Hong Kong, July 14, 1843, ABFMS, in Roberts’ file) indicates another aspect of the strained relationship that had developed between them. Shuck was condescending in his instructions to Roberts about ordering supplies and labeling correspondence. Earlier, when Boyd 8 Company, the board’s agents at Hong Kong had gone bankrupt, Shuck was left with out funds, so he agreed to serve as co-editor of The Friend of China, a local newspaper, for a year in return for a house and a small salary which he needed for himself and his family. Roberts complained about this arrangement to the board, charging Shuck with violating its regulation against secular employment. See Coughlin, pp. 74-75. Shuck wrote to Roberts and referred him to I Peter 4:15: "But let none of you. . . be a busybody in other m e n ’s matters= " Shuck also repeatedly counselled Roberts to be patient where he was, implying that there was no chance of his relocating from Chekchu. Roberts vigorously resisted these efforts to keep him out of the way, writing voluminous letters to Shuck and to the board, reiterating his desire to move to a healthier and more fertile area for missionary work. One such letter (Roberts to Peck, Chekchu, July 15, 1842, ABFMS) ran to forty-four pages.
^Roberts’ Journal, Chekchu, July, 1842, ABFMS. 52 Roberts’ Journal, Chekchu, February 2, 1843, ABFMS; Baptist Missionary Magazine3 23.11:281, November, 1843. MacGillivray, p. 313. Roberts expressed an interest in this work in his letter to Peck, Hong Kong, August 23, 1843, ABFMS.
^Baptist Missionary Magazine, 25.12:315-316, December, 1843. It is likely that Roberts hoped to be the missionary sponsored to Canton. The cities addressed in the appeal were Boston, Philadelphia, Richmond, New York, Providence, and Cincinnati. The board did not approve this appeal, because it felt that these churches could not undertake such a major venture and still support the regular missions of the board. Shuck to Peck, Hong Kong, May 14, 1844, ABFMS.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
****Baptist Missionary Magazine3 24.5:114, May, 1844. 56 Roberts1 Journal, February 10, 1843, ABFMS. Other monthly journal entries during this period reiterate this theme. He was obliquely working for permission to set up a mission of his own at Canton. Roberts had also begun to learn the Hakka [K’o-chia % 1 S L ] dialect. He reported that on April 2, 1843, "Before breakfast this morning went to a village a mile 8 a half from home, called together about 30 hearers and preached the gospel to them in the Hakah [sic] dialect and gave them books." See Roberts1 Journal, April, 1843, ABFMS. 57 Gutzlaff to Peck, Hong Kong, May 10, 1844, ABFMS, in Roberts1 file. 58 Roberts to Peck, Canton, May 31, 1844, ABFMS. According to one source, he also adopted Chinese dress when he settled in Canton. See Alexander Wylie, Memorials of Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Press, 1867), p. 95. But Roberts had probably already done this earlier for convenience and comfort as much as for any advantage it might have in reaching Chinese. 59 Coughlin, p. 87. The Canton "city question" was controversy arising out of the dissimilarities between the English and Chinese texts of the Treaty of Nanking. Cantonese vigorously resisted the efforts of foreigners to enter the city, and the resulting diplomatic problems lasted throughout the 1840’s. See Frederic Wakeman, Strangers at the Gate (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1966), pp. 71-80.
^ R o b e r t s to Peck, Canton, August 14, 1844, ABFMS. 61 Shuck to Peck, Hong Kong, August 14, 1844, ABFMS; emphasis in the original. 62 Coughlin, pp. 81-86. 63 Shuck to Peck, Hong Kong, April 8, 1844, ABFMS. 64 Roberts to Peck, Victoria, October 1, 1844, ABFMS.
^Roberts to Hong Kong Mission, Canton, November 14, 1844, ABFMS. He cited four reasons: "it would thwart the grand object for which I came to China"; residing anywhere on Hong Kong would render him "siokly3 unhappy3 and useless"\ Wongnichung would therefore risk his health; and it would be "incompatible with my convenience." Emphasis in the original. In a postscript he resigned as librarian of the mission. Neither the Wade-Giles rendering of the National Language pronunciation of nor the Chinese characters for Wongnichung could be located.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 6 6 Roberts to Hong Kong Mission, Canton, November 15, 1844, ABFMS. The Treaty of Wanghsia stipulated in Article XVII that American citizens residing in the treaty ports would "enjoy all proper accommodation in. . . hiring sites from inhabitants on which to construct houses and. . . churches. . ." William Frederick Mayers (ed.), Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers (repinrt; Taipei: Ch’eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1966), p. 79. Roberts referred to his treaty rights in this letter.
^Roberts to Dean, Canton, November 18, 1844, ABFMS.
^Roberts to Peck, Canton, December 14, 1844, ABFMS; emphasis in the original. This letter quotes the mission’s resolution of November 30.
^Roberts' Journal, Canton, February 28, 2845, ABFMS; emphasis in the original.
^Roberts to Peck, Canton, April 10, 1845, ABFMS. Roberts had been writing his side of the controversies with his colleagues and the board to the China Mission Society of Kentucky, the agency which still provided funds to assist in his support. As a result of the publication of his letters, the Boston Board was losing contributions for its total mission program from Roberts' Western supporters. See Coughlin, pp. 90-91.
^ D e v a n to Peck, Victoria, January 24, 1845, ABFMS; emphasis in the original.
7^Devan to Peck, Victoria, March 4, 1845, ABFMS; emphasis in the original. On the increase in ground rent imposed by the British government on Hong Kong, see Shuck to Peck, Victoria, August 1, 1844, ABFMS.
7^Shuck to Peck, Canton, April 7, 1845, ABFMS. Shuck had been desirous of serving on the Chinese mainland since before his arrival at Macao in 1836. He also did not want Roberts to get the approbation for establishing the first Baptist church on Chinese soil. With the board's approval of Canton as a mission station, he could make this move without repeating the problems he had encountered when he went to Macao before the board gave him permission to do so. See Coughlin, p. 90.
74Roberts to Peck, Canton, May 10, 1845, ABFMS.
75Roberts to Peck, Canton, May 13, 1845, ABFMS.
^Roberts' Reports for June and July, 1845, Canton, ABFMS.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68
7 7 Postscript, dated August 4, 1845, to his July Report, Canton, ABFMS.
^ S h u c k to Peck, Fredericksburg, Virginia, April 4, 1846, ABFMS. See also Lida Scott Ashmore, The South China Mission of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society (Shanghai: Methodist Publishing House, [1920]), pp. 7-8. The mission property at Hong Kong, with the Rev. Mr. Dean in charge, remained under the Boston Board, which transferred the Canton mission property to the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. The churches which did not withdraw renamed themselves the American Baptist Missionary Union. As far as foreign missions were concerned, it was an amicable separation. See Titterington, pp. 149, 163.
^ R o b e r t s to Devan, Canton, December 6, 1845, ABFMS.
Baptist Missionary Magazine , 26.7:197, July, 1846.
83-Quoted in Tupper, p. 84.
^Coughlin, p. 91.
^Roberts to Taylor, Canton, September 28, 1846, SBFMB; emphasis in the original. See also Tupper, p. 84; and Coughlin, p. 94.
^^Coughlin, pp. 94-95; Tupper, pp. 85-86.
^Johnson to Taylor, Canton, November 25, 1847, SBFMB, quoted in Coughlin, p. 98. See also Coughlin, pp. 88, 96.
8^Coughlin, p. 99.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 3
AMERICA AND CHINA: TRADE, DIPLOMACY, AND ROBERTS’ CLAIM
The experiences of Roberts and Hung which brought
them together for the first time in 1847 occurred within the
larger context of American interests in China as well as
international and domestic developments within that country.
Early American interests there were primarily commercial,
and the relationships China sustained with foreign countries
were influenced mainly by the activities of the merchants of
those nations and the traditional Chinese attitudes toward
trade and non-Chinese peoples.
English merchants had since 1637 come to China in
increasing numbers to buy tea, silks and other goods. The
monopoly given to the British East India Company led to a
concentrated mercantile effort to exploit a valuable trading
opportunity. This monopoly virtually excluded the rising
volume of American products from the China market during
most of the eighteenth century. Less than six months after
the Treaty of Paris formally recognized American indepen
dence in 17 83, the Empress of China left New York in
America's first national attempt to enter the China trade.
The growth of that trade through the first third of the
nineteenth century formed the experience out of which United
States policy toward China was formulated.1 After Great
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70
Britain defeated China in the Opium War (1839-1842) and
concluded the Treaty of Nanking, the United States managed
to secure a treaty that put its trade on a more regular
basis.
After centuries of refinement, the elements of the
Chinese system were extensively interrelated. In the
Chinese view, history moved in cycles rather than linearly.
Chinese considered themselves the only truly civilized
country because they alone had managed to embody the uni
versal relationships between heaven, man, and earth in
concrete, rational institutions. Into this unity of
principles and practice the thrust of foreign trade at
first caused but few ripples in the Chinese system. China
was, however, unprepared by anything in its experiences to
deal with militarily more powerful and industrializing
nations of the West which became determined to change those
aspects of China which could not be accommodated in their
own beliefs and practices. It was a confrontation between
differing political, economic, and legal systems.2 China
had been conquered by nomads less civilized than itself, but
these were peoples lacking integrated systems sophisticated
enough to replace the Chinese order. The conquerors’
adoption of traditional Chinese ways of government merely
reinforced Chinese belief in the superiority of Chinese
culture.
The Western nations were different from the
conquering nomads. Great Britain, the leading Western
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71
nation, unlike the invading nomads of the past did not
want to conquer China, only to force it to behave in
accordance with accepted Western notions of international
relations. Though the aim was a modest one, its realization
brought major changes in virtually every area of Chinese
life. These changes were beginning to be felt when a young
Chinese, Hung Hsui-ch'uan, was unsuccessfully striving to
enter upon a career in the Chinese government. His failure
cannot be blamed on the West; the changes it was working
had not penetrated that deeply. Hung's reaction to several
failures at the provincial literary examinations was
rebellion--a traditional Chinese response to frustration--
and his feelings were exacerbated by the grievances created
by the Western victory in the Opium War and some of the
changes it had brought about. A prime ingredient in the
Taiping Rebellion Hung led was the brief exposure to
Christian beliefs he had learned from a foreign missionary
in Canton, Issachar Roberts.
WESTERN AND EASTERN ATTITUDES TOWARD TRADE
The Westerners who came to China seeking profits
from trade brought with them several assumptions which grew
naturally out of their economic experience and ideas.
Trade, they believed, was mutually beneficial to both
trading parties. There was no conscious desire to exploit
in an immoral sense or to extort. Each party received some
thing it wanted in exchange for something it had to sell.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72
Profits were made both by selling one's goods at a higher
price than was paid for them and by reselling the foreign
goods at other ports or back home at higher prices. These
profits enabled the whole system to function, and provided
the motivation for further trading ventures. Western
merchants were convinced that they were providing a service
to all those who bought their goods, foreigners and country
men alike. How else would their customers obtain these
items they wanted? The Western merchants considered
themselves moral men who were making profits to compensate
them for hardships they endured and risks they took.
These traders were encouraged to carry on trade by
their governments which also stood to gain through tariffs
and an increase in general economic well being within their
nations. Support of mercantilism in order to consolidate
national economies and to increase national power in relation
to other states was no new policy of Western governments.
It grew naturally and early from the expansion of foreign
trade and the development of capitalism.^ The East Asian
market gave a new sphere in which mercantilist practices
could be profitably carried on.
The Chinese view of trade was decidedly different.
Of the four Confucian occupational categories, merchants
ranked lowest, because they made their living, not by
producing anything, but by trading goods others had made.
The Chinese government for centuries had derived most of its
revenue by land taxes, and was unimpressed with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73
possibility that trade, foreign or domestic, might signifi
cantly enlarge its treasury. To be sure, import duties were
imposed, and Peking insisted upon receiving its share. But
to acknowledge the importance of these tariffs would also
elevate the status of the merchants who collected them from
foreigners. There was a suspicion--perhaps only half
conscious- -among scholar-officials that merchants would, if
given the opportunity, encroach on the political power which
was their prerogative. The "barbarian" peoples who brought
tribute tended to be more interested in trade than in the
promises of protection offered by the Celestial Empire.
These promises were given in return for their obedience and
acknowledgment that the Chinese emperor was the Son of Heaven
at the apex of human society. To the educated Chinese,
trade was associated not only with the lowest social class
but also with uncivilized barbarians.
When the Western merchants arrived they were looked
upon, for their appearance, manners, and desire for trade,
as another group of barbarians. As long as they accepted
the restrictions imposed, they were tolerated. Permission
to trade was not granted because of the benefits it could
bring to China. It was granted in order to show the
magnanimity of the emperor to all the people on earth for
whom he was responsible to Heaven. Once allowed to trade,
the foreigners were expected to be grateful and satisfied.
It was incomprehensible to educated Chinese that Westerners
wanted to expand trade to other ports and to the interior
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74
or that their governments wished to station important
persons at Peking to see that the privileges granted to the
traders were respected.^ The emperor having graciously
consented to allow the trade, such notions seemed ungrateful
if not impertinent.5 The British were acting out of their
convictions as to what constituted international relations,
and the Chinese were responding according to their own
traditions in dealing with non-Chinese peoples.^
EARLY AMERICAN TRADE IN CHINA
The supercargoes of American ships, which came to
China in increasing numbers after 1784, were confronted
with a restrictive system developed by the Chinese to control
the European--chiefly British-- trade that had been carried
on for over a century. Permission to trade was on terms
which reflected the Chinese notions of the importance of
the activity. Since 1760, trade could be conducted only at
Canton and through one of several Chinese merchants
licensed by the government to deal with foreigners. These
hong [hang merchants had formed a guild called the
cohong [kung-hang '£ which regulated fees and practices.
Not only were foreigners prevented from trading where or
with whom they might choose, there were other restrictions
on their activities. At the factories--the combination
office-warehouse-living quarters the Western traders had
to lease from the hong merchants--weapons were forbidden
and women might not reside there. The movement of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75
foreigners at the factories was restricted, and they might
not stay beyond the trading season (the several months that
prevailing winds allowed ships to travel up the river to
Canton). The hong merchants were the only channel of
communication with the Chinese authorities open to for
eigners, who were not allowed to petition directly any of
the several Chinese government officials who resided at
Canton. The hong merchants were also required to oversee
the activities of the foreigners with whom they dealt at
Canton and were responsible for their conduct.?
By the time the Canton system was consolidated in
the late eighteenth century, the leading foreign nation
trading in China was Great Britain. English ships owned
or licensed by the East India Company did a greater volume
and value of trade at Canton than ships from all other
countries combined.** Because of its preeminent position
Great Britain was in the forefront of efforts to expand the
system to other ports and the interior, regularize trade
(i.e., ease the restrictions on it), and station a permanent
mission in the capital, Peking [Pei-ching^ ] . These
aims eluded Lord Macartney, who was sent out in 1793.® The
embassy of Lord Amherst in 1816 was even less successful,
the ambassador not even obtaining an audience with the
emperor.Despite these diplomatic failures, British trade
in China continued to expand, and notwithstanding the
Canton restrictions, the merchants prospered.H
American trade, after a slow start in 1784, began
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76
to increase. Unhampered by a government monopoly, adventur
ous merchants discovered the profitability of trading for
Chinese goods with ginseng [jen-shen ^ and furs
obtained from the Oregon territory. They also learned they
could sell American goods such as alcoholic beverages,
tobacco, native foodstuffs, and unsophisticated manufactured
goods at ports along the route to the Orient. Silver
obtained by these sales was used to buy Chinese silks, teas,
and Indian spices and muslins. Some of these items were
shipped to Europe, especially during the Napoleonic W a r s , 12
when, with shrewdness and daring, American traders could
take advantage of their country’s neutrality during the
conflicts that hampered the trade of European countries.!^
During this first period of American trade in China,
there was no articulated governmental policy. As long as
American merchants were satisfied with their profits, there
were no protests or pleas for official action. In general,
American traders were content to accept the status quo as
established by the British. That a distinctive American
policy was lacking is evidenced by the fact that American
consuls in China were merchants who were not paid or given
the power even to obtain trade reports from other American
m e r c ha nt s.14 For fifty years, from 1785, when Samuel Shaw,
became first United States consul, to the appointment in 1835
of Peter Snow, there were periods of several years when
there was no consul. When there was one, he had no inter
preter. B. C. Wilcocks served as consul, 1814-1821, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77
he even offered to pay for the education of a likely young
man who could serve in such a capacity. The French consul,
on the other hand, had far more facilities and jurisdiction,
as did the British Chairman of the Select Committee of the
East India Company. Both these officials were responsible
for the conduct of their nationals and had authority
commensurate with their responsibilities. On one occasion
American merchants petitioned Congress to provide greater
authority to the consul so he could represent them to
Chinese officials, but no action was taken. Chinese
officials, for their part tended to view all the Westerners
alike, and they expected the American consul to have as
much authority as his British and French counterparts.15
It was recognition of a fact rather than a policy,
as such, that American merchants accepted the Canton system
of trade, while they hoped for a better situation in the
future. They occupied what has been called a ’’middle
position" between the British, who were their principal
competitors, and the Chinese merchants, on whose continued
good will their success depended. They supported British
efforts to make changes that would improve trading
conditions, but would oppose those efforts that might
undermine the American position by cutting off the supplies
of tea or by hindering "the avenues of trade." This
pragmatic concern remained the cardinal principle of
American trade in China for most of the nineteenth
c ent u r y . ^
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78
For sixty years after the Empress of China sailed to
Canton in 1784, there was nothing that could be called a
United States policy toward China. If anything, Washington
had a negative policy, and this, indeed, was what American
merchants in China wanted, although they did press for
greater authority for the American consuls. Otherwise, the
merchants' aim was "to keep the trade open to Americans on
terms as favorable as, or more favorable than, those enjoyed
by their competitors who were chiefly British.
There were a few instances where isolated action was
taken or a ranking American official made some gesture or
statement about the China trade with policy implications.
These, however, point up even more vividly the lack of a
definite American policy. In 1800, the USS Congress was
sent to East Asia to provide American ships with some
protection against French privateers and naval vessels.
But American merchants were fearful that the presence of
United States warships would antagonize the Chinese to the
point of cutting off trade.Thomas Jefferson, during
the Napoleonic Wars, indicated in a letter that he was in
favor of finding a suitable means of informing Chinese
officials of
our nation, our circumstances and character, and of letting that government understand at length the difference between us and the English, and separate us in its policy . . . [in order] to bring lasting advantage to our merchants and commerce with that country.
He found no way, however, to accomplish this aim, which was
a fundamental one.^
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79
The War of 1812 significantly reduced American trade
with China. What merchant ships ventured on the China run
risked boarding and capture by British men-of-war. These
boardings, claimed as a right as early as 1804, were
ostensibly to search American vessels for British seamen
who had deserted their own ships. American resentment and
resistance were largely unavailing. On one occasion during
the war, HMS Doris sailed all the way up the West River
[Hsi-chiang^ ] to Whampoa [Huang-p 'u ^ ] to capture
an American ship. Knowing they could not expect help from
their own government, American merchants appealed to
Chinese officials.^
The Terranova Affair also demonstrates the lack of
a clear China policy by the United States government in the
early nineteenth century. In 1821, Terranova, an Italian
seaman serving on the American merchantman, Emily, acci
dentally killed a Chinese woman. At first the captain
refused to give him up for trial, but later agreed to allow
a Chinese trial on board his ship, after the Chinese
stopped trade with all Americans. Terranova was found
guilty in a Chinese trial conducted in the traditional way,
which, of course, did not accord with Western legal norms.
The captain at first refused to turn Terranova over to the
Chinese authorities for punishment, but finally did so
when Chinese officials refused to resume trading until he 2i did. Terranova was executed by strangulation, but there
was no official comment from Washington. ^2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
Other slight efforts to recognize the situation in
China were made when President James Monroe wrote a letter
to the Chinese emperor and sent it by a merchant in 18 22.
John Quincy Adams, when Secretary of State, wrote to the
Viceroy of Canton, but it is not known if either letter was 2 ^ even accepted.
The United States did make diplomatic efforts else
where in Asia. Edmund Roberts, an American consul in the
Middle East, suggested negotiating treaties with governments
bordering the Indian Ocean. He was sent on this mission in
1832 and secured commercial treaties with Siam and the sul
tanate of Muscat the following year. He also was interested
in exploring the possibilities for a treaty with Japan,
but got no further than his intentions. American merchants
were not in favor of a treaty with China, so Roberts did
not attempt one. Roberts' treaty with Muscat is of interest
because its terms--51 ad valorem import duty, most-favored-
nation clause, and limited extraterritoriality--were similar
to some of the provisions of Caleb Cushing’s treaty with
China a decade later.24
Trade, if not diplomacy, with China progressed
during the first decades of the nineteenth century. A few
wealthy firms gradually enlarged their share of American
trade. With fewer owners, supercargoes were replaced by
the resident agents of these firms. A new exchange system
evolved also. Instead of silver being used to pay for
Chinese goods, merchants began using bills drawn on London
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81
banks. With the growth of American industries, manufactured
goods came to occupy a larger share of American exports to
China. There was also an increase in the amount of American- 2 8 China trade after the interruptions of the War of 1812.
Between 1805 and 1833, almost 900 American ship arrivals at
Whampoa were recorded for an average of 32 per year.^
OPIUM AND THE OPIUM WAR
The United States did not originate the importation
of opium to China, nor did it enter the Opium War (1839-
1842) as an active belligerent. However, Americans became
active in importing opium into China, and they benefitted
from the gains the British won from the Chinese in the war.
In 1729 the Yung Cheng Ifr JEJ Emperor (1723-1735)
issued the first decree prohibiting the sale of opium within 2 7 China. Nonetheless opium dens continued to supply the 28 drug to a growing number of Chinese addicts. Some of
this opium came from southwest China, but foreign opium,
brought first by the Portuguese from Goa and later by other
Europeans, gradually became the major source of supply.
British ships first brought opium to China from India in
1773, and in 1780 the British East India Company assumed
its monopoly rights and organized the trade into an efficient
system of production and transportation. Whereas only 200
chests were brought in in 1729, by 1796 this number had
more than quintupled to 1070 chests. In 1800 the Chia Ching
Emperor prohibited the importation of opium, which,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82
notwithstanding the ban on the domestic sale of the drug,
had not previously been restricted. Opium, for the foreign
merchants, was a valuable trading commodity whose ready
salability helped offset the need to pay silver for Chinese
goods.29
After 1800 the cohong merchants stopped buying and
the East India Company stopped transporting opium in its
own ships. Other merchants, native and foreign, were not
so scrupulous in observing the imperial edict, and the
amount of opium smuggled into China during the next twenty
years, often with the connivance of Chinese officials,
increased to over 4000 chests a y e a r . ^ 0 American merchants
very early found that Turkish opium, despite its lower value,
could be sold with enough profit to make smuggling it worth
the risk. In addition, Americans bought Indian opium at
public auctions and shipped it to Canton. Some American
apologists, e.g., Dennett, discount the level of American
involvement in opium smuggling, but one British missionary
in China at the time, Dr. W. H. Medhurst, charged that "on
the whole, both English and American houses in China traded
in the drug each to the full extent of their m e a n s . "^2
For twenty years after the edict of 1800, foreign
ships continued to bring in increasing numbers of chests of
opium each year even though additional prohibitory edicts
7 7 were issued. They would carry the chests as far as
Whampoa, within five miles of Canton, and sell them over
the side. The hong merchant had to post a security bond
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83
that the ships he dealt with did not contain any opium, but
such formalities did not seriously affect the traffic in the
drug. On the contrary, the volume of opium grew. Foreign
merchants as well as the Chinese merchants and officials
who took bribes to ignore these blatant violations of the
imperial edict reaped the benefits of the opium trade.
One American ship was attached by Chinese pirates in 1817
as it was bringing in a load of opium, some chests of which
were plainly visible on the main deck. When the Americans
refused to hand over the opium or to pay a bribe the pirates
had demanded not to tell the authorities about the opium, a
fight erupted in which five Americans were killed and two
were wounded. All but one of the pirates were captured and
executed, and the viceroy reminded the American consul,
B. C. Wilcocks, of the prohibitions against importing opium.
Wilcocks informed the Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams
of the incident, and the latter had the letter published,
but to little avail. When the fur trade in the Northwest
declined after 1821, opium became even more attractive to
the Americans as a commodity to use in balancing their
purchases of Chinese teas and other goods.^
There was another impact on American trade with
China that occurred in 1821, and it affected all those who
were importing opium into China. A dispute developed
between Chinese officials over dividing the bribes taken
for overlooking foreign and native smuggling. The viceroy
held the senior hong merchant responsible, since the hong
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84
merchants had posted the security bonds guaranteeing foreign
ships to be free of opium. Stricter adherence to the edicts
by the Chinese meant some changes, but what it amounted to
was that the scene of operations shifted to Lintin [Ling-ting
] Island near Hong Kong and other convenient places
outside the jurisdiction of Canton officials. Here opium
was off-loaded before the foreign merchantmen docked at
Whampoa. Away from the view of Chinese hong merchants and
officials the volume of smuggled opium grew dramatically
after 1821. From an average of over 4,000 chests per year
between 1800 and 18 21, the average more than doubled over
the next seven years, doubled again in the following seven
years, and again doubled in the four years 1835-1839. In
•Z £L that latter year the total was over 40,000 chests.
Foreign merchants operating in China were opposed
to governmental interference by either the Chinese officials
or their o w n . 37 The British "country merchants" who were
licensed by the East India Company to carry goods between
India and China, grew restive under restrictions imposed
by the Chinese government, represented by the officials and
cohong at Canton, and their own government, represented by
the Chairman of the Select Committee of the East India
Company. These country merchants and British manufacturers,
who by the 1830's had larger stocks of products they wished
to sell in China, argued successfully that the East India
Company monopoly was hindering their growth vis-a-vis the
Americans. In April 1834 the monopoly of the East India
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85
TO Company came to an end. By this time, American merchants,
completely unrestricted by their own government, had become
second only to the British in their share of the China
market.
There were several results produced by the end of
the East India Company's monopoly. One was that the amount
of opium imported into China greatly increased. Although
the opium trade had been growing steadily from 1821, it
rose almost 501 between 1834 and 1835.3® Opium was just one
product that was traded more freely. The value of exported
Chinese goods almost doubled during the 1830's.4® The
larger amounts of opium also had the effect of obviating
the need to pay for Chinese goods with silver. The trade
balance was in favor of the Chinese until 1826. Before that
year China had taken from foreigners more silver in payment
for Chinese goods than they paid out for foreign goods.
Thereafter silver began to flow outward from China. And as
the importation of opium grew, so did the net export of
silver.4^- The free trade activities of British "country”
merchants, released by the end of the East India Company’s
monopoly, 4^ was one direct cause of the diplomatic crisis
that lead to the Opium War.43
The Canton trading system had worked reasonably
well for the better part of a century. If the opium trade
and its effects on China are ignored, the system operated
to the general benefit of both Chinese and foreigners
despite its restrictions, because it was designed to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86
satisfy only a modest amount of commerce in keeping with
Chinese wishes. The two monopolies, of the cohong and the
East India Company, served to keep the amount of trade
manageable, even though there was a sizable number of
Americans involved. When the British monopoly was ended in
1834, the British government intended to replace the
authority of the Chairman of the Select Committee over trade
in China by a superintendent. Lord Napier was chosen, but
did not reach China until the summer of 1834. It was hoped
that the change in authority over British shipping could
also become the means for a change in the relations between
England and China. Napier was therefore expected to
approach the Chinese about the possibilities of expanding
trade to other ports and of establishing regular diplomatic
relations. In order to effect these aims, he was instructed
to "announce your arrival at Canton by letter to the
Viceroy.This violation of the regulations irritated
Chinese officials and the ensuing battle of wills, with its
threats and counter-threats, was won by the Chinese by
default. First, Robert Morrison, Napier's translator,
died leaving no one who could adequately perform this 45 essential service. Later, Lord Napier sickened and died.
The failure of the Napier mission left the British
merchants with interests closer to those of the Americans.
The British government, in trying to improve the trading
situation for its merchants, unwittingly interposed itself
between them and the Chinese. Chinese insults which had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. been borne by the Chairman of the Select Committee could no
longer be passed off. Now they were directed at an agent
of His/Her Majesty's government and were treated as national
affronts.^ The East India Company had served two valuable
functions in the Canton system: it had been a buffer
between the Chinese and the merchants, and it acted as a
restraining influence keeping the level of trade within
the ability of the system to tolerate. When the Company's
monopoly was terminated, trade expanded too rapidly and the
British government got involved. It could not take the
place of the Company because it could not function on the
same level. The Chinese could not deal with a foreign
government on terms of equality, and "conflict was there
after only a matter of time."47
The interval before hostilities was five years. By
1839 the merchants, particularly the British, were demanding
an expansion of trade to other ports and an end to the more
restrictive regulations, especially the eohong monopoly.4®
The right of foreign merchants to freer trade should apply
to Chinese merchants as well if greater profits were to
be made.
On the Chinese side, one item of trade, opium, was
causing dismay among officials at Peking. Besides its
obvious harmful effects on the untold number who smoked it,
the rapid rise of its importation since 1830 had greatly
increased the export of silver at a time when the emperor
had spent a fortune in military campaigns against Moslem
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88
rebels.^ Memorials to the emperor which suggested courses
of action were carefully studied. One by Lin Tse-hsu
JiJ , governor-general of Hupeh [Hu-pei ] and
Hunan [Hu-nan ^ ], was of particular interest because it
not only supported strict suppression of opium, it reported
Lin's success in reducing opium addiction in his provinces.^®
After appearances before the throne to support his
suggestions, Lin was appointed by the Tao Kuang Emperor
(1821-1850) as imperial commissioner with full power to
deal with the situation at Canton. His analysis of the
problem was that Chinese opium addicts and dealers should be
executed to stop the demand for imported opium.^ If opium
was not bought, silver would not be e x p o r t e d . ^2 And if
there were no market for opium, the foreigners would have
no cause to violate Chinese laws by smuggling it in. Lin
used his powers as commissioner and not a little guile to
discover those Chinese at Canton who were involved with
opium. These he dealt with swiftly and harshly.^ Lin
was not able to deal as successfully with foreigners. He
neither appreciated nor understood the operation of trade
or the readiness of the British government to support the
English merchants and its Superintendent of British Trade.
Lin established his authority and the firmness of his
intentions in the way he rounded up Chinese involved with
opium during his first week at Canton. On March 18, 1839,
just eight days after his arrival, he ordered the cohong
and the foreigners to surrender all their opium. In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89
addition the foreign merchants were required to pledge in
writing that they would never again import opium to China.^
Captain Charles Elliot, Superintendent of British Trade,
tried to walk a thin line between the demands of the
Commissioner, who had the power to stop all trade, and the
interests of foreign merchants, who were outraged at having
to sign the pledge. Elliot was criticized by the Chinese
for protecting the smugglers and by the traders for helping
the Chinese to enforce Lin's demands.^
There were numerous meetings among the foreign
merchants to work out a satisfactory response to the
commissioner's demands. To hasten their acceptance of his
decisions Lin had ordered all trade stopped. He also with
drew all Chinese employees from the factories, which were
then sealed off by walls he ordered to be erected in the
surrounding streets. Escape by water was prevented by a
fleet of junks in the river.^ The foreigners notified
Lin on March 25 that merchants and consuls of the Western
nations would deal separately with him and the opium ques
tion. Peter Snow, the American consul, was without
instructions from his government. He, like his predecessors,
had been a merchant, and in order to preserve his former
colleagues' position in China, he hoped to make the Chinese
officials understand that Americans were not involved in
the opium trade as deeply as the British. Elliot, however,
wanted the foreigners to present a united front to the
Chinese demands and accepted responsibility for turning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90
over all foreign-owned quantities of the drug. He was
concerned for the safety of the foreigners who were
prisoners in the factories, and he also recognized that
most of the opium in the ships at Whampoa belonged to
British merchants. The few chests brought in by American
vessels were included in the 20,291 which Elliot surrendered
and which Lin destroyed. As the opium was delivered, the
commissioner lifted the restrictions on the factories.57
Elliot then decided to turn the tables on Lin by
having all foreigners leave for Macao and stop trading with
Chinese. He felt that the effects on the Chinese of such
action would bring home to them their need for the trade to
continue and a workable compromise would be forthcoming.
The British left but the Americans did not, and their
business with the Chinese increased greatly. Some of them
also acted on behalf of British traders in doing business
with the Chinese. Elliot was at first incensed over this
break in his plan for concerted action to obtain concessions
from the Chinese. However, with the Americans still at
Canton, British merchants could carry on their trade through
them and were not disposed to disobey Elliot by resuming
trade on their own. This gave Elliot time to explain the
situation to his government which sent forces to bring the
Chinese to terms.55
At the start of the Opium War, most American
missionaries were at Macao and had only visited the American
factories just outside Canton. Dr. Peter Parker, a medical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91
missionary sent by the American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions in 1834, on the other hand, lived and
operated a dispensary in the factories.^ Issachar Roberts
was one of those at Macao, and he was anxious for the
British war effort to succeed. He opposed the use of opium
by Chinese,60 but he was convinced that some means had to
be found to open the door of China itself to the gospel.
God, he felt, was using the British to accomplish his will
for China.61 Missionaries rarely objected to the use of
force in principle. They agreed with merchants and diplo
mats that the usual means of communication and persuasion
had been ineffectual. The Chinese would not change unless
forced to do so.
Lin Tse-hsu was removed as imperial commissioner
after hostilities broke out. The emperor had sought to
avoid war, but Lin's precipitous actions had struck the
sparks that ignited it. Lin was perhaps too conscientious
a Confucianist. Certainly he did not foresee the danger to
the Manchu dynasty that losing a war to western foreigners
would create. The Tao Kuang Emperor then appointed as
commissioners a succession of Manchu officials who would
be more sensitive to the survival of the dynasty.63 As
the war progressed through battles and truces, it was
apparent that the British had the military means to force
the concessions they sought. In early 1842, Ch'i-ying
i # the Tartar General of Mukden [Shen-yang j ^ ] , was
reassigned to Canton and also designated imperial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92
commissioner. Chinese defeats finally convinced both
Ch'i-ying and the emperor that there was no choice except
to surrender and accept British terms. Negotiations in
August, 1842, between Ch'i-ying and Sir Henry Pottinger,
Superintendent of Trade, produced the Treaty of Nanking,
which was signed on the 29th.^ After almost three years
of war, agreement came so quickly because Ch'i-ying was
caught between the conflicting demands for survival of
the dynasty and British insistance on particular terms.
He agreed to these terms to secure peace, hoping that
details would be worked out later that would be satisfactory
to both sides.65
The Treaty of Nanking permitted trade at Amoy,
Foochow [Fu-chou^ Ningpo, and Shanghai besides
Canton, with resident consuls at each of these ports. Hong
Kong was ceded to Great Britain in perpetuity. The cohong
was abolished, and foreigners would be allowed to trade
"with whatever persons they please." An indemnity of $21
million dollars was to be paid by the Chinese: $6 million
for the opium destroyed by Lin Tse-hsu, $3 million to cover
debts owed to British subjects by hong merchants, and $12
million for the cost of the war. And the treaty set import
duties for goods brought in.66 Opium, the proximate cause
of the war, was not mentioned. The Chinese negotiators
were so intent upon reaching an agreement that would remove
British warships from the Chinese coast and rivers that they
would not discuss it except privately with their British
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 3
counterparts. Pottinger even made a mercantilist suggestion:
if opium smoking could not be stopped, then legalize it, put
an import tariff on it and enrich the imperial treasury. ^
The Chinese did not think in those terms, and did not
consider it reasonable.
THE TREATY OF WANGHSIA
After Captain Elliot had led the British to Macao
following his surrender of the foreign opium in May 1839,
American merchants remaining at Canton requested Congress
to appoint a consul to China to negotiate a commercial
treaty. They also asked for a naval force on the vicinity
to protect American lives and property.^ It was the
outbreak of hostilities between China and Great Britain
that prompted a greater interest in East Asian affairs
by the American government. One of the representatives
to Congress from Massachusetts, Caleb Cushing, was from a
shipping family that was active in the China trade. He
reflected a current of sentiment that was embarrassed by
England’s show of force. On the floor of the House of
Representatives on March 16, 1840, he rose to defend the
actions of American merchants in China and to attack "the
base cupidity and violence and high-handed infraction of all
law, human and divine--which have characterized the
operation of the British." English belligerence would make
it impossible, he said, to cooperate with them in "that
nefarious enterprise."^
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94
Dr. Peter Parker, the medical missionary, returned
to the United States while the Opium War was being fought
and made an effort to inform government leaders on conditions
in China. He stressed the need there for missionaries,
modern medical treatment, and positive American diplomacy,^®
but no positive steps were taken until after the Treaty of
Nanking had been signed. Commodore Lawrence Kearny,
commander of the squadron sent to protect Americans in
China, sought to secure most-favored-nation treatment for
American merchants from local Chinese officials. The
Chinese had already agreed to this principle in the
Supplementary Treaty signed with England in 1843, but this
fact was not understood by the American government.^
After learning about the Treaty of Nanking, Presi
dent John Tyler recommended that Congress appropriate funds
for a resident commissioner in China "to exercise a watchful
care over the concerns of American citizens, and for the
protection of their persons and property."^ in this
suggestion, Tyler was acting closer to the wishes of the
Northeastern shipping interests and Southern planters than
he was to those of American merchants in China. A repre
sentative from South Carolina considered the China trade
more important to the future of American economic interests
than trade with all other areas. Whereas trade with South
America and Europe was already on an established basis,
the access of China's large population to American goods
"could not be too highly appreciated."^ Some American
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95
merchants in China, on the other hand, were not so sure a
formal treaty with China would be to their advantage. They
were convinced they could obtain the same trading privileges
as their British rivals by working quietly on their own, but
if an American negotiator antagonized the local authorities,
American merchants could lose out in the trade.^ They also
were aware that the Chinese government had agreed to permit
them to trade on the same terms that English merchants had
been given.
Congress listened to the nearer voices raised in
favor of a mission to China and appropriated $40,000 for it.
Alexander Everett, who had previously served as ambassador
to Russia and to Spain, was Tyler's first choice to be the
first American Commissioner to China and Envoy Extraordinary
and Minister Plenipotentiary, but he declined to accept the
appointment. The post was then offered to Caleb Cushing who
accepted it.^5 Cushing was a member of a wealthy family
involved in Asian trade.^ He fully appreciated the
observations of Daniel Webster, the Secretary of State,
that
occurrences happening in China within the last two years have resulted in events which are likely to be of much importance as well to the United States as to the rest of the civilized world.
The four ports opened to trade in addition to Canton lie in
the "richest, most productive and most populous provinces
. . . and are likely to become very important marts of
commerce." These facts made it imperative that Cushing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96
"secure the entry of American ships and cargoes into these
ports on terms as favorable as those which are enjoyed by
English merchants.
Cushing was sent out to China aboard the
USS Brandywine and arrived on February 24, 1844. A letter
he brought from President Tyler addressed to the Emperor of
China expressed in patronizing terms the hope that a
commercial treaty fair to both sides could be negotiated.
Cushing, the letter stated, had "strict orders to go to
your great city of Peking and there to deliver this letter."78
But this was not entirely accurate. Webster wrote Cushing
that it was "desirable that you should be able to reach
Pekin [sic], and the Court and person of the Emperor, if
practicable." He was instructed that this stated purpose
of his mission "must be persisted in as long as may be
becoming and proper."'^ Another tactic suggested to Cushing
to enhance his chances for success was to bring up America's
former status as a colony of Great Britain which was ended
by a war for independence. He was also advised to let his
Chinese counterparts in the negotiations know that the
United States could not "remain on terms of friendship"
with China if privileges equal to those accorded other
governments were not granted.^0
Such privileges, as had been shown, were already
available to American merchants, granted by Chinese
initiative even before Cushing left the United States. ^
When he persisted nonetheless in his stated intention of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97
going to Peking personally, Ch'i-ying, reappointed imperial
commissioner to deal with Cushing, was convinced it was
because the American wanted terms more favorable than those
granted Great Britain.82 After several side issues
complicating the situation were resolved, Ch’i-ying and
Cushing agreed to negotiate in the village of Wanghsia
near Macao. It was not until after Cushing announced that
he would not go personally to deliver President Tyler's
letter to the emperor that Ch'i-ying negotiated in earnest.
Terms suitable to both sides were then rather quickly
agreed to. The Treaty of Wanghsia was signed by the two
chief negotiators on July 3, 1844.8^ Cushing's initial
insistence on going to Peking had raised suspicions that
he wanted even more privileges. By stalling over Cushing's
proposed visit Ch'i-ying forced him to accept nothing more
than was available upon his arrival. In that sense, it
QA was a diplomatic victory for the Manchus.^
Several articles of this treaty deserve attention,
however. These articles either improved upon the British
treaty or became significant in the subsequent relations
between the United States and China. The most-favored-
nation clause appears as the last sentence of Article II:
And if additional advantages or privileges of whatever description be conceded hereafter by China to any other nation, the United States and the citizens thereof shall be entitled thereupon to a complete, equal, and impartial participation in the same.85
The British had obtained a similar provision in
Article VII to their supplementary treaty of the Bogue,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98
signed on October 8, 1843, They were able thereby to
take advantage of more precise trading stipulations that
the Treaty of Wanghia provided as well as the right to hire
Chinese as teachers and to revise the treaty after twelve
years.
Another important provision of the treaty was
contained in Article XVII:
Citizens of the United States, residing or so journing at any of the ports open to foreign commerce, shall enjoy all proper accommodation in obtaining houses and places of business, or in hiring sites from the inhabitants on which to construct houses and places of business, and also hospitals, churches and cemeteries. The local authorities of the two govern ments shall select in concert the sites for the foregoing objects, having due regard to the feelings of the people in the location thereof. . . .87
Roberts had cited the first sentence of this treaty right
when a local businessman agreed to rent him a house for his
first chapel at Canton. Dr. Peter Parker, who had served
as Cushing's interpreter, was a medical missionary and was
instrumental in including hospitals in the list of buildings
that Americans could construc t.88
Article XIX stipulated that Americans "peaceably
attending to their affairs," would be protected "from all
insult or injury of any sort on the part of the Chinese."
When Roberts' chapel was overrun by a mob of Cantonese in
1847, it was this article on which he based his famous
claim against the Chinese government.89
Two articles of the treaty stipulated extraterri
torial rights for the United States. Article XXI stated
that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99
citizens of the United States, who may commit any crime in China shall be subject to be tried and punished only by the Consul, or other public functionary . . ., according to the laws of the United States.
Congress, however, had not enacted any law empowering
American consuls to exercise judicial functions, and did
not do so until August 11, 1848.^1 Article XXV provided
that disputes or actions between United States citizens were
to be resolved by American authorities. Any controversies
between United States citizens and citizens of third
countries were to "be regulated by the Treaties existing
between the United States and such governments respectively,
without interference on the part of China."92 There was
one exception to the right of extraterritoriality. In
Article XXXIII, Americans were forbidden to "trade in opium
or any other contraband article of merchandise" or they
would "be subject to be dealt with by the Chinese Government,
without being entitled to any. . .protection from that of
the United States."^3
The Treaty of Wanghsia contained more advantageous
trade regulations and a more precise enunciation of extra
territoriality than did the Treaty of Nanking. It was used
as the model for treaties subsequently negotiated between
China and France and with Norway and Sweden. Under its
most-favored-nation agreement, Great Britain also benefitted
from Cushing's treaty. "Indeed," states Dennett, it "became
the basis of China's international relations until it was
superseded in 1858. . ."94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100
Before leaving China, Cushing hoped to negotiate
a commercial treaty with Japan, and he was granted full
powers to do so if the opportunity arose, despite the
apprehension of the Secretary of State that "little
probability [existed]. . .of any commercial arrangement with
that c o u n t r y . "95 The impetus for an American treaty with
Japan was provided by British activities on a wide front.
Under the energetic Lord Palmerston as Prime Minister, the
British empire in South Asia was being extended by annexing
more of the Indian States. The cession of Hong Kong seemed
to portend further expansion into East Asia, perhaps even to
Japan. Various economic interests in the United States
were aware of British inroads in the Western Hemisphere,
especially the far Northwest and in Latin America. These
activities were a direct challenge to the Monroe Doctrine,
and those groups involved in the economic expansion of the
United States--Southern cotton planters, Northern manu
facturers, merchants, and shipping magnates--did not want
to find themselves excluded from a major portion of
international commerce. The American frontier was moving
farther west, thus East Asia was not as remote as it had
been. Many Americans were concerned about their future
economic prospects, and Cushing's hope for a treaty with
Japan reflected these c o n c e r n s . 96
Cushing did not get an opportunity to negotiate
with Japan, and he returned to the United States on August
27, 1844. He later served in several governmental
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101
p o s i t i o n s . 97 He was succeeded as Commissioner to China by
Alexander Hill Everett, who had the formidable task of
implementing the terms of the Treaty of Wanghsia, which had
been ratified by the United States Senate in early 1845.
He was, moreover, instructed to try to convince the Chinese
emperor to accept resident ambassadors at Peking. This
was a long-standing desideratum among foreign nations
trading in China, but it had been adamantly resisted by the
Chinese. Everett was told to emphasize the advantages to
the Chinese of such an arrangement. Resident ambassadors,
the Secretary of State wrote him, would be in a position to
monitor the ambitious of other countries so that one nation
could not take advantage of China by arranging individual
deals.98
One part of Everett's instructions from the Secretary
of State was as follows:
During your residence in China, you may sometimes be applied to to intercede in behalf of American citi zens to obtain satisfaction for claims which they may have on the Chinese Government, or the redress of grievances which they may experience in the course of their dealings and transactions. You will, in all such cases where the intervention of the Government may be proper according to the public law, afford such official aid as may appear to you like to be useful, whether you have special instructions from this Department or not.99
This particular instruction was repeated verbatim to Everett's
s u c c e s s o r s ,100 and was one that all of them had occasion to
remember in connection with Issachar Roberts.
That there was a succession of United States Commis
sioners to China during the next two decades was in itself
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a problem. Until Anson Burlingame arrived in late 1861,
none of the previous incumbents had served as long as two-
and-a-half years between his appointment and end of service,
and the average length of service was less than two years.101
Some continuity was maintained by two secretaries of the
American legation. Dr. Peter Parker was chosen by Caleb
Cushing to be his Chief Interpreter and was appointed
Secretary to the Legation.102 When Everett's illness
delayed his arrival in China, Parker served as Charge
d'Affaires ad interim. He performed this function several
times between commissioners, the longest tenures coming
before (1847-1848) and after (1850-1852) John W. Davis'
service as commissioner.103 Except for Everett, an
experienced diplomat, and Parker, the American Ministers
to China were political appointees with no diplomatic
experience and no prior connection with China.104 por
ten years, under four commissioners, Parker, as secretary
and charge, provided what continuity the China mission
maintained. When Parker was appointed Commissioner to
China in 1855, his former position as Secretary had been
given to S. Wells Williams.105 Williams had come to China,
as had Parker, under the auspices of the American Board of
Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Williams was not an
ordained minister but a printer sent to assist Elijah
Coleman Bridgmen with the printing enterprise that
missionary organization used in its efforts in China.106
Parker was replaced as Commissioner in 1857. He had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103
suggested tactics for revising the Treaty of Wanghsia that
were considered too aggressive.10? After Parker left,
Williams preserved Parker's former pattern. He served as
charge d'affaires between ministers until he retired in
1876,108 and provided continuity in America's diplomacy
with China. For the first twenty years of America's formal
diplomatic relations, the men in charge of its policies in
China were political cronies of the incumbent president.
The two men who were on the scene longest and provided some
continuity to the American legation were both missionaries
who brought generally nondiplomatic interests to their
tasks. No wonder this period has been called "a period of
confusion" in which American affairs "suffered neglect,"109
and has been characterized as one in which the success of
Cushing's beneficial treaty was "largely nullified."HO
ROBERTS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY: 1847 CLAIM
Aside from Issachar Roberts' elation over the cession
of Hong Kong to Great Britain, his reports during the Opium
War and its immediate aftermath were devoid of all mention
of the local political situation. After his efforts to
establish his mission at Canton, his disputes with Lewis
Shuck and the Baptist board during 1844 took up the bulk
of his interest and time. He was not unaware of the Treaty
of Wanghsia. He had mentioned the right of foreigners to
rent land and build churches. Shuck made but one reference
to the treaty, a disparaging comment on Cushing: "He made
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104
no secret of his ignorant enmity to Christian Missions and
ridiculed the idea of Protestants teaching Chinese children,
or attempting to make Chinese converts."HI
What Roberts did mention several times in his letters
to the board’s corresponding secretary was the friendly and
interested reception he was receiving from the Cantonese
who lived near him and heard him preach.112 This toleration
on the part of Cantonese was probably due more to curiosity
about Roberts than to real interest in his message. He had
arrived during a lull in the controversy surrounding
British access into the city of Canton,113 but Westerners
had problems again in early 1846 when a proclamation decreed
that foreigners would at last be allowed inside Canton.
Among events that reflected and fanned the intense anti-
foreign feelings of Cantonese was the Compton incident of
July 8, 1846. Three Cantonese were killed by foreigners
trying to disperse a mob at the factories. Peter Parker,
charge d'affaires at the time, was commended for his actions
in the matter. No specific instructions were issued for
similar situations except the advice to follow Article XIX
of the Treaty of Wanghsia--to request local Chinese officials
to use their troops to restore order.114
A strong antipathy toward foreigners was evident at
Canton. Westerners were still denied entrance to the city
itself, and those in the factories and neighboring areas
were occasionally targets of abuse and demonstrations. An
economic element played a part in the bad relations that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105
has developed between foreigners and Cantonese. The impor
tation into China of British and American manufactured
goods had caused a depression in the surrounding rural
areas. Many peasants managed to subsist by engaging in home
crafts, spinning and weaving cotton cloth being one of the
most common of the cottage industries carried on. Chinese
spinners and weavers lost supply contracts as local
Cantonese merchants bought the cheaper imported textiles.
Having lost the change to make ends meet, many gravitated
toward Canton. There they found in the factories foreigners
against whom they could vent their anger and frustrations.
Riots, similar to the one that took place on July 8, 1846,
and boycotts were used to demonstrate their feelings.115
There were more than economic reasons for the
excitability of the Cantonese. They rankled at the military
impotence that allowed the British troops such easy victories
in the Opium War. They resented those city Cantonese who
had worked for and traded with the foreigners, calling them
traitors. And they distrusted anyone not a native of Kuang-
tung province.The rural elements, peasants under
gentry leadership, had been the first to become politicized
after the San-yuan-li [^- 7 C Incident of May, 1841.
Later the lower-class city elements in Canton, as they were
joined by the rural destitute, began to take up the cause
against outsiders--foreigners and local officials who pro-
teced them. Secret societies and other local militia
organizations were organized or revived.H8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106
As the British pressed their rights to enter Canton
xenophobia increased. On March 27, 1847 a rural mob stoned
a group of hiking Englishmen. In retaliation Sir John Davis,
senior British official in the area, ordered his troops to
attack the Chinese forts overlooking the Bogue, the narrow
entrance to the Pearl River which led to Canton. Actions
were also taken that would lead to the forcible entry into
the city. A hasty truce was worked out by Davis and
Ch'i-ying that promised the long-awaited entry two years
hence. Instead of placating the populace, the agreement
enraged them even more. Heretofore "reliable" elements in
Canton, the middle and upper gentry, became xenophobic.H 9
Riots and demonstrations occurred more frequently.120
Issachar Roberts was not immediately a target of the
Cantonese antiforeignism. He replied on his God to protect
him in his work, and he was confident that, like Moses, he
could lead the Cantonese to the promised land. His two
native assistants, he wrote, "like Aaron and Hur greatly
support my sinking hand in the work of the Lord."121
Roberts' work, distributing tracts and preaching in dif
ferent places, was similar to that of some Chinese
religious men and therefore did not constitute a threat
even to the antiforeign elements in Canton. Had Roberts
and his assistants lived within the city they probably would
not have been b o t h e r e d . 122 ne reported to Gutzlaff on a
visit he had made to the Whampoa dock area: "The people
do not seem so much surprised at seeing a foreigner there
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107
distributing books as I should have expected; but they are
often under doubts as to whether Teacher Lo is a foreigner
or a native."123
When he moved to a larger house in the Uet-tung
district in late 1844, his neighbors had no such doubts.
They resented his presence from the beginning, 124 an(j
Roberts was investigated by officials, one of whom asked
if the British and Americans knew he was living there.
Uet-tung was about two miles from the factories, and
Roberts had chosen a "low" neighborhood.1^5 He also had
gone ahead with the purchase without trying either to
determine the mood of the district or to win friends among
his new neighbors.126 Even after he knew their feelings,
Roberts went out of his way to remind them of his unwanted
presence. He finally decided to announce services with the
beating of a gong. Later he constructed a steeple and
proudly rang the bell he received from New York, and he
did not desist even after he learned that a geomancer
thought the steeple had a detrimental effect on a nearby
temple.127 a month or so later a neighborhood meeting
considered what to do about his bell and steeple. Some,
but not all those there wanted to take it down by force.128
Nothing was done about it until May 23, 1847, less
than two months after the Davis-Ch’i-ying agreement that
so enraged the Cantonese. On that day Roberts refused to
meet with a group that angrily accosted him. When he was
away from his house and chapel that night, a mob--
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108
presumably the group he had met earlier--broke into his
quarters and stole the bell, papers, furniture, and books.
They also tore apart and sank a floating chapel he had
procured. When he reported the incident to the board, he
wrote that, for the first time, he had "suffered the loss
of all things" for the sake of Jesus C h r i s t . 1 2 9
Commissioner Everett was at Macao at the time it
occurred, so Roberts reported the incident to the American
consul, Paul S. Forbes, the morning after the attack.
Roberts initially claimed that "five to ten thousand
dollars" was the monetary amount of his loss. Before the
consul's memorial on the incident could be sent to the
imperial commissioner, a local subordinate official arrived
at Mr. Forbes' office to say that local magistrates had
investigated the case, that eleven ringleaders had been
arrested, and that the stolen property had been returned.
This cooperative initiative was cause for optimism that
the affair could be speedily and satisfactorily concluded.
Roberts notified Everett that the returned items were
inconsequential ones and that he was far from satisfied.
Everett questioned Roberts as to the amount of actual
damages, and the latter replied with a detailed list of
lost or damaged property that totalled about $2,800.
Everett was doubtful even about some items on this list,
but was fully convinced "that the damage done to Mr.
Roberts's property has not yet been fully made up to him."
He thereupon requested the imperial commissioner to appoint
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109
a Chinese member to a joint commission that would ascertain
an accurate amount of the l o s s . 130
Everett appointed Dr. Peter Parker, Secretary to the
American Legation, and Paul S. Forbes, American Consul at
Canton, to meet with the Chinese representative appointed
by Ch'i-ying. This was one of Everett's last acts. He died
on June 28, and Dr. Parker took charge of the legation as
charge d'affaires ad interim. Forbes met with the Chinese
delegate on July 19, and they decided that the extent of
Roberts' claim was about half what he had stated, or $1400,
and even this amount would be reduced by $400 if Roberts'
journals and papers should be recovered.131 Parker then
told Ch'i-ying to have his government pay Roberts under
terms of Article XIX of the Treaty of Wanghsia.132 When
Ch'i-ying demurred on the grounds that the treaty did not
require it and that the local government was unable finan
cially to assume such liabilities, Parker insisted that the
treaty did indeed obligate the imperial government. Later
Parker informed the imperial commissioner that if payment
was delayed, the United States government would demand
interest.133 Parker maintained an imperious manner toward
Ch'i-ying, but it was unavailing. Instead of forcing his
cooperation, Parker seems to have further humiliated him
at a time when he was also being accused by some Chinese
of being too lenient with foreigners.134 Parker justified
his firm approach because of the principle rather than the
amount in Roberts' claim. If the point in this case were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110
not made forcefully, he wrote, it might eventually "involve
tens of thousands, and even millions of dollars."135
Changes in top-level personnel on both sides and
the Canton city question pushed Roberts' claim out of the
spotlight. The emperor finally decided that Ch'i-ying's
appeasement of the foreigners was not having the desired
result and recalled him in early 1848. Yeh Ming-ch'en
a m was appointed governor of Kuang-tung Province
and Hsu Kuang-chin was made acting governor-
general of Kuang-tung and Kuang-hsi and imperial
commissioner. 136 Both of these were Chinese (Ch'i-ying
was a Manchu) and revived the superior manner of treating
foreigners. At first they ignored the letters of the
British governor of Hong Kong, Sir George Bonham, which
asked that Canton be prepared for entering. Cantonese were
loudly obvious in their antiforeignism, and the emperor,
happy to see the British stymied for once, supported the
officials and populace in their resistance and rewarded
them with honors. The British lodged a formal protest,
but backed d o w n . 137
John Wesley Davis, a physician-turned-politician--
he had been Speaker of the House of Representatives for
three years when he was appointed Commissioner to China
to succeed the late Alexander Everett--arrived in China
on August 21, 1848. Yeh and Hsu demonstrated their attitude
toward foreign diplomats by refusing to see him for almost
two months.1^®
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill
Parker, who had resumed his position as Secretary
upon Davis' arrival, did not want Roberts' claim to be
forgotten. He pushed Davis to continue the case with the
new imperial commissioner. At first Davis was guided by
Parker's insistence on the importance of Roberts' claim. He
suggested to the State Department that "some belligent
demonstration" "might be instrumental in setting our affairs
in a more desirable position with the Government of C h i n a . " 1 3 9
After he had studied the case more carefully, he became
doubtful of the claim's legitimacy. He questioned, first
of all, whether China were obligated, as a general rule of
international law, to repay foreigners for losses suffered
at the hands of a mob. He also doubted that Article XIX of
the Treaty of Wanghsia actually required it. And finally
he questioned Roberts' total innocence in the matter. The
missionary had not followed the stipulations of Article
XVII when he had purchased the house in Uet-tung. Roberts
should have asked Chinese and American officials to agree
on a location that took into account local feelings. Davis
thereupon asked for strict instructions in the Roberts'
case,140 and while waiting for a reply refused to request
the Chinese officials to settle the claim.141
To buttress his decision not to act precipitously,
Davis forwarded a letter he had received from Consul Forbes
to the effect that Roberts and Parker had been abusing their
treaty privileges and thereby causing trouble unnecessarily.
As a result Chinese-American relations were suffering and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112
the safety of the foreign community was being endangered.
Chinese officials had become increasingly concerned about
missionary activities, which tended, Forbes wrote, "to
weaken and interfere with the legitimate influence which
our Government should have with the government of China."142
These letters of Forbes and Davis point up the
differences between America’s diplomats and missionaries
that for the first time came out into the open. In this
regard, Parker was acting primarily as a defender of
missionary rights in his insistence that Roberts' claim be
pursued with vigor. One analysis of the reasons for this
break in the unity of Americans attributes it to the closer
identity of interests shared by American missionaries and
the B r i t i s h . 1^3 Another writer states that Forbes had at
first encouraged Roberts to press his claim but later lost
enthusiasm when he felt Roberts was being extreme in his
zeal to demand his treaty rights.144
The rupture between diplomats and missionaries in
their pursuit of the Roberts' claim can be partly explained
by these two reasons. In addition, Roberts' personality
must be considered. He was most obdurate when he was sure--
as he generally was--that he was right and someone else
wrong. If he was a poor loser, he was an impossible winner.
With the preternatural arrogance of the overly pious,
Roberts had admirers but no real friends. Another consid
eration is that Davis was not a strong commissioner. He
had at first been influenced by Parker, who wished the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 3
claim pursued vigorously. Later he agreed with Paul Forbes
that pushing the claim could hamper other, i.e., commercial,
interests.145 Finally, such a rupture was made likely by
the lack of firm guidance by the State Department. Distance
and time-lags in communications made specific instructions
impractical, but the Diplomatic Instructions avoided policy
guidelines for the commissioners. Davis could not mediate
the dispute between Parker and Forbes by citing his instruc
tions frcm the Secretary of State. He could only side with
one or the other, and by doing so he only furthered the
rupture.
Also because there were no firm policies Roberts and
Parker could send their own opinions to Washington. 146
While these four letters, from Roberts, Forbes, Davis, and
Parker, were enroute, Secretary of State Buchanan answered
an earlier letter Davis had sent. He wrote that since it
appeared the Chinese government had refused to pay the
claim, the United States could either abandon it or decide
to enforce it. And if it was decided to enforce it, then it
must be determined what means were to be used. A new
administration would be taking office in about two weeks,
however, so he did "not deem it proper" to commit the new
president by any instructions he might give in the matter .1^7
Roberts’ claim was not pursued for a time. The
administration of the new President, Zachary Taylor, which
took office in March, 1849, was almost immediately involved
with a much more vital issued: the survival of the Union.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114
The anticipated entry of California, New Mexico, and Utah
as free states was a threat to the South. Unless some
accommodation were reached similar to the Missouri Compromise;,
which had kept the Union together since 1820, secession was
almost a certainty.148 Roberts' claim for $1,400 could
hardly take precedence over this problem. After John W.
Davis resigned in May, 1850, the post of commissioner to
China was vacant for over two years.149
Humphrey Marshall of Kentucky, a lawyer and second-
term Congressman was appointed to the position in 1852.150
In addition to the general instruction he was given in
regard to helping Americans who had legitimate claims
against the Chinese government,151 Marshall also received
a specific letter in regard to claims of Roberts and two
other persons:
The Department is not in possession of such proof as would warrant it in expressing an opinion in regard to these claims. As you will be on the spot however where all the evidence that can be adduced in support of them will be accessible to you, you will be enabled to determine whether they are of such a character as would warrant the official interposition of this government.152
This letter also informed him that in case the Chinese
government required proof of his authority to negotiate
these and other claims, he was being sent a letter granting
him full power to do s o . 153 Marshall has been described
as "the first United States commissioner to China, under
the Treaty of Wanghsia, who worked seriously as a resident
commissioner. 154 After he had been in China about six
months he had decided, presumably after studying the case,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 5
that Roberts' claim ought to be pursued and the Chinese
government made to pay it or the United States "may as well
tear up the treaty." Marshall concluded his letter with
firm intentions:
Finding the responsibility of action thus devolved on me, and entertaining no doubt of the liability of China to meet the award of a joint commission raised under the treaty, I shall proceed, in case of an equivocation as to the payment under my demand, to make reprisals to the amount, or to blockade the port of Canton until the money is paid, or to stop the sum from the duties pay able to the Chinese customhouse; in fine, to collect the money by any means short of 155
His feelings on the matter may have been strong, but Marshall
was not able to pursue Roberts' claim. The Taiping Rebellion
was foremost in the minds of Chinese and foreigners alike.
On March 19, 18 53, the Taipings captured Nanking and made
i t their capital.156
His successor, Robert M. McLane, was given the same
general instruction on American claims that had been given
to every commissioner beginning with Everett ten years
b e f o r e . 157 The State Department was more interested in
taking commercial advantage of the rebellion going on in
C h i n a . 158 When McLane arrived in China, Commodore Matthew
C. Perry was negotiating with the Japanese for a commercial
treaty.159 The Treaty of Wanghsia called for revision
after twelve years, that is, in 1856.160 The State Depart
ment began to suggest to Commissioner McLane changes it
thought should be m a d e . 161 McLane reported to the Secretary
on the progress of the rebellion, and he asked: "What
shall be the policy of foreign nations having treaty
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116
stipulations with China?"162 Marcy replied that he was not
optimistic that a "spirit of justice. . .will preside over
or pervade our political or commercial relations" regardless
of the eventual winner in the rebellion, so McLane was
instructed to "be on the alert to avail yourself of any
contingency which may happen favorable to opening new
avenues to our valuable and important trade with that
Empire."163 The diplomatic importance of these considera
tions kept Roberts' claim from receiving any attention
during McLane's tenure as commissioner.
When McLane resigned because of bad health, Peter
Parker finally got his chance to be commissioner. Parker's
replacement as Secretary and Chief Interpreter to the
American Legation was Samuel Wells Williams.In his
letter of appointment to Parker, Marcy repeated the same
general instructions in regard to giving help to Americans
with legitimate claims against the Chinese government. No
specific mention of Roberts' claim was made and Parker,
despite his earlier enthusiasm for this case, did not have
the opportunity to pursue it. Parker's commissionership
began less than a year before the treaty was due to be
renegotiated. Marcy sent a detailed list of revisions
consonant with his fundamental aim: "to get larger com
mercial privileges, and better securities for the persons
and property of our citizens. . ."165 one of the Secretary's
suggestions relates to the latter part of his basic aim and
to Roberts' claim as well. Whereas it was desirable to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 7
settle the outstanding claims of American citizens against
the Chinese government, Marcy wrote, Parker was not to risk
other, more important issues by pushing the settlement of
claims. Furthermore, Parker was not to "impair the right
of our citizens to indemnity for injuries," even if he were
not able to settle those already existing.166 The commis
sioner, regardless of his personal feelings in the matter,
was forbidden to take drastic action.167
William B. Reed, a politician and part-time American
history lecturer from Pennsylvania and one of James
Buchanan’s strong supporters, was appointed Envoy Extra
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China on April 22,
1857. The more significant title was used for the first
time since Cushing held it because he was sent with the
express purpose of renegotiating the treaty with China.
Reed was also given the same paragraph on helping Americans
with claims against the Chinese government, but no specific
mention of Roberts was made.168 Reed found out about
Roberts' long-standing claim, "originally fixed at $1,400
which with interest would now be increased to about $2,800."
He also recorded a more recent claim submitted by Roberts.
"Sometime in January [1857], the Chinese police came. . .
in large force and carried off everything. . ." The claim
for this robbery came to $2400.169
Relations between China and the two European powers,
Great Britain and France, became strained to the breaking
point in late 1856. The war which ensued has been called
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 8
the Arrow War, because its immediate cause was the failure
to reach a settlement after Chinese troops boarded a ship,
the Arrow3 which flew the British flag. The United States,
anticipating a rupture by Southern states over slavery and
states' rights, remained technically neutral. Its diplomats
in China were instructed to cooperate with the British and
French in order to maintain American treaty rights, but
they were forbidden to involve the United States in the war.
This course was followed by Reed, and he was able to secure
a new treaty when British and French military superiority
forced China to the negotiating table at Tientsin [T'ien-
ching^^J^jt] in the middle of 1858.170
Reed signed the Treaty of Tientsin on June 18, 1858,
and two supplementary conventions at Shanghai on November 8,
1858. By terms of these latter agreements one-fifth of all
tonnage, import, and export duties paid by American ships
at Canton, Foochow, and Shanghai were to be retained by
United States consuls at these ports to pay all outstanding
claims of American citizens against the Chinese.171 Roberts
finally collected. The main treaty contained a provision
in Article XXIV that would prevent in the future the
problems Roberts encountered over the legal technicalities
of interpreting the previous treaty:
Where there are debts due by subjects of China to citizens of the United States, the latter may seek redress in law; and on suitable representations being made to the local authorities, through the Consul, they will cause due examination in the premises, and take proper steps to compel satisfaction.172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119
More than ten years after the mob sacked Roberts'
house and chapel, his claim for damages and losses was
finally settled. All the American commissioners, beginning
with Everett, had supported his right to compensation with
varying degrees of enthusiasm, but none of them was success
ful in getting it for him. The settlement came as result
of one of the less noble aspects of diplomacy--the victor's
war spoils.173 Ever since Cushing had negotiated the
original Sino-American treaty, American diplomacy had
suffered from a lack of coherent policy with regard to China,
from a lack of experienced diplomats (with the exception of
Everett, who died shortly after arriving in China), and from
the conflict between commercial, diplomatic, and missionary
interests that were allowed to contend openly where no
overall policy existed to balance these interests.
Roberts was eager to pursue his claim, because he
was convinced not only that it was legitimate, but that it
would establish a useful precedent for other Americans and
foreigners in China.174 He was also sure that the Manchu
Dynasty would never willingly allow the full and unre
stricted evangelization he hoped to conduct and which he
believed was necessary to save China's population. The
imperial court, he felt, must be made to respect the work
of God's agents, and his claim would further that end.
Parker, himself foremost a missionary who shared with
Roberts this belief, was willing to push the claim to what
ever lengths it took to establish this point on the minds
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120
of Chinese officials.
Roberts' claim was considerably weaker in a legal
sense than these two missionaries were willing to admit.
Commissioner Davis was astute enough to see the weakness,
and refused to push it unless he was specifically directed
to do so by the State Department, which it did not. This
claim brought out into the open some of the differences
between the three groups of Americans--missionaries, diplo
mats, and merchants--represented in China. Roberts and
Parker tended to interpret events, and even legal points in
this case, in the light of the effect on their missionary
efforts. The merchants, represented by Consul Paul Forbes,
supported Roberts at first, as did Davis, until the legal
weaknesses of the claim became apparent. These two, with
ample support from the State Department, were more concerned
about the commercial ramifications and backed off. They
understood, to an extent that the missionaries did not,
that the American presence in China was not permanent and
was allowed to exist because the British and the Chinese,
for their own reasons, permitted it.
Roberts was a stubborn man who could be insufferable
when he believed he was defending God. He was willing to
avail himself of treaty rights when they supported his work.
But he was also capable of overlooking legalities that inter
fered with his plans. This was the case with his claim for
damages done by the mob on May 23, 1847. He had taken the
same approach when he disagreed with his own Baptist
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121
colleagues and board when he went to Canton. As an agent of
God, nothing, he believed, should be allowed to stand in
his way. He was eventually vindicated in the settlement of
his claim and in the provision of Article XXIV of the new
treaty. His success on this point emboldened him later on
when he was also just as convinced he was right about the
Taipings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES
Tyler Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia (reprint; New York: Barnes § Noble, Inc., 1963), pp. 3, 5. Americans were not entirely absent from China during its colonial period. One traveler recorded the presence of Americans at Canton before the American Revolution. They were called by the Chinese "second-chop Englishmen." See Lo-shu Fu (comp, and trans.) A Documentary Chronicle of Sino-Western Relations (1644-1820) (2 vols.; Tucson, Ariz.: The University of Arizona Press, 1966), II, 574, n.414. 2 Li Chien-nung, The Political History of China, 1840-1928y trans. and ed. Ssy-yu Teng and Jeremy Ingalls (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1967), pp. 43-46. 3 Robert Ergang, Europe> Vol. I, From the Renaissance to Waterloo (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1954), pp. 141- 145.
^Lord Macartney's embassy to the Chien Lung Emperor (1736-1796) in 1793 included such a request. The famour edict to King George III includes this statement: "As to the request made in your memorial, 0 Xing, to send one of your nationals to stay at the Celestial Court to take care of your country's trade with China, this is not in harmony with the state system of our dynasty and will definitely not be permitted." Quoted in Ssu-yii Teng and John K. Fairbank (eds.), China's Response to the West (New York: Atheneum, 1966), p. 19.
^A subsequent edict of February 3, 1796 to King George III states: "Last year you sent an ambassador who respectfully brought a memorial and a tribute. . . . We granted your ambassador's suite an audience and gave them banquets. Besides We repeatedly showered upon them gifts . . ." Quoted in Fu, I, 335.
^For more detailed analyses of the traditional Chinese attitudes toward trade and foreign relations, see Michael Loewe, Imperial China (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1966), pp. 211-212; Teng and Fairbank, pp. 17-21; Mark Mancall, "The Ch’ing Tribute System: An Interpretive Essay," The Chinese World Order, ed. John K. Fairbank (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 7 5-89; Tung-tsu Ch'u, "Chinese Class Structure and Its Ideology," Chinese Thought and Institutions, ed. John K. Fairbank (Chicago: Phoenix Books, 1967), pp. 246-248; John K. Fairbank Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1969), pp.
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123
3-53; John K. Fairbank, China Perceived. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974), pp. 47, 51-60; and Frederic Wakeman, Jr., The Fait of Imperial China (New York: The Free Press, 1975), pp. 39-54.
H. B. Morse, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire (3 vols.; reprint; Taipei: Ch’eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1971), I, 63-93; the nine regulations are listed on pp. 69-71. See also Fu, I, 224-226, 377-378 for the texts of imperial edicts by the Chien Lung and Chia Ching [ (1796-1820) Emperors which established several of these regulations for controlling foreign trade. John K. Fairbank, Trade and diplomacy, Chapter III, not only describes the operation of the Canton system, but explains it in terms of the outlook of an alien dynasty, the Ch'ing (1644-1912). 8 Morse, I, 81-82. q Morse, I, 53-55. He hoped also to gain a market for British manufactures, principally cotton textiles. The mission was funded by the British East India Company which was vitally interested in greater two-way trade. See Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy, p. 59.
10Morse, I, 55-58.
"^The East India Company was able to pay its stock dividends just from profits made in the China trade. The cohong merchants, despite occasional bankruptcies caused by extending credit to foreign merchants, were able to amass fortunes even after the heavy exactions levied on them by Chinese officials. Morse, I. 85.
12Dennett, pp. 6-7, 18-21, 36, 38, 41, 44-46.
^Morse, I, 58; Dennett, pp. 21, 56-57. 14 A caveat to those who study America’s China policy during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries has been given by John K. Fairbank. Rather than search national archives in an attempt to discern a distinctive national policy, he advocates the wider view of seeing American aims as part of the wider cultural conflict between the vastly different Eastern and Western value systems. See his China Perceived3 pp. 86-91 and his "America and China: The Mid-Ninettenth Century," American- East Asian Relations: A Survey, ed. Ernest R. May and James C. Thomson, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp. 31-32.
■^Dennett, pp. 62-64, 75-78.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124
■^Dennett, pp. 46, 53.
■^Dennett, p. 70.
■^Dennett, p. 79.
•^Quoted in Dennett, p. 77. 20 Dennett, pp. 81-84. China remained neutral, and the emperor decreed a stronger prohibition against foreign warships in Chinese waters. See Fu, I, 393-395. About the same time a hong merchant petitioned President Madison for his help in recovering unpaid debts owed to him by American merchants. It was against Chinese law, he explained, to accuse foreigners. Fu, I, 391-393; II, 610-611, nn. 166-169. The anomalies of the situation are pointed up by the fact that Chinese and Americans had to resort to requesting help from each other's officials rather than from their own.
2^Morse, I, 104-105; Dennett, pp. 86-87. 22 Dennett, p. 89. 23 Dennett, p. 89. Nor is it known whether Madison's letter referred to the Terranova case. 74 Dennett, pp. 128-135. 25 Dennett, pp. 70-75. Fairbank cites the use of London banks in the trade to show how much in common were American and British aims and interests in China. See his China Perceived, p. 90.
26Fu , II, 574-575, n.415.
27Fu , I, 161-164.
Peter Ward Fay, The Opium War3 1840-1842 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975), in Chapter I provides detailed descriptions of opium processing and smoking.
^Morse, I, 173-17 5. Fairbank adds that at one time Indian raw cotton had been the product used to balance the value of exported Chinese goods, but the popularity and profitability of opium (sometimes as high as $1000 per chest) made it a major commodity. Trade and Diplomacy, p. 63, 66. 30 Morse, I, 176. Some of these foreign smugglers were licensed to trade between India and China by the East India Company, which also controlled the production of one kind of Indian opium and had a vested interest in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125
continued success of the opium trade. Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy3 p. 63. 31 Dennett, p. 117, states: MAt no time did the American importation of opium form a very considerable share either of the total import of the drug or of the total amount of American imports. . ."
3^Cited in Morse, I, 206, n.104.
33For example, see Fu, I, 381-383. 34 Morse, I, 177-178.
35F u , I, 408-413; II, 621-623, nn.210-220. The fur trade in the Oregon Territory declined because the British had pushed their control of Canada westward after the War of 1812, and in 1821 the Hudson’s Bay Company took over the fur trade, depriving Americans of a valuable trading commodity. See John D. Hicks, The Federal Union (2nd ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952), p. 339.
36Morse, I, 178-179, 209-210. 37 Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy3 p. 73. 38 Morse, I, 87-88. 39 Morse, I, 210. 40 Morse, I, 168. 41 Hsin-pao Chang, Commissioner Lin and the Opium War (New York: W. W. Norton 8 Company, Inc., 1970), pp. 40-41. 42 Britten Dean, China and Great Britain: The Diplomacy of Commercial Relations3 1860-1864 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 8-13. 43 Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy3 p. 65.
^4Fay, pp. 67-69. 45 Fay, pp. 69-79, has the most dramatic account of the Napier "fizzle," as he terms it. Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy3 pp. 78-79, blames Lord Palmerston, Foreign Secretary, for ignorantly sending a royal representative when the Chinese wanted only a "headman" who could be responsible for the merchants. The Chinese could not accept Napier’s status or his demands without violating their own traditional relationship with foreigners or imperial edicts. Morse, I, devotes Chapter VI to this incident and is the most detailed both as to the events that transpired and to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126
a searching analysis of the differing national systems that were, in the viceroy and Lord Napier, microcosmicly presented. 46 Dennett, pp. 92-93. 47 Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy, p. 79. 48 Morse, I, 86-87. 49 Chang, pp. 36-46.
^ A r t h u r W. Hummel (ed.), Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (1-vol. reprint; Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1970), p. 511.
^Chang, pp. 120, 126. 52 Arthur Waley, The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968), p. 25.
^Chang, pp. 128-131. 54 Hillary Lew, "Memorials on the Poppy." Free China Review, 19.7:24-25, July, 1969. 35 Waley, p. 35; S. Wells Williams, The Middle Kingdom (rev. ed.; 2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883), II, 496-497.
"^Dennett, p. 96; see Morse, I, 220-221, for addi tional details. 57 Dennett, pp. 96-97; Fay, pp. 148-159; and Morse, I, 220-229. 58 Dennett, pp. 97-99. 59 Edward V. Gulick, Peter Parker and the Opening of China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 48-61.
^^He lamented several times in his reports that one of his assistants was an addict. A person enslaved by that drug, he knew, could never become a "slave of Christ," since "a man cannot serve two masters."
^*He was delighted when Hong Kong was ceded to Great Britain under terms of the Ch'uan-pi Convention in 1841, and called it "a fulcrum [on which] may be fixed the gospel lever to move and raise the Chinese nation. . . . A new era now commences in China. . ." Roberts' letter to the Board of Trustees, the Roberts' Fund and China Mission Society, Macao, February 18, 1841, American Baptist Foreign
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127
Mission Societies Archives (ABFMS). 6 2 Stuart Creighton Miller, "Ends and Means: Missionary Justification of Force in Nineteenth Century China," The Missionary Enterprise in China and America, ed. John K. Fairbank (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 249-282.
Teng and Fairbank, p. 37.
^Humm e l l (ed.), p. 131.
^John K. Fairbank, "Chinese Diplomacy and The Treaty of Nanking," Journal of Modern History, 12:27-30, March, 1940.
^William Frederick Mayers (ed.), Treaties Between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers (reprint; Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 1-3.
67Fay, p. 361.
^Dennett, pp. 99-100. 69 Quoted in Dennett, pp. 104-105. 70 Gulick, p. 97; Dennett, p. 108; Te-kong Tong, United States diplomacy in China, 1844-60 (Seattle: Uni versity of Washington Press, 1964), pp. 7-8. 71 Dennett, pp. 108-111. 72 Quoted in Dennett, p. 111. 73 Benjamin H. Williams, Economic Foreign Policy of the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1929) , pp. 252-253. 74 John Paten Davies, Jr., Dragon hy the Tail (New York: W. W. Norton 8 Company, Inc., 1972), p. 74. 75 Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, to Caleb Cushing, Washington, May 8, 1843, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, China, Vol. I (April 24, 1843-August 31, 1867), pp. 6, 14. (National Archives' Microcopy No. 77, Roll 38, contains all of Vol. I. As it encompasses the entire period of this study, it will hereafter be cited as "NA-DI" with page numbers supplied..)
7 ft Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone (eds.), Dictionary of American Biography (20 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928-36), 4:625. See Appendix B for a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128
list of American presidents, secretaries of state, and diplomatic representatives to China between 1841 and 1865.
77Webster to Cushing, Washington, May 8, 1843, NA-DI:6.
78S. Wells Williams, II, 565-566. 79 Webster to Cushing, Washington, May 8, 1843, NA-DI:9.
80Webster to Cushing, Washington, May 8, 1843, NA-DI:12-13. 81 Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy 3 p. 196; Ping-chia Kuo, "Caleb Cushing and the Treaty of Wanghia, 1844," Journal of Modern History, 5:36, 1933.
82Kuo, pp. 37-40.
83Kuo, pp. 52-54. 84 Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy, p. 197.
88Mayers, p. 76.
8^Dennett, p. 161. 87 Mayers, p. 79.
88Gulick, pp. 113-114, 121. oq Mayers, p. 80. Roberts’ claim will be discussed below.
^ Mayers, pp. 80-81. 91 Secretary of State James Buchanan, in a letter to Alexander H. Everett, Commissioner to China (Washington, April 15, 1845, NA-DI:28-31) instructed him to send any Americans accused of crimes to the United States for trial and informed him that neither he nor American consuls had any judicial power in civil matters. Buchanan was able to inform Everett's successor, John W. Davis (Washington, August 21, 1848, NA-DI:56-7) that the long-overdue law had been passed giving consuls in China and Turkey the judicial powers that enabled this article of the treaty to become operative. See United States Congress, Statutes at Large of the United States of America, 1789-1873 (17 vols.; Boston: Little and Brown, 1845-1873), 9:276-280. 9 2 Mayers, p. 81. The Trade Regulations negotiated between China and Great Britain had contained a vague state ment in Article XIII to the effect that Chinese and British
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129
citizens would be tried and punished according to their respective laws, but the Treaty of Wanghsia amplified the concept of extraterritoriality and made its application more precise. See Dennett, p. 162.
Q7 ’ Mayers, p. 83. Dennett, p. 168, notes that in spite of the treaty, "smuggling greatly increased," since the United States took no responsibility to prevent it. No mention of opium was made in The Treaty of Nanking. 94 Dennett, p. 160. 95 John C. Calhoun to Cushing, Washington, August 15, 1844, NA-DI:23. 96 Dennett, pp. 176-178. 97 Johnson and Malone (eds.), 4:625-626. no Buchanan to Everett, Washington, April 15, 1845, NA-DI:32. In view of the most-favored-nation clauses found in China’s treaties with Western nations, this argument lacks cogency. Buchanan also seems not to have understood China’s traditional tactics vis-a-vis foreigners. They were "managed" by keeping them at a distance from the Imperial Court. QQ Buchanan to Everett, Washington, April 15, 1845, NA-DI:27.
*^The ministers appointed through 1861 got the identical paragraph in their initial letter of instructions. NA-DI:50, 78, 89, 119, 115, and 234.
lOl-See Appendix B. John W. Davis served the longest as commissioner, two years, four months, and twenty-two days. Subtracting the travel time lowers the time in China for Davis and the others by at least six months.
•'•^Buchanan to Parker, Washington, April 16, 1845, NA-DI:35-36. 103 Gulick, p. 168. The United States was represented in China by a "regularly appointed commissioner" for only eight months out of the four-year period following the signing of the Treaty of Wanghsia. Dennett, p. 190. 104 Gulick, pp. 167-168. Everett’s diplomatic experience had been gained in European capitals and had culminated in his position as Minister to Spain (1825-1829). See Johnson and Malone (eds.), 6:220-221.
105secretary of State William L. Marcy to Parker,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130
Washington, September 5, 1855, NA-DI:117-119; and Marcy to Williams, Washington, June 28, 1855, NA-DI:113-114.
■^^Martin R. Ring, "Anson Burlingame, S. Wells Williams and China, 1861-1870: A Great Era in Chinese- American Relations" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Tulane University, 1972), p. 1. The major printing effort of Bridgman and Williams was the Chinese Repository. Published monthly between 1832 and 1852, it provided readers with articles on China's history as well as current news and opinions. See Ring, pp. 5-7.
107Gulick, p. 194.
lO^Johnson an(j Malone (eds.), 20:290-291.
-^^Dennett, pp. 173, 185ff.
■^®St. George L. Sioussat, "James Buchanan: Secre tary of State, March 5, 1845, to March 6, 1849," in The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy3 ed. Samuel F. Bemis (10 vols.; reprint; New York: Pageant Book Company, 1958), 5:327. Another author, though he does not blame the Protestant missionaries for the problems encountered by early American diplomatic efforts in China, nevertheless makes the cogent observation that because of their long years of residence there and their acquisition of the Chinese language, they were able "to control the most important branch of the United States consular and diplomatic services in China. For many decades after the signing of the Treaty of Wanghia, it was the American missionaries who interpreted and translated for the American foreign services in China; this gave them a chance to influence American diplomacy in China." Because they were eager to convert the whole population to Christianity, they sometimes "unintentionally supported the British in their encroachment on the already weakened Celestial Empire." Tong, pp. 27, 81, and n.48.
■^^Shuck to Peck, Hong Kong, September 16, 1844, ABFMS; emphasis in the original. 112 Roberts must have been trying to prove that God meant him to work in Canton. An imperial edict was signed on December 22, 1844 that lifted the prohibition against the Catholic faith that had been decreed by the Yung Cheng Emperor (1723-1735) in 1724. In late 1845 another edict clarified the matter by making all forms of Christian worship permissible. See Morse, I, 331-332, 691. Neither Roberts nor the officials at Canton seemed to notice that a prohibition against Christianity had been in effect. 1 1 T Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr., Strangers at the Gate:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 1
Social Disorder in South China, 1829-1861 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), p. 74. The contro versy stemmed from a difference in the Chinese and English versions of the Treaty of Nanking. The former said Englishmen could "reside temporarily at the ports of the [five] cities" opened to trade. The English version gave the British permission to reside in the "cities and towns" of the five treaty ports.
^■■^In answer to Everett's question as to whether the Chinese government would be liable for any damages to American property in riots, the Secretary of State said it could, by implication, be held liable if the treaty provision requiring a request for help from the American consul to Canton officials had been made but help had not been sent. Buchanan to Everett, Washington, January 28, 1847, NA-DI: 38-41.
%akeman, pp. 187-189; see also his "Rebellion and Revolution: The Study of Popular Movements in Chinese History," Journal of Asian Studies, 36.2:215, February, 1977. See also Vincent Y. C. Shih, The Tailing Ideology: Its Sources, Interpretations and Influences (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), pp. 481-482.
■'■'^Wakeman, Strangers, pp. 26, 48-51, 56.
H^Wakeman, Strangers3 p. 58. The incident itself, in which local militia of San-yuan-li and neighboring villages attacked and surrounded British and Indian troops but were prevented from annihilating them by the inter vention of city and provincial officials, is described in pp. 11-21. 118 Wakeman, S trangers, pp. 62-64. 119 Wakeman, Strangers, p. 84. 1 20 Margaret M. Coughlin, "Strangers in the House," p. 237, citing John J. Nolde, "The Canton City Question, 1842-1849," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Cornell University, 1950), p. 140. 121 Roberts to Peck, Annual Letter, Canton, February 17, 1844, ABFMS.
^■^Coughlin, p. 226.
"^^Roberts [to Gutzlaff] in "Chun," No. 19, Canton, July 24, 1844, SBFMB. Chun was the assistant whom Gutzlaff helped Roberts support. Roberts wrote several dozen reports, entitled "Doings of Chun," to Gutzlaff under his Chinese name, Gaehan, and sent copies to his board. The Southern
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132
Baptist Foreign Mission Board probably did not understand the nature of the connection between Roberts and Gutzlaff or that these letters were going to him. The reference to "Teacher Lo" was Roberts' way of indicating himself by his Chinese name, Lo Hsiao-ch’uan fjffc % ^ ]. This statement also makes it plain that Roberts had adopted Chinese dress.
l^Roberts [to Gutzlaff], "Chun," No. 36, Canton, December 3, 1844, SBFMB. Neither the Wade-Giles rendering of the National Language pronunciation, nor the characters for "Uet-tung" could be found.
■^•’Coughlin, pp. 227-228; Tupper, The Foreign Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention3 p. 101.
126Coughlin, p. 227.
■^^Roberts [to Gutzlaff], "Chun," No. 46, Canton, February, 1846, SBFMB; Roberts to Taylor, Canton, July 21, 1846, SBFMB; Coughlin, p. 229. 1 28 Roberts to Taylor, Canton, September 2, 1846, SBFMB. 1 29 Roberts to Taylor, Canton, May 23 and 27, 1847, SBFMB. 130 Alexander H. Everett to Secretary of State James Buchanan, Canton, June 20, 1847, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Despatches from United States Ministers to China: 1843-1906, Vol. 3. (In contrast to the Diplomatic Instructions, these microfilmed copies are of the originals and are not paginally numbered. There are 131 rolls of microfilm in Microcopy 92 that cover the entire period 1843-1906. Roll 1 contains the register of the correspondence contained on the other 130 rolls. Roll 2 contains Vol. 1, Roll 2 contains Vol. 3, etc. This source will hereafter be cit d as NA-DD with the appropriate volume number.)
l ^ P a r k e r to Buchanan, Canton, July 23, 1847, NA- D D ^ . 132 Tong, p. 91. Tong also makes a valid point in noting Parker's "forced interpretation" of this article. It nowhere mentions claims or the liability of the Chinese Government for damages to Americans for property destroyed or taken by Chinese. Secretary of State Buchanan, as noted earlier, saw only implied liability and that would arise only if local officials were requested to restore order-- presumably during a large and dangerous demonstration--and did not.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133
■1’33Parker to Ch'i-ying, Canton, August 4, 1847, and January 28, 1848, NA-DD:4.
■^■^Tong, pp. 92-94. Tong blames Parker for putting an end to Ch'i-ying's initial preference for Americans. 135 Parker to Buchanan, Canton, August 17, 1847, NA-DD:4. On the advocacy of harsh means to accomplish noble aims, see Stuart Creighton Miller, "Ends and Means: Missionary Justification of Force in Nineteenth Century China," The Missionary Enterprise in China and America, ed. John K. Fairbank, pp. 249-282. Parker's attitudes are conspicuous in Miller's chapter.
•^^Hummel (ed.), pp. 319, 904.
-*-3^Hummel (ed.), pp. 319, 904; Tong, pp. 95-97.
*38Johnson and Malone (eds.), 5:136-137; Tong, p. 98. 139 Davis to Buchanan, Canton, September 26 and October 27, 1848, NA-DD:5.
■^^Davis to Buchanan, Canton, November 24, 1848, NA-DD:5.
^■^Tong, p. 101.
l^Paul s. Forbes to Davis, Canton, January 27, 1849, as an enclosure to Davis to Buchanan, Canton, January 27, 1849, NA-DD:5.
143Tong, p. 103.
^44Coughlin, pp. 248-249. 14 5 Tong, pp. 102-103. Tong, p. 59, and n.8, iden tifies Forbes as a former official with Russell and Company. American consuls in China and elsewhere were not professional diplomats, but merchants who consented to serve in that capacity. See Dennett, p. 63.
^4^Roberts to Buchanan, Canton, January 25, 1849, copy in SBFMB; Parker to Buchanan, Canton, February 7, 1849, NA-DD:5. 147 Buchanan to Davis, Washington, February 17, 1849, NA-DI:59-60.
l^Hicks, Federal Vnion3 pp. 491-498.
l^Thomas Nelson, Joseph Blount, and Alfred Conkling
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134
were offered the commissionership during 1851 and 1852, but all refused the appointment. Peter Parker once again took over the Legation as charge d'affaires ad interim. See NA-DI:66-74 passim.
ISOsecretary of State Daniel Webster to Parker, Washington, August 11, 1852, NA-DI:75-76. For a bio graphical sketch of Marshall, see Johnson and Malone (eds.), 12:310-311.
■^^Webster to Marshall, Washington, August 11, 1852, NA-DI:78. The emphasis which Coughlin, pp. 239-240, and Tong, pp. 117-118, place on this portion of Marshall’s instructions in regard to Roberts' claim does not appear to be justified. Every one of the commissioners sent to China, starting with Everett, received the identical wording. It is quoted in full, above, when it was given to Everett before Roberts' chapel was looted.
152C. M. Conrad, Acting Secretary, to Marshall, Washington, September 20, 1852, NA-DI:79. This instruction appears to reflect Davis' doubts about the claim instead of Parker's insistence that it be pursued, as Coughlin concludes. See her pp. 239-240.
l^About a week later, another letter (Conrad to Marshall, Washington, September 28, 1852, NA-DI:81) stated: "I am directed by the President to request you to return the despatch which was addressed to you by the Department under date of the 20th Instant." The recalled despatch was probably his power to negotiate for the settlement of claims rather than the one which requested him to determine the legitimacy of the claims.
154Tong, p. 117.
'’Marshall to Secretary of State W. L. Marcy, Shanghai, July 30, 1853, NA-DD:8; emphasis in the original. Marshall had arrived at Hong Kong on January 16, 1853. When he tried to arrange an appointment with Yeh Ming-ch'en, he was repeatedly put off. See Kenneth Wesley Rea, "Humphrey Marshall's Commissionship to China, 1852-1854," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Colorado, 1970), pp. 30-33.
■^^Franz Michael, The Tailing Rebellion; Vol. I, History (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), p. 70. This rebellion and Roberts' connection with it will be discussed in the following chapters.
l ^ M a r c y to McLane, Washington, November 4, 1853, NA-DI:89. McLane was, like Marshall, a soldier, lawyer, and Congressman before being appointed. See Johnson and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 5
Malone (eds.), 12:115-116. He arrived in China in March, 1854. See McLane to Marcy, Hong Kong, March 20, 1854, NA-DD:9. 158 Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 9, 1853, NA-DI:90-91, is clear on this point: "Without desiring exclusive privileges, it is deemed especially important that in any crisis which may happen in the affairs of the Chinese Empire you should direct your efforts towards the establishment of the most unrestricted commercial inter course between that Empire and the United States. . ."
*^The Treaty of Kanagawa was signed on March 31, 1854. See Hugh Borton, Japan1 s Modern Century (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955), p. 37.
■^^Article XXXIV. See Mayers, p. 83, for text.
■^^Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 9, 1853, NA-DI:92.
1 f \ 7 McLane to Marcy, Shanghai, June 14, 1854, NA-DD:9. 163 Marcy to McLane, Washington, September 23, 1854, NA-DI:102.
■^^Marcy to Williams, Washington, June 28, 1855, NA-DI:113-114; Marcy to Parker, Washington, September 5, 1855, NA-DI:117-119. A sketch of Parker appears in Johnson and Malone (eds.), 14:234-235, and the recent work by Gulick, Peter Parker and the Opening of China, covers the major episodes in his life. See Johnson and Malone (eds.), 20:290-291, for a summary of the career of Williams.
l ^ M a r c y £0 Parker, Washington, September 27, 1855, NA-DI:126. The entire letter covers pp. 121-127.
^^Marcy to Parker, Washington, September 27, 1855, NA-DI:126-127. 1 67 A little over a week later, the Secretary of State wrote the Commissioner another letter that bore on Roberts' claim. Marcy wrote that previous commissioners had suggested withholding customs duties to satisfy claims. The President did not want this practice adopted as a general course of action, but Roberts' case seemed to justify it. Marcy warned, however, that he did not "think that any course which is calculated to produce irritation should be taken until the close of the negotiation for the revision of the present treaty." After an intervening paragraph, the permission to withhold duties that had just been given was cancelled. "The President does not authorize you to resort to the summary mode of obtaining indemnity
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 6
left at your option in the case of J. [sic] J. Roberts. It does not appear that the case has ever been presented by the Commissioner to the consideration of the Chinese Government." Parker was instructed "to bring the claim to its serious attention, and and [sic; repeated] to demand a pecuniary compensation equal to the actual loss of our citizens.” Marcy to Parker, Washington, October 5, 1855, NA-DI:134- 135b [two consecutive pages numbered 135]. Besides reiterating the primacy of a favorable treaty revision over unpaid claims, this letter is indicative of the problems caused by distance, slow communications over that distance, and--perhaps most important--having to give specific instructions in a case imperfectly understood instead of having laid down policy principles which could be applied by the commissioner. Washington understood the dilemma, at least the obvious aspects of it. In the letter of appoint ment to S. Wells Williams, Marcy had written: "The very great distance of China from the seat of the Government of the United States, the long delay in receiving and trans mitting communications between it and our public Agents and the constantly changing aspect of affairs there render it necessary to leave much to the discretion of the person in charge of the Legation." Marcy to Williams, Washington, June 28, 18 55, NA-DI:115.
^-^Johnson and Malone (eds.), 15:461-462; Secretary of State Lewis Cass to Reed, Washington, April 22, 1857, NA-DI:153-155. Reed was appointed to replace Parker, who was informed that treaty revision was the reason for the need to make the change. "The exigencies of the present juncture, the public expectations, and the necessity of keeping pace with the other treaty powers in China, require that some such special ajpointment as that of Mr. Reed should be made by this Government." Cass to Parker, Washington, April 24, 1857, NA-DI:156. Buchanan, president for about six weeks, had been Secretary of State when Parker had served as charg6 of the legation, and probably did not trust him in so delicate and important a matter. Parker had been criticized earlier that year for being too willing a champion of British policies. "The British Government evidently have objects beyond those contemplated by the United States and we ought not to be drawn along with it however anxious it may be for our cooperation," the Secretary explained. Moreover, the President had been angered when it appeared that United States naval vessels and its consul at Hong Kong had been involved in a British attack on Canton in October, 1856. Marcy to Parker, Washington, February 2, 1857, NA-DI:145-147. President Pierce and Secretary of State Marcy were convinced that Congress would not vote to declare war on China in view of the volatile domestic situation in the United States. They were able to persuade their successors to continue American neutrality. Parker was too deeply committed to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 7
joint military action against China by England, France, and the United States to be retained. See Tong, Chapter 13, especially pp. 198-202.
^^Reed to Cass, February 1, 1858, NA-DD: 15.
^ 7®The Avrow War and the role of the United States in that conflict will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
Dennett, p. 329.
■1‘72Mayers (ed.), p. 91. (The text of the entire Treaty of Tientsin is on pp. 84-92.) I 7*z The United States was not a belligerent in the war, but "an exceedingly inclusive most-favored-nation provision. . .made the citizens of the United States the inheritors of all that had been won by allied arms, diplomacy, and a most careful study of the situation." Dennett, p. 314.
^^Roberts to Buchanan, Canton, January 25, 1849, copy in SBFMB.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 4
ROBERTS, HUNG HSIU-CH'UAN, AND TAIPING BEGINNINGS
A few months before the mob sacked Roberts’ house and
chapel on May 23, 1847, he met a young Chinese who came to
Canton to learn about Christianity. This was Hung Hsiu-
c h ’uan, who later proclaimed himself the Heavenly King
[IF ’ien-wang Jfc. ^1] of the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace
[T’ai-p’ing T 'ien-kuo ^ ^ ^ ggj ]. Although Hung studied
with Roberts only for about two months, their meeting ranks
as a major event not only in the career of Roberts, but in
the history of China. Roberts is best known for his
relationship to the Taiping Rebellion, which set in motion
forces and events that brought about the collapse of the
Chinese imperial system.
The purpose of this study is not to show how that
collapse came about, but to consider the rebellion as the
background for active diplomatic efforts undertaken in
China by the United States and the part Roberts played or
tried to play in those efforts. This chapter will survey
the events and background situation out of which the Taiping
movement came, the early life and character of Hung Hsiu-
ch’uan and his motivations for that movement. Hung’s first
contact with Roberts in 1847, and the early course of the
rebellion.
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139
The Taiping Rebellion in all its causes, events, and
results is outside the scope of this study. It has already
been exhaustively researched by Chinese and foreign scholars
and is the subject of a large number of works.^ Major events
in that movement led to a number of diplomatic actions by
United States officials and occupied much of Roberts' time
and efforts between 1853 and 1862. Aspects of the Taiping
movement which lay behind American diplomatic activity and
Roberts' actions will be discussed in light of these.
CAUSES OF THE TAIPING REBELLION
China, perhaps more than any other cultural entity,
has been the scene of uprisings, revolts, and violent demon
strations. Its long history has afforded an essential
dimension for these eruptions, but time alone cannot account
for the number of them. From the writings of Mencius
[Meng T z u - ^ ] (371?-289? B.C.) Chinese have enjoyed
philosophical and moral justification for the overthrow of
a corrupt emperor who failed to carry out his responsibility
to Heaven to provide for the welfare of his subjects. Since
the Han [;j£| Dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 220), ruling families
were established by men who raised the flag of rebellion
against a corrupt emperor and won the allegience of enough
dissatisfied Chinese of all classes to succeed and claim
the Mandate of Heaven. Sometimes the victor was not an
ethnic Chinese. The Ch'ing Dynasty was established at
Peking in 1644 by Manchus. They, like other non-Chinese
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140
invaders, were forced to continue the traditional Chinese
system in order to rule effectively such a large, complex
society.
A primary element in China's long history has been
that new dynasties either sought to re-establish the Con-
fucian principles that underlay the traditional system--the
goal of the Chinese uprisings--or were forced to re-establish
them, as in the case of the Manchus. The Taiping rebels
were different. They "sought not only to destroy the dynasty
but also to replace the Confucian ethics with their own
religious teachings and to end the traditional autonomy of
the moral and social order."
This radical departure from Chinese traditi ' and
history by the Taipings had its roots in the traditional
social order. Confucius (551-479 B.C.) stressed the proper
role for men to assume in society along functional lines.
Centuries of practice had sharply delineated the four
classes: scholar-officials (referred to as "gentry"),
peasants, artisans and merchants. Officials had to be
scholars, well versed in the Confucian classics, who had
demonstrated their proficiency in a series of competitive
literary examinations. Once gentry status was earned
certain privileges came as a matter of course. Scholars
were exempt from performing corvee labor and theoretically
from the humiliation of corporal punishment. Economic
privileges included exemption from some taxes and the
reduction of others. Some gentry members abused these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141
privileges and exploited their position as social equals 3 with local officials to increase their wealth.
When dynastic rule was efficient, local excesses
were curbed, and the legal privileges of the gentry were 4 accepted by the other classes. When administration became
lax and gentry exploitation became particularly acute,
peasant resentment could be directed against those responsible
for the glaring economic inequities.^ Gentry privileges and
the Confucian classics that occupied such an important role
in admission to gentry status were part of the whole fabric
of resentment that led to the Taiping Rebellion.^
Besides resentment of the abuses of the gentry,
there were other causes for the Taiping Rebellion that can
be classified as inherent factors. Perhaps the most
important was the economic situation. When gentry members
were able to evade taxes because of their special relation
ship to local officials, the tax quotas had to be met by
increasing exactions from the peasants. Tenants who were
not liable for land taxes still were subject to oovvee
labor and head taxes. Their main concern was with the
amount of rent they had to pay on the land they farmed.
Fifty percent of their crop is accepted by most scholars
as average, but higher rates were not unknown. When famine
came, in times of drought, flood, or other natural disasters,
peasant livelihood was jeopardized. Three-fourths or more
of the population were peasants, and a large proportion of
these eked out a precarious existence. It is to be expected
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142
that studies on the Taiping Rebellion provide ample evidence
that peasant economic hardship was a major factor in an 7 outbreak of such proportions.
Next in importance among circumstances leading to
O the Taiping Rebellion was political corruption. When local
officials neglected the welfare aspects of their respon
sibilities, peasants’ problems were multiplied. Dikes that
were not maintained offered scant protection against floods.
Surplus grain that should have eased the plight of peasants
in times of food shortages was often sold off by officials
to enrich themselves. Officials sometimes allowed members
of the local gentry to take or sell it instead of store it
or simply permitted the grain to spoil. There had been
numerous uprisings against corruption in the Ch'ing Dynasty,
many of which had been unsuccessful efforts to restore the
Ming [0$] Dynasty (1368-1644).^ The initial aim of the
Taipings was the elimination of corrupt officials. Only
later was itmade known that the ultimate aim was to replace
the dynasty.
Political corruption was a traditional symptom of
a historical disease: dynastic decline. After two centuries
in power, the Manchus showed the effects of soft living.
The sixty-year reign of the Ch’ien Lung Emperor, the fourth
monarch of the C h ’ing Dynasty, began in 1736. During this
period, the dynasty "reached its pinnacle,” but it was also
then that the "first sign of decline” appeared.H This
decline was noticable first in leadership. The emperor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143
allowed a favorite to accumulate too much power and wealth,
and subsequently "institutional deterioration" set in as
officials in the capital and in the provinces followed his
example of avarice. Manchu prejudice against Han Chinese
scholar-gentry vitiated an essential link in the Confucian
chain of command.^ The political corruption of local
magistrates intensified lingering grievances against the
Manchus, who made Chinese males wear queues as a badge of
subjugation. Of less importance, perhaps, as a reason for
rebellion, yet another source of resentment against the
dynasty, was Manchu domination of the Chinese gentry.
Ch'ien Lung burned books in order to control what was read
and thought. There were other restrictions on writing and
research in philosophy and history. The court's control
over the content of the literary examinations and its
function as the major employer of scholars further inhibited
intellectual inquiry. Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and most of the
other leaders of the Tai-ping Rebellion were educated to
be scholars and were therefore aware of the methods used
to control the gentry. A Taiping proclamation issued in
1852 sought to gain the support of Chinese scholars for the
rebel cause by appealing to their resentment toward Manchu 13 domination of the intellectual life of the country.
Residual hatred for the Manchus, the latent desire
to restore the Ming or establish another Chinese dynasty,
and the burdensome corruption of Manchu officials and their
underlings spurred the growth of secret societies. Those
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144
in North China particularly had religious overtones such as
the White Lotus Society which rebelled against the dynasty
in 1796. That uprising took ten years and an expensive
series of campaigns t~ destroy. In South China the societies
tended to be more politically oriented, as in the case of
the wide-spread Heaven and Earth Society. A number of anti-
Manchu uprisings occurred in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries in the southern provinces.The
secret societies helped create the disorder out of which
the Taiping movement came and "provided a backdrop of vio
lence for all of South China.
Another inherent factor in the causes of the Taiping
Rebellion was the rapid growth in the Chinese population
with no proportional increase in arable land during the
preceding century. The long period without serious wars or
large-scale rebellions, virulent epidemics, or catastrophic
natural disasters had allowed the population to climb from
about 143 millions of people in 1741 to over four hundred
million in 1841. The land-to-population ratio, as a result,
decreased significantly.^
The peculiarities of the area in which the Taiping
Rebellion developed also influenced the growth of that
movement. The provinces of Kuang-tung and Kuang-hsi,
separated geographically from the rest of China, also made
up a separate political unit.-1-7 Peasants in this region
had to work hard in an environment that was tolerant of
but not generous to them. They "acquired the qualities of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145
pioneers, growing more adventurous, energetic, independent,
and nationalistic."!8 The original Chinese inhabitants
were called by the Chinese equivalent, Puntis [Pen-ti^ ;H3],
who comprised a majority of the population. A sizable
minority was made up of Hakkas or "guest families," who
had come later but who had maintained their own cultural
and linguistic patterns. Not only had they resisted
assimilation with the Puntis, there was animosity between 19 the two groups that caused feuds and lingering strife.
Hung Hsiu-ch'uan was a Hakka as were most of his first
followers.
The inherent factors that have been discussed--
social, economic, and political systems that had endured
for centuries but involved great hardship for the most
numerous part of the Chinese population if dynastic leader
ship waned had been the cause of earlier revolts. Even
had no foreigners been in China in the nineteenth century,
the dynastic cycle might have led to a traditional up
rising that would have brought a new Chinese dynasty to
power.2!
Foreigners were present, however, and they were
bent on obtaining tea, silk, and porcelain that they could
sell so profitably back home. As we have seen, they
initially offered silver bullion for these items, but by
the 1830's opium had shifted a favorable balance of trade
from China to the West. Chinese attempts to curb the opium
trade angered the foreigners who were already required to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146
trade under a series of restrictions intended to keep foreign 2 7 trade limited and thereby manageable. Opium and trade
restrictions were the ostensible reasons for Great Britain's
resort to military force in the Opium War (1839-1842), but
fundamental differences in culturally conditioned assumptions 23 and outlook underlay these problems.
The Chinese defeat in the Opium War exacerbated the
inherent factors that led to the Taiping Rebellion. In
addition new circumstances, shaped by outside forces, con
tributed to it. The most obvious effect of the Opium War
leading to the Taiping Rebellion was that the people lost
respect for the Manchu Dynasty. The imperial forces were
largely ineffective against British troops despite numerical
superiority. In one instance Manchu defensive troops at
Canton refused to engage a British attacking force only one-
tenth as large and instead accepted a surrender that called
for a large ransom which Cantonese were asked to rsise.
Chinese sentiment had united behind the dynasty in face of
the foreign threat until this disgraceful episode, then it
became strongly anti-Manchu in reaction to their humilia
tion.24 The Manchu banner troops, once highly regarded as
an effective fighting force, had become a "paper tiger."
The psychological blow to the Chinese sense of superiority
to all foreigners was a serious one, and it led to more
frequent uprisings against local authorities, who could no
longer count on the prestige or the ability of imperial
forces to keep a disgruntled population in line.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147
Particularly in South China, where most of the military
action in the Opium War took place, was there unrest and
trouble. During the decade from 1841 to 1850 there were 25 uprisings every year. Local officials organized militia
groups to cope with the bandit gangs, secret societies, and
restive peasants who were, each for their own reasons,
? ft challenging the status quo.
The deterioration of governmental control and effec
tiveness encouraged these uprisings to occur, but the causes
were mainly economic. When the land could not support the
population, impoverished peasants left the farms for the
cities, where they swelled the ranks of the unemployed, or
for bandit gangs, which resorted to robbery and extortion
for their survival. One of the reasons peasants were forced
to leave the land was that cheap manufactured goods from
Western factories flowed into China in a growing stream
after the treaties were signed. Many peasants had managed
to survive only because they were able to supplement their
meager farm income by selling home-crafted items, and
Western imports were now depriving them of this essential
source of income. They had to leave their villages or
starve. There were famines in China between 1838 and 1841
and between 1846 and 1850.^ In the 1830's the amount of
opium brought in surpassed the value of Chinese products
taken out, and the reverse flow of silver that was used to
make up the difference worked further hardship on the
peasants. The value of copper cash in relation to silver
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148
was decreased by imperial edict. Taxes were asessed in
silver or in crops based on their value in silver, but
transactions in the local economy were conducted with copper
cash. By this edict peasunts suddenly received less but 28 were required to pay more. Coolies who had worked for
foreigners when Canton was the only port open to trade lost
their means of livelihood when some of the trade volume
shifted to the other four ports that were opened under 29 terms of the treaties.
As the social order in South China deteriorated,
secret societies drifted westward toward the frontier area,
somewhat as outlaw bands in the United States had moved
toward the American frontier after the Civil War. These
societies operated in five major gangs in the area where
the three provinces of Kuang-tung, Kuang-hsi, and Hu-nan 30 meet. Secret society leaders organized their followers
into bandit gangs that operated with virtual impunity. To
avoid being held responsible for these groups, local offi
cials did not report them to Peking. Tseng Kuo-fan
a major figure in the suppression of the Taipings, saw in
the inaction of these officals a reason why the Taipings
were initially so successful. These officials, charged
Tseng, tended "to gloss over, to make up, and to steal days
of ease.Officials neglected the maintenance of public
works, institutions of local control, and popular indoc
trination in Confucian principles. The social structure of
the village could not maintain peasant solidarity without
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149
these links to the government. Peasants were primarily
concerned with survival, and they gave their loyalty to whom
ever offered the best chance for it. They were, therefore,
particularly susceptible to calls of the Taiping for sweeping 32 reforms.
Somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 militiamen had
been recruited by officials when Manchu banner troops proved
so ineffective. After the treaties were signed these local
troops were disbanded but were allowed to keep their weapons.
Not only could these arms be used in a rebellion, they served
as an inducement to r e v o l t . ^
By failing to protect China from foreign invasion
and by failing to allay the widespread discontent over the
economic and political chaos that prevailed, especially in
South China, the Manchus lost the Mandate of Heaven.^ The
Taipings sought to claim the Mandate for themselves. They
could draw on anti-Manchu feelings and ethnic antagonisms
to support a program that called for "a complete reform of
China's social, economic, political, and military
institutions."35 The nature of these reforms was neither
totally within Chinese traditions, nor totally within the
bounds of Protestant Christianity. These diverse elements
were combined by the founder of the Taiping movement,
Hung Hsiu-ch'uan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. HUNG HSIU-CH'UAN
The self-proclaimed Heavenly King and Younger
Brother of Christ, Hung Hsiu-ch'uan, was an enigmatic
character in Chinese history* He was from a Hakka peasant
family in Kuang-tung* He was educated to become a scholar-
official, but could not pass the first-level literary
examination. Though educated in the Confucian Classics,
he renounced traditional Chinese institutions in favor of
reforms that reflected Protestant Christianity, which he
understood only imperfectly. With success seemingly within
his grasp, he allowed if not encouraged, internecine strife
to decimate the top level of his subordinates. He poisoned
himself when he realized that his capital would be taken by
Tseng Kuo-fan. In the slaughter carried out by Tseng's
troops after they captured the city, none of Hung's followers
surrendered. ^
He was the third son and fourth child of a Hakka
peasant in Hua-hsien |J^j district in Kuang-tung. Named
Huo-hsiu [ ’X ^ 5] at his birth on January 1, 1814, he was
a bright lad but something of a bully. He was enrolled in
the village primary school and showed such promise that his
family sacrificed to provide him the traditional education
in the Confucian Classics. It was hoped that he would be
successful in the literary examinations and thus be able to
persue a career as a government official and so bring honor
and a chance for financial security to his family.
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151
Huo-hsiu placed first in the district preliminary
exams when he was about twelve. This distinction qualified
him to take the triennial provincial examination at Canton.
If selected at that stage he would be granted the title of
sheng-yuan or "government scholar," which would
admit him to the lower stratum of the gentry class. More
over, he would be enrolled in a government school to prepare
for subsequent examinations, the successful candidates of 37 which could hope to receive appointments as officials.
Huo-hsiu made the thirty-mile trip to Canton for
the provincial examination when he was sixteen accompanied
by his father. When he was not selected as a sheng-yuan3
family circumstances did not permit further full-time study,
so he helped with farm work. After a wealthier friend
invited him to study for a year as his companion he returned
to his village and was hired as a teacher. This was not an
unusual alternative for educated young men who failed to
receive the sheng-yuan degree.
He went to Canton for his second attempt at the 3 8 provincial examination in 1836. After his failure this
time he accepted a set of nine Christian tracts from a
Western missionary and his Chinese interpreter who were
preaching on the street. The tracts had the collective
title, Ch'uan-shih liang-yen [!$] $ ^ ], "Good Words to 39 Admonish the Age." Huo-hsiu paid scant attention to them
at the time and shelved them when he returned home to resume
his teaching duties.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152
In 1837 Huo-hsiu tried a third time to pass the
provincial examination, and a third time he failed to be
selected,40 The blow to his ego and to his dreams for a
government career proved too great a strain for mind and
body. He became ill and had to be carried home, where his
condition worsened. Periods of unconsciousness alternated
with periods of delirium during which he made incoherent
sounds. He was heard to shout "Kill the demons!" After
he recovered,^ he related a fantastic tale of what had
occurred. He had been transported to "a beautiful and
luminous place" where an old woman cleansed him in a river.
He went with a large number of old men, some of whom were
ancient Chinese sages, into a building in which his internal
organs were replaced with "others new and of a red colour."
The incisions closed immediately and left no scars. In a
large audience hall too beautiful to describe he approached
an imposing old man "with golden beard and dressed in a
black robe." This gentleman wept over the large number of
people on earth, all of whom he "produced and sustained,"
who took the gifts he provided "and therewith worship
demons." He gave Huo-hsiu a sword, with a command "to
exterminate the demons," and several symbols of royalty.
A middle-aged man, whom Huo-hsiu referred to as "his elder
brother," taught him how to carry out his command.^
His return to lucidity was marked by definite
changes in Huo-hsiu*s behavior. Though he did not under
stand the meaning of all he had experienced, he was convinced
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153
he was destined to be a ruler as promised by the old man in
his vision. He changed his given name to Hsiu-ch'uan.
"Hsiu" he retained from Huo-hsiu; "ch’uan" [^1] he adopted
because he thought it comprised two elements that can mean
"king [J.] of the people [ A ] . " He behaved differently than
before his experience. He became more serious, as befits
royal responsibility, and he acquired an "unswerving belief
in his own special mission.For the time being he con
tinued teaching in his own and in other villages.
Six years later, in 1843, he made his fourth attempt
at the provincial examination, but he was no more successful
than before. No seizure followed this failure; he only
expressed his extreme anger at the government and Manchu
officials in particular. Between his third and fourth
attempts the Opium War had been lost, unequal treaties had
been signed, and the weaknesses of the dynasty became
apparent. While Hung was teaching later that year in
another village, one of his cousins, Li Ching-fang ^]»
visited him. Li was, like Hung, educated but unsuccessful
in several attempts at earning the sheng-yuan degree. Li
found among his cousin’s books the tracts received but left
unread for six years. Li was fascinated by them and urged
Hung to read them. That he did so was a pivotal point for
Hung and for China.
For in those poorly translated scriptures and simple
homilies he found the key that explained the visions he had
experienced six years earlier. The old, golden-bearded man
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154
was God; the middle-aged man Hung had called Elder Brother
was Jesus. The demons he had been commanded to destroy were
the idols worshipped by most Chinese, When this much became
clear, Hung studied the tracts carefully to complete both
his knowledge of Christianity and what his life’s mission
would be. This was a taxing effort, for there was no one or
a full translation of the Bible to guide him. He had to
struggle with awkward translations, disconnected narratives,
and unintentionally ambiguous passages. These he accepted
as proof of the tracts’ authenticity, because the ancient
mystery texts of Chinese history were similarly abstruse.
Hung used his own imagination to supply what the tracts left
out, and, not surprisingly, he developed some ideas quite
different from what was i n t e n d e d . ^4
Hung, however, saw no inconsistences in the theology
he derived from the tracts and from the interpretation he
gave to his visions. Despite the later efforts of
missionaries to show him the true meanings of the verses on
which he based Taiping programs, he varied little from his
initial, idiosyncratic conceptions. These ideas allowed
him to put his past failures and frustrations behind him
and to dedicate himself to the great task that he was con
vinced had been given h i m . 45 Li also caught Hung's
enthusiasm and, after baptizing each other, the two of
them destroyed all the idols in the village. They returned
to Hung's village and converted Hung Jen-kan and Feng Yun-
shan [ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 Hsiu-ch'uan, had been educated but had failed the provincial examination more than once and were teachers. After bap tizing Feng and Jen-kan, all four began testifying to their families and friends of this new faith, and many idols were smashed. They went to nearby villages with the message of a new religion. They destroyed idols and pulled down Confucian and ancestral tablets in clan halls and schools. Hsiu-ch'uan, not surprisingly, lost his teaching position in early 1844 because of these activities. Hsiu-ch'uan and Feng left for Kuang-hsi where they made over a hundred converts. Whether their activities at this stage were primarily religious or revolutionary is a matter of disagreement among some scholars.^ After returning alone to his own village late in 1844, Hsiu-ch'uan continued to proselytize. He was more circumspect in his behavior and his teaching position was restored. He used the next two years, 1845-1846, to teach and to write prose and poetry, works that reflect and elaborate the religious ideas he had developed from his study of Liang Fa’s tracts. ^ Unknown to Hung, Feng Yun-shan, after they separated in Kuang-hsi, had gone to other villages and cities in that province. After having to resort to manual labor to support himself, he secured a position teaching in a private family school. He worked zealously to convert rich and poor to the new religion. He succeeded almost everywhere he went, and he even converted his wealthy employer and his whole family. Seeing that some organization was necessary to hold the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 allegiance of these converts, he formed them into village branches of what he called Pai-Shang-ti Eu% m - i # # i. the Society of God Worshippers. These branches were in the region called Thistle Mountain [Tzu-chin Shan ^ J * n the Kuei-p'ing m * i district of Kuang-hsi. Feng used the most promising adherents in each village as branch leaders to coordinate recruitment, copy and distribute tracts, and to be responsible personally to him as "chief director." There was a large number of converts, about two thousand, and the majority were Hakkas or Yao ['(g=] aboriginal tribes men who accepted the new religion eagerly. The security afforded by the mountainous t e r r a i n ^ was not lost on Feng, who perhaps earlier than Hung, appreciated the possibilities for launching a rebellion against the Manchu Dynasty from this area. At this time, however, Hung Hsiu-ch'uan was completely unaware of these development. He and Jen-kan went to Canton in March 1847 to learn from the Reverend Mr. Roberts more about Christianity. ROBERTS AND HUNG, 1847 Roberts had gone against the advice of his Baptist colleagues on Hong Kong when, in May 1844, he went to Canton. Roberts was periodically incapacitated by the island's climate, and he had been relegated to a minor position by Shuck and Dean. These two missionaries were embarrassed by Roberts* rough, uncompromising ways. The Baptist Board was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 on the point of dismissing him--a request for his return to the United States had been received, but Roberts rejected it^-when the division of Baptists in the United States in 1845 over the slavery controversy intervened. He was accepted by the Foreign Mission Board of the new Southern Baptist Convention as missionary, but because he received some funds from Baptist churches in the West, he was not considered a regular missionary of the convention. His new colleagues, sent out when the new board adopted China as its first mission field, were initially impressed with Roberts’ zeal and the experience he had acquired through almost ten years of continuous service in China. Soon they began to tire of his idiosyncrasies, and one of them even suggested that the board dismiss him for the good of the mission and for the good of Baptist work in C h i n a . ^0 Unable to remain insensitive to the strained relations developing with yet another set of colleagues, Roberts helped organize the Canton Mission Society, an independent agency, to help support his work. But he retained his connection with the Foreign Mission Board. He also moved to another part of the Canton suburbs--foreigners were sti’l not permitted inside the city walls. He estab- listed his Uet-tung chapel in a rough area near the waterfront but well away from the foreign factory area. Though he availed himself of his right under the Treaty of Wanghsia to erect a church, he conveniently neglected to have his new location approved by officials of the Chinese Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 and American governments with "due regard to the feelings of the people in the location." Some of his Chinese neighbors resented his presence and were particularly disturbed at the belfry he erected and the bell that rang from i t . ^ Roberts was not overly concerned. He was convinced that he was doing God's will, and therefore God would protect him and provide for him. His mission in China, and in life, was to bring Chinese to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. A little local controversy, he felt, would serve to spread the news that a foreign missionary was operating there. In late 1846 the news spread to Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and Hung Jen-kan, who were teaching in their native village. The same man who told the Hung cousins about Roberts also told one of Roberts' assistants about Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and his new religion that seemed similar to Christianity. The assistant wrote to the Hungs and invited them to visit Roberts in Canton. In March, 1847, both accepted the invitation.^ These were perhaps the most highly educated Chinese who had ever presented themselves to Roberts for study. Following his customary practice, he asked each of them to write about himself--"his family-connections, his birthplace, education, convictions, and the reason of his becoming an inquirer." Hsiu-ch'uan wrote of his illness, his visions, and his interpretation of them based on the tracts he had read later. He was described by Roberts as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 about five feet four or five inches high, well built, and would weigh, perhaps, one hundred and sixty pounds; round faced, regularly featured, rather handsome; a middle aged man, and gentlemanly in m a n n e r s , 53 Roberts* brief biography of Hsiu-ch'uan written in 1856, closely parallels part of the account Jen-kan wrote for another missionary, Theodore Hamberg, who used it as the basis for a book. Hamberg showed Roberts Jen-kan*s account in 1852.54 it is not certain that the account of his life Hung Hsiu-ch'uan wrote for Roberts in 1847 was the one Roberts* used as the basis for the article he wrote in 1856, but Hung's story did impress him. Within a few days of reading it the missionary informed a close friend in the United States that two Chinese men had come to him "for the sole purpose of being instructed in the gospel!" The account that one of them, obviously Hsiu-ch'uan, wrote moved Roberts to declare that he saw a vision of angels which showed him things, and taught him things of which he knew not before, some of which he seemed to comprehend in part but others he acknowledges he does not know the meaning of.55 This Chinese had learned, Roberts continued in his letter, that worshipping idols was evil, so he had abandoned them and had "taught others to do so also." "They are here now learning daily, and I feel pursuaded that the Lord has sent them here. . ." The story of the previous experiences of this educated Chinese who was, Roberts felt, going to be baptized and return as a native missionary to his people, "affords the most satisfaction of any Chinese experience I have ever heard for the length of time." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 Jen-kan left shortly after his arrival, but Hsiu- ch'uan, Roberts reported in 1856, remained at his chapel for "about two months, joined our Bible class, committing and reciting the scriptures, and receiving instructions for two hours daily with the class." "I thought his case extra ordinary," he recalled, but had no idea that "we were entertaining an emperor. . .!" Hung asked to be baptized and join the church. As was his custom, Roberts appointed a committee of Chinese members of his chapel "to examine his case, and report to the Church." The committee went to Hua-hsien to talk with Hung's family and friends and reported that his account of visions and activities against idols appeared genuine. Hung underwent a public examination of his personal faith, and his testimony was apparently well received. "We were on the point of receiving him," Roberts reported, when the church moderator reminded Hung, "There is no certain employment, nor pecuniary emolument connected with becoming a member of the Church, we ought not to do so from sinister motives." Hung had obviously counted on being hired as an assistant after his baptism, for "he hesitated to join without an assurance of a support.” Roberts would not guarantee him a position, because he immediately suspected that Hung might be insincere. So the missionary postponed his baptism "indefinitely."56 About the time that Hung was forced to leave Roberts because he could not afford to stay longer,57 a Cantonese mob broke into Roberts' chapel on May 23, 1847. Roberts' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 claim for damages and his insistance on his right to an indemnity under the Treaty of Wanghsia was his primary concern for several months.58 Hung, too, had other concerns. With a small loan from a friend in Roberts * church, he left Canton for Kuang-hsi to find his cousin, Feng Yun-shan, whom he had left in that province in late 1844. He rejoined his kinsman in the summer of 1847 and learned of Feng's success in converting over three thousand people and in organizaing the Society of God Worshippers. These converts had been taught a new set of moral principles based on a sincere devotion to God and Christ. Moreover, the focal point in all Feng's teaching had been the ascension of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan into Heaven where he had received the command of God to "destroy the demons." Hung was consequently received with awe and was called "Master Hung" [Hung Ssien-sheng With his presence, the Society grew r a p i d l y . 59 ROBERTS AND HIS BOARD There was another reason beside his claim for the mob's damage that kept Roberts too occupied to wonder about the departure of H u n g . 60 His fellow Southern Baptist missionaries were becoming restive under the leadership that Roberts had assumed over them as the senior number of their mission. The others began to avoid him. Roberts confided to his journal: "I feel very lonely. The missionaries seldom come to see me; and Brother Pearcy, to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 whom I applied for board, thinks we can love each other better apartJ"61 it may have been Pearcy, pastor of the church Shuck had organized in Canton,that Roberts referred to when he complained to the board’s secretary: "The younger brother too often commences exercising his power without the requisite knowledge to know what is right. . This unnamed colleague had been critical of Roberts, who resented the fact that, "instead of [being] an observer and learner,. . . he assumes the place of dictator and teacher."62 Neither Roberts nor Pearcy could accept the other's leadership. The Foreign Mission Board suggested that the two Baptist churches in Canton be united--an obvious step toward efficiency--but Roberts and Pearcy could not agree on who would serve as pastor of the combined congregation. The merger was not consummated until after Pearcy and his wife relocated in Shanghai.63 The departure even of an antagonist left Roberts lonelier than ever. Even before Pearcy left Roberts had written about the possibility of his returning to the United States for a short stay: "Days, weeks, and months without a living soul to bear me company. It is not good for man to be alone.He had been alone for most of the ten years that he had spent in China, except for the companionship of his Chinese assistants. Roberts did not make lasting friendships with his fellow missionaries. Gutzlaff, another independent-minded missionary was his closest friend, but they had spent little time together. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 Most of the other missionaries were married, and it was this bond of affection and mutual support that enabled others to endure the hardships of an environment that was tolerant at best and sometimes h o s t i l e . 65 Roberts learned that Francis Johnson had asked the board to help find him a wife before he left for China. He also decided to try this means to terminate his loneliness. He asked the board to appoint a committee composed of Dr. J. B. Jeter and Dr. J. B. Taylor, two of the most highly respected leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, to locate a wife for him: Send me a suitable female of sound health and sound mind; of the missionary spirit and a baptist in profession; suitably qualified to cooperate with me in Canton--first as an assistant missionary in this great work; § second as a wife.66 This request, not the first of its kind the board had received, was treated seriously. Positive action was taken in January, 1848, by naming the members Roberts had requested to a committee to "select a female missionary for the Canton station." Either the search was unsuccessful or the committee declined to take such a responsbility, for in April, 1848, the board granted Roberts permission to return to the United S t a t e s . 67 Perhaps it was the controversy with Pearcy that kept Roberts in Canton for about another year after he was granted the furlough. Roberts stayed until after Pearcy left for Shanghai, then he left, in 1849.^8 He took with him a young Chinese convert named A-Chun [Ch'enPJt?] as his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 personal servant.69 Somewhere at sea between China and America a disagreement arose between them. Mutual ill- feeling was apparent when Roberts reported to the Foreign Mission Board in Richmond, Virginia, and increased as they journeyed together through the West,70 On board a steamer they were taking down the Missis sippi River to New Orleans, their mutual antagonism was noticed by other passengers. One of them was a Baptist clergyman, the Rev. P. S. Gayle, who knew Roberts. The affair was so disconcerting to others on board that Mr. Gayle tried to intervene. At one point, Gayle reported to the Foreign Mission Board, I, J.. Roberts told A-Chun that if he was not obedient, he could arrange his own passage back to China. What so alarmed the passengers, it seems, is that Roberts was abusive in his manner toward the Chinese, who took rather calmly Roberts' tirades against him. Gayle agreed, in order to. save the situation, to take charge of A-Chun in New Orleans and see that he got to Richmond, where he hoped the board would see that he was given return passage to China.71 Mr. Gayle did Roberts another favor. When the river boat arrived in New Orleans, some of the passengers were so outraged at Roberts' treatment of his young Chinese servant that they wanted to write up an account of the missionary's behavior and have it published in the Picayune. Gayle dissuaded them, but felt constrained to write the board about Roberts' actions: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 But he left, so far as the members and persons of the world have witnessed in the treatment of A-Chun, the impression that he is haughty, selfish, vain and ignorant. You may rely upon it, so far as my observa tion goes, the servant has left, every way, an impression superior to his master, for natural intelligence, humility, gentlemanly deportment and Christianity. "7 2 The board might have been reluctant to recall Roberts solely to account for his actions toward A-Chun, as described in Gayle’s letter. There were, however, other letters with serious charges against Roberts that the board could not ignore. The Rev. W. B. Whilden had been sent out to Canton to replace Pearcy, who had relocated in Shanghai. Whilden arrived in 1849, about the time Roberts left for the United States. He was going over some of the mission records shortly after his arrival and accidentally came across a paper Roberts had written. This document related that a deacon of Roberts' church had informed his pastor that a fee of $1 0 0 .0 0 , representing 8 % of the purchase price, was required by a local official to record and seal the purchase of some property, probably the Uet-tung chapel. Roberts approved the deacon's suggestion that he report only half the amount paid in order to reduce the fe.e--which was considered "squeeze," or a bribe--by half. Roberts' concurrence, Whilden charged, amounted to "a deliberate false assertion." And, he concluded, if there were a difference in the sin of either man, Roberts' was the greater "because, better than the other, he knew the teachings of revelation in the matter,"73 Whilden also discovered that Roberts, after the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 departure of Pearcy for Shanghai, had effected the merger of the two Baptist churches "on his own responsibility" in Canton.After talking with some of the Chinese members of what had been Pearcy's church, Whilden wrote the board that Roberts had convinced Pearcy's members that to merge churches of the same demonination in the same city not only was American custom, but Pearcy had agreed to it. These two deliberate misrepresentations by Roberts--first, that any Baptist church can be merged with another without its members' consent, and second, that Pearcy agreed to it-- confirmed Whilden's conclusion "that Mr. Roberts is a man who never scruples to tell a falsehood, if any particular object is to be gained by it. Furthermore, Whilden charged, after Roberts merged the two churches "he then burned up the records of Brother Pearcy's church."75 If these charges Whilden made against Roberts to the board gave its members in Richmond pause to wonder about Roberts' Christian character, Whilden's next letter was an even more serious indictment. The newer missionary had gone out to Canton without any foreknowledge of Roberts' former difficulties with boards and fellow missionaries. In fact, "his impressions received from Mr. Roberts' published letters, were strongly in his f a v o r . "76 "I am sickened when I compare what Mr. Roberts has written in the Journal, and in other papers, with what I found to be the case on my arrival in Canton," Whilden wrote.77 What so distressed Whilden was Roberts' duplicity in the way he Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 recorded Chinese contributions to the Canton Missionary Society in order to make it appear that they supported his work generously. In fact, most of the "Chinese” contri butions were made by Roberts and Gutzlaff under the separate characters of their Chinese names. These three serious complaints could not be ignored by the board. Roberts had in the meantime found a young lady from a good family in Kentucky and had married her in a ceremony conducted by the Rev. W. C. Buck, his longtime supporter, on December 7, 1 8 4 9 . Notwithstanding his recent nuptials, the board recalled Roberts to Richmond in March, 18 50, immediately after receiving the incriminating letters from Whilden and Gayle. After several conferences, Roberts admitted having been wrong and promised to reform. The board considered dismissing him from missionary service. It had doubts about him that "arose not only from the difficulties continually occurring with him, but also from a personal acquaintance with his whole spirit and bearing." It was finally decided to give him another chance because he was acclimated, was to some extent acquainted with the language, was prepared to be useful at least as a distributor of the Scriptures and religious tracts, that he had married a judicious lady, whose influence might correct his objectionable peculiarities, and especially that he appeared to be penitent and promised an amendment of spirit and behavior.80 Roberts * treatment of Chun was discussed with him, but no formal written report or resolution was made about it. The board did adopt a three-part resolution that continued him as its missionary, ordered him to effect a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 reconciliation with Whilden or operate separately from the Canton Mission, and required that he "bring his [Uet-tung] mission premises under the direction of the Board" or get rid of them. He was told privately that a repetition of his indiscretions would result in his dismissal. It may have been coincidental that, while Roberts, having requested that a select committee find a female who would go to Canton as his assitant and wife, was in the United States, Harriet A. Baker from Powhatan County, Virginia was interviewed and selected to go to Canton and begin missionary work among Chinese g i r l s . 82 she sailed to China in March, 1850, on board the same ship as the Robertses. They arrived in July, and later that year the three of them took lodgings in the home of the Rev. James G. Bridgman, a cousin of Elijah C. Bridgman. Both were missionaries of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and connected with the Chinese Repository.83 Before and during Roberts' trip to the United States, Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and his followers were spreading their new religion vigorously. Unknown to Roberts or to most Chinese outside Kuang-hsi, the Taiping movement was gathering strength, and in the hills of south China rebellion began to seethe. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. RELIGION BECOMES REBELLION Roberts did not believe Hung had been "saved," and so baptism, the outward sign of that inward grace, was withheld. It cannot be lcnown whether Hung was spiritually ready to become a Christian and follow the course that Roberts had foreseen for him. Because of Hun g ’s literary training and natural bearing, Roberts had, within a week of Hung’s arrival in Canton, predicted: "It will not be long until they [Hsiu-ch'uan and Jen-kan] are added to the church [i.e., baptized]. Then the gospel will be preached in their native village. . ."84 Without baptism Hung had no chance to earn a living as a native preacher. And his "disappointment was perhaps as great as his failures in the civil service examinations."^ The series of failures--first as a candidate for a literary degree and later as a candidate for baptism--had their effect on Hung. "Being unable to make a name [for himself], he proceeded to study religion; studying religion unsuccessfully, without a way to make a living, he began to O £ rebel." Roberts put it more positively: "an all-wise Providence" guided Hung’s steps. Had he gained his literary degree, to become a mandarin under the Tartar rule would have been his highest aim; had he been baptized, to become an assistant preacher under his foreign teacher was the object in view; but now how widely different his present p o s i t i o n . 87 It is not unreasonable under the circumstances to suppose that had Hung not gone to Roberts, he still might 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 have established his Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace on the ideas he had gleaned from the Christian tracts. Having to end his study with Roberts, he was not admitted into the church and could not therefore receive ordination. Had he become a convert, assistant, and later a native Christian preacher, it is less likely that he would have become a rebel. After he rejoined Feng Yun-shan at Thistle Mountain in the summer of 1847, Hung resolved to use "the preaching of his religious experiences and ideas. . . to realize his political aspirations." The "demons" he had to fight, besides idols and evil spirits, had by this time come to include "the Manchus and their supporters who had misled the people, and the movement thus took on a rebellious character. Some of the writing Hung did at Thistle Mountain, amid his growing band of followers in the Society of God Worshippers, alludes to historical Chinese heroes. Hung drew from history the moral that "failure or success had depended in the past upon whether or not God’s precepts had been followed.Another author draws a deeper meaning from the revolutionary use of history: Chinese rebels--even chiliastic ones--were never entirely free from history. Historical consciousness helped them rebel, but it also drew them back into a fixed present. And their leaders, committed to the same kind of eternal return, continuously acted from mixed motives. Perhaps in no other culture’s moments of ecstatic rebellion is it so difficult for the historian to distinguish messianic self-conviction from charlatanic self-service. 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 How much of Hung’s Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was "messianic self-conviction" and how much was "charlatanic self-service," is difficult to determine. Hung’s initial conceptions of Christianity were gained from his own attempts to make sense out of Liang Fa’s tracts. These tracts contained neither the entire Bible nor a clear exposition of Christian doctrine. Hung studied with Roberts for only two months, hardly enough time for him to master the intricacies of Christian t h e o l o g y . ^2 Nonetheless, scholars who have studied the Taiping documents and programs have concluded that the Christian ideas, writings, and practices to which Hung was exposed during his stay with Roberts were reflected in the Taiping religion. Hung first saw a Chinese translation of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, when he studied with Roberts, who also gave him tracts to read, at least four of which Roberts had written.94 Roberts may also have given Hung a translation of the Doxology, since the Taiping version of it was more similar to the Baptist version than to those used by other denominations.®^* The constitution of Roberts' Uet-tung Chapel--the only Christian church Hung ever attended--prohibited opium smoking, lying, and gambling, and bound members to observe the Sabbath, to pray daily, and to love each other as brothers. "The strict moral overtones of the [Uet-tung] constitution are reflected in the Taiping version of the Ten Commandments, which they adopted as a code of behavior."®^ Roberts, true to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 denominational doctrine, insisted that the Chinese character used to translate the word "baptize” carry the connotation of immersion. Article I of the Uet-tung Constitution declares: "Whosoever believes in Jesus and is baptized (by immersion) may become a member.” The Taipings used the same character to convey this meaning that Roberts and Gutzlaff did.97 And Roberts' equality of treatment for n o female worshippers may have impressed Hung to do the same. ° These similarities between Taiping ideas and Christianity suggest that Roberts had a lingering influence on Hung Hsiu-ch’uan. It is clear, however, that Hung's interpretation of "Gospel to Save the World" ("Good Words for Exhorting the Age") by Liang Fa remained the source for most of the Christian elements in Taiping thought and practice.99 These tracts left largfe gaps that Hung and other leaders had to fill if they were to produce a complete religious, political, social, and economic system. And such a complete system was essential if the Taipings were to replace the traditional Chinese system they were determined to overthrow. ^-90 Neither Hung nor his trusted lieutenants could fully divest themselves of the deeper, more ingrained aspects of their Chinese culture, and these were reflected as well in the new Taiping system. Two eminent scholars on the Taiping movement summarize this Chinese-Christian synthesis. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 Hung Hsiu-ch/uan tried to sinicize Christianity. He took some Christian ideas from his limited knowledge and combined them with Chinese traditions, religion, and ethics in order to suit his own purposes. By relating Christianity to the ideas and beliefs with which his people were familiar and retaining the cardinal principles of Chinese life, such as filial piety, loyalty, and the five relationships, he made it accept able to his followers.101 And from the other scholar: Truly indigenous in character, Hung developed his theological notions into a family system instead of a sacerdotalism and ecclesiasticism such as existed in western Christendom.102 Hung, it appears, was concerned to shape his religion--and indeed all the aspects of the Taiping program-- to meet the conditions he encountered, as he perceived them. If this is so, it helps explain why he stubbornly resisted suggestions from missionaries to bring his ideas more closely in line with orthodox Christianity. 103 ^ n(j p U t s into perspective a remark made by his cousin, Jen-kan: Siu-tsuen [Hsiu-ch'uan] often used to praise the doctrines of Christianity, but, added he, "Too much patience and humility do not suit our present times, for therewith it would be impossible to manage this perverted generation."104 The period from summer 1847 to late 1850, when the movement acquired a more military and rebellious character, was the time during which Hung worked out and wrote down his programs. These programs were first put into practice by the Society of God Worshippers. Their "worship God" services were an adapation of services Hung had participated in at Roberts' c h a p e l . 105 a major part of their program stemmed directly from Hung's vision. God Worshippers, having Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 increased in number to about 10,000 by mid-1849, were sent to villages to smash idols, temples, and shrines. They also attempted to coerce people to join their ranks. Such activities raised the opposition of the local gentry and officials. They were alarmed by the God Worshippers* iconoclasm. Heterodox belief challenged the body of Confucian principles on which their elite status rested; it could not be tolerated. "In defending the social order against the Taiping attack, the gentry had no choice but to defend the dynasty as well."106 Feng Yun-shan was arrested several times as the supposed leader of the God Worshippers and charged with iconoclasm. Hung did not remain at Thistle Mountain all the time. When both were absent, the Society was leaderless. During these intervals a natural leader emerged: Yang Hsiu-ch’ing ;j|: ], a Hakka with little formal education, but who "became one of the most able leaders of the Taiping R e b e l l i o n . "107 Hung was, for the God Worshippers, their mystical leader whose words--written and spoken--were their inspiration. Feng Yun-shan was the organizational genius who gave form to the spirit. Yang Hsiu-ch*ing*s major contributions were his wealth of ideas and plans, his military talent, and his expertise in commanding and controlling p e o p l e . 108 Economic and political conditions in South China continued to deteriorate. The governor of Kuang-hsi did little to stem the rising tide of banditry that followed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 bad harvests in the late 184Q*s. God Worshippers, mainly Hakkas, supported and protected each other and in time were called on to protect other Hakkas from Punti-led gangs that roamed almost at will. When clashes occurred, Punti landowners and gentry appealed to magistrates or organized their own militia groups. The God Worshippers were forced to adopt at least "a semimilitary organization."109 There were, in addition, avaricious petty officials who extorted and oppressed the peasants. Unable to protect themselves from bandits, political corruption, and the economic conditions that were grinding them down, many peasants turned to the God Worshippers as their last hope for survival.110 In early 1850, one of the leaders of the God Worshippers was imprisioned and tortured to death on a minor charge. Hung’s forces had been enlarged by former bandits, pirates, and others driven to the hills by Kuang- tung forces with British naval support. He planned an uprising and waited for the right moment to begin his campaign. During the summer Hung and Feng sent for their families so they would not be vulnerable to government reprisals. Hung then sent out a general mobilization order to all branches of the Society for a "collective camping" at Chin-t'ien , a village near Thistle Mountain.111 Later that year a series of minor incidents between God Worshippers and local troops demonstrated to government officials the potential trouble of continuing to ignore them. A major battle took place on January 1, 1851, at Chin-t’ien, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176 and the God Worshippers were victorious. Killed in the battle were the Manchu general, a civil official and several gentry members. The seriousness of the incident marked Hung and his followers as rebels. On January 11, 1851, Hung gathered his followers and solemnly proclaimed the T'ai-p’ing T ’ien-kuo and himself as Heavenly King.I12 In the first year, Hung issued edicts that estab lished the fundamental organization and program of his kingdom. The army was constituted along lines prescribed in the ancient Chou-l-i a s i m , The Rites of Chou. The political organization was combined with the military system in a "highly centralized, disciplined system of govern ment. "H 3 a common treasury was established, both as a practical means of supplying the needs of a large mobile group and as an ideological reinforcement of the special character of the Taipings as a large family of equal brothers and sisters.And members were enjoined to observe five rules of discipline: (1) obey absolutely the Ten Commandments and orders of the military officers; (2) keep men and women, though equal, completely separate; (3) refrain from harassing the civilian population; (4) adhere to public spiritedness by not holding private property and by accepting the authority of their superiors; and(5) dedicate one's whole mind and body to unite with the strength of others in order to be an efficient military force.^ 5 After successfully defending themselves against a lethargic seige by government troops for eight months, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 Taipings broke out and captured the city of Yung^an [^J< ijp] , about sixty miles away, in September. Here they remained for six months. They used the time to gain new recruits and replenish their supplies of food, weapons, and materials. There were now some 40,000 Taipings, but only about half this number were combatants. Hung also elaborated on his political administration by creating an imperial court. He called himself the Heavenly King (T’ien-wang) and desig nated his five chief subordinates as kings [Eastern, Western, Southern, Northern and Assistant) with administrative and military responsibilities. Yang Hsiu-ch'ing, the Eastern King [Tung-wang ^ ], was superior to the other four and was concomitantly prime minister, commander-in-chief, and commanding general of the central army. High officials began to wear uniforms similar to those of the Ming Dynasty. All Taiping men were forbidden to shave the front of their pates, as the Manchus required. Propaganda proved to be a useful tool of recruitment. The "four rewards," promised to those who: (1) surrendered with their followers, (2) supplied the Taipings with military information, (3) offered pro visions, or (4) helped carry ammunition served as an effective inducement to bandit gangs and disaffected members of secret societies. The "four punishments" promised decapitation to those who: (1) aided or abetted government forces, (2) organized opposition to the Taipings, [3) raped women, or (4) were murderers or thieves. These threats, widely publicized, won them sympathy and recruits. A new Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 calendar, devised by Feng YunT-shan, was adopted to remove the adverse effects on fighting morale when battles were fought on days considered unlucky on the old calendar. It may have been during this period that the Taiping version of the San-^tzu Ching [^1 was written as a primer of Taiping religion and values.^ 8 During the six months that the Taipings were strengthening their military and political position at Yung-an, imperial forces around them were increasing their strength. On April 1852, the Taipings broke through a weak sector in the beseiging forces and, after failing to capture Kuei-lin [%% , capital of Kuang-hsi, moved morth into Hu-nan. In fierce battles, two of the major leaders of the Taipings, Feng Yung-shan, the Southern King, and the Western King, were killed. Failing to capture Ch'ang-sha , capital of Hu-nan, the Taipings captured several less important cities, sometimes with the assistance of secret societies who created disturbances that demoralized defending forces. They moved into Hupeh province and captured Han-yang [;^ fig] and Hankow [Han-k'ou : % < 2 1 in December 1852, and in the following month captured their first provincial capital, Wuchapg [Wu-ch' ang ^ During this campaign, a document characterized as "a formal declaration of war" against the Manchus and the Ch'ing Dynasty was issued and disseminated widely. It included an appeal to scholars for their support. Two subsequent declarations elaborated the basic Taiping desire for an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. all-put Chinese war to exterminate the Manchus. Reiterated in the last two documents were the Taiping theme of the brotherhood of all men: "All under heaven are one family, i ?n and all within the four seas brethren." After pausing for a month in the triple cities, the Taipings followed the Yangtze [Yang-tzu Sy ] River to Nanking. In fairly easy steps they reached their objective in early March, 1853. The seige of Nanking was successful after only eleven days; on March 19, Nanking, the Southern capital in the last years of the Ming Dynasty, was taken and renamed T'ien-ching [^. "^C] , the Heavenly Capital. 121 It had taken just over two years after their uprising at Chin-t'ien in January 1851 for the Taipings to capture Nanking. Their rapid advance was made possible by at least four strengths, as one scholar has observed: Cl) an effective ideology, which combined political, racial, and religious elements; (2) a sound military organization, which "combined the virtues of unified command with flexible formation," and which resulted in "a strong esprit de corps" (3) strict discipline, which upheld the organization and good morale; and (4) good strategy and tactics, which were responsible for their victories and for avoiding probable defeats. Besides these positive attributes of the Taipings, they were aided by corruption in the Manchu political and military structure, by widespread famine, by the depreda tions of bandits, and by the activities of secret societies.122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. References ^The major works are Franz Michael, The Tailing Rebellion (3 vols.; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966); Jen Yu-wen, The Tailing Revolutionary Movement (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973); Ssu-yii Teng, The Taiping Rebellion and the Western Powers: A Comprehensive Survey (London: Oxford University Press, 1971); and Vincent Y. C. Shih, The Taiping Ideology: Its Sources3 Interpretations, and Influences (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972). Extensive bibliographies in the books by Jen, Teng, and Shih catalog the hundreds of studies that have been written about this major upheaval. Several historiographical essays on works dealing with the Taiping Rebellion are note worthy. Franz Michael, "T'ai-p'ing T'ien-kuo," Journal of Asian Studies, 17.1:66-76, November, 1957, reviews four Chinese Communist works and concludes that their ideological bias distorts their interpretations. Vincent Y. C. Shih, "Interpretations of the Taiping Tienkuo by Noncommunist Writers,"Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 10.3:248-257, May, 1951, surveys Chinese works and reports less ideological but nonetheless divergent views on the degree to which the Taipings should be considered rebels or revolutionaries. In Chapter 12 of his Taiping Ideology, Shih presents interpretations of the Taipings by Chinese and foreign authors in the nineteenth century. In Chapter 13 he does the same for the twentieth century. And a succinct summary of four major interpretations of the Taipings appears in Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr., Strangers at the Gate: Social Disorder in South China, 1839-1861 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), pp. 5-6. ^Michael, The Taiping Rebellion3 p. 5-7. (Hereafter in this chapter all references to Michael will be from this work, unless otherwise indicated.) 3 Chung-li Chang, The Chinese Gentry (Seattle: Univer sity of Washington Press, 1967), pp. 37-51. He also explains that there were other, "irregular," routes to officialdom besides the "regular" route of the competitive, literary examinations. These other means were by a military career, by purchasing lower degrees, or by grants of titles by inheritance. See pp. 8-32. 4Michael, "Introduction" to Chang, xx. ^Kung-chuan Hsiao, Rural China: Imperial Control in the Nineteenth Century (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967), pp. 467-471. 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 Shih, The Taiping Ideology, pp. 471-472. (Here after in this chapter all references to Shih will be to this work unless otherwise indicated.) ^Hsiao, pp. 142, 200-201; Michael, pp. 4, 10; Shih, pp. 477-484; and Li Chien-nung, The Political History of China, 1840-1928 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1967), pp. 47-48. g Michael, pp. 4, 9-10, lists this factor and dis cusses it before the others, but he does not call it the most important one. Jen, p. 3, believes political corrup tion in the Liang-Kuang [*xjl/ /j^t Kuang-tung and Kuang-hsi] was "a greater spur to the Taiping uprising than Manchu brutality and suppression." 9Shih, pp. 474-475. "^Hsiao, pp. 468-470. 1:lTeng, p. 20. See Li, pp. 49-50, for some glaring examples of inept administration. 12 Teng, pp. 20-21. While the Ch ’ing Dynasty was beginning to stagnate, Europe was beginning to move forward in many areas. One area in which Europe moved ahead of China during this period was in the natural sciences, particularly mathematics, astronomy, physics, botany, and chemistry. See Joseph Needham, "The Roles of Europe and China in the Evolution of Oecuminical Science," Journal of Asian History3 1.1:3-32, 1967. 1 ^ Teng, pp. 9-15; Jen, pp. 3-4. An excerpt from this proclamation of 1852 appears in Teng, p. 83. 14 Teng, pp. 15-17; see also Michael, pp. 4, 12-13; and Li, pp. 50-51. 15 Wakeman, p. 127. 16Shih, pp. 478-479. 17 'Michael, p. 18. 18, n Jen, p. 1. "^Michael, p. 19; see also Shih, pp. 342-343. 20 Arthur W. Hummel (ed,).» Eminent Chinese of the C h fing Period (1644-1912] (1-vol, reprint; Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 362-363. See also Teng, p. 19. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 ^The interpretation of Chinese history in terms of the operation of the dynastic cycle is perhaps best explained in Edwin 0. Reischauer and John K. Fairbank, East Asia: The Great Tradition [Vol. 1 of A History of East Asian Civiliza tion] (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, I960), pp. 114-118. 22 See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the differences between the Chinese and the Westerners in their motives for trade. 23Li, pp. 43-46. 24. . C1 Li, p. 51. 23Teng, pp. 23-24, 29-30; Hsiao, pp. 498-500; Li, p. 52; and Michael, pp. 17-18. 26 Michael, pp. 4, 10-13. 2?Shih, pp. 477-484. 28 Michael, pp. 14-16; Teng, p. 29. ^Michael, p. 18. 30 Wakeman, p. 126. ■^Quoted in Li, pp. 49, 53. 32 Teng, pp. 30-32. 33 Li, p. 51. 34Shih, p. 473. 35 Jen, pp. 6-7; see also Teng, p. 6. Hummel, pp. 361-365. The major primary source for details on Hung's early life is the translated biography, written by his close associate and kinsman, Hung Jen-Kan [;£ sf , that appears in Theodore Hamberg, The Visions of Hung-Siu-Tshuen3 and Origin of the Kwang-si Insurrection (Hong Kong: China Mail Office, 1854; reprinted, Peiping: Yenching University Library, 1935). Major works on the Taiping Rebellion that include Hung's early life and career are Teng, pp. 34-45; Jen, pp. 10-28; and Michael, pp. 21-31. Many other more general works provide short sketches of his early life, e.g., Li, pp. 54-55; and Frederic Wakeman, Jr., The Fall of Imperial China (New York: The Free Press, 1975), pp. 143-146. And there is one article of particular note, P. M. Yap, "The Mental Illness of Hung Hsiu-ch'iian, Leader of the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 13.3:287-304, May, 1954. (In this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 section, only those factual details not generally shared by most of these sources will be cited as to source. Quotations and interpretations of course will be attributed.) 37 Chang, pp. 4-5. See also pp. 79-80 for his discus sion of the special quota for Hakkas that had been in effect since 1787. 38 There is some disagreement whether this second attempt was made in 1836, 1833, or 1834. See Teng, p. 36; and Jen, p. 13. Hummel, p. 361, gives 1836 as the year, and the other two sources admit that this year is possibly correct. •^The English translation of the title is similar in virtually all Western sources, but a slightly different rendering seems not only possible but more instructive. is similar in meaning to the word "gospel." 5C in Mathewsr Chinese-English dictionary (rev. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 235, is rendered, "tracts; writings to reform the world." Since the tracts contained excerpts of the Bible translated by Medhurst, sermons by Milne, as well as testimony by Liang Fa [?£ ] > the first ordained Chinese Protestant convert, a better rendering of their collective title might be "Gospel to Save the World." "Maxims to persuade the world" is Eugene P. Boardman's rendition. See his "Christian Influence Upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 10.2:123, February, 1951. 40 Michael, p. 22, gives a three-part rationale for Hung's failure: The examinations were difficult, there were many--sometimes a thousand or more--aspirants, and the number selected was usually small, perhaps a dozen. The Hakka quota Chang refers to allowed one in twenty to be selected "in order to show encouragement" to this sometimes troublesome minority. A 5% chance, Chang notes, was better than the normal proportion of 1-21. See p. 80, and n.33. 41 Some sources, e.g., Teng, p. 37, accept Hung Jen- kan's account to Hamberg that Hud-hsiu's condition lasted forty days. Michael, on the other hand, agrees with Jen, which he cites, p. 23, n.3, that the illness lasted about four days. A duration identical to Christ's forty days of fasting appears contrived. The most logical explanation for a forty-day period of Hung's condition is Yap's conclusion that the stupor state lasted only a few days, but the twilight state, during which the degree of his lucidity varied, could have extended over a month or more. See Yap, p. 298. 42 The substance of this account and the quoted phrases are from Hamberg, pp. 9-11. According to Yap, pp. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 296-298, the combined social and personal stress under which Hung was acting produced an "acute psychotic illness" best described as a wish-fulfilling twilight state during which all his frustrations and failures were fantasized as successes. 43 a - Jen, p. 19. Hung's decision to use i. because of the juxtaposed meaning of its elements is surprising for an educated Chinese. Though the top element is usually written A , the radical is actually number 11,A , "to enter", not number 9,A> "man." 44 Jen, pp. 20, 22. For another evaluation of the tracts, see Hamberg, p. 22. 4 5Jen,t p. „22. ^Teng, pp. 41-42, asserts that Hung "had not yet reached the crossroads." Jen, p. 24, believes that the trip to Kuang-hsi in 1844 "was to look for a suitable place for making preparations for the uprising." See following footnote for a resolution of this disagreement. 47 See Teng, pp. 42-45, and Jen, pp. 26-27, for a discussion of these early works. Though Jen's section is entitled "Hung's Early Ideas on Religion and Revolution," he. is forced to admit, p. 27, that it is "impossible so far to determine just when, where, and how the idea of an ethnic conflict first germinated in Hung's mind." The writings, discussed in more detail by Teng, do not indicate more than Hung's profound conviction in his destiny to establish a new religion based on a higher concept of righteousness. Thus Teng has better support for his con clusion that Hung's revolutionary ideas evolved later. 4 8 Jen., p. 32. Teng, p. 48, discloses that the name of the organization can be traced to a phrase in Liang Fa's tracts. 49 Jen., p. 34. Michael, p. 29, adds that Feng's organizational plan reflected patterns in use by secret societies of that time. 50 See Chapter 2. ^See Chapter 3. 52 Hamberg, pp. 25-30. Teng, pp. 45-46, cogently observes that had Hung already decided to mount a rebellion against the dynasty it is unlikely he would have gone to study with Roberts. Jen-kan, whose account in Hamberg's work still remains the major primary source on this episode, gives no hint of any ulterior motive Hsiu-ch'uan may have Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 had, such as going to see if there were perhaps secret powers or knowledge he could appropriate to enhance his chances of success. Even Jen yu-wen, convinced as he is of Hung’s earlier determination to rebel, takes Jen-kan’s account at face value and does not speculate on Hsiu-ch’uan’s motives for studying with Roberts. See Jen, p. 28. 53 Issachar J. Roberts, MTae Ping Wang," PutnamTs Magazine, 8:380, October, 1856. 54 J. C. Cheng, Chinese Sources for the Taiping Rebellion, 1850-1864 ( H o n g Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1963), p. 2; see also Alexander Wylie, Memorials of Protes tant Missionaries to the Chinese (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Press, 1867), p. 95. ^Margaret M. Coughlin, "Strangers in the House," (unpublished Doctor’s dissertation, University of Virginia, 1972), pp. 254-255. The quotations cited by Coughlin are from Roberts’ letter to William Buck, Canton, March 27, 1847, printed in the Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, 14.30: 118, July 29, 1847. Coughlin deserves much credit for discovering this letter. Before it was brought to light, scholars had assumed that Roberts took no particular notice of Hsiu-ch’uan until he found out, in 1852, upon reading the account Jen-kan had given Hamberg, that the leader of the rebellion then raging in South China was his former pupil. Teng accepts Hamberg’s word (p. 32) that this was the case. Hamberg may have been peeved with Roberts for rushing an abstract of Jen-kan*s account into print in the Chinese and General Missionary Gleaner in early 1853. Hamberg's work was not published until 1854. See Teng, p. 184. Another work by Teng, Historiography of the Taiping Rebellion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 115, states that of the two early accounts of the life of Hung Hsiu-ch’uan published in English--Roberts' and Hamberg’s-- the latter was more complete and informative. 56 Roberts, pp. 382-383. Hamberg, pp. 31-32, gives Jen-kan's account of how Roberts' assistants duped Hsiu- ch'uan into asking for employment. Jen-kan told Hamberg that two of Roberts' assistants were jealous of Hung who was better educated and who, if baptized, might replace them. They persuaded Hung to insist on a small stipend, and Hung, running low on funds, fell into the trap. He was unaware how much Roberts disliked "rice Christians," but the assistants knew about this side of their employer's nature. This explanation for Hung’s abrupt departure is also given in Teng, p. 46, and Jen, p. 28. Another work by Jen gives a similar explanation based on an account of another of Roberts’ assistants, the one who invited Hung to come to Canton. Cited in Yuan Chung Teng, "Reverend Issachar Jacox Roberts and the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186 Studies, 23.1:56, November, 1963. Y. C. Teng makes the observation, p. 67, that both Hung and Roberts were "two unusually angular and uncompromising personalities. . . who failed to understand one another fully." It seems probable that Hung knew Cantonese, which Roberts had studied, in addition to the Hakka dialect. Roberts knew at least some of the latter, as he had reported that he had preached in the Hakka dialect. See Roberts' Journal, Hong Kong, April 2, 1843, ABFMS. 57 S. Y. Teng, p. 46. 58_ See Chapter 3. 59 Jen, pp. 29-33. S. Y. Teng, p. 49, and Michael, p. 31, put the number of God Worshippers at this time at around 2000. ^Roberts, p. 383, wrote that he did not know what had become of Hung "until informed in 18 52, through the report of Hung-jin [Jen-kan], that he was the leader of the great revolutionary movement which commenced in Kwang-Si." It was Hamberg, of course, that brought Jen-kan’s story to Roberts’ attention. See nn.54-55. ^Quoted in H. A. Tupper, The Foreign Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention, (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society; and Richmond, Va.: Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1880), p. 86. Another reason for Roberts' lack of friends may have been because he was once again engaging in saddlery--an odorous trade--and preaching to lepers. See Tupper, p. 8 6; also Winfred Hervey, The Story of the Baptist Missions in Foreign Lands (rev. and enl.; St. Louis: C. R. Barns Publishing Co., 1892), p. 523. f\ 9 Roberts to Taylor, Canton, August 18, 1848, SBFMB; emphasis in the original. 63 Coughlin, pp. 99-100; Tupper, p. 87. 64 Roberts to Taylor, Canton, November 24, 1848, SBFMB. ^Francis Johnson, the scholarly missionary who was sent out to Canton by Southern Baptists after the denomina tion divided in 1845, lasted only about a year. Shuck, who was sustained by his faithful and energetic Henrietta, had advised Johnson to find a wife before coming to China. Johnson even asked the board’s secretary to recommend a suitable mate, but none was found. "One wonders whether he might not have remained in China if he had succeeded in finding a wife to take with him," speculates Coughlin, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 p. 102. Shuck had left China not long after Henrietta died. ^Roberts to Taylor, Canton, August 30, 1847, SBFMB; emphasis in the original. 67 Coughlin, p. 104. Roberts had also asked in his August 30 letter that he be allowed to return home to conduct his own search if the committee was unsuccessful. 68 Tupper, p. 87. 69 Since this Chun was described as a "young Chinaman," he was most likely not the same Chun that was Roberts’ first convert from his Chekchu days. 70 Southern Baptist Convention, "Report of the Committee on the Case of I. J. Roberts," (part of the Pro ceedings of the annual meeting held in Montgomery, Alabama, 1855), p. 80. (Hereafter this document will be cited as SBC Report.) 71 SBC Report, p. 80. 72 SBC Report, p. 80. The record is sparse concerning any reasons for this altercation between Roberts and Chun. The SBC Report's excerpts from Gayle's letter omitted any it may have contained. The general character of Roberts is perhaps the best clue. 73 SBC Report, p. 78-79; emphasis in the report. Whilden includes, in his quotations from Roberts' paper, lines that show the latter felt $50.00 was "fully enough" for an "extortion of the officers." Moreover, Roberts considered his deacon's suggestion to report only half the amount of the sale price "an evidence of shrewdness, and as he said it was very common to do so, among those who get deeds sealed, I concurred. . ." 74 SBC Report, p. 79. Coughlin, p. 100, quotes Roberts on the merger: "Whatever may have been our diver sities of opinion, the mission is now perfectly one in mind and spirit and body too!" 75 SBC Report, p. 79. One is tempted to wonder whether the other church's records were burned in order to eliminate documentary evidence of Pearcy's disapproval of the merger, 76 SBC Report, p. 78. 77 SBC Report, p. 79. 78 SBC Report, p. 79. Whilden forwarded the annual Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 report of the chapel's finances for 1845 showing that of $460 collected from Chinese contributors, $339 had come from Roberts and Gutzlaff. This report is also found in Roberts1 file, SBFMB, and a careful study of it reveals more duplicity than the Baptist Convention was told about. Under Chinese & "Lo," viz., Roberts, subscribed $39 and donated $100; •’How" [Hsiao], also Roberts, donated $4,50, "Gaehan," viz., Gutzlaff, subscribed $200; and "Kwo" [Kuo-Jj$], also Gutzlaff, subscribed $12 and donated $.50. (According to Hummel, p. 851, Gutzlaff's Chinese name wasjfji^f Roberts addressed his series of "Chun" letters to dutzlaff as "Gaehan." See Chapter 3, h. 123.) Subscriptions totaled $288.65; of this amount $251 came from Roberts and Gutzlaff. Donations totaled $171.86; of this amount Roberts and Gutzlaff gave $105. The total from these two "Chinese" donors comes to $356. If the amounts from "How" and "Kwo" are subtracted, the result is $339--just what the Convention was told that they had contributed to create the false impression that Chinese Christians were supporting Roberts' program to a far greater extent than was actually the case. Aside from the contributions from Roberts and Gutzlaff, the largest amount given by a Chinese was $6.55, and it was to be subscribed over a thirteen-month period by Chow [Chou jf§ ], one of Roberts* assistants. The trustees of the Canton Mission Society were headed by P. S. Forbes, the American consul, and included, besides Roberts (also its "general agent"), I. M. Bull, R. H. Hunter, Gideon Nye, Jr., and Dr. Thomas Hunter. The two Hunters were British. Other donors' names read like a directory of Canton business leaders. Warren Delano, Jr., J. N. Alsop Griswold, G. D. Nye, and R. M. Olyphant are listed among the American supporters, as are Roberts’ mother and brother. Besides the Hunters, British contributors include the consul, Francis C. Macgregor, David Jardine, and Mrs. Mary Gutzlaff. One of the three German supporters is listed as "C G "; Charles Gutzlaff, perhaps? (There is a "Mr. G " in with the American contributors too.) The total amount collected from all sources is $3,241,85. It would be impossible to discover how much of this total actually came from Roberts and Gutzlaff, considering the number of donors listed just as "A Friend." 79 Tupper, p. 87. Roberts had met Miss Virginia Young, of East Hickam, "an estimable and elegant woman," in September. Her father, John Young, Esq., was the Clerk of Woodford County Court. 80SBC Report, p. 81. 8^SBC Report, p. 81. 8 2 Coughlin, p. 106. She also believes the select committee considered Miss Baker for Roberts' helpmeet, but Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 wanted him to meet her before sending her out to China. Hence the board granted him a furlough for that purpose. Roberts, not always the most predictable of men, met and married someone else. The board felt Miss Baker was too promising a candidate not to send to the mission field and proceeded to appoint her to the Canton Mission. Coughlin also thinks Miss Baker was the first unmarried female missionary to China. 83 Coughlin, pp. 107-108. 84 Roberts to Buck, Canton, March 27, 1847, printed in the Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, 14.30:118, July 29, 1847. The complete text of this letter appears as Appendix VIII of Coughlin’s dissertation; "Strangers in the House." 8 5 S. Y. Teng, p. 46. Teng's judgment echoes Roberts’: "At the time he requested baptism," Roberts wrote in 1856, "he felt disappointed at not being received and baptized; as he had before been as to obtaining a literary degree." Roberts, p. 38 3. 8 6 S. Y. Teng, "T- ai-p'ing T'ien-kuo ohih hsing-wang yu Mei-kuo ohih kuan-hsi, n ["The Rise and Fall of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and Its Relation to the United States,"] The Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 3.1:2, September, 1970. 87 Roberts, p. 383. 88 Michael, p. 31. 89 Michael, p. 32. 90 Frederic Wakeman, Jr., "Rebellion and Revolution: The Study of Popular Movements in Chinese History,” Journal of Asian Studies, 36.2:211, February, 1977. 91 S. Y. Teng, The Taiping Rebellion and the Western Powersj pp. 38-40, gives a good description of their contents and notes that Liang Fa "was not a well-educated person." (Hereafter in tnis chapter, all citations of S. Y Teng will be references to this work.) 9 2 Tyler Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia (reprint; New York: Barnes 8 Noble, Inc., 1963), pp. 208-209, says that this short stay may not have allowed Roberts to have much of an impact on Hung’s faith, but scholars who have made a study of Taiping documents are less willing to dis miss Roberts’ influence. See below. 93 Eugene P. Boardman, Christian Influences upon the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 Ideology of the Tailing Rebellion, 1851-1864 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952), pp. 43-44. The translation Hung saw may have been the one prepared by Walter H. Medhurst and Charles Gutzlaff. 94 Boardman, pp. 46, 50 n. 20, 14,4-145, lists these: "New Testament of the Saviour Jesus" [$£ $ if5 S-] (Medhurst*s translation of the Gospel of St. Mark witl^Roberts' notes), "The Holy Book of Jesus" [Jfj5 (four short pieces), "The Religion [Teaching] of Truth [£} i and "Catechism in (Macao) Dialect" %. ] See also Wylie, pp. 96-97. ** 95 Boardman, pp. 72-73; 96, n.103. 96 Y. C. Teng, p. 58. A copy of the constitution is in Roberts' file, SBFMB. 97 J. B. Littell, "Missionaries and Politics in China--The Taiping Rebellion," Political Science quarterly, 43.4:590, December, 1928. 98 Boardman, Christian Influence, p. 27. See also Shih, pp. 60-73 for a discussion of female equality under the Taipings. 99 Shih, Chapter VII; Jen, pp. 154-165; Boardman, "Christian Influence," passim; and S. Y. Teng, 116-122. ^^Shih, Part One (Chapters I-VI), provides a detailed exposition of Taiping ideology; in Chapters VIII-X he discusses sources other than Christianity that found expression in Taiping ideology. ■^^S. Y. Teng, p. 120. 102 Jen Yu-wen, "New Sidelights on the Taiping Rebellion," Tien-hsia Monthly, 1.4:367, November, 1935. 103 Jen, The Taiping Revolutionary Movement, p. 22. (Hereafter in this chapter references to Jen will be to this work.) 104 Hamberg, p. 43. ^^Hamberg, pp. 35-36; see also Jen, pp. 35-36. ^^Michael, pp, 6-7; see also Jen, pp. 36-38, 40. 107S. Y. Teng, pp. 49-51, 108 S. Y. Teng, p. 51; see also Hummel (ed.), pp. 886-888, for a sketch of his life and career. Yang also Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 went into trances that, he claimed, allowed the Holy Spirit to speak to God Worshippers through him^ Though he was careful to give deference to Hung as "sovereign," Yang's source of authority was such that it did not depend upon Hung’s dispensation. Michael, p. 36, concludes that whereas Hung genuinely believed in his own visions, "Yang’s actions seem to indicate that he was playing a part." After a serious illness later, he claimed it was God’s plan for Yang to redeem believers from sickness, and he was sometimes referred to as the "redeemer from illness." See Michael, pp. 38-39. Y. Teng, pp. 56-57. See Jen, pp. 45-48, for a description of the Taiping military system. H ^ J e n , pp. 53-54. l ^ S . Y. Teng, pp. 56-58; Jen, pp. 54-55, 57. 112Jen, pp. 62-65. Hung did not proclaim himself an emperor; according to the Medhurst-Gutzlaff translation of the Bible which Hung used, God was translated as Euang Shang-ti Jr ; it would be sacrilegious to be called huang-ti [% ], the Chinese term for emperor. See S. Y. Teng, p. 69, and Shih, p. 148. See Shih, pp. 56-57 for other names or titles that could not be used because the characters were associated with the Taiping kings or other sacrosanct words. H^Michael, pp. 43-44; see also Jen, pp. 45-48. H ^ M i c h a e l , p p . 46-47. ^■•^Je: , p. 66; also S. Y. Teng, p. 69. 116S. Y. Teng, p. 75; Jen, p. 78. 117S. Y. Teng, pp. 76-77; Jen, pp. 67-70, 80-81. ■^^Michael, p. 60. 1-^S. Y. Teng, pp. 80-81, 85-88; Michael, pp. 67-69. 120S . y. Teng, pp. 81-85. One can assume that at least temporarily Manchus were to be excluded from the worldwide brotherhood proclaimed by the Taiping. 121 S. Y. Teng, pp. 89-91; Michael, pp. 69-70. The eleven-month campaign, April 5, 1852-March 19, 1853, from Yung-an to Nanking is treated in greater detail in Jen, pp. 83-118. 122S. Y. Teng, pp. 91-95. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 5 ROBERTS, AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, AND THE ARROW WAR During the initial stages of the Taiping Rebellion, most Chinese and foreigners in China were unaware either of the nature of the movement or of the rapid advances it was making against imperial opposition. Reports of an insur rection in Kuang-hsi were sporadically published, and what sounded like only another campaign against bandits excited no special interest in those turbulent times. News of a serious challenge to the dynasty gradually began to awaken the interest of the Chinese and foreigners clustered around the treaty ports. Hung Jen-kan's sketch of Hsiu-ch'uan's life written for Hamberg in 1852, provided the first information in any detail on the Taipings. When Hamberg showed Hung's story to Roberts, the latter recognized the leader of the rebellion as his former pupil. He wrote a brief account of his own part in the Christian education of Hung, which appeared in the Chinese and GenevaI Missionary Gleaner in February 1853, while the rebels were in Hu-nan and still not widely known. Roberts' article was the first English-language exposition published on the Taipings.^ Roberts' motive was more than just informing the readership of a new, albeit Christian, rebellion in China. At that time, he needed some means to vindicate himself and 192 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 his missionary efforts. Shortly after his return from the United States in 1850, he had become involved in an incident that appalled the foreign community at Canton. Partly because of this incident, the Foreign Mission Board dismissed him as its missionary. His usefulness to the Christian cause had been seriously questioned, and he seized on his • *> connection with Hung to redeem himself. ROBERTS' DISMISSAL The Robertses and Miss Harriet Baker were living with the Rev. James G. Bridgman, a missionary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Mr. Bridgman's health was failing, and on Sunday morning, December 1, 1850 he attempted suicide by cutting his throat with a razor. Roberts had gone out earlier to conduct services, and the two ladies were panic-stricken when they saw Bridgman come from his room covered with blood. He still held the razor, so they feared he might harm them also. Both Mrs. Roberts and Miss Baker locked themselves in their rooms and hastily wrote notes for help, which they sent by servants. Miss Baker's note was delivered to two American Presbyterian missionaries who went immediately to the Bridgman house, a quarter-mile from the factories. Mrs. Roberts’ note did not immediately bring back her husband, who replied in a note which the servant gave to Miss Baker. In her haste to see why he sent a note instead of coming back in person, she unfolded it (it was not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 sealed), and read it before giving it to Mrs* Roberts, who was still in her room* She gasped in surprise, Roberts had first written a verse of scripture: "Let the dead bury the dead, I much preach the gospel," He had added, "Mr. B. has enough of his own Board to attend him." Roberts soon returned, but the word of his behavior caused an uproar in the foreign community at Canton. Mr. S. W. Bonney of the American Board of Commissioners called on Roberts and questioned his disregard for the life of Bridgman--who died a few days later despite the attentions of Dr. Peter Parker--and for the safety of the two ladies under his care. Roberts then tried to shift the blame on to Miss Baker, who had forthwith moved in with another missionary couple. He accused her of improper behavior in opening a note addressed to someone else, misconstruing its contents, and slandering him. Several meetings and letters attempted to settle the matter and reconcile the two Baptist missionaries. Not until after Miss Baker had left to join the Rev. George Pearcy in Shanghai in late January, 18 51, did Roberts write her an apology that was acceptable. Pearcy had clashed with Roberts over several issues while he was at Canton, and he took up the cudgels in defense of Miss Baker's role in the incident. After hearing her side of the controversy, Pearcy wrote the Foreign Mission Board to inform them of Roberts' behavior, condemning him for ignoring the plight of his wife and Miss Baker, for the disdainful wording of his note to his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 wife, and for seeking to divert criticism from himself by- making Miss Baker seem guilty of a gross indiscretion. In an attempt to bring the incident to an amicable conclusion, Miss Baker several times apologized to Roberts for opening and reading his note to his wife. No one of the other missionaries attached any blame to Miss Baker’s actions under the circumstances. Roberts* attacks on her served only to diminish his stature in their eyes. The board received Pearcy*s letter and others from missionaries at Canton about the incident and, in light of his past indiscretions and warnings to him, summarily dis missed him. Had his actions in the Bridgman-Baker incident been the only charge against Roberts, the board no doubt would have recalled him to get his testimony before deciding whether or not to dismiss him. It had copies of letters Roberts had written to other missionaries that did not *7 agree with the facts as presented by reliable witnesses. The board also considered Roberts* deliberate misrepre sentations of his financial situation at the time he became a missionary of the Southern Baptist Convention. Although he had drawn his salary from the Baptist Board in Boston through 1845 and was receiving a salary as the general agent of the Canton Missionary Society, he wrote his supporters in the West and South in 1846 that he was "destitute and forsaken, without any certain means of pecuniary support."^ In early 1847, Roberts had written a letter to a Baptist paper in the West that complained of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 his treatment by the Foreign Mission Board* Only after this letter was published did the board receive a letter from Roberts with the same complaints. The board, therefore, had been given no opportunity to consider Roberts' grievances before adverse publicity was widely circulated.^ A particularly troublesome matter for the board had been Roberts' connection with the Canton Missionary Society. Not only did it allow him to collect and use funds independently while he was being paid by the board, his activities as its general agent detracted from the board's efforts through its Canton Mission. The specific charge was that Roberts disobeyed the board's regulation requiring "all avails of labor, and all presents made in consideration of services performed, shall be placed to the credit of the Board. . Roberts did not try to hide his connection with the Canton Missionary Society, and sometimes he appeared to flaunt it. He tried to use funds from the board's Canton Mission to repair his Uet-tung Chapel, which was owned by the Canton Missionary Society. When the other Baptist missionaries refused to allow this expenditure, Roberts appealed tc the board. The board, however, did not want to use funds to repair property it did not own nor over which it had no control. Roberts then asked the board to pay $500 per year to the Canton Missionary Society as rent for the Uet-tung Chapel, because it was the premises in which he, a Baptist missionary of the board, conducted his activities.^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 There were also the charges against Roberts made by the Rev, B, W« Whilden. Roberts had condoned the action of one of his deacons in falsely declaring to a Chinese official the purchase price of some property, probably the Uet-tung site, in order to reduce the amount of the sealing fee on the deed. Roberts had merged the two Baptist churches in Canton on his own initiative and misled the Chinese members of Pearcy's former church in order to do so. He then burned the records of Pearcy*s church, Roberts had salted the list of Chinese contributors with his and Gutzlaff’s Chinese names and amounts in order to make it appear that he enjoyed greater native support than was the case. Roberts, as has been seen, had also been abusive toward a Chinese servant brought with him to the United States in 1849.** When Roberts was called to answer some of these charges in Richmond in 1850, he had been penitent and promised "an amendment of spirit and behavior." Upon his return to Canton he seems to have forgotten his promise. He misrepresented the board's resolutions setting conditions on his continuation as its missionary. He made veiled accusations against Whilden impugning his charges, notwith standing that the board had proof of their veracity and Roberts own tearful confessions of sin and guilt. Roberts also wrote a sharp letter to the Rev. P. S. Gayle, who had brought Roberts' behavior toward A-Chun to the board's attention. Not only did he rebuke Gayle for writing to the board about a matter that Roberts said was not worthy of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 its consideration, he misrepresented the board’s action on this charge. He maintained to Gayle that he was not reproved by the board for his treatment of A^Chun and that he retained its "full confidence." This was a deliberate distortion of the facts--his confession of impropriety, the oral rebuke he received, and the conditions the board Q set on his continuation as its missionary. In justifying its dismissal of Roberts, the board mentioned "that during the year 18 50, numerous letters of complaint, in regard to funds, were received," presumably from his supporters in the West. Roberts had given them, once again, the impression that he was not being properly supported by the board, when in fact the board was paying him his regular salary.10 The reaction in China to the news of Roberts’ dismissal was unexpected. The foreign community at Canton sent letters in Roberts’ behalf. Some of the letters came from some unlikely sources: Dr. Peter Parker, Mr. Bonney, Counsul Paul S. Forbes--all of whom had previously written letters critical of Roberts--as well as merchants, another consul, the editor of Friend of China, and the Anglican Bishop of Victoria.11 Roberts’ supporters in the West, led by James L. Waller, editor of the Western Recorder, printed these letters of support as well as testimonials from the Mississippi Valley, and he gave a prominent position to an appeal for funds to sustain Mr. and Mrs. Roberts "as missionaries to Canton."12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 The Western brethren were so incensed at the hoard's summary dismissal of Roberts that the board's Corresponding Secretary, Dr. J. B. Taylor, feared the Western and South western churches would withdraw from the Southern Baptist Convention. Roberts appealed to the board for a recon sideration of its action with such "an excellent spirit," that in view of the pressure from the West, the board reviewed its action in April 18 52. The unanimous decision was to reaffirm its earlier action. "Nothing but a solemn sense of duty," Taylor informed Roberts, "would have led to such a conclusion. "14 The board's action, it seems, was more courageous then prudent, for it took the concentrated efforts to Taylor and William C, Buck to prevent a Western secession over the Roberts a f f a i r . 13 The board sought to protect Roberts' reputation by withholding publication of the letters and charges on which it based its decision in 1851 and its reconsideration a year later. Roberts finally expressed his acceptance of the dismissal in 18 54,16 but Western sentiment still ran strong in Roberts' favor. In order to satisfy Western opinion that the board had been just, a special committee of prominent Baptists was appointed to review the decisions of the board in Roberts' case. The committee reported to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention held in Montgomery, Alabama, in May, 1855. After examining the pertinent documents and allowing Roberts, who attended the meeting, to speak in his own behalf, the committee was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20Q "compelled to fully sustain the action of the board.. * An added endorsement was the committee's comment in expressing its "astonishment that they [the board] have exercised so much forbearance. . in withholding publication of the letters on which its actions were based. HUNG'S INVITATION TO ROBERTS, 1853 Roberts' discovery that his former pupil, Hung Hsiu-ch'uan, was the leader of the Taipings came at a most opportune moment. When Hamberg, in September, 1852, showed Roberts the account of Hung's life and the history of the movement, Roberts had received word from J. B. Taylor on July 9, that the Foreign Mission Board had reconsidered its dismissal of him and reaffirmed that decision. Although he was still the general agent of the Canton Missionary Society and still enjoyed the sympathy and support of many Baptists in the West, his reputation among other missionaries at Canton had been diminished. He needed a good cause to reassert his usefulness to God and his design for China. To have one of his former pupils in such an important position offered great possibilities. The Christian aspects of Taiping doctrine and practice could lead to a great outpouring of the Spirit on that benighted land. If missionaries, led by Roberts, would be welcome to preach to the population under Taiping control in an area hitherto denied to them, and if, for the first time, these multitudes were encouraged to hear and believe the message of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 salvation, the millennium might begin in China and spread throughout the world.1® Roberts could be in the vanguard of that great movement by virtue of his position as the only foreign missionary Hung had ever studied with. Roberts immediately wrote of his connection with the Taiping king and sent it to a missionary publication. Along with a brief discussion of the life of Hung and the possibilities the Taiping movement could have in revealing Christianity to millions of Chinese, he emphasized the role he could play: The chief, having been already taught by the missionary, will, I presume, be accessible and teachable, however high his position in the state, which has not been the case hitherto with other high functionaries in China. In this way. . . he will learn the truth fully as it is in Jesus, and then cooperating with the missionary in communicating the same to his people. . . .19 Roberts was further encouraged in his hopes for a significant role in spreading the gospel to the interior of China by reports brought back by Westerners who visited Nanking after its capture by the Taipings in March 1853. Sir George Bonham, Captain E. G. Fishbourne of SMS Hermes, on which Bonham sailed to Nanking, and Dr. Charles Taylor, a Southern Methodist medical missionary, all related that the Taiping leaders they interviewed mentioned Roberts and 70 indicated great respect for him. u About two months after these foreigners had visited the Taipings, Roberts received a letter in late May from Hung Hsiu-ch'uan himself that bore a seal Peter Parker judged to be genuine. Hung’s letter alluded to his earlier study with Roberts and the deep impressions he retained of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 that encounter. He had written to Roberts many times, but did not know if his other letters had been received. Several provinces were under his control, he wrote, and he had many followers who gathered twice daily for worship. They observed the Ten Commandments, but few of them under stood the gospel. Hung invited Roberts "to come and assist, that the Gospel may be made plain, baptism (immersion) may be received, and the truth published,"21 Hung added that he earnestly desired to spread Christianity throughout China after the war so that all Chinese might turn to the worship of the one and only true God.^ This invitation was all that Roberts needed to convince him of the opportunities for great missionary gains which could be made in the Taiping area, and specifically of the significant role he could play. He wrote at once to the new American commissioner, Humphrey Marshall, and informed him of Hung’s invitation to him. "It would be difficult to occupy a more important or useful station," Roberts wrote. He was "inclined to go to him at the earliest practicable moment." He asked Marshall if it would "be against the law of nations, or would I subject myself to the censure of our own laws, to go to him immediately, in the capacity of a minister of the Gospel ,?"23 Marshall was not as disposed to accept at face value the Christianity of the Taipings. He had been briefed by Sir George Bonham who, on his trip to Nanking, had not been Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 treated with the degree of respect he expected as the senior British official in China, Bonham was convinced that the Taipings would continue to assume the sense of superiority toward foreigners that Westerners had found so infuriating in the Manchu Dynasty. Marshall accepted Bonham's assessment. Marshall saw nothing in such an attitude that would lead to the greater commercial and religious toleration that Western merchants and missionaries foresaw.^4 He refused Roberts' request on the grounds that it violated "the neutrality. . .the United States desires to observe. . . [during the rebellion], the law of 1848, and of the spirit of the treaty between the United States and China.The Act of Congress of August 11, 1848, to which Marshall referred, declared that "rebellion against the Chinese government, with the intent to subvert the same, shall be. . .punishable with death.Marshall's reference to the law of 1848 in his reply to Roberts prompted the missionary to declare: Whatever the Lord shows me to be my duty. . .1 must do, even if I should lose my head. . . . Would it not be something uncommonly rare should I lose my head for preaching the gospel to the heathen, and that by the laws of our own country.?27 Roberts wrote to one of his supporters in the United States that he was encouraged by letters from other missionaries who urged him to go to Nanking, and he spoke of the reports of the high regard for him expressed by Taiping leaders and the financial assistance he had received to support a mission to the Taipings. That he was under no Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 board which could forbid him to respond to Hung helped him to decide to take the risk. "How happy it makes us feel that there are none to say us nay," he wrote, "but we are perfectly at liberty to. . .take the place which the Lord himself shall appoint." Taking a sanguine view of his dismissal, he added: "I think this must have been the design of providence in our liberation!" "I can truly say," he noted also, "that I have generally shared his [God’s] greatest blessing when not connected with such [boards]." Being free from a board’s control gave Roberts the oppor tunity to make use of his unique relationship with Hung: I am at a loss for words to express the exceeding urgency that I should be there immediately. Now is the crisis at which to guide the leading minds into the right religious channel. And I doubt whether any other foreigner living could get free and familiar access to the chief man.--What a kind providence, that formerly brought him to my chapel to study the Chris- tain religion,. . . And how joyously I should improve such an opportunity to do the greatest possible amount of good, by teaching him and his people more fully the truths of the gospel. In this same letter he quotes a passage from one of the Taiping writings on Christ’s atonement translated by Dr. Medhurst. "I am truly glad to find him so correct in this particular. . . . But when the way of God shall be expounded to him more perfectly, what an efficient preacher he may become to the n a t i o n s . " ^ Marshall's official opinion could not prevent the trip to Nanking on which Roberts was bent. Roberts likened his situation to that of Paul, the Apostle, who heard in a vision a call to "come over to Macedonia (Nanking] and help Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 us!" (Acts 16:9) A merchant at Canton offered him free passage, and a society in England sent him $100 to help pay his expenses. "I was deeply impressed with the duty to go," he explained later, "and ultimately, after due and prayerful consideration and consultation, I resolved* the Lord helping me, that I would go!"^ Roberts had also been entrusted with bringing a son and a nephew of the late Southern King, Feng Yun-shan, to Nanking. "A better introduction I could not have among the kings," he wrote of this unexpected but welcome develop ment. He and his party left Canton on July 5, 1853, aboard the Ariel , for Shanghai. The initial plan Roberts had for perfecting the Christianity of the Taipings was, he wrote, "to give them the whole Bible in Chinese." He had applied without success to three Bible societies in the United States for funds to accomplish this end. "Now the Bible must be published in Nanking. I therefore beg your aid in publishing Goddard’s version. . . but I esteem any version better than none." Roberts’ preference for Goddard’s version lay in the use of the character for baptism that 30 implied "immersion" rather then "a washing ceremony." Roberts arrived at Shanghai on July 30. The Rev. T. P. Crawford, a Baptist, and Dr. E. C. Bridgman, of the American Board of Commissioners, both invited Roberts to stay with them. Past differences and Roberts' dismissal by his board were overlooked in their enthusiasm for the mission to the Taipings he was undertaking. Mrs. Roberts, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 pregnant with their first child, was staying with Dr, and Mrs. Janes Legge in Hong Kong, Roberts planned to send for her when he became settled at Nanking. In the meantime he looked for someone to make the uncertain trip with him upriver to Nanking. He met a merchant who planned a trading mission to the Taiping-held territory. "If he can risk his life for worldly gain," Roberts asked his wife, "should I not be willing to risk mine in the work of the Lord? .... If a king's business is urgent, how much more that of the King of kings!" The name of Dr. Charles Taylor was suggested to Roberts, because he had twice gone part-way to Nanking and was known to want to go again if invited, notwith standing Commissioner Marshall's threat to send him home if he did. On August 3, Dr. Taylor agreed to go with Roberts, and the two of them, with the son and nephew of the Nan-wang [fy J.] planned to leave for Nanking.^ They did not reach the capital of the Taipings. The boatmen they had hired refused to try to get through the Imperial Navy’s blackade on the Yangtze River, and Roberts, Taylor and their party were forced to return to Shanghai. The walled city of Shanghai was taken over by members of the Small Sword Society, a branch of the Triads, on September 7, 1853, but the foreign settlement along the river was spared. Some of the society's leaders falsely declared--knowing of the popularity of the rebellion among some of the foreigners--that they were Taipings. Several missionaries, including Roberts, visited the occupied Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 portion of the city and encouraged the supposed Taipings to hold out against imperial forces.. ^ if Roberts could not get to Hung, perhaps Hung would soon be able to come to him. In the absence of Roberts’ strong, if eccentric, leadership, the Uet-tung Chapel closed its doors in the summer of 1853. Mrs. Roberts had been operating a school, which was closed at the same time, decreasing by a few dollars the Robertses' income. Mrs. Roberts joined her husband when he returned to Shanghai from his abortive trip to Nanking, and their first child, a son they named Issachar Douglass, was born on November 30, 1853.^ In the letters he wrote, back in Shanghai, Roberts did not let his failure to reach Nanking obscure the opti mism he still held of eventually reaching that city and of being able to convert large numbers of Chinese under Taiping control. Even the closing of his Uet-tung Chapel, where he had worked for seven years did not dismay him. "This seemed to be an indication of providence," he wrote, "that the pastor should leave and accept the higher call of usefulness at Nanking which had been offered him." This "higher call," he was still convinced, would, if he could just get to Nanking, permit him to be instrumental in the salvation of many more at the capital: and hence he is now waiting with prayerful anxiety for an opportunity to proceed thither 8 enter upon his work with both hands. Never were the prospects for usefulness, with God's blessing, brighter. They almost d a z z l e ! 34 The dazzling prospects Roberts envisioned were to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 be only a continuation of what he interpreted as the working out of the divine plan God intended for China. Past, present, and future events there were in the hands of providence: Whoever may have been the direct instruments, it must be acknowledged that the power is of God and that he exercises that in answer to prayer. But the direct visible instruments--a native writer 8 colporteur, a religious tract, § a foreign missionary--were beauti fully united and made efficient in this one instance, which promises results more than equivalent to all the money 8 missionary labors that have hitherto been expended by all nations 8 all denominations on China!! The Lord’s name be praised! And this three-fold in strumentality- -Foreign Missionaries, Native Assistants, 8 Christian Books Ceaeh indispensable)--united will, ultimately, with the blessing of God consumate [sic] the work. China will be revolutionized, Christianized, 8 a great multitude saved through these means. The writer cheerfully confesses his solicitude for Tae Ping Wang's success. This is not only from per sonal friendship and as his teacher in Christianity: but on a wide and more general scale, because he believes it will be for the good of the nation relir giously, commercially, politically, 8 socially, and may the God of nations grant him success. Amen.35 Encouragement that he would ultimately reach Nanking was provided by the continued success of the Taiping armies. Hung had sent an expedition northward toward Peking. Even the French Minister who, as a Catholic, was not religiously disposed to favor the Protestant-oriented Taipings, con sidered their victory inevitable. Besides these military and political development, reports of Taiping religious activities gave Roberts great hope. In a post-script to one of his letters, his wife noted that in their effort to provide scriptures to the people, the Taipings were reported to have over four hundred men cutting printing blocks, The Bible was being printed "without alteration or comment," and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 it was to be used as a text for the Taiping literary examinations. At the end of the year 1853, Roberts was in Shanghai. "I am waiting, looking, and rejoicing, every day, in the hope of the glory of God, [and] in the hope of the renovation of China. . .*’36 In late 1853 the Taiping advance northward toward t Peking [Pei-ching ] was halted more by cold weather and dwindling supplies than by imperial forces, whose inept leadership was a constant source of worry to the Court. Finally a Manchu general was able to contain the southward retreat of the Taiping army and prevent its rescue by another Taiping force from Shan-tung [J^ ^.] • By late May the Taiping northern expedition was crushed. Its leaders surrendered and were taken to Peking to be executed. ^ During most of his tenure in China, in 1853 and part of 18 54, the American Commissioner, Humphrey Marshall, was a controversial figure. In attempting to enforce strict neutrality by Americans in the rebellion,he managed to alienate merchants as well as missionaries. Marshall's threats to Taylor and his refusal to allow Roberts to go to Nanking won him the dislike of those who looked upon the Taipings as the creators of a new, Christian China. Merchants were still restricted by the treaties to any but the five ports opened to trade. Some of them believed the Taipings would grant more liberal trading privileges and, accordingly, were ready to support their insurgency against a dynasty that had become less Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 conciliatory with the ascension of the Hsien Feng Emperor in 1 8 5 0 . ^ 9 Some merchants, indeed, were supplying the insurgents with arms and ammunition, an action which led one imperial official to request all foreign consuls to forbid their nationals from trading with the rebels,^® Not only the missionaries and merchants favored the Taipings. Marshall became convinced that the British were secretly preparing to support the rebels and eventually to establish a "protectorate of the young power. . .at least so far as to mould its first steps to suit the policy of that government."41 President Franklin Pierce and Secretary of State Marcy had been requested by the British government to ask the American Commissioner in China to cooperate with Her Majesty’s Plenipotentiary. . .[in order to] turn to the best account the opportunity offered by the present crisis to open the Chinese Empire gen erally to the commercial enterprise of all civilized nations of the w o r l d . 4 2 President Pierce had Marcy communicate this request to Marshall, but was hesitant, without knowing precisely what steps the English planned to take, to enjoin Marshall's unconditional acceptance and cooperation. The commissioner was instructed to honor the Treaty of Wanghsia and to uphold the "settled policy of non-interference in the contests which arise between people and their rulers." As for the British, Marshall was directed only to maintain "cordial relations and free conference with them."^ When these instructions reached him, his suspicions of British Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 intentions had been intensified by what he believed was a direct British role in the destruction of the Chinese Customs House at Shanghai on September 7 , 1 8 5 3 , ^ 4 within two days Marshall and Rutherford Alcock, British consul at Shanghai, agreed to a "provisional system," whereby customs duties would be collected from merchants by their own governments’ officials.45 American merchants were at an immediate disadvantage. British merchants were allowed to tender promissory notes at their consulate which would be redeemed only if the Foreign Office approved. Merchants of other countries, though not as numerous as the British or Americans, paid or promised nothing. Marshall, on the other hand, insisted that American merchants pay their customs duties in silver. He was severely criticized, as might be expected.4^ The unpopularity of Marshall and his anti-British actions led to his replacement in late 1853.^7 Marshall was the first commissioner to China to be replaced while he was on station. This action came when Pierce and Marcy aligned themselves with British policies in China.4® Robert M. McLane, like Marshall, had graduated from West Point, studied and practiced law, and been elected to the House of Representatives.^ He was appointed on October 21, 1853.50 Marshall first learned of it from a newspaper.51 McLane was given more specific instructions with regard to promoting American interests in China than his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 predecessors, with the exception of Cushing*52 He was to exploit the crisis in China: Without desiring exclusive privileges, it is deemed especially important that in any crisis which may happen in the affairs of the Chinese Empire you should direct your efforts towards the establishment of the most unrestricted commercial intercourse between that Empire and the United States. . .53 Hoping to avoid a repetition of the dispute that developed between Marshall and Perry, Marcy assured McLane that he would be provided with naval assistance "necessary to enable you to carry into effect the objects of your mission." Perry would be instructed to lend assistance if needed, but his mission to Japan was clearly a higher priority. Perry, Marcy wrote, would receive instructions in regard to rendering to you such assistance as the exigencies of the public interest may require, if it can be done, without abandoning the principal end of his Expedition, or seriously hazarding its success. 54 It was made clear to McLane that Perry was not to be under the control of the commissioner, but the President expected the two of them to "cooperate together. . ." Marshall had deplored the fact that he was denied the use of a steamer in order to conduct first-hand in vestigations into the course of the rebellion.55 To provide McLane with one--Marcy considered it "expedient to have a steamer at your disposal"--the commodore would "be instructed to comply with your request in this respect. Marcy was also explicit in his instructions to McLane in the matter of his course of action if the Taipings either wrested control of China from the Manchus or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 established a separate government over parts of it: Should the revolutionary movement now in progress in China be successful and the political power of the country pass into other hands, you will at your dis cretion, recognize the government de facto and treat with it as the existing government of the country. If that vast and populous Empire should be divided and several governments be organized within its present limits, promising stability, you will present yourself to each as the diplomatic representative of the United States, and enter into such treaties with them respectively as you may deem advisable.57 In addition to being empowered to treat with the revolutionary government, if successful, McLane was also authorized to negotiate treaties with Korea, Cochin China-- both tributary states of the Chinese Empire--"or any other independent country," and even Japan, should Perry’s mission 58 fail and an opportunity to do so should arise. McLane, armed with these instructions and assurances of naval cooperation, left for China in later 18 53 and reached Hong Kong on March 13, 1854.^® After his arrival, Commodore Perry assigned him USS Susquehanna "for an indefinite time."^® Peter Parker advised the new commis sioner to show his displeasure at being rebuffed when he requested an interview with the anti-foreign governor- general, Yeh Ming-ch’en. McLane was not persuaded that this attitude would be effective. He preferred to make use of the ship at his disposal to ascertain the true nature of imperial and insurgent conditions before committing himself to a definite course of action.61 After a trip to Nanking to visit the rebel capital, McLane reported his disappointment that the Taiping leaders Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 were as insistent as imperial officials on their superior position relative to foreigners.. He became convinced, moreover, that the insurgents had not established political control sufficient to be recognized even "as a de facto government over a portion of the Chinese Empire." On the other hand, the Manchus were still unable to suppress them, and one could not predict the eventual victor with certainty. What shall be the policy of foreign nations having treaty stipulations with China?" McLane asked.62 The reply of the Secretary of State exemplifies the fundamentally commercial nature of the interests of the United States government in China at that time. McLane’s assessment of the situation offered little basis for optimism that a "spirit of justice. . .will preside over or pervade our political or commercial relations," regardless of which side were victorious. Marcy told McLane to "be on the alert to avail yourself of any contingency which may happen favorable for opening new avenues to our valuable and important trade with that Empire." In view of the "repeated, continuous, and intentional violations of the treaty" that had occurred, Marcy suggested that Congress and the President may have to consider means other than negotiations to protect "our merchants in their business."6^ Roberts had been waiting in Shanghai for some change that would permit his going to Nanking. With the departure of Humphrey Marshall, Roberts had hopes that the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 new commissioner would be agreeable to his mission to the Taipings. McLane had managed to modify the 1848 law that forbade participation in insurrection in China so that the crime was reduced to a ’’high misdemeanor" and capital punishment for its violation was no longer a possibility.*^ Roberts requested permission to accompany McLane to Nanking when the latter made his inspection tour on board USS Susquehanna in the spring of 1854, but he was refused. Roberts had, for the time being at least, exhausted all his possibilities for reaching Nanking. His financial resources were nearly gone, and his wife had given birth to another child, a daughter they named Lillie. He felt he needed to return to the United States for "the health, safety, and comfort of my family." After his wife and children had been provided for at home, he expected to "return to avail myself of my vantage ground at Nanking." In the fall of 1854 Roberts and his family returned to the United States.*>6 Mrs. Roberts and their two children settled in Rochester, New York, *^ while Roberts toured the South and West to rekindle interest in the Taiping cause.**® Speaking of his hopes for a Christianized China, Roberts emphasized the role he could play in effecting this transformation. In addition to these addresses, Roberts arranged with the Rev. S. H. Ford, co^editor of the Western Recorder 3 to publish The Oriental and Chinese Advocate. Roberts and Ford were to be its co-^editors. This publication, to be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 issued monthly had five aims; 1. To give the early history, rise and progress of Tae Ping^W'ang and his patriotic revolutionary movements, in China. 2. To give the current news from the local papers published in China and the progress of the revolution. 3. To give religious information respecting China, and the progress of the several Missions there, with their needs, success and prospects. 4. And on the return of the general agent [i.e., Roberts], to give the news from the inner court itself. 5. And to give general intelligence respecting all eastern Asia, Japan and the nations adjoining, with their religious, commercial, political and social condition.69 Roberts found a residue of support for himself in the churches in the West, and he may have decided that his acceptance of his dismissal had been premature.70 The Southern Baptist Convention met in Montgomery, Alabama, in May, 1855. One object of that meeting was to satisfy Roberts' supporters that his dismissal had been a proper action by the Foreign Mission Board. A lengthy report, including the details of the charges against him, was reviewed by a select committee. Roberts was in attendance at the Convention, having been made a courtesy member of the Alabama delegation. He was invited to appear before the select committee to refute or explain any of the charges against him. It was made clear that Roberts was not summoned to appear, but was allowed the opportunity of appearing in order to guide the committee in its determina tion of "the correctness of the grounds of action of the Board." After reading the report of the board on the reasons for its actions and hearing Roberts' explanations, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 all members of the select committee were "compelled to fully sustain the action of the Board. . .«71 This unanimous decision by a group of Baptist leaders who had been among Roberts'' staunchest supporters was not the final word on the subject. Roberts was offered and accepted an opportunity to address the entire Convention. He averred that the Report presented "only one side of the question,. . .without rebutting arguments being allowed to appear." He asked that public judgment of his conduct be suspended until he could prepare and distribute a defense of his actions. He wrote to at least one paper with a similar appeal, but some of his support appears to have waned. One writer addressed a letter to a local paper reviewing these facts and commented that Roberts* complaint is groundless, and his piece is an unjust to the committee who made the report, and to the convention who adopted it, as it is descreditable to himself. This writer concluded that "the impression was deep and general, that the Board so far from acting unjustly to Mr. R., had erred on mercy's side." He ended his letter: "And the most charitable conclusion to which I can bring myself is, that he is partially deranged."72 Not all Roberts’ former supporters lost faith in the missionary or in the cause he was so desirous of pursuing. The committee's verdict and such letters not withstanding, Roberts found people still willing to support his chances of success in guiding "with a vigorous hand. . . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 Tae-ping-Wang and his people in the way of truth as it is in Jesus." He traveled widely during the summer and early fall of 1855, and by the time he left for China later that year, he could report that he had "collected more than $3000 in cash. . .and secured a goodly amount of pledges for future years." Generosity such as this reinforced his belief that "the finger of God is in the matter. Returning to China alone in 1856, Roberts was not able to reach Nanking until after the Arrow War. AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND THE ARROW WAR Robert M. McLane had arrived in China in 1854 as the new American Commissioner who was instructed to turn to commercial advantage any development he could.phe Secretary of State suggested that McLane support British efforts in renewing the Treaty of Nanking in order to benefit from the most-favored-nation clause.McLane enjoyed mobility and prestige in the use of the USS Susquehanna, on which he made a trip to Nanking within a few months of his arrival. He formed opinions of the Taipings that left Washington little hope that their victory, which was by no means certain, would result in the desired expansion of commercial and diplomatic privileges.^6 McLane had been rebuffed when he had requested an interview with the Imperial Commissioner upon his arrival at Canton, but he refused to make this discourtesy a cause for hostility to the Manchu Dynasty. He resolved to seek Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 enforcement of full treaty rights by the existing government, so that, whatever the outcome of the conflict within China, the victorious side would be bound to honor any additional privileges won by this means.77 In late June, 1854, McLane arranged for an interview with I-liang ^ ] , governor-general of Liang-Chiang [*fr>X], i.e., Chiang-su [>X » Chiang-hsi [>X & » and An-huei The American Commissioner, "pleasantly surprised" at the Manchu’s "friendly disposition and demeanor," asked for extended treaty privileges in four areas. McLane wanted American ships allowed free access to the Yangtze River, free movement for American citizens throughout China, free exercise of religion, and permanent residence for the American minister at Peking. I-liang refused to discuss these points, as he had no authority to negotiate them with foreigners. When McLane broached the subject of protecting American treaty rights at Shanghai, the Manchu was not only desirous of obtaining a just solution to the problems, he promised to authorize his subordinate official in that city to coordinate with foreign consuls in order to effect a satisfactory arrange ment.7® Partly as a result of McLane’s discussions with I-liang, and from an international conference held shortly thereafter, the Inspectorate System e m e r g e d . 7 ^ Anglo-American cooperation in setting up the Inspectorate of Maritime Customs accorded well with the desire of the United States government to work more closely Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 with the British in China. McLane reported that he and Sir John Bowring, the British minister, "entered into a cordial cooperation." As their hopes for greater privileges under their respective treaties had not materialized, they agreed to go to Tientsin in order to make direct contact with imperial officials at Peking.80 The effort, notwith-r standing the close cooperation of the two leading foreign nations, was unavailing. The Hsien Feng Emperor refused the joint requests, and the approach of winter forced the expedition to return to Shanghai.81 Within a few weeks McLane requested that the President consider adopting a more aggressive policy toward China in order to get greater commercial privileges. The commissioner had in mind combining with France and Great Britain in a joint naval force that would compel the dynasty to revise the treaties. McLane suggested that the entrances to the four major rivers from Canton to Tientsin be blockaded until the desired treaty revisions were o b t a i n e d . 82 Marcy replied that the Presidnet would probably not agree to such actions. Congress reflected the uncertain mood in the United States over North-South sectionalism, M a r c y wrote, so would not likely approve of the United States Navy's participation in such an enterprise. And if the Navy could not be used, there was little to be gained by sending it as a b l u f f , 83 McLane's health had begun to suffer, so he had asked for and received permission to visit Europe. He left Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 China shortly after he sent his proposal and while in Paris 84 in late April, 1855, submitted his letter of resignation. Upon McLane's departure for Europe, Parker was once again placed in charge of the American Legation. The closer cooperation with the British which McLane had developed during his nine months in China was continued by the former missionary.85 But his health, too, was impaired, and he left China in May, 1855, to return to the United States. During the summer S. Wells Williams was appointed Secretary to the Legation,8^ and in September Parker was summoned to Washington and appointed Commissioner.8^ Parker's assumption of the commissionership represented several innovations in the short history of formal American diplomacy in China up to that time. First, Parker was not a political appointee; he had spent twenty years, most of his adult life, in China as a medical missionary and practicing physician. He was more familiar with his assignment than any of his predecessors, and, unlike any of them, was fluent in Cantonese. He was also the first commissioner who had been elevated from a subordinate position.88 In his letter of appointment, Marcy recognized Parker’s familiarity with the legation and the situation in China due to his long association with both. However much Parker knew about China, he was not well informed about either the American situation or with the interplay of European diplomacy. Alone among American diplomats in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222 China, he seems to have been indifferent to the question of Chinese territorial integrity.. Parker*s desire to see China "saved” blinded him to the adverse effects on American commercial activities that would follow the partitioning of China into spheres of influence. And at least one scholar finds him lacking in "democratic idealism, a United States tradtion that was admired throughout the w o r l d . "89 President Pierce and his Secretary of State thought they recognized in Parker the ideal commissioner to undertake the revision of the Treaty of Wanghsia. Renegotiation was required, according to this treaty, after twelve years, and 1856 was the year in which revision was due. In a long, detailed letter of instructions to Parker, Marcy emphasized that "the principal object in revising our treaty with China is to get larger commercial privileges, and better securities for the persons and property of our citizens." Among the specific items Parker was to negotiate for were: the right of the American minister to reside in Peking; "unlimited extention of our trade, wherever, within the dominion of China, commerce may be found"; the removal of "every restriction to the personal liberty of our citizens," so that they would "be placed on a perfect equality with the subjects of China in all matters relating to the security of their persons and property, and the transaction of business of all kinds"; tariff duties were to be changed to facilitate trade; and United States currency was to be accepted in China at face value in commercial dealings.99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 These were the specific aims Parker was instructed to seek in negotiating the revision of the Treaty of Wanghsia. In order to gain acceptance by the Chinese of more extensive commercial privileges, the commissioner was authorized to offer a "qui'd pro q u o "moral support and aid" to China to the limits of the American Constitution. Though the Taiping Rebellion was not mentioned explicitly, the Secretary of State's wording implied that if the dynasty granted the privileges and rights that were requested, the United States would take a hand in the civil conflict on the side of the Manchus: You are authorized to stipulate that the articles in the existing treaty providing for the cooperation of the authorities of the United States and China at Chinese ports open to commerce, in maintaining order3 be so enlarged as to provide that the United States naval forces may be called on to support the United-.. States Commissioner in the execution of the treaty. To bolster his negotiating position even further Parker was informed that "substantial modifications" to the treaty were needed, even if all the requested changes were not agreed upon. As the most-favored-nation clause would cause benefits gained by Parker to redound to Great Britain and France, and vice versa, he could help the representa tives of those countries in their efforts at treaty revision and accept their help in his efforts "in any way which may be deemed proper." It was desirable, Marcy wrote, to gain adjustment of the claims of American citizens against the Chinese government, but this issue was not to be pushed to the point of jeopardizing the grant of other, more important Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 terms. Moreover, he was not to uimpair the right of our citizens to indemnity for injuries'* even if those so far unsatisfied could not be settled.92 Roberts' claim for damages to his chapel, still pending after eight years, would have to await the outcome of the negotiations for revision of the treaty. When these instructions to Parker were being drafted in September, 1855, Roberts was in the United States, seeking support to continue his efforts to reach the Taipings, His dismissal by the Southern Baptist Board having been reviewed and upheld in May of that year, Roberts was in need of funds. He would have been greatly encouraged had his claim been settled by Parker, but the commissioner's instructions clearly directed him to emphasize more important matters. The President, Parker was assured, was hopeful for his success in negotiating the revision of the treaty because of the commissioner's long residence in China,. . .familiarity with the language, and peculiar laws and usages that obtain in that country, and by a friendly, firm, and judicious diplomacy. . .93 President Pierce's hopes were not realized. Parker tried to take the initiative in organizing another joint expedition to the Pei-ho River in 1856, but he was unable to secure the full cooperation of the English and French ministers. He even failed in his efforts to get support from the United States naval squadron,94 The Arrow Incident, on October 8, 1856, brought Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 China and Great Britain to blows. The lorcha Arrow had been under British registry, hut its license had expired eleven days before. Its Chinese crew was preparing to sail from Canton and had run up the Union Jack. Chinese forces, who were looking for pirates, boarded the Arrow-s hauled down the British flag, and arrested all members of the crew. British officials protested to the Imperial Commissioner that provisions governing the arrest of Chinese who served aboard British vessels, set forth in the Supplementary Treaty of 1843, had been violated, regardless of the status of the lorcha's registry. Yeh Ming-ch’en, never known as a friend of foreigners, was characteristically obdurate. This relatively minor incident escalated through increased British demands and Chinese refusals to acceed to them. Finally, during October 23-25, British naval and marine units captured Chinese forts below Canton. After pausing to observe the Sabbath on the 26th, British men-of-war shelled the Imperial Commissioner's ya-men on the 27th and 28th. Commissioner Yeh issued what amounted to a declaration of war on the 28th, and British marines occupied the ya-men on the 29th. Sporadic shelling by the British continued into the first week of November, but action increased in intensity when Yeh still refused to meet British demands.^ Parker had no instructions to intervene in the hostilities on either side. It was unmistakable from the tenor of Marcy's letters that Congress was too preoccupied Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 with the deteriorating domestic situation in the United States to approve belligerent American acitivities in China. Parker, as opposed to Chinese obstinacy as ever, was also not as well disposed toward the British since they had refused to support his plan to go north. The Chinese Imperial Commissioner did not want to draw the United States into the fray on the side of the British. He addressed a polite note to the United States consul at Canton and the commander of the American squadron after the British bombard ment began, suggesting that they might want to withdraw to a less dangerous area. Both American officials accepted his advice and left Canton on November 15, 1856.96 That same day Sir John Bowring wrote the French minister and American commissioner that he sought in the hostilities to redress past offenses by the Chinese and to secure "free personal access to all the authorities at Canton" for all foreign representatives. Parker replied that he appreciated the events which led to British actions, but he reminded Bowring that "the United States has been passive and neutral" and went on to protest Bowring's assumption that the British official could demand access to Canton for all foreigners without prior consultation.97 Perhaps Bowring had thought the actions of the American consul at Hong Kong in storming through the walls of Canton alongside British troops on October 29, waving the American flag and firing his pistol, had been sanctioned Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 by P a r k e r . The Chinese took this belligerent display as an act of war, and fired on American naval vessels taking soundings in the river below Canton on November 15 and 16.®^ The American commander, Commodore Armstrong, retaliated by destroying several Chinese forts besides the ones that had fired on his ships. Parker reported these incidents proudly, as ’'the first blow that has ever been struck by our navy in China." This convincing show of naval force--only five Americans were killed to 160 Chinese fatalities’•-Parker added, was "done in a manner calculated to secure for it an important prestige in the mind of this haughty government."100 The incident was smoothed over, and the United States remained neutral. Viceroy Yeh did not want to incur American hostility, so he asked for a description of the United States flag. He would publicize its design so that Chinese troops would not fire on it.President Pierce was angered both by the consul’s action on October 29 and by Commodore Armstrong’s injudicious choice of time and place to take soundings. Parker was instructed to deliver a letter of dismissal to the consul. The commodore, Marcy believed, had provoked the Chinese attack and thereby caused "all the difficulty which subsequently followed." Parker was admon ished to maintain American neutrality and to avoid England's war with China: The British Government evidently have objects beyond those contemplated by the United States and we ought not to be drawn along with it however anxious it may be for our cooperation.102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 Even before these cautionary words were sent, two circumstances impelled Parker to overlook his temporary pique at the British and revert to his more characteristic support for their policies. The first was a fire of unde termined origin that burned through the foreign factories at Canton on December 14-15, 1856, and destroyed property worth millions of dollars. Parker demanded indemnity for American losses from the Chinese authorities, but received no satisfaction. On Christmas Eve, Parker suggested that American claims be included with those of the British for indemnification by C h i n a . 103 in late January, 1857, Chinese police came to Roberts' Uet-tung house and chapel, fright ened off the Chinese servants--or assistants--he had left in charge when the firing along the river forced him to leave, and burnt or carried off all his belongings. He entered a claim, along with several other American mission aries whose property suffered a similar fate, for $2,400,104 The second circumstance that moved Parker back toward a cooperative policy with the British was the closer alliance between that country and France. Their joint victory in the Crimean War led to an agreement for joint action in C h i n a . 105 Parker had long believed that a triple alliance or Anglo-American cooperation would be necessary to force greater concessions on trade and other matters from the Chinese authorities. When he was informed that an Anglo-French plan contemplated joint occupation of Canton and other hostile acts against C h i n a , 106 Parker worked out Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229 a more aggressive policy of M s own. He wanted the United States to join the allies in an expedition to the Pei-ho in order to force the Emperor to revise the treaties along lines less restrictive to commerce and movement of for eigners in China. Should this effort fail again, he proposed that France occupy Korea, a tributary state of China. At the same time Britain should occupy Chusan [Chou^shan X, ], a strategic archipelago in the mouth of Hangchow [Hang-chou JffL Bay> an of Taiwan [T'ai-wan X ✓1§r] until past wrongs were redressed and future cooperation was assured. Parker was careful to label his proposal a "last resort," to be used only if less drastic means were unavailing. When satisfactory revisions were obtained, Chinese control of these three areas would be restored forthwith.10? The Pierce Administration was entering its final weeks when Parker's proposal for this action and a request for a squadron at least as "efficient and imposing" as the one Perry took to Japan, reached Washington.108 Marcy wrote at once to prevent an undesirable international rupture from occurring on the eve of the new administration's assumption of office. He informed Parker that the French and British minister had already proposed American coop eration in joint military operations in China. The President, Marcy stated emphatically, did not believe the situation in China required Parker's "last resort." He would increase the United States naval presence there only "for the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 protection and security of Americans in China, and the protection of their property,, , .not. . .for aggressive purposes.”l®^ Parker may have sensed what Marcy•'s reply would contain and that he should seek support for his proposals from the incoming President, James Buchanan. The Commis sioner, before receiving Marcy’s reply, wrote to the President-elect. Parker reasoned that since Britain and France would "apply themselves to the task [of treaty revision] with vigor,. . .every sentiment of national respect and interest demand that the United States should do the same."I®® Parker also appears to have contemplated the permanent occupation of Taiwan, believing that Britain and France would seek to obtain territorial acquisitions from China. Commodore Perry had already sent a naval expedition to that island. Parker and Perry had ordered two Americans, who sent a commercial expedition there in 1855, to look into the political and economic conditions there. HI Marcy’s sharply worded letter,112 concerning the impropriety of Americans’ acting too belligerently toward China while the United States was not, nor likely to be, at war with that country, reached Parker on April 30.H-3 The Commissioner lost all hope for elevating the American position in China to a place equal to that of France and Great Britain. In his disappointment, he turned from Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 cooperativeness to discourtesy in his dealings with the British,Qn April 24, 1857, the new Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, notified Parker that William B, Reed had been appointed as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. Parker like Humphrey Marshall, had been too eager to push his personal policies in China in directions the administration did not want to go. Marshall was too much opposed to the British; Parker was too disposed to favor them.Parker's removal, however, was more carefully handled than that of Marshall. Parker was notified directly by the Secretary of State that he was being replaced; he did not learn about it from a newspaper, as Marshall had done. And in an effort to be diplomatic, Cass attempted to justify the decision to replace Parker: The President bears willings testimony in which I join, to the faithful manner in which you have devoted yourself to the discharge of the duties of Commissioner, but the exigencies of the present juncture, the public expectations, and the necessity of keeping pace with the other treaty powers in China, require that some such special appointment as that of Mr. Reed should be made by this government.H 7 James Buchanan, who took office as President on March 4, 1857, had served as Secretary of State during the Polk Administration, 1845-1849. He had been intimately involved with the first years of American diplomacy in China under the Treaty of Wanghsia. Twelve years later his major concern in China was to revise that treaty in order to gain for Americans greater trading privileges, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 freer movement, and more protection for their persons and property. In selecting William Bradford Reed, he reverted to the practice of rewarding a political supporter for his help in winning the election, Reed was a lawyer, politician, and part-time lecturer in American history from Pennsyl vania. His title was elevated to Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in anticipation that his major task in China would be to renegotiate the Sino-American treaty. Reed’s instructions were issued before he left for China. They were detailed and explicit and set forth the Administration's hopes for American gains in consideration of what Great Britain and France might do. The British ambassador to the United States, Lord Napier, had invited Buchanan to join in the alliance against China, but the President declined. He was informed that the two European powers were in agreement as to goals and measures, "extending even to armed cooperation," to be pursued in China.119 The Anglo-French goals were: Cl) resident ministers in Peking with the right to be received by the emperor and to communicate directly with those responsible for Chinese foreign relations; (2) extended commercial intercourse beyond the five treaty ports; (3) a reduction in internal tariffs levied on Chinese products being carried from the interior to the ports; (4) religious freedom for all foreigners in China; (5) the suppression of piracy; and (6) an extension of these treaty rights "to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 all the other civilized Powers of the earthx"12Q Cass added: These objects are recognized by the President as just and expedient, and so far as you can do so by peaceful cooperation, he expects that you will aid in their accomplishment.121 Reed was also instructed to "communicate frankly" with the ministers of France and Great Britain on matters of common interest. In his dealings with Chinese officials, however, he was not to go beyond "firm representations." His method was to be reliance on "the justice and policy of the Chinese authorities." If this approach failed, Reed was to refer to Washington for decisions as to future actions.122 if Russia succeeded in accrediting a minister to China by the time Reed arrived, he was to communicate and cooperate with its representative also. Buchanan knew that Russia had been trying to achieve this aim, and he envisaged no conflict between American policies and "the pacific relations which are understood to exist between" China and R u s s i a . 123 Cass reiterated to Reed the intentions of the United States to remain neutral: This country, you will constantly bear in mind, is not at war with the Government of China, nor does it seek to enter that Empire for any other purposes than those of lawful commerce, and for the protection of the lives and property of its citizens. The whole nature and policy of our Government must necessarily confine our action within these limits, and deprive us of all motives either for territorial aggrandizement or the acquisition of political power. . .124 Buchanan hoped that American neutrality would be an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 advantage rather than a liability in revising the treaty with China. Perhaps the Chinese authorities would be grateful for American neutrality and reward it with desired privileges. Not being a belligerent might offer the opportunity for Reed to act as a mediator in the conflict and end the war. Such a role should also gain Chinese gratitude, which would be expected to be reflected in any settlement and in the revision of existing treaties.125 Buchanan, through Cass, justified American emphasis on trade in its dealings with China. Though it was not in the nature of an instruction, it does illuminate the area of American attitudes toward China: Fortunately, however, commerce itself is one of the most powerful means of cilization and national improvement. By coming into peaceful contact with men of other regions and other races with different habits and greater knowledge, the jealous system of seclusion which has so long separated China from the rest of the world will gradually give way, and with increased intercourse will come those meliorations in the moral and physical condition of its people which the Christian and the philanthropist have so long and so ardently desired.126 Reed was also instructed to let it be known that the United States government deplored the opium trade, would not attempt to have it legalized, nor would it support Americans who violated the Chinese laws prohibiting its importation.127 There were several changes that Reed should seek to effect in his treaty negotiations. The exchange rate for United States currency on the Chinese market was set below its actual value. American merchants were placed at a disadvantage in that they had Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235 to pay a slightly higher price for Chinese goods, Reed was to see that a more equitable exchange rate was established.128 It had been reported that Chinese authorities were circumventing the Treaty of Wanghsia in several ways. They had forbidden Chinese citizens to rent or lease property to foreigners. In some cases, Chinese who did so were jailed or tortured. When American citizens had entered complaints against Chinese for fraud or for defaulting on debts, the authorities had not conducted investigations. In addition local Chinese officials had not dispatched forces to protect American property when requested to do so. Reed was instructed to negotiate these matters in order to secure Chinese assurances that all stipulations would be observed by Chinese officials who had responsi bilities to uphold the treaties. These changes were to be sought by whatever measures Reed, at his discretion, considered efficacious.*29 Another matter of moment was also left to Reed's discretion--how he was to deal with the Taiping rebellion. His concern with American commerce and the security of American lives and property would be affected by the outcome of the insurrection, but the Buchanan administra tion knew little of its causes or aims and was not certain of its result. "We have no other concern in its progress or results," Cass wrote, "than to take care that our rights are preserved inviolate. Neither side seemed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 "more favorably disposed towards foreigners than the other, or more ready to extend commercial intercourse with them." Both parties, on the other hand, "are equally bound by treaty stipulations to us and to other powers, and will be held to their faithful observance."130 Roberts' efforts to promote the cause of the Tai- pings obviously had little effect upon the administration's policies in China. Buchanan had been Secretary of State when Roberts entered his initial claim in 1847, and he was no doubt aware that Roberts, among others, actively sup ported the insurgents as a means of advancing Christianity in China. The aims of the United States in revising its treaty with that country were pragmatic--extending commer cial privileges and obtaining more stringent safeguards for Americans and their property. Rather than promote the conversion of China to Christianity in order to secure these privileges and safeguards, Buchanan believed than an extension of commerce in China would bring about some of the improvements for which missionaries were working. The concluding paragraphs of the instructions to Reed concerned various matters relating to the general conduct of his mission. American consuls should be informed of his policies so they would act in conformity with them. Reed was expected to cultivate good relationships with United States naval commanders, and he should listen to any advise offered by his predecessor, Peter Parker. This "last commissioner" had more experience in China than any Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill other American diplomat, and the fact that he was being replaced was "not intended to cast the slightest censure upon him." Reed was to go to China in JJSS Minnesota, the latest steam frigate in the Navy. She would remain at his disposal during his tenure, and a smaller steamer would also be provided to enable him to visit river ports and small seaports. It was hoped that it would be possible to augment the China Squadron with more vessels, all of which would be under Reed's c o n t r o l . 131 It appears from these general instructions that it was intended that the United States minister to China benefit from bad experiences suffered by some of his predecessors. It was finally recognized in Washington that for its highest official to succeed in his mission to China, he had to be able to command a unified effort. The United States, if what it wanted in the revised treaty was to be obtained, could not afford to have consuls, naval commanders, and the commissioner each pursuing differing, not to say conflicting personal policies and approaches. Humphrey Marshall had been handicapped by Commodore Perry's refusal to provide him a ship in which he could move from port to port. Parker had been embarrassed by the independent actions of the consul who joined British troops in storming the Canton walls. And both Marshall and Parker had received few instructions on how to deal with the British. Moreover, with treaty revision to be undertaken, the results of which would Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 affect the American presence in China for years to come, it was no longer possible to name the representative to China only out of friendship or to pay a political debt. Buchanan knew this and was concerned to improve on past practices. While he did send a political friend, he provided him with detailed instructions on matters that were important and tried to unify American diplomacy in China by putting Reed in charge of the American consuls and naval squadron there. A circular instruction to American consuls in China requested that they carry out the Minister's policies, and the State Department arranged with the Navy Department to place its China Squadron, insofar as possible, under the control of the Minister.^ 2 Reed arrived at Hong Kong on November 5, 1857, but Parker had left China in August, after he received the notification from Cass that he had been replaced. Canton was blackaded by British and French naval forces, and the area surrounding that city was in ruins, the results of almost a year of skirmishes. The Chinese war junks had been neutralized and the forts along the river leading to Canton were under British control. The allies were planning an attack on Canton, which began on December 15, 1857. Chinese resistance finally ended on January 5, 1858, three weeks later, and Commissioner Yeh was captured. The fall of Canton, however, had little effect on other ports, where trade continued as before.133 Shortly after Reed’s arrival at Hong Kong, Count Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 Putyatin reached China. He was instructed by the Russian government to seek the same rights to coastal trade and diplomatic representation as the major powers might gain. He was also instructed not to become involved too closely with the hostile activities of Britain and France, but to cooperate with the United States minister.134 Until the Treaties of Tientsin were signed in June, 1858, Western pressure on China was of two kinds--the British and French carrying on hostilities and the American and Russian min isters preserving neutrality but supporting Anglo-French efforts to bring China to the negotiating table.135 Reed had, upon his arrival in China, requested Viceroy Yeh to grant him an interview and to discuss the revision of the Sino-American treaty. Yeh finally replied in a more courteous tone than that with which he had addressed previous American commissioners, but he still refused to meet Reed. There was no suitable place for them to meet, Yeh stated, and there was no need to revise the treaties. Although Reed was vexed at Yeh’s refusal to meet with him, he recognized the cogency of Yeh's remark about whether the Treaty of Wanghsia needed revising. "Yeh has certainly touched the weak point of our case," Reed informed Cass. "No one can read the 34th article without being struck by its very ambiguous terms.”136 The article in question states that the treaty "shall not be altered without grave cause. . ." If, in its operation, differences in the circumstances of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240 five ports demonstrated a need for "inconsiderable modi fications," then representatives from China and the United States "will, at the expiration of twelve years from the date of said Convention, treat amicably concerning the same. . ."137 -phe United States, along with the other foreign treaty powers in China, wanted considerable modi fications of the treaty. The causes were "grave" only in the sense that the powers were desirous of wider commercial activities and diplomatic relations that accorded more closely with Western practices. Yeh, as Imperial Commis sioner, was the only Chinese official empowered to negotiate with foreign diplomats, and he steadfastly refused to see them. Reed maintained the American legation on board USS Minnesota, the new ship which had taken him to China. He kept abreast of local events, but was unable to pursue his mission if he could not meet with the only Chinese official who could negotiate with foreign representatives. "I find myself reduced. . .to a tacit acquiescence in the course the belligerents are pursuing," Reed admitted to Cass, but he did not indicate any approval of the hostilities. He did report that the outstanding claim "of this poor man, Mr. Roberts. . .is still unpaid and to me, as he has to my predecessors, he now appeals for relief."138 After Canton fell and Yeh was taken prisoner, some of the Viceroy's papers were captured and translated. One Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 of the documents was an edict from the Grand Council to Yeh and two other Chinese officials who were responsible for the areas containing the other treaty ports. It was translated and, because it referred to a visit Peter Parker had made to Shanghai, Lord Elgin, British High Commissioner, sent a copy to Reed. The American minister hastened to send it on to the Secretary of State. It showed that Yeh, in being obdurate toward foreign requests for treaty revision, was in fact, acting in obedience to the imperial will. Moreover, the weakness in the case for treaty revision was fully appreciated by the Emperor. He was willing to have Yeh discuss "slight modifications" to the treaties, but no substantial alterations were contemplated.139 This was vital intelligence and affected the stra tegy of the four powers. Yeh, as they knew, had the power to negotiate with the foreign diplomats. His refusals to do so, however, were not as they had thought, due simply to his personal hatred of foreigners and stubbornness. The attack on Canton had been used as a means of forcing Yeh to negotiate, but this edict revealed that Yeh was following the explicit orders of the emperor. "The real responsibility, Reed concluded, "is with the central authority. . . . I am better satisfied than ever that decisive action is necessary with the Officials who rule this people." As to the efficacy of American neutrality as a means for gaining desirable treaty revisions, Reed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 also had to report the sad truth: Above all, it settles the question as to any dis tinction being taken among the nations of the West to our advantage. Steadfast neutrality and consistent friendship make no impression on the isolated obduracy of this E m p i r e . 1 4 0 The decision to put pressure directly on Peking by a more forceful appearance at the Pei-ho instead of by bringing matters to a head at Canton had already been made by the British Foreign Office. Its instructions to Lord Elgin omitted any reference to Yeh. The British High Commissioner was told to go from Hong Kong north to the Pei-ho and negotiate with an imperial official on repara tions and strict adherence to all treaty stipulations. The most important of these was to get the Chinese to abide by the terms of the English version of the Treaty of Nanking and permit access to Canton. If satisfactory results were not obtained at Pei-ho, Elgin was authorized to use force. He had two other proposals for which force was not authorized unless he had to resort to it in order to attain his primary objectives. These secondary aims were: (1) a resident Minister in Peking, or the right of the Minister to visit Peking at the discretion of the British government, and the right of the Minister and Chief Superintendent of Trade to communicate directly with imperial officials at Peking; and (2) the opening of more ports to t r a d e . 141 That Elgin later changed his mind and permitted the assault on Canton was the result of several factors. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 One of the most persistent was prevailing British opinion at Hong Kong. This opinion held that the key to solving the Chinese puzzle lay in forcing open Canton. Sir John Bowring, the consul, and Admiral Sir Michael Seymour, the naval commander, shared this view with most of the merchants. The Sepoy Mutiny in India had caused Elgin to divert troops en route, disrupting his timetable for the northern undertaking. Having been further held up by the delay in the arrival in China of the new French Minister, Baron Gros, whose cooperation was essential for the success the Pei-ho expedition, Lord Elgin went to India himself. These delays brought him closer to the approach of winter, ;*hich would make the voyage north hazardous. Lord Clarendon, the Foreign Minister, sent Elgin instructions that permitted action against Canton if he had not already gone north. Finally, the actions of Yeh Ming-ch'en forced Elgin to accept the need for an attack on Canton. Elgin had sent an ultimatum to Yeh demanding that access to Canton be granted and that reparations be paid for British losses incurred since hostilities had erupted a year earlier.142 After the successful assault on Canton and the capture of Yeh Ming-ch’en, Britain and France set up a commission to oversee the civil administration of Canton under Chinese officials. A small Anglo-French garrison was set up, but Chinese control of the population was encouraged.143 pei-ho expedition was then organized with the cooperation of Reed and Putyatin. The four Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244 Ministers drafted similar notes to the imperial court. They demanded that an imperial commissioner be sent to Shanghai to negotiate treaty revision. If this demand were not met, a combined expedition would be sent to Tientsin. The four Ministers repaired to Shanghai to await the Emperor’s decision.1^4 Reed's despatches on the capture of Canton and the revelations of imperial complicity in the actions of Yeh Ming-ch'en gave the Buchanan Administration some concern. When Reed disclosed that neutrality in China would not further American hopes for treaty revision and stated that "decisive action is necessary,"145 t^e President and his Cabinet were faced with a dilemma. An immediate worry was that China might not extend to Reed the right to participate equally in treaty revision if United States forces had not been involved in forcing the issue. On the other hand, it was not desired that Reed depart from his original instructions by combining with Britain and France in hostile actions against China. Congress was not likely to declare war against China or to appropriate funds to support military or naval actions. A compromise position was reached. Cass wrote Reed to abide by his original instructions and avoid becoming a paity to the war Britain and France were waging.146 jf> after the hostilities were concluded and China refused to "admit the United States to an equal participation in such privileges as may be granted to the belligerents," the issue of war could then Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 be decided, and it was a possibility,14^ The allies sailed to Shanghai in late March and received notification from a local official that they should return to Canton and await the arrival of the new imperial commissioner and negotiate with him. The four Ministers rejected this advice and made good on their promise to go to the Pei-ho. They all arrived in April.149 By the third week in May over thirty vessels from the four Western navies were arrayed at the mouth of the river, but the Chinese employed a well-worn delaying tactic. They sent officials not authorized to negotiate a treaty.149 Reed finally entered into negotiations in early May with a Chinese official who claimed to have full powers to negotiate a treaty, though final approval by the Emperor had to be secured. Some progress was being made when Reed learned the French and British intended to attack the forts at the mouth of the river on May 20 in order to force their way to Tientsin. In this city, they believed, serious negotiations could be conducted with an official with full powers. The forts fell, and Tientsin was taken by the end of May. Kuei-liang j^. ], the elder brother of I-liang, and Hua-sha-na [i£ a Mongolian, were vested with the full powers to treat that the British insisted on, though neither had ever seen a Westerner before.199 Reed did not take as hard a line in the negotiations at Tientsin as the British and French, knowing that the United States would obtain any privileges they received through the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 most-favored-nation stipulation. Fairly easy negotiating sessions produced a treaty, which was signed on June 18, 1858.151 Article IV provided that the highest diplomatic representative of the United States, "in order to further perpetuate friendship," had the right to address the Chinese Privy Council and certain provincial governers "on terms of perfect equality and confidence." Communica tions to the Privy Council could be delivered to certain named governors and viceroys for forwarding, and all those officials "shall in all cases consider and acknowledge such communications promptly and respectfully. *'152 Once a year the American Minister was permitted by Article V to visit Peking on diplomatic business and meet with a member of the Privy Council or an official of equal rank who was deputized for such consultations "on matters of common interest and advantage." But if China granted to another nation greater latitude in permitting its Minister to stay in the capital, Article VI gave the same right to the United States Minister "without any further consultation or express permission."153 These terms were intended to force Chinese officials to discard their attitudes of superiority over Western "barbarians," who had to endure long, unexplained delays in answers to official communications and to accept that the Imperial Commissioner could refuse to meet with them at will. The four Ministers now seized the opportunity Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247 to put an end to these irksome practices. Article VII stipulated the forms of communications to be used when making representations to officials who were to be consid ered equals. "In no case," it was added, "shall any term or style be used or suffered which shall be offensive or dis respectful to either party." Article VIII required that personal interviews be held if requested. Commanding officers of American military and scientific ships were given, in Article IX, the right to mutual and equal com munication with Chinese officials in ports where they called. American consuls were, by terms of Article X, to be considered the equal in rank of an intendant of circuit or prefect. 1^5 ^.11 these treaty stipulations were designed to secure for American civil and naval officials the right to be treated on terms of equality with Chinese officials. Articles XI and XII contain terms similar to Articles XVII, XIX, and XXI of the Treaty of Wanghsia, in that American citizens, "peaceably attending to their affairs," were to be considered equal to subjects of China. They were to "enjoy for themselves and everything apper taining to them, the protection of the local authorities of government, who shall defend them from all insult and injury of any sort." Property could be rented for the same purposes, but an alteration in wording changed the respon sibility for peaceful relations with local inhabitants from the American lessee to his Chinese neighbors.156 This change was not directly related to Roberts1 difficulties Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248 at his Uet-tung Chapel, but certainly his claim for damages, resulting from the attack by the mob on his chapel, would have been strengthened had the earlier treaty been worded like the later one. Extraterritoriality was retained in Article XI. Two additional ports were opened to trade; Swatao [Shan-t'ou ;d. ttl and Taiwan (later, Tainan [T'ai-nan ]) were added to the other fiye in Article XIV. Another redun dancy to the most-favored-nation clause was provided in Article XV: it was "expressly agreed that citizens of the United States shall never pay higher duties than those paid by the most favoured nation." Article XXVIII gave American citizens the right to address communications to local Chinese officials through the consul. Chinese citizens were also accorded the right to address the American consul directly, "at the same time they inform their own officers. . ."157 Article XXIX provided that "those who quietly profess or teach these [Protestant or Roman Catholic] doctrines shall not be harassed or persecuted on account of their faith. American and Chinese Christians who "peaceably teach and practice the principles of Chris tianity, shall in no case be interfered with or m o l e s t e d . "158 This provision exceeded Reed's instructions, as the United States had not sought special privileges for missionaries. The Minister inserted this article to benefit those missionaries, W. A. P. Martin and S. Wells Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249 Williams in particular, his interpreters at Tientsin, who had performed valuable services to American diplomacy in China.^59 The final article, XXX, was a comprehensive state ment granting most-favored-nation status to the United States. Ratifications were to be exchanged "within one year from the date of the signatures thereof."160 Reed was notified on July 4, 1858, that the Emperor has ratified all four treaties with the order that they "are to be carried into effect according to their provi sions."-^^- Later that month Reed forwarded copies of the other three treaties to Washington. He noted the differences in provisions that would benefit the United States under the most-favored-nation clause. According to provisions in the British treaty, the British government had the right to station its minister permanently at Peking. This right could also be claimed by the United States under Article VI of its treaty. "The decision," Reed informed the Secretary of State, "as to whether we shall have permanent or occasional diplomatic relations at the Capital is left absolutely to us."162 He explained the reasons given him by Lord Elgin in insisting on this right and concurred in their validity, but thought it prudent to wait until his successor exchanged ratifica tions the following year to make a final decision in the matter.163 One of the results the permanent residence of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 foreign diplomats at Peking would bring, according to Reed, would be an "invigoration of the central authority of this disorganized Empire. . Thus enlivened, the dynasty had more to offer the Western powers than the Taipings: It is very manifest from the terms of the new treaties that the Rebellion to which so great effects were once attributed, is regarded now as a mischievous convulsion that ought to be put an end to. The Imperial power is to be sustained and among the means of doing so is that which this Treaty provides, a sort of diplomatic protectorate at the c a p i t a l . 164 Reed noted another feature of other treaties that would benefit the United States by means of the most-favored- nation clause. The British and French treaties allowed foreigners access to the interior of China. Except for the requirement that a passport be obtained from one’s consul, ’’a n y foreigner may go anywhere in China 'for pleasure or for the purposes of trade. ..’ .... [And] he carries with him his 'extraterritoriality'." There were dangers of abuse which Reed foresaw from this right of unlimited travel, but the advantages to be gained, he hoped, would outweigh them.165 Similarly, access to ports on the Yangtze River and other coastal ports, gained in the British treaty, offered new commercial horizons for Americans also. The elimination of internal transit duties, the likin tax, would be another benefit to trade that American merchants would e n j o y . 166 Reed was clearly optimistic that the treaties and his actions in obtaining them satisfied his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 instructions. He had supported the British and French but had not involved United States forces in the hostilities. All the rights and privileges they had won by force of arms would redound to the commercial benefit of the United States. There was, however, some unfinished business. The matters of tariff duties and the settlement of American claims were still unresolved. These were the subject of subsequent negotiations at Shanghai, carried on between late September and early November, 1858. S. Wells Williams conducted the American negotiations, but Reed signed the two Supplemental Conventions on November Tariff rates for most articles was set at five per cent. The Chinese agreed to pay about $735,000 to satisfy American claims. The first of these had been Roberts' demand as a result of the raid on his chapel in Canton on May 23, 1847. While the supplemental negotiations were being conducted in Shanghai, Cass wrote to Reed that the Treaty of Tientsin which had been forwarded to Washington was "judged to be quite as favorable to the United States as we had any just reason to expect." The President had approved his request to leave China with "regrets that the country will lose your valuable services as Minister to China."168 Reed left Shanghai on November 11, 1858, for Hong Kong and from there he sai]ed to the United States on December 8, by way of Europe.169 S. Wells Williams administered the American Legation as charge d'affaires upon Reed's departure. He Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 took the opportunity to inform the Secretary of State on some of the finer points of the situation in China. These points, he felt, had been overlooked by the commissioners who were not well versed in Chinese affairs. One matter that he stressed concerned the connection between imperial decisions and Chinese public opinion. It was a mistake, Williams wrote, to divorce the two in forming Western policies toward China. It was necessary to understand that edicts and decrees generally reflected what the Emperor and his advisors thought was necessary for the welfare of the Chinese people. To continue to ignore this aspect of Chinese leadership could lead to unfortunate results. Meanwhile, Williams went ahead and organized the program under which damages to American property, inflicted during and after the fire at the factories at Canton in December, 1856, would be indemnified by the Chinese.*71 Roberts* second claim, arising out of the looting of his chapel by Chinese police in January, 1857, was one of those requiring settlement. On January 18, 1859, President Buchanan appointed a new Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. He was John Elliott Ward, a Georgian whose public service had been in state government, except for serving as the chairman at the Democratic National Convention in 1856, the one which nominated Buchanan.1?2 a s far as the Administration knew, there would be little for Ward to do in China. The Treaty of Tientsin had been approved by the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 Senate and ratified by the President. Ward’s initial instructions were to exchange ratifications with the Emperor or an official designated by him and to oversee the deduction of customs duties in settlement of American claims. The Supplementary Convention signed by Reed in Shanghai stipulated that one-fifth of the tonnage, import, and export duties collected at the ports of Canton, Fuchou, and Shanghai would be used to satisfy those claims. Ward was also given the usual paragraph on aiding American citizens with claims against the Chinese government.173 Ward arranged to have his brother, Wallace Ward, appointed as Secretary to the Legation, but S. Wells Williams was retained as Chief Interpreter.174 jn order to facilitate the new Minister’s journey up the Pei-ho, with the expectation that treaty ratifications would be exchanged at Peking, Ward was promised naval cooperation and authorized to charter a small steamer. Ward arrived at Hong Kong on May 18, 1859, and met the commander of the American Squadron, Commodore Josiah Tatnall. This officer detailed a small steamer for the Minister's use. Ward decided to go north immediately and arrange for the ratification of the treaty. When he stopped over at Shanghai on May 28, he learned that the Chinese Imperial Commissioners were there, but they could not arrange to be at Peking for the exchange ceremony for two months. They advised Ward, and the British and French envoys who had arrived in Shanghai after Ward, to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 wait there until arrangements could be made.176 The European Ministers accused the Chinese of acting in bad faith and sailed for the Pei-ho.s The Chinese Commissioners advised Ward to do the same. He left Shanghai on June 16 and arrived at the mouth of the Pei-ho on June 21.177 The Westerners found that in their absence of a year, the Chinese had greatly strengthened the forts at Ta-ku [ •£], which guarded the mouth of the river, and had constructed several barriers to prevent entrance to the river of any but small vessels. Demands to clear the barriers brought Chinese replies that the ministers were to go to Pei-t'ang [ft , ten miles up the coast and meet with the Governor-General of Chih-li Province.178 Before Ward could comply, the British and French attacked the barriers and later the forts, but were driven back with embarrassing losses. In the heat of battle, Commodore Tatnall took a small launch in order to rescue the British commander, Admiral Sir James Hope, and other wounded British sailors and later to ferry more British marines into the battle to support their falling comrades. He explained his breach of neutrality by a phrase now famous: "Blood is thicker than water."179 British and French forces left the area when it became evident that their position was hopeless. Ward, on the other hand, decided to accept the Chinese invita tion to go to Pei-t’ang and arrange for the trip to Peking.1®® The American treaty did not specify, as did Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 the British and French, that the exchange of ratifications should take place at Peking. Ward carried a letter from President Buchanan to the Chinese Emperor that he desired to deliver in person, and he hoped that both objects could be accomplished by this one trip.181 Ward and American prestige came in for much ridicule when it was learned that the Minister agreed to travel on the overland portion of the trip to Peking in a cart instead of insisting on a sedan chair, and from some second-hand accounts of Ward's treatment at the capital.2 He was finally refused an audience with the Emperor because no acceptable compromise to performing the kowtow [k 'ou-t ’ou 'P'p ^|j] could be reached. Ward refused to kneel, because, he declared, "I kneel only to God and woman!"183 Ward delivered the letter from President Buchanan to the Imperial Commissioner, Kuei-liang, for transmission to the Emperor. Ward and his party returned to Pei-t'ang where, on August 16, 1859, ratifications of the Treaty of Tientsin were exchanged.184 ^he Secretary of State notified Ward that he was pleased with his actions in spite of the delay in exchanging ratifications. The President had favorably mentioned Ward and his progress in China in his annual message. The Minister was asked to delay his intended departure from China until "peace shall have been restored" between China and the two European powers. He could be helpful in tendering his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256 good offices in the hostilities, and it would be useful to American citizens in China for him to remain there.185 After a visit to Japan, Ward negotiated with a Chinese official at Shanghai about implementing the American treaty while hostilities were still being conducted by Britain and France against C h i n a . 1^6 It was decided that American ships would begin paying tariffs according to the new rates on November 24, 18 59. Ward proclaimed this decision on November 8, 1 8 5 9 . Earlier that year the President had appointed two men to be United States Commis sioners for the adjustment of claims.*88 They arrived in China and oversaw the collection of the agreed-.upon fraction of tariffs. They paid off all American claims going back to 1847, including both of the ones submitted by Issachar Roberts.*89 At the end of 1859, Ward went to stay in Macao. He had fulfilled the requirements of his official mission.190 About May, 1860, he received further instruc tions from Washington. He was to take a naval vessel to the Pei-ho when the British and French went back and he was told to remain there "as long as your presence may be useful towards asserting the rights of your country." Another reason for going would be the "prospect of exercising such good offices between the hostile parties as may bring the contest to an amicable conclusion." He was also to confer with the Russian minister and cooperate with him in order to accomplish "any proper Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257 efforts in that purpose."191 In June, British and French forces occupied the Chusan Islands, and in early July they moved northward to the Pei-ho. Ward, in USS Hartford, beat them to the river and was welcomed by the Governor-General of Chih-li, whom Ward knew from the exchange of treaty ratifications almost a year earlier. Although the Chinese official was desirous of utilizing Ward’s good offices, the American Minister was not, from the Chinese point of view, very helpful. If Ward thought it was too late for mediation, he was correct. Allied forces landed at Pei-t'ang on August 1, 1860 and forced their way first to Tientsin and then to Peking.192 Ward, doubtful of his ability to accomplish anything useful, decided to leave.*93 When he arrived in Hong Kong in October, he heard that the Democratic Party in the United States had split into northern and southern factions, and that the Republican party had nominated Abraham Lincoln. He decided to leave for the United States,194 and did so in the middle of D e c e m b e r . 195 Ward was a Southerner who had ties to the North. The situation in China was under control, or at least beyond his ability to c o n t r o l . 196 Conditions in his own country required his presence far more than did those in China. He did not leave behind a settled China. Though the Manchu Dynasty had been tamed, the Taipings had not. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. References S. Y. Teng, The Taiping Rebellion and the Western Powers (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 184, mentions two sketchy reports written in 1850, and states that by late 1851 the general impression in Canton was that the rebels were (quoting Chinese Repository, 20:498, December, 1851): ’’somehow connected with foreigners and the term Shangti hui is often applied to them.” Teng gives credit to Roberts for having "divulged the story of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan," but notes that Roberts got his information from Hamberg. In Jen Yu-wen's Bibliography to his The Taiping Revolutionary Movement (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), there is a chronological list, pp. 592-595, of articles pertaining to the Taipings that were published in the North-China Herald. First on the list is a letter dated May 21, 1853. Third on the list is a reprint of Roberts' article, on August 20, 1853. Dr. Peter Parker, charge of the legation after the departure of John W. Davis sent his first despatches on some "disturbances" in November and December, 1850. By mid-1851 he was referring to the "Kwang Si Insurrection." At the end of 1851, he was calling it a "civil war in China." National Archives, Diplomatic Despatches (from China), Microcopy No. 92, Vol. 6 (NA-DD:6). 2 Southern Baptist Convention, "Report of the Committee on the Case of I. J. Roberts," (Part of the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting in Montgomery, Alabama, in May, 1855), pp. 83-87, quoting three letters that give the particulars in the incident. (Hereafter this source will be cited as SBC Report.) 3 SBC Report, pp. 87-88. ^SBC Report, pp. 76-77. ^SBC Report, p. 77. This charge seems relatively innocuous, but there was lingering resentment among Western Baptists at the Eastern, elitist control over the denomi nation. See Margaret M. Coughlin, "Strangers in the House, (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Virginia, 1972), pp. 113-118. As Coughlin points out, Roberts exploited this sectional dispute to continue to receive the sympathy and gifts of his supporters. The board was aware of strained relations with Western Baptists and were sensitive to actions such as Roberts' which exacerbated them. ^SBC Report, p. 77. 258 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259 7SBC Report, pp. 77-78. g SBC Report, pp. 78-81. See Chapter 4. 9 SBC Report, pp. 82-83. ^SBC Report, p. 83. ^Coughlin, pp. 118-121 12 Coughlin, p. 121, citing November, 1852, issues of the Western Recorder. *^Taylor to Pearcy, Richmond, February 19, 1852, SBFMB, (Board Letters, Vol. 1), cited in Coughlin, p. 126. 14 Taylor to Pearcy, Richmond, February 19, 1852, SBFMB, (Board Letters, Vol. 1); Tayior to Roberts, Richmond, April 21, 1852, SBFMB (Board Letters, Vol. 1), cited in Coughlin, p. 122. l^Coughlin, pp. 122, 126-128. Buck was a long-time friend of Roberts', but he did not want to see the Convention split because of him. •^Roberts' letter in the Western Recorder, 21.40:2, December 6, 1854, cited in Coughlin, p. 128. 1 7 SBC Report, p. 73. Most of the members of this committee were from Southern and Western states and were known to have been sympathetic to Roberts. The Rev. W. C. Buck was a member of this committee. l8See Chapter 1 for a discussion of the religious implications of the Millennium. ^Roberts' untitled article, dated October 6, 1852, in the Chinese and General Missionary Gleaner, February, 1853, p. 67, quoted in Y. C. Teng, "Reverend Issachar Jacox Roberts and the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies, 23.1:59, November, 1963. ^Roberts to F. C. McCalla, Canton, June 19, 1853, printed in the Western Recorder, in Roberts' file, SBFMB; Roberts to the Western Recorder, Hong Kong, July 8, 1853, quoting excerpts from a letter to him written by an uni dentified Baptist missionary at Shanghai, June 21, 1853, in Roberts' file, SBFMB. See also Thomas T. Meadows, The Chinese and Their Rebellions (reprint; Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1956), p. 259, cited in Y. C. Teng, p. 59. S. Y. Teng, p. 212, notes that Bonham’s mission was "repeatedly asked about Lo Hsiao-ch'uan (the Chinese name of I. J. Roberts). . . whom they clearly remembered." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 21 Roberts to Pearse, Chinese Evangelization Society, Canton, May 30, 1853, sent for publication to the Western Recorder, in Roberts' file, SBFMB. 22 H. R. Williamson, British Baptists in China3 1845-1952 (London: The Carey Kingsgate Press, Ltd., 1957), p. 25. ^Roberts to Marshall, Canton, May 30, 1853, quoted in full as Appendix B to J. Milton Mackie, Life of Tai-Ping- Wang3 Chief of the Chinese Insurrection (New York: Dix, Edwards, 8 Co., 1857), pp. 278-279. ^Marshall to Marcy, Shanghai and Macao, May 26, 1853-January 9, 1854, passim, NA-DD:8. For a detailed discussion of Marshall's attitudes on the Manchu Dynasty and on the Taipings, see Kenneth Wesley Rea, "Humphrey Marshall's Commissionership to China, 1852-1854," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Colorado, 1970), pp. 151-154. See S. Y. Teng, pp. 211-217, for a discussion of the fact-finding mission to Nanking under taken by Sir. George Bonham, Captain Fishbourne, and their interpreter, Thomas T. Meadows, in April and May, 1853. ^^Marshall to Roberts, Shanghai, June 20, 1853, NA-DD:8. Marshall added a personal observation to his legal decision: "I will say that, in my opinion, the camp of the insurgents, and the moment when the sceptre of empire sways in the balance, are neither fit place nor time for you or others--the citizens of a friendly power--to seize upon to display to the followers of Tienteh 'the unsearchable riches of Christ'." (Tienteh [T 'ien-te » meaning "heavenly virtue," was thought to be Hung's title. It was a title used by a chief of the Heaven and Earth secret society, and caused some confusion among foreigners in China. See S. Y. Teng, pp. 34, n.l, 58-59, 183-184). Marshall did not equivocate in refusing Roberts' request, but he recognized the potential value of missionaries who might visit the Taiping areas and bring back current information on the rebels. "Why could not the infernal ass go without saying anything to me about it?" Marshall asked Augustine F. Heard, Jr. "Of course I had to tell him 'no'. My position compelled me to take that stand under the treaties, but I should have been delighted to have him go and bring me back some report of the rebels, which I could rely upon." Quoted in Y. C. Teng, p. 60. ‘' United States Congress, Statutes at Large of the United States of /.msrica, 1789-1873 (17 vols.; Boston: Little cinu Brt,’* ? 1845-1873), 9: 278. 27 Roberts to the Western Recorder, Hong Kong, July 8, 1853, in Roberts' file, SBFMB. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 ^Robe r t s to F. C. McCalla, Canton, June 19, 1853, printed in the Western Recorder, in Roberts’ file, SBFMB. 2 Q Roberts' Circular Letter, Shanghai, December 31, 1853, quoted in J. B. Littell, "Missionaries and Politics in China--The Taiping Rebellion," Political Science Quarterly, 43.4:585, December, 1928, citing Presbyterian Archives, Shanghai 1850-64, No. 87; emphasis in the original. ^Roberts to Graves, Hong Kong, July 6, 1853, printed in an unidentified Baptist journal, in Roberts' file, SBFMB; emphasis in the original. There are two unidentified clippings in Roberts' file, SBFMB, that echo Roberts' concern for a version of the Bible that has the proper character for "baptize." "Pedo-baptist Societies [i.e., those which practice infant baptism by sprinkling] will flood the empire with their unfaithful versions unless Baptists do their duty," was one writer's opinion. ■^Roberts to Mrs. Virginia Y. Roberts, Shanghai, July 31-August 3, 1853, in the Western Recorder, November 16, 1853, in Roberts’ file, SBFMB. The North-China Herald, October 8, 1853; see also Te-kong Tong, United States Diplomacy in China3 1844-60 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964), pp. 135- 136. ^Roberts to F. C. McCalla, Shanghai, December 27, 1853, in the Western Recorder, in Roberts’ file, SBFMB; see also Coughlin, p. 268. ^Roberts' Circular Letter, Shanghai, December 31, 1853. Roberts speaks of himself in the third person. 35 Roberts' Circular Letter; emphasis in the original. 3 6 Roberts to F. C. McCalla, Shanghai, December 27, 1853. Roberts added in closing that the son and nephew of the late Southern King were still with him, "the latter having been baptized since he came with me to this place." Littell, p. 585, notes that both these young Chinese men died before reaching Nanking. 37Jen, pp. 185-194. 70 Tong, p. 121, and n.7. Tong, pp. 55, 108-113. An associate of Russell § Co. wrote Marshall: "I hope T'een Tih will be successful, and upset the present dynasty. We cannot be worse off; and he is said to be a liberal man." Quoted in Rea, p. 163. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262 ^Marshall to Marcy, Shanghai, June 21, 1853, NA-DD:8. ^Marshall to Marcy, Shanghai, May 30, 1853, NA-DD:8; emphasis in the original. 4.7 Marcy to Marshall, Washington, June 7, 1353, NA-DI:84. 4^Marcy to Marshall, Washington, June 7, 1853, NA-DI:84-85. 44Tong, pp. 135-138. The walled city of Shanghai was captured on that date by members of the Small Sword Society, an offshoot of the Triads. At the time many foreigners believed these Chinese were Taipings, and that the customs house fell prey to their actions. John K. Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1967), p. 410; and Tyler Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia (reprint; New York: Barnes 8 Noble, Inc., 1963), p. 216, both accept the report that the customs house was sacked by Chinese "rabble." Marshall, on the other hand, reported to the Secretary of State that he had witnessed "the entry of an employee of a British mercantile firm of this city. . . . Other British subjects. . . [claimed] that the Chinese superintendent of customs owed them money. . ., and they thought this an opportune moment to provide collateral s e c u r i t y The Chinese rabble arrived only after the British subjects finished looting the customs house. Marshall to Marcy, Shanghai, October 30, 1853, NA-DI:8; emphasis in the original. 4^See Tong, pp. 138-139; Fairbank, pp. 416-418; and Dennett, p. 217. 46Tong, pp. 139-140. ^Marshall antagonized merchants, missionaries and British officials by seeming to support the corrupt dynasty. In fact, earlier that year he had proposed first joint then unilateral American action to save the dynasty. He believed American interests would suffer if the Taipings were successful and the British, and perhaps the Russians, established spheres of influence that would restrict the areas in which Americans could trade. See Marshall to Marcy, Shanghai, June 10, 1853, NA-DD:8. He had also antagonized Commodore Matthew C. Perry by using a naval vessel to try to reach Nanking when Perry wanted it for his initial trip to Japan. See Rea, pp. 35-39, 46-48, 58-62. Another treatment of their relationship, but one which must be used cautiously, is Chester Bain, "Commodore Matthew Perry, Humphrey Marshall, and the Taiping Rebellion," Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263 Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 10.3: 258-270, May, 1951. ^ T o n g , p. 145. ^ A l l e n Johnson and Dumas Malone (eas.), dictionary of American Biograpky (20 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928-1936), 12:115-116. ^^Marcy to McLane, Washington, October 21, 1853, NA-DI:86. He was given in his initial instructions the same paragraph relating to help for American citizens with claims against the Chinese government. See Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 4, 1853, NA-DI:89. ■^Tong, p. 144. ^Tong, p. 146. 53 Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 9, 1853, NA-DI:90-91. This policy is more positive than Marcy's instructions to Marshall five months before: "Our treaty stipulations with China must be respected and our settled policy of noninterference in the contests which arise between the people and their rulers must be observed." See Marcy to Marshall, Washington, June 7, 1853, NA-DI:84. 54,. Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 9, 1853, NA-DI:93. 55Tong, pp,. 121-122. 56Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 9, 1853, NA-DI:93. 5^Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 9, 1853, NA-DI:93. ^^Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 9, 1853, NA-DI:92. ^McLane to Marcy, Hong Kong, March 20, 1854, NA-DD:9. 60Tong, p- 147. McLane had formally requested the use of a "small naval force," and the Secretary of the Navy had approved. See Marcy to McLane, Washington, June 22, 1854, NA-DI:100. When McLane arrived in China, Perry was in Japan negotiating the Treaty of Kanagawa, which was signed on March 31, 18 54. USS Susquehanna was part of Perry's squadron, so she could not have been placed at McLane's disposal until after Perry's departure from Japan in early April. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264 6*McLane to Marcy, Macao, April 8, 1854, NA-DD:9. See also Tong, pp. 147-149. ^^McLane to Marcy, Shanghai, June 14, 1854, NA-DD:9. f\ Marcy to McLane, Washington, September 23, 1854, NA-DI:102. 64Littell, p. 581. ^Coughlin, p. 268. 6^Coughlin, p. 268; quotations are from Roberts to the Western Recorder3 Shanghai, August 19, 1854, published in that periodical, 21.40:4, December 6, 1854. ^7H. A. Tupper, The Foreign Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publica tion Society; and Richmond, Va.: Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1880), p. 88. 68Coughlin, p. 268. See also Stuart Creighton Miller, ’’Ends and Means: Missionary Justification of Force in Nineteenth Century China," The Missionary Enterprise in China and America, ed. John K. Fairbank (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), p. 257. Miller, The Unwelcome Immigrant: The American Image of the Chinese, 1785-1882 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), pp. 114-121, discusses the change in American attitudes toward the Taipings that occurred in late 1854 as a result of reports from some missionaries that Taiping religion was a blasphemous perversion of orthodox Christianity and that some of the Taiping leaders were arrogantly anti-foreign. 69 Roberts to the Alabama Journal3 May 15, 1855, m Roberts' file, SBFMB. 7^See above, at n.16. 7^SBC Report, p. 73; and I. T. Tichenor’s letter to the Alabama Journal, May 16, 1855, in Roberts’ file, SBFMB. 7^Tichenor’s letter to the Alabama Journal. 7^Coughlin, p. 273, quoting letters of Roberts to the Western Recorder. 74Marcy to McLane, Washington, November 9, 1853, NA-DI:90-91. 78Marcy to McLane, Washington, May 8, 1854, NA-DI: 99. 7^See above, this chapter, for details. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265 77McLane to Marcy, Shanghai, June 16, 1854, NA-DD:9. 78McLane to Marcy, Shanghai, July 27, 1854, NA-DD:9. The protection of American treaty rights at Shanghai was a necessary point of discussion between McLane and I-liang, though the problems arose primarily because of British initiatives in that port. One aspect, according to Tong, p. 152, concerned "the political status and civil adminis tration of the foreign settlements in Shanghai;. . . [and the other concerned] the re-establishment of the Chinese customs service in that port." See Tong, pp. 152-157, for an elaboration of these issues. 7^Tcng, pp. 157-158. Dennett, pp. 225-228, also credits McLane with devising the general plan whereby foreigners were to be employed by the Chinese as customs inspectors. The British consul, Rutherford Alcock, drew up the details. See Dennett, p. 228n. 8®McLane to Marcy, Shanghai, July 27, 1854, NA-DD:9. 8*Tong, pp. 161-168. One aim of the expedition was to circumvent the tedious bureaucratic channels authorized for communication with Peking. Unknown to Bowring and McLane, a minor official was sent to negotiate, but the Chinese positions came directly from the Emperor. See Tong, p. 167. For other accounts of the Anglo-American Joint Expedition to the Pei-ho yS\] River, see Dennett, pp. 238-240; and H. B. Morse, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire (3 vols.; reprint; Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1971), I, 415-416. 8^McLane to Marcy, November 19, 1854, NA-DD:10. 8^Marcy to McLane, February 26, 1855, NA-DI:105-106. A triple intervention at this time was not only impractical for the United States; Britain and France were prevented from concentrating on China by the Crimean War. See Tong, p. 171. 8^McLane to Marcy, Paris, April 29, 1855, NA-DD:11. See also Tong, p. 172. 88Parker had been dismissed by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in 1847 when he accepted the permanent position as Secretary to the American Legation. See Edward V. Gulick, "Peter Parker and the Opening of China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 139-141. 8^Marcy to Williams, Washington, June 28, 1855, NA-DI:113-114. By accepting the same position that had cost Parker his affiliation with the American Board of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266 Commissioners, Williams likewise had to sever his connection as a missionary. See Martin R. Ring, "Anson Burlingame, S. Wells Williams and China, 1861-1870: A Great Era in Chinese-American Relations" (unpublished Doctor's disserta tion, Tulane University, 1972), p. 23. 87 Marcy to Parker, Washington, September 5, 1855, NA-DI:117-119. 88Tong, pp. 173-174; Dennett, p. 279. 89Tong, p. 174. 90Marcy to Parker, Washington, September 27, 1855, NA-DI:121-127. 9^Marcy to Parker, NA-DI: 123; emphasis added. 9^Marcy to Parker, NA-DI:124, 126-127. 9^Marcy to Parker, NA-DI: 125-126; emphasis in the original. Perhaps Marcy was subtlely reminding Parker, by emphasizing the words "firm" and "judicious," that he was now required by his commission to place the interests of his country before any other considerations. Ten days later he reminded Parker to "keep this Department constantly advised of your proceedings, and the condition of affairs in China, particularly in respect to such matters as affect our commercial interest in that quarter." See Marcy to Parker, Washington, October 5, 1855, NA-DI:138. 94Tong, pp. 176-184. This author, p. 183, attributes Parker's failure to his inexperience in inter national, especially European, diplomacy; Britain and France were not that committed to joint operations; the Department of State did not support him vigorously in his efforts to arrange for the use of the American squadron; and Yeh Ming-ch'en, the Imperial Commissioner at Canton, sought to nullify Parker's efforts. 9%orse, I, 419-431; see also Douglas Hurd, The Arrow War (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), pp. 11-32. A lorcha was a small vessel with a Chinese hull and Western rigging. 9^Tong, pp. 185-186. 97Morse, I, 431-432. 98Morse, I, 431; Tong, p. 186. 99Tong, p. 187. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267 •^^Parker to Marcy, Whampoa, November 22, 1856, NA-DD:13. S. Wells Williams, Secretary of the Legation, observed that "this skirmish is the only passage of arms ever engaged in by American and Chinese forces. , He also reported slightly different casualty statistics: seven Americans were killed, twenty-two were wounded, and the Chinese suffered a total of about three hundred casualties. See his The Middle Kingdom (2 vols.; rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883), II, 638-639. •*-^Tong, pp. 187-188; Morse, I, 432-433. ^^Marcy to Parker, Washington, February 2, 1857, NA-DI:145-147. 103Tong, pp. 189-192. ^^William B. Reed to Lewis Cass, on board USS Minnesota, Hong Kong, February 1, 1858, NA-DD:15, reviewing the outstanding claims by Americans against the Chinese government. This claim was also settled by Reed later that year by the Supplemental Conventions he signed at Shanghai. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the claim that Roberts had submitted in 1847 and the diplomatic efforts made by several commissioners to get indemnification for it. 103Tong, pp. 193-194. Whereas the main British concern was trade and Chinese acceptance of Western standards of international behavior, France was more interested in the protection of Catholic missionaries in China. A French priest had been executed in Kuang-hsi earlier in 1856. See Morse, I, 480. For an account of Catholic missions in China beofre the Opium War and its fundamental contrast to Protestant activities, see Chapter 8 of Peter Ward Fay, The Opium War3 1840-1842 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975). ^•^^Tong, pp. 193-194. 107Parker to Marcy, Macao, December 12, 1856, NA-DD:13. 108Parker to Marcy, Macao, December 27, 1856, NA-DD:13. ^^Marcy to Parker, Washington, February 27, 1857, NA-DI:151. American commercial interests, besides Parker, the French and the British, wanted a more active role for the United States in China. The merchants tried to get Caleb Cushing, Attorney General and an expert on consti tutional law, to find a way to justify presidential action, without resort to Congress, in committing American forces in a limited belligerent action. Pierce and Marcy succeeded Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268 in keeping the United States neutral and in persuading their successors, Buchanan and Cass, to maintain this policy. See Tong, pp. 196^200. ^-^Parker to Buchanan, Macao, February 13, 18 57, quoted in Tong, pp. 202-203. Emphasis, whether Parker's or Tong's--the latter does not make it clear--is not indicated. ■^^Tong, p. 203. See Dennett, p. 276, for Perry's expedition and suggestion that "the United States alone should take the initiative. . . in this magnificent island." One of the organizers of the commercial expedition in 1855 was Gideon Nye, Jr. (Tong, p. 203), who had been one of the trustees of Roberts' Canton Missionary Society. See Tong, pp. 202-207, for a more detailed analysis of Parker's efforts to gain Taiwan for the United States. 2Marcy to Parker, February 2, 18 57. l-^Tong, p. 208. ^^Tong, p. 209. 115Cass to Parker, Washington, April 24, 1857, NA-DI:156. 116Tong, p. 209. 117 Cass to Parker, April 24, 1857. 118 Johnson and Malone (eds.), 15:461-462. *^Cass to Reed, Washington, May 30, 1857, NA-DI: 157. (The entire letter of instructions covers pp. 156-168, and in succeeding references to this letter, only the page numbers will be given.) *2®NA-DI:158. The internal Chinese tariff called likin [li-chin$ ] was levied starting in 1853 by local officials in cfaer to raise revenue to finance the militia campaigns against the Taipings. See T’ung-tsu Ch'u, Local Government in China Under the Ch'ing (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1969), pp. 130, 184, 300, n.116. 121NA-DI:158-159. 122NA-DI:159 123 NA-DI:160. Buchanan is given as the source for these and subsequent policy considerations because of his previous experience as Secretary of State and his knowledge of the situation in China. "The President," notes Tong, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 p. 210, "was the 'real Secretary* who took matters of foreign affairs, particularly Far Eastern affairs, in his own hands." 124NA-DI:160 * 125 NA-DI:160-161. Not all of these ideas are explicit in Reed's instructions, but if implicitly true, they help in understanding American policy that, due to the domestic situation in the United States at the time, could not afford to be otherwise so long as continued American presense in China were desirable. 126NA-DI:161-162. 127 NA-DI:162. 128NA-DI:163. 129NA-DI:163-164. 130NA-DI:165. 131NA-DI:166-167. 132 Tong, p. 213. 133 Tong, pp. 209, 214-217. For a detailed discussion of the Anglo-French actions in the latter part of 1857 and the events before and during the capture of Canton, see Morse, I, 489-503. Morse states, p. 503, that Yeh was taken to Calcutta, where he died on April 10, 1859. See also Hurd, pp. 120-125 for details of the capture of Canton. ^34Tong, p. 216; see also Morse, I, 472-478, for a brief history of Sino-Russian trade and tsarist expansion in Northeast Asia. Russia had tried to start sea-borne trade to Canton in 1806, but the Chinese Emperor forbade it. The Russians were the only European country that was permitted overland trade. See Morse, I, 62. 135 Tong, pp. 217-230; Morse, I, 506-525. Hurd's work is concerned primarily with the British side as the principal belligerent power in the Arrow War against China. 136 Reed to Cass, on board USS Minnesota, Hong Kong, December 15, 1857, NA-DD:15. ^~2William F. Mayers, Treaties between the Empire of Lhf-na and Foreign Powers (reprint; Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1966), p. 83. 1 38 Reed to Cass, December 15, 1857. This is one Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 of the few clues available on the activities and whereabouts of Roberts after he returned to China in early 1856. 139 Reed to Cass, on board USS Minnesota3 Hong Kong, February 4, 1858, NA-DD:15. 140 Reed to Cass, February 4, 1858. 141 Hurd, p p . 85-86. 142Hurd, pp. 100-117. 143Morse, I, 504-506. 144 Tong, pp. 217-218; Morse, I, 506-509. 145 Reed to Cass, February 4, 1858. ^4^Cass to Reed, Washington, "private," n.d., 1858, NA-DI:179. ^■4^Cass to Reed, Washington, April 28, 1858, NA-DI: 186-187. 148Tong, p. 218. 149 Tong, p. 223; Hurd, pp. 144-147. 150Tong, pp. 225-227. ^"^Morse, I, 526; Tong, pp. 230-231. For a text of the American Treaty, see Mayers, pp. 84-92. The Russian treaty was the first of the four negotiated. It was signed on June 13 (Mayers, pp. 101-104). The British treaty was the third; it was signed on June 26 (Mayers, pp. 11-20). The last of the four, the French treaty, was signed on June 27 (Mayers, pp. 59-71). ^8^Mayers, p. 85. ■^^Mayers, pp. 85-86. In view of Article XXX, the most favored-nation clause, Article VI seems redundant, except that it might help resolve diplomatic jealousies that might evolve. 154 Mayers, p. 86. ^88Mayers, pp. 86-87. A prefect was a provincial official in charge of a prefecture with jurisdictional authority over one or more districts, each of which was administered by a district magistrate. See Morse, I, 14-15; see also C h ’u, pp. 4 t 5. An intendant of circuit administered one or more prefectures, though a circuit Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 was not a definite political division within a province. See Morse, I, 13-15; and C h ’u, pp. 5^6. 156Mayers, p. 87. Compare the provisions of the earlier treaty at pp. 79-80, 157 Mayers, pp. 87-88, 91. ^ "^Mayers, p. 92. 159 Reed to Cass, Tientsin, June 30, 1858, NA-DD:17. See also Tong, pp. 232-233. 1 ^Mayers, p. 92. ^^Kweiliang [Kuei-liang] and Hwa-sha-na [Hua-sha-na] to Reed, July 4, 1858, enclosed with Reed to Cass, July 24, 1858, NA-DD:17. ■^^Reed to Cass, on board USS Minnesota, Shanghai, July 29, 1858, NA-DD:17. I Reed had mentioned in several despatches his desire to be allowed to resign once a treaty was negotiated. ■^^Reed to Cass, July 29, 1858. The change in Western attitudes toward the Taipings and the Manchu Dynasty as a result of these treaties and those concluded in Peking in 1860 will be discussed more fully in the next chapter. It is of interest to note how soon opinion began to change, and this statement by Reed is a clear indication that the change in attitude began as soon as 1858. ■^^Reed to Cass, July 29, 1858. ^^Reed to Cass, July 29, 1858; see also above, n.120. ^^Reed to Cass, Shanghai, November 9, 18 58, NA-DD: 17. Tong, pp. 235-244, presents a well-documented case from Chinese records, that the Emperor was vexed with the Treaties of Tientsin, particularly the provisions of resident Ministers at Peking. He proposed, in a secret plan, to offer to remove all tariff duties on foreign trade in exchange for the Western powers’ remission of this stipulation. The Chinese negotiators understood better than the Emperor that trade was only part of Western demands and the Ministers would not agree to this exchange. They were fearful that hostilities would be resumed if the subject were broached. Finally the Emperor acquiesced, and the plan was dropped. 1 C. O Cass to Reed, Washington, October 16, 1858, NA-DI:191. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 169 Reed to Cass, Hong Kong, November 25, 1858, NA-DD:17; and Tong, p. 254. 170Williams to Cass, Hong Kong, January 28, 1859, NA-DD:18. Williams, a former missionary, though not ordained, did not always agree with the merchants on the situation in China or with their suggested policies. During discussions with Reed while treaty negotiations were in progress, Williams tried to convince the Minister that unbridled commercial interests could lead to serious consequences for China that would ultimately hurt trade. See Ring, pp. 38-40. 171Ring, p. 44. *7^Cass to Ward, Washington, January 18, 1859, NA-DI: 193; also Johnson and Malone (eds.), 19:426-427. 173 Cass to Ward, Washington, January 18, 1859, NA-DI: 195-196. ■^7^Cass to W. Wallace Ward, Washington, January 25, 1859; and Cass to S. Wells Williams, Washington, January 24, 1859, NA-DI:197-198. 175 Cass to Ward, Washington, January 22, 1859, NA-DI:197. ^^Ward to Cass, Shanghai, June 13, 1859, NA-DD:18. The treaty ratifications were to be exchanged "within one year from the date of the signatures thereof." Mayers, p. 92. Ward obtained assurances from the Commissioners that a delay in the exchange ceremony would not invalidate the terms of the treaty. See Ward to Cass, June 13, 1859. The British Minister was Sir Frederick Bruce, younger brother and former secretary to Lord Elgin. He was appointed as the first Minister to China. See Hurd, p. 169. The new French envoy was M. de Bourboulon. It was decided that the first accredited Ministers should not be the same ones that had conducted hostilities against the Chinese Empire. See Morse, I, 573-574. 177Tong, pp. 259, 261. 178 Ward to Cass, on board the Toeywan, off Pei-ho, July 4, 1859, NA-DD:18. 179 Williams, II, 664^-668. Williams was an eye witness to these events, having been taken along as an interpreter. See Tong, p. 261. For more detailed accounts from the British side, see Hurd, pp. 180-185; and Morse, I, 576-579. ■^^Ward to Cass, July 4, 1859. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 * ^Williams t IT, 670.. *8%urd, p. 185-187; Tong, p, 270; and Morse, I, 580. Williams confided to his journal some reservations about the inattention to protocol Ward exhibited. The Minister was not convinced by Williams and the Rev. W. A. P. Martin, two of his three interpreters, that the Chinese placed a great deal of emphasis on style. See Ring, pp. 47-50. They were able, however, to prevent Ward from accepting any arrangements that seriously embarrassed the United States. 107 Ward to Cass, on board USS Powhatan, off Pei-t'ang, August 20, 1859, NA-DD:18. l 84 Ward to Cass, August 20, 1859, ■*-88Cass to Ward, Washington, December 30, 1859, NA-DI:215-216. 186Tong, pp. 274-275. 187 See text in Mayers, p. 84. ^•88Cass to Oliver E. Roberts, and to Charles W. Bradley, Washington, Apx'il 29, 1859, NA-DI: 203-205. 1890. E. Roberts to Ward, Macao, February 16, 1860, NA-DD:19. *99Tong, p. 280. While in Shanghai and later at Hong Kong, Ward became involved in the change-over of the Inspectorate of Customs to solely British control and in some amelioration of the coolie trade. See Tong, pp. 275-280. Cass to Ward, Washington, February 23, 1860, NA-DI:220-221. The British Minister in Washington must have informed the Secretary of State that a new offensive would be undertaken. ■^■^Tong, pp. 280-281. ^9^Ward to Cass, on board USS Hartford, Gulf of Pecheli, August 7, 1860, NA-DD:19. For details of the successful allied advance to Peking and the burning of the Summer Palace, see Hurd, chapters 18-20; and Morse, I, Chapter XXVI. ■^9^Ward to Cass, Hong Kong, October 28, 1860, NA-DD:19. •^8Ward to Cass, Hong Kong, December 14- 1860, NA-DD:19. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 196Tong, p, 282. Ward was bitter over Georgia's secession and took no part in the Civil War* See Johnson and Malone Cods.), 19:427, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 6 ROBERTS, AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, AND THE DEFEAT OF THE TAIPINGS In 1860, the narrative strands which have been followed in this study--the missionary activities of Issachar Jacox Roberts, American diplomacy in China, and the course of the Taiping Rebellion--became more closely interwoven. That might have happened in 18 53, but Roberts was prevented from going to the Taiping capital by the American Commissioner, Humphrey Marshall, on the ground that Robert's presence there would be a violation of the United States policy of strict neutrality in the struggle for control of China.1 American neutrality was, first of all, a continua tion of the "settled policy of non-interference in the contests which arise between people and their r u l e r s . "2 And in maintaining its neutrality in the Chinese civil war, the United States was also carrying out a policy similar to that of the European powers in China at the time. The governments of Great Britain and France adopted policies of neutrality in China when their representatives reported that the Taipings were bent upon overthrowing the Ch'ing Dynasty, but there was no assurance that they would 7 succeed. 275 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276 After the Taipings took Nanking in March, 1853, several diplomats, military officers, and missionaries visited the Taiping capital and areas under the control of the insurgents. Missionaries were, for the most part, impressed by the emphasis that Taiping leaders put upon Christianity. And regardless of their personal feelings toward Roberts, these Western missionaries reported that they received repeated inquiries about the former teacher of the T'ien-wang. Initially these missionaries hoped that the Taipings would win control of China and permit them to work in all parts of that country. Military observers were impressed by the enthusiasm and spirit of the rebels and predicted their eventual victory over the moribund Manchus.^ Western merchants generally echoed the missionaries' desires for a Taiping victory. Like the missionaries, traders were influenced in their opinion by their hope to gain access to more coastal ports and the interior of China. Merchants found that the Taipings needed military supplies, and some of the foreign traders readily sold arms and ammunition to the r e b e l s . ^ Notwithstanding the favorable opinions of the Tai pings shared by missionaries, military officers, and merchants, British and American diplomats were reluctant to go along with their enthusiasm. In May, 1853, after a visit to Nanking, Sir George Bonham, predicted that the rebels would "not succeed in their attempts to overthrow the present government."^ The American Commissioner, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill Humphrey Marshall, was unable to visit the rebel capital, but he doubted that the Taipings would, if successful, improve the position of the Westerners in China. A Taiping victory, he believed, would change the personnel of the government, but not its form.^ He reasoned that Hung Hsiu-ch'uan could not abandon traditional Chinese attitudes, including that of superiority toward foreigners, lest he O alienate many of his followers. Differing opinions of the Taipings and varying estimates of their chances for success against the Ch'ing Dynasty contributed to a continuation of the policy of neutrality established initially by the major Western powers. One scholar has concluded that Western neutrality in the Chinese civil war can more accurately be described as "a policy of watchful opportunism,” by which the rebel lion was used as a means of gaining more extensive privileges from the Manchu government.9 As has been shown, however, Peking did not willingly negotiate more liberal treaties with the Western powers in order to obtain their help against the Taipings. Another war was required before the desired privileges were granted.*0 Western diplomats in China or their governments did not seriously consider supporting the rebels in anticipation of greater commercial gains that might result from a Taiping victory. The initial enthusiasm for the insurgents waned as events and more objective assessments revealed some of the weaknesses in the movement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278 The failure of the Taipings' northern expedition to capture Peking (1853-1855) lowered expectations that the rebels would ultimately prevail. Although there were no clear indications of which side would win, actions taken by the Western powers in the latter half of the 1850's indicate that foreign diplomats expected the dynasty to survive.H It also became apparent that Taiping Christianity was less orthodox than had once been supposed. First-hand accounts by some missionaries showed the theological shallowness of the movement from a Western point of view and replaced the earlier, laudatory reports from less objective sources. Most foreign Christians in China lost their enthusiasm when the real nature of Taiping religion became k n o w n . 12 Hung Hsiu-ch’uan*s lack of much formal Christian teaching has been cited as the reason Taiping religion contained so little of accepted Christian doctrine: If he continued his study of the Bible [with Roberts] for two or three years, he could have reconciled the beliefs of the subsequent Taiping Heavenly Kingdom [with orthodox Christianity] and obtained the approval and assistance of international public o p i n i o n . 13 Manifestly, Hung's two or three months of study with Roberts left vast areas of Christian teaching he neither understood nor included in his Taiping religion.14 when his cousin, Hung Jen-kan, went to Nanking in 1859, Hsiu- ch'uan appointed him Kan-wang £ ] , or Shield King. Jen-kan had not been able to join the Taipings in the campaigns that led up to the capture of Nanking. He became associated with missionaries of the London Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279 Missionary Society, and only in the spring of 1859 was he able to reach N a n k i n g . 15 When he arrived, the Taiping prospects, though far from hopeless, were less bright than might have been expected in view of the pressures being applied to the Manchu dynasty by British and French actions in the Arrow War. The European allies, confining their actions to the coast, the Taipings conducted several military campaigns in various parts of the interior. This strategy was also necessitated by the failure of the Taiping campaign to capture Peking.16 There were other Taiping military campaigns in the interior before 1855,1? but these were required because the initial surge northward to Nanking had bypassed cities and areas too strongly defended by imperial troops, and Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and his subordinate kings wanted to consolidate their control.Hung's decision to stop at Nanking after its capture and make it his capital instead of continuing on toward Peking and taking advantage of the momentum of his forces had been considered a fundamental blunder which saved the dynasty from almost certain defeat.19 During the drive northward to Nanking, the Taiping armies met more effective resistance from militia brigades organized by local officials than from imperial t r o o p s . 20 Local militia had been raised many times in the past to put down bandits and other uprisings, and this procedure was widened in an effort to thwart the advance of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Taipings. Tseng Kuo-fan, a scholar-official from Hu-nan was ordered by the Emperor to raise and train an army in his native province in late 1852. His military training was exemplary; he devised new and effective methods of organization and discipline. He did not win all his early battles, but he did prove that the Taipings were not invincible.21 In the late 1850’s he was more successful in his strategy of containing the area of Taiping control and in retaking those areas that were of most strategic importance. With the recapture of Chiu-chiang [^L>X] in May, 1858, Tseng was able to deny to the rebels the rice produced in Hu-nan and H u p e h . 22 Besides the lack of consistent success in their interior campaigns and the increasing pressure from pro vincial armies such as the one under Tseng Kuo-fan, the Taipings also failed to capitalize on the Arrow War by becoming embroiled in internecine struggles. Hung Hsiu- ch’uan based his claim to leadership on the visions and divine commission he believed he had received from the Heavenly Father to rid China of demons. Two of his closest associates, Yang Hsiu-ch’ing and Hsiao Ch'a-kuei ^ T], also claimed to speak for God. After Hsiao was killed, Yang used his claim to seek greater power over all the other leaders, including Hung himself. Finally, on September 2, 1856, the Northern King assas sinated Yang, his family, and about twenty thousand of his followers. He later killed all the members of the family Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 of another king, but, on orders from Hung Hsiu-ch’uan, was himself killed, with his family and followers. Of the original seven leaders, only Shih Ta-k'ai \3a ffl] and Hung, himself, remained. Shih soon separated from the T Hen-wang in 1857 and conducted his own c a m p a i g n s . 23 This was the Taiping situation when Hung Jen-kan reached Nanking in April, 1859. Two of Hsiu-ch’uan’s brothers had been given positions of responsibility, but their leadership consisted mainly of influencing their brother. They had kingly titles, but they did not possess the administrative ability to fill the void left when the more experienced leaders were killed or when Shih Ta-k'ai decided to operate independently.24 it was with a sense of relief that Hsiu-ch’uan greeted his cousin, Jen-kan, in April, 1859. With a speed that appeared unseemly to some of the Taiping veterans, Jen-kan was given the title of Shield King,generalissimo, and prime minister within a few weeks of his a r r i v a l . 25 Hung Hsiu-ch’uan was suffering from the advance of his mental illness and retreated from administrative con cerns. 26 He was delighted to have someone he trusted to assume the responsibilities of running his kingdom. After bestowing on Jen-kan his titles and duties, Hsiu-ch’uan issued a proclamation that everyone in his kingdom would be under the control of the Kan-wang. Although the Kan-wang did not make any immediate changes, ^ he had come with ideas that he wanted to see implemented. In Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282 particular, he was desirous of correcting some religious errors of the Taipings, and he wanted to gain the support of foreign governments.28 Jen-kan found that the Taiping organization-- political, military, and religious--was defective. He wrote a lengthy treatise during his first year at Nanking containing his ideas on revitalizing the government,29 as well as works on other subjects.30 in the first, he brought to the attention of the Taiping leaders his pro posals for improving relations with foreign countries. Besides short expositions on several of these nations, Jen-kan listed nationals of each of them Mwho are friends of your little brother [Hung Hsiu-ch'uan]." After referring to the United States as the "Flowery-flag Nation," he listed those Americans who could be considered friends of the Taipings. The name of Issachar Roberts was at the top of the list.^ It was appropriate that Roberts should be listed first among American friends. He was perhaps the first American Hsiu-ch'uan and Jen-kan met, and he had been their teacher in Christianity in Canton when they visited him in 1847. Roberts had felt it necessary to postpone Hsiu- ch'uan' s baptism, an act which was followed by the latter's return to the mountains and the inception of the Taiping movement. The T ' -ien-wang 3 however, had not harbored a grudge. Almost immediately after Nanking had been taken in March, 1853, he wrote to Roberts several times. One Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283 letter, inviting the missionary to come to his capital to assist in spreading Christianity throughout the Taiping Kingdom, reached Roberts. From May, 1853, to late 1860, Roberts had indefatigably championed the Taiping cause in China, in many letters to America, and in a personal speaking tour in the Western states during late 18 54 and most of 1855. He even made preliminary plans for a monthly magazine devoted to "the early history, rise and progress of Tae-pingWang and his patriotic revolutionary movements, in China." Though Roberts may have had ulterior motives in his desire to reach his former pupil--he needed to be vindicated after his dismissal from the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board--he never lost his enthusiasm for what he believed would result in the salvation of perhaps millions of Chinese.^2 Roberts recognized that the Christianity of the Taipings was imperfect, but this fact he attributed more to the short time Hsiu-ch'uan studied with him than to a deliberate distortion of Christian doctrine or a closed mind on the part of the T 'ien-wang.^ Roberts returned to China in early 1856 by way of Panama and San Francisco. He was hopeful that conditions would permit him to go to Nanking at once, but he found upon his arrival that Shanghai, the closest port of approach, had been retaken from the Small Sword branch of the Triad Secret Society by British troops with French help, and it was once again under Imperialist control.34 He went to Canton to revive his Uet-tung Chapel, but the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284 outbreak of the Arvo# War in late 1856 forced him to return to Hong Kong, where he remained for two years. 35 His chapel, left in the care of servants, was looted and burned by Chinese police or militia on January 25, 1857.36 This was a serious financial blow. Roberts had collected cash and pledges of over $3,000 before he left the United States, but these funds must have been exhausted by the end of 1857. Late in 1857, Roberts appealed to the American Minister, William B. Reed, for aid in collecting damages from the Chinese government on the two claims he had e n t e r e d . 37 The first claim dated from the looting and destruction of his chapel in 1847; the second was for the raid on his Uet-tung Chapel earlier in 1857. Roberts later wrote that he received more financial support during the decade 1855-1865--a total of $24,224.56--than he had ? O received under either mission board, but his appeal to Reed indicates that he was in serious financial straits.39 All American claims against the Chinese government were settled by early 1860,4® and it must have been a most welcome event when Roberts received his settlement. The total of his two claims was $5,200.41 Shortly after his appeal to Minister Reed, Roberts met Charles Gaillard, a Southern Baptist missionary who had arrived in early 1858 to revive the Canton mission. For tunately for the two missionaries, Yeh Ming-ch'en had been captured in early January by British troops, Canton was at last opened to foreigners, and allied troops enforced the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285 peace.42 Roberts and Gaillard went to Canton in February, 1858, and for a time lived on a boat. Later, they moved ashore and Roberts resumed missionary work with his customary z e a l . 43 Though the record of his activities during this period of time is sketchy, Roberts was still at Canton in April, 18 59. Another missionary reported that Roberts "seems to be devoted to his work and lives in the most economical style--both in food and dre s s . "44 The policy of the United States toward China during the Arrow War had been one of neutrality. With the excep tion of Commodore Tatnall's intervention at the battle for the Ta-ku forts in 1859, American diplomats and naval forces in China had only watched with interest and antici pation the course of hostilities. Whereas there was no doubt of the outcome of the Arrow War, the result of the Taiping Rebellion was less certain, and Western nations remained neutral in that conflict. Nonintervention, one scholar has observed, was not out of disinterest. Neutrality allowed skillful diplomats like Lord Elgin the leverage needed to extract greater concessions from the Manchus. By treating with the existing dynasty, the Western nations implied their preference for it to the unknown but unpromising policies of the T a i p i n g s . 45 Hung Jen-kan spent most of the 18 50's with foreigners in the treaty ports and was aware of their tendency to dismiss the prospects of the Taiping rebellion. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286 His desire to change his cousinls foreign policy was one of his main reasons for making the hazardous journey to N a n k i n g . 46 H i s appointment to the posts of foreign minister and prime minister seemed to put him in a position to carry out his aims. He was helped by military advances made by Taiping armies toward Shanghai by the middle of 1860.47 Several missionaries visited Taiping officials, who made it clear that not only were more friendly relations with foreign governments desired, but that religious attitudes of the Taipings were becoming more liberal in respect to orthodox Christianity.48 ROBERTS AT NANKING The best opportunity for Jen-kan to get his message to the Western powers and secure their friendship and support arose when Issachar Roberts came to Nanking in the fall of 1860 and lived in Jen-kan1s house for over a year. Roberts was still the Taiping leaders' favorite foreigner. Even before Jen-kan arrived at Nanking in April, 1859, Hung Hsiu-ch'uan had inquired about the missionary when Lord Elgin made a visit up the Yangtze in 1858. Roberts' name was listed first among the American friends of the Taipings in Jen-kan's treatise on governmental enrichment in 1859. And some of the missionaries who visited Taiping areas in the summer o; 1860 were asked about Roberts. The Loyal King, Chung-ivo [^. ~£.]> Li Hsiu-ch'eng ^ , was pleased to learn Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287 that the missionary was still in South C h i n a , 49 Word of his continued good standing with the Taipings reached Roberts in Canton, and he left to carry out a mission he had begun seven years before. He reached Shanghai in late August, and on September 22, 1860, met the Loyal King at his headquarters in Soochow [Su-chou 3$: 9-l*| ], about fifty miles from Shanghai toward Nanking.50 jn an interview that lasted two hours, the Chung-wang and Roberts discussed, among other things, the apparent inconsistency of Christian Englishmen fighting against Christian Chinese, i.e., Taipings, to protect the nonchristian imperialists, while fighting against the imperialists in the north. When the Chung-wang asked Roberts what Britain and France would do when a peace treaty was signed with the Manchu dynasty, the missionary replied that Lord Elgin would decide whether to maintain strict neutrality or fight against the Taipings. The Chung-wang wondered if there were a way he could appeal to the heads of foreign governments to plead the Taiping cause of Christian brotherhood so as to prevent a war between Christians of different nations. Roberts suggested that the Chung-wang write a letter, to be translated and published around the world by Roberts. Not only would leaders see it, but the people would also, and their support would influence the actions of their governments. The Chung-wang wrote a letter to Lord Elgin in which the greatest emphasis was placed on the common religion shared by China and Great Britain, He would Mbe Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288 pleased that the missionaries of every country would come forward, prepare, and make known the true principles of the Gospel to my people" Having covered religious toleration, the Chung-wang brought up other points he thought would win favor for the Taipings. One of these was to refute the idea that China and Chinese were superior to foreign nations and peoples. "I consider your honorable country as equally benevolent with ours," he wrote. On the matter of foreign trade, the Chung-wang declared that it should be carried on and not suppressed. He would be "willing to treat with the several ministers," abide by trading regulations already in force, and would not raise customs duties beyond the current rate. He concluded with the hope that "hereafter should we mutually act in concert, and not in oppositon." His final sentence, intentionally or not, amounted to an appeal to millennialists: From this Central Country, China, the Gospel will spread abroad, so that no distance will prevent it from bringing people under submission to Christ: then all below heaven will be exceedingly blessed, and all the people will exceedingly rejoice.51 Roberts left Soochow on October 4, accompanied by the Chung-wang, and they reached Tan-yang i # Pfo on October 7.^2 He received a passport through the Taiping area and reached Nanking on October 13. He informed the Kan-wang (Hung Jen-kan) that he "had come simply to preach the gospel of Christ. . .; to circulate the scriptures. . .; and perhaps to promote schools also for the same purpose." He asked permission to invite other missionaries to share Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289 this work. Jen-kan returned with the T *ten-wang rs answer, in the affirmative, two days later. Not only could Roberts preach and invite other missionaries, Hsiu-ch'uan appointed him "head and special manager of this affair." To this end Roberts addressed an earnest appeal to other Baptists to come or send help to join me in the great work of preaching the gospel, circulating the scriptures 8 religious tracts, and establishing theological schools, at the capital, Nanking and throughout Teen Wang's territory. . .53 On November 25, the Tien~wang issued a decree granting "free toleration to both protestants and Roman Catholics." With a similar provision in the Treaties of Tientsin, Roberts noted that "the two grants cover the whole ground. This is good, great, glorious indeed--360 to 400 millions of souls now accessible to the gospel in China. . ." On December 1, Roberts was surprised by another decree from the THen-wang that called for the opening of eighteen chapels in Nanking, and others were to be established in all the walled cities under his c o n t r o l . 54 Roberts' elation over these unexpected but most welcome developments is understandable. He believed he was about to achieve vindication for his dismissal from the Foreign Mission Board by being in the vanguard of the movement to convert millions of Chinese. He did not fail to note that the decree granting religious toleration to all Christians in the Taiping Kingdom was "secured by missionary influence before any treaty with the Nanking government has been made. . ." In a letter to another Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290 Baptist missionary Roberts wrote of his dismissal that "the smart of that day has worn away. . He was willing "to forgive from my heart, and to receive like forgiveness from those who believe I have erred." And he returned to a familiar theme--that God had been wiser than men in the working out of his divine plan: Nor do I wish it understood that I ever wish to become connected with the Board again--No, I believe the Lord has prevented my connection with any Boards, that I might have a wider influence. . . . Now I can stretch my arms all over Christendom and invite my baptist brethren of every Board and every nation to come and help me in this great work. . . . I shall be happy to see you or any of their missionaries come to Nanking, or settle in any part of Teen Wang's territory and I will do what I can for the promotion of their labors. . .55 Roberts was asked to become foreign minister in early 1861, but he refused, accepting instead some official robes and work as interpreter for Hung Jen-kan, in whose house he lived.^ The invitation to be foreign minister--or at least to take some active role in improving Taiping relations with foreign governments--appears to have been the high-water mark of his association with the Taiping regime.5? Even this supposed honor is indicative of the fundamental attitude of the T ’ien'wang toward his former teacher. Despite Roberts' expectation that Hsiu-ch'uan would be "accessible and teachable," the Heavenly King was, by the time Roberts arrived at Nanking, so convinced of his own divinity that he would not accept any instruction on the nature of God. One missionary reported that Hung wanted Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291 Roberts to perform the k*ou~trou3 but finally relented. Roberts discovered, when he engaged in a written corre spondence with Hsiu-ch’uan on religion, that the king believed that the heavenly kingdom he sought to establish on earth was headed by the Heavenly Father, the Heavenly Elder Brother, i.e., Jesus, the Heavenly King, i.e., Hung Hsiu-ch'uan, and Hung's son, which he termed "a sacred 58 quaternion." Instead of Roberts' being able to instruct the T'ien-wang more fully in Christian doctrine, it was Hung who expected Roberts to accept the superior position of the Heavenly King. Roberts was also to try to convert Westerners to a belief in the Taiping religion as being more true than Christianity, as it was revealed by God directly to Hung.59 Roberts was disappointed at what he found in Nanking, and he expressed his feelings in a letter to The North-China Herald, written on February 24, 1861, two days before he was asked to be foreign minister. In this letter he answered questions about the Taipings that had been posed by a correspondent of that paper. The Taiping government, Roberts said, consisted of martial law, though there was a book of laws he had not read. There were six boards, "in imitation of the Peking government," but the ministers were often away leading armies. The people, Roberts explained, had what amounted to a Hobson's choice when it came to accepting Taiping authority: "They simply have the choice between doing so, or yielding up their Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292 heads.1' They did not follow New Testament practices; "How would that be possible without a preacher?" Roberts asked in return. And in a summary of the Taiping position at that time, Roberts wrote that he believed Nanking safe from attack unless foreign troops were involved. Their religious practices differed from what was taught in the New Testament. "We cannot control the matter," Roberts admitted with a hint of resignation. "We can only pray that God will over-rule it for good."60 By the end of 1861, Roberts was not sure even God could save the Taipings. The only good aspects of their government were "negative, such as no idolatry, no pros titution, no gambling, nor any kind of public immorality, allowed in the city." Taiping religion was, he believed, "in the main abominable in the sight of God." Hung's pretentions of equality with Christ led Roberts to question his sanity: "I believe he is crazy, especially in religious matters. Nor do I believe him soundly rational about anything. . . . [The Taipings’] political system is about as poor as their theology." Instead of an organized government, the Taipings relied on martial law, "and that, too, runs very much in the line of killing men. . ." Hung, Roberts asserted, "wanted me to come here, but it was not to preach the Gospel. . ., but to take office, and preach his dogmas, and convert foreigners to himself." The Taiping leaders were in reality opposed to true Christianity, but tolerated it "for policy's sake. . .; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293 yet I believe they intend to prevent is realization, at least, in the city of Nanking. . . ” Roberts saw little hope that his missionary work would be successful. "And hence I am making up my mind to leave them unless the prospects brighten up considerably to what they are at present. . . ."61 Roberts’ disillusionment at Nanking was hastened by his treatment. Another Baptist missionary visited Nanking in February, 1861 and reported that Roberts "was dressed up apparently in the old cast-off robes of the chiefs, and without exaggeration he was the dirtiest, greasiest white man I ever saw." Another visitor wrote that Roberts received his board and an irregular stipend of fifty or a hundred dollars.62 The refusal of Roberts to perform the services expected of him made the missionary less useful to the Taiping cause and was likely the reason he was treated so s h a b b i l y . 63 Hung Jen-kan’s attitude toward Roberts changed also. The Taiping relations with the British had been rather cordial since agreeing to allow them to trade and navigate on that part of the Yangtze under Taiping control. But by late 1860, the advance of Taiping armies to the vicinity of Hangchow and Ningpo were interpreted by the British as threats. Admiral Hope issued four demands which were refused, and it was revealed that the Loyal King intended to capture Shanghai.64 xhe failure of Hung Jen-kan's foreign policy made him despondent,65 a n ^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294 probably irritable. Jen-kan's violent temper provided the final impetus for Roberts to leave. On January 13, 1862, Jen-kan, according to Roberts' account, murdered Roberts1 servant in the horrified missionary's presence. Then Jen-kan tried to provoke Roberts with shouts, gestures, and even physical blows, so that Roberts would give him an excuse to kill him. Roberts left Nanking on January 20,^6 probably on the first ship which could take him to Shanghai. On his way back, he wrote a scathing denunciation of the Taipings: I have hitherto been a friend to his revolutionary movement, sustaining it by word and deed. . . But after living among them fifteen months. . . I have turned over entirely a new leaf and am now as much opposed to them. . . as I ever was in favor of them. Not that I have aught personally against Hung Sow-chuen, he has been exceedingly kind to me. But I believe him to be a crazy man3 entirely unfit to rule. . .; nor is he, with his coolie kings, capable of organizing a government. . . He is violent in his temper and lets his wrath fall heavily upon his people, . . . [who are] murdered without "judge or jury." He is opposed to commerce. . . and has promptly repelled every foreign effort to establish lawful commerce. . . . His religious toleration. . . turn[s] out to be a farce--of no avail in the spread of Christianity--worse than useless. It only amounts to a machinery for the promotion and spread of his own -political religion. . . . Nor is any missionary, who will not believe in his divine appointment. . ., and promulgate his political religion accordingly, safe among these rebels in life, servants, or property. . . .67 Roberts returned to Canton and resumed his missionary work there. The Baptist missionaries in that city had little to do with him. His hopes for turning the Taiping movement into a "great awakening" on a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295 world-wide scale had been dashed, so he could no longer appeal for funds to carry out this goal in China.68 He made another trip north in 1863 and got as far as Soochow, but nothing came of it.69 His purpose and ultimate destination are unrecorded. He remained in China until after the conclusion of the American Civil War, and returned to the United States for the last time in 1866.70 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND THE DEFEAT OF THE TAIPINGS The American policy of double neutrality in China from 1856 to 1860 kept the United States out of active involvement in the Taiping Rebellion and the Arrow War. As has been seen, during the same period other foreign govern ments also maintained neutrality in the rebellion and concentrated on revising their treaties with C h i n a . 71 The privileges gained at Tientsin in 1858, however, provided a rationale for abandoning neutrality in the struggle for control of China. William B. Reed believed that the right to station diplomats permanently at Peking would result in an "invigoration of the central authority of this disor ganized Empire. . .” He had also come to the conclusion that the continued existence of the Taipings was an impediment to that rejuvenation: It is very manifest from the terms of the new treaties that the Rebellion to which so great effects were once attributed, is regarded now as a mischievous convulsion that ought to be put an end to. The Imperial power is to be sustained and among the means of doing so is that which this Treaty provides, a sort of diplomatic protectorate.72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296 Reed did not advocate direct American intervention against the Taipings. The British, on the other hand, were approaching that position when Lord Elgin led a squadron from Shanghai up the Yangtze as far as Hankow in November and December 1858. When one of his ships was fired upon by Taiping batteries at Nanking, British ships returned the fire and continued the bombardment until all the rebel guns were silenced. a few months later in early 1859, the British Foreign Office informed Frederick Bruce, Lord Elgin's younger brother who had recently been appointed as Minister to China, that he might consider requests from the Ch'ing court to assit in the suppression of the rebellion. The Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury, was of the opinion that driving the Taipings out of Nanking would gain the Chinese government's confidence and open the lower Yangtze River to Britis.; .rade.74 These calculations received a set-back later that year when imperial troops successfully resisted the Anglo-French forces at Ta-ku and prevented the European allies from exchanging ratifications of the treaties that had been negotiated in 1858.^5 The Taipings were still a threat to Shanghai. Hung Jen-kan, who had reached Nanking in the spring of 1859 and been appointed Prime Minister and Shield King, launched his movement to win the support of foreigners for the Taiping cause in 1860. Part of his plan called for an eastern expedition to capture Soochow, Hangchow, and Shanghai. He hoped that the foreigners at Shanghai could Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 297 be induced to support the rebels by appealing to their various professional interests as missionaries, merchants, and diplomats. Jen-kan also hoped to raise enough money to purchase twenty steamers which would be used in a campaign against Tseng Kuo-fan, whose army controlled the upper Yangtze.The Taiping army under the Loyal King laid seige to Shanghai in August, 1860, but British and French forces joined the defense of the city, and the Taiping offensive failed. After the Taiping army advanced toward Shanghai in the summer of 1860, Issachar Roberts was able to reach the headquarters of the Loyal King at Soochow, which the Tai pings had taken, and he was given an escort to Nanking. When Roberts stopped over at Tan-yang, he noted that the United States was so popular among the Taipings that ships of other countries flew the "flowery flag," as the Chinese called the stars and stripes, when sailing up the Yangtze into rebel territory.^ The Southern states were threatening to secede, however, and this domestic crisis preempted national attention. The election of Abraham Lincoln in November, 1860, whose Republican platform promised to end slavery and preserve the Union, provided the impetus for seven Southern states to secede before his inauguration.^ The United States could not become involved in a war half-way around the world when it was facing a civil war at home. S. Wells Williams had returned to the United States Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298 in March, 1860, and he, along with William B. Reed the former Minister to China, traveled to Washington together in early 1861 to consult with President Buchanan on the situation in China before he left office.80 John E. Ward resigned as Minister to China in late 1860, and after the Republican administration took office in March, 1861, Reed strongly recommended to William H. Seward, the new Secretary of State, that Williams be appointed Commissioner to China. Lincoln, however, offered the position to Anson Burlingame, who had supported the national Republican candidates so indefatigably that he had lost his own election in Massachusetts.81 Burlingame was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China in June, 1861,82 anj he arrived in China in late October of that y e a r . 83 His initial instructions included the usual paragraph on rendering aid to American citizens with legitimate claims against the Chinese government.84 Shortly before his arrival, the Hsien Feng Emperor had died in Jehol [Je-ho province, where he had gone on a conveniently timed « • • * hunting trip when British and French troops were marching toward Peking in the late summer of 1860. The new emperor was his five-year-old son and he was given the reign title of T'ung Chih [|fj The capital being occupied by foreign troops when Burlingame arrived in China, he went to Shanghai. Vice Admiral Sir James Hope took him in a British warship to Ningpo, which had been recently taken Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 299 by the Taipings. The brutality of the rebels, evidenced by the mutilated corpses that lay in the streets convinced Burlingame that they were the "very incarnation of obstruction."8^ While Burlingame was being shocked at the carnage at Ningpo, the Secretary of State was writing to him that there was no information recent enough to justify detailed instructions on how to proceed in the matter of the Taipings. Burlingame was to consider Peking a friendly government and act accordingly: "Lend no aid, encouragement, or counte nance to sedition or rebellion against the imperial authority." The Chinese treaties with France and Great Britain had finally been ratified and new conventions signed in 1860, so Seward considered American interests similar to those of the European allies. Britain and France had the military power to pursue their interests, and the Secretary of State was confident that they would act "in a manner as will best promote the interests of all the western nations." Burlingame, therefore, was instructed "to consult and co-operate with them" and keep the State Department informed.87 Seward found time to keep up with the situation in China despite the more pressing problems of the American Civil War.88 The war effort created conditions that affected even the conduct of the American Legation in China. Seward instructed American consuls and S. Wells Williams, charge d'affaires before Burlingame's arrival, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300 to grant no passports to Americans "whose loyalty to the Union you have not the most complete and satisfactory evidence."89 Later in 1861, Congress enacted a law requiring all officers and employees of all governmental agencies to take an oath of allegiance to the United States. This oath had to be administered to all diplomatic and consular officers in China and their employees.90 There were other ways by which the Civil War in the United States directly affected American interests in China. All naval units except one three-gunner, USS Saginaw, were recalled to the United States. The danger posed by pirates was too great for this one decrepit vessel, so Congress enacted a law authorizing the President to issue letters of marque to American vessels to assist the Saginaw--later replaced by USS Wyoming--in protecting American shipping in Chinese waters. Lincoln issued one such letter to the Pembroke, owned by R. B. Forbes, and he delegated to Burlingame the authority to issue five m o r e . 91 The Civil War also reduced American trade with C h i n a . 92 Burlingame informed the Secretary of State early in 1862 that the Taipings were threatening Shanghai and the American holdings there. 9-* His memory of the way Taipings had massacred the defenders of Ningpo was still fresh, and he was genuinely apprehensive. Seward, however, could offer him no hope that United States forces might be used in China. The President, he assured Burlingame, shared their concern for the safety of American lives and property Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301 in the continuing insurrection in China, but the insurrec tion of Southern states, he wrote, and its speedy suppression "is, at present, our most urgent" concern.94 Fortunately, Burlingame did not have to rely on help from the United States to meet the Taiping threat to Shanghai. Events in China were pushing the other Western powers toward active intervention against the rebels. About the same time as Burlingame was writing of his concern for the safety of Americans in Shanghai, Roberts fled from Nanking with his vehement denunciation of the Taipings.95 Another missionary reported that Roberts told him that "the rebels are a band of robbers, and should be exterminated by the foreigners."96 Roberts also publicly called for foreign intervention against the Taipings in "the interest of commerce and Gospel. . ." An editorial in the same issue of the newspaper which carried Roberts' letter commented upon his and other denunciations of the rebels: Now is the beginning of the end, when Taipings will lose forever the sympathy of all good foreigners...... We trust when these accounts reach England that all public sympathy will be withdrawn from the movement, so that our naval and military authorities may set with untrimmed power against these enemies of God and man. 9 7 British policy had favored the Ch'ing Dynasty over the Taiping rebels from about 1854, notwithstanding its avowed n e u t r a l i t y .^8 Once the treaties were signed, however, Britain did not immediately help suppress the Tai pings in order to save a weak regime from which favorable concessions had been forced. The decision to intervene Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302 actively evolved over about two years, and was the result of several factors.99 One of the factors was Roberts’ complete reversal in his attitude toward the Taipings, which helped persuade other sympathizers that the rebels were unworthy of their support.100 Another factor was the change in leadership in the Forbidden City. Hsien Feng had appointed as regents for his young heir men who followed the emperor’s anti-foreign policies. A palace coup in November, 1861, ousted these regents and brought to power members of the imperial family who adopted a more concil iatory policy toward the Western powers. They also invited active foreign intervention against the Taipings. 1®-*- Unofficial foreign help had been provided to the dynasty since 1860, when the American Frederick Townsend Ward, acting on his own, organized the Foreign Rifle Corps to recapture a city held by the insurgents in order to claim the reward offered by some Chinese bankers. His mercenary organization later became known as the Ever- victorious Army and, under a series of American and British leaders, helped protect Shanghai from the threat of Taiping invasion.103 Burlingame approved of Ward’s activities for two reasons. His army was helping to protect Shanghai form the Taipings, a matter of deep concern to the Minister. And the fact that Ward was an American--although he had adopted Chinese citizenship--helped to uphold the prestige of the United States when it was unable to exert any real power Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303 in China. Burlingame wrote that Ward wanted the United States "to have its full weight in the affairs of China."104 The British Minister, Frederick Bruce, and his Foreign Office agreed that the British role in the suppression of the rebellion should be strictly limited.105 This policy accorded with the desires of Chinese leaders, who were reluctant to place too much reliance upon foreigners for their protection.106 America’s contribution to improving conditions in China in the early 1860's did not only consist of the military exploits of mercenaries like Ward, Henry A. B u r g e v i n e , 107 and others. The role of foreigners, including Americans, was not essential to the suppression of the T a i p i n g s . 108 Burlingame and Williams upheld the prestige of the United States by vigorously supporting what has been called "the cooperative policy" in China.109 Seward expected that the British and French diplomats would promote the interests of all Western nations by their policies in China, and he instructed Burlingame "to consult and co-operate with them."HO Burlingame concluded that the Chinese government should be supported in its efforts to revitalize itself,m and the concurrence of other Western diplomats in Peking made cooperation not only easier, but more effective. H2 The Taipings were defeated in 1864, primarily by Chinese armies. Hung Hsiu-ch’uan died, perhaps of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304 malnutrition, on June 1, and Nanking fell to Tseng Kuo-fan's army on July 1 9 . Remnants were pursued for almost two years before the last Taiping was killed or captured. CONCLUSION By the time he returned to the United States in 1866, Roberts had served longer in China than any other American Baptist missionary. He had arrived in 1837 and, except for two trips back to the United States, had been in China almost thirty years. He was the most individual istic of these early missionaries, and pursued his own lines of endeavor in the face of opposition from his Baptist colleagues, other missionaries, his own boards, and--at times--American officials in China. The focus of this study has been the impingement of a minor but not insignificant figure on American diplomacy in China and his role in events with which it was concerned. Roberts’ direct influence on American policy was small; his involvement with the founder of the Taiping movement made him an actor in a cataclysm which hastened the decline of Manchu power and the final collapse of the dynastic system itself. Behind these large issues and the abstrac tions of power, economic organization, and social and cultural patterns lay the concrete human reality of the Chinese whom Roberts met and of the small foreign community of which he was a member. His daily activities as a militant evangelist, his quarrels with colleagues and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305 mission board at home, his dealings with diplomats and other foreigners, and his relations with Chinese provide an enlightening glimpse of that reality in nineteenth century China. Roberts* singular devotion to what he believed to be God's will for him frequently caused the missionary to insist upon taking an independent course. Coughlin ascribes this aspect of Roberts' character to his frontier origins.Indeed, he found his most consistent support from Baptists of his native region who shared his religious views and his dislike for organizational control. Roberts' personality, influenced by his brand of fundamentalist religion, was also responsible for his difficulties with others. He was associated in China with missionaries-- Baptists and of other denominations--as well as with diplomats who were better educated and more socially polished. One has to read between the lines of Roberts' voluminous correspondence, but there is more than a hint of insecurity and jealousy in some of his writings. His extreme individualism could have been at least partly cultivated subconsciously as a defense against "better" men. If he could not compete with them on their terms, he would take refuge in an unwavering faith in divine providence to lead him to be recognized for his missionary work. Indeed, had Hung Hsiu-ch'uan not come to study with him in 1847, Roberts would still deserve study for his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306 pioneering missionary efforts, He was, perhaps, the first Baptist in the United States to volunteer for missionary service in China. When his application was denied he estab lished the China Mission Society, probably the first agency devoted exclusively to Christian missions in that country. He was the second American Baptist to go to China, and despite his independence, he helped to establish the work of his denomination there. At Macao he assiduously distributed tracts and followed the example of his Saviour in preaching to lepers. Not content to remain on the edge of China, Roberts took advantage of the British acquisition of Hong Kong by moving there to work among Chinese who had never seen foreigners nor heard of Christianity. Once he had bap tized his first convert at Chekchu, Roberts hired him to assist in spreading the message of salvation. After the Treaty of Wanghsia gave Americans the right to lease property in five ports, Roberts went to Canton and estab lished the first Protestant mission on mainland Chinese soil that was not under foreign control. When his chapel was looted by a mob in 1847, Roberts entered the first claim against the Chinese government by a missionary. This claim was instrumental in establishing the principle that foreigners had the right to hold the Chinese government responsible for the actions of its citizens. When the Baker-Bridgman affair occurred, and Roberts was subsequently dismissed by the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board, he took up the Taiping cause with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307 great fervor. He was perhaps the last American missionary to abandon his conviction that it was part of God’s plan for China and the world. It was his last chance to vindi cate all that he had stood for and tried to accomplish in China. The story of Roberts' relationship to the two Baptist boards under which he worked offers some interesting parallels to the early operation of American diplomacy in China. These parallels, of course, reflect the general similarities facing the mission boards and the Department of State in trying to work out suitable policies for an entirely new set of circumstances. The great distance between responsible agency and field agent, and the time it took to exchange communications, made it necessary for the early missionaries and early diplomats to be given a good deal of discretion in their operations.H 6 Humphrey Marshall and Peter Parker, were replaced as commissioner because their personal policies differed too greatly from what was desired or expected of them. Roberts was saved from dismissal by the Boston Board only because the North- South division of Baptists in the United States inter vened. He was dismissed by the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board for a series of indiscretions the board found unacceptable. Roberts seemed to accept each reverse as a new beginning--almost as another chance Gcd was giving him to do his will. Roberts' public pronouncements at these Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 308 moments were to the effect that he had been right all along, the others wrong, so God had intervened to keep him on the job. He would accept no blame and as late as 1860 referred to being forgiven by "those who," he wrote, "believe I have erred. "H ? Roberts is best known to historians of Chinese history for his role in the Taiping Rebellion--his teaching of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan for a few months in 1847, his unsuccess ful attempts to reach Nanking from 1853, and his ultimate arrival and sad disillusionment at how religiously degen erate it had become. These events are the stuff of high historical drama and deserve to be known. Speculators might like to ponder the course of Chinese, and world, history had not Roberts postponed Hung's baptism. Or on whether Roberts could still have influenced Hung to correct doctrinal errors if they had met in 1853. The latter proposition is less certain, as Hung was too far along in his military campaign, and his followers were too disposed to believe in a Messiah-like figure. Hung as a Christian teacher instead of a revolu tionary rebel opens wider vistas for the imagination. But such activity is best left for a winter evening's occupa tion with colleagues, sitting by a crackling fire and sipping brandy. The point worth maki.ig here is that Roberts was willing to let go his most promising pupil in the ten years he had been in China on a matter of prin ciple^ He would not baptize someone he was not certain Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 309 had been saved. Throughout his seven years of supporting the Taiping cause, Roberts was still unconvinced of Hung's salvation, but he was determined to go and bring it about. His letters and speeches, and his constant belief in the Taipings as the hope for the future of China, kept this movement before the American public--at least that part of it in the West who read his writings. His was also one of several stead fast voices raised in the treaty ports in favor of the Taipings over the Manchus. Although the Western diplomats decided not to support the insurgents, they withheld support from the dynasty until after it had granted the concessions they sought. After Roberts left Nanking saddened and dejected, the Western powers aligned themselves actively on the side of the dynasty. His bitter denunciation of the Taipings was more effective in influencing policy than his years of support. This fact offers an encapsulation of Roberts' career in China. As hard as he worked, as zealous and devoted as he remained through almost thirty years, events there took place more in spite of his efforts than because of them. This is essentially the tragedy of the man. Changes occurred in China but they were not those for which he labored. The effort cost him his life. While preaching to his first congregation, a colony of lepers at Macao, he contracted the disease. It lay dormant for thirty years, but it finally was the cause of his death in 1 8 7 1 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES ^Marshall to Roberts, Shanghai, June 20, 1853, NA-DD:8. ^Marcy to Marshall, Washington, June 7, 1853, NA-DI:84. 3 Ssu-yii Teng, The Taiping Rebellion and the Western Powers (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 210, 218. 4S. Y Teng, pp. 210-216. ^Kenneth Wesley Rea, "Humphrey Marshall's Commis- sionship to China, 1852-1854," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Colorado, 1970), pp. 163-165. ^Quoted in S. Y. Teng, p. 216. Bonham was con currently Governor of Hong Kong, Chief Superintendent of British Trade, and the plenipotentiary of his government in China. See S. Y. Teng, p. 210. 7 Marshall to Marcy, Shanghai, September 21, 1853, NA-DD:8. g Marshall to Marcy, Shanghai, May 26, 1853, NA-DD:8; see also Rea, pp. 152-154, for a summary of Marshall's views on the Taipings. 9 S. Y. Teng, p. 230. ■*^See Chapter 5. "^S. Y. Teng, Chapter 11. 12 Eugene P. Boardman, "Christian Influence upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 10.2:124, February, 1951. 13S. Y. Teng, "T 'ai-ping T'ien-kuo chih hsing-wang yu Mei-kuo chih kuan-hsi3 " The Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 3.1:1, September, 1970. ■^Vincent Y. C. Shih, The Taiping Ideology (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), Chapter VII, analyzes the Christian content of Taiping religion. The article by Boardman, cited above, and his longer work, Christian Influence upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion, 1851-1864 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952), are other sources for this point. 310 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311 Arthur V/. Hummel (ed.), Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1644-1912), (1-vol. reprint; Taipei: C h ’eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 367-369. 16S. Y Teng, The Taiping Rebellion and the Western P ow e r s, p. 134. (Hereafter in this chapter, all citations of S. Y Teng, unless otherwise indicated, will be references to this work.) See Jen, Chapter 9, for a detailed analysis of the northern expedition. 17See Jen, Chapters 10-13 for the most comprehensive English-language accounts of these campaigns. Though Franz Michael’s treatment of these military expeditions is less comprehensive, the 15 maps prepared for his study are detailed and well done. See his The Taiping Rebellion: History (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), Appendix I. For the northern expedition, see Map 6; and for the western expeditions, 1853-1856, see Map 7. 18S. Y. Teng, p. 125. 19 S. Y. Teng, p. 126, citing the contemporary account by Augustus F. Lindley, Ti-Ping T 'ien-Kwoh, The History of the Ti-Ping Revolution (2 vols.; London, 1866), p. 154. ^ H u m m e l (ed.), pp. 537, 751. ^ H u m m e l (ed.), pp. 751-752. 22 S. Y. Teng, p. 153. 23 Michael, pp. 109-115; see also Jen, Chapter 14. For the later campaigns of Shih Ta-k'ai, see S. Y Teng, pp. 143-148. Hummel’s work contains biographies of Shih Ta-kai, pp. 655-658, and Yang Hsiu-ch’ing, pp. 886-888. ^Michael, p. 114. 25 S. Y. Teng, p. 152; see also Jen, p. 357 for additional titles and duties he was given. Jen-kan’s family had considered him too young to participate in the uprising when it began in 1851. For details of his activities from 1851 to 1859, see S. Y. Teng, pp. 150-152; Michael, pp. 135-136; Hummel (ed.), p. 367; and Jen, pp. 352-357. 26 Michael, pp. 134-135. P. M. Yap, ’’The Mental Illness of Hung Hsiu-ch’uan, Leader of the Taiping Rebellion,” Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 13.3:300, May, 1954, does not interpret Hung's seclusion in the latter stages of his life as evidence of schizophrenic paranoia: "This was the manner in which Chinese emperors Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312 often conducted themselves." Yap maintains "that Hung's mental illness was hysterical rather than schizophrenic in basis," and was related to his intense religious experiences and conversion. See Yap, pp. 297-299. 27S. Y. Teng, p. 152. ^Yuan Chung Teng, "The Failure of Hung Jen-kan1s Foreign Policy," Journal of Asian Studies, 28.1:125, November, 1968. Jen-kan's close association with foreign missionaries from 1852 to late 1858 gave him a different view of Christianity and foreigners, and he had been baptized by a missionary of the London Missionary Society in 1853. See also S. Y. Teng, pp. 151-153. jtjc ^His major treatise, Tzu-cheng hsin-v'ien [$ *>r is analyzed most comprehensively in S. Y. Teng, pp. 154-161, and conveniently outlined in Jen, pp. 359-361. The translations of the title are almost as numerous as the scholars who discuss it. Jen, p. 359, renders it "a New Treatise on Political Counsel;" S. Y. Teng, p. 154, gives A New Work for Aid in Government', Michael, p. 138, calls it "Treatise on Aids to Administrations;" Y. C. Teng, p. 125, translates it as "a New Treatise on Aids to Administration;" and Shih, p. 138, gives it as "A New Political. Essay as a Guide to Government." Although the character ig can have the meaning of "aid" or "assist," a study of Jen-kan's proposals in this work can lead to the conclusion that his programs attempted to breathe new life into the whole Taiping movement. If so, another meaning of this character, "to enrich," seems more appropriate, and a translation of the whole title as To Enrich the Government: A New Essay more closely identifies its character. ^These are discussed in Shih, pp. 138-139; S. Y. Teng, pp. 162-167; Michael, pp. 136-142; and Jen, pp. 362- 369. 31 J. C. Cheng, Chinese Sources for the Taiping Rebe l l i o n, 1850-1864 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1963), p. 48; see also S. Y. Teng, pp. 159-160. 32 See Chapter 5. For his plans to begin a magazine devoted primarily to the progress of the Taiping Rebellion, see Roberts to the Alamama Journal, May 15, 1855, SBFMB. 33 For example, Roberts wrote, at various times: "The chief [i.e., Hung], having been already taught by the missionary, will, I presume, be accessible and teacha.ble. . . In this way. . . he will learn the truth fully. . ." "Now is the crisis at which to guide the leading minds into the right religious channel. . . . [and] to do the greatest possible amount of good, by teaching him and his people Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313 more fully the truths of the gospel." "But when the way of God shall be expounded to him more perfectly 3 what an effi cient preacher he may become to the nations." Emphasis added. 34S. Y. Teng, p. 239. When they took Shanghai in September, 1853, the leaders of the Small Swords had falsely declared themselves to be Taipings to gain the support of Westerners. 35 Alexander Wylie, Memorials of Protestant Mission aries to the Chinese (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Press, 1867), p. 96. T Reed to Cass, on board USS Minnesota3 Hong Kong, February 1, 18 58, NA-DD:15. Roberts was not connected with =«ny missionary organization during this period, so the documentary record of his activities is incomplete. Until he reached Nanking in late 1860, information about Roberts comes from a few references to him by others, and a letter to the Corresponding Secretary of the Southern Baptist Mission Board requesting that copies of the Home and Foreign Journal be properly addressed. He was keeping busy, for he noted, "If I had a little more time for reading such perhaps I would take the Magazine too." Roberts to Taylor, Hong Kong, December 4, 1857, SBFMB. •z 7 Reed to Cass, on board USS Minnesota, Hong Kong, December 15, 1857, NA-DD:15. 70 Roberts' letter, Canton, July 14, 1865, in the Western Recorder3 30.21:1, November 11, 1865, cited in Margaret M. Coughlin, "Strangers in the House" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Virginia, 1972), p. 135. 39 Roberts never sought wealth for himself. He was accused of falsifying records and of condoning his deacon's action in reporting less than the full purchase price of his Uet-tung property in order to pay less "squeeze" to the mandarin in charge of recording and sealing the transaction. These improprieties were not committed in order to enrich himself, but to enhance his missionary work. He lived a simple existence in China. His appeals for support over and above his salary were for funds to be used in printing tracts and other activities connected with his mission. And he regularly contributed generously from his own salary to these ends. See Coughlin, p. 139. 40 Oliver E. Roberts to Ward, Macao, February 16, 1860, NA-DD:19. 4^Reed to Cass, February 1, 1858; see also S. Y. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314 Teng, p. 262. 4^H. B. Morse, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire (3 vols.; reprint; Taipei: Ch’eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1971), I, 502-506. 43 Gaillard to Taylor, Canton, February 23, 1859, SBFMB. Later Gaillard wrote that "the Rev. I. J. Roberts is the most active and zealous missionary in Canton." See Gaillard to Taylor, Canton, June 2, 1859, SBFMB. Both these letters are cited in Coughlin, p. 137. 44 Rosewell H. Graves to A. M. Poindexter, of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board, Canton, April 18, 1859, SBFMB: cited in Coughlin, p. 137. Roberts' fru gality would indicate that his financial condition was precarious, and that the funds he brought back with him three years earlier were exhausted. His two claims were not settled until late in 1859 or early in 1860. 45S. Y. Teng, p. 283. 4^Michael, pp. 136-137. 47 Y. C. Teng, "Reverend Issachar Jacox Roberts and the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies, 23.1:62, November, 1963. (Hereafter, references to this article will be cited as Y. C. Teng, "Roberts"; his other article will be cited as Y. C. Teng, "Failure.") 48 Y. C. Teng, "Roberts," p. 62; Y. C. Teng, "Failure," pp. 126-128; see also S. Y. Teng, pp. 178-179, 193-197. 49Y. C. Teng, "Roberts," p. 62. ^Roberts' letter, Soochow, September 29, 1860, to The North-China Herald, No. 535, October 27, 1860. 5 X The Chung-wang to Lord Elgin, trans. I. J. Roberts, appended to Roberts' letter to The North-China Herald3 No. 535. ^Roberts' letter, Tan-yang, October 8, 1860, to The North-China Herald, No. 538, November 17, 1860. ^Roberts' Circular, Nanking, November 8, 1860, SBFMB. ^Roberts' postscript to his letter to a Bro. Lord, attaching a copy of his Circular letter of November 8, [Nanking], undated, SBFMB. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315 ^Roberts to T. P. Crawford, Nanking, December 4, 1860, SBFMB. Crawford would have to have been truly Christlike not to find Roberts' loftiness insufferable. 56Y. C. Teng, "Failure," pp. 133-135. Teng notes that the request to become foreign minister was made in anticipation of a meeting with British diplomats. c 7 Jen, p. 408, states that Roberts was given the rank of nobility designated t ’ien-i H ], which, according to Shih, p. 135, was the highest of the Taiping noble titles except wang [£] . Y. C. Teng, "Failure," pp. 134-135, clarifies the apparent contradiction between the accounts by Western missionaries, who visited Nanking and reported that Roberts had accepted the position, and Hung Jen-kan's later statement that Roberts had only acted as his inter preter. Roberts, Y. C. Teng states, was appointed to the position but refused it. It was after Jen-kan was given the post of foreign minister that Roberts helped him as interpreter. Since Roberts lived in Jen-kan's house, this could have been an informal arrangement. 58 These events, the k ’ou-t’ou controversy and the Roberts-Hung correspondence, are in Joseph Edkins, Chinese Scenes and People (London, 1863) and cited in S. Y. Teng, pp. 197-199; and in Y. C. Teng, "Roberts," p. 64. Several of the missionaries who visited Nanking during the time Roberts was there wrote memoirs which have been cited in some of the works on the Taiping Rebellion. Most of the references to Roberts in these studies are less than flat tering, and some ridicule him. Not all these contemporary accounts are first-hand, and it is difficult to separate what was observed from the gossip and rumors that circulated about Roberts in the foreign community. ^ Y . C. Teng, "Roberts,” p. 64, citing G. J. Wolsely, War with China in 1860 (London, 1862), p. 338. ^The North-China Herald3 No. 557, March 30, 1861. S’ 1 Quoted in Harley F. MacNair, Modern Chinese History: Selected Readings (New York: Paragon Book Reprint Corporation, 1967), pp. 349-351. 6 2 T. P. Crawford to Poindexter, Shanghai, October 3, 1861, SBFMB; and R. J. Fearon to Heard, February 24, 1861, Heard Papers, Baker Library, Harvard University. Both of these letters are cited and partially quoted in Coughlin, pp. 276-277. 63Y. C. Teng, "Roberts," p. 65, says that he lost the Taiping leaders' respect "perhaps as a result of his odd personality." His refusal to become an apostle of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316 Hung or to become involved in matters of state (both unconscionable to a strict Southern Baptist) appear to be stronger reasons for Hung's displeasure. ^4Y. C. Teng, "Failure," pp. 134, 137. 65Y. C. Teng, "Failure," p. 138. ^Roberts' letter of January 22, 1862, The North- China Herald, No. 602, February 8, 1862. Additional information suggests that Roberts' servant had been condemned to death for some minor offense, and Roberts sought to protect him from arbitrary execution. Later Roberts found out that his servant had not been killed but had been knocked unconscious and later recovered. See Jen, p. 462, n.87; Y. C. Teng, "Roberts," p. 66; and S. Y. Teng, pp. 200-201. Roberts escaped on the British gunboat, HMS Renard. See Robert J. Forrest "The Christianity of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan," Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 4:190, 1867. ^Roberts' letter, The North-China Herald, February 8, 1862; emphasis in the original. ^Coughlin, p. 138. ^Wylie, p. 96. 7^H. A. Tuper, The Foreign Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publica tion Society; Richmond, Va.: Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1880), p. 88. 71S. Y. Teng, p. 230. 72 Reed to Cass, on board USS Minnesota, Shanghai, July 29, 1858, NA-DD:17. 73S. Y. Teng, pp. 247-248. 74S. Y. Teng, pp. 249-250. 75S. Wells Williams, The Middle Kingdom (2 vols.; rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883), II, 664- 671. 76Y. C. Teng, "Failure," pp. 126-127. 77Y. C. Teng, "Failure," p. 131. ^Roberts' letter, Tan-yang, October 8, 1860, to The North-China Herald, No. 538, November 17, 1860. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317 79 John D. Hicks, The Federal Union (2nd ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952), pp. 545-551. ^^Martin R. Ring, "Anson Burlingame, S. Wells Williams and China, 1861-1870: A Great Era in Chinese- American Relations," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation. Tulane University, 1972), pp. 53-54. 81 Ring, pp. 65-66. See pp. 58-65, for a sketch of Burlingame's political career and causes from the late 1840's to 1860. For more on his life, see Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone (eds.), Dictionary of American Biography (20 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928-1936), 3:289-290. o 9 Seward to Burlingame, Washington, June 17, 1861, NA-DI:231. ^^Ring, p. 68. 84 Seward to Burlingame, Washington, July 30, 1861, NA-DI:234. ^Williams, II, 689; Douglas Hurd, The Arrow War (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), p. 223; and Hummel (ed.), p. 729. o A Burlingame to Seward, Shanghai, March 7, 1862, NA-DD:20. 8 7 Seward to Burlingame, Washington, March 6, 1862, NA-DI:243-244. 8 8 Henry W. Temple, "William H. Seward: Secretary of State, March 5, 1861 to March 4, 1869," The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy> ed. Samuel Flagg Bemis (10 vols.; reprint; New York: Pageant Book Company, 1958), 7:112. See also Ring, pp. 75-77. 8 9 Seward's Circular, Washington, May 6, 1861, NA-DI:230-231. 90 Seward to Burlingame, Washington, August 28, 1861, NA-DI:236-237. gi Seward to Burlingame, Washington, October 29, 1861, NA-DI:238-239; see also Ring, pp. 72-73. q ? Seward to Burlingame, Washington, May 29, 1862, NA-DI:250-251. ^Burlingame to Seward, Shanghai, January 28, 1862, NA-DD:20. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 318 Q4 Seward to Burlingame, Washington, April 2, 1862, NA-DI:245-246. ^Roberts' letter of January 22, 1862, The North- China Herald, No. 602, February 8, 1862. ^Quoted in Tupper, p. 88. ^ Q u o t e d in S. Y. Teng, p. 200; emphasis in the original. 98S. Y. Teng, p. 283. 99John S. Gregory, "British Intervention Against the Taiping Rebellion." Journal of Asian Studies, 19.1:11-24, November, 1959. 100S. Y. Teng, pp. 196, 200. ^9*Morse, II, 49-63. 102Morse, H , 69-70. lO^Michael} pp. 170-173. ^•^Burlingame to Seward, Shanghai, March 7, 1862, NA-DD:20. l^Gregory, pp. 19-20. lO^Mary C. Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism (New York: Atheneum, 1966), pp. 214-220; see also Gregory, p. 17. 107 See Ring, Chapter III, for a discussion of Burgevine's activities in China. 108Michael, pp. 170-173. 109Wright, Chapter III, Morse, II, Chapter VI; and Ring, Chapters II-IV. •^^Seward to Burlingame, Washington, March 6, 1862, NA-DI:243-244. ■^■^Ring, pp. 74-75. ■^^Gregory, p. 19; Wright, pp. 26-27; and Williams, II, 693. ^^Jen, pp. 528-530. Other accounts relate that Hung committed suicide by taking poison. Jen's analysis of the original version of the Loyal King's confession Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 319 shows that it was altered by Tseng Kuo-fan or his secretary to discredit Hung. The altered version led scholars to report that Hung's death was suicide. See Jen, p. 52S, n. 38. 114Michael, pp. 175-188; Jen, pp. 532-544. ■^^Coughlin, p. 140. H % h e n Roberts first arrived in China, letters took as much as six months to reach him. By the time he left, more frequent departures of ships, the use of steamers, and the shorter route by way of Panama (overland) and the West Coast had cut the time to about two months. H^Roberts to Crawford, December 4, 1860; emphasis added. 1 1 ft Tupper, p. 88. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A GLOSSARY OF CHINESE NAMES AND TERMS Amoy [Hsia-men] M Pi cchong \kung-hang] f t An-huei ^ m Confucius [K’ung Fu-tzu] Canton [Kuang-chou] & «•! Feng Yun-shan ft # X C h 1ang-sha £ Mr Foochow [Fu-chou] ft »| Chekchu [Chih-chu] &■ it Fukien [Fu-chien] f t ft Chia Ching && Gaehan [Ai-han] % A Chiang-hsi it *3 ginseng [gen-shen] A # Chiang-su Hakka [K’o-chia] « & Chien Lung ft Pi Han * Chih-li i m Hangchow [Hang-chou] C h 'ing &■ Hankow [Han-k'ou] Chin-t’ien Han-yang Chiu-chiang & hong \hang\ f-f C h ' i-ying 4f & Hong Kong Chow [Chou] ft [Hsiang-chiang] Chou-li ft « Hsiao Ch'a-kuei K t t * Ch'uan-pi Hsi-chiang * Ch 'uan-shih Hsien Feng Hang-yen & If hsien-sheng ft 4 Chun [Ch'en] Hsu Kuang-chin M if Chung-wang % % Hua-hsien Chusan [Chou-shan] fo l, 320 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321 Huang Shang-ti 4 i f Macao [Ao-men] ifre Ruang-t-L Manchu [Man-cho.u] Hua-sha-na it H' Mencius [Meng-tzu] £ 3r Hunan [Hu-nan] Ming Hung Hsiu-ch'uan is Mukden [Shen-yang] i t Pf Hung Jen-kan Jf Nanking [Nan-ching] j^J ^ Huo-hsiu * is Nan-wang ■%_ Hupeh [Hu-pei] Ningpo [Ning-po] m & I-lianp 14 Pai-Shang-ti- Hui Jl * # Jehol [Je-ho] A Pei-ho -](/ ^ Kan-wang ■f £ Pei-t'ang JL ^ kowtow \_k 'ou-t rou] *?%% Peking [Pei-ching] ^ ^ Kuang-hsi Punti [Pen-ti] /£• ^ fk & Kuang-tung M & San-tsu Ching 'jg. i&fc Kuei-liang 4 i it San-yuan-li 3 - 7C %. Kuei-lin * 2 Shanghai [Shang-hai] J- ^ Kuei-p’ing H X Shan-tung ^ ^ Kuo Shih-lieh # ff «, sheng-yuan ^ ^ Liang-Chiang Shih Ta-k'ai =& iS. ffl Liang Fa Soochow [Su-chou] ££ o-i-j Liang-Kuang Swatow [Shan-t'ou] >J-* Sj| Li Ching-fang $ Tainan [T’ai-nan] Li Hsiu-ch'eng Taiping [T'ai-p’ing] ^ ^ likin [li-ohin] * 4 Taiwan [T'ai-wan] Lintin [Ling-ting] Ta-ku a Lin Tse-hsu H « & Tan-yang Lo Hsiao-ch'uan f t * 4r Tao Kuang & ft Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 322 T ’ien-ching Wanghsia [Wang-hsia] * *- V-M. t ’ien-i Whampoa [Huang-p'u] £ 4 T 'ien-kuo Wuchang [Wu-ch’ang] £ * T-tenteh [T 1 ien- ya-rnen f a n Tientsin [T'ien -ching] ^ Yang Hsiu-ch'ing a THen-wang Yangtze [Yang-tzu] A -?■ Tseng Kuo-fan « IS Yao T'ung Chih ra & Yeh Ming-ch'en % Tung-wang & x Yung-an Af. %■ Tzu-chin Shan j - Yung Cheng jE Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. AMERICAN PRESIDENTS, SECRETARIES OF STATE AND MINISTERS TO CHINA, 1841-1865 YEAR PRESIDENT SECY. OF STATEa MINISTER TO CHINA2’ 1841 John Tyierc Daniel Webster 4/6/41-3/5/45 3/5/41-5/8/43 1843 Abel P. Upshur Caleb Cushing 6/23/43-2/28/44 5/8/43-3/4/45 1844 John C. Calhoun (See note d .) 3/6/44-3/6/45 1845 James K. Polk James Buchanan Alexander Everett 3/4/45-3/3/49 3/6/45-3/7/49 3/13/45-6/28/47 1848 John W. Davis 1/3/48-5/25/50 1849 Zachary Taylor John M. Clayton 3/4/49-7/9/50 3/7/49-7/22/50 1850 Millard Fillmore Daniel Webster 7/9/50-3/3/53 7/22/50-10/24/52 1852 Edward Everett Humphrey Marshall 11/6/52-3/3/53 8/4/52-1/27/54 1853 Franklin Pierce William L. Marcy Robert M. McLane 3/4/53-3/3/57 3/7/53-3/4/57 10/21/53-12/12/54 1855 Peter Parker 9/5/55-8/25/57 1857 James Buchanan Lewis Cass William B . Reed 3/4/57-3/3/61 3/6/57-12/14/60 4/22/57-12/8/58 1859 John E. Ward 1/18/59-12/15/60 1860 Jeremiah S. Black 12/17/60-3/3/61 323 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 324 YEAR PRESIDENT SEC’Y. OF STATE MINISTER TO CHINA 1861 Abraham Lincoln William Seward Anson Burlingame 3/4/61-4/15/65 3/5/61-3/3/69 6/17/61-11/21/67 Notes: aThe list does not include the names of those who occupied this position ad interim. ^Only the names of those who accepted the appoint ment and served in China are included. Cushing was appointed Commissioner to China as well as Envoy Extra ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. His successors, Everett through Parker, were appointed as Commissioners to China only. Beginning with Reed, the appointment was as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. cTyler succeeded to the Presidency upon the death of William Henry Harrison one month after his inauguration. ^From 1844 to 1855, Dr. Peter Parker served as Secretary of the United States Legation in China. In the absence of the commissioner, and especially when there was an interval between the departure of one commissioner and the arrival of his successor, Parker usually acted as charge d'affaires ad interim. S. Wells Williams replaced Parker as secretary in 1855. information for this table is derived from Tyler Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia (reprint; New York: Barnes 6 Noble, Inc., 1963), pp. 705-706; Robert Sobel (ed.), Biographical Directory of the United States Executive Branch, 1774-1971 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Company, 1971), passim; and United States Department of State, "Diplomatic Instructions: 1801-1906; China," Vol. I (Washington: National Archives and Records Service), passim. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. PRIMARY SOURCES Baptist Missionary Magazine. Boston, Massachusetts. Cheng, J. C. Chinese Sources for the Taiping Rehellion3 1850-1864. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1963. De Bary, Wm. Theodore, et at. (comps.J. Sources of Chinese Tradition. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Devan, Thomas T. Correspondence. Valley Forge, Pa.: American Baptist Foreign Mission Societies. Ecumenical Missionary Conference: New Iork3 1900. 2 vols. New York: American Tract Society, 1900. Fu, Lo-shu (comp., trans.). A Documentary Chronicle of Sino-Western Relations (1644-1820). 2 vols. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1966. Hamberg, Theodore. The Vision of Hung-Siu-Tshuen and Origin of the Kwang-si Insurrection. Reprint. Peiping: Yenching University Library, 1935. MacNair, Harley F. (ed.) . Modern Chinese History: Selected Readings. New York: Paragon Book Reprint Corporation, 1967. Mayers, William Frederick (ed.). Treaties Between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers3 Together with Regulations for the Conduct of Foreign Trade. Reprint. Taipei: C h ’eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1966. The North-China Herald. Shanghai, China. Roberts, Issachar Jacox. Correspondence, Journals, and Reports. Richmond, Va.: Foreign Mission Board, Southern Baptist Convention. ______. Correspondence, Journals, and Reports. Valley Forge, Pa.: American Baptist Foreign Mission Societies. 325 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 326 "Tai Ping Wang," Putnam's Magazine, 8:380-383, October, 1856. Shuck, Jehu Lewis. Correspondence, Journals, and Reports. Valley Forge, Pa.: American Baptist Foreign Mission Societies. Southern Baptist Convention. "Report of the Committee on the Case of I. J. Roberts," Part of the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting held in Montgomery, Alabama in May, 1855. Pp. 73-89. Teng, Ssu-yii and John K. Fairbank (eds.). China's Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839-1923. New York: Atheneum, 1966. United States Congress. Statutes at Large of the United States of America, 1789-1873. 17 vols. Boston: Little and Brown, 1845-1873. United States, Department of State. "Despatches from United States Ministers to China: 1843-1906." Washington: National Archives and Records Service. . "Diplomatic Instructions: 1801-1906; China, Vol. I [April 24, 1843-August 23, 1867)." Washington: National Archives and Records Service. B. SECONDARY SOURCES 1. Books Ashmore, Lida Scott. The South China Mission of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society: A Historical Sketch of Its First Cycle of Sixty Years. Shanghai: Methodist Publishing House, [1920]. Demis, Samuel Flagg (ed.). The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy. 10 vols. Reprint. New York: Pageant Book Company, 1958. Boardman, Eugene P. Christian Influence Upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion, 1851-1864. Madison: Univer sity of Wisconsin Press, 1952. Boles, John B. The Great Revival, 1787-1805: The Origins of the Southern Evangelical Mind. [n.p.p.j: The Univer sity Press of Kentucky, 197 2. Borton, Hugh. Japan's Modern Century. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 327 Carus-Wilson, Mary L. B. The Expansion of Christendom: A Study in Religious History. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910. Chang Chung-li. The Chinese Gentry: Studies on Their Role in Nineteenth-Century Chinese Society. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967. Chang Hsin-pao. Commissioner Lin and the Opium War. New York: W. W. Norton § Company, Inc., 1970. Ch'ii T ’ung-tsu. Local Government in China Under the C h ’ing. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1969. Cordier, Henri. Histoire des Relations de la Chine avec les Puissances Occidentales, 1860-1900. 3 vols. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1901-1902. Danton, George K. The Culture Contacts of the United States and China: The Earliest Sino-American Culture Contacts, 1784-1844. New York: Columbia University Press, 1931. Davies, John Paton, Jr. Dragon by the Tail: American, British, Japanese, and Russian Encounters with China and One Another. New York: W. W. Norton § Company, Inc., 1972. Dean, Britten. China and Great Britain: The Diplomacy of Commercial Relations, 1860-1864. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974. Dennett, Tyler. Americans in Eastern Asia: A Critical Study of United States ' Policy in the Far East in the Nineteenth Century. Reprint. New York: Barnes 5 Noble, Inc., 1963. Elsbree, Oliver Wendell. The Rise of the Missionary Spirit in America, 179 0-1815. Williamsport, Pa.: The Williamsport Printing and Binding Co., 1928. Encyclopedia of Souvhern Baptists. 2 vols. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1958. Ergang, Robert. Europe; Vol. 1, From the Renaissance to Waterloo. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1954. Fairbank, John K. China Perceived: Images and Policies in Chinese-American Relations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974. ______. Chinese Thought and Institutions. Chicago: Phoenix Books, 1967. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 328 ______(ed.). The Chinese World Order: Traditional China's Foreign Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968. ______(ed.). The Missionary Enterprise in China and America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974. ______. Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports3 1842-1854. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1969. Fay, Peter Ward. The Opium War3 1840-1842: Barbarians in the Celestial Empire in the Early Part of the Nine teenth Century and the War by Which They Forced Eer Gates Agar. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975. Gammell, William. A History of American Baptist Missions in Asia3 Africa3 Europe and North America. Boston: Gould, Kendall and Lincoln, 1849. Gulick, Edward V. Peter Parker and the Opening of China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Hervey, G. Winfred. The Story of the Baptist Missions in Foreion Lands3 from the Time of Carey to the Present Date.: Rev. and enl. St. Louis: C. R. Barns Publishing Co., 1892. Hicks, John D. The Federal Union: A History of the United States to 1865. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952. Hobart, Kenneth Gray. Early American Baptist Missions to the Chinese. Shanghai: n.n., 1939. Hsiao Kung-chuan. Rural China: Imperial Control in the Nineteenth Century. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967. Hucker, Charles 0. The Traditional Chinese State in Ming Times (1568-1644) . Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1961. Hummel, Arthur W. (ed.) . Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (1644-1912). 1-vol. reprint. Taipei: Ch'eng- Wen Publishing Company, 1970. Hurd, Douglas. The Arrow War: An Anglo-Chinese Confusion3 1856-1860. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 329 Jen Yu-wen. The Taiping Revolutionary Movement. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973. Johnson, Allen and Dumas Malone (eds.). Dictionary of American Biography. 20 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 192S-1936. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christian Missions in China. Reprint. Taipei: Ch'eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1970. Li Chien-nung. The Political History of China3 1840-1928. Ed. and trans. Ssu-yu Teng and Jeremy Ingalls. Stan ford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1967. Ljungsteat, Sir Andrew. An Historical Sketch of the Portu guese Settlements in China; and of the Roman Catholic Church and Mission in China. Boston: James Munroe § C o ., 1836. MacGillivray, D. (ed.). A Century of Protestant Missions in China (1807-1907). Shanghai: American Presbyterian Press, 1907. Mackie, J. Milton. Life of Tai-Ping-Wang, Chief of the Chinese Insurrection. New York: Dix, Edwards, 8 Co., 1857 . May, Ernest R., and James D. Thomson, Jr. (eds.). American- East Asian Relations: A Survey. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. Michael, Franz H., and George E. Taylor. The Far East in the Modern World. Rev. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Michael, Franz H. The Taiping Rehellion; Vol. 1, History. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972. Miller, Stuart Creighton. The Unwelcome Immigrant: The American Image of the Chinese, 1785-1882. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Miyakawa, T. Scott. Protestants and Pioneers: Individualism and Conformity on the American Frontier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Morse, Hosea Ballou. The International Relations of the Chinese Empire. 3 vols. Reprint. Taipei: Ch’eng-Wen Publishing Company, 1971. Reischauer, Edwin 0., and John K. Fairbank. East Asia: The Great Tradition. [Vol. 1 of A History of East Asian Civilization.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 330 Rosenau, James N. (ed.). International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory. Rev. ed. New York: The Free Press, 1969. Shih, Vincent Y. C. The Taiping Ideology: Its Sources3 Interpretations and Influences. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967. Sobel, Robert (ed.). Biographical Directory of the United States Executive Branch, 1 774-1971 . Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Company, 1971. Sweet, William Warren. Religion in the Development of American Culture3 1765-1840. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952. Teng, Ssu-yii. Historiography of the Taiping Rebellion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962. ______. New Light on the History of the Taiping Rebellion. New York: Russell § Russell, 1966. ______. The Taiping Rebellion and the Western Powers: A Comprehensive Survey. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. Titterington, Sophie Bronson. A Century of Baptist Foreign Missions. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1891. Tong, Te-kong. United States Diplomacy in China3 1844-60. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964. Torbet, Robert G. A History of the Baptists. Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1950. Tupper, H. A. The Foreign Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society; and Richmond, Va.: Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1880. Wakeman, Frederic, Jr. The Fall of Imperial China. New York: The Free Press, 1975. ______. Strangers at the Gate: Social Disorder in South China3 1839-1861. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966. Waley, Arthur. The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes. Stan ford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968. Weber, Max. The Religion of China. Trans, and ed. Hans H. Gerth. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 331 Williams, Benjamin H. Economic Foreign Policy of the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1929. Williams, S. Wells. The Middle Kingdom: A Survey of the Geography j Government3 Literature3 Social Life3 Arts3 and History of the Chinese Empire and Its Inhabitants. 2 vols. Rev. ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883. Williamson, H. R. British Baptists in China3 1845-1952. London: The Carey Kingsgate Press, Ltd., 1957. Wright, Mary C. The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T'ung-Chih Restoration3 1862-1874 . New York: Atheneum, 1966. Wylie, Alexander. Memorials of Protestant Missionaries to th? Chinese: Giving a List of Their Publications3 and Obituary Notices of the Deceases3 with Copious Indexes. Shanghai: American Presbyterian Press, 1867. Yang, C. K. Religion in Chinese Society. Berkeley: Univer sity of California Press, 1967. 2. Articles and Dissertations Bain, Chester A. "Commodore Matthew Perry, Humphrey Marshall, and the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 10.3:258-270, May, 1951. Boardman, Eugene P. "Christian Influence upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 10.2:115-124, February, 1951. Coughlin, Margaret M. "Strangers in the House: J. Lewis Shuck and Issachar Roberts, First American Baptist Missionaries to China." Unpublished Doctor's disser tation, University of Virginia, 1972. Fairbank, John K. "Chinese Diplomacy and the Treaty of Nanking," Journal of Modern History 3 12:1-30, March, 1940. Forrest, Robert J. "The Christianity of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan," Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic S o c i e t y , 4:185-204, 1867. Gregory, John S. "British Intervention Against the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies , 19.1:11-24, November, 1959. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 332 Jen Yu-wen. "New Sidelights on the Taiping Rebellion," Tien-hsia Monthly , 1.4:361-373, November, 1935. Kuo, Ping-chia. "Caleb Cushing and the Treaty of Wanghia, 1844," Journal of Modern History , 5:34-54, 1933. Lew, Hillary. "Memorials on the PoDpy," Free China Review, 19.7:19-25, July, 1969. Littell, J. B. "Missionaries and Politics in China--The Taiping Rebellion," Political Science Quarterly, 43.4: 566-599, December, 1928. Michael, Franz. "T'ai-p'ing T'ien-kuo," Journal of Asian Studies, 17.1:66-76, November, 1957. Needham, Joseph. "The Roles of Europe and China in the Evolution of Oecumenical Science," Journal of Asian H i s t o r y , 1.1:3-32, 1967. Rea, Kenneth Wesley. "Humphrey Marshall's Commissionership to China, 1852-1854." Unpublished Doctor's disserta tion, University of Colorado, 1970. Ring, Martin R. "Anson Burlingame, S. Wells Williams and China, 1861-1870: A Great Era in Chinese-American Relations." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Tulane University, 1972. Shih, Vincent 'i. C. "Interpretations of the Taiping Tien Kuo by Non-communist Writers," Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly] , 10.3:248-257, May, 1951. Teng, Ssu-yii. "T'ai-p’ing T ’ien-kuo chih hsing-wang yu Mei- kuo chih kuan-hsi" ["The Rise and Fall of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and Its Relation to the United States"], The Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Hong, 3.1:1-11, September, 1970. Teng, Yuan Chung. "The Failure of Hung Jen-kan's Foreign Policy," Journal of Asian Studies , 28.1:125-138, November, 1968. ______. "Reverend Issachar Jacox Roberts and the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies, 23.1:55-67, November, 1963. Wakeman, Frederic, Jr. "Rebellion and Revolution: The Study of Popular Movements in Chinese History," Journal of Asian Studies, 36.2:201-237, February, 1977, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 333 Yap, P. M. "The Mental Illness of Hung Hsiu-ch'iian, Leader of the Taiping Rebellion," Journal of Asian Studies [Far Eastern Quarterly], 13.3:287-304, May, 1954. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.