What Led to the Mid-19th Century Qing Crisis?

[Cetashwayo]

The defeat of the White Lotus Rebellion (1796-1804) left Qing China with no significant rebellions for almost a half-century. The state was relatively rich and powerful, and still had a great deal of internal cohesion and solidity. Then, in the mid-nineteenth century, shortly following the Opium Wars, they were suddenly struck by four separate and catastrophic rebellions:

Taiping Rebellion: A rising pushed forward by Hong Xiuquan, who believed himself the brother of Jesus Christ, and supported by many local Han against the Manchu Qing. Killed between 20-50 million people, depending on your estimates, and engulfed the lower Yangtze river in more than a decade of warfare.
Nian Rebellion: A rebellion in the north of China aimed at toppling or at least rebelling against the Qing Empire, motivated partially, from what Wikipedia tells me, by disastrous flood on the Huang He (Yellow) River.
Du Wenxiu Rebellion: Hui Muslim Rebellion that lasted 16 (1856-1872) years, finally ended with massacres of Hui Muslims and hundreds of thousands fleeing into neighboring countries.
Dungan Revolts: Another Hui Muslim rebellion, in two separate parts, from 1862-1877, this this time more religiously motivated and less seeking separation from the Qing Empire as had the Du Wenxiu, at least according to Wikipedia.

What is to blame for this shocking cascade? One could say it was the First Opium War, but I'm not entirely convinced it had such an enormous impact on China to motivate four different rebellions, and some of the answers I've seen on r/Askhistorians tend to bolster this fact; the Taiping didn't pay much attention to the Opium War and tended to focus on purely internal issues and reasons for their rebellion against the Qing.

I figure I'll tag @Fernandel and @Hendryk, but anyone who wants to contribute can. I'll divide this into two separate questions

1) What led up to these immense revolts against the Qing Empire?
2) How did the Qing manage to survive them?

 

[Fernandel]

This is pure speculation because I don't have my books to hand right now, but the thing about rebellions is that they generally happen when people smell blood in the water, i.e. when the attention of the central government is elsewhere, when its military has been decimated and distracted, and when it has just suffered a humiliating defeat.

I would be very skeptical of the claim that the Opium War directly led to far-flung rebellions across the entire Qing Empire, but what the Opium War definitely did was fuck up a lot of power the Qing military had. More importantly, the humiliating defeat at the hand of European armies and navies made it clear to the entire Empire that the Qing Army was weak and creaking under decades of mismanagement and bad leadership.

Additionally, the defeat at the hands of the European powers during the opium war threw the higher ranks of the Qing military into chaos as heads rolled to find scapegoats and the entire military was reorganised to face the external thread of technologically better-equipped enemies coming from the sea, instead of ethnic uprisings, pirates, and other more traditional threats that the Qing army was used to.

Also, the Opium War one specific impact on Qing military power, or rather, opium consumption prior to the Opium War had led to a massive weakening of it: opium was being massively consumed by disillusioned and demotivated troops garrisoned in foreign regions. I think you've all heard of the lethargy opium induces; needless to say, opium addiction in the Qing military was a massive concern to Qing military planners and partly led to the ban of opium sales in China that led to the First Opium War.

Also, the Qing Empire had to pay massive reparations to the European powers and its economy was bleeding silver to the opium trade -- not exactly super great conditions to rebuild and equip your military to face both modern military threats and the typical rebellion.

Of course, all that meant that the more rebellious regions of China felt more confident in throwing off their shackles and rebel when facing a demotivated, demoralised, and uncertain Qing military force undergoing massive leadership change and strategic reorganisation. It's quite clear that it wasn't the First Opium War that led to these rebellions, since each rebellion had its own local factors and grievances (that I unfortunately find myself far too ignorant about), happened in different regions, featured different goals and leadership, and happened years to decades later, but I'm reasonably confident that the Opium War was a not-insignificant factor that influenced the scales and impact of these rebellions.

As for your questions, I'm just... not well-read enough on these various rebellions to answer them, which annoys me. I'll get back to you on that!

 

[Sumeragi]

1) What led up to these immense revolts against the Qing Empire?

Click to shrink...

I would say the immediate reason is the 1st Opium War, but not in the way most people would think. To quote Famine in Imperial and Modern China:

"As the 19th century wore on, external threats and internal unrest made it ever more difficult for Qing rulers to mount the kind of large-scale relief campaign common in the 18th century. Britain's defeat of China in the Opium War (1839–1842) was the opening salvo in a century of foreign attacks on China. As Kenneth Pomeranz has argued, beginning in the 1860s, the growing threat from the imperialist west and Japan gradually forced the Qing state to shift its attention and resources from traditional statecraft concerns such as famine relief for inland North China to the task of defending China's coast from foreign attacks. Moreover, the massive Taiping (1850–1864), Nian (1851–1868), and Muslim (1855–1873) rebellions that came close to toppling the Qing empire left the granary system in shambles. Due to these challenges, in the late Qing period, droughts and floods more often resulted in lethal famines. In his extensive search of the historical record, Xia Mingfang finds that none of the droughts that occurred in the first half of the Qing period (1644–1839) resulted in a major mortality crisis and that only 151,822 people died in seven serious floods. In contrast, Xia estimates that more than 14.1 million people died in seven major drought famines that struck during the late Qing period (1840–1911), when more than 2 million perished in twelve serious floods."

Combined with the shockwaves from the White Lotus Rebellion that severely disrupted the village societies and caused strains on Qing finances, and the famine of 1846~1849 which apparently killed 45 million*, you have a volatile environment where the otherwise passive peasants could be moved to rebellion if there is the proper spark. It takes a lot of stress for farmers to bother ditching their farming and raising arms, since even a day not at the field could mean greatly reduced harvest. The already destabilized society combined with changes of the imperial government's priorities and the final straw of famines likely tipped the scale towards radicalism.


Considering that most followers of Taiping joined because of promises of land reform, it fits in with everything else.



*: I realize that this number would not match with Xia Mingfang's figures, but I'm just posting what the source said. What matters was that there was a famine right before the Taiping rebellion started.

 

[AKuz]

left the granary system in shambles.

Click to shrink...

...

Are you saying. That the answer to @Cetashwayo 's question is... "Granary management"??!?

 

[Sumeragi]

...

Are you saying. That the answer to @Cetashwayo 's question is... "Granary management"??!?

Click to shrink...

Among other things, but yes. State granaries were serious business.

 

[stevep]

Among other things, but yes. State granaries were serious business.

Click to shrink...

Very true. Providing support in times of crisis was very important in the Chinese imperial system and failure to do this could be seen as losing the mandate of heaven. Not to mention when a lot of people are suffering desperately many will be looking for an alternative solution so such problems can quickly became a serious threat to the current regime. Coupled with a clear failure to deal with the foreign threat and the alien character of the ruling dynasty, which becomes important when its faltering.

 

[Fernandel]

Very true. Providing support in times of crisis was very important in the Chinese imperial system and failure to do this could be seen as losing the mandate of heaven. Not to mention when a lot of people are suffering desperately many will be looking for an alternative solution so such problems can quickly became a serious threat to the current regime. Coupled with a clear failure to deal with the foreign threat and the alien character of the ruling dynasty, which becomes important when its faltering.

Click to shrink...

Sorta-kinda. The concept of the Mandate of Heaven has been popularised a lot in recent years, and it's undeniable that it existed and influenced matters of state, but it needs to be remembered that the Mandate of Heaven was first and foremost a concept used in mythology, philosophy, and propaganda to justify the right to rule of the current dynasty and explain changes in leadership. Much like the Western idea of God's favour granting kings their authority, and how losing it allowed leadership changes.

In practical reality, it's unclear how widely it was known outside the educated classes of China and what level of impact the concept had on the ordinary people of China. Other factors, such as famine, natural disasters, plagues and epidemics, and -- most importantly for the Qing Empire! -- ethnic and religious tensions definitely played in destabilising the reach of the Qing Empire and should be examined first and foremost.

The Mandate of Heaven is a neat concept and was frequently used and mentioned by intellectuals, rulers, and rebels, but it shouldn't be considered the key factor that drove stability and instability in China, then or now.

 

[stevep]

Sorta-kinda. The concept of the Mandate of Heaven has been popularised a lot in recent years, and it's undeniable that it existed and influenced matters of state, but it needs to be remembered that the Mandate of Heaven was first and foremost a concept used in mythology, philosophy, and propaganda to justify the right to rule of the current dynasty and explain changes in leadership. Much like the Western idea of God's favour granting kings their authority, and how losing it allowed leadership changes.

In practical reality, it's unclear how widely it was known outside the educated classes of China and what level of impact the concept had on the ordinary people of China. Other factors, such as famine, natural disasters, plagues and epidemics, and -- most importantly for the Qing Empire! -- ethnic and religious tensions definitely played in destabilising the reach of the Qing Empire and should be examined first and foremost.

The Mandate of Heaven is a neat concept and was frequently used and mentioned by intellectuals, rulers, and rebels, but it shouldn't be considered the key factor that drove stability and instability in China, then or now.

Click to shrink...

THanks for the info. I was viewing it as one factor among several but it has quite possibly gotten more attention in the west than it actually merits. However the other factors do apply and also a member of the hierarchy might use it as an excuse for rebellion against the regime, seeking to gain legitimacy for their actions.

 

[Fernandel]

THanks for the info. I was viewing it as one factor among several but it has quite possibly gotten more attention in the west than it actually merits. However the other factors do apply and also a member of the hierarchy might use it as an excuse for rebellion against the regime, seeking to gain legitimacy for their actions.

Click to shrink...

The trouble with the mandate of Heaven is that, as far as I can tell, we have very little idea how widespread and well-known the concept outside of the educated classes was, who would have been naturally inclined to philosophy and mythology. I also just don't know how the various religions and philosophies of ancient and modern China interpret it, and whether they accept it.

More problematically, much like the divine right of kings, everything can be interpreted as either supporting or denying a specific dynasty's or rebel's mandate -- making it quite less useful when analysing actual specific historical trends and trying to find why X happened and not Y.

I would just be very careful to attach too much importance to the Mandate when looking at Chinese history instead of factors on the ground.

 

[The Laurent]

Among other things, but yes. State granaries were serious business.

Click to shrink...

As a system, they were something that was always very... hit and miss, though? Early in the Ming, State Granaries were tried, and by Mid-Ming those had all but collapsed/were no longer serving any real purpose.

That the Qing managed a century and a half (from the late 1600s to the early 1800s) in which the Evernormal/Evernormal-like granary systems actually mostly functioned as advertised is both the result of good planning and leadership, and also sheer luck.

Remove both of those, and the system collapses. It wouldn't even need rebellions to topple it, just corruption and famine working hand in hand. Not that rebellions didn't help, but the system was already showing its cracks long before the mid-1800s.