This essay explores the administrative and ideological context of Qing borderland pacification through examination of the imperial response to apex rebel ringleaders. Presented are five cases of bureaucratic “discourse” (official description and physical management) processing Lin Shuangwen (1786-1788 Lin Shuangwen Revolt), Shi Sanbao (1795-1797 Miao Revolt), Liu Zhixie (1796-1804 White Lotus Rebellion), Lin Qing (1813 Eight Trigrams Revolt), and Khoja Jahāngīr (1826-1828 Jahāngīr Uprising). Considered comparatively, we find common procedures of identification, deposition, sentencing, and execution that established the challengers as “men of iniquity,” reinforcing imperially preferred understandings of rebel organization, culpability, Qing legitimacy, and martial success. This procedure was also adjusted to fit differing conditions and state goals. As the empire entered its final century, shifting boundaries were asserted between rebel lords and war-zone populations, suggestive of both military efforts to exploit social divisions and expanded embrace of peripheral peoples as compliant and border-defending imperial subjects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniel McMahon (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: