Mad Analysis: My Problems with the Libertarians

Ever since the Presidential election in the United States, everyone, particularly on the “right” has been trying to explain it and diagnose the reason behind the defeat of the hapless Mitt Romney. And, if one is expecting to find people behaving with reason and common sense, it certainly calls for a thorough investigation. After all, never in the lifetime of most voters has a President been reelected when unemployment, the debt, the deficit, gas prices, food prices and general cost of living have been so high. Looking at the numbers, one would think that the Republicans could have nominated anyone and still coasted to an easy and overwhelming victory. Since Obama has been President, more people are unemployed and more people are having a harder time making a living if they do have work. So why did he win? More people voted for him than Romney. Simple. But why? Blacks voted almost uniformly for the President, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for him as did single women in spite of the fact that these groups have suffered the most during his first term. If one expects to find a rational reason for that, you are going to be searching for quite a while. The reason, it seems, was because Romney seemed worse. True, unemployment is worse among these groups but because of that they still voted for more of the same because more of these people are receiving government assistance and were told that Romney was going to cut off the government gravy train (which of course he could not do so long as the Democrats hold the Senate but, again, common sense has nothing to do with this). Some have blamed the Republican message while others have blamed the ability of Republicans to “sell” their message. Balderdash!

Some eminent Republicans have said that Hispanics are the key and that the GOP should embrace the idea of amnesty (with border security) to win over Latino voters. They are wasting their time. In the first place, this has been tried before and the left will never go along with increasing border security. However, if Latinos were most concerned with this they would have been more reluctant in voting for Obama considering that he has deported far more illegal aliens in one term in office than George W. Bush did in two. And why are these Republicans talking about attracting Latino voters rather than Blacks? Probably because (aside from considering them a lost cause due to the overwhelming loyalty Blacks have for the Democrat Party) this would reveal the stupidity of their position. If they think amnesty will win them long-term Latino support they should look to Black Americans and remember that it was the Republican Party that abolished slavery in this country and yet Blacks still do not support Republicans and so we have the ironic picture of the first African-American President of the United States belonging to the same political party as the late President of the Confederacy. Did Blacks defect to the right when Herman Cain was running for the top job? Did they get behind George W. Bush for appointing the first Black Secretary of State or did they embrace the Republican Party for George H. W. Bush appointing only the second Black Supreme Court Justice? Every time, “no” and if they think they will no longer be seen as the “racist” party by embracing amnesty they have another thing coming.

The left, of course, says what they say after every Republican defeat which is that the conservatives could win if they just dropped all that conservatism. What I find most entertaining though is the extent to which the Libertarians are saying the exact same thing. Since the election I have seen a parade of people from the Cato Institute and Reason magazine blaming the GOP defeat on their clinging to traditional moral values, immigration control and the “war” on drugs. Meanwhile, they are cheering the fact that Colorado voted to legalize marijuana and that several states voted to legalize gay “marriage”. Further, they bemoan the fact that conservatives will not drop their opposition to abortion and gay “marriage” in order to join with the libertarian throngs in saving the country from economic ruin brought about by the big-spending left. So, in other words, give up your deeply held beliefs to help foster our agenda. Again, much like the Democrats. Aside from the condescending nature of such an argument, one problem with that is the priorities of these libertarians. The argument also betrays the extent to which even the good ideas of libertarianism are often overtaken in their own minds by their most ridiculous arguments.

Can't you leave me alone BEFORE you take over?

Gay “marriage” is a good example. If the libertarians really believed in what they claim, they would not be championing so-called “marriage equality” but rather for an end to all government involvement in marriage at all and an end to all benefits for married people be they gay, straight, polygamists or any other perverse combination. This really pains me because, as the national debt becomes higher and higher (and it is already to the point that I doubt it could ever be reasonably expected to be paid off) the libertarian argument is increasingly more likely to be the only possible solution. Yet, they want conservatives to abandon their values and come to them in order to unite on fiscal issues rather than themselves giving ground on narcotics and homosexuality to save the national economy. It seems ridiculous to the point of hilarity to me that it is the traditional right that must make concessions rather than the libertarians on the social issues because each side agrees that the current economic trend leads to disaster but by libertarians refusing to compromise on their moral positions they act as though they think these are somehow as important as the fiscal crisis. Can they be serious? Countries will certainly go to ruin if they spend more than they earn but I have never heard of a country going to ruin because there was not enough sodomy, abortions or drug use going on.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson

Demographics do matter, partly because demographic change is permanent change. Laws, policies and regulations can all be repealed (though they seldom are) but once a population has changed it can never be changed back. This matters to the political race because the left has, for some time, controlled the culture, the media and the education system and have successfully branded the Republican Party as the party of racism and there is nothing the GOP can do at this point to “prove” they are not racists -and God knows they have tried. Take a look at the Bush cabinet or the last GOP convention which was essentially a parade of minorities, and women minorities better still. Because of the success of the left on this branding campaign, and because immigrants are more likely to depend on government benefits (as are single women -yes there is a pattern here) they tend to vote Democrat. Go down the list of ethnic groups; African-American, Hispanic-American, Jewish-American, Arab-American, Asian-American, Native-American: they all tend to vote Democrat. The Democrats realize this, which is why they oppose any effort to enforce immigration laws or secure the border. Rest assured, if Mexican-Americans voted the way Cuban-Americans have in the past, the Democrats would have built a border fence on our southern frontier to dwarf the Great Wall of China.

The left, the party of government dependency, therefore has always embraced the ideal of open borders because they know it means more and more people who will loyally vote Democrat no matter the circumstances. Here again though, I marvel at the libertarians of the Cato Institute and Reason and so on for making the same argument. Their belief in absolute individual liberty is such that they too want open borders even though this has resulted in more and more popular support for the very government programs these same libertarians claim to most oppose! But, unlike the conservatives of the GOP, they will never change because it is a matter of principle to them and they see no distinctions when it comes to their principles of the “self” above all. That is why, apparently, they see the fact that some states refuse to condone homosexuality as just as big a problem as the fact that the USA is $16 trillion in debt and almost half the population depends on the government to some degree. I will repeat, there is a great deal I agree with libertarians on even though I could never be a total one, mostly because, like most political groups, they would not have me even if I wanted to join them.

Legalize and regulate -even though they oppose regulation

Again, I think the libertarian ideal of a “wall of separation” between economy and state is rapidly becoming not just a better solution but the only possible solution. However, fundamentally, I could never be a total libertarian because I do have some attachment to my own people, I do regard tradition as important and, most fundamentally, because, like Thomas Hobbes, I think that if left totally to his own devices the life of man would be, “nasty, brutish and short”. I agree with them on most of their economic ideas, I certainly agree with them when it comes to the debt and the dollar and I totally agree with them when it comes to private property and their opposition to socialism and communism. But I cannot agree with them on everything and I cannot agree with their priorities. For example, they think all narcotics should be legal. Having seen the damage drugs can do to people (and not just the people who take them), that scares me a little but I see the merit of their argument. However, I would never, ever go along with legalizing drugs until the welfare state was abolished because I don’t want to be saddled with paying for the 24/7 care of a population of drug-addled wretches. I have never understood why the libertarians do not first devote themselves to abolishing the welfare state and THEN campaign to legalize drugs. Well, maybe I do, because a great deal of their support comes from pot smoking college kids. Similarly, why fight for “marriage equality” instead of getting the government out of marriage altogether which would result in the same thing anyway?

Another problem I have with them is national security. And, again, it is not that I disagree with their position as much as I disagree with their priorities. In most cases, I agree with them that the policy of interventionism has been a disaster but I could never adopt their position while they also adhere to the open borders policy. Right now, a major concern is the nuclear program of Iran. They don’t care if Iran gets the bomb but I do. However, I do specifically because of how open our borders already are. If Iran got the bomb right now there is still no way they could directly harm the United States. They have no missiles to stick it on that could reach America and they have no bombers that could get close to America without being shot down. But if we adopt the libertarian policy of open borders it would not be terribly difficult to get a “dirty bomb” into the country and wreak havoc. In fact, the whole “War on Terror” would never have been an issue if the USA had simply taken greater care about who is coming into the country and what they are doing while on American soil. None of these terrorist groups control any ballistic missiles, tank divisions or long range bombers. They can only attack America by getting inside and hijacking a plane or setting off a bomb. If America had real border security none of these terrorists could ever touch the United States at all. I have often been eager to tell the rest of the world to fight their own battles but I cannot go along with the libertarian position so long as they refuse to stop potential enemies overseas and at the same time refuse to allow the military to guard the borders at home.

You know, if you voted in a state that mattered...

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of abortion, something I will never support nor even tolerate at all, period, no discussion. Not all libertarians support abortion (I know Judge Andrew Napolitano does not, God bless him -and I also salute him for having the courage to point out that FDR manipulated the US into World War II by provoking Japan -not a popular truth) but every major libertarian institution that I know of does and certainly the people at Reason and Cato I have seen on TV do. I understand why they do, because they believe in absolute individual rights and the absolute inviolability of the “self”. An individual woman has every right to an abortion if she wants one just as, in the libertarian view, she has every right to prostitute herself if she wants to. When it is all about “me” and a pregnancy would be detrimental to “my” happiness, abortion is perfectly acceptable. However, at the same time, this libertarian position puzzles me because they also claim to be all about individual responsibility (and I am certainly in favor of that -all the way). They say they want personal freedom and personal responsibility. However, abortion seems to me to be the total negation of that position.

Consider it like this: we live in a world where women have access to every variety of artificial birth control known to man (and the shrinking population to prove it). So, other than in the event of a rape (which are thankfully relatively rare in the United States) if a woman is impregnated it is because she made a decision and exercised her individual right to have “unprotected” sex or chose to do something that would interfere with her clear thinking (like getting drunk) and as a result made a bad decision and ended up getting pregnant. It does not seem at all ‘libertarian’ to me to then allow this woman a medical “bail out” from a situation she willingly got herself into. Of course, I also believe it is the murder of an innocent child but I’m assuming libertarians do not, otherwise they would apply their principles to the individual rights of the unborn child. But even from their own perspective, I do not see how supporting abortion is in keeping with their devotion to personal responsibility. But then, that half of the equation often seems to be neglected doesn’t it? They favor allowing drug abuse without first eliminating the welfare state that would force drug addicts to be responsible for their own actions and they support abortion even when rape is not a factor which allows people to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. To me, that just seems crazy. But, it would, being … The Mad Monarchist.

(Note: Libertarians may not leave angry messages in the comment box below telling me what a horrible person I am but please, whatever you do, don't click on the "libertarian" label below and read any of the other articles I have posted on the subject in support of various libertarian positions or it just might cause serious damage including brain injury to you. -MM)

MM Sunday Scripture

My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change.
-Proverbs 24:21

(Sounds very current these days doesn't it?)

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the Land Down Under, TRH the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, after a visit to Papua New Guinea, landed in the great Commonwealth of Australia as part of the Diamond Jubilee tour, hopefully strengthening ties with the monarchy. The Duchess made friends with a joey and on day three the royal couple took in the races for the Melbourne Cup. They met with some of the jockeys and the Duchess of Cornwall was proud to present the prized cup to the winner, Nick Williams, owner of “Green Moon”. The Duchess is an avid fan of horse racing and was all smiles for the event. After visiting a tapestry workshop, the Prince visited the Melbourne International Cricket Ground where he talked to some children and praised the program which aims to bring young people of different races and religions together with sport. The Prince of Wales also looked in on the work being done by his own charity in Australia, in conjunction with others, to work toward similar goals.

In southeast Asian royal news, the family of a man from the southern Malaysian state of Johor is rather upset that he was arrested for posting insulting remarks about the revered Sultan of Johor on Facebook. Last July a blogger was arrested on similar charges. Also in Malaysia, the Sultan of Selangor has spoken out, expressing his regret over the statement of a local politician that Malays are free to choose their own religion. The Sultan firmly rejected the idea that anyone could embrace a new religion and denounce Islam, the religion of the vast majority of the Malaysian people. Elsewhere in Asia, in the lofty land of Nepal, former King Gyanendra Shah recently gave a fiery speech, criticizing the current republican political leadership of the country whose lack of “foresight” have brought “disarray”. In a stirring call to embrace old fashioned values the King said, “Our religion [Hinduism], cultural practices and tradition are the only things to ensure our secured continuity always guiding us towards the path of truth”. He also reminded the audience that it was the royal family which, with divine help, brought the country into being.

In the Middle East, HM the King of Saudi Arabia named Prince Mohammed bin Nayef to the post of Minister of the Interior. It was this prince who led a crackdown against terrorist radicals, predominately Al-Qaeda and who himself only narrowly survived an attack by a suicide bomber. Prince Mohammed is the first of the second-generation royals of the Al-Saud dynasty to hold such a ministerial position. Meanwhile, in neighboring Qatar, the Emir had called for better public services, adopting some of the same criticisms as the protestors he has consistently opposed. Perhaps a sign that improvements can be made in a calm and deliberate fashion. And in Kuwait, HH the Emir has spoken out over unprecedented unrest and turmoil in the usually calm Gulf state. In a meeting with security officials, the Sheikh said, “We are required today to choose between the state of law and constitution…or the path to chaos and undermining constitutional authority,”. He praised the army and police for their handling of the unrest. So far the opposition has consisted of a motley collection of Arab nationalists, liberals and Islamic fundamentalists.

In Belgium, the Royal Family has been uncharacteristically combative in response to a horrible, slanderous book which accuses the Royal Family of all sorts of things. In particular the Crown Prince, Philippe Duke of Brabant, was hurt and angered by the book which accuses his marriage of being a loveless sham and his children the products of IVF. The Crown Prince, in response, said, “The day that Mathilde said ‘Yes’ to my proposal was the happiest day of my life” and anyone who has seen them and their children together should be able to see the truth of his words. I have to say, I think the Belgian crown prince has been the most grossly and unjustly maligned and derided royal heir in the world. He is a good, upstanding, intelligent man and his detractors can never point to anything concrete in their criticisms of him. Given an honest chance, I have no doubt he will prove a noble and capable monarch when his time comes.

Across the border in The Netherlands, HM Queen Beatrix swore in the new Dutch cabinet and later in the week visited the town of Sneek to open the new ‘Cultural Quarter’ and took in some demonstrations of local dances. The Dutch postal service has also saw an upsurge in business thanks to the popularity of a new set of stamps featuring the three girls of Crown Prince Willem-Alexander and Crown Princess Maxima. Such stamps are released each October and proceeds from their sale goes to various charities dedicated to helping children. The photographer was none other than the Prince of Orange himself. And, speaking of children, down in the Principality of Monaco, the big news was the announcement from Tatiana Santo Domingo that she and her husband-to-be Andrea Casiraghi are expecting their first child in January of next year, so Princess Caroline is set to be a grandmother. Andrea and Tatiana have been an item for the last seven years and announced their engagement in July. Andrea is currently next in line to the Monegasque throne, which could change if any children are forthcoming from TSH Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene. Congratulations to the happy couple on their upcoming new addition. The Sovereign Prince himself has been on an official visit to Turkey this week where he has met with the Turkish President and His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I.

French Imperial Army in Mexico, Part II

Continued from Part I

Marechal de France Bazaine

Bazaine had started out as a private and worked his way up through the ranks, becoming a lieutenant while serving with the legion in Algeria. He had distinguished himself in Crimea, Italy and at the battles of San Lorenzo and the siege of Puebla. He was popular and well respected by his men but over time problems did develop between him and Emperor Maximilian. Even some on the French side feared that he was going too native and might have had aspirations toward local power after he married an obscenely young girl from the Mexican aristocracy. Bazaine was quickly promoted to Marshal of France and set out on a campaign to crush the remaining resistance under Juarez who was driven from San Luis Potosi to Saltillo, four hundred miles farther north. With every French victory more Mexicans defected to what seemed to be the winning side and soon Juarez was reduced to little more than a fugitive on the run in the barren deserts of northern Mexico. By the spring of 1864 the French controlled most of Mexico and had a force of 38,000 men plus 1,800 Mexican auxiliaries.

However, the situation was not as good as it seemed on paper or as sunny as the reports Marshal Bazaine was sending home to his Emperor in Paris. The French could not effectively garrison every area and the Juaristas were quick to flee before them only to return as soon as the French marched away. After suffering so many defeats Juarez adopted a guerilla warfare policy and Mexican republicans were reduced to behaving more like bandits than regular soldiers, avoiding confrontations with the French unless the odds seemed extremely stacked in their favor. The French also suffered from having small arms that were quite behind the times. At first this was not of very great consequence as the Mexican liberals were even more poorly armed. However, after 1865 the United States was able to send large numbers of the latest weapons to their republican allies in Mexico including repeating rifles and rifled artillery. French artillery was very good but none was left behind for the benefit of the Mexican Imperial Army once the French pulled out of Mexico.

By the fall of 1864 the French army reached the northern border with Texas and was able to benefit from the lucrative trade with the embattled Confederate States of America in the Civil War north of the Rio Grande. Also, in the far south, Bazaine defeated and forced the surrender of 8,000 republican troops in Oaxaca in early 1865. Juarez was, by that time, living constantly on the run in the northern reaches of Chihuahua just south of the Arizona border. Still, bandits were running rampant throughout the country acting in the name of the republicans to give legitimacy to their age old occupation. Bazaine also had to juggle a bad relationship with Emperor Maximilian and with disgruntled subordinates like General Felix Douay. The Mexican Emperor resented the power the French held in the country as well as what he saw as the effort to strengthen their own position at his expense. As an example, one dust up involved the case of Colonel Charles Dupin, commander of the fearsome contra-guerillas. Maximilian objected to the colonel and his brutal tactics and obtained his transfer back to France. However, once there Dupin was able to convince Napoleon that with a few troops and a free hand he could clean out the bandits in northeast Mexico. Napoleon was convinced and sent him back which Maximilian (mistakenly) believed to be the work of Bazaine and an affront to his authority. It did not help that Dupin considered Maximilian a vacillating weakling and was not hesitant to say so. General Douay also argued that Bazaine did not understand the country and was not doing enough to reduce republican harassment.

Time was also against him as, ever since mid-1864 when things seemed pretty much under control the French public had begun to call for the troops to come home. There was also the typical problems of an overseas force dealing with guerilla warfare. There were fewer smashing victories to proclaim in the newspapers yet a small but steady stream of casualties from raids and ambushes as well as disease and desertion. As time went on morale also dropped as the French forces were marched back and forth across the country through often inhospitable terrain with seemingly no end in sight. All of that being said, it is often overlooked just how much the French military accomplished and especially how much good they did while deployed in Mexico. Even people who opposed the whole enterprise had to admit that even the most backward villages deep in the wilds of Mexico received hitherto unknown gifts of law, order and government efficiency thanks to the French forces. They erected telegraph lines between Queretaro and Veracruz (and, more miraculously, kept them running), built a railroad along the gulf coast and established a reliable postal service.

Emperor Napoleon III

It is sadly true that many of these advances receded as Emperor Maximilian took firmer control of the government and was eager to place more responsibility in the hands of native Mexicans. He had the best intentions in doing so, but the corruption and selfishness of the Mexican governing class was a major reason for the country being in so dilapidated a condition in the first place and few, if any, saw fit to change their ways. The tensions between the French army and Mexico City were also exacerbated by the arrival of the foreign volunteers from Austria and Belgium. Maximilian wanted them under his own control, Bazaine wanted them under his and the Austrians wanted an independent command of their own. The French troops were also torn as the threat of war with Prussia grew and most were more eager to defend France from the Prussians than to defend Mexico from liberal republicans. Morale began to drop and even the famed Foreign Legion, which suffered a higher casualty rate than any other unit, began to be plagued with desertions. On one march along the Texas border the Legion lost 93 men in one day to desertion.

Despite his earlier assertions of victory Bazaine had been forced to restrict himself to defensive operations as French forces simply held their fortified outposts in strategic areas. In the end though, it was no decisive defeat that evicted the French from Mexico but rather the diplomatic pressure and threat of military forces from the United States after 1865. A huge American army, fresh from victory in the Civil War, was dispatched to the border and the U.S. all but ordered Napoleon III to withdraw from Mexico or face the consequences. The Emperor bowed to the inevitable and ordered his forces to begin their evacuation. Despite the popular perception, this was not always popular with the Mexican public. In some small villages, the people begged the French to stay, even the presence of just one man in uniform would save them from the ravages of marauding (but cowardly) bandits and their common practice of extortion. But, this was not possible and the French army contracted its position further and further and began pulling out and marching to the coast. It is also noteworthy that the Mexican republicans were content to let them leave in peace. They shadowed the French army but never made any effort to actually do battle with them. Emperor Maximilian was offered safe conduct out of the country but, of course, refused and once the French had gone he bravely marched out with his loyal Mexican brigades to make his last stand at Queretaro.

French Imperial Army in Mexico, Part I

The French intervention in Mexico began in January of 1862 just after the arrival of Spanish and British troops in Veracruz. This initial commitment consisted of 2,000 French marines and 600 zouaves from the French Army of Africa. With the perpetual chaos in Mexico about the only revenues the government could count on were the import tariffs collected at the coast such as the principal port of Veracruz. However, the low lying coastal areas of Mexico are notorious hotbeds for disease and it is no wonder that Mexican President Benito Juarez took no action against the foreign presence and allowed sickness to decimate their ranks for him. By the middle of the following month the Spanish and British had had enough and after receiving new promises from Juarez pulled their troops out. The French, however, remained and had more far reaching goals in mind.

The Legion in Mexico

The French Imperial Army was strengthened by some 3,000 men under the command of the Brigadier General Ferdinand Latrille, Comte de Lorencez. On the same day that the other powers pulled out the French Empire effectively declared war on the liberal republican regime in Mexico City. After advancing to Cordoba General Lorencez issued a pronouncement which stated that France would pacify the country, restore order and he actively called for the recently defeated conservative faction to launch a counterrevolution. The French army was, at that time, fresh from victories in Africa, Italy and the Crimea and was considered possibly the best in the world. Throughout the length of the French intervention in Mexico the troops involved by the French Imperial Army included elements from 6 line infantry regiments, 3 zouave regiments, 4 light infantry battalions, squadrons from 3 cavalry regiments, 6 artillery batteries, 5 companies of engineers, 1 supply train squadron, colonial troops from Martinique, Algeria and the Foreign Legion, 1 marine regiment, 1 battalion of sailors and 1 battery of naval (marine) artillery. According to the treaty signed with then Archduke Maximilian of Austria the French Foreign Legion was supposed to remain in Mexico for 6 years even after all other French forces had withdrawn to form a corps around which the new Imperial Mexican Army could be built.

General Forey

To be sure, the French Imperial Army was a grand spectacle and carried an illustrious reputation with them as they began the march inland to Mexico City. However, this may have worked against them by causing a severe case of overconfidence. This was realized on the famous battle of the fifth of May when General Lorencez launched a frontal assault on the liberal stronghold at Puebla defended by Mexican troops under General Ignacio Zaragoza. The French were soundly repulsed in a bloody battle celebrated as a national holiday ever since and General Lorencez was forced to withdraw back to Orizaba to lick his wounds and wait for reinforcements. Emperor Louis Napoleon of France responded by increasing the size of the French forces in Mexico to 28,000 and gave the top command to General Elie Frederic Forey. As the French prepared to renew their advance Forey was most concerned with his long supply lines from Veracruz. To keep these lines open he entrusted their defense to the Foreign Legion and a battalion of Sudanese troops provided by the Khedive of Egypt. It was thought these African soldiers would be better able to resist the disease-ridden climate on the coast. Whether that was true is debatable but they earned a reputation for discipline, good order and for considerable cruelty toward the local populace.

After the debacle at Puebla it seemed that the French army began to take the whole enterprise more seriously. Many officers even adopted a more native appearance, in typical French style, wearing their coats open with wide sashes and large sombreros on their heads to shield them from the tropical sun. They also made use of allied Mexican forces such as the conservative troops under the fearsome General Leonardo Marquez who won a smashing victory at the battle of San Lorenzo in March as the French moved up to take Puebla again, this time by siege. This time, however, it was the Mexican republicans who made a stupendous mistake. Puebla was the only really half-way defensible place on the road to Mexico City and Juarez decided to gamble everything on holding Puebla despite the fact that the French were better trained, better disciplined, better armed and more experienced that his own forces and, despite the earlier Mexican victory there, in any face-to-face fight between the French and Mexicans the smart money would be on the French army. Nowhere was this more evident than in a little battle along the French line of supply that may not be as widely celebrated as Cinco de Mayo but is actually an even more remarkable battle and is still celebrated today as the official holiday of the French Foreign Legion.

The battle revolved around a French wagon train that was taking a payroll of three million in gold from Veracruz to the French forces at Puebla. The liberals quickly sent a force of republican cavalry and militia to grab the gold and a company of the Foreign Legion was dispatched to intercept them. The two sides met at the hacienda of Camaron on April 30, 1863 where Captain Jean Danjou and 62 legionnaires confronted 2,000 Juaristas. The legionnaires repulsed several cavalry charges after being caught in the open before barricading themselves in the nearby hacienda where they repelled attack after attack inflicting heavy losses on the Mexican republicans. After almost literally fighting to the death the legionnaires were overwhelmed and forced to surrender with only five of the original 62 still alive. This was a stunning example of the tenacity and effectiveness of the French Imperial forces and demonstrated why it was a good idea for the Mexican republicans to avoid formal battles with them considering the trouble they had defeating 62 men with 2,000 at their disposal.

Given that, it was not surprising that after two months under siege the Mexican republicans at Puebla surrendered on April 17, effectively clearing the way to Mexico City. Juarez, for his part, did not even try to defend the city and evacuated his government to San Luis Potosi and a week later General Forey and the French army marched into Mexico City and began establishing the conservative junta that would direct national affairs until a new government could be formed. It was this junta that eventually gave way to the triumvirate that invited Archduke Maximilian of Austria to become Emperor of Mexico. However, Napoleon III was bothered by the fact that his top commander, General Forey, seemed to have lost faith in the expedition and was extremely critical of the situation on the ground and the long term prospects for success. However, as he could hardly punish such a successful commander the Emperor decided to kick him upstairs by promoting him to the rank of Marshal of France, recalling him and replacing him with one of his divisional commanders General Francois Achille de Bazaine.

To be concluded in Part II...

Democracy at Work in America

Well, it's over and the United States will have four more years of Barack Hussein Obama, our President, our Chairman, the "Great Helmsman" etc and etc. Despite record debt, record unemployment, a sinking dollar and sky high energy prices, American voters decided they wanted to stick to the big B.O. from here on out. The Republican Party majority in the House of Representatives was maintained and even increased. The Democrat Party majority in the Senate was maintained and even increased and Secretary-General Obama was reelected. What does that mean? I'll tell you what it means; IT MEANS WE JUST SPENT TWO YEARS MUD-SLINGING, NAME-CALLING AND SPENDING MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND CHANGED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Can anyone fully comprehend the sheer waste this represents? The United States is $16 trillion in debt, the most broke nation in history and we just spent many, many billions of dollars in the most expensive presidential race in American history and it changed absolutely NOTHING. Cry Baby Boehner is still the Speaker of the House, Harry 'We're-$16trillion-in-debt-but-can't-give-up-cowboy-poetry-month' Reed is still the leader of the Senate and Obama is still President. In other words, we just wasted two years of time for every American man, woman and child.

In his victory speech, Obama said the public didn't vote for "politics as usual". I'm sorry Comrade President, but yes they did, they voted for exactly that. Even if no one wants to admit it. Congress has never had a lower approval rating than now, yet the same people were voted back into office by both sides. Most people said that government should be smaller and that raising taxes would not solve the debt problem yet these same people voted for the President who promised bigger government and raising taxes to deal with the debt problem. In other words, the public doesn't seem to have any sense at all. You can blame the politicians for plenty but the public that keeps voting for them cannot get off totally blameless either. Sure, the choices the public are given don't help. I was never a fan of Romney or Obama (and didn't vote for either of them). I never heard Romney make the case for smaller government, in fact I never heard him present a plan at all. He was about as dull and ordinary as they come. He was a walking contradiction and, I have no doubt, would have been simply George W. Bush Part II: tax cuts but no spending cuts and so a still bigger debt. Obama, who claimed to be the "post-racial" President, has left the country more divided by race than I have ever known it. Never before have the voting blocs been so solid. Whites vote for the Republicans, non-Whites vote for the Democrats.

On that front, the Democrats are advising Republicans to face reality and they are probably right. Demographics cannot be changed. Once your population changes, that's it and, I know some people won't like this, but Europe and North America need to just get used to the idea that "White" people will soon be a thing of the past. I don't think there are any real racists to speak of these days but, if there are, especially if you have children, you better get over your prejudice or you are going to have a very miserable life. The racial changes to America are having an impact and no one can deny it any longer. Some thought Obama's about-face on gay "marriage" might alienate some African-Americans but that was not the case. Some thought his deportation of illegal immigrants and the fact that he broke his promise to tackle "immigration reform" in his first year in office might put off Hispanics but, that was not the case. He also supports gay "marriage" and abortion and the HHS mandate which the Catholic Church has called a violation of religious freedom -all things condemned by the Catholic Church, which the vast majority of Hispanics belong to, and it did nothing to deter from their support for Obama. Blacks, Hispanics and single women have the highest unemployement and poverty levels yet, they all voted for more of the same and, evidently, do not hold Obama responsible for this.

I have heard numerous pundits, from the left and the right, say that America has changed, that the "face" of America has changed and the Republican Party no longer represents the mainstream. Like it or not, racial and ethnic groups have been politicized and the GOP is on the losing side of the demographic battle. Fighting over immigration at this point is rather silly -what's done is done. More than that, values have changed. One-fifth of Americans no longer belong to any church and, evidently, single women at least consider their "right" to abortion and taxpayer-funded birth control a greater priority than the overall economy, their employment status and the price of gasoline. And all of this happened because "we the people" allowed it. And we gripe and moan and complain and still vote for more of the same. So the rule of Obama will continue, the deadlock will continue and, in my opinion, things will get worse rather than better. But that's coming from my worldview and virtually no one shares it. That's why I'm not a Republican or a Democrat but just ... The Mad Monarchist.

Favorite Royal Images: Belgian Queen

H.M. Paola, the lovely Italian Queen of the Belgians

Election Day (groan)

The Face of Guy Fawkes

Today, once again, we ‘remember, remember the fifth of November’. I have, already, given my opinion of the Gunpowder Plot and have nothing to add to that or any change of position worth mentioning. Lately though, with all of the protests particularly in America and western Europe, I have also mentioned how tired I am of the ubiquitous wearing of “Guy Fawkes” masks by these professional placard bearers. It is altogether an odd thing to do, for they really have nothing to do with the historical Guy Fawkes (I doubt any have the slightest knowledge of the actual history of the man or the Gunpowder Plot) but rather was popularized by the 2005 film “V for Vendetta” which was quite a bizarre piece of work in and of itself. It has frequently provided the inspiration for anarchist groups, most blatantly the internet community “Anonymous”. The film was based on a comic book, though the author wanted nothing to do with the movie because of the distortions made to his original story. Whether the original was better or worse, I don’t know, I don’t think I’ve read a comic book after the age twelve. As far as the movie goes, about the only positive thing I can say about it was that whoever wrote the dialogue for the main character has some talent. Otherwise, it makes very little sense at all.

For those unaware, the film is set in a dystopian London of the not-too-distant future in which Great Britain is essentially a Christian fundamentalist dictatorship run by a collection of police state bureaucrats, government and church officials all of whom compete with each other for who can be the most cruel, corrupt and degenerate. It is all very Orwellian and the main character, a masked, vigilante bomber called “V” works to incite the population to rise up against their totalitarian dictator (played by John Hurt) with the help of his report sidekick played by Israeli-American actress Natalie Portman. Much of the odd nature of the film can be illustrated by looking at the character played by Stephen Fry, which seems to have been written in such a way that Fry basically plays himself. Fry, a homosexual Jewish Briton who has opposed celebrating the foundation of the State of Israel and who is a member of “Jews for Justice for Palestinians” plays, of all things, a television funnyman who is a closeted homosexual and who keeps an antique copy of the Quran in his private collection, he says for its artistic qualities, and is eventually arrested and executed for owning a Quran.

Certainly, someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I know of no Christian country in the world where one can be fined, arrested or executed for owning a copy of the Quran. I do know numerous non-Christian countries where one can get into serious trouble for owning a Bible or an “unauthorized” version of the Bible. It also seems rather ridiculous that a homosexual man would keep a Quran even for the sake of artistic quality. He could keep any book for such a reason, but why a Quran? Why not an antique Bible? Again, in the world today and looking forward, I know of no country from the Christian tradition that puts homosexuals to death but in some Muslim countries this does still happen (though not very often because such laws tend to discourage people from being openly homosexual). A homosexual appreciating the artistic value of the Quran would be like a Jew keeping a copy of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” because he thinks it is so well-written. I suppose it is possible, but certainly highly unlikely. I suppose an African-American could appreciate the cinematic artistry of the film “Birth of a Nation” but, again, I would consider that highly unlikely. But that is the whole flavor the film.

The first time I saw it, I really thought I had missed the joke. Initially, it didn’t even occur to me that the filmmakers could be serious about this. England (Scotland and Ireland are never mentioned as I recall) becoming a fundamentalist Christian dictatorship? England being dominated by “conservative” state-run media? I thought it had to be some kind of joke. England has been moving away from Christianity (of any sort, to say nothing of the fundamentalist flavor) not towards it. Acceptance of homosexuality is on the increase in England, not the decrease. Muslims, far from being persecuted in modern-day England, can have the most radical and fundamentalist in their ranks march down the street calling for the overthrow of the British government and they are protected by the police. And where is the threat from right-wing media in Britain? British media seems as far from that as possible. Take the most prominent right-wing politician in recent British history, Baroness Thatcher. On the BBC even a show as far-out as “Dr Who” criticized Thatcher, over on Channel 4 “Spitting Image” regularly derided Thatcher (and the Royal Family, Ronald Reagan and conservatives in general) and there were a million more. Where exactly is the government-backed media giant in England that the filmmakers behind “V” are so afraid of? I cannot find it for the life of me. Sky News is not government controlled and though I have heard it leans to the right, I cannot give an opinion as I’ve never seen it. I also have the feeling that such a reputation may be solely due to Rupert Murdoch who is not a right-wing, conservative ideologue. He’s an anti-monarchy republican with liberal social views who cashes in on untapped markets; sometimes that’s the left and sometimes the right, he just goes where the money is.

The only way it is fitting that the modern crowd that does so uses the image of Guy Fawkes from the “V for Vendetta” movie is that they make as little sense as the film does. Any honest person can see that Britain is in no danger of suddenly becoming a Christian fundamentalist police-state (which, by the way, did happen once -many hundreds of years ago during the only period in British history when there was no monarchy -keep that in mind). Similarly, Guy Fawkes was not an anarchist or even a libertarian. He didn’t really have a problem with “the system” at all but merely those controlling it. He was a Catholic who didn’t like England being ruled by Protestants and he wanted Protestant rule to go out with a bang -to put it mildly. Moreover, those invoking the image of Guy Fawkes do not even appear to be terribly consistent with their own views. Who ever heard of anarchists demanding more government programs? How much sense does it make to say you are protesting against the power of government but want that same government to have more power over the lives of the people by enacting more programs and laws and regulations? None of it makes any sense no matter which way you come at it. Here is the typical thought process:

“I hate big government controlling my life. They should just provide me with a free education, free medical care, a guaranteed job at a government-set wage, a government paid pension for when I am not working, housing, transportation, childcare and an old age pension for when I retire. And other than that, stay the hell out of my life! Yeah, because I’m a radical who believes in total freedom and individual rights, that’s why we need more collectivization. We should have a march or a protest or something and show how radical we are in supporting our individual rights and disdain for the government by all wearing the exact same mask in the image of a centuries old would-be terrorist who wanted to blow up Parliament and put a Catholic Queen on the throne of Britain! Who’s with me?!”

So, that is the logic: rail against “the system” while demanding it become ever more powerful and you become ever more dependent on it. And show what a rebel you are by becoming the most conformist creature on the planet. It’s enough to make even a monarchist feel sorry for Guy Fawkes to have his image associated with such idiotic rabble.

MM Sunday Scripture

Also in Judah the hand of God was to give them one heart to do the commandment of the king and of the princes, by the word of the Lord.
-II Chronicles 30:12

Understanding the Last Emperor, Part III

Continued from Part II

The Emperor hoped he would finally have the opportunity to prove himself as an independent ruler but he was hampered by the degree to which Manchukuo depended on Japan for security and economic development. As Japan was the primary source of investment in Manchukuo, they naturally had the most influence in the country. Both then and in the years since this has been exaggerated to ridiculous proportions. However, because Japan was the primary source of support for the new regime and because the Emperor desired to show solidarity with Japan during times of increasing difficulty, the Emperor signed into law many directives to show that Manchukuo stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Japan. Some of these, such as Japanese being made the official language taught in Manchukuo schools, have since caused a great deal of unfair criticism to be heaped on the Emperor. However, in every government position it was a Manchu who held the top ministerial role with the Japanese being restricted to the position of deputy ministers. Many critics hold Manchukuo and Japan to an unfair standard in this regard, ignoring other countries which acted similarly. The United States, for example, recognized the independence of The Philippines after World War II but still imposed many conditions to give American interests a favored position and to maintain American military forces in the country.

Enemies of the Empire of Manchukuo, in and outside the country, worked tirelessly to spread fear and paranoia about the Japanese presence in the country. Especially after the start of World War II any person who died or left the country was immediately accused of having been assassinated by the Japanese. Even the Emperor's consort, Tan Yuling, who died in 1944 is an example of this. Despite the lack of any evidence at all that she died of anything but natural causes it is still widely held, whether outright or through innuendo, that she was murdered by Japanese doctors after opposing their influence in Manchukuo. What is certain is that the Japanese officials always treated the Emperor with the utmost respect and, though he later expressed misgivings, the Emperor gave his full support to Japan and the "holy war" for Greater East Asia and showed this support by proclaiming Shinto as the official state religion of Manchukuo. And yet, the Emperor himself was not immune from the fear-mongering going on throughout the country. Concerns about security became causes for suspicion and in time the Emperor himself became very worried about his safety and constantly consulted Buddhist oracles and delved into divination to try to protect himself. Empress Wan Jung dealt with the situation by becoming addicted to opium, a fact which particularly distressed the Emperor as his mother had died of an opium overdose when he was young.

In actuality, the life of the Emperor had in a way regressed to what it had been like for him as a boy in the Forbidden City, only with a change in handlers. He signed what documents the Japanese put before him, he followed their advice on who he was to meet and what he was to say and was not allowed to leave the palace unless the trip had been cleared by the Japanese and he was accompanied by an official escort. Today this is all portrayed in the most negative light possible, yet is little different from the role of any constitutional monarch and, indeed, was not terribly dissimilar to what life was like for the Emperor of Japan at the same time. There was a war going on and it would not be the first or only time that progress toward greater independence for a client state was put on hold because of an on-going conflict. Moreover, the conflict was increasingly going against Japan and by extension for Manchukuo. Japanese security around the Emperor and his own paranoia only increased as the defeat of Japan loomed closer. This is unfortunate because the Emperor was legitimately popular among the native Manchu people, if for no other reason than that he was one of their own. Even those who grumbled about the Japanese being too heavy-handed still felt sympathy for their Emperor in whom they saw a brief vision of their former glory and status. And though things were far from ideal, it was lost on no one that without Japan the restoration would never have hapened at all, and if they were defeated the restored monarchy was surely doomed. When the end finally came PuYi hoped to fly to Japan where he could surrender to the Americans, but unfortunately for him, he was overtaken by the Russian invasion, captured and placed under house arrest in the Soviet Union for five years. Having long held the Communists to be the worst of all revolutionary, republican groups, he was certain that his fate was sealed.

His fear turned out to be misplaced. The Russians, for their own part, cared very little about him. The Soviet Union had, after all, originally recognized Manchukuo as a legitimate country and had only declared war on Japan at the last minute, after the atomic bomb had been dropped and Japan was all but defeated, in order to grab territory and extend their influence in the Far East. The actual state of mind of the former Chinese Emperor, at this period, is hard to estimate. He made gushing overtures to Joseph Stalin about how his mind had been liberated by reading Karl Marx, yet at the same time he named a cousin to be his successor in the imperial line. Was he genuinely being changed or was he simply throwing himself at the mercy of the powers that be as he had done before with the Chinese republic? He had, after all, testified at the war crimes trials in Tokyo in 1946 and claimed that he had been kidnapped by the Japanese, used against his will as their instrument and pleaded his total opposition to these people to whom he had once expressed his deepest thanks, loyalty and admiration to. Which stance represents his true beliefs? Only PuYi himself could say for sure and his story changed constantly. He was hardly in a position to be perfectly honest with anyone.

Whatever his feelings about Marxist doctrine he certainly did not want to go back to China and fall into Red Chinese hands, certain that he would face death at their hands. The Soviets soon grew uncomfortable keeping him and realized they could not use him to their benefit. So, as a gesture of friendship to the government of Chairman Mao Tse-tung who had recently seized power; even standing triumphantly over the gates of the Forbidden City announcing that the world had stood up, and turned over the despised former monarch to them in 1950. PuYi and his entourage were returned to Manchuria and incarcerated in the Fushun prison for war criminals. He underwent a constant battery of communist indoctrination and reeducation through labor. Famously, he had to learn to dress himself, tie his own shoes, make his own bed, wash his own clothes; all of which he had no idea how to do since he had never had to do anything for himself. He was a tragic figure, especially at that time, being a man who had never known real personal freedom except perhaps for his few years in Tientsin, and yet even the comfort of his previous prisons denied him of any independence and self worth because of his pampering.

In time, PuYi overcame his fear of being killed. The Communists had decided that he would be more useful to them alive than as a traditionalist martyr. Across China, as in most every Communist country, there was an effort to create a "new man" who would see no class distinctions, who would idolize the party, revere the Chairman and march lock-step with the dictates handed down by the absolutist government, even in terms of dictating thoughts and opinions. They saw in PuYi the chance for a great propaganda coup, that they could "reform", as they called it, the Emperor himself, the man once called the Son of Heaven and the Lord of 10,000 Years, as an ordinary working communist. Unfortunately, they were successful in this, though it took ten years to do it. It is hard to say how much individualism he ever had and the Communists have always been masters at denying the value of any individual and by the time of his release PuYi was praising his Communist captors, scorning his imperial background, voicing shame for his great crimes and thanking the Communist government for their charity, benevolence and wisdom.

Chairman Mao officially pardoned PuYi who returned to Beijing and became a simple worker at the Botanical Gardens. Having abandoned his wives in Manchukuo, Empress Wan Jung died in Communist prison in 1946 and his surviving concubine divorced him, the government played matchmaker to see him married to a nurse, also a member of the Communist Party of course, who he stayed with for the rest of his life. PuYi served on the Chinese People‘s Political Consultative Conference from 1964 and wrote his memoir, "From Emperor to Citizen" in which he recounts the story of his life, remarking on how very wicked he and his compatriots were in his time as Emperor and lavishing praise on the Communists for saving his life and helping him to see the truth and be apart of their remaking of China into a much better country than it had ever been before -as he had been duly taught. The life of the last Emperor of China finally came to an end in 1967 when he died in a hospital in Beijing from cancer. At this time, China was at the height of the horrific Cultural Revolution and rumors began that he had been assassinated by Red Guards. The truth, as with much of his life, may never be known. The Cultural Revolution was a reaction against all things traditional, and as the former Emperor PuYi inherently represented the old China, yet as a reborn Communist he also represented the new China and it would seem a little late to kill him. Interestingly, that night the sky turned brown and eerie from a Mongol sand storm that was quite unheard of at that time of year. The strange light and sounds caused many elder Chinese especially to guess that the "last dragon" had flown into the clouds.

Initially, after his death, PuYi was cremated and buried in a Communist Party cemetery alongside government elites and older graves of imperial concubines and eunuchs. Later, in 1995, his widow moved his body to a private cemetery near the old Qing dynasty tombs, paid for by a Hong Kong businessman who admitted that he hoped the presence of the last Emperor would help boost his sales for plots. He also stated that he planned to build a larger memorial for the Emperor and his later wives as a sort of tourist attraction. The Aisin-Gioro, never very taken by PuYi's last wife, were reportedly extremely upset about this action. Even in death, it seems, PuYi is still being used as an instrument for the cause of others.

Understanding the Last Emperor, Part II

Continued from Part I

Married life made the Emperor feel more like his own man and shortly thereafter he decided that if he could not rule China he would at least rule the Forbidden City in line with his own ideas. He had, especially through the influence of Johnston, become something of a radical liberal by the standards of the staunch Chinese traditionalists. He wanted reform and modernization and shocked the court when he cut off his queue and appointed a new chamberlain, Cheng Hsiao-hsu, and attempted a crackdown on the black market sale of antiques from the palace. When he met resistance on this front from those entrenched at court, particularly the eunuchs who had been his only constant companions since childhood, he expelled the eunuchs from the Forbidden City. This was quite an undertaking considering the ancient and powerful position of the eunuchs and the fact that there were still roughly 1,200 of them living in the Forbidden City. What would have come of this new effort to create his own society inside the palace walls we will never know. In 1924 another warlord seized Peking. This time it was a Communist, who ironically also claimed to be a Christian, named General Feng Yuxiang, who ordered PuYi and the entire court to evacuate the Forbidden City immediately.

PuYi considered several destinations to relocate to but eventually settled in the foreign section of Tientsin, specifically in the Japanese legation. Here he had more freedom than he had ever enjoyed in the traditional confines of the Forbidden City and preferred the modern conveniences and cosmopolitan atmosphere he had never known before. He was generally treated with great respect by the representatives of foreign nations, still given the respect due an emperor and was able to dress in western clothes and adopt western practices. This is something most Chinese people were doing anyway but it upset some of his more traditional courtiers who thought it beneath the dignity of the Lord of 10,000 Years to look and act like a European playboy. He also never gave up hope of restoring the Qing Empire and was in constant contact with Chinese loyalists, his Manchurian relatives and the always fickle warlords who demanded a lot of money but delivered only promises. He was also conspicuously well treated by the Japanese who convinced him that they had his best interests at heart, and as fellow believers in the superiority of monarchy and the imperial system, were entirely supportive of his restoration.

There were problems and worries for the Emperor too in Tientsin. The rest of China was engulfed in the civil war between the republican government and communist revolutionaries. In 1931 Princess Wen Xiu, tired of being the second class wife, sought and obtained a divorce from the Emperor, something unprecedented in Chinese imperial history but rather keeping with the more modern lifestyle he had adopted in Tientsin. Most significantly however was when republican troops raided and sacked the tombs of the Qing emperors. For any Chinese raised with the traditional Confucian moral code of filial piety this was a terrible outrage. PuYi was especially incensed to learn that the grave of the Empress Dowager had been desecrated and pearls from her headdress given to the wife of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to decorate the toes of her shoes. PuYi vowed to those around him to avenge this wrong and to restore the Qing and the dignity of his ancestors, declaring that if he did not do so then he was no Aisin-Gioro.

What seemed like his chance to do so came in 1932 when the Japanese, who had occupied Manchuria with little resistance from official Chinese republican forces, approached the Emperor about returning to power in his ancestral homeland. It took a little negotiation to get PuYi to go along with the idea, especially when it was made clear that this would be a new state and not a restoration of the Qing Empire. Further, PuYi was rather insulted when the Japanese insisted that he be installed first as Chief Executive rather than as a monarch. The Japanese knew that an immediate restoration of the Qing Empire would be overreaching and could be little justified to the outside world. However, there was no doubt that the Emperor was the legitimate hereditary ruler of the Manchu people and this was where a restoration had to start. Japan also knew that if this was going to be accepted by the international community, they would have to play by the rules of the day, which meant "Chief Executive" before "Emperor". The Emperor's longtime advisor Chen Pao-shen was totally opposed to the idea and favored what seemed the safer course of trying to restore the Articles of Favorable Treatment and regaining the good graces of republican China. Others, however, like Cheng Hsiao-hsu and Lo Chen-yu impressed upon him that this was an opportunity that might never come again and the Japanese promised that he would resume his imperial status at an appropriate time in the future. PuYi finally agreed to the enterprise on a trial basis and if he did not become emperor after a certain amount of time he would resign and resume his life as an exile.

PuYi was taken to Manchuria and on March 1, 1932 was formally installed as the Chief Executive of the State of Manchukuo. As the Japanese were continuing their expansion in China this attracted the attention of the League of Nations which sent a delegation to Manchuria to determine whether or not Manchukuo was a legitimate nation which reflected the will of the Manchu people or simply a puppet state of Japan. As was often the case, the commission seemed mostly concerned with the opportunities this offered for other foreign nations rather than focusing on the stated intent of their mission. Nonetheless, the commission, led by the British Earl of Lytton, eventually reported that Manchuria was and would remain Chinese though some degree of autonomy was suggested. This prompted Japan to resign from the League of Nations, deeply offended, and no further action was taken on the part of the international community. Once the Japanese were better entrenched and the Manchu government better established they agreed to restore the imperial dignity to the head of state.

In 1934 PuYi was formally enthroned as Emperor of Manchukuo, taking the reign name of Kang Teh or Tranquility and Virtue of the Great Manchu Empire. This new status did not, though, ease his relationship with the Japanese which was difficult even at the very start of his new reign. The problems were not serious but should be mentioned simply because so many claim that the Emperor was only a pliant tool of the Japanese when, in fact, they two did not always agree completely on everything. For example, PuYi could not bear the idea of being enthroned in anything but the traditional robes of a Chinese emperor. The Japanese, on the other hand, insisted that he wear Manchukuo military uniform. This was, after all, Manchukuo and not the Qing Empire and this might cause difficulty with those who wanted a distinct and independent Manchuria, remaining apart from China. In the end it was agreed that PuYi would be enthroned in uniform but wear traditional regalia when he announced his accession to Heaven at a recently constructed earthen altar. PuYi was, nonetheless, filled with hope for the future, especially after a formal visit to Japan where he was warmly received by Emperor Hirohito. He announced that Japan and Manchukuo were partners and friends and that he intended to produce an heir to secure the succession.

The Japanese, however, were not too enthusiastic about his talk of Japan and Manchukuo being partners, insisting on being treated as the actual power in the country which they were. Many in Japan did not see this as unreasonable and no different from the way the British, for example, interacted with client monarchies in the Empire of India. There were also those in Japan who disagreed and wanted a true and equal partnership between the Manchu and Japanese nations. Most western powers, not surprisingly, dismissed Manchukuo as no more than a Japanese puppet state, particularly after the start of World War II in the Pacific. Some countries did open diplomatic relations with Manchukuo such as of course Japan, the Kingdom of Italy and Nazi Germany as well as General Franco in Spain, Marshal Petain of the Vichy regime in France, Pope Pius XI, the pro-Japanese Republic of China under Wang Qinghui (the only Chinese republicans to recognize the restoration of their former emperor), El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and surprisingly the Soviet Union as well as a few others. 

Emperor "Henry" was never successful in producing an heir however and he was obliged to designate his brother, Prince Pu Chieh, as his successor who was married to the Japanese Princess Hiro Saga but even she bore only daughters. In 1939 the Emperor took another wife which also caused some friction with the Japanese who wanted him to take a Japanese wife. This also illustrates a hole in the logic of biased westerners who insist that the Japanese were full of racial bigotry against other Asians. They wanted to cement their alliance with a royal marriage, something very traditional and, to put it in a western context, no one at the time would have considered for a minute having a British princess married to a King of the Zulus for example. This was also nothing new as, at that time, the Crown Prince of Korea had also taken a Japanese wife and she very much adopted the Korean people as her own. Still, the Emperor of Manchukuo resisted the idea of having a Japanese bride and so, once again, another compromise was worked out by which PuYi married a Han Chinese girl named Tan Yuling. She was educated by the Japanese-operated school system, which made her acceptable to them, and was only a teenager so the Emperor hoped she would be politically innocent.

To be concluded in Part III...

Understanding the Last Emperor, Part I

The last Emperor of China is not a well known figure, and it is an unfortunate truth that most of the notoriety he does hold is on account of the famous Academy Award-winning film about his life. Though he lived not a very long time ago, the last Chinese Emperor remains a very enigmatic figure. The accounts of his life written by others invariably come from biased sources, people who have some agenda to push and in his case it involves the necessity of vilifying the Emperor. Yet, even reading his own accounts, it is hard to come to a very clear understanding of the man. In his youth in the Forbidden City of Peking, surrounded by traditionalist mandarins and submissive eunuchs he was a staunch Chinese imperialist. When he was head of state of Manchuria under Japanese protection he was a staunch ally of Japan and finally when he was taken by the Communists he voiced his disgust at his past life and praised the People‘s Republic. Which opinion was the sincere one? Where any of them sincerely felt? What sort of man was he or was his life spent so dominated by others that any individualism in him was stamped out? Regarding the last Chinese Emperor anyone will find that there are many more questions than answers.

The last Emperor was born Aisin-Gioro Pu-Yi on February 7, 1906 to Prince Chun II; the half brother of Emperor GuangXu, and Princess Youlan; daughter of General Ronglu. He had very little time for a normal childhood however as he was summoned to the Forbidden City by the Empress Dowager Cixi when he was not yet three years old. Empress Dowager Cixi was ruling in the place of the nominal monarch, Emperor GuangXu, whom she had suppressed in a military coup after he tried to modernize the country. Now on her deathbed, Cixi wanted to make sure that the Emperor could not retake power after her death and ensure that the system she had in place would continue. An infant monarch would allow those she trusted to hold real power and bring up the child in line with their way of thinking and so she chose PuYi to be the adopted heir of his uncle and succeed as the next emperor. She possibly had GuangXu poisoned as he died on November 14, 1908 with Cixi herself dying the following day. The following month PuYi was officially enthroned as Great Emperor of the Great Qing Dynasty, Grand Khan of Tartary, Lord of 10,000 Years and the Son of Heaven with the reigning name of Hsuan-tung. Already the victim of circumstances beyond his control this occasion marked the beginning of the end of the ancient Chinese Empire.

Because of his age, the little emperor was watched over by his adopted mother, Empress Dowager Longyu and his father who served as regent on his behalf. Opinion varies considerably on Prince Chun, encouraged by the fact that he was quite adept at being acceptable to the powers-that-be at all times. Some view him as a potential reformer, others as a hopeless reactionary. Regardless though, he had relatively little time at the helm of the Chinese Empire before the outbreak of the republican revolution in 1911. The revolt happened almost by accident and was led by the American educated Sun Yat-sen who received the aid of the notorious General Yuan Shihkai. This general had already betrayed the previous emperor, betrayed PuYi and would ultimately betray Sun Yat-sen when after being given the presidency in return for convincing the Qing Dynasty to abdicate he declared himself emperor and tried to found a new dynasty. The Qing were quickly overwhelmed, intimidated and through the persuasion of Yuan Shihkai convinced that they had to come to terms with the revolution in order to survive.

Prince Chun gave up being regent on December 6, 1911 and passed the position to Empress Dowager Longyu who was left to deal with the disaster. It was she, on behalf of the Hsuan-tung Emperor, signed the "Act of Abdication of the Emperor of the Great Qing" on February 12, 1912. The agreement which brought about this abdication, an unprecedented event in world history, was extremely interesting. For one thing, it stated that the Emperor was bowing to the Mandate of Heaven as expressed through the will of the people; which had certainly never been done before in the history the succession of Chinese dynasties. Likewise, in return for the peaceful surrender of the monarchy, the newly born Republic of China agrees to the Articles of Favorable Treatment which guaranteed the title of the Manchu Emperor, the protection of the imperial tombs and monuments, imperial ownership of the imperial palaces within the Forbidden City and the Summer Palace, the treatment of the emperor with the respect of a foreign head of state and the payment of four million dollars a year to the imperial court. It was a remarkable agreement in the history of fallen monarchies especially in that, even though China had embraced republicanism, a certain mystique still surrounded the child emperor and even the republic would not deny that the emperor was an emperor and thus worthy of a certain respect. Unfortunately, the republic did not ultimately live up to this agreement, especially in terms of the payments which were stopped fairly quickly, but neither did the imperial court which never accepted the republic as permanent and continued to hope for a restoration.

During this period PuYi led a rather uneventful life. There were occasional ceremonies for him to participate in, dignitaries to be received and of course his education at the hands of the mandarins, particularly his tutor Chen PaoShen who was to be one of his closest advisors throughout much of his life. It is interesting to note how many of the republican officials treated the Emperor. China, especially during this period, was a place where everyone tried to keep all bases covered as to whom might one day be in a position to benefit them. When republican officials would come to the Forbidden City on some errand they would often enter in western clothes, deliver their speech on behalf of the republic in a dignified manner and then leave again, don traditional robes, come back in and bow down to address the Emperor as a private individual. There was a constant dance between the imperial court, the republican government and the military warlords who held most of the actual cards, each one paying lip service to the other for momentary support and looking for a chance to gain political power with the little emperor caught in the middle.

General Chang Hsun

This situation seemed to reach a pivotal moment for the Qing in 1917 when a monarchist warlord, General Chang Hsun, marched on Peking. His troops were known as the Pigtail Army because they retained the Manchu queue hairstyle as a symbol of their continued loyalty to the Qing. The General offered to restore the young monarch and with the assurance that the republican government was supportive, and that the President would step down, the court agreed and announced the official return of Emperor Hsuan-tung to nominal power on July 1. For a brief time dragon flags appeared on the streets and imperial-era robes were being worn again. There was even a rush on costume shops to obtain horse hair queues to give the appearance of having been ever loyal. Yet, not everyone was convinced, and vendors were selling imperial pronouncements with the advertisements that they would soon be antiques. True enough, the President of the republic did not go along with the restoration and soon Peking was besieged by republican forces under General Duan Qirui. There was even a brief air raid when a republican plane dropped a bomb in the Forbidden City which did little damage but caused considerable fright simply because of the novelty of it. By July 12, 1917 the Pigtail Army had been dispersed and Chang Hsun was forced to flee to the Dutch legation. Another abdication announcement was hastily issued on behalf of the young Emperor and once again China reverted to republicanism and warlord rule.

Inside the Forbidden City life went on under the usual routine for PuYi. In the hope of gaining foreign aid and to give the Emperor a more western education a British official named Reginald F. Johnston was employed as tutor to the Emperor. He befriended his pupil and would remain a defender of the last Emperor for the rest of his life, even after certain political problems arose during the 1930's between Britain and some other friends of the last Emperor. It was with Johnston that PuYi chose a name for himself from a list of British monarchs, picking Henry in reference to Henry VIII and so became known by many in the English-speaking world as Emperor Henry of China. In 1922 it was decided that, as he was 16 years old, it was high time for the Emperor to marry. He was given a number of candidates to choose from, but his first choice, the Princess Wen Xiu, was deemed too ugly by the courtiers and so Princess Wan Jung was chosen for the job of wife and Empress with Wen Xiu coming along as concubine.

To be continued in Part II...