The Turbulent Origins of the Boxer Movement
The Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901) emerged from the volatile intersection of rural discontent, anti-foreign sentiment, and millenarian beliefs in late Qing China. As revealed in Ronglu’s confidential 1900 letter to Fujian Governor Xu Yingkui, the movement traced its roots to Shandong province, where a martial arts group initially called the “Plum Flower Fists” transformed into the anti-Christian “Righteous Harmony Fists” (Yihetuan).
This transition occurred under the governorship of Li Bingheng (1895), who notably permitted the group’s activities rather than suppressing them. The Boxers’ claim of Ming dynasty lineage and their female auxiliary “Red Lanterns” division tapped into potent nativist symbolism. When local magistrate Wang Wenshao denounced them as a White Lotus Sect offshoot—a forbidden religious organization—his subsequent dismissal demonstrated the Qing court’s inconsistent policy toward the movement.
The Escalation of Violence in Zhili Province
By autumn 1899, Boxer placards proclaimed divine mandate to “exterminate foreign devils,” marking their expansion into Zhili (modern Hebei). Ronglu’s letter details pivotal incidents: the burning of churches in Liuba County, the fatal confrontation where Boxer claims of invulnerability collapsed under gunfire (30-40 killed), and the execution of their leaders. These events exposed the movement’s paradoxical nature—both a genuine popular uprising and a phenomenon riddled with superstition.
The correspondence particularly implicates Zhili Provincial Treasurer Ting Yong, whose open practice of Boxer rituals with subordinates revealed dangerous court factionalism. The ideological clash between Ting and Xuanhua Prefect—who invoked Emperor Jiaqing’s 1813 suppression of the Eight Trigrams uprising—highlighted the Qing leadership’s divided response to the crisis.
The Empress Dowager’s Fateful Decision
Ronglu’s most revealing passages concern the June 21, 1900 imperial decree ordering Boxer incorporation into militia forces. His sleepless night of “both consolation and unease” captures the dilemma facing pragmatic officials: while recognizing the Boxers’ patriotic fervor, he feared their uncontrollable nature. The letter’s vivid description—”jumping up from bed in agitation”—humanizes the bureaucratic anxiety surrounding Cixi’s controversial embrace of the movement.
The statesman’s strategic analysis proves remarkably prescient. He advocates harnessing Boxer zeal while maintaining strict control, warning that unchecked mobilization would create “endless calamities.” His distinction between northern Boxers (religiously motivated) and southern secret societies (economically driven) reflects nuanced understanding of regional dynamics often overlooked in historical accounts.
Cultural Clashes and the Foreign Threat
Ronglu’s correspondence illuminates the toxic atmosphere of 1900 Beijing, where popular hostility toward Christians had reached “irreconcilable” levels. The court’s simultaneous employment of foreigners and military clashes outside the capital created untenable contradictions. His comparison of southern militias to “kindling” awaiting spark reveals elite fears of broader social combustion.
The letter’s military observations—particularly the contrast between Boxer bravery and their lack of training—anticipate the coming disaster. Ronglu’s reference to the 1894 Sino-Japanese War, where troops “fled like rats before tigers,” underscores the Qing’s institutional weakness that the Boxers claimed to remedy.
A Statesman’s Warnings and the March to War
Ronglu’s urgent recommendations to Xu Yingkui form the letter’s climax. While advising compliance with imperial orders, he stresses quality over quantity in militia recruitment—a subtle critique of blind Boxer mobilization. His metaphor of “fighting tigers with jackals” warns against unleashing uncontrollable forces, while the poignant image of commoners as “helpless lambs” foreshadows the coming foreign intervention.
The closing lines—written “under tremendous pressure”—reveal the human cost of bureaucratic dissent during crisis. Ronglu’s request for understanding and support underscores the isolation of moderate voices as China lurched toward the catastrophic siege of foreign legations.
Historical Legacy and Modern Reflections
This extraordinary document transcends its immediate context, offering timeless insights into the challenges of governing populist movements. Ronglu’s nuanced position—neither fully endorsing nor rejecting the Boxers—mirrors modern dilemmas in managing nationalist sentiment. His warnings about the gap between popular enthusiasm and military effectiveness remain relevant in an era of asymmetric warfare.
The letter also humanizes a pivotal historical actor often reduced to caricature. Far from being a simple conservative, Ronglu emerges as a pragmatic strategist trapped between court factions, popular anger, and foreign threats—a position that would ultimately lead him to secretly protect legation besiegers during the rebellion’s climax.
Preserved through chance, this private correspondence provides irreplaceable perspective on how China’s last imperial dynasty grappled with modernity’s challenges, making choices whose consequences still resonate today. The Boxer Rebellion’s complex legacy—as both patriotic uprising and tragic miscalculation—finds its most poignant expression in the anxious midnight reflections of a Qing statesman facing the storm.