The Rise of Zheng Chenggong and Qing Dynasty’s Dilemma

In the turbulent years of 1651-1652 (Shunzhi 8-9, Yongli 5-6), Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) emerged as a formidable anti-Qing force along Fujian’s coast. His naval victories exposed Qing military vulnerabilities while former Daxi rebels simultaneously threatened Guizhou, Guangxi, and Hunan. Facing unprecedented setbacks since conquering China, the Manchu rulers adopted a “using Han to control Han” strategy, targeting Zheng through his father Zheng Zhilong – a surrendered Ming official held hostage in Beijing.

Secret Qing memorials from 1652 reveal their desperation: “With multiple fronts in Hunan, Sichuan and Guangdong, we lack resources to suppress Zheng. Temporary appeasement allows us to observe his intentions.” This pragmatic approach reflected the Qing’s overextension rather than genuine goodwill.

The Elaborate Courtship: Titles, Territories and Empty Promises

Emperor Shunzhi initiated a charm offensive in July 1652, rehabilitating Zheng Zhilong’s status and granting his family privileges. By October, imperial edicts offered Zheng Chenggong the “Duke of Haicheng” title and four prefectures (Quanzhou, Zhangzhou, Chaozhou, Huizhou) for his troops. Crucially, they promised:
– No requirement to relocate to Beijing
– Continued command of his forces
– Management of coastal trade and taxes

Simultaneously, the Qing punished Fujian officials who had raided Zheng’s Xiamen base in 1651, executing a political theater of reconciliation. Provincial Governor Zhang Xuesheng and others were prosecuted not for attacking Zheng, but for embezzling seized treasures – revealing internal Qing corruption.

Zheng’s Strategic Ambiguity: Playing Both Sides

Zheng’s response demonstrated masterful duplicity. While ceremoniously accepting the Qing seal in February 1654, he refused the symbolic haircut (queue) and maintained Yongli era dating. His letter to Zhilong mixed filial rhetoric with defiance:

“Since father abandoned me in 1646, I’ve followed the Spring and Autumn Annals’ principle – obey just commands, reject unjust ones. The Qing broke every promise to you; why should I trust them?”

Yet he kept negotiations alive, exploiting the process to:
1. Expand recruitment in Fujian/Guangdong
2. Extract supplies (demanding 100,000 taels from large counties)
3. Test Qing intentions through escalating demands

The Negotiations Collapse: Irreconcilable Differences

By June 1654, Qing patience wore thin. Special envoys Ye Chengge and A Shan delivered an ultimatum: accept haircutting or face war. Zheng’s counterproposal revealed his true ambition – control of:
– Entire Fujian province
– Guangdong’s Huizhou/Chaozhou
– Five Zhejiang prefectures (Wenzhou, Taizhou, Ningbo, Shaoxing, Chuzhou)

When negotiations stalled at Anping in September, both sides deployed troops in a tense standoff. Zheng’s final letter to Zhilong laid bare his position:

“Haircutting represents submission. If I cut mine, must my 100,000 troops follow? The Qing wants to use you to control me, but I won’t be controlled. If they harm you, I’ll mourn in white and take revenge.”

Consequences and Historical Legacy

The failed talks had profound impacts:
1. Military Escalation: The Qing appointed Prince Jidu to lead a 1655 expedition against Zheng, while imprisoning Zheng Zhilong’s family.
2. Strategic Gains: Zheng used the truce to strengthen his position, later launching the legendary Nanjing campaign (1657-1659).
3. Historical Paradigm: This episode became a template for Qing frontier policy – combining military pressure with selective appeasement.

Zheng’s brilliant maneuvering during these negotiations preserved his forces until the eventual Taiwan campaign (1661), where he expelled the Dutch and created a Ming loyalist bastion. The Qing-Zheng conflict ultimately shaped East Asian geopolitics for decades, influencing everything from maritime trade to the Kangxi Emperor’s coastal evacuation policy.

What emerges is not a simple loyalist narrative, but the story of a pragmatic leader balancing filial duty, personal ambition, and ethnic resistance – a complexity that continues to inspire debate among historians today.