history japan japanese meiji reading restoration restoration,

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (February 2008)

History of Japan
The Meiji Emperor, moving from Kyoto to Tokyo, end of 1868.
Paleolithic 35000–14000 BCE Jōmon period 14000–400 BCE Yayoi period 400 BCE–250 CE Kofun period 250–538 Asuka period 538–710 Nara period 710–794 Heian period 794–1185 Kamakura period 1185–1333 Kenmu restoration 1333–1336 Muromachi period 1336–1573 Nanboku-chō period 1336–1392 Sengoku period Azuchi-Momoyama period 1568–1603 Nanban trade Edo period 1600–1868 Bakumatsu Meiji period 1868–1912 Meiji Restoration Taishō period 1912–1926 Japan in World War I Shōwa period 1926–1989 Japanese militarism Occupation of Japan Post-Occupation Japan Heisei period 1989–present
Economic history Educational history Military history Naval history
Glossary This box: view • talk • edit

The Meiji Restoration (明治維新 ,Meiji Ishin^?), also known as the Meiji Ishin, Revolution, or Renewal, was a chain of events that led to enormous changes in Japan's political and social structure. It occurred in the latter half of the 19th century, a period that spans both the late Edo period (often called Late Tokugawa shogunate) and the beginning of the Meiji Era. Probably the most important foreign account of the events between 1862–1869 is contained in A Diplomat in Japan by Sir Ernest Satow. The restoration was a direct response to the opening of Japan by the arrival of the Black Ships of Commodore Matthew Perry and made Imperial Japan a great power.

Contents 1 Alliances and allegiances 2 The Restoration 3 Motives 4 Changes made 5 Effects 6 Controversy in semantics 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links

[edit] Alliances and allegiances

The formation in 1866 of the Satsuma-Chōshū Alliance between Saigō Takamori, the leader of the Satsuma domain, and Kido Takayoshi, the leader of the Chōshū domain, built the foundation of the Meiji restoration. These two leaders supported the Emperor Kōmei (Emperor Meiji's father) and were brought together by Sakamoto Ryoma for the purpose of challenging the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate (bakufu) and restoring the emperor to power. In late 1867, Emperor Meiji ascended the throne after Emperor Kōmei's death. This period also saw Japan change from being a feudal society to having a capitalist economy and left the Japanese with a lingering Western influence.

[edit] The Restoration

The Tokugawa Shogunate came to an official end on November 9, 1867, when the 15th Tokugawa Shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu "put his prerogatives at the Emperor's disposal" and then resigned his position 10 days later. This was effectively the "restoration" (Taisei Hōkan) of imperial rule, although Yoshinobu retained considerable power. It was on January 3, 1868 that the Emperor fully regained power.

Shortly thereafter in January 1868, the Boshin War (War of the Year of the Dragon) started with the Battle of Toba-Fushimi in which an army led by forces from Chōshū and Satsuma defeated the ex-shogun's army and forced Emperor Meiji to strip Yoshinobu of all power. On January 3, 1868, the Emperor made a formal declaration of the restoration of his power:

"The Emperor of Japan announces to the sovereigns of all foreign countries and to their subjects that permission has been granted to the Shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu to return the governing power in accordance with his own request. We shall henceforward exercise supreme authority in all the internal and external affairs of the country. Consequently the title of Emperor must be substituted for that of Taikun, in which the treaties have been made. Officers are being appointed by us to the conduct of foreign affairs. It is desirable that the representatives of the treaty powers recognize this announcement."

– January 3, 1868
Mutsuhito^[1]

Some shogunate forces escaped to Hokkaidō, where they attempted to set up the breakaway Republic of Ezo, but this came to an early end in May 1869 with the Battle of Hakodate in Hokkaidō. The defeat of the armies of the former shogun (led by Enomoto Takeaki and Hijikata Toshizo) marked the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate; all defiance to the emperor and his rule ended.

[edit] Motives

The leaders of the Meiji Restoration, as this revolution came to be known, acted in the name of restoring imperial rule. The people who were the main leaders of this were: Ito Hirobumi, Matsusaka Masayoshi, Kido Takayoshi, Itagaki Taisuke, Yamagata Aritomo, Mori Arinori, Okubo Toshimichi,Yamaguchi Naoyoshi. However, political power simply moved from the Tokugawa Shogun to an oligarchy consisting of the leaders, mostly from the Satsuma Province (Okubo Toshimichi and Saigō Takamori), and the Chōshū province (Ito Hirobumi, Yamagata Aritomo, and Kido Takayoshi). This reflected their belief in the more traditional practice of imperial rule, whereby the emperor performs his high priestly duties and his ministers govern the nation in his name.

[edit] Changes made

With industrialization came the demand for coal. There was dramatic rise in production, as shown in the table below.

Two of the things the coal was needed for were steamships and railroads. The growth of these sectors is shown below.

[edit] Effects

The Meiji Restoration accelerated industrialization in Japan, which led to its rise as a military authority by the year 1905, under the slogan of "Enrich the country, strengthen the military" (富国強兵 ,fukoku kyōhei^?).

The Meiji oligarchy that formed the government under the rule of the Emperor first introduced measures to consolidate their power against the remnants of the Edo period government, the shogunate, daimyo, and the samurai class.

In 1868, all Tokugawa lands were seized and placed under "Imperial control", thus placing them under the prerogative of the new Meiji government. In 1869, the daimyo of the Tosa, Hizen, Satsuma and Chōshū domains, who were pushing most fiercely against the shogunate, were persuaded to 'return their domains to the Emperor'. Other daimyo were subsequently persuaded to do so, thus creating, arguably for the first time, a central government in Japan which exercised direct power through the entire 'realm' (天下).

Finally, in 1871, the daimyo, past and present, were summoned before the Emperor, where it was declared that all domains were now to be returned to the Emperor. The roughly 300 domains (han) were turned into prefectures, each under the control of a state-appointed governor. By 1888, several prefectures had been merged in several steps to reduce their number to 75. The daimyo were promised 1/10 of their fiefs' income as private income. Later, their debts and payments of samurai stipends were to be taken over by the state.

The oligarchs also endeavoured to abolish the four divisions of society.

Throughout Japan at the time, the samurai numbered 1.9 million. (For comparison, this was more than 10 times the size of the French privileged class before the 1789 French Revolution. Moreover, the samurai in Japan were not merely the lords, but also their higher retainers--people who actually worked.) With each samurai being paid fixed stipends, their upkeep presented a tremendous financial burden, which may have prompted the oligarchs to action. Whatever their true intentions, the oligarchs embarked on another slow and deliberate process to abolish the samurai class. First, in 1873, it was announced that the samurai stipends were to be taxed on a rolling basis. Later, in 1874, the samurai were given the option to convert their stipends into government bonds. Finally, in 1876, this commutation was made compulsory.

To reform the military, the government instituted nationwide conscription in 1873, mandating that every male would serve in the armed forces upon turning 21 for four years; followed by three more years in the reserves. One of the primary differences between the samurai and peasant class was the right to bear arms; this ancient privilege was suddenly extended to every male in the nation. Furthermore, samurai were no longer allowed to walk about town bearing a sword or weapon to show their status as in former times.

Not surprisingly, this led to a series of riots from disgruntled samurai. One of the major riots was the one led by Saigō Takamori, the Satsuma Rebellion, which eventually turned into a civil war. This rebellion was, however, put down swiftly by the newly formed Imperial Japanese Army, trained in Western tactics and weapons, even though the core of the new army was the Tokyo police force, which was largely composed of former samurai. This sent a strong message to the dissenting samurai that their time was indeed up. There were fewer subsequent samurai uprisings and the distinction became all but a name as the samurai joined the new society. The ideal of samurai military spirit lived on in romanticized form and was often used as propaganda during the early 20th century wars of the Empire of Japan.

However, it is equally true that the majority of samurai were content despite having their status abolished. Many found employment in the government bureaucracy, which resembled an elite class in its own right. The samurai, being better educated than most of the population, became teachers, gun makers, government officials, or military officers. While the formal title of samurai was abolished, the elitist spirit that characterized the samurai class lived on.

The oligarchs also embarked on a series of land reforms. In particular, they legitimized the tenancy system which had been going on during the Tokugawa period. Despite the bakufu's best efforts to freeze the four classes of society in place, during their rule villagers had begun to lease land out to other farmers, becoming rich in the process. This greatly disrupted the clearly defined class system which the bakufu had envisaged, partly leading to their eventual downfall.

[edit] Controversy in semantics

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. Tagged since August 2007. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since November 2007.

An ongoing debate is currently occurring between historians as to the historical legitimacy of the name "restoration", as opposed to a "coup" or "revolution". There are reasons to call it all three.^[2]

Advocates of the term "coup" would point out the fact that there was a change in only the regime, with the fighting confined to the elite, which managed to avoid being spread to the rest of society and that there was a shared sense of national mission and class values. However, this term only refers to the political leaders—not commoners. More importantly, it also does not represent the wider historical context of the period, and the various ideological struggles of the time in addition to the subsequent radical changes of society.

The direct challenge to the legitimacy of the Tokugawa Regime in 1868 identifies this event as a revolution. This term also implies an anticipation of subsequent radical changes and indicates that the regime was toppled through the combination of concerns and actions of different groups. This term is problematic because it gives the false impression that rebels had unified or coherent plans for the future and it does not account for the relatively peaceful transition or how much actually stayed the same within the country.

The events of 1868 can be viewed in terms of a restoration because the opposition made claims that the Tokugawa Shogunate had usurped the power to govern from the emperor. This claim as well as the strictly isolationist sentiments of the times is an accurate representation of the event, in some ways. The word restoration implies a focus on the elite ideological debates but does not address the regional and religious tensions of the period. It also undervalues the strategic nature of restorationist claims and gives a false impression of unity among the rebelling houses. The most detrimental implication of this term is that it offers no concrete explanation of how ordinary people came to accept the legitimacy of direct imperial rule.

[edit] See also

• Lists of incumbents
• Meiji-era leaders
• Modernization of Japanese Military 1868-1931
• Meiji Constitution
• Bakumatsu
• Chinese Tongzhi Restoration that failed

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Akamatsu, Paul (1972). Meiji 1868: Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Japan. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 1247. 
• Beasley, W.G. (1972). The Meiji Restoration. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 
• Beasley, W.G. (1995). The Rise of Modern Japan: Political, Economic and Social Change Since 1850. New York: St. Martin's Press. 

• Craig, Albert M. (1961). Chōshū in the Meiji Restoration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
• Jansen, Marius B.; Gilbert Rozman, eds. (1986). Japan in Transition: From Tokugawa to Meiji. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 
• Jansen, Marius B. (2000). The Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
• Murphey, Rhoads (1997). East Asia: A New History. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. 
• Satow, Ernest. A Diplomat in Japan. ISBN 4-925080-28-8. 
• Wall, Rachel F. (1971). Japan's Century: An Interpretation of Japanese History since the Eighteen-fifties. London: The Historical Association. 
• Breen, John, ‘The Imperial Oath of April 1868: ritual, power and politics in Restoration Japan’, Monumenta Nipponica,51,4 (1996)

• Harry D. Harootunian, Toward Restoration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), “Introduction”, pp 1 – 46; on Yoshida: chapter IV “The Culture of Action – Yoshida Shōin”, pp 184 – 219).

• Najita Tetsuo, The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press), chapter 3: “Restorationism in Late Tokugawa”, pp 43 – 68.

• H. Van Straelen, Yoshida Shōin, Forerunner of the Meiji Restoration: A Biographical Study (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1952).

• David M. Earl, Emperor and Nation in Japan (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), on Yoshida: “Attitude toward the Emperor/ Nation”, pp 161 – 192. Also pp. 82 – 105.

• Marius B Jansen, Sakamoto Ryōma and the Meiji Restoration (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994) especially chapter VIII: “Restoration”, pp 312 - 346.

• W. G. Beasley, The Meiji Restoration (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1972), especially chapter VI: “Dissenting Samurai”, pp 140 – 171.

• Conrad Totman, “From Reformism to Transformism, bakufu Policy 1853 – 1868”, in: T. Najita & V. J. Koshmann, Conflict in Modern Japanese History (New Jersay: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 62 – 80.

• Jansen, Marius B.: The Meiji Restoration, in: Jansen, Marius B. (ed.): The Cambridge history of Japan, Volume 5: The nineteenth century (New York: Cambridge UP, 1989), pp. 308-366.

[edit] External links

• Tokugawa Period's Influence on Meiji Restoration
• Essay on The Meiji Restoration Era, 1868-1889 on the About Japan, A Teacher's Resource website