The Winds of Change

Most of this was a part of my senior thesis which was a comparison of the French Revolution and the Bakumatsu

The Meiji Restoration-when 15-year-old Mutsuhito became the Meiji Emperor in 1868 after the last Shogun, Tokugawa Yoshinobu abdicated in 1867--was an event that brought about a profound amount of change. According to historian George M. Wilson, the Bakumatsu-the period that ends the Edo Period¹ --is dated from 1825 or 1850-1869 CE, depending on how important an emphasis is placed upon the role of the arrival of Commodore Matthew C. Perry and the forced opening of Japan on July 8,1853 and the later unequal treaties.(Wilson, p53) This period is what leads Japan to modernize within 40 years and become a world power. Unlike in the French Revolution, the Japanese peasants did not overthrow the government, it was the Samurai class, the highest class of the four-class system of Japan, who were the force of change. There were peasants who fought during the Bakumatsu, however, they were not the driving force of change.

Even if the Japanese peasants did not rise up and over throw the bakufu² government, the peasants were not entirely satisfied with the status quo, as is demonstrated by the numerous uprisings, riots, carnivals³, religious movements, and the appearance of millenarian⁴ movements during the Edo period. Between 1590 and 1867 there were 2,800 peasant disturbances, fifteen famines, and hundreds of thousands of people were starving to death in Japan.(Hane, p7) Because of the inability of the government, economic, and class system to maintain stability in Japan, Samurai and peasants simultaneously expressed their displeasure in uprisings. According to historian Hugh Borton:

These uprisings were largely separate disconnected incidents in which the farmers demanded improvement in their economic status or elimination of unjust local officials or feudal barons. Except in a few cases . . . there was no concerted effort made to develop a national anti-government movement or to force a change in the feudal system. (piii)

The class system during the Edo period the Japanese class structure was comprised of four groups-even though there were those who did not fit into these categories such as outcastes, Buddhist monks, royalty and nobles-based on Confucian models borrowed from China. The four classes in order of rank were: Samurai, Farmers, Artisans, and Merchants. The Tokugawa Shogunate wanted to keep the classes stable. There was supposed to be no social mobility. Intermarriage between the classes was not allowed. Based on one's class there were certain privileges and responsibilities assigned to a person.

The Samurai were the social elite of Japan. They alone had the right to carry two swords. This was the only class allowed to have weapons. Samurai were also given family names. They could not work the land. If they could not get a government position they could just live off their stipend-paid in rice--from the local han⁵. As the han grew poorer, due to the fluctuations in the harvest, displays of wealth, and funding of the sankin kotai or alternative attendance system⁶, the part of the budget most likely to be cut was the stipends for the samurai. So the samurai found themselves becoming poorer as the Edo period went on.

During this period Samurai metamorphosed from a warrior class into a bureaucratic class who developed high ideals of honor and behavior, which was known as bushido. Samurai also had the right to cut down any peasants who failed to pay them proper respect. Under the Tokugawa peace there was no one to fight so the Samurai class did not have much to do. Some members of the Merchant and Peasant class who were able to gain lands and money were able to purchase samurai rights. One example of a merchant family doing this would be the shishi⁷ Sakamoto Ryoma. His family had belonged to the merchant class but purchased the rights to be in the lower samurai class.(Jansen, p78) Another example of someone riseing from a lower class to Samurai would be Kondo Isami-one of the leaders of the Shinengumi⁸ - was adopted from a peasent family by a samurai. An unusual case is Hijikata Toshizo-also a member of the Shinsengumi-- unlike Kondo and Sakamoto he rose from the peasent class by neither adoption or money.(Hillsborough, p22-26) It is estimated that approximately 5-10% of the Japanese population were from the Samurai class, which is significantly higher than the percentage of aristocrats who lived in any European nation.(Wilson, p34)

The Samurai before the Tokugawa period had been awarded land for services rendered. However, during the Tokugawa Shogunate the Samurai were removed from the land. It was the peasants who had ties to the land. With the removal of Samurai to castle-towns the peasants were allowed to self govern to a certain extent, though they did not own the land they worked. The land technically belonged to the shogun or daimyo. There were some peasants who had some rights to the land and were registered as full-fledged farmers. As the period went on some peasants were able to gain large amounts of land by reclaiming land or by taking land from other peasants who had fallen into debt. Peasants usually had around 1 cho-2.45 acres-of land to work.(Hane, p5-7) Thomas C. Smith argues that because the Samurai were not tied to the land they were more willing to accept and enact change than a landed aristocracy.(Smith, p135)

Unlike the social elites the farmers of Japan were supposed to work the land and feed the nation. Historian Hugh Borton writes that:

It became the policy of the Tokugawa government to encourage agriculture and keep the peasants as content as possible. The intendents were told to consider the people as the foundation of the state, to study their hardships and to see that they did not suffer from hunger and cold . . . in 1649, the farmers were requested to respect the officials orders, consider their superiors with real friendliness and above all, work industriously, neither evading the taxes nor taking part in temporal pleasures.(p8)

So the Shogunate wished to keep the peasants happy and doing their job feeding the nation. But on the other hand they did not want them indulging in smoking, wine, tea, or other luxury goods. This did not stop the peasants though. Historian Mikiso Hane writes, "The ruling class determined what the peasants could plant and grow; what they could eat and drink, and wear; and the kind of houses they could live in" Hane tells us that these edicts are what brought about the view of the Japanese peasantry as being diligent, frugal, submissive, subservient, and living lives of self-denial.(Hane, p7) Weapeaons were forbidden to peasants. Howver there were exceptions, " . . . the people of Tama were inclined towards the martial and literary arts. Their martial traditions dated back to the twelth century , from the samurai who had served the military regime of Kamukura."(Hillsborough, p22) This is an unusual case. So the government exerted a strict control on the behaviors of the people over which it ruled. The peasants did not have a political awareness as a group.(Scheiner, p572) However they did have cohesiveness as a village. Village membership was limited to landholders and the position of headman was hereditary.(Walthall, p6-7)

The peasants were the class responsible for the tax burden. They were not allowed to leave the land. Irwin Scheiner writes that,

Tokugawa law distinguished them from all other strata, prescribing their status as tax-paying agriculturalists. By various acts and edicts it strictly defined the absolute political and moral obligations and services they owed their lord, the frugality by which they must live their lives, and the culpability of all within the village for the crimes of one. (p44)

Unlike the peasants, the Merchant class did not have to rely upon the rice harvest to live. The Merchant class in Japan, though it was the lowest of the acceptable categories, had the most potential to earn money in this period. The reason why they were placed so lowly was because they did not produce anything. There were no taxes on commerce. Since there were no taxes on commerce, one of the ways in which the government obtained money form the Merchant class was by selling monopolies to those who wished to trade in a certain market or by taking out permanent loans. These monopolies caused guild type organizations to be formed which were strictly regulated. Laws restricted trade and crafts to certain towns.(Smith, p18) This was more strictly enforced in urban areas than in rural areas. The merchant class amassed a lot of wealth during the Edo period which caused them to incurred the resentment of poor samurai who became indebted to them, and peasants whose land was confiscated due to the inability to pay off a debt when crops failed. This is one of the reasons why peasant uprisings were directed towards them as well as corrupt officials within the han.

One of the most important issues in the period leading up to the Meiji Restoration was economics. There was a small elite class with little tax burden and the majority of the population paying the majority of the taxes. The government were not creating enough revenue to support themselves.

The Japanese economic system underwent a profound change in the Edo Period. This came about as a result of the alternate attendance system. The sankin kotai, or alternative attendance system, was where a daimyo had to live in Edo every other year. The daimyo's wife and family lived in Edo as hostages. This was not an uncommon practice in Japanese politics. A relative would be sent as a hostage to insure that one daimyo wouldn't attack another. In fact Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of the Tokugawa Shogunate, had been sent to be a hostage as a child. Sankin kotai was a system implemented to keep control of the daimyo and make sure they were unable to rise up against the bakufu. In 1862 the system was reformed to lighten the burden on the daimyo so that they could attend to their lands and work on defense because of the threat from the west. This would be a huge mistake for the bakufu. In their fear of the west they loosened their control over the daimyo, some of whom harbored resentment to the bakufu. Once the bakufu lost control of the sankin kotai they could not gain it back.(Tsukahira, p134) This system was a huge drain on daimyo wealth. The system was intended to put the daimyo in debt to keep them from spending their wealth in ways unfavorable to the government:

The maintenance of elaborate establishments at Edo and the costly annual journeys to and from the capital imposed a constant and ruinous drain on the han exchequers and resulted in the chronic bankruptcy of the daimyo and the progressive impoverishment of the entire feudal class.(Tsukahira, p81)

The alternative attendance system led the way to the development of a money economy. The daimyo, Emperor and Shogun all relied on their domains to provide income. The government was dependant on the income from the land tax that came from the peasants, which was paid in rice. About 30-40% of taxes went towards paying samurai stipends, which were usually in the form of rice.(Smith, p39) About 30% of the budget went towards the trip to Edo, which included travel allowances for samurai, crossing rivers, and any other expenses incurred.(Tsukahira, p87) The Tokugawa shogunate had approximately 4,000,000 koku⁹ under its control. As a money market developed, rice futures markets sprang up so that rice could be traded for money to buy luxury items. Samurai and daimyo desired to flaunt their wealth and power in ways that did not threaten the Tokugawa Shogunate. With uncertainties in the rice markets and the expenses of the alternative attendance system, the bakufu and the local han governments found themselves with a fluctuating income. By the bakumatsu most of the han were in debt.(Tsukahira, p84)

The Japanese Peasants also had the burden of the tax:

In addition to the land tax, a large number of miscellaneous taxes-taxes on doors, windows, female children, cloth, sake, hazel trees, and hemp-were levied on the peasants. The peasants were also called upon to provide corvee to maintain roads bridges and other public facilities as well as to repair horse stations along the main roads.(Hane, p6-7) The Land Tax provided most of the government's revenues. The land tax was based on the assessed yield of land and was paid in rice by the village collectively. After 1700 the assessments of the land stopped. With improvements in agriculture and the reclamation of land in some areas there was an increase in crop yields, though this was not the case everywhere.(Smith, p50-61) So the taxes were based on what the assessed productivity of the land was in 1700 for the rest of the period, which meant that in areas where there were improvements, the tax became a lighter burden. Thus more rice was left in the hands of the peasants. However, it is important to remember that not every peasant benefited from the lack of land assessment and that other taxes helped to reduce what surplus was left in their hands. According to Anne Walthall:

Many village headmen either paid no taxes or had their tax burden lightened to compensate for the weight of their official responsibilities, but they expected ordinary people to pay everything they were supposed to, and sometimes more. (p9)

Taxes were not distributed equally in the village. Plus, not every farmer had an increase in productivity on their lands.

Another type of tax imposed on the peasants was the corvee¹⁰. This was usually done during times that would not interfere with agricultural pursuits. One type of corvee labor involved construction of castles, roads, and irrigation. This did not detract anything from the peasant's pockets except for the income they could have earned pursuing other work. According to Thomas C. Smith, one type of corvee that did take away from the savings of the peasants though was when:

Labor was taken regularly from villages along the main routes of travel to move official parties and their equipage from one posting station to another over mountain passes and rivers and moors. Since high-ranking warriors traveling with large retinues were constantly moving to and from the capital, the demands for transport placed upon the wayside villages were often exceedingly heavy; some communities were forced to maintain a larger animal population then would otherwise have been required. (p61-62)

This helped to reduce what the peasants had.

The peasants were not used as a military force until the Meiji Period so this affected the way they viewed themselves and their country. When people are fighting for their contry it gives them pride in their country. It makes them feel they belong to something larger then just their villiage or town. So the peasants who were allowed to fight for their county were more likely to wish to change their nation then the peasants of Japan whose main concern was farming.

The Peasants of Japan not only engaged in farming but also in other non-agricultural jobs. They would work their farms and in their free time would take on other jobs to increase their revenue. Thomas C. Smith tells us "the ability of country places to attract and hold labor in competition with castle-towns bespeaks comparative economic advantages." He goes on say that in rural areas commerce was closer to resources, water, a growing rural market, and more freedom from taxation and guild restrictions.(Smith, p30) The peasants worked hard and switched easily back and forth between these extra jobs:

By-employments ready pre-industrial people for modern economic roles since they represent an incipient shift from agriculture to other occupations, spread skills useful to industrialization among the most backward and numerous part of the population, and stimulate ambition and geographical mobility. (p71)

So trade and industry were growing in rural areas and the standard of living was rising. This would also help to create specialized luxery items. Depending on what was made and the skill of the people depended on how much the item could be sold for. This helped to raise the standard of living from what it would have been if they had just engaged in farming alone.

During the Tokugawa period the Japanese population stabilized around 1721 at 30 million people. At the same time there was an increase in productivity, which meant that some peasants became more prosperous and the standard of living rose.(Wilson, p38) Why did the population become stagnant? This was done by intentionally limiting the birthrate by practicing infanticide and abortion. In fact, according to historian Mikiso Hane, these practices went on in Japan into the Meiji Period.(Hane, p3-4) This was not only practiced among the peasants but also among samurai and merchant families. They did not just kill girl babies but boys as well. By doing this there was a chance that a family would not have a surviving male heir when they got to old age. If a family ended up without a male heir it was always possible to adopt one or marry one to a daughter.(Smith, p30) The government disapproved of the practice of infanticide and abortion and repeatedly prohibited it to no avail.(Smith, p108-9) Since Japan is a nation poor in natural resources, a larger population would not have been able to support itself.

In Japan the ideas of the Enlightenment came in the form of "Dutch Learning," however the thing that motivated the revolutionaries were not democratic ideals. In fact the government they set up after the last Shogun resigned is nothing like a democracy. What motivates the Shishi is the embarrassment of the unequal treaties with the United States as well as the inability of samurai who were descended from those not faithful to Tokugawa Ieyasu before the battle of Sekigahara to be able to gain any political office. They were not concerned with natural rights or religious freedom.

In Japan, ideas, during this period, were changing. Samurai and Peasants could see that the government was not doing the job that they expected it to do. The final straw was the unequal treaties with the United States, beginning with the opening of Japan in 1853. Following the March 1854 Treaty of Peace and Amity with the US France, England Holland and Russia also came bearing similar treaties.(Hillsborough, p5) These were seen as a humiliation and would motivate Japanese politics for the next century. The treaties Japan was forced to sign opened Japan up to trade, and gave extra-territoriality to foreigners who stood upon Japanese soil. Thus any crime committed by a foreigner could not be tried under Japanese law. The bakufu had agreed to the treaties because Japan did not have the military power to withstand a fight with a western power. They were afraid of ending up like China, who had contributed many things to Japanese culture, but in accepting the treaties they alienated many. There was a strong move towards nativism. Groups of samurai under the slogan of sonno joi¹¹ assassinated many high level foreigners. But not all felt that dealing with the west should involve violence.

Among those who were unhappy with the bakufu, there was disenchantment with Confucianism. It came to be seen as having no practical value. "Dutch learning"-- so called because it came to Japan through the Dutch-was restricted to non-religious texts. All they wanted to import was the technology without the ideology. There were those such as Fukuzawa Yukichi believed that in order to compete with the West you had to adopt more then just the science of the west. He saw Confucianism as just memorization and that it was better to look to more useful ideas that would help Japan to deal with the west.

In Japan you do not have the same type of state centered religion as in Europe. Even though the emperor was considered the chief priest of Shinto he had no real power at the time. There was no movement against religion by the masses in Japan. However, there are several religious movements that spring up in Japan as a way to deal with the anxieties of people during the time.

Millenarianism is something that can be seen in both the peasants and the Samurai classes. E. S. Hobsbawn writes that, "the essence of millerianism, is the hope of a complete and radical change in the world . . .it [appears] in all revolutionary movements of whatever kind."(Wilson, p77) Yonona Talmon describes it as "an attribute that is 'typologically [applied] to characterize religious movements that expect imminent, total, ultimate, this-worldly salvation.'"(Wilson, p79) There is a desire for some kind of renewal. The restoration of the Emperor was seen as a return to old values:

The frightened, the frustrated and humiliated, and the economically deprived and distressed segments of Japanese society entertained millernial hopes for respite from their plight. They dreamed of a renewal of peace and tranquility. These phrases with differing emphasis resonate through both elite and popular tracts for the times.(p83)

New popular religious sects appeared. There was a blending of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Shinto in these new religions.(McFarland, p56) Konkokyo and Tenrikyo are two examples of salvation sects. Konkokyo and Tenrikyo had a mixture of tradition and a look to the future. Both looked towards deliverance and salvation.(McFarland, p58) Both groups were founded by charismatic leaders of humble origins. They had experienced hardships in their lives. They were said to have "received a new inspiration or revelation or to have discovered a new the truth or power inherent in something already familiar.(McFarland, p71, 74) The founders attained the status of living gods among their followers. They focused on the here and now. Also both sects were monotheistic. Both groups drew many pilgrims but Tenrikyo was the more popular of the two. Both groups appealed to the masses.

Another form of religious expression of anxiety was the frenzied dancing of Ee ja nai ka. In areas where ee ja nai ka carnivals were practiced, it was said that thousands of ofuda¹² or other objects would rain from the sky. The people would cross dress among other things while singing "Ee ja nai ka!", meaning "what they hell" or "why not".(Wilson, p95-113) H. Neill McFarland writes that ee ja nai ka was "Dionysian in character" and often proceeded rioting.(McFarland, p57) In these carnivals people would often express feelings in favor of the "pro-imperialist" and anti-foreigner sentiment.

Among these Millernial movements were the yonaori, or "world leveling" movements. These people believed that it was up to them to change the world. They saw themselves as the "gods of yonaoshi who had come to give punishment."(Scheiner, p582, 587-88) Edward Shils writes that millenarians don't only depend on God to act, or seek utopias in another world. The Yonashi rebels look to restore the world with their own hands as agents of justice.(Scheiner, p589)

As the Tokugawa period went on, the class structure became unable to support Japanese society as it developed. There were Samurai who were impoverished and unable to get government positions because many of those became hereditary, as well as wealthy Samurai. Also, there were rich village heads and impoverished peasants. And then the lowest class was very rich; " . . . With the penetration of money and a consequent change from a rice to a money economy, and with the general increase in financial strain, it was inevitable these social barriers would break down."(Borton, p13) Wealthy peasants and merchants were able to purchase some of the privileges of Samurai rank such as a family name and to wear the two swords. This was resented by farmers who lost their land to debt and to impoverished samurai who found themselves indebted to their social inferiors.

In Japan on the other hand the revolution lay in the hands of the samurai. Those who revolted were mostly form the Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa, and Hizen han. These were areas that had been given to daimyo who had not been loyal to Tokugawa Ieyasu before the battle of Sekigahara. There were some peasants who fought along with the samurai. However, there were no peasant groups who rose up to turn over the government themselves. Mostly they expressed their anxiety though uprisings, religious revivalism, and pilgrimages. The uprisings were not directed at their daimyo, or the shogun. They were mostly directed at corrupt officials and wealthy merchants.

The Japanese peasants had a stable population while food production due to technology improvements increased. the Japanese peasants did not have to join a milita until the Meiji Period. They had to pay taxes and provide corvee, however, as the Edo Period went on the Japanese peasants started to be under taxed because of the failure of the government to keep up on the land assessment. So peasants were paying the same tax they paid before improving farming techniques and reclaiming land as they did afterward. The Japanese peasants in general had an improving standard of living. This is why the Japanese peasants did not overthrow the government. The second reason would be the fact that the Japanese peasants had a history of being subservient to the samurai class. If they revolted they were executed. If they insulted a samurai in some way they were slain. Plus, there is no united image at this time as Japanese citizens. Identity is village based.

The Meiji Restoration brought about profound changes no matter who it was that rose up and overturned the government. We see a transformation from feudalism to something else. Peasants came to own their own land. However, the rural peasants of Japan maintained for the most part their feudal way of living up until after WWII. The Meiji Restoration was accomplished without much bloodshed. The Meiji Restoration helped to lay the foundation Japan needed to modernize and become a world power. Under the Meiji government the old class system was discarded and social mobility became possible, even if it was still difficult to obtain. Education became available to everyone.