> 2. Why Shinsengumi was so loyal to the bakufu ? ( i'm not asking to the
>Aizu clan )
> 3. Does Shinsengumi has a connection with yakuza era ?
As I feel I'm best qualified to give an answer to numbers 2 and 3, that's
what I'll do.
First and foremost let me say-- you can't separate Shinsengumi's "loyalty"
into "sections" so easily. Aizu was ordered by the Bakufu to take charge of
the Shinsengumi. Ultimately the Bakufu was above everything in terms of
administrative structure, and in terms of "who ran the show," they were it.
However, this functioned *through* Aizu. The Bakufu issued orders to Aizu to
take charge of the group of men who became Shinsengumi-- almost like a
"guardian" might take charge of an orphan (these orders can be seen in
"Kyoto Shugoshoku Shimatsu", which is the work of Saitou Hajime's
acquaintance Yamakawa Hiroshi). It was Bakufu money, but Aizu supervision.
Without Aizu, this group of men becomes almost no different from any other
ronin walking the streets of Kyoto. The big sign you see in most depictions
of the Shinsengumi's headquarters reads something like "By Authority of Lord
Aizu, Protector of Kyoto"--- this can be compared to a British box of cereal
or detergent (I've seen them with my own eyes, so I know) having a little
inscription that reads "By Appointment to Her Majesty the Queen". By having
that added bit of authority, Shinsengumi sets itself apart from the other
ronin wandering the streets of Kyoto, who mainly couldn't openly say that
they had the patronage of so-and-so.
Still with me? Good!
Now, with the "no legitimacy without Aizu" concept being the case, you do
have a point in talking about "loyalty to the Bakufu". This is because
ultimately, the legitimacy that Aizu gives Shinsengumi is merely the
Shogun's legitimacy, for which Aizu acts as a conduit. After all, it was by
order of the Shogunate that Aizu came to Kyoto, and without that legitimacy,
Aizu also doesn't have much authority in Kyoto. A medium sized domain from
the middle of nowhere in northeastern Japan? No way it'd be able to do
anything without the legitimacy of the central government!
So if you think of "legitimacy" as being like a flow of water, the flow
starts with the Bakufu, flows *through* the pipe or conduit (Aizu), and
reaches its destination (Shinsengumi).
As for your question about the Shinsengumi's loyalty to the Bakufu-- the
answer is that it wasn't rigidly loyal. Yes, it stuck with Tokugawa forces
to the end, but there's more to it than that. Kondou Isami, toward the end
of his time in Kyoto, was in frequent contact with Goto Shojiro-- a man of
Tosa-- and apparently professed great admiration for the man, though they
only met once. Even the Bakufu officials were not rigid-- they met with men
of Tosa and Satsuma. Case in point-- Ryoma-- yes, *that* Ryoma-- warned the
Shogunate that Satsuma was planning to have its way by force. Nagai Genba
(information on whom appears on the SHQ site and who had frequent contact
with Shinsengumi), in the name of the Shogunate, met with Ryoma face to
face-- and even arranged for Goto Shojiro's meeting with Kondou.
Now, that still doesn't answer your question, I know, but stay with me,
because I'm about to get to that.
As I said earlier, in the beginning of its short history, Shinsengumi was
basically nothing without Aizu acting as a conduit for the Bakufu legitimacy
to flow to it. Now, after a certain point (roughly 1866), this was to
change, and *that* is where it is appropriate to ask "Why was the
Shinsengumi so loyal to the Bakufu?" The reason for this is that in that
time period, the Bakufu's gorojuu-shuu (Senior Councilors, basically Cabinet
Ministers for the Shogun) signed a document that made the Shinsengumi
"bakushin"-- Bakufu retainers ("bakufu no gokerai-tachi," in simpler
Japanese). The ranks of "bakushin" include such men as Enomoto Takeaki,
Nagai Genba, Otori Keisuke, and Katsu Kaishu (ALL directly involved with
Shinsengumi on a face-to-face basis)-- and all these men owe EVERYTHING to
the Bakufu. They get paid by the Bakufu, they get their authority and jobs
from the Bakufu, and everything they do is affected by the fact that they
serve the Bakufu.
So at that point-- why was the Shinsengumi so loyal to the Bakufu? The
answer is: the same way that someone getting paid for working in a company
might be loyal to that company-- because without that position, he has no
job, no money, his family will starve, and so on.
Shinsengumi was defeated at Toba-Fushimi and fled to Edo in early 1868. Why
did they stick with the now *former* Bakufu? Part of it was because of their
implication (however false or contrived) in the murder of Sakamoto Ryoma
(which even a work as incomplete and shallow as Romulus Hillsborough's
"Shinsengumi" talks about, citing primary data), and part of it was because
they had nowhere else to go.
This continued, from the time where the senior Shinsengumi men could have
become daimyo (the "Koyochinbutai period," I'll call it), then Aizu, then
Sendai, then Hakodate...they stuck with the Bakufu forces and the northern
clans because, well...what awaited them pretty much anywhere else was death.
Now, as to your question about "are the Shinsengumi connected to Yakuza?"
the answer lies in the Yakuza boss known as "Aizu no Kotetsu". This man, who
if I recall correctly at one time worked in the Aizu mansion in Edo (hence
his nickname), was a major presence in the underworld of Kyoto. While I
don't have much data on him, I know for a fact that after Toba-Fushimi, he
buried the Aizu and Kuwana dead (when no one else would or was even allowed
to), paying for the burials out of his own pocket. Since Shinsengumi were
among the Aizu dead, I believe it is safe to assume that he buried his fair
share of Shinsengumi dead, too. Secretarytocapt3 has had more experience
researching the Yakuza than I have, so perhaps she would further explore
this topic.
I hope I've been able to answer things to some extent. While I'm basing my
views on the primary data I've read (Meiji-era newspapers, journals,
government documents), as well as the secondary data (books by historians),
you should NOT have to take my word at face value...try to look for things
on your own, and never be afraid to question "why?". Ever. It's by
questioning things that historians get stuff done.
-M.